Thank you for your comment. You are absolutely right to point out that the way women are treated in Iran and the restrictions on how they should dress are unforgivable. My point was not to defend the policies of the regime that are medieval, but simply to point out that, as it is clear from all the articles and comments on the web, Iranians including women do wear jeans, and in any case these human rights violations cannot be cured by invasion and regime change that Netanyahu seems to favor.
I was watching a program on Afghanistan recently and it showed that women are still suffering from many discriminations despite over 11 years of occupation, and sadly the situation may get worse after the withdrawal of American and ISAF forces as the Taliban have not been defeated and may make a comeback. A similar program on Iraq talked to many Iraqi women who said that their position was much worse than before the invasion. At least at that time they could get out of their houses and have jobs, but now they do not dare leave their homes. Women and children bear the brunt of war and occupation more than men do, because with their husbands killed they should still go on looking after their children. This is why quite a few women who were interviewed said that they had no option but to sell their bodies in order to feed their children. There are over one million widows in Iraq. My objection was to the false pretense of supporting the rights of Iranian people by advocating war.
All I know is that change should come from within through more education and from without by persuasion and pressure. I also know that a government that has relations with the West will be more open to criticisms of its human rights record in order to safeguard its interest.
The behavior of Iranian women since the revolution has been nothing short of heroic. They organized the very first mass demonstration after the revolution in protest to obligatory wearing of the veil or scarves, and since then they have been constantly at the forefront of reforms and protests. Once the West gives up the idea of invasion and "all the options are on the table", the next thing that is needed is a concerted attempt to improve the human rights situation in Iran. I only hope that the agreement between the West and Iran on its nuclear program will not be at the expense of ignoring human rights. That is the regime's true Achilles Heel.
As you point out, Netanyahu’s ignorant remarks have given rise to a great deal of mocking by thousands of web-savvy Iranians. This is one http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/22121 which shows different Iranians wearing jeans, including a young boy talking to the Supreme Leader, as well as one by the Iranian scientist who was murdered allegedly by Israeli agents talking to his daughter. In this new age of communication it is difficult to make such ill-informed remarks and not be held open to ridicule. What is frightening about Netanyahu’s remarks is that it shows that he knows so little about the new Iran that he wishes to bomb. While most regional countries including Turkey are becoming more religious, the majority of Iranians have turned against the rightwing clerics and against religion as a whole. A recent poll showed that only four or five per cent of Iranians regularly go to mosques and attend Friday prayers.
Iranians have proved that they are good at having fun on twitter and on social media as a whole. On his way back to Iran from New York last week, Foreign Minister Zarif twitted while he was airborne that he was not sure whether he was in Iranian territory or not yet. One of his fans twitted back “Dr. [Zarif] try to go to Facebook.com on your phone. If it’s blocked you’ve reached Tehran.” The twit immediately received thousands of “likes”. http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/22077
Thank you for correcting the erroneous impression given by some sections of Western media alleging that Iran’s religious leader Ali Khamenei and the commander of the revolutionary guards had condemned President Rouhani’s opening to the West. During the past few days there have been many reports with headlines such as, “Divide Seen Between Iran’s Supreme Leader, Rouhani”, or “Not Proper says Iran’s Supreme Leader”, “Iran’s Supreme Leader Criticizes Rouhani for Chatting with Obama”, exaggerating the tone of Khamenei’s remarks as though he had criticized the entire opening to the West.
As you point out, he was speaking to Iranian cadets and while supporting the government’s policy of détente he had to reassure the militants that it did not mean selling out to the West. In a way, his indirect reference to Ruhani’s telephone conversation with President Obama and his references to what he called “the international Zionist network” should be put against Prime Minister Netanyahu’s extreme remarks about Iran in his UN speech. Even President Obama during his meeting with Netanyahu again repeated his mantra of “all options are on the table, including the military option”. Not only Khamenei, but Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif said that he felt insulted by those remarks and said that they were at variance with the spirit of cooperation that was on display during his and Ruhani’s visit to New York.
The Iranians have also heard the remarks by US’s chief negotiator Wendy Sherman about deception being part of Iranian DNA. Sherman went on to say: “So since we know they're continuing with their nuclear program and because of the history that you point out, when Rouhani was the chief negotiator, 2003 to 2005, we know that deception is part of the DNA, we want to make sure that we can put some time on the clock for those comprehensive negotiations." The idea that Rouhani cheated during 2003-2005 negotiations have been totally debunked by many experts who were involved in the talks, http://www.lobelog.com/barking-up-the-wrong-tree/#more-21270
but still they are repeatedly used by neocons to discredit him.
Sadly, most governments engage in acts of deception, but referring to Iran’s alleged deception as “part of their DNA”, and that coming from someone with whom they have to negotiate, is bound to make Iranians suspicious of the good intentions of the other side. Sherman also told the Senate panel last Thursday that any diplomatic engagement with Iran will be accompanied by the “vigorous enforcement” of sanctions already in place, which she described as "the toughest sanctions the world has ever seen". In that case, why should Iranians take part in any negotiations at all.
In fact, several senators are preparing to propose a toughening of sanctions against Iran. Senator Robert Menendez who heads the Foreign Relations Committee has said that he intends to submit these proposals this week. Menendez was among several senators and congressmen who met with Netanyahu during his visit to the United States and said that they supported his call for harsher sanctions against Iran.
All this shows that both sides have a lot of work to do. The Iranians have to keep their hardliners on board, while President Obama has to keep not only AIPAC, but also US Congress and the Republican Party, not to say anything of Israel, onboard. I think in all fairness President Obama has a much tougher nut to crack.
Whatever one may think of the Iranian and Israeli policies, the speeches by Rouhani and Netanyahu at the UN General Assembly were in sharp contrast to each other. While Rouhani’s speech was measured and conciliatory, Netanyahu’s was rude, provocative and war-mongering. Rouhani did not mention Netanyahu or Israel once by name, but Netanyahu referred to Rouhani 29 times as a liar, as a charlatan, as a wolf in sheep’s clothing and as being responsible for many crimes, none of which has been proven. He said that Iran with a bomb was worse than 50 North Koreas, and he also practically threatened to attack Iran directly if America fails to do so. It was even worse than his speech last year with its crude diagram.
Sadly, it seems that what you say about Netanyahu as an expansionist hawk is true, but the speech shows that he is becoming unhinged. Even if he wishes to play his familiar spoiling game he should have done so in a more acceptable tone.
It is time for the US to tell Netanyahu that he does not make American foreign policy. He should not be allowed to sabotage a more rational diplomacy towards Iran after 34 years of estrangement. Israel’s bluff of being under “existential threat” from Iran’s non-existent nuclear bombs should be called, not behind closed doors but in public, and they should be told in no uncertain terms that while America is willing to ensure Israel’s security and to pay billions of dollars each year to a country with a high GDP, it is not willing to have her larger interests sacrificed for the sake of extreme Israeli ambitions. I believe that Netanyahu’s disgraceful speech has made that task easier. A comparison of that ill-tempered and violent speech with President Rouhani’s conciliatory speech should show everyone who is the true aggressor.
Not only does Israel enjoy conventional superiority over all her neighbors combined, she is the only country in the Middle East with hundreds of nuclear weapons. She has had a record of attacking practically all her neighbors, and her policies towards Iran have been very hostile. The Israelis have already attacked Iran with cybertools and sabotaged Iranian centrifuges, have killed Iranian scientists, and constantly threaten to bomb Iran’s nuclear installations.
Israel is not a party to Chemical Weapons Convention and is widely believed to have produced and stockpiled an extensive range of chemical weapons and is engaged in ongoing research and development of additional chemical weaponry. Israel is also believed to maintain a sophisticated biological weapons program, which is widely thought to include anthrax and more advanced weaponized agents and other toxins, as well as a sizable nuclear weapons arsenal with sophisticated delivery systems.
Despite all this, they are trying to push the United States to launch a military attack on Iran for having a peaceful enrichment program. Only yesterday, in the joint press conference with Netanyahu, President Obama repeated, “…as President of the United States, I've said before and I will repeat that we take no options off the table, including military options…” against Iran. Netanyahu for his part said that, “… the bottom line, again, is that Iran fully dismantles its military nuclear program.” He advised his host that, “pressures must be kept in place. And I think that they should not be lessened until there is verifiable success. And, in fact, it is Israel’s firm belief that if Iran continues to advance its nuclear program during negotiations, the sanctions should be strengthened.”
Whether Netanyahu will be able to prevent Iranian-US rapprochement or not, the fact is that he will pressurise his friends in the Congress to intensify the sanctions on Iran. However, regardless of Iran, for the sake of peace in the Middle East, including greater security for Israelis, the international community should get serious about setting up new security arrangements in the Middle East that will include a nuclear-free zone. As President Rouhani rightly said, “There are no good hands to hold those bad weapons.” That also applies to Israel.
The entire basis of Israeli propaganda about the “existential threat” that Iran allegedly posed for Israel was Iran’s nuclear bombs. Iranians have long maintained that they were not trying to acquire nuclear weapons, but as the result of Neo-con propaganda apparently a large percentage of Americans believe that Iran already possesses nuclear weapons. I believe that the most useful aspect of President Rouhani’s visit and his numerous appearances on the media was that most thinking Americans have now seen that the Israeli propaganda was just that, despite some media attempts to distort Iran’s stances http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/brian-williams-iran-propaganda
With this new public awareness and general welcome given to a rapprochement between the Unites States and Iran, I find it difficult to believe that Israeli hardliners will still be able to sell the need to bomb Iran in order to destroy its non-existent nuclear weapons.
I also think that the greater danger to Israel is if they attempt to bomb Iran and fail in their mission, as is most likely. Iran has considerable defenses around its nuclear installations, and it is possible that any attempt at bombing them would result in a number of Israeli aircraft and pilots being destroyed or captured, without having much to show for it. That would really explode Israel’s myth of invincibility even more so than their invasion of Lebanon in 2006 did. I hope that the Israelis would have the good sense to accept a Yes for an answer and change their course on Iran. There is no time better than now.
You are quite right to link the demonization of Iran by the Israelis with the fall of the Soviet Union. During the Cold War Israel was seen as a useful asset against Moscow and its regional allies. After the collapse of Soviet empire the Israelis had to find another way of justifying their importance to America and their multi-billion grant by US taxpayers. The issue of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons started precisely at that time, and it has paid useful dividends right up till now.
One can sympathize with the Israelis feeling vulnerable being surrounded by hostile neighbors, although some of that hostility is due to Israel’s foreign policies as well as the way it treats the Palestinians. However, now is the best time for them to let go of their fears and pursue a new course. Syria is destroyed, Egypt is in turmoil and will not pose a military threat to Israel for a very long time, if ever, and now with Iran proclaiming publicly that they have no intention of manufacturing nuclear weapons and also saying that they would accept any deal reached between Israel and the Palestinians, the Israelis can really relax and give peace a chance. Their main problem is domestic not foreign. What they have to do is to reach an honorable and viable agreement with the millions of stateless Palestinians, rather than look for real or imaginary enemies outside their borders.
Netanyahu and Ahmadinezhad needed each other and fed off each other. With Ahmadinezhad gone, Netanyahu must feel very lonely. The best sign that change in Iran is for real is the reaction of the reformists to President Rouhani’s policies at home and abroad. There is still a long way to go, but many reformists including political prisoners have put their support behind Rouhani and his détente with the West. It would have been too much to have expected Ahmadinezhad to change his views, even if he saw more moderate stances by the other side. The same is true of Netanyahu. The change should come from within. It is time for new elections in Israel, hopefully opting for a more moderate leader who can bring himself into line with the developments in the Middle East.
More than four million Iranians who left Iran – including about a million who came to the United States – due to the Islamic revolution, and especially millions of Iranians who had to stay home and put up with all the excesses of the Iranian government, the hostage crisis, and all that Iran went through as the result of foreign intervention, from the devastating eight-year war that killed and wounded a million Iranians, the summary executions of hundreds of former officials, the bloody infighting between the clerics and their erstwhile allies the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization [MKO], the Tudeh Party and other militant leftist groups, the execution of thousands of MKO prisoners on the orders of Khomeyni after the Mojahedin joined Saddam Hussein forces to attack Iran during the last phase of the war, etc. have no illusion about the nature of the Iranian clerical regime. Many Iranians believe that the Islamic revolution was unnecessary and that it gave rise to a reactionary regime that set Iran’s progress back by decades.
However, they also know that time moves on and that there is no point crying over spilt milk. Under President Mohammad Khatami there was great hope among many Iranians that his election would result in the gradual reform of the system from within without the need for too much bloodshed and would restore ties with the West. President Khatami’s unexpected election, with his slogans of dialog of civilization, a genuine move for greater freedoms at home, the flowering of the press and the arts, and an unprecedented era of reformist religious thinking, provided a great opportunity for better relations with the West. However, the prospects of better relations with Iran alarmed many neocons who wrongly believe that isolating Iran is good for Israel. From the first day of his election, Khatami was subjected to vilification by the Israelis and their friends in America, which culminated in David Frum’s inclusion of Iran in the Axis of Evil as read out by former President Bush in his State of the Union address in 2002. That put an end to any prospect of rapprochement between Iran and the United States and resulted in the election of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The unexpected election of President Hassan Rouhani has provided another opportunity for a serious dialog between Iran and the United States. Already many Israelis and their neocon friends are in a state of panic and are doing everything in their power to make sure that this opportunity is also stillborn like the previous one. http://news.yahoo.com/no-time-left-negotiations-iran-israeli-minister-100029438.html
Many Iranians know that a resumption of relations with the United States will not resolve all the problems that Iran faces and will not create a true democracy overnight. However, they know that a government that has friendly relations with the West and is susceptible to Western views will moderate its policies both at home and abroad. They also know that any regime that is cornered and threatened will become more militant and ordinary people will suffer. The West should not miss this opportunity to take Iran seriously, to establish friendly relations with Iran and push it towards more moderate policies at home and abroad. Responding positively to Iran is not an act of favor, but something that is to the interest of the West and Middle Eastern peace and security as a whole. The Obama Administration should have the courage to seize the moment and push hard to bring Iran out from the cold. Such a move would be good for the United States, for Iran, as well as for the Middle East, including Israel.
The real situation is even worse than stated in this excellent article. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimate, the world's total military spending in 2011 was $1.738 trillion. Of that amount, US’s military spending was $711 billion – almost 41 percent – but if one adds the cost of the intelligence organisations, especially the CIA, that also carry out military operations, the United States spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined. At the same time, US arms sales tripled in 2011 to a record high and totalled $66.3 billion or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.23 billion in 2011.
That $1.738 trillion is several hundred times the World Health Organization's annual budget, which in 2010 was $5 billion. World military spending is also far more than a hundred times higher than the $10.8 billion budget of the U.S. Center for Disease Control. Just imagine what the world could do with a fraction of that budget.
As things seem to be going well for a possible rapprochement between Iran and the United States and even a meeting of the officials at the highest level, one should expect some dramatic events to take place to prevent the success of these moves, as has happened so many times before.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu has set out his conditions for any US-Iran talks in advance, namely, "There are four steps," Netanyahu said. "The first is the cessation of all uranium enrichment activity, the second is the removal of uranium from Iran, the third is the closure of the Qom facility and the fourth is the halting of plutonium enrichment." http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4430693,00.html
The definition "militant jihadists" is clear. It includes both home-grown jihadists and thousands of Al-Qaida-affiliated forces that have moved to Syria to establish and Islamic Emirate. There are some moderate elements among the opposition, but the militant jihadists and their backers are worse off, because they were hoping that with military attacks against airfields and Army installations they would move forward and topple Assad. You can now see by their reaction to the deal how angry and disappointed they are.
I am truly amazed not only by the depth and range of your comments on the Middle East, but also by their timeliness, which is unusual among academics. One can find the most intelligent analysis of the most important current events even before they have been reported by the media. This makes Informed Comment a unique asset and a standard by which one can judge and correct the misinformation by the media and to gain access to an analysis of what the events really mean. I wish to thank you for this.
However, in your list of winners and losers, I think the greatest winner has been the cause of peace and common sense. A military attack, even if it had been approved by the Congress, which seemed unlikely, would have been illegal, would have compounded the problems, and would have portrayed the United States as an aggressive country. The Kerry-Lavrov accord has changed the pattern of behaviour inherited by the Bush Administration of unilateral wars.
The second biggest winner has been President Obama. Whether by luck or by design, his initial tough policy of the threat of force, followed by turning the issue to the Congress and starting a democratic nationwide debate, and finally forcing Syria to give up her chemical weapons have boosted President Obama’s stature as a cool, intelligent and brave leader who left himself open to a great deal of attacks by the neocons, as we have already seen from the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, for the cause of peace.
The third biggest winner is the cause of international law and international cooperation. An action without Security Council approval would have undermined the UN and would have also caused greater strains in US-Russian and US-Chinese relations. If the complex problems of the world are to be tackled we surely need these big powers, as well as Europe as a whole and not just Britain and France, to work together.
The biggest losers are the militant jihadists and their Saudi and Qatari backers who wanted to bring down a government, not at the ballot box but with a campaign of terror, a defeat that they richly deserve.
What is needed now is to call for a conference to declare a ceasefire and elections in Syria under UN supervision and for all sides to abide by the election outcome.
There is still a long way to go, but this is a great start. With the removal of chemical weapons from Syria it is time to declare a WMD-free zone in the Middle East and force Israel to declare her nuclear arsenal and get rid of them under international supervision.
Meanwhile, Turkey prosecutes rebels for seeking chemical weapons, adding to the suspicion that some rebels definitely tried to gain access to chemical weapons http://rt.com/news/turkey-syria-chemical-weapons-850/
Bill,
Your assertions are not supported by facts. Japan’s peace messages that were communicated to Russia and through them to the West make it clear that the Japanese had decided to surrender long before the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Here are a few examples of Japanese peace messages:
July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".
* July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs, to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).
July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government."
The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
President Truman knew of the messages' content, noting, for instance, in his diary on July 18, "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" (Robert Ferrell, ed., Off the Record - the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, pg. 53).
According to the report of a panel that had been requested by President Truman to study the Pacific war, "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (Bernstein, ed., The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56)
According to William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.”
When General Dwight Eisenhower was informed by Secretary of War Stimson of the decision to drop the nuclear bombs he opposed the decision. "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
The bombs were dropped firstly to test them and secondly to show the Soviet Union that America possessed them. This was the first shot in the Cold War. The poor Japanese were merely sacrificial lambs in the bigger geopolitical game.
The hard-pressed Syrian Christians have complained from the beginning of the conflict about the atrocities committed by the militant groups against them. As early as April 3, 2012, the Orthodox Church News published an article with the headline “Obama-backed Syrian Rebels ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ of Christians.” The article pointed out that already the jihadists had expelled 50,000 Christians from the embattled city of Homs, which accounted for 90 per cent of the Christian community there. The Orthodox Church referred to the persecution as the “ongoing ethnic cleansing of Christians” by Muslim militants linked to al Qaeda. According to its report, the so-called “Faruq Brigade” was largely to blame, with Islamic extremists going door to door and forcing the Christians to leave without even collecting their belongings. Their property was then stolen by rebels as “war-booty from the Christians.” Almost exactly the same thing happened in Iraq where large number of Iraqi Christians were slaughtered or forced to flee by the radical groups. However, in their fanatical crusade to weaken Iran by removing the Assad regime Western media and Western politicians totally ignored those reports. http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2012/04/obama-backed-syrian-rebels-ethnic-cleansing-christians/
American military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen or Libya have not resulted in establishing peace, human rights and democracy. On the contrary, all those countries are still reeling as the result of the military devastation that they have suffered at the hands of US forces.
It is sad that the Republicans fought President Obama on practically everything during the past five years, but as soon as there is talk of war they all rush forward to support the president. It seems that war is the only issue that unites Republican and Democratic leaders. The only conclusion from this bizarre situation is that sadly American politicians have become addicted to war and bloodshed, and the talk of military operations gets the blood racing through their veins.
The American public, which is overwhelming opposed to war, should stop yet another military adventure that causes more misery to the majority and only benefits the one per cent and the military industrial complex. Far from helping American credibility in the eyes of the world, this illegal war will further erode American credibility and will portray it as a country that is out of control and that can only communicate with the language of violence. This is contrary to American ideals.
This is a remarkable statement by Hashemi-Rafsanjani whatever his motives. President Rowhani and Foreign Minister Zareef have also condemned the use of chemical weapons, although they have not apportioned blame. Personally, I have my doubts about who used the crude weapons, despite the orchestrated "intelligence" findings, originating from Israel and repeated by Britain, France and the United States. We had the same confident statements about WMD prior to the Iraq war. At least we have to wait for the report by the UN team.
It seems that those who were pushing for regime change in Syria are going to get their way. In a long, chilling interview with Justin Web on BBC Four’s “Today Program” this morning, General Jack Keane said that he had talked to Senators McCain and Graham after they had been briefed by President Obama. They were confident that the president planned not only to deter the further use of chemical weapons, but to degrade President Assad’s forces by attacking all his command and control centers and military installations leading to a regime change.
By the way the full translation of the video clip of Rafsanjani’s speech that you have posted is as follows:
"Our present problems are real problems. We are under embargo. We are under sanctions. We are under boycotts. We cannot make use of our resources. We cannot sell our oil, and even if we can sell it we will not be able to return its money [to the country]. If we buy some goods we have to buy them at inflated prices and have to pay extra expenses for transferring them, and many other problems. Recently, we are witnessing an even bigger threat. You certainly can see, you watch the news. At the moment, America and the West as a whole and a number of Arab countries have practically declared war on Syria, and at any moments ears [people] are waiting to hear the roar of missiles and bombs. May God have pity on the Syrian people! During the past two years, the Syrian people have been living under very bad conditions. They have suffered more than 100,000 killed and seven to eight million have become displaced, at home and abroad. The prisons are full of people. There is no room left in the prisons, so they used sports stadiums [as prisons] and have filled them. People are under very bad circumstances. On the one hand, the people come under chemical bombings by their own side, by their own government, and on the other hand they have to wait for American bombs."
To his credit, today Secretary Kerry strongly condemned the massacre. I wish there had been a stronger denunciation of the coup, which the American officials are still reluctant to call it by its proper name, earlier on because it might have prevented this dreadful massacre. Until we are prepared to stand by our principles and condemn dictatorship and military rule everywhere, including in the countries that are allegedly our allies, our support for democracy will not be believed and will seem hypocritical. Even at this late hour, a strong condemnation of the coup and the state of emergency may prevent similar occurrences in other countries.
There really is no cause for alarm. After all, there was no coup in Egypt. In the words of some US commentators it was merely a “military revolution” or “the second revolution”. The leading neocon champions of democracy approved what has happened in Egypt. Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute in a column on July 7 wrote: “If democracy is the goal, then the United States should celebrate Egypt’s coup… Rather than punish the perpetrators, Obama should offer two cheers for Egypt’s generals and help Egyptians write a more democratic constitution to provide a sounder foundation for true democracy.”
Frank Gaffney, from the Center for Security Studies went even further and in an article on July 4th, he wrote: “On the eve of our nation’s founding, Egypt’s military has given their countrymen a chance for what Abraham Lincoln once called ‘a new birth of freedom.”
When the Egyptian revolutionaries were calling for the removal of President Mubarak, the other great advocate of democracy in the Middle East, Tony Blair said: “Mubarak is very courageous and a force for good.” When Mubarak was toppled, this champion of democracy predicted: “His fall is a pivotal moment for democracy in Egypt”. After the coup, writing in the Observer, he praised the army and said “the Egyptian army had no alternative but to oust President Morsi from power, given the strength of opposition on the streets.” I am sure that at the time when his and President George Bush’s popularity was at an all time low, he would have advocated the use of force by the army to remove the unpopular government, especially given the strength of opposition on the streets to the Iraq war.
More recently, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry expressed strong approval of the Egyptian military's removal of former President Mohamed Morsi in a statement he made to Pakistan's Geo News on August 2. Kerry said the military was "restoring democracy" when it ousted Morsi, which he said was at the request of "millions and millions of people." http://uk.mg.bt.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.partner=bt-1&.rand=e0rl18ge2ss5q#mail
Welcome to the new version of democracy! Does anyone wonder any more why Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning have no place in this new democratic world?
These are the figures announced by the Iranian Interior Ministry, for those who are interested. This is the first time since President Khatami's reformist government that the election has not gone to the the second round. This shows that when the elections are relatively fair and free, the majority of Iranians opt for change and reform. Here are the figures:
"Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar announced on Saturday that of a total of 36,704,156 ballots counted, Rohani won 50.70 percent of the ballots with 18,613,329 votes.
Principlist candidate Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf came in behind Rohani with 6,077,292 votes. Principlist Saeed Jalili won 4,168,946 votes, and independent Mohsen Rezaei 3,884,412 votes. Principlist Ali-Akbar Velayati and independent Mohammad Gharazi ranked at the bottom of the list, with 2,268,753 and 446,015 votes, respectively.
A total of 1,245,409 ballots were declared invalid.
Nearly 50.5 million Iranians, including more than 1.6 million first-time voters, were eligible to participate in the June 14 elections. The Interior Ministry put voter turnout at 72.7 percent."
Many thanks for this brave article. It is amazing that the countries that shout loudest about human rights, the rights of the citizens and free and open society are the worst offenders. President Obama justified this unbelievable level of surveillance by saying that PRISM only spied on non-American nationals. As a non-American national I take great objection to being spied on for no reason at all. We are moving towards a world – no, we are already living in a world – that Orwell could not even dream of.
Taking this post with the other one on this page about Bradley Manning, it is strange that those who expose criminal activities are severely punished while the real criminals, including those who fired on unarmed Iraqi civilians and journalists, go unpunished. Condemning these excesses is not enough. It is time for the civil society to get together and try to find ways of countering these abuses. Otherwise, the Big Brother will become more powerful and more invasive, and we will become even more powerless than at the present to be able to do anything about it.
As you have pointed out in earlier posts, the sources of opposition to AK Party and to Erdogan personally are both domestic and foreign. Some of the domestic opposition from the disaffected generals and their supporters is reactionary and negative. However, a large number of secular Turks do not like the direction that the AK Party is moving the country. Many people react to some simple but personal issues such as the growing prohibition of alcohol and the increasing victimization of girls and women who wish to appear in public in Western dress. Many democratic-minded Turks are also objecting to Erdogan’s growing authoritarian rule, his suppression of the press and his intolerant attitude towards the opposition.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, many Turks still see themselves as Europeans and their future to be as part of the European Union, but AKP’s growing Islamization of the society and Erdogan’s close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria are moving Turkey away from Europe and closer to fundamentalist Sunni regimes. The explosions that happened in Turkey a few weeks ago that resulted in dozens of casualties have shaken up the population, as they believe that Syrian insecurity is spreading to Turkey. Also many Turks disapprove of what they regard as Erdogan’s pro-American policies. It is not often realized that Turkey has one of the most anti-American populations in the Middle East. Many Turks see the anti-Syrian policy to be part of the Western and Israeli plan to weaken the Axis of Resistance against Israel.
Turkey’s stock market fell by six percent when it opened on Monday. If the protests escalate, and there are many signs that it will not die down too quickly, all the economic gains of the last few years will be wasted. Erdogan’s dismissal of the opposition as thugs and leaving on his North African tour in the middle of the worst crisis faced by Turkey for many decades show his insensitivity to what is going on. Even at this late hour, the best policy for the AKP government is to publicly give guarantees that Turkey’s secularism will not be undermined, and that Turkey is going to scale down its support for Syrian rebels.
The Turkish government is paying the price for its unwise policies towards Syria. Erdogan’s initial policy of zero tension on the borders was a clever policy that improved Turkey’s relations with all her neighbors, including Syria and Iran, and resulted in a flourishing economy. Indeed for a while, Turkey was contemplating the setting up of a common market with Syria and removing custom duties between the two countries. However, after the disturbances in Syria, Erdogan decided to join Saudi Arabia and Qatar in their campaign against Syria.
It should be remembered that according to some accounts, Turkey has some 15 million Elevis [close to the Syrian Alawites] and about the same number of Kurds. So in addition to secularists and leftists, there is another large constituency that does not like Erdogan’s policies towards Syria. As the result of these policies, Turkey’s relations with Iran and Iraq have also suffered. If disturbances continue, and there are already some reports about the loss of life, Turkey will face a domestic uprising that will seriously affect its standing in the world and its economic development. Even now, it would be wise for Turkey to act as a broker between Syria and Iran on the one hand and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms on the other and try to find a peaceful solution to the Syrian conflict.
As Mr. “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” has not yet managed to carry out his bombing campaign there, he thinks that for the time being Syria is a good substitute. It is sad that such war-loving people occupy such high positions in the United States.
By the way, the propaganda line that is adopted by most media, including in the above clip, is that the EU has lifted the arms ban on Syria. The truth is quite the reverse. Britain and France had been pushing hard for the EU to pass a resolution permitting the arming of the rebels, but after eight hours of haggling they failed to do so, as the vast majority of the countries were opposed to it. The Dutch foreign minister said that EU had just been awarded the Nobel Prize for peace. Was it appropriate for it to pour fuel on the fire and arm the terrorists and intensify the conflict? As the deadline for the former agreement runs out in a few days time and as they could not agree on a new agreement, they had no option but to allow the former agreement to lapse, which in fact allows any country to do what it thinks best. So in practice, Britain and France have got the chance of arming the rebels directly and more openly rather than through proxies, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, that they have been doing in the past.
Afghanistan's Interior Ministry has announced that one policeman, two civilians and four Taliban were killed, and 17 were wounded. The wounded include 10 Afghan bystanders and seven IOM personnel.
This is truly a treasure trove, enabling us to glance at some of the remaining glories of the Iraqi National Museum, which was regarded as perhaps the greatest such museum in the Middle East and may be in the world. This site provides us not only with intellectual stimulation and scholarly information about what is going on in the Middle East, but it also provides us with glances into the literature, music, arts and folklore of the people in that part of the world too.
Sadly, it seems that the looting was not completely random, and from some articles that were published at the time, some of it seemed to have been organized by foreign smugglers. A UNESCO official pointed out at the time: “The economic motive for the looting is still present, with items looted from Iraq fetching high prices once smuggled abroad and being highly sought after by American, European and Japanese collectors.” Already in December 2005, McGuire Gibson, a professor at the University of Chicago, wrote “In one Bond Street shop [in London] I was shown a bag of more than one hundred cylinder seals [from Iraq] and received an apology because they were the poorer quality ones.”
Later on, US government returned hundreds of antiquities to Iraq, some seized before an auction at the Christies in New York, and some of the curators in Baghdad had already taken some of the items in the middle of the fighting for safe keeping which they returned later to the museum, but God knows how many thousands were either destroyed or are still kept by various dealers in the West and other parts of the world. An article in Al-Ahram in April 2003 pointed out “The looting in Baghdad, lasting over several days, was ignored by US forces occupying the city, who did nothing to prevent it despite the pleas of museum curators and guards.” A member of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq wrote: “This is a tragedy with echoes of past catastrophes, such as the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258, and the fifth-century destruction of the library of Alexandria.” In fact, this time, the scale of destruction seems to have been even more thorough and more complete.
The Iranians might have been happy about the fall of Saddam who had waged a savage eight-year war against them, but at least they did not instigate, plan and wage the war on the basis of lies as was done by US neocons who had been previously backing Saddam during the war.
Thank you for this excellent and illuminating post. You are right to point out that with the latest developments the Islamic Republic is moving towards totalitarianism. In fact, ever since the 2005 presidential election, which resulted in the victory of Mahmud Ahmadinejad over Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, Iran’s limited democracy has been going downhill. There was massive rigging in the 2009 election when with undue haste Ayatollah Khamenei put his full weight behind Ahmadinejad. Later on, he came to regret that decision, because none of the previous presidents had posed such a challenge to the Islamic system as was done by Ahmadinejad. He openly confronted both Khamenei and the clerical establishment as a whole and began to propagate his vision of an “Iranian Islam” and the imminent return of the Mahdi, which would have undercut the authority of the clerics. The main point is that both Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Esfandiar Rahim Mashai pose a challenge to Ayatollah Khamenei’s authority and this is something that he cannot tolerate.
However, I think the election will not pass on as quietly as Khamenei hopes. It will either be a flop with very low turnout or, more likely, there will be protests and demonstrations similar to those that took place following the 2009 election directed against Khamenei himself. In any case, the regime has lost a great deal of its legitimacy both in the eyes of the reformers, as well as in the eyes of many conservatives who had supported Ahmadinejad. Given the scale of domestic and foreign challenges that the Iranian government is facing this does not bode well for the future of the regime.
It is really sad to see the Iraqi and Syrian people paying the price for a geopolitical and sectarian war fought between the West, Saudi Arabia and Qatar on the one hand, and Russia and Iran on the other. It is ironic that practically all Persian Gulf littoral states and Saudi Arabia helped to enable the US invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein. Not only did they provide bases for the launching of the attacks, but even provided free fuel and massive financial help to the Coalition forces. When Saddam Hussein was toppled, naturally the Shi’a who constitute a big majority in Iraq came to power. This went contrary to Saudi wishes as they saw Iraq leaning towards their arch foe Iran.
Ever since the toppling of Saddam, the Saudis and other Sunni Persian Gulf states have been arming and funding the militant jihadi Sunnis to engage in a campaign of terrorism mainly against the Shi’is in Iraq and against the Syrian government that was Iran’s only Arab ally during the Iran-Iraq war. The result has been the destabilization of both Iraq and Syria, and this will get much worse and will spread to the rest of the region. The West has to decide whether they intend to stabilize Iraq and Syria, in which case they have to push their Saudi and Qatari “allies” to stop supporting the terrorists, or whether they wish to weaken Iran at any cost, even at the cost of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Syrians, in which case their present policy makes some sense.
There is so much one can say after reading this wonderful article. If I had to choose between an American empire and a Russian or a Chinese or any other empire, I would certainly opt for an American empire, but empires are by nature destructive not only of others but of themselves. Reading about the Colossus that the United States has become, one can't help but think of Percy Bysshe Shelley's "Ozymandias"
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
When one is at the height of power, it is difficult to imagine that there have been many empires in the past, but none has survived. Now, as the result of our frightening means of destruction, the question is not whether the latest empire will survive, but whether humanity can survive. As Dr. Martin Luther King said: "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."
General Omar Bradley rightly observed, “The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.”
In his Nobel Prize Speech, Mohammad ElBaradei said the world faces 'threats without borders' - weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, organised crime, war, poverty, disease and environmental degradation - that can only be tackled through multilateral co-operation.
The Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu, some 2,500 year ago, expressed the dangers of wishing to dominate the world. The words read as fresh today as when they were written:
"Those who would take over the earth
And shape it to their will
Never, I notice, succeed.
The earth is like a vessel so sacred
That at the mere approach of the profane
It is marred
And when they reach out their fingers it is gone.
For a time in the world some force themselves ahead
And some are left behind,
For a time in the world some make a great noise
And some are held silent,
For a time in the world some are puffed fat
And some are kept hungry,
For a time in the world some push aboard
And some are tipped out:
At no time in the world will a man who is sane
Over-reach himself,
Over-spend himself,
Over-rate himself."
I agree that Del Ponte’s interview is too vague and we need to wait for more solid confirmation. However, the initial Israeli claims that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons were also unconvincing, because as the American president had said that their use would be a game changer it would have been very foolish of the Syrian government to deliberately go out of its way to provoke the West. In any case, it has managed to kill far too many people without resort to those weapons. It seems that somebody was trying to widen the scope of the conflict and drag America into it, as confirmed by the massive Israeli attack on Syrian installations yesterday.
To be fair, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel also was rather measured in his comments. He told reporters the White House has informed senators John McCain and Carl Levin by letter that, within the past day, “our intelligence community does assess, with varying degrees of confidence, that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically, the chemical agent sarin.”
As President Obama had said that the use of chemical weapons by the government would be a red line, one should ask what is the US prepared to do if it is established that the rebels have used them. The least they can do is to stop arming the rebels with even more deadly weapons and order the Saudis and Qataris to do the same. Instead, the West should push for a genuine peace plan with elections under international inspection for choosing a new government.
You are absolutely right. In my view, Forugh Farrokhzad is the greatest Iranian poetess of the twentieth century. One reason why the mullahs do not like her is because since the time of 12th century Mahasti Ganjavi, she is the only female poet who wrote openly about her sexuality and celebrated it. In her poem, “The Song of Beauty” she wrote:
In the silence of the temple of desire
I am lying beside your passionate body;
My kisses have left their marks on your shoulder
Like fiery bites of a snake.
The mullahs, on the other hand, are in her words “drowned in their own fear”. This is from her poem “Born Again”:
They were drowned in their own fear
And the frightened sense of sin
Had paralyzed
Their blind, dumb souls…
Perhaps
Behind their crushed eyes, at the depth of inanimateness
Something confused, with a flicker of life,
Was still left;
And, with its faint effort,
It wanted to believe in the purity of the waters’ songs.
Perhaps; but what an infinite emptiness!
The sun was dead,
And no one knew
That the name of the sad dove,
Which had escaped from hearts, was Faith
Here is my translation of her Ghazal, written to a lover who clearly did not appreciate her love
Your ear is as deaf to my voice as the stone
You hear, but like stone you forget unheard.
You are the spring downpour and with showers of temptation
You lash at the window and disturb its peace.
My hands that are green leaves longing for a caress
You make them embrace dead leaves.
You are more tempting than the spirit of wine,
And you set the eyes aflame and intoxicate them.
O goldfish in the pond of my blood
Enjoy your ecstasy for you are drinking me.
You are like the violet valley of the sunset
That embraces the sun and extinguishes it.
Your Forugh [light] was kept in the dark and lost her color
Why do you dress her in black by keeping her in the shadows?
Persepolis is about 70 km northeast of Shiraz on the way to Isfahan. Cyrus's tomb is also nearby. Here is a short report from some eight years ago about exhibition of some artefacts from Persepolis at the British Museum in London:
Dear Juan! Many thanks for this post that has brought back many happy memories to me. When I was born in Shiraz so many, years ago, it was a small, compact, green city with a small population. It is one of the oldest cities of the world, and as you point out famous for its poets, gardens, and wine. In fact the oldest sample of wine in the world, dated to approximately 7,000 years ago, was discovered in clay jars in Shiraz. During the Islamic period it was referred to as “Dar ol-Ilm” or the City of Learning, in view of its great poets Sa’adi and Hafiz and many scholars and mystics.
When I was a child there were very few private cars in the city. In fact, we almost knew everyone who possessed one. I remember distinctly when the first taxis replaced the old horse-drawn carriages and many popular poems were written for and against them. Soon they replaced practically all the carriages. Now, the city is home to over 1.5 million people and traffic is terrible. Something close to your heart, Shiraz is the site to Iran’s first solar power plant, and recently the city’s first wind turbine has been installed above a hill overlooking the city, not far from the Koran Gate that is shown several times in these photos. It is also Iran’s center of electronic industries, accounting for 53% of the country’s electronic investment. In addition to the lovely old Vakil Bazaar, recently a new shopping complex has been built in Shiraz, which boasts to be one of the biggest malls in the world in terms of the number of shops, thus making Shiraz one of the easiest places for shopping in Iran and the Middle East.
There have been many things seriously wrong with President Obama’s statement that the use of chemical weapons by Syria would constitute a red line and a game changer. The first and the most serious problem with this is the whole concept of red line diplomacy. When you draw some arbitrary red lines, sooner or later, you will be trapped by them and have to do something about it even against your better judgment, otherwise, you will be regarded as weak and indecisive. The present situation in Syria is one clear example. The other is the arbitrary red line about Iran gaining access to nuclear weapons, or according to the Israelis getting nuclear capability, whatever that means. If it means having the ability to enrich uranium, Iran has already passed that stage. However, the Israelis and the neoconservatives in the United States keep repeating that President Obama has drawn a red line and he must act. So, he has made himself hostage to the warmongers.
The second problem is verification. After the Iraqi WMD fiasco it is doubly important to be careful about any claim that a country has WMD capability or that it has used it. Again, the Syrian situation is a case in point. In the midst of a civil war, with all sorts of claims and counter-claims by the government and the rebels, it is extremely difficult to verify such claims. There are already many indications that most probably the rebels have gained access to some WMD either from Libyan stockpiles or as the result of overrunning government ammunition dumps in Syria. So, first you draw an arbitrary red line, and then you have to do something about it on the basis of uncertain verification. In this regard, the following article is very helpful in showing the complexities of the issue: http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/bob-rigg/chemical-weapons-middle-east-un-security-council-and-now-syria
The third problem is what are you going to do about it even if the first two criteria have been established? The situation in Syria is already very complex. The huge amount of weapons and financial aid provided to the rebels by the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and to some extent Turkey and Jordan, and non-lethal assistance by the West, if we are to be charitable and believe in their statements, have produced a situation where the Al-Nusra Front and other militant Islamic groups affiliated to Al-Qaeda have gained the upper hand. How on earth is it possible to separate these elements from the so-called moderates and ensure that after the ousting of the regime the nice, friendly guys will come to power and will continue to cooperate with the West?
The fourth problem is that concentrating on the use of chemical weapons by Syria ignores the possession of such weapons both by other countries in the region and by the West, and the use of banned weapons both by the Coalition forces in Iraq, especially in Falujah, and by Israel during its invasion of Gaza and its massive use of cluster bombs in civilian areas in Lebanon. Concentrating on one country and ignoring the rest is clear hypocrisy and is not going to create a just and law-abiding world.
Surely, the most sensible thing would be not to arm militant groups and not to fan the flames of war because ultimately there will be a blowback, as we saw in the case of the arming of the Mujahedin in Afghanistan that resulted in 9/11, or arming the Sunni militants in Iraq that has turned Iraq into a scene of continuous carnage. If we were to spend a small part of the effort that we devote to conflict to conflict resolution and tried to bring the sides together the world would be a much more peaceful place. In any case, any action that may be taken must be within the framework of international law and on the basis of a Security Council resolution.
After the toppling of Taleban in Afghanistan, hundreds of al-Qaeda supporters fled the country, mainly to Pakistan and other neighboring countries, but also a few dozens to Iran. They were mostly arrested by Iranian authorities, and initially Iran tried to use them as a bargaining chip to get the head of the Mojahedin-e Khalq in return for handing them over to the US. When their demand was rejected by the Bush Administration, Iran repatriated most of them to their native countries, but apparently still a few remain in Iran under house arrest. What is meant by "linked to al-Qaeda in Iran" is presumably a reference to a number of al-Qaeda operatives who are active in Sistan and Baluchestan region between Iran and Pakistan. The Iranian government is involved in many clashes with them, but for some Western media with an agenda it is useful to keep linking Iran to al-Qaeda without providing the context. Here is a useful link about al-Qaeda and Iran.
Rakiba,
I am not a Muslim, but in fairness to Islam, especially in view of all the distorted propaganda against it and in view of the vile activities of some terrorists who try to justify their evil deeds on religious grounds, I feel it is important to set the record straight, as this wonderful article is doing.
In answer to your first question, remarkably, Islam does not believe in inquisition and questioning people’s motivation, or coercing the non-believers to become Muslims. At the time of Prophet Muhammad there were many of his followers who wanted him to force the Arabs to become Muslims. The Koran’s response to those demands was the following:
"We are best aware of what they say, but thou (O Muhammad) art in no wise a compeller over them. But warn by the Koran him who feareth My warning." (Koran, 50:45). Therefore, the Prophet’s job, as it is stressed elsewhere in the Koran, is merely to warn and to call the people towards God, but not to coerce them to follow it. Faith and guidance ultimately comes from God: "Say: The truth is from your Lord; then whosoever will, let him believe; and whosoever will, let him disbelieve." (Koran, 18:28) A remarkable verse in the Koran says, “say not to anyone who greets you ‘you are not a believer’” (Koran 4:94). In other words, one should not question people’s motives or call them a non-believer.
Muhammad was unhappy that some of his close relatives, including his favorite uncle, had not become Muslims, but he was told in another verse: "And if thy Lord had willed, whoever is on the earth would have believed, all of them, altogether. Wouldst thou then compel the people, until they are believers?" (Koran, 10:98). Again: "Say: O mankind! Now hath the truth from your Lord come unto you. So whosoever is guided, is guided only for his own soul, and whosoever erreth, erreth only against his soul. And I am not a warder over you." (Koran, 10: 107). So if the prophet has no right to force the people to believe or act as their guardian, certainly ordinary Muslims have no right to do so.
As to your second point, there are many people in all religions who commit violence and try to justify their acts by quoting some verses in support of their deeds. Sadly, that is a trait common to the followers of all religions.
If I may quote myself, here is a link to an article that I wrote many years ago on Islam and human rights that deals with these issues in some detail: http://lass.purduecal.edu/cca/jgcg/2007/sp07/jgcg-sp07-jahanpour.htm
Juan: Thank you for this thoughtful post, as ever. As the result of centuries of democratic development in most Western countries we now regard all citizens as equal, and we share in any harm or suffering that befalls any of our fellow-citizens. However, sadly, this feeling of compassion and even adherence to the rule of law seems to stop at our national borders. This point was brought home to me a few years ago by an Afghan friend who lives in England when the war in Afghanistan was still very intense. He said that as a citizen of this country, if the government wished to do anything illegal against him the full force of British law and public sympathy would be behind him and would come to his help. But when he is in Afghanistan, which he visited frequently, he could be killed by a British or an American soldier or by a bomb or by a drone with total impunity.
Given the fact that now the world is getting so much more interconnected and we are talking about a global village it is time for us to widen our horizons and extend our sympathies not only to our compatriots but also to all our fellow human beings. We should be as affected by the loss of life in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, especially as we have been partly responsible for creating the present situation in those countries, as we are about the tragic loss of life in Boston or anywhere else in the United States or Great Britain. The time has come to acknowledge, regardless of our religious or national affiliations, that “the world is one country, and mankind its citizens.”
I have just received confirmation from someone who knows Rowhani well and whom I trust that his PhD Degree was evaluated by Iran's Ministry of Higher Education. The Ministry has a special committee made up of about 20 full professors who are familiar with foreign universities and they evaluate the degrees received from foreign universities. Apparently, they checked his registration documents and read his thesis and found them to be proper. He personally knows that Rowhani frequently travelled to Glasgow to work on his thesis. He has also assured me that Rowhani speaks good English. However, the issue of his qualifications must be clarified by Glasgow University/
Dear Nima, thanks for your comment. As regards Rowhani's education please see my response to Reza, but as regards his knowledge of English I have heard from some of those who were involved in nuclear talks that he speaks good English, but given the technical nature of the talks and the presence of other members of the Iranian team who could not speak English they always used interpreters.
Reza, you are right that the Guardian Council has approved reformist candidates in the past, but after the 2009 election I find it difficult to believe that it will approve a reformist candidate for presidential election this time. Kavakebian's candidacy in the last Majles election was approved, but he lost his Majles seat last year. This does not bode well for his chances of being elected president. Given the tense standoff between the conservatives and the reformers, the chances of Rowhani being approved by the Guardian Council for the reasons that I have stated seem to be strong because it would be very awkward for them to reject him given his very senior positions that he is still holding.
Reza, thanks for the two important points. As to the first, during the time that various Iranian officials were accusing each other of having lied about their education the issue of Rowhani's education also came up. I have not checked with the University of Glasgow to be able to give a definite answer to that question. As you know, most of the clerics go by different names and he could have registered at the university under a different name, but it is worth pursuing. His official biography clearly claims that he received an MA and a PhD in law from Glasgow. I am sure he will be forced to provide the evidence of his qualifications and the matter will be clarified one way or the other.
As to the issue of being a reformer or not, the issue is a little bit more complicated, because reformer is a rather loose term. You are absolutely right that he was closer to Hashemi-Rafsanjani and in that respect he is more of pragmatic-centrist, but although he was not a member of the 2nd Khordad Front he worked closely with President Khatami. Some of the sentences that I have quoted from him and many others that I have not quoted set him apart from the conservatives. Let us at least agree that he is a reformer, if not a reformist. His record of negotiations with the West would support this definition.
One does not expect anything better from the CNN and other corporate media that are in the business of distorting the facts. However, it is sad to see how soon all the hopes about a change of direction under the new US Secretaries of State and Defense have been dashed. No wonder the level of public trust in government officials and even elected representatives is so low.
With US Senators seeking new sanctions on Iran that would penalize foreign countries that do any business with an Iranian entity, and linking the lifting of sanctions with calls on Iran “to release political prisoners, respect the rights of women and minorities and move toward a free and democratically elected government” leave no doubt that the dispute with Iran has anything to do with her nuclear program, but that it is used cynically, just as the case of Iraq, to whip up public hysteria to justify war and regime change. The aims set out above are laudable, but Iranians know that those words are not mentioned as a favor to Iran but as a cynical cover for warmongering intentions. It has sometimes been said, more in wishful thinking than in reality, that public opinion is the new super-power. It is time for the public to unite against deceit and hypocrisy and to show that they are not going to be fooled again. Otherwise, America will be entangled in more devastating wars in the Middle East.
Margaret Thatcher was certainly a historic figure. She was the first female British prime minister. She was the longest serving British prime minister in the twentieth century. Along with President Reagan, by following a very risky policy of confrontation with the Soviet Union that could have ended disastrously she managed to bring the Soviet Union to its knees. Early in Gorbachev's career she discovered that she could work with him. She invited him to England when he was still only a member of the Politburo and later on she pushed him towards dismantling the Soviet system, although this was not what he initially had in mind, etc. So her place in history is secure.
However, on balance, I believe that her legacy was a negative one. As a result of very dogmatic rightwing and anti-trade union policies and a lack of concern for less fortunate individuals in society she made Britain a harsher and coarser place. Her cult of individualism and faith in unchecked free enterprise made Britain, as you point out, a less equal society. In fact, she famously said that there was no such thing as society, but a collection of individuals. By her yearning for the days of Empire, which motivated her to invade the Falklands that fortunately ended well for her although it resulted in many British and Argentinian deaths, she prevented Britain from facing her current position as a medium-ranking European power. This legacy of forcing the country to punch above her weight has not helped Britain to come to terms with her present circumstances. That grandiose attitude was partly responsible for her rejection of full membership in Europe. Her fanatical enthusiasm and support for the first Gulf War after having supported Saddam Hussein to the hilt during the Iran-Iraq war led both Britain and America towards renewed dreams of empire and colonialist domination. So, on the whole, history may come to view her as someone who arrested the smooth progress of Britain towards a more equal, more democratic, and more humane society, a course that she had followed since the Second World. On the world stage too this attitude has also resulted in renewed dreams of Western domination in the world, which have given rise to so many more conflicts.
One can only add a few points to this excellent article:
The first point is that Iranian nuclear program that had started under the Shah with US encouragement was stopped after the revolution. When in the early 90s President Hashemi-Rafsanjani decided to restart the program for which Iran had paid billions of dollars before the revolution, he openly turned to the West to help him complete Bushehr nuclear reactor for which Iran had paid eight billion Deutsch Mark to a German company and was nearly 90 per cent complete when the revolution broke out. However, all Western countries, despite having signed agreements with Iran in the past, refused to cooperate. The initial US policy towards Iran was firstly no nuclear reactors; secondly, no fuel for any possible reactors that Iran might build; and thirdly, certainly no uranium enrichment program. Consequently, Iran was forced to turn to third countries and to restart her program in a clandestine fashion.
The second point is that many points of contention with the IAEA had been resolved on the basis of "modalities" and the IAEA was ready to give Iran a clean bill of health when the West suddenly brought up the issue of a laptop that had allegedly fallen into the hands of Western intelligence officials and which contained some information about a possible weaponization program in the past. Mr ElBradei had the issue investigated and declared it a forgery, and Iran has never been allowed to see the document. The IAEA Board of Governors was reluctant to send Iran's file to the Security Council, but as the result of intense US pressure and nuclear deal with India they managed to get enough votes to refer Iran to the Security Council. Whatever one may say about Iranian violations of the NPT, none of it was certainly strong enough to justify the use of the sanctions under Chapter Seven. That was a clear misuse of Security Council powers. This has been the main stumbling block in Almaty 2 negotiations. They make demands from Iran in return for minor concessions, but they never declare what the end game is going to be and whether Iran will be able to continue with enrichment. This is why Iran has made two major demands, putting all those demands in a general framework, so that they may know what the ultimate outcome would be; and secondly at least if Iran makes some major concessions the West should also make equal concessions in return, so that they do not give up all their bargaining points in return for minor concessions that might be withdrawn later.
The third point is that the Iranians have said that they are prepared to join and ratify the Additional Protocol, stop enrichment at 20 per cent, and allow much more intrusive inspection even beyond the requirements of the Additional Protocol in return for the 5+1 formally recognizing Iran's right to enrichment in keeping with the NPT regulations.
The fourth point is that even if one can somehow get round the Security Council resolutions, and even if the Obama Administration decides to reach a deal with Iran, the growing number of resolutions passed by the Congress imposing unilateral sanctions have actually tied the president's hand. So there is no way that the conflict can be resolved even if Iran surrenders.
It is clear that Iran's nuclear program is used for purposes other than for preventing proliferation. This policy is dishonest, misguided, and dangerous. In addition to paving the way for an eventual war, such a policy makes it even harder to deal with the real proliferators, such as North Korea, because it goes well beyond the requirements of the IAEA and the NPT.
Juan! As you know, after the 2002 peace proposal by the then Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah at the Arab League summit meeting in Beirut and re-endorsed at the Riyadh Summit in 2007, the entire Arab League declared that it would recognize the state of Israel in exchange for her complete withdrawal from the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem), but the Israeli government swiftly rejected it. Incidentally the Islamic Conference Organization, including Iran, has also endorsed that proposal. Iran’s official policy is that it will stand by any decision adopted by the Palestinians. Ironically, Ariel Sharon said that the new plan could not be accepted because it would replace US resolutions 242 and 338, which in fact Israel has no intention of implementing. Even HAMAS has grudgingly recognized Israel.
The founder of HAMAS, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was blown up in his wheelchair after morning prayers in March 2004 together with two bodyguards and nine bystanders, had offered a 100-year truce with Israel. HAMAS military commander Ahmed al-Jabari, who was killed in an Israeli strike as he was riding in a car in Gaza on 14 November 2012, which started the nine-day Israeli war with Gaza, was reportedly considering another long-time truce with Israel. So there has been no shortage of attempts by the Arabs to recognize Israel in return for her withdrawal from the occupied territories but Israel has officially annexed Jerusalem and has no intention of leaving most of the conquered territories.
The offer of money to buy East Jerusalem is a non-starter. However, as you say, now with the Palestinian Authority accepted as an observer member of the UN, it is time for all Arabs – and instead of making belligerent comments Iran should also joint them too – to push for the Arab League plan and for the international community to support them to achieve their goal, to ensure that Israel lives in peace with her neighbors, alongside an independent, viable Palestinian state.
President Obama once said that "American values sometimes clash with American interests". The sad part is that American interests - I would say short-term interests - always win over American values. The illegal invasion of Iraq and the constant saber rattling against Iran are two such examples. I would argue that in the long-term these interests would seem to be illusory. America would benefit more if it sticks to its values and act accordingly.
This was a truly amazing prediction and already we see its realization not only in the United States, but throughout the world where more and more people have access to the Internet. Maybe we are not still making the best use of its potentials for education. There is a certain amount of snobbishness in some academic circles who look down on articles published on the web as somewhat inferior to those published in some established journals, but some institutions such as the Open University and other Online Learning courses are already making greater use of this amazing tool. The present blog is a very good example of academic leaning and discussion at a high level.
I don't quite agree with his last comments about mysticism. He perhaps meant quacks who make use of mysticism to mislead or of astrologers that he mentions. Although I do not believe in religious dogma, I believe that mysticism at its best is an effort to understand the mystery behind life. Science can tell us about how the universe has come into being and how it works, and mysticism and philosophy can address the questions of why and to what end. To me, literature and mysticism are closely connected and both of them emanate from Imagination in its widest meaning. Our lives would be poorer if we do not at least speculate about the mystery of life. Otherwise, like Omar Khayyam we would feel frustrated
What, without asking, hither hurried whence?
And, without asking, whither hurried hence?
Another and another Cup to drown
The memory of this Impertinence!
Clearly some Israeli hardliners believe that offense is the best form of defense. Instead of acknowledging that President Obama’s visit to Israel and Palestine did not achieve anything for the Palestinians, on the contrary, he stressed that Israel would be a Jewish state, he did not condemn the illegal settlements, did not call on Israeli officials to dismantle them, spoke of Palestine as the historic homeland of the Jews without mentioning the Palestinians who have lived there continuously for thousands of years, nevertheless, they have attacked him for some general comments to some Israeli students about the benefits of peace.
However, I believe that instead of attacking him they should carefully read what he said in that speech. He told the new generation of the Israelis that “First, peace is necessary… Second, peace is just… Third, peace is possible.” But perhaps the most important part of his speech was when he referred to the changes in the Arab world. The Israelis are no longer facing a few Arab dictators who can be told by the West what they should do. They are faced with millions of young Arab men and women who like them want to live in peace and security. The time for the tired old men with fixed ideas from the two sides fighting has come to an end. The time has come for both Israeli and Arab young people to talk to each other and forge new peaceful relations.
However, I believe that instead of attacking him they should carefully read what he said in that speech. He told the new generation of Israelis that “First, peace is necessary… Second, peace is just… Third, peace is possible.” But perhaps the most important part of his speech was when he referred to the changes in the Arab world. The Israelis are no longer facing a few Arab dictators who can be told by the West what they should do. They are faced with millions of young Arab men and women who like them want to live in peace and security. The time for the tired old men with fixed ideas from the two sides fighting has come to an end. The time has come for both Israeli and Arab young people to talk to each other and forge new peaceful relations.
The tragedy is that the same is still happening. The distortions and lies about Iran's nuclear program are not only repeated without questioning them, some sections of the media go out of their way to sensationalize even what has been said, while the other side's arguments have never been put to the public. We have not learned any lessons from the Iraq debacle. Not only has there been no accountability for politicians, there has been no accountability for journalists either, and some of those who led us into war with Iraq are still holding influential positions in the media.
Pirouz! You are of course free to think what you like about 2009 presidential election. I have a great deal of respect for the Leveretts and I believe that most of what they write about Iran is very helpful and informative, but the evidence about the fraudulent nature of the 2009 election is incontrovertible. I have personally talked to many officials who were involved in the election, and they have told me that Mir-Hoseyn Musavi’s office was informed by the Interior Ministry that he had won and had to prepare his victory speech, but he was asked not to gloat. Shortly afterwards, everything changed and different results were announced.
Apart from the fact that the way that the candidates are vetted and selected by the rightwing Guardian Council that is an unelected body by itself makes the elections undemocratic, there is plenty of evidence that the 2009 election was even more undemocratic than usual. If you are so shocked that the election could have been rigged you should bear in mind that two former presidents of the same regime, Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, have openly stated that the election had been rigged. The reformist candidate Mir-Hoseyn Musavi who was a prime minister during Ayatollah Khomeini’s period, and the other candidate Mehdi Karrubi who had held very high positions under Khomeini and who had served twice as the parliamentary speaker are in jail or under house arrest because they said that the election had been rigged. Dozens were killed and hundreds of reformists and journalists were arrested and jailed – many of them are still languishing in jail – because they said that the election had been rigged.
You say that you have an open mind and are open to persuasion. I hope the following studies, the first two by an eminent Iranian scholar Professor Ali Ansari, another by a leading expert on elections, and two articles by me are sufficient to enable you to change your mind:
This afternoon I took part in a very well-attended meeting at the London School of Economics and Political Science with lectures by two experts on the state of the Iranian nuclear program. Both speakers made it quite clear that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, but that Iran’s nuclear program is used by the Israelis mainly to put pressure on the Iranian government and divert attention from the moribund “peace process”. Contrary to the NPT regulations, the West and particularly the United States had not only tried to prevent Iran from pursuing an enrichment program, but initially they even wanted to prevent Iran from having a nuclear reactor and even prevented other countries from providing fuel for her sole nuclear reactor in Bushehr that had started under the Shah and that was almost 90 per cent complete by the time of the revolution. Consequently, Iran was forced to start enrichment in order to get fuel for that reactor. The two excellent lectures and discussions made it clear that all the fuss about Iran's nuclear program is very much like the false propaganda about Iraq's WMD.
I have just finished watching the press conference given by the US President and the Israeli Prime Minister live on Aljazeera, and it was every bit as frightening as the reports that you have quoted about the pressure brought to bear on US politicians prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Both Netanyahu and President Obama stressed that the relations between the two governments are closer now than they have ever been. After repeating the mantra that Iran's (non-existent) nuclear weapons posed an existential threat to Israel, Netanyahu kept repeating that President Obama had assured him that Israel was entitled to take any action necessary to defend herself and that he would not delegate responsibility for Israel's security to any other country, including its best friend the United States of America. President Obama in turn stressed that America’s policy towards Iran was not containment but the prevention of an Iranian nuclear weapon, that the window of opportunity to resolve the dispute was narrow and that all options were on the table.
Judging by this press conference and all the false propaganda that is repeated slavishly by the mainstream media, it seems that we are heading for a repetition of the same disastrous events that led to the invasion of Iraq, this time with even worse consequences.
But at the time when the Koran was written men were the bread winners and women mainly depended on their fathers or husbands. Consequently, the idea of giving the sons twice the inheritance of daughters made some sense, but to insist on the same teachings 1400 years later when the circumstances are completely different is insane. This would mean a fundamentalist or literalist view of Islam, and this is what Professor Cole is saying.
You are absolutely right. Robin Cook was one of the most intelligent and bravest members of Tony Blair's cabinet. He resigned just on the eve of the invasion and in a brilliant speech in the House of Commons on 17 March 2003 he said, "I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support." His speech was received by an unprecedented standing ovation by fellow MPs in the House of Commons, which showed the depth of the feeling about the illegal invasion. Clair Short resigned later and said that there had been no proper discussion of the invasion in the full cabinet and the decision had been taken by a small number of people, some of them from outside the cabinet.
Your comments then were both perceptive and brave, as well as rather rare among both scholars and the media. There were many signs that WMD was not the main cause of invasion. The so-called Downing Street Memo, which was the minutes of a British war cabinet meeting dated 23 July 2002, which were published after the war clearly showed that eight months prior to the invasion the decision to go to war had already been taken and the alleged existence of WMD was only to be used as an excuse to justify the war.
The head of MI6 who had recently returned from Washington after meeting his American counterpart and other senior security officials “reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”
That passage tells us all we need to know. The tragedy is that not only the officials who used those lies to wage an illegal war and commit many war crimes have not been punished they are allowed to repeat the same lies these days in order to justify another devastating war in the Middle East. It is no good just to condemn such practices, it is the time for all of us to take real action to bring those people to book and prevent further atrocities in the future.
I am grateful for so many well-informed comments on my short article. The purpose of the article was not to provide an exhaustive analysis of Iranian and Western claims regarding Iranian nuclear program. The aim was merely to point out that if the West so desires there is a possibility of reaching an agreement during the forthcoming round of talks between P5+1 and Iran. The fact of the matter is that Israel and the United States have been accusing Iran of wanting to manufacture a nuclear bomb. There is no evidence for that. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, up to only a short time ago, Mr. Netanyahu was threatening an imminent war in order to stop Iran’s nuclear program, although now Israeli officials say that Iran will not have a nuclear device before 2015 or 2016. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139013/jacques-e-c-hymans/iran-is-still-botching-the-bomb?cid=soc-facebook-in-postscripts-iran_is_still_botching_the_bomb-022113
As the former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta pointed out, current U.S. intelligence indicates that Iranian leaders have not made a decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon. Nevertheless, he went on to say: “But every indication is they want to continue to increase their nuclear capability, and that’s a concern. And that’s what we’re asking them to stop doing.” Most clearly what the United States wants is for Iran to stop her legal nuclear activities, something that Iran has refused to do.
In order to break the logjam, there is need for compromise by both sides. Iran has already taken a few steps to defuse the crisis. As BRTL points out, the IAEA and even Israeli intelligence admitted publicly last October that Iran was diverting much of its enriched uranium to the production of medical isotopes. A UN report due this week is expected to detail a decrease in Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium because it is diverting much of the material to make fuel according to a Reuters report. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/20/us-nuclear-iran-iaea-idUSBRE91J13620130220 As I am not a scientist, I cannot give a clear answer to Bill Buckel’s question, but in any case all Iran’s nuclear stockpiles are under IAEA inspection, and there is very little possibility of their diversion to military uses.
As Maz says, the sanctions imposed by the Congress have really tied the president’s hands, but the Security Council sanctions which even the Russians and the Chinese have agreed to implement are less stringent than unilateral sanctions imposed by the US Congress. European countries could say that while they would still abide by the Security Council sanctions they would ease up on additional US-imposed sanctions in order to reach a compromise. In order to enable them do so, Iran needs to make some additional gestures during the forthcoming talks. This is why I suggested that Iran could open up all her sites, by which I clearly meant all her nuclear sites, for inspection. Although Parchin is not a nuclear site, nevertheless, on the basis of some intelligence provided by an unnamed country the IAEA wants to visit that site again. Under Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA was allowed to visit Parchin and they did not find any incriminating evidence there. In order to show goodwill, Iran can allow the inspectors to visit that site again. However, Iran maintains that the IAEA keeps making more and more demands without giving anything in return. Iranian officials say that they are willing to allow Parchin to be inspected again, provided that it would be the end of such demands and that they would get something in return, but sadly what the West is offering in return is so puny as to be laughable. The ultimate aim should be Iran’s acceptance of the Additional Protocol (as she already did under President Khatami) and full access to IAEA inspectors to all her nuclear sites in return for the lifting of sanctions.
In any case, although the sanctions are hurting the Iranian people they do not seem to have produced the desired result. In fact, Iranian economy is not doing so badly. As the result of the restrictions on the sale of oil, Iran has concentrated on non-oil exports, which have shown a big increase. Iran’s non-oil exports will surpass $50 billion by the end of the current Iranian year (March 20), showing 30 per cent increase on the export of industrial and mineral goods. http://www.payvand.com/news/13/feb/1147.html
In the long term, the continuation of sanctions will make Iran less reliant on oil revenue. Despite intense US pressure, Pakistan has again reached out to Iran for energy security and wants to start the construction of a $1.5 billion gas pipeline. http://www.payvand.com/news/13/feb/1173.html
Soon other countries will also feel less constrained by US sanctions and will start doing business with Iran.
Iran’s next presidential election is just over three months away. Despite many Iranian overtures to the West under President Khatami, the United States responded with “the Axis of Evil” speech. More than anything else, that rebuff by the West resulted in the election of Mahmud Ahmadinezhad who advocated a tough policy towards the West. The rejection of Iran’s extended hand on the eve of the next presidential election would ensure the victory of another rightwing president and a further deterioration in relations between Iran and the West. On the other hand, if the Iranians can see a light at the end of the tunnel and the prospects of better relations with the West, there is every possibility for the victory of a more moderate candidate that would pave the way for a real breakthrough with the Obama Administration. If Iran and the West fail to break the current deadlock under this administration, the likelihood is that the situation would be much more dangerous under the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic. This is why it is important to use the forthcoming talks for ending the current deadlock.
Like most languages, Urdu has been used both by saints and scholars, as well as by terrorists. German was used both by Goethe and by Hitler, and Persian is the language of Ferdowsi, Rumi, Sa’di, and Hafiz, as well as of some narrow-minded, dogmatic and fundamentalist bigots. It is worth pointing out that more people speak Urdu in India as a mother tongue than in Pakistan (at least 55 million people in India, as opposed to 15 million in Pakistan), and together with Hindi, which is very akin to it, it is the fourth most commonly spoken language in the world (after Mandarin, English and Spanish). It is also so close to Persian that most Persian speakers understand at least 80 per cent of written or spoken Urdu. Therefore, there is no need to apologize for it in the face of some misguided descriptions of it as the ‘Muslim language’ or the ‘language of terrorists’. If for no other reason but for the fact that Iqbal Lahuri wrote some of his most beautiful poems in Urdu as well as in Persian, Urdu deserves a high place in the linguistic chart in the world.
I completely agree. What is happening in the Middle East is a region-wide civil war between an Islamist and a secular worldview, between various ideas of what it is to be an Arab or an Iranian or a Turk. Apart from the period immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union, we can turn our minds back to Western civil wars. The English Civil War (1642-16510) was a similar war between absolutist monarchy and parliamentarian democracy, between religious fundamentalism and secularism. Historical records count 84,830 dead, and counting the two Bishops' wars altogether more than 190,000 people were killed. It is estimated that roughly one in ten adult male population died.
The American Civil War (1861-1865) was equally brutal, which produced about 1,030,000 casualties, including 620,000 soldiers' deaths. Roughly three per cent of the population died, which would correspond to over nine million deaths out of today's population. More American soldiers died during the Civil War than in all foreign wars that America has fought.
The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) fought between fascism and republicanism resulted in 50,000-200,000 deaths. Thousands of Republicans were imprisoned and at least 30,000 were executed. The French and Russian revolutions produced even more casualties.
In comparison, revolutions in the Middle East, even in Libya and Syria, have been less brutal, and given the total rejection of theocracy by most Iranians and the ongoing battles against Islamism in Egypt, the hope is that future will belong to secular democracy. However, we need to be patient and above all to stop interfering in domestic affairs of other countries.
While it is good to see that the Israeli electorate is not as rightwing as its leaders and it has to some extent humiliated the extreme right politicians, it is the sign of how far the country has moved to the right when one can refer to Yarid Lapid as a centrist. While he is certainly an improvement on some of the scary people on the right of Israeli politics, if quotes attributed to him are correct, he is by no means a moderate politician in favor of negotiating an honorable deal with the Palestinians.
Arutz Sheva recently quoted him saying: “What I want is not a new Middle East, but to be rid of them and put a tall fence between us and them.” The important thing, he added, is "to maintain a Jewish majority in the Land of Israel." Regarding the status of Jerusalem that the international community and international law demand that should be divided or jointly run by the Israelis and Palestinians, Lapid said: "The Palestinians must be brought to an understanding that Jerusalem will always remain under Israeli sovereignty and that there is no point for them in opening negotiations about Jerusalem." http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/164389#.UP_7-EqLI2Z
So any coalition between Netanyahu and Lapid would ensure the continuation of former policies, with a veneer of respectability for those policies as the result of Lapid’s so-called centrist position.
Given the total number of the terrorists and the hostages, it seems that the Algerian forces have done as well as could be expected and contrasts favorably with the French attempt to release one of their hostages a few days ago in Somalia.
However, while the West is righty condemning the terrorists who attacked Ayn Imnas complex, it is strange that they are supporting and in some cases arming the same Jihadi and Salafi fighters who are fighting against the government in Syria.
It is good to see another excellent translation of Omar Khayyam again. In the Persian version given by Whinfield, there is a mistake in the first line, which also appears in translation. The line should read "chun vaqef ne'i ey pesar ze har asrari", namely "Since you're not aware of all the mysteries..." The meter is wrong without that ne'i, and it also does not correspond with the second line "Since you're not going to get your way..."
Thank you for your response to my comment. I am a strong supporter of the state of Israel and hope that it will stay strong and live in peace next to a Palestinian state on pre-1967 borders. However, I feel that the present Israeli policies and almost unquestioning US support for those policies are not conducive to that outcome.
You are right to point out that US support for Israel comes with some strings attached. It is clear that when a superpower with global responsibilities provides billions of dollars to a small country and guarantees its security it would want to get something in return, but the US-Israeli relations are very lopsided and many people may be excused in believing that in this case it is the tail that wags the dog. The Obama Administration called on Israel to stop building additional settlements in the occupied territories in contravention of international law, yet on the day that Vice-President Biden arrived in Israel, Israeli officials provocatively announced the construction of thousands of new homes.
President Obama made great efforts to revive the so-called “Peace Process”, but Netanyahu refused to budge and in practice humiliated the US president. Yet, shortly afterwards, Netanyahu was invited to address the joint session of Congress, and while trashing the entire basis for the peace process he was given some 30 standing ovations.
The US has vetoed practically every single UN Security Council resolution that has been critical of an Israeli policy, more vetoes in the case of Israel than all other vetoes combined. Very often, it has been 14 votes against one. In most cases, such as the barbaric attacks on Gaza both in 2008-09 and last year and the attack on the aid flotilla in international waters, the US blocked the issue even being discussed by the Security Council.
In the recent UN General Assembly Resolution that recognized the Palestinian Authority as an observer state and the one condemning Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, America was practically alone in voting against the resolutions. The latter resolution was passed with 174 votes for and six votes against and six abstentions. With the exception of the United States and Canada, only the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, and Israel voted against that resolution. Such partisan behavior is certainly not in America’s interest. It reduces the status of a global power to that of Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau.
Your comment about Netanyahu being able to stop terrorism tomorrow by expelling every single inhabitant of Gaza does not deserve an answer, but your argument that a weakened Israel might feel desperate enough to do it should also apply to other countries that feel threatened. We prohibit Iran or North Korea from having a nuclear program and we forbid many other countries in the Middle East from having long-range missiles because they might use them against Israel, but it seems that in the case of Israel they should be armed to the teeth, while the countries that Israel threatens should not have the means to protect themselves. This is not the issue of being leftwing or rightwing, but a simple issue of fairness and respect for international law.
It was quite predictable that someone would soon pop up to throw dirt prepared by various neocon and AIPAC sources at Hagel and claim that their opposition to him had nothing to do with his sane and balanced views regarding relations with Israel and not wanting to rush to war against Iran, which even by the admission of a large number of Israeli officials, has no nuclear weapons, in order to please the rightwing leaders of Israel, which has hundreds of nuclear weapons. However, by now, the tactics are well known, and they will not fool anyone. Here is an article by Charles W. “Chas” Freeman Jr. about a repeat performance by the Israeli lobby regarding Hagel
Let us hope that as Professor Cole has pointed out, the latest hysterical outbursts will further expose the Israeli Lobby, and as Robert Parry says in the following article it will be the Neocons’ last stand, but I somehow doubt it
"I'm a US Senator, not an Israeli Senator." If more US politician could remember which country they were supposed to serve, both America and Israel would be much better off for it. The blind, unquestioning subservience to rightwing Israeli demands has encouraged Israeli extremists to think that they are above the law and act in ways that are detrimental to the long-term Israeli interests, not to say anything about US interests. If for no other reason but for the above statement Chuck Hagel deserves to be appointed secretary of defense. If his nomination is blocked by a bunch of extremist Zionist zealots it will send a wrong message to the world and would also prove the worst accusations about the inordinate strength of the Israeli lobby in US politics.
This excellent article, and especially Figure five, starkly show that America is on the wrong path. As Dr. Martin Luther King said, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” We really should not be surprised at Newtown shooting. As the NRA apologists say, it is not the guns that kill, it is the people who kill. Their twisted logic seems to have some truth to it after all, because it is the violence in society that gives rise to events such as the shooting of children in Newtown and thousands of deaths with firearms in US streets. We cannot pursue a militaristic policy abroad and remain immune from its effects at home. Ultimately, it will come to bite us.
This diagram provided by an unnamed official “from a country critical of Iran’s nuclear program” is as crude as Netanyahu’s comic bomb cartoon used in his UN speech and as reliable as “yellow cake from Niger”. It really shows how desperate they are getting to fabricate something incriminating Iran in the face of overwhelming evidence, no less by the IAEA, the US intelligence NIE, and even former Israeli MOSSAD leaders that there is absolutely no sign of the diversion of Iran’s enrichment program towards military purposes. This time the world should not fooled by such lies, but of course meanwhile they have achieved their purpose as Iranian people are suffering under the most stringent sanctions ever devised, affecting their banks, imports and exports and even resulting in the shortage of medicine, and there is no sign of a rethink in US policies after the election.
This excellent analysis should be read by everyone who wishes to vote in the forthcoming election. The neoconservatives who have brought the world to the present perilous situation want to turn the clock back, despite the fact that their warmongering philosophy was rejected roundly by American people and has been shown as a ghastly failure by history.
Do they think that the Americans have such a short memory and have already forgotten the calamity that President Bush's wars created for America and the world. Even President Bush learned that lesson during his second term. Governor Romney and his ultra rightwing advisors are much more extreme and dangerous than even President Bush and Vice-President Cheney during their first term.
The oft-repeated lie by Bush and Blair that they did not know that Saddam Hussein did not possess Weapons of Mass Destruction must be shown for what it is. Apart from the reports of the inspectors that they had not discovered any WMD, the so-called “Downing Street Memo”, which came to light in May 2005, clearly shows that Blair knew that Bush was manipulating the truth in his determined build-up to the invasion of Iraq as early as 2002. The memo summarized a meeting of Blair and his top defense and intelligence aides that had taken place on July 23, 2002, more than a year before the start of the invasion. It reported the head of the British foreign intelligence service, MI6, who had just returned from Washington after meeting with top US government and intelligence officials, saying: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
If Blair possessed any facts about Iraqi WMD he did not need to fabricate the “Dodgy Dossier”.
Worse still for Goldsmith’s argument that the first Security Council 1441 justified the invasion of Iraq, the British ambassador at the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was one of the main architects of the resolution, told the council when it was being voted on:
“We heard loud and clear the concerns about ‘automaticity’ and ‘hidden triggers’ – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Security Council.
Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have just adopted. There is no ‘automaticity’ in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required by paragraph 12.”
Despite great efforts, Bush and Blair failed to get a second resolution. Therefore, the invasion of Iraq was morally and legally wrong.
The whole situation would have been hilarious were it not so tragic. Here is the only country in the Middle East with a huge nuclear arsenal, probably the third biggest nuclear power in the world, a country that has unilaterally attacked practically all its neighbors repeatedly, a country that is breaking international law not only by not evacuating occupied Palestinian territory but is expanding its illegal occupation as an affront to the whole world. Meanwhile, the leaders of that country almost on a daily basis say that they will attack Iran because it might at some point in the future have the capability of producing a single bomb! For the record, Peres is the person who is guilty of nuclear proliferation by arming Israel with nuclear weapons through deception.
All that he is now saying is not that an attack on Iran on those dubious grounds is wrong and illegal, he says that Netanyahu has to trust President Obama that he would attack Iran after the election if Iran does not stop its perfectly legal enrichment program. The reign of the mullahs is a disgrace and a tragedy for Iran, but the outrageous Israeli warmongering really is beyond the pale and requires a firm response from the international community before it is too late. Had the Israeli leaders been brought to justice for their war crimes against the Lebanese and especially against the defenseless people of Gaza who are kept in an open prison they would not dare call so openly for an attack on Iran, which would probably kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians in the process and would plunge the entire Middle East into chaos and bloodshed, so that some Zionist extremists could achieve their dream of Greater Israel.
Excellent coverage and excellent news. While the military in Turkey was powerful, it did not have a powerful and organized party to oppose it. There were many small parties in Turkey, ranging from extreme right to extreme left. However, in Egypt the largest party from whose ranks Mursi emerges is behind the president. It is surprising that Mursi moved against the powerful military so soon after Secretary of State Clinton's visit with her promise of continuing aid and closer links between the Egyptian and American armed forces.
While it is good to see that the elected president is asserting himself so soon after assuming power, what one has to watch is that he does not misuse his powers and will not establish a fundamentalist government. So far so good!
As someone who loves America and has great respect for Americans I find the behavior of Mitt Romney both during his visit to the United Kingdom and to Israel most embarrassing. It is truly sad to see the man who wishes to lead that great country and be “the leader of the free world” going cap in hand to a foreign land beginning for donations and making illegal and outrageous remarks about one of the most sensitive issues in international politics in the hope of getting some votes from rightwing Jews and evangelical Christians.
What he says about Jerusalem is not just illegal but also extremely dangerous, because it does not just affect the fate of a few million Palestinians but is the number one issue for 1.5 billion Muslims. At a time when most of the Middle East is on fire his remarks about Jerusalem and his warmongering bluster about Iran are likely to reignite the Arab-Israeli conflict and redirect the hostility of Muslim militants towards Israel. I believe that most sensible Jews and Christians are better than that and I hope that they will show that they will not allow international security to be jeopardized so that a cardboard man can get a few more votes.
The line "dar jam'e kamal sham'e ashab shodand" (In the circle of perfection [of wisdom] they shone like candles among apostles" may be an oblique reference to the Prophet Muhammad, because ashab or sahaba are terms that are used to refer to the Prophet's companions. So, the line is not only a reference to scholars and scientists, but Khayyam means to say that even the prophets did not find a way out of this "dark night" (shab-e tarik), but delivered some myths and fell deep asleep.
Although a covert US war in Somalia and Yemen has been an open secret for a long time, it is good that at last it has been officially admitted. A couple of points come to mind in this connection. First of all, the United States strongly condemns the Syrian government for its violent crackdown of the opposition that it calls terrorists and al-Qa’ida affiliates, while in Yemen where the situation is very similar to Syria, US government provides every support to the government to crack down on the opposition and even joins in the action. The second disturbing point is about the fairly widespread use of drones, because it blares the distinction between a war and extra-judicial killing. As a recent article in New Internationalist Magazine asks, “By preying on the weak and flouting all rules and conventions, is drone warfare a manifestation of our more primitive urges?” The article correctly points out: “Paradoxically the more people killed in these wars the more paranoid American leadership becomes about matters of security – a natural outcome of following irrational policies.” http://www.newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2012/06/14/drone-killings-animal-instincts/
This is the best and clearest summary of various Egyptian presidential candidates that I have read. In view of the candidates trying to be all things to all people, there is a joke in Egyptian media referring to them as Ra'is al-Tawafuqi, or bipartisan presidents. There was a lovely cartoon in an Egyptian newspaper, with a woman having a scan to learn about the sex of her child. When both parents excitedly asked the doctor if it was a boy or a girl, the doctor replied: “It is bisexual.”
There is another joke going round that as there are so many candidates will similar views the best option would be for Sabahi to be president on Saturdays, Musri on Sundays, Abou’l-Futouh on Mondays, Shafiq on Tuesdays, Moussa on Wednesdays, al-Shater on Thursdays, and then people could assemble in Tahrir Square every Friday to chant: “Down with all of them!”
This is brilliant and so timely, when once again the issue of race and color is raising its ugly head, may be even during the forthcoming presidential election. Your piece shows the absurdity of dividing the people according to their racial or ethnic or even religious backgrounds. Indeed, when European scholars began to write about race, they identified only two races, the Caucasians (white and beautiful) and the Mongolians (brown and ugly). The irony is that many people, including over one million Iranians who have immigrated to the United States, many of whom come from the Caucasus, are classified as ethnic groups, and not as white. Max Weber rightly maintained that ethnic groups were artificial and a social construct, and of course they evolve over time. Historically, all societies have been formed as the result of waves of migration and it is difficult to find any pure races. In fact, on the basis of DNA studies we are all related together and there is only one race, the human race.
Apart from the folly of trying to bully India to stop purchasing Iranian oil or to reduce the amount, these pressures clearly show the insincerity of the Obama Administration about wishing to resolve Iran’s “nuclear issue” in a peaceful manner. After the last round of talks in Istanbul, Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and the head of the 5+1 negotiating team with Iran, described the talks as “positive and constructive”. If the Obama Administration were really sincere about wishing to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue through diplomatic means and without resorting to a devastating war, it would ease up the pressure on Iran prior to the next round of talks in Baghdad on 23 May, and give the negotiators a chance to reach a mutually beneficial resolution to the dispute. Yet, for the past few weeks, Hillary Clinton, Time Geithner and the ever-present Under Secretary of the Treasury Stuart Levy, whose sole job both under Bush and Obama Administrations seems to have been to tighten the economic noose round Iran, have been running like headless chicken to various countries, especially to Japan, China and India, to persuade them to cut off trade links with Iran. Such efforts are nothing short of trying to create an economic blockade round Iran. Why should the Iranians trust the goodwill of the West in nuclear talks, when they see such frenzied activities by those who are allegedly trying to find a peaceful solution to the nuclear issue?
The fact of the matter is that the Iranians and the Indians come from the same Indo-European stock. Their ancient Old Persian and Sanskrit languages come from the same root. They have had economic, cultural, political and social contacts with one another for thousands of years. Why should they sever those links in order to serve the short-term interests of Israel and its Western backers?
It is said that when Mahatma Gandhi came to Britain to talk about India’s independence, a rather overbearing English lady asked him: “Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of British Democracy?” to which Gandhi replied: “It would be a good idea”. Most of us believe that democracy is a good idea, our problem is that many nations including most Western countries have deviated from the true meaning of democracy. Elections do not make a democracy. Iran both under the Shah and under the Mullahs, Egypt under Hosni Mubarak and before, Israel under various regimes and even apartheid South Africa held regular elections. What democracy needs is true accountability of the rulers, something that is sadly lacking in most democracies, otherwise the likes of Tony Blair, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Ehud Barak, Netanyahu and many others would be at the Hague rather than sitting pretty in their fancy homes. One great American asset, which has so far remained intact but is in great danger of being lost, is the freedom of expression. Of course, even that does not mean that people like Juan Cole would be invited to write OpEds for New York Times and Washington Post on a regular basis, but at least they are tolerated to have their say outside the mainstream media.
One major distortion of American democracy has been the growing role that tainted money has been playing in public discourse, giving rise to the remark that the American democracy is the best that money can buy. What we should demand is a limit on the power of money and lobbies over politics, genuine freedom of expression for all, the rule of law, accountability and adherence to international law. Nearly ten years ago, the late Edward Said wrote a good article for the Guardian, under the title of “Give us back our democracy” which is still worth reading. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/20/usa.iraq
Trying to link Iran with terrorist groups and even with Bin Ladin is nothing new. On the day when 9/11 happened, the then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak who was stopping over in London after having visited the US on September 10, said that the “fight” had to go beyond Bin Laden and “the Palestinian resistance groups” to include countries that allegedly supported and harbored them, including “Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, to a certain degree North Korea and Libya, Sudan and a few other regimes that play a secondary role.” Benjamin Netanyahu also jumped on the bandwagon and tried to use the ghastly act to agitate against the states that were hostile to Israel. The Jerusalem Post reported Netanyahu’s calls for a coalition against “terrorist states like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian entity” that want to “devour the West.” This phony war has served Israel well, with Iraq, Libya, and Yasir Arafat’s “Palestinian entity” already removed, Sudan partitioned, Syria in turmoil and Iran being encircled by US forces and threatened with a devastating war.
Bin Ladin is dead but the mindset that was set in motion on 9/11 is still with us, both in America and sadly among the Israelis and the terrorists.
Link for the quotes: http://www.iranian.com/main/2010/sep/waking-9-11
Trying to link Iran with terrorist groups and even with Bin Ladin is nothing new. On the day when 9/11 happened, the then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak who was stopping over in London after having visited the US on September 10, said that the “fight” had to go beyond Bin Laden and “the Palestinian resistance groups” to include countries that allegedly supported and harbored them, including “Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, to a certain degree North Korea and Libya, Sudan and a few other regimes that play a secondary role.” Benjamin Netanyahu also jumped on the bandwagon and tried to use the ghastly act to agitate against the states that were hostile to Israel. The Jerusalem Post reported Netanyahu’s calls for a coalition against “terrorist states like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian entity” that want to “devour the West.” This phony war has served Israel well, with Iraq, Libya, and Yasir Arafat’s “Palestinian entity” already removed, Sudan partitioned, Syria in turmoil and Iran being encircled by US forces and threatened with a devastating war.
Bin Ladin is dead but the mindset that was set in motion on 9/11 is still with us, both in America and sadly among the Israelis and the terrorists.
"Without wine, purple flowers cannot grow" is a lovely twist to the line from Khayyam. However, the original line in most manuscripts reads "bi bade-ye golrang nami shayad zist", it is not seemly to live without rose-colored wine. In other words, spring showers have watered the grass and soon flowers will grow. In such a season it is not seemly to live without rose-colored wine.
The first comment in the NYTimes article that you quote reads: "The American Media is intent on propaganda not news. Their role is to support the American govt's versions of the events in the middle east and Syria as the west tries to reallign and reaarange the Middle east to serve their purpose and undermine the independence of governments." I trust Juan's expert opinion more than the accounts of a reporter.
The problem with Syria is that it is not the story of good versus evil, similar to the situation in Iraq. However, the fact remains that most of the killings of the Shi'is and Christians in Iraq took place by Sunni militants who were unhappy of having lost their former position. Similarly in Syria, the Christians will be better off under Asad's secular government than under a militant Wahhabi or Salafi government. The Alawites in Syria constitute only about 12 per cent of the population. If there is going to be the crackdown of minorities it would be by the Sunni majority against the Alawite minority, not vice versa. One has to condemn violence by any faction. The answer to the problems in Syria does not rest in a civil war or a sectarian conflict supported by Saudi Arabia and Iran, but in some form of reconciliation between the warring factions and arranging elections in the future to allow the Syrians to elect the government that they wish to have. Kofi Annan's mission is the best last chance for ending the conflict.
Again many thanks for these lovely translations.
The Whinfield's version of this ruba'i reads "guyand keh duzakhi bovad mardom-e mast" as translated by Juan (They say that drunkards are sonsigedn to hell), which does not correspond with the sixth line, namely "If loves and lushes are going to hell". Most other manuscripts have the above-mentioned line as "guyand keh duzakhi bovad asheq-o mast" (They say that lovers and drunkards are consigned to hell) which corresponds with the second half of the quatrain and is grammatically more correct.
Instead of concentrating on Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons, the well-meaning people in the West who would really like to help the Iranians and to create a more stable and harmonious world should concentrate on the clerical regime’s appalling human rights record, the growing government crackdown, the restrictions imposed both on the cyberspace as well as on the physical, mental and spiritual activities of the Iranians, their political participation, their freedom of expression, religious and ideological freedoms, free travel abroad, gender equality, universal right to education, etc.
A campaign for true freedom and democracy in Iran does not need bombs and bullets and will attract millions of Iranians who initially took part in the revolution with their slogans of “freedom, independence, social justice”, and who again poured to the streets in their millions three years ago after the fraudulent election results, asking “where is my vote?” If the West concentrated more on these issues and less on a military option they would find that a true and lasting regime change would take place from inside by the Iranians themselves. Thank you Juan for raising this issue.
These are some of President Obama’s most forthright, thoughtful and courageous statements on the issue of war with Iran that I have ever read. I am confident that when all the consequences of a war with Iran, or what some people in a cavalier tone refer to as “a strike on Iran”, are driven home the majority of Americans will see the irresponsibility and the idiocy of the warmongers. Unfortunately, given the number of platforms that the warmongers have at their disposal, there is need for much greater effort to bring home to the American public the forces that are at play and the cost of being led into another war based on lies, as was done in the case of Iraq. Watching a non-stop lineup of some very influential former officials and the usual pundits not only on the deplorable FOX News but sadly even on most of the more responsible media that should know better after the Iraqi debacle, one can see what a hill one has to climb to provide a small measure of balance to the debate. This is why web sites like this are not just useful, they are indispensable.
President Obama is surrounded by irresponsible hawks, not only among the Republicans, but among the Democrats too. He needs the assistance of all right-thinking people to bring his message to the public and to reveal the real motives of those who are pushing America to a disastrous war. We could not stop the Iraq war, but this is the time to put all minor squabbles aside, and unite for the rule of law in the international community, a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, justice for the Palestinians and to return America to its noble calling, namely to be a force for peace and a beacon of light to the rest of the world. This is a goal well worth fighting for.
Seeing that the leader of a tiny client state can bully the president of the world’s only superpower seems very strange to most people who watch this theater of absurd from abroad, but at least the Israelis themselves see it for what it is, as set out in the following article in Haaretz. I wish such articles could be published in US newspapers:
The alternative is to talk. Ever since the time of former President Mohammad Khatami who officially proposed serious dialog and the settlement of all issues with the United States, including Iran's support for Hizbullah and HAMAS and Iranian nuclear program that he suspended for over two years, and even Ahmadinezhad's various efforts to start a dialog with the United States have all gone unanswered. Anytime that Iranians have tried to extend a hand to America, Israel and its friends have made sure that they came to nothing. Even worse, they included Iran in the “Axis of Evil”. This is why Iranian voters have turned further to the right.
President Obama made a promise of talks with Iran, but apart from a short 40-minute informal chat between a US and an Iranian official on the sidelines of talks with the 5+1, there has been no serious effort to reach out to Iran. The clearest example of the lack of seriousness on behalf of the United States was when President Obama chose one of the most fanatical enemies of Iran, Dennis Ross, to be his point man on Iran. Dennis Ross who has never set foot in Iran, who knows nothing about Iran and who had campaigned assiduously against Iran prior to his appointment to that post was certainly the wrong person to put in charge of such an important shift in policy.
Even now, when both sides have seen the danger of loose talk about war, it is not too late for President Obama to start a serious dialog with Iran, to accept Iran’s regional status and to push for honest and transparent negotiations. Iranian people would be better able to get rid of their dictatorial regime when they have relations with the West than when they are under hardship and sanctions at the behest of Israel. Millions of Iranians who supported the Green Movement have not gone away, but they will not side with those who wish to destroy their country.
The Israelis and their allies in the West have invested so much time, money and effort into demonizing Ahmadinezhad that they are not willing to lose that asset to their propaganda machine. This is why they were very unhappy about the prospect of the election of a reformist and moderate candidate in 2009 presidential election. Shortly before the election, Ephraim Inbar, director of the Begin Sadat Center at Bar Ilan University, said: "Just because Moussavi is called a moderate or a reformist doesn't mean he's a nice guy. After all he was approved by the Islamic leadership. If we have Ahmadinejad, we know where we stand. If we have Moussavi we have a serpent with a nice image.”
The then Mossad Chief Meir Dagan told a panel of Israeli lawmakers: "If the reformist candidate Mousavi had won, Israel would have had a more serious problem, because it would need to explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat."
Many thanks for these fine translations. Although your daily political comments are much appreciated and very informative and enlightening, these eternal gems may outlast all the mundane and transient political issues and may prove to be your greater contribution to posterity.
One minor quibble regarding line four of the translation. I think by "dar kar-e khoda kon ma ra" he means "leave our affairs to God". Otherwise, go and mind your own business. it is more in keeping with the rest of the poem where he says that his actions are not wrong, it is only the cleric who sees them crookedly. The line could be correct if you meant to write : "Take a deep breadth, and don't do God's work for us."
Terrorism is a very subjective term, and is freely used by both sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of course, according to the Israelis, anyone who opposes them is a terrorist, but one should look at the behavior of each side to see who really is a bigger threat to whom. The ratio of the number of Hamas and Hezbollah that have been killed by Israel is probably more than 100 to one, compared to the number of Israelis killed by either of those organizations.
Hezbollah was formed after Ariel Sharon’s brutal war on Lebanon in 1982 in order to protect the Lebanese Shi’is. In that unprovoked war over 27,623 Lebanese were killed for 657 Israelis. The number of wounded Lebanese also ran into tens of thousands. The cities of Tyre, Sidon and Beirut were mercilessly bombed for days on end and huge destruction was caused. Meanwhile, thousands of refugees – men, women and children – were massacred in Sabra and Shatila camps by the Phalangists, as they were surrounded by Israeli forces that fired illuminating flares over the camps to assist with their gruesome task.
During the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, more than 1,300 Lebanese were killed for 121 Israeli. Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese were forced to flee and during the last days of the conflict Israel fired millions of small cluster bombs in South Lebanon to make the area uninhabitable.
During Israel’s barbaric attack on Gaza Strip in December 2008, at least 1,417 Gazans, including 926 civilians, were killed for 13 Israelis, ten of them by the so-called friendly fire. Israel used forbidden white phosphorous bombs and destroyed a huge part of Gaza’s infrastructure, including schools and hospitals. Israel’s siege and almost daily killing of people in Gaza still continues, mainly unreported by Western media.
If you ask the Palestinians or the Lebanese they clearly have a different interpretation of terrorists than yours.
I don't think that people are dumb. Indeed, it is a great tribute to the American people if only 71% of them think that Iran has nuclear weapons. Given the vicious, constant, clever barrage of propaganda from the media, the pundits and most politicians it is surprising that still 30% of Americans cannot be fooled. Anyone who watches the daily diet of most mainstream US media about the evil Iranians and their deadly weapons is bound to be affected by it. After all, this is why candidates and businesses spend millions advertising because it pays. The sites like this one cannot possibly compete with well-orchestrated campaigns with millions at their disposal. Nevertheless, better to lit a candle than curse the darkness.
It is very difficult at this point to jump into any conclusion about who carried out those attacks, but I think the following passage is quite instructive:
"...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) " -- Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, pages 84-85.
And all this assumes that an Israeli strike will be successful. There is a strong possibility that the Israeli attack will fail, with many Israeli aircraft shot down and a number of Israeli pilots held hostage. America would then have to either risk a global conflagration in order to dig Israel out of the hole that it has dug for itself, or let Israel suffer the consequences of a self-inflicted wound contrary to strong US advice.
In an item reported earlier today by USA Today an Israeli put his finger on it saying “…if we win, we win. And if we lose, we lose the country - and people are in denial that this could happen." The success of an Israeli attack on Iran would be hard for Iran but manageable, but the defeat of Israel in such a major venture could be the end of the country. Your final solution is the best option. Even in the unlikely event that Iran developed nuclear weapons, the best option would be to contain it, as has happened in the case of all nuclear states so far.
You are right to point out that there are echoes of Tennyson in Khayyam’s quatrain. This is because Tennyson was very much influenced by Persian literature. It is not often known that Tennyson spent a long time studying Persian with Professor Edward Byles Cowell who had also taught Fitzgerald Persian. Tennyson read the entire Divan of Hafiz in Persian, and imitated many of his poems. Compare the following lines from Maud which have a distinctly Persian flavor:
She is coming, my own, my sweet;
Were it ever so airy a tread,
My heart would hear her and beat,
Were it earth in an earthy bed;
My dust would hear her and beat,
Had I lain for a century dead,
Would start and tremble under her feet,
And blossom in purple and red.
with the following lines from a beautiful ghazal of Hafiz as translated by Gertrude Bell:
Where are the tidings of union? that I may arise -
Forth from the dust I will rise up to welcome thee!
When to my grave thou turnest thy blessed feet,
Wine and the lute shalt thou bring in thy hand to me,
Thy voice shall ring through the folds of my winding-sheet
And I will arise and dance to thy minstrelsy.
And another ghazal:
When I am dead, open my grave and see
The cloud of smoke that rises from thy feet!
In my dead heart the fire still burns for thee;
Yea, the smoke rises from my winding-sheet.
Thank you for these lovely translations. I believe that, unlike some mystical poets, to Khayyam, who was a philosopher and one of the greatest freethinkers of all times, wine is the symbol of intellectual emancipation and the rejection of religious hypocrisy and dogmatism. He has a number of poems in the form of "guyand..." (it is said) and "man miguyam..." (but I say) in which he clearly rejects the idea of pure wine in heaven in favor of the juice of the grape. In my feeble translation of the first two lines (and I hope Juan will translate it into good English), one of the quatrains reads:
"It is said heaven with wine and houris is pleasant,
But I say the juice of the grape is pleasant
Ah, take the cash in hand and wave the rest;
Oh, the brave music of a distant drum!"
or
"It is said there will be a paradise with beautiful Houris
There will flow pure wine and honey;
If we have chosen the wine and the beloved, why blame us,
For this is going to be our lot at the end!"
There are quite a few quatrains like this, which make it clear that by wine he means the juice of the grape.
In another quatrain translated by Fitzgerald he again refers to wine as "tearing the garment of repentance"
Come, Fill the Cup, and in the Fire of Spring
The Winter Garment of Repentance fling;
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To fly - and Lo! the Bird is on the Wing
This shows that things are moving very fast. As one Tunisian commentator said on al-Jazeera "we had three leaders in 50 years, but now we have had three leaders in a single day".
However, as Juan has rightly pointed out, this is a very delicate situation and the country is poised between democracy and anarchy. Crowds have prevented some members of Ben Ali's family from fleeing the country and they have already killed his wife's nephew. They have set fire to the railway station in Tunis and scores of other buildings, especially those belonging to Ben Ali and his family have been looted and destroyed. Although understandably emotions are running very high, this is the time for the friends of Tunisia to urge caution. It is difficult to believe now that the Iranian revolution was initially progressive and called for greater freedom and democracy, but during the subsequent chaos it was hijacked by the clerics and resulted in a theocracy.
Some people seem to downplay the possibility of the Islamists taking power. Like most countries that have suffered from pro-Western secular dictatorships Islam seems to provide a welcome alternative, and religion has deep roots in all Islamic countries.
What should also alarm other Arab countries is that demonstrations are continuing for a second day both in Cairo and in Jordan. The events in Tunisia could have made a breach in the dam of Arab frustration and anger and it may engulf many other Arab countries. That could be a welcome development only if it leads to more freedom and democracy.
Thank you for your timely reminder of the dangerous situation in Lebanon, which might provide an excuse for another regional war.
When former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated on Feb. 14 2005, the West and particularly the Bush Administration directly blamed Syria for that murder, and the United States withdrew its ambassador from Damascus. The West orchestrated a massive media campaign and organized and funded the so-called Cedar Revolution that forced Syria to pull out all her forces from Lebanon by April 2005. Ironically, Syrian forces had been invited by Lebanon’s Christian-led government to protect the Christians during the bloody Lebanese Civil War of 1975-76.
Hariri of course had many domestic and foreign enemies besides Syria, including among rival Lebanese groups, the Israeli government, Islamic extremists, and powerful financiers with interests in his multi-billion dollar reconstruction efforts backed by Saudi Arabia. After Hariri’s assassination, a previously unknown group calling itself "Victory and Jihad in Syria and Lebanon" claimed responsibility for the attack, citing Hariri's close ties to the Saudi monarchy.
It is difficult to be certain whether some elements within the Hizbullah were responsible for Hariri’s death, but after all the accusations initially levelled against Syria, the cynics might be forgiven for wondering whether this time the charges are backed by evidence or whether they are once again politically motivated. If it is now established that the Hizbullah, rather than Syria, was responsible for the murder, are US officials going to publicly apologize for falsely accusing Syria of the crime?
It is possible that after engineering Syria’s isolation and withdrawal from Lebanon, it is now time to move to the next phase of the plan to put an end to Syrian and Iranian influence in that country, especially as the devastating July-August 2006 invasion of Lebanon failed to achieve that goal. After all, as well as offering a strategic rationale for deposing Saddam Hussein, “A Clean Break” famously laid out a blueprint for “securing the northern border”:
“Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which Americans can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by: [1] paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces, [2] striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.” (http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm)
It is often stated by various political pundits that the first stages of a conflict with Iran will be fought as a proxy war in Lebanon against Hezbollah and Syria. It's high time for the Lebanese to start nurturing a collective possessiveness and a unified solidarity towards a single Lebanon, instead of being divided on sectarian lines and also providing a recipe for foreign interference and war.
I believe that you are right to draw attention to the incendiary language that is used against some domestic opponents. It would also be good to provide some examples of blood-curdling remarks by some politicians against their foreign foes, and how easily they state that war should be declared on one country or another.
However, at least as far as the domestic scene is concerned, those inflammatory statements would not lead to the murder of politicians and innocent bystanders were it not for the ready availability of firearms. It is sad that after a short-lived period of handwringing after every gun-related outrage the issue is once again forgotten and everything goes back to normal, as was the case after the massacre at the Virginia Tech in 2007 that claimed 33 lives, or the Columbine school massacre in 1999 that claimed 15 lives, etc.
May be most Americans do not realize the extent of the disparity between the level of violence in that country compared to the rest of the world. According to federal data, the number of deaths in the US from firearms has gone up from 28,874 in 1999, to 31,224 in 2007. These are not figures for a normal country living in a state of peace. This is warfare. Out of the top ten worst cities for murder in the the United States and Europe, eight of them are American cities. In Japan there are 0.0049 murders for 1,000 people. In Switzerland it is 0.0092, in Norway 0.0106, in Denmark 0.0106, in Germany 0.0116, in the UK 0.0140, even in Indonesia it is 0.0091. In the United States it is 0.0428 for 1,000 people. The number of homicides in the United States is proportionately 40 times that of most European countries.
Compared to other countries in the industrialized world, these figures are not just high, but ridiculously so. More than 80 percent of all firearms deaths in 23 of the wealthiest nations in the world occur in the United States. Nearly 9 out of 10 women and children killed with firearms were killed here. And this has to be expected, as more than 5.4 million guns were produced in 2009 in the United States, to say nothing of trillions of dollars that the United States spends on waging war abroad, and tens of billions of dollars worth of deadly weapons that she exports to other countries, its most lucrative exports.
If these figures do not shock the Americans to re-examine their love affair with guns and their obsession with violence both at home and abroad, then nothing will. The Second Amendment was passed at a time when US standing army and police were weak and people were allowed to bear arms to protect themselves. Gun ownership has no place in a country which is the sole remaining super-power and which domestically wishes to live by the rule of law. It is time that the United States brought the easy access to firearms under some proper control and drastically cut its military spending, and turned more to diplomacy than war in her foreign policy.
Whether Sara Palin or the extreme right are directly responsible for the murders carried out by Jared Lee Loughner, one thing is certain that the United States political scene has become very polarised during the past few years. The language used by US politicians and commentators is no longer the discourse of civilized people rationally debating an issue, but the charged polemics of deadly enemies and religious fanatics demonizing their opponents.
Only two or three days prior to this dastardly act, when a fanatical gunman killed Salman Taseer, the moderate governor of the Punjab, in Pakistan for the crime of speaking against the blasphemy law, that murder was rightly criticized as a sign of sickness at the heart of the Pakistani society. Many Americans would not like to recognise an analogy between that act and the attempted murder of a moderate US Congresswoman, but some people outside the United States see the ready availability of firearms, the growth of the military-industrial complex and the philosophy of “full-spectrum dominance” as signs of a sickness at the heart of American society.
It is time for Americans to return to traditional civilities in their political and religious discourse and also to move away from too much reliance on guns and on a military-dominated foreign policy. History has shown that militarized societies have not only posed a threat to their adversaries, but ultimately to themselves, because violence breeds violence and has a corrosive effect on the society that condones it. This trend of political violence must be stopped before we see a repeat of the 1960s and greater tragedies to come.
Dear Amir,
Thank you for your comment. You are absolutely right to point out that the way women are treated in Iran and the restrictions on how they should dress are unforgivable. My point was not to defend the policies of the regime that are medieval, but simply to point out that, as it is clear from all the articles and comments on the web, Iranians including women do wear jeans, and in any case these human rights violations cannot be cured by invasion and regime change that Netanyahu seems to favor.
I was watching a program on Afghanistan recently and it showed that women are still suffering from many discriminations despite over 11 years of occupation, and sadly the situation may get worse after the withdrawal of American and ISAF forces as the Taliban have not been defeated and may make a comeback. A similar program on Iraq talked to many Iraqi women who said that their position was much worse than before the invasion. At least at that time they could get out of their houses and have jobs, but now they do not dare leave their homes. Women and children bear the brunt of war and occupation more than men do, because with their husbands killed they should still go on looking after their children. This is why quite a few women who were interviewed said that they had no option but to sell their bodies in order to feed their children. There are over one million widows in Iraq. My objection was to the false pretense of supporting the rights of Iranian people by advocating war.
All I know is that change should come from within through more education and from without by persuasion and pressure. I also know that a government that has relations with the West will be more open to criticisms of its human rights record in order to safeguard its interest.
The behavior of Iranian women since the revolution has been nothing short of heroic. They organized the very first mass demonstration after the revolution in protest to obligatory wearing of the veil or scarves, and since then they have been constantly at the forefront of reforms and protests. Once the West gives up the idea of invasion and "all the options are on the table", the next thing that is needed is a concerted attempt to improve the human rights situation in Iran. I only hope that the agreement between the West and Iran on its nuclear program will not be at the expense of ignoring human rights. That is the regime's true Achilles Heel.
As you point out, Netanyahu’s ignorant remarks have given rise to a great deal of mocking by thousands of web-savvy Iranians. This is one http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/22121 which shows different Iranians wearing jeans, including a young boy talking to the Supreme Leader, as well as one by the Iranian scientist who was murdered allegedly by Israeli agents talking to his daughter. In this new age of communication it is difficult to make such ill-informed remarks and not be held open to ridicule. What is frightening about Netanyahu’s remarks is that it shows that he knows so little about the new Iran that he wishes to bomb. While most regional countries including Turkey are becoming more religious, the majority of Iranians have turned against the rightwing clerics and against religion as a whole. A recent poll showed that only four or five per cent of Iranians regularly go to mosques and attend Friday prayers.
Iranians have proved that they are good at having fun on twitter and on social media as a whole. On his way back to Iran from New York last week, Foreign Minister Zarif twitted while he was airborne that he was not sure whether he was in Iranian territory or not yet. One of his fans twitted back “Dr. [Zarif] try to go to Facebook.com on your phone. If it’s blocked you’ve reached Tehran.” The twit immediately received thousands of “likes”. http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/22077
Thank you for correcting the erroneous impression given by some sections of Western media alleging that Iran’s religious leader Ali Khamenei and the commander of the revolutionary guards had condemned President Rouhani’s opening to the West. During the past few days there have been many reports with headlines such as, “Divide Seen Between Iran’s Supreme Leader, Rouhani”, or “Not Proper says Iran’s Supreme Leader”, “Iran’s Supreme Leader Criticizes Rouhani for Chatting with Obama”, exaggerating the tone of Khamenei’s remarks as though he had criticized the entire opening to the West.
As you point out, he was speaking to Iranian cadets and while supporting the government’s policy of détente he had to reassure the militants that it did not mean selling out to the West. In a way, his indirect reference to Ruhani’s telephone conversation with President Obama and his references to what he called “the international Zionist network” should be put against Prime Minister Netanyahu’s extreme remarks about Iran in his UN speech. Even President Obama during his meeting with Netanyahu again repeated his mantra of “all options are on the table, including the military option”. Not only Khamenei, but Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif said that he felt insulted by those remarks and said that they were at variance with the spirit of cooperation that was on display during his and Ruhani’s visit to New York.
The Iranians have also heard the remarks by US’s chief negotiator Wendy Sherman about deception being part of Iranian DNA. Sherman went on to say: “So since we know they're continuing with their nuclear program and because of the history that you point out, when Rouhani was the chief negotiator, 2003 to 2005, we know that deception is part of the DNA, we want to make sure that we can put some time on the clock for those comprehensive negotiations." The idea that Rouhani cheated during 2003-2005 negotiations have been totally debunked by many experts who were involved in the talks, http://www.lobelog.com/barking-up-the-wrong-tree/#more-21270
but still they are repeatedly used by neocons to discredit him.
Sadly, most governments engage in acts of deception, but referring to Iran’s alleged deception as “part of their DNA”, and that coming from someone with whom they have to negotiate, is bound to make Iranians suspicious of the good intentions of the other side. Sherman also told the Senate panel last Thursday that any diplomatic engagement with Iran will be accompanied by the “vigorous enforcement” of sanctions already in place, which she described as "the toughest sanctions the world has ever seen". In that case, why should Iranians take part in any negotiations at all.
In fact, several senators are preparing to propose a toughening of sanctions against Iran. Senator Robert Menendez who heads the Foreign Relations Committee has said that he intends to submit these proposals this week. Menendez was among several senators and congressmen who met with Netanyahu during his visit to the United States and said that they supported his call for harsher sanctions against Iran.
All this shows that both sides have a lot of work to do. The Iranians have to keep their hardliners on board, while President Obama has to keep not only AIPAC, but also US Congress and the Republican Party, not to say anything of Israel, onboard. I think in all fairness President Obama has a much tougher nut to crack.
Whatever one may think of the Iranian and Israeli policies, the speeches by Rouhani and Netanyahu at the UN General Assembly were in sharp contrast to each other. While Rouhani’s speech was measured and conciliatory, Netanyahu’s was rude, provocative and war-mongering. Rouhani did not mention Netanyahu or Israel once by name, but Netanyahu referred to Rouhani 29 times as a liar, as a charlatan, as a wolf in sheep’s clothing and as being responsible for many crimes, none of which has been proven. He said that Iran with a bomb was worse than 50 North Koreas, and he also practically threatened to attack Iran directly if America fails to do so. It was even worse than his speech last year with its crude diagram.
Sadly, it seems that what you say about Netanyahu as an expansionist hawk is true, but the speech shows that he is becoming unhinged. Even if he wishes to play his familiar spoiling game he should have done so in a more acceptable tone.
It is time for the US to tell Netanyahu that he does not make American foreign policy. He should not be allowed to sabotage a more rational diplomacy towards Iran after 34 years of estrangement. Israel’s bluff of being under “existential threat” from Iran’s non-existent nuclear bombs should be called, not behind closed doors but in public, and they should be told in no uncertain terms that while America is willing to ensure Israel’s security and to pay billions of dollars each year to a country with a high GDP, it is not willing to have her larger interests sacrificed for the sake of extreme Israeli ambitions. I believe that Netanyahu’s disgraceful speech has made that task easier. A comparison of that ill-tempered and violent speech with President Rouhani’s conciliatory speech should show everyone who is the true aggressor.
Not only does Israel enjoy conventional superiority over all her neighbors combined, she is the only country in the Middle East with hundreds of nuclear weapons. She has had a record of attacking practically all her neighbors, and her policies towards Iran have been very hostile. The Israelis have already attacked Iran with cybertools and sabotaged Iranian centrifuges, have killed Iranian scientists, and constantly threaten to bomb Iran’s nuclear installations.
Israel is not a party to Chemical Weapons Convention and is widely believed to have produced and stockpiled an extensive range of chemical weapons and is engaged in ongoing research and development of additional chemical weaponry. Israel is also believed to maintain a sophisticated biological weapons program, which is widely thought to include anthrax and more advanced weaponized agents and other toxins, as well as a sizable nuclear weapons arsenal with sophisticated delivery systems.
Despite all this, they are trying to push the United States to launch a military attack on Iran for having a peaceful enrichment program. Only yesterday, in the joint press conference with Netanyahu, President Obama repeated, “…as President of the United States, I've said before and I will repeat that we take no options off the table, including military options…” against Iran. Netanyahu for his part said that, “… the bottom line, again, is that Iran fully dismantles its military nuclear program.” He advised his host that, “pressures must be kept in place. And I think that they should not be lessened until there is verifiable success. And, in fact, it is Israel’s firm belief that if Iran continues to advance its nuclear program during negotiations, the sanctions should be strengthened.”
Whether Netanyahu will be able to prevent Iranian-US rapprochement or not, the fact is that he will pressurise his friends in the Congress to intensify the sanctions on Iran. However, regardless of Iran, for the sake of peace in the Middle East, including greater security for Israelis, the international community should get serious about setting up new security arrangements in the Middle East that will include a nuclear-free zone. As President Rouhani rightly said, “There are no good hands to hold those bad weapons.” That also applies to Israel.
The entire basis of Israeli propaganda about the “existential threat” that Iran allegedly posed for Israel was Iran’s nuclear bombs. Iranians have long maintained that they were not trying to acquire nuclear weapons, but as the result of Neo-con propaganda apparently a large percentage of Americans believe that Iran already possesses nuclear weapons. I believe that the most useful aspect of President Rouhani’s visit and his numerous appearances on the media was that most thinking Americans have now seen that the Israeli propaganda was just that, despite some media attempts to distort Iran’s stances
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/brian-williams-iran-propaganda
With this new public awareness and general welcome given to a rapprochement between the Unites States and Iran, I find it difficult to believe that Israeli hardliners will still be able to sell the need to bomb Iran in order to destroy its non-existent nuclear weapons.
I also think that the greater danger to Israel is if they attempt to bomb Iran and fail in their mission, as is most likely. Iran has considerable defenses around its nuclear installations, and it is possible that any attempt at bombing them would result in a number of Israeli aircraft and pilots being destroyed or captured, without having much to show for it. That would really explode Israel’s myth of invincibility even more so than their invasion of Lebanon in 2006 did. I hope that the Israelis would have the good sense to accept a Yes for an answer and change their course on Iran. There is no time better than now.
You are quite right to link the demonization of Iran by the Israelis with the fall of the Soviet Union. During the Cold War Israel was seen as a useful asset against Moscow and its regional allies. After the collapse of Soviet empire the Israelis had to find another way of justifying their importance to America and their multi-billion grant by US taxpayers. The issue of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons started precisely at that time, and it has paid useful dividends right up till now.
One can sympathize with the Israelis feeling vulnerable being surrounded by hostile neighbors, although some of that hostility is due to Israel’s foreign policies as well as the way it treats the Palestinians. However, now is the best time for them to let go of their fears and pursue a new course. Syria is destroyed, Egypt is in turmoil and will not pose a military threat to Israel for a very long time, if ever, and now with Iran proclaiming publicly that they have no intention of manufacturing nuclear weapons and also saying that they would accept any deal reached between Israel and the Palestinians, the Israelis can really relax and give peace a chance. Their main problem is domestic not foreign. What they have to do is to reach an honorable and viable agreement with the millions of stateless Palestinians, rather than look for real or imaginary enemies outside their borders.
Netanyahu and Ahmadinezhad needed each other and fed off each other. With Ahmadinezhad gone, Netanyahu must feel very lonely. The best sign that change in Iran is for real is the reaction of the reformists to President Rouhani’s policies at home and abroad. There is still a long way to go, but many reformists including political prisoners have put their support behind Rouhani and his détente with the West. It would have been too much to have expected Ahmadinezhad to change his views, even if he saw more moderate stances by the other side. The same is true of Netanyahu. The change should come from within. It is time for new elections in Israel, hopefully opting for a more moderate leader who can bring himself into line with the developments in the Middle East.
More than four million Iranians who left Iran – including about a million who came to the United States – due to the Islamic revolution, and especially millions of Iranians who had to stay home and put up with all the excesses of the Iranian government, the hostage crisis, and all that Iran went through as the result of foreign intervention, from the devastating eight-year war that killed and wounded a million Iranians, the summary executions of hundreds of former officials, the bloody infighting between the clerics and their erstwhile allies the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization [MKO], the Tudeh Party and other militant leftist groups, the execution of thousands of MKO prisoners on the orders of Khomeyni after the Mojahedin joined Saddam Hussein forces to attack Iran during the last phase of the war, etc. have no illusion about the nature of the Iranian clerical regime. Many Iranians believe that the Islamic revolution was unnecessary and that it gave rise to a reactionary regime that set Iran’s progress back by decades.
However, they also know that time moves on and that there is no point crying over spilt milk. Under President Mohammad Khatami there was great hope among many Iranians that his election would result in the gradual reform of the system from within without the need for too much bloodshed and would restore ties with the West. President Khatami’s unexpected election, with his slogans of dialog of civilization, a genuine move for greater freedoms at home, the flowering of the press and the arts, and an unprecedented era of reformist religious thinking, provided a great opportunity for better relations with the West. However, the prospects of better relations with Iran alarmed many neocons who wrongly believe that isolating Iran is good for Israel. From the first day of his election, Khatami was subjected to vilification by the Israelis and their friends in America, which culminated in David Frum’s inclusion of Iran in the Axis of Evil as read out by former President Bush in his State of the Union address in 2002. That put an end to any prospect of rapprochement between Iran and the United States and resulted in the election of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The unexpected election of President Hassan Rouhani has provided another opportunity for a serious dialog between Iran and the United States. Already many Israelis and their neocon friends are in a state of panic and are doing everything in their power to make sure that this opportunity is also stillborn like the previous one.
http://news.yahoo.com/no-time-left-negotiations-iran-israeli-minister-100029438.html
Many Iranians know that a resumption of relations with the United States will not resolve all the problems that Iran faces and will not create a true democracy overnight. However, they know that a government that has friendly relations with the West and is susceptible to Western views will moderate its policies both at home and abroad. They also know that any regime that is cornered and threatened will become more militant and ordinary people will suffer. The West should not miss this opportunity to take Iran seriously, to establish friendly relations with Iran and push it towards more moderate policies at home and abroad. Responding positively to Iran is not an act of favor, but something that is to the interest of the West and Middle Eastern peace and security as a whole. The Obama Administration should have the courage to seize the moment and push hard to bring Iran out from the cold. Such a move would be good for the United States, for Iran, as well as for the Middle East, including Israel.
The real situation is even worse than stated in this excellent article. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimate, the world's total military spending in 2011 was $1.738 trillion. Of that amount, US’s military spending was $711 billion – almost 41 percent – but if one adds the cost of the intelligence organisations, especially the CIA, that also carry out military operations, the United States spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined. At the same time, US arms sales tripled in 2011 to a record high and totalled $66.3 billion or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.23 billion in 2011.
That $1.738 trillion is several hundred times the World Health Organization's annual budget, which in 2010 was $5 billion. World military spending is also far more than a hundred times higher than the $10.8 billion budget of the U.S. Center for Disease Control. Just imagine what the world could do with a fraction of that budget.
As things seem to be going well for a possible rapprochement between Iran and the United States and even a meeting of the officials at the highest level, one should expect some dramatic events to take place to prevent the success of these moves, as has happened so many times before.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu has set out his conditions for any US-Iran talks in advance, namely, "There are four steps," Netanyahu said. "The first is the cessation of all uranium enrichment activity, the second is the removal of uranium from Iran, the third is the closure of the Qom facility and the fourth is the halting of plutonium enrichment."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4430693,00.html
All this of course while Israel holds on not only to her conventional superiority over all her neighbours, but to all her chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/53d6e1a2-1f89-11e3-aa36-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2fKHKWkRe
The definition "militant jihadists" is clear. It includes both home-grown jihadists and thousands of Al-Qaida-affiliated forces that have moved to Syria to establish and Islamic Emirate. There are some moderate elements among the opposition, but the militant jihadists and their backers are worse off, because they were hoping that with military attacks against airfields and Army installations they would move forward and topple Assad. You can now see by their reaction to the deal how angry and disappointed they are.
Dear Professor Cole,
I am truly amazed not only by the depth and range of your comments on the Middle East, but also by their timeliness, which is unusual among academics. One can find the most intelligent analysis of the most important current events even before they have been reported by the media. This makes Informed Comment a unique asset and a standard by which one can judge and correct the misinformation by the media and to gain access to an analysis of what the events really mean. I wish to thank you for this.
However, in your list of winners and losers, I think the greatest winner has been the cause of peace and common sense. A military attack, even if it had been approved by the Congress, which seemed unlikely, would have been illegal, would have compounded the problems, and would have portrayed the United States as an aggressive country. The Kerry-Lavrov accord has changed the pattern of behaviour inherited by the Bush Administration of unilateral wars.
The second biggest winner has been President Obama. Whether by luck or by design, his initial tough policy of the threat of force, followed by turning the issue to the Congress and starting a democratic nationwide debate, and finally forcing Syria to give up her chemical weapons have boosted President Obama’s stature as a cool, intelligent and brave leader who left himself open to a great deal of attacks by the neocons, as we have already seen from the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, for the cause of peace.
The third biggest winner is the cause of international law and international cooperation. An action without Security Council approval would have undermined the UN and would have also caused greater strains in US-Russian and US-Chinese relations. If the complex problems of the world are to be tackled we surely need these big powers, as well as Europe as a whole and not just Britain and France, to work together.
The biggest losers are the militant jihadists and their Saudi and Qatari backers who wanted to bring down a government, not at the ballot box but with a campaign of terror, a defeat that they richly deserve.
What is needed now is to call for a conference to declare a ceasefire and elections in Syria under UN supervision and for all sides to abide by the election outcome.
There is still a long way to go, but this is a great start. With the removal of chemical weapons from Syria it is time to declare a WMD-free zone in the Middle East and force Israel to declare her nuclear arsenal and get rid of them under international supervision.
Despite the carnage by both sides and the appalling suffering of the Syrian people, Syrian rebels reject the deal to strip the Syrian regime of chemical weapons and push for a conference to resolve the conflict.
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Syrian-rebels-reject-deal-to-strip-regime-of-chemical-weapons-325902
Meanwhile, Turkey prosecutes rebels for seeking chemical weapons, adding to the suspicion that some rebels definitely tried to gain access to chemical weapons
http://rt.com/news/turkey-syria-chemical-weapons-850/
Bill,
Your assertions are not supported by facts. Japan’s peace messages that were communicated to Russia and through them to the West make it clear that the Japanese had decided to surrender long before the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Here are a few examples of Japanese peace messages:
July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".
* July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs, to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).
July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government."
The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
President Truman knew of the messages' content, noting, for instance, in his diary on July 18, "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" (Robert Ferrell, ed., Off the Record - the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, pg. 53).
According to the report of a panel that had been requested by President Truman to study the Pacific war, "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (Bernstein, ed., The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56)
According to William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.”
When General Dwight Eisenhower was informed by Secretary of War Stimson of the decision to drop the nuclear bombs he opposed the decision. "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
The bombs were dropped firstly to test them and secondly to show the Soviet Union that America possessed them. This was the first shot in the Cold War. The poor Japanese were merely sacrificial lambs in the bigger geopolitical game.
Many Europeans are rightly skeptical about the intelligence provided by US officials about who was responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Ghouta:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36028.htm#idc-cover
They also see who is mainly pushing for this war:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pro-israel-and-jewish-groups-strongly-back-military-strike-against-syria/2013/09/03/f7499a96-14a3-11e3-b182-1b3bb2eb474c_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines
On a separate note, today the EU court threw out Iran sanctions, saying that there was not sufficient evidence to justify sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe on Iranian banks. This will embarrass many European countries that blindly followed America’s lead on sanctions on Iran:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36028.htm#idc-cover
The hard-pressed Syrian Christians have complained from the beginning of the conflict about the atrocities committed by the militant groups against them. As early as April 3, 2012, the Orthodox Church News published an article with the headline “Obama-backed Syrian Rebels ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ of Christians.” The article pointed out that already the jihadists had expelled 50,000 Christians from the embattled city of Homs, which accounted for 90 per cent of the Christian community there. The Orthodox Church referred to the persecution as the “ongoing ethnic cleansing of Christians” by Muslim militants linked to al Qaeda. According to its report, the so-called “Faruq Brigade” was largely to blame, with Islamic extremists going door to door and forcing the Christians to leave without even collecting their belongings. Their property was then stolen by rebels as “war-booty from the Christians.” Almost exactly the same thing happened in Iraq where large number of Iraqi Christians were slaughtered or forced to flee by the radical groups. However, in their fanatical crusade to weaken Iran by removing the Assad regime Western media and Western politicians totally ignored those reports.
http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2012/04/obama-backed-syrian-rebels-ethnic-cleansing-christians/
American military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen or Libya have not resulted in establishing peace, human rights and democracy. On the contrary, all those countries are still reeling as the result of the military devastation that they have suffered at the hands of US forces.
It is sad that the Republicans fought President Obama on practically everything during the past five years, but as soon as there is talk of war they all rush forward to support the president. It seems that war is the only issue that unites Republican and Democratic leaders. The only conclusion from this bizarre situation is that sadly American politicians have become addicted to war and bloodshed, and the talk of military operations gets the blood racing through their veins.
The American public, which is overwhelming opposed to war, should stop yet another military adventure that causes more misery to the majority and only benefits the one per cent and the military industrial complex. Far from helping American credibility in the eyes of the world, this illegal war will further erode American credibility and will portray it as a country that is out of control and that can only communicate with the language of violence. This is contrary to American ideals.
This is a remarkable statement by Hashemi-Rafsanjani whatever his motives. President Rowhani and Foreign Minister Zareef have also condemned the use of chemical weapons, although they have not apportioned blame. Personally, I have my doubts about who used the crude weapons, despite the orchestrated "intelligence" findings, originating from Israel and repeated by Britain, France and the United States. We had the same confident statements about WMD prior to the Iraq war. At least we have to wait for the report by the UN team.
It seems that those who were pushing for regime change in Syria are going to get their way. In a long, chilling interview with Justin Web on BBC Four’s “Today Program” this morning, General Jack Keane said that he had talked to Senators McCain and Graham after they had been briefed by President Obama. They were confident that the president planned not only to deter the further use of chemical weapons, but to degrade President Assad’s forces by attacking all his command and control centers and military installations leading to a regime change.
By the way the full translation of the video clip of Rafsanjani’s speech that you have posted is as follows:
"Our present problems are real problems. We are under embargo. We are under sanctions. We are under boycotts. We cannot make use of our resources. We cannot sell our oil, and even if we can sell it we will not be able to return its money [to the country]. If we buy some goods we have to buy them at inflated prices and have to pay extra expenses for transferring them, and many other problems. Recently, we are witnessing an even bigger threat. You certainly can see, you watch the news. At the moment, America and the West as a whole and a number of Arab countries have practically declared war on Syria, and at any moments ears [people] are waiting to hear the roar of missiles and bombs. May God have pity on the Syrian people! During the past two years, the Syrian people have been living under very bad conditions. They have suffered more than 100,000 killed and seven to eight million have become displaced, at home and abroad. The prisons are full of people. There is no room left in the prisons, so they used sports stadiums [as prisons] and have filled them. People are under very bad circumstances. On the one hand, the people come under chemical bombings by their own side, by their own government, and on the other hand they have to wait for American bombs."
To his credit, today Secretary Kerry strongly condemned the massacre. I wish there had been a stronger denunciation of the coup, which the American officials are still reluctant to call it by its proper name, earlier on because it might have prevented this dreadful massacre. Until we are prepared to stand by our principles and condemn dictatorship and military rule everywhere, including in the countries that are allegedly our allies, our support for democracy will not be believed and will seem hypocritical. Even at this late hour, a strong condemnation of the coup and the state of emergency may prevent similar occurrences in other countries.
There really is no cause for alarm. After all, there was no coup in Egypt. In the words of some US commentators it was merely a “military revolution” or “the second revolution”. The leading neocon champions of democracy approved what has happened in Egypt. Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute in a column on July 7 wrote: “If democracy is the goal, then the United States should celebrate Egypt’s coup… Rather than punish the perpetrators, Obama should offer two cheers for Egypt’s generals and help Egyptians write a more democratic constitution to provide a sounder foundation for true democracy.”
Frank Gaffney, from the Center for Security Studies went even further and in an article on July 4th, he wrote: “On the eve of our nation’s founding, Egypt’s military has given their countrymen a chance for what Abraham Lincoln once called ‘a new birth of freedom.”
When the Egyptian revolutionaries were calling for the removal of President Mubarak, the other great advocate of democracy in the Middle East, Tony Blair said: “Mubarak is very courageous and a force for good.” When Mubarak was toppled, this champion of democracy predicted: “His fall is a pivotal moment for democracy in Egypt”. After the coup, writing in the Observer, he praised the army and said “the Egyptian army had no alternative but to oust President Morsi from power, given the strength of opposition on the streets.” I am sure that at the time when his and President George Bush’s popularity was at an all time low, he would have advocated the use of force by the army to remove the unpopular government, especially given the strength of opposition on the streets to the Iraq war.
More recently, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry expressed strong approval of the Egyptian military's removal of former President Mohamed Morsi in a statement he made to Pakistan's Geo News on August 2. Kerry said the military was "restoring democracy" when it ousted Morsi, which he said was at the request of "millions and millions of people."
http://uk.mg.bt.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.partner=bt-1&.rand=e0rl18ge2ss5q#mail
Welcome to the new version of democracy! Does anyone wonder any more why Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning have no place in this new democratic world?
These are the figures announced by the Iranian Interior Ministry, for those who are interested. This is the first time since President Khatami's reformist government that the election has not gone to the the second round. This shows that when the elections are relatively fair and free, the majority of Iranians opt for change and reform. Here are the figures:
"Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar announced on Saturday that of a total of 36,704,156 ballots counted, Rohani won 50.70 percent of the ballots with 18,613,329 votes.
Principlist candidate Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf came in behind Rohani with 6,077,292 votes. Principlist Saeed Jalili won 4,168,946 votes, and independent Mohsen Rezaei 3,884,412 votes. Principlist Ali-Akbar Velayati and independent Mohammad Gharazi ranked at the bottom of the list, with 2,268,753 and 446,015 votes, respectively.
A total of 1,245,409 ballots were declared invalid.
Nearly 50.5 million Iranians, including more than 1.6 million first-time voters, were eligible to participate in the June 14 elections. The Interior Ministry put voter turnout at 72.7 percent."
Many thanks for this brave article. It is amazing that the countries that shout loudest about human rights, the rights of the citizens and free and open society are the worst offenders. President Obama justified this unbelievable level of surveillance by saying that PRISM only spied on non-American nationals. As a non-American national I take great objection to being spied on for no reason at all. We are moving towards a world – no, we are already living in a world – that Orwell could not even dream of.
Taking this post with the other one on this page about Bradley Manning, it is strange that those who expose criminal activities are severely punished while the real criminals, including those who fired on unarmed Iraqi civilians and journalists, go unpunished. Condemning these excesses is not enough. It is time for the civil society to get together and try to find ways of countering these abuses. Otherwise, the Big Brother will become more powerful and more invasive, and we will become even more powerless than at the present to be able to do anything about it.
As you have pointed out in earlier posts, the sources of opposition to AK Party and to Erdogan personally are both domestic and foreign. Some of the domestic opposition from the disaffected generals and their supporters is reactionary and negative. However, a large number of secular Turks do not like the direction that the AK Party is moving the country. Many people react to some simple but personal issues such as the growing prohibition of alcohol and the increasing victimization of girls and women who wish to appear in public in Western dress. Many democratic-minded Turks are also objecting to Erdogan’s growing authoritarian rule, his suppression of the press and his intolerant attitude towards the opposition.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, many Turks still see themselves as Europeans and their future to be as part of the European Union, but AKP’s growing Islamization of the society and Erdogan’s close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria are moving Turkey away from Europe and closer to fundamentalist Sunni regimes. The explosions that happened in Turkey a few weeks ago that resulted in dozens of casualties have shaken up the population, as they believe that Syrian insecurity is spreading to Turkey. Also many Turks disapprove of what they regard as Erdogan’s pro-American policies. It is not often realized that Turkey has one of the most anti-American populations in the Middle East. Many Turks see the anti-Syrian policy to be part of the Western and Israeli plan to weaken the Axis of Resistance against Israel.
Turkey’s stock market fell by six percent when it opened on Monday. If the protests escalate, and there are many signs that it will not die down too quickly, all the economic gains of the last few years will be wasted. Erdogan’s dismissal of the opposition as thugs and leaving on his North African tour in the middle of the worst crisis faced by Turkey for many decades show his insensitivity to what is going on. Even at this late hour, the best policy for the AKP government is to publicly give guarantees that Turkey’s secularism will not be undermined, and that Turkey is going to scale down its support for Syrian rebels.
The Turkish government is paying the price for its unwise policies towards Syria. Erdogan’s initial policy of zero tension on the borders was a clever policy that improved Turkey’s relations with all her neighbors, including Syria and Iran, and resulted in a flourishing economy. Indeed for a while, Turkey was contemplating the setting up of a common market with Syria and removing custom duties between the two countries. However, after the disturbances in Syria, Erdogan decided to join Saudi Arabia and Qatar in their campaign against Syria.
It should be remembered that according to some accounts, Turkey has some 15 million Elevis [close to the Syrian Alawites] and about the same number of Kurds. So in addition to secularists and leftists, there is another large constituency that does not like Erdogan’s policies towards Syria. As the result of these policies, Turkey’s relations with Iran and Iraq have also suffered. If disturbances continue, and there are already some reports about the loss of life, Turkey will face a domestic uprising that will seriously affect its standing in the world and its economic development. Even now, it would be wise for Turkey to act as a broker between Syria and Iran on the one hand and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms on the other and try to find a peaceful solution to the Syrian conflict.
As Mr. “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” has not yet managed to carry out his bombing campaign there, he thinks that for the time being Syria is a good substitute. It is sad that such war-loving people occupy such high positions in the United States.
By the way, the propaganda line that is adopted by most media, including in the above clip, is that the EU has lifted the arms ban on Syria. The truth is quite the reverse. Britain and France had been pushing hard for the EU to pass a resolution permitting the arming of the rebels, but after eight hours of haggling they failed to do so, as the vast majority of the countries were opposed to it. The Dutch foreign minister said that EU had just been awarded the Nobel Prize for peace. Was it appropriate for it to pour fuel on the fire and arm the terrorists and intensify the conflict? As the deadline for the former agreement runs out in a few days time and as they could not agree on a new agreement, they had no option but to allow the former agreement to lapse, which in fact allows any country to do what it thinks best. So in practice, Britain and France have got the chance of arming the rebels directly and more openly rather than through proxies, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, that they have been doing in the past.
Afghanistan's Interior Ministry has announced that one policeman, two civilians and four Taliban were killed, and 17 were wounded. The wounded include 10 Afghan bystanders and seven IOM personnel.
This is truly a treasure trove, enabling us to glance at some of the remaining glories of the Iraqi National Museum, which was regarded as perhaps the greatest such museum in the Middle East and may be in the world. This site provides us not only with intellectual stimulation and scholarly information about what is going on in the Middle East, but it also provides us with glances into the literature, music, arts and folklore of the people in that part of the world too.
Sadly, it seems that the looting was not completely random, and from some articles that were published at the time, some of it seemed to have been organized by foreign smugglers. A UNESCO official pointed out at the time: “The economic motive for the looting is still present, with items looted from Iraq fetching high prices once smuggled abroad and being highly sought after by American, European and Japanese collectors.” Already in December 2005, McGuire Gibson, a professor at the University of Chicago, wrote “In one Bond Street shop [in London] I was shown a bag of more than one hundred cylinder seals [from Iraq] and received an apology because they were the poorer quality ones.”
Later on, US government returned hundreds of antiquities to Iraq, some seized before an auction at the Christies in New York, and some of the curators in Baghdad had already taken some of the items in the middle of the fighting for safe keeping which they returned later to the museum, but God knows how many thousands were either destroyed or are still kept by various dealers in the West and other parts of the world. An article in Al-Ahram in April 2003 pointed out “The looting in Baghdad, lasting over several days, was ignored by US forces occupying the city, who did nothing to prevent it despite the pleas of museum curators and guards.” A member of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq wrote: “This is a tragedy with echoes of past catastrophes, such as the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258, and the fifth-century destruction of the library of Alexandria.” In fact, this time, the scale of destruction seems to have been even more thorough and more complete.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/634/sc11.htm
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/723/sc111.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html?th&emc=th&_r=1&
The Iranians might have been happy about the fall of Saddam who had waged a savage eight-year war against them, but at least they did not instigate, plan and wage the war on the basis of lies as was done by US neocons who had been previously backing Saddam during the war.
Thank you for this excellent and illuminating post. You are right to point out that with the latest developments the Islamic Republic is moving towards totalitarianism. In fact, ever since the 2005 presidential election, which resulted in the victory of Mahmud Ahmadinejad over Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, Iran’s limited democracy has been going downhill. There was massive rigging in the 2009 election when with undue haste Ayatollah Khamenei put his full weight behind Ahmadinejad. Later on, he came to regret that decision, because none of the previous presidents had posed such a challenge to the Islamic system as was done by Ahmadinejad. He openly confronted both Khamenei and the clerical establishment as a whole and began to propagate his vision of an “Iranian Islam” and the imminent return of the Mahdi, which would have undercut the authority of the clerics. The main point is that both Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Esfandiar Rahim Mashai pose a challenge to Ayatollah Khamenei’s authority and this is something that he cannot tolerate.
However, I think the election will not pass on as quietly as Khamenei hopes. It will either be a flop with very low turnout or, more likely, there will be protests and demonstrations similar to those that took place following the 2009 election directed against Khamenei himself. In any case, the regime has lost a great deal of its legitimacy both in the eyes of the reformers, as well as in the eyes of many conservatives who had supported Ahmadinejad. Given the scale of domestic and foreign challenges that the Iranian government is facing this does not bode well for the future of the regime.
It is really sad to see the Iraqi and Syrian people paying the price for a geopolitical and sectarian war fought between the West, Saudi Arabia and Qatar on the one hand, and Russia and Iran on the other. It is ironic that practically all Persian Gulf littoral states and Saudi Arabia helped to enable the US invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein. Not only did they provide bases for the launching of the attacks, but even provided free fuel and massive financial help to the Coalition forces. When Saddam Hussein was toppled, naturally the Shi’a who constitute a big majority in Iraq came to power. This went contrary to Saudi wishes as they saw Iraq leaning towards their arch foe Iran.
Ever since the toppling of Saddam, the Saudis and other Sunni Persian Gulf states have been arming and funding the militant jihadi Sunnis to engage in a campaign of terrorism mainly against the Shi’is in Iraq and against the Syrian government that was Iran’s only Arab ally during the Iran-Iraq war. The result has been the destabilization of both Iraq and Syria, and this will get much worse and will spread to the rest of the region. The West has to decide whether they intend to stabilize Iraq and Syria, in which case they have to push their Saudi and Qatari “allies” to stop supporting the terrorists, or whether they wish to weaken Iran at any cost, even at the cost of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Syrians, in which case their present policy makes some sense.
There is so much one can say after reading this wonderful article. If I had to choose between an American empire and a Russian or a Chinese or any other empire, I would certainly opt for an American empire, but empires are by nature destructive not only of others but of themselves. Reading about the Colossus that the United States has become, one can't help but think of Percy Bysshe Shelley's "Ozymandias"
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
When one is at the height of power, it is difficult to imagine that there have been many empires in the past, but none has survived. Now, as the result of our frightening means of destruction, the question is not whether the latest empire will survive, but whether humanity can survive. As Dr. Martin Luther King said: "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."
General Omar Bradley rightly observed, “The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.”
In his Nobel Prize Speech, Mohammad ElBaradei said the world faces 'threats without borders' - weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, organised crime, war, poverty, disease and environmental degradation - that can only be tackled through multilateral co-operation.
The Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu, some 2,500 year ago, expressed the dangers of wishing to dominate the world. The words read as fresh today as when they were written:
"Those who would take over the earth
And shape it to their will
Never, I notice, succeed.
The earth is like a vessel so sacred
That at the mere approach of the profane
It is marred
And when they reach out their fingers it is gone.
For a time in the world some force themselves ahead
And some are left behind,
For a time in the world some make a great noise
And some are held silent,
For a time in the world some are puffed fat
And some are kept hungry,
For a time in the world some push aboard
And some are tipped out:
At no time in the world will a man who is sane
Over-reach himself,
Over-spend himself,
Over-rate himself."
I agree that Del Ponte’s interview is too vague and we need to wait for more solid confirmation. However, the initial Israeli claims that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons were also unconvincing, because as the American president had said that their use would be a game changer it would have been very foolish of the Syrian government to deliberately go out of its way to provoke the West. In any case, it has managed to kill far too many people without resort to those weapons. It seems that somebody was trying to widen the scope of the conflict and drag America into it, as confirmed by the massive Israeli attack on Syrian installations yesterday.
To be fair, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel also was rather measured in his comments. He told reporters the White House has informed senators John McCain and Carl Levin by letter that, within the past day, “our intelligence community does assess, with varying degrees of confidence, that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically, the chemical agent sarin.”
As President Obama had said that the use of chemical weapons by the government would be a red line, one should ask what is the US prepared to do if it is established that the rebels have used them. The least they can do is to stop arming the rebels with even more deadly weapons and order the Saudis and Qataris to do the same. Instead, the West should push for a genuine peace plan with elections under international inspection for choosing a new government.
You are absolutely right. In my view, Forugh Farrokhzad is the greatest Iranian poetess of the twentieth century. One reason why the mullahs do not like her is because since the time of 12th century Mahasti Ganjavi, she is the only female poet who wrote openly about her sexuality and celebrated it. In her poem, “The Song of Beauty” she wrote:
In the silence of the temple of desire
I am lying beside your passionate body;
My kisses have left their marks on your shoulder
Like fiery bites of a snake.
The mullahs, on the other hand, are in her words “drowned in their own fear”. This is from her poem “Born Again”:
They were drowned in their own fear
And the frightened sense of sin
Had paralyzed
Their blind, dumb souls…
Perhaps
Behind their crushed eyes, at the depth of inanimateness
Something confused, with a flicker of life,
Was still left;
And, with its faint effort,
It wanted to believe in the purity of the waters’ songs.
Perhaps; but what an infinite emptiness!
The sun was dead,
And no one knew
That the name of the sad dove,
Which had escaped from hearts, was Faith
Here is my translation of her Ghazal, written to a lover who clearly did not appreciate her love
Your ear is as deaf to my voice as the stone
You hear, but like stone you forget unheard.
You are the spring downpour and with showers of temptation
You lash at the window and disturb its peace.
My hands that are green leaves longing for a caress
You make them embrace dead leaves.
You are more tempting than the spirit of wine,
And you set the eyes aflame and intoxicate them.
O goldfish in the pond of my blood
Enjoy your ecstasy for you are drinking me.
You are like the violet valley of the sunset
That embraces the sun and extinguishes it.
Your Forugh [light] was kept in the dark and lost her color
Why do you dress her in black by keeping her in the shadows?
Persepolis is about 70 km northeast of Shiraz on the way to Isfahan. Cyrus's tomb is also nearby. Here is a short report from some eight years ago about exhibition of some artefacts from Persepolis at the British Museum in London:
http://edge.channel4.com/news/2005/09/week_2/06_persian.wmv
Dear Juan! Many thanks for this post that has brought back many happy memories to me. When I was born in Shiraz so many, years ago, it was a small, compact, green city with a small population. It is one of the oldest cities of the world, and as you point out famous for its poets, gardens, and wine. In fact the oldest sample of wine in the world, dated to approximately 7,000 years ago, was discovered in clay jars in Shiraz. During the Islamic period it was referred to as “Dar ol-Ilm” or the City of Learning, in view of its great poets Sa’adi and Hafiz and many scholars and mystics.
When I was a child there were very few private cars in the city. In fact, we almost knew everyone who possessed one. I remember distinctly when the first taxis replaced the old horse-drawn carriages and many popular poems were written for and against them. Soon they replaced practically all the carriages. Now, the city is home to over 1.5 million people and traffic is terrible. Something close to your heart, Shiraz is the site to Iran’s first solar power plant, and recently the city’s first wind turbine has been installed above a hill overlooking the city, not far from the Koran Gate that is shown several times in these photos. It is also Iran’s center of electronic industries, accounting for 53% of the country’s electronic investment. In addition to the lovely old Vakil Bazaar, recently a new shopping complex has been built in Shiraz, which boasts to be one of the biggest malls in the world in terms of the number of shops, thus making Shiraz one of the easiest places for shopping in Iran and the Middle East.
Here is a link to Shiraz panorama:
http://www.stockholm360.net/list.php?id=shiraz
There have been many things seriously wrong with President Obama’s statement that the use of chemical weapons by Syria would constitute a red line and a game changer. The first and the most serious problem with this is the whole concept of red line diplomacy. When you draw some arbitrary red lines, sooner or later, you will be trapped by them and have to do something about it even against your better judgment, otherwise, you will be regarded as weak and indecisive. The present situation in Syria is one clear example. The other is the arbitrary red line about Iran gaining access to nuclear weapons, or according to the Israelis getting nuclear capability, whatever that means. If it means having the ability to enrich uranium, Iran has already passed that stage. However, the Israelis and the neoconservatives in the United States keep repeating that President Obama has drawn a red line and he must act. So, he has made himself hostage to the warmongers.
The second problem is verification. After the Iraqi WMD fiasco it is doubly important to be careful about any claim that a country has WMD capability or that it has used it. Again, the Syrian situation is a case in point. In the midst of a civil war, with all sorts of claims and counter-claims by the government and the rebels, it is extremely difficult to verify such claims. There are already many indications that most probably the rebels have gained access to some WMD either from Libyan stockpiles or as the result of overrunning government ammunition dumps in Syria. So, first you draw an arbitrary red line, and then you have to do something about it on the basis of uncertain verification. In this regard, the following article is very helpful in showing the complexities of the issue: http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/bob-rigg/chemical-weapons-middle-east-un-security-council-and-now-syria
The third problem is what are you going to do about it even if the first two criteria have been established? The situation in Syria is already very complex. The huge amount of weapons and financial aid provided to the rebels by the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and to some extent Turkey and Jordan, and non-lethal assistance by the West, if we are to be charitable and believe in their statements, have produced a situation where the Al-Nusra Front and other militant Islamic groups affiliated to Al-Qaeda have gained the upper hand. How on earth is it possible to separate these elements from the so-called moderates and ensure that after the ousting of the regime the nice, friendly guys will come to power and will continue to cooperate with the West?
The fourth problem is that concentrating on the use of chemical weapons by Syria ignores the possession of such weapons both by other countries in the region and by the West, and the use of banned weapons both by the Coalition forces in Iraq, especially in Falujah, and by Israel during its invasion of Gaza and its massive use of cluster bombs in civilian areas in Lebanon. Concentrating on one country and ignoring the rest is clear hypocrisy and is not going to create a just and law-abiding world.
Surely, the most sensible thing would be not to arm militant groups and not to fan the flames of war because ultimately there will be a blowback, as we saw in the case of the arming of the Mujahedin in Afghanistan that resulted in 9/11, or arming the Sunni militants in Iraq that has turned Iraq into a scene of continuous carnage. If we were to spend a small part of the effort that we devote to conflict to conflict resolution and tried to bring the sides together the world would be a much more peaceful place. In any case, any action that may be taken must be within the framework of international law and on the basis of a Security Council resolution.
After the toppling of Taleban in Afghanistan, hundreds of al-Qaeda supporters fled the country, mainly to Pakistan and other neighboring countries, but also a few dozens to Iran. They were mostly arrested by Iranian authorities, and initially Iran tried to use them as a bargaining chip to get the head of the Mojahedin-e Khalq in return for handing them over to the US. When their demand was rejected by the Bush Administration, Iran repatriated most of them to their native countries, but apparently still a few remain in Iran under house arrest. What is meant by "linked to al-Qaeda in Iran" is presumably a reference to a number of al-Qaeda operatives who are active in Sistan and Baluchestan region between Iran and Pakistan. The Iranian government is involved in many clashes with them, but for some Western media with an agenda it is useful to keep linking Iran to al-Qaeda without providing the context. Here is a useful link about al-Qaeda and Iran.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0423/Canada-alleges-Al-Qaeda-plot-from-Iran-but-Tehran-s-involvement-unlikely-video?nav=87-frontpage-entryLeadStory
Rakiba,
I am not a Muslim, but in fairness to Islam, especially in view of all the distorted propaganda against it and in view of the vile activities of some terrorists who try to justify their evil deeds on religious grounds, I feel it is important to set the record straight, as this wonderful article is doing.
In answer to your first question, remarkably, Islam does not believe in inquisition and questioning people’s motivation, or coercing the non-believers to become Muslims. At the time of Prophet Muhammad there were many of his followers who wanted him to force the Arabs to become Muslims. The Koran’s response to those demands was the following:
"We are best aware of what they say, but thou (O Muhammad) art in no wise a compeller over them. But warn by the Koran him who feareth My warning." (Koran, 50:45). Therefore, the Prophet’s job, as it is stressed elsewhere in the Koran, is merely to warn and to call the people towards God, but not to coerce them to follow it. Faith and guidance ultimately comes from God: "Say: The truth is from your Lord; then whosoever will, let him believe; and whosoever will, let him disbelieve." (Koran, 18:28) A remarkable verse in the Koran says, “say not to anyone who greets you ‘you are not a believer’” (Koran 4:94). In other words, one should not question people’s motives or call them a non-believer.
Muhammad was unhappy that some of his close relatives, including his favorite uncle, had not become Muslims, but he was told in another verse: "And if thy Lord had willed, whoever is on the earth would have believed, all of them, altogether. Wouldst thou then compel the people, until they are believers?" (Koran, 10:98). Again: "Say: O mankind! Now hath the truth from your Lord come unto you. So whosoever is guided, is guided only for his own soul, and whosoever erreth, erreth only against his soul. And I am not a warder over you." (Koran, 10: 107). So if the prophet has no right to force the people to believe or act as their guardian, certainly ordinary Muslims have no right to do so.
As to your second point, there are many people in all religions who commit violence and try to justify their acts by quoting some verses in support of their deeds. Sadly, that is a trait common to the followers of all religions.
If I may quote myself, here is a link to an article that I wrote many years ago on Islam and human rights that deals with these issues in some detail: http://lass.purduecal.edu/cca/jgcg/2007/sp07/jgcg-sp07-jahanpour.htm
Juan: Thank you for this thoughtful post, as ever. As the result of centuries of democratic development in most Western countries we now regard all citizens as equal, and we share in any harm or suffering that befalls any of our fellow-citizens. However, sadly, this feeling of compassion and even adherence to the rule of law seems to stop at our national borders. This point was brought home to me a few years ago by an Afghan friend who lives in England when the war in Afghanistan was still very intense. He said that as a citizen of this country, if the government wished to do anything illegal against him the full force of British law and public sympathy would be behind him and would come to his help. But when he is in Afghanistan, which he visited frequently, he could be killed by a British or an American soldier or by a bomb or by a drone with total impunity.
Given the fact that now the world is getting so much more interconnected and we are talking about a global village it is time for us to widen our horizons and extend our sympathies not only to our compatriots but also to all our fellow human beings. We should be as affected by the loss of life in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, especially as we have been partly responsible for creating the present situation in those countries, as we are about the tragic loss of life in Boston or anywhere else in the United States or Great Britain. The time has come to acknowledge, regardless of our religious or national affiliations, that “the world is one country, and mankind its citizens.”
I have just received confirmation from someone who knows Rowhani well and whom I trust that his PhD Degree was evaluated by Iran's Ministry of Higher Education. The Ministry has a special committee made up of about 20 full professors who are familiar with foreign universities and they evaluate the degrees received from foreign universities. Apparently, they checked his registration documents and read his thesis and found them to be proper. He personally knows that Rowhani frequently travelled to Glasgow to work on his thesis. He has also assured me that Rowhani speaks good English. However, the issue of his qualifications must be clarified by Glasgow University/
Dear Nima, thanks for your comment. As regards Rowhani's education please see my response to Reza, but as regards his knowledge of English I have heard from some of those who were involved in nuclear talks that he speaks good English, but given the technical nature of the talks and the presence of other members of the Iranian team who could not speak English they always used interpreters.
Reza, you are right that the Guardian Council has approved reformist candidates in the past, but after the 2009 election I find it difficult to believe that it will approve a reformist candidate for presidential election this time. Kavakebian's candidacy in the last Majles election was approved, but he lost his Majles seat last year. This does not bode well for his chances of being elected president. Given the tense standoff between the conservatives and the reformers, the chances of Rowhani being approved by the Guardian Council for the reasons that I have stated seem to be strong because it would be very awkward for them to reject him given his very senior positions that he is still holding.
Reza, thanks for the two important points. As to the first, during the time that various Iranian officials were accusing each other of having lied about their education the issue of Rowhani's education also came up. I have not checked with the University of Glasgow to be able to give a definite answer to that question. As you know, most of the clerics go by different names and he could have registered at the university under a different name, but it is worth pursuing. His official biography clearly claims that he received an MA and a PhD in law from Glasgow. I am sure he will be forced to provide the evidence of his qualifications and the matter will be clarified one way or the other.
As to the issue of being a reformer or not, the issue is a little bit more complicated, because reformer is a rather loose term. You are absolutely right that he was closer to Hashemi-Rafsanjani and in that respect he is more of pragmatic-centrist, but although he was not a member of the 2nd Khordad Front he worked closely with President Khatami. Some of the sentences that I have quoted from him and many others that I have not quoted set him apart from the conservatives. Let us at least agree that he is a reformer, if not a reformist. His record of negotiations with the West would support this definition.
May, you are absolutely right. Ahmadinezhad's daughter is married to Masha'i's son.
One does not expect anything better from the CNN and other corporate media that are in the business of distorting the facts. However, it is sad to see how soon all the hopes about a change of direction under the new US Secretaries of State and Defense have been dashed. No wonder the level of public trust in government officials and even elected representatives is so low.
With US Senators seeking new sanctions on Iran that would penalize foreign countries that do any business with an Iranian entity, and linking the lifting of sanctions with calls on Iran “to release political prisoners, respect the rights of women and minorities and move toward a free and democratically elected government” leave no doubt that the dispute with Iran has anything to do with her nuclear program, but that it is used cynically, just as the case of Iraq, to whip up public hysteria to justify war and regime change. The aims set out above are laudable, but Iranians know that those words are not mentioned as a favor to Iran but as a cynical cover for warmongering intentions. It has sometimes been said, more in wishful thinking than in reality, that public opinion is the new super-power. It is time for the public to unite against deceit and hypocrisy and to show that they are not going to be fooled again. Otherwise, America will be entangled in more devastating wars in the Middle East.
Margaret Thatcher was certainly a historic figure. She was the first female British prime minister. She was the longest serving British prime minister in the twentieth century. Along with President Reagan, by following a very risky policy of confrontation with the Soviet Union that could have ended disastrously she managed to bring the Soviet Union to its knees. Early in Gorbachev's career she discovered that she could work with him. She invited him to England when he was still only a member of the Politburo and later on she pushed him towards dismantling the Soviet system, although this was not what he initially had in mind, etc. So her place in history is secure.
However, on balance, I believe that her legacy was a negative one. As a result of very dogmatic rightwing and anti-trade union policies and a lack of concern for less fortunate individuals in society she made Britain a harsher and coarser place. Her cult of individualism and faith in unchecked free enterprise made Britain, as you point out, a less equal society. In fact, she famously said that there was no such thing as society, but a collection of individuals. By her yearning for the days of Empire, which motivated her to invade the Falklands that fortunately ended well for her although it resulted in many British and Argentinian deaths, she prevented Britain from facing her current position as a medium-ranking European power. This legacy of forcing the country to punch above her weight has not helped Britain to come to terms with her present circumstances. That grandiose attitude was partly responsible for her rejection of full membership in Europe. Her fanatical enthusiasm and support for the first Gulf War after having supported Saddam Hussein to the hilt during the Iran-Iraq war led both Britain and America towards renewed dreams of empire and colonialist domination. So, on the whole, history may come to view her as someone who arrested the smooth progress of Britain towards a more equal, more democratic, and more humane society, a course that she had followed since the Second World. On the world stage too this attitude has also resulted in renewed dreams of Western domination in the world, which have given rise to so many more conflicts.
One can only add a few points to this excellent article:
The first point is that Iranian nuclear program that had started under the Shah with US encouragement was stopped after the revolution. When in the early 90s President Hashemi-Rafsanjani decided to restart the program for which Iran had paid billions of dollars before the revolution, he openly turned to the West to help him complete Bushehr nuclear reactor for which Iran had paid eight billion Deutsch Mark to a German company and was nearly 90 per cent complete when the revolution broke out. However, all Western countries, despite having signed agreements with Iran in the past, refused to cooperate. The initial US policy towards Iran was firstly no nuclear reactors; secondly, no fuel for any possible reactors that Iran might build; and thirdly, certainly no uranium enrichment program. Consequently, Iran was forced to turn to third countries and to restart her program in a clandestine fashion.
The second point is that many points of contention with the IAEA had been resolved on the basis of "modalities" and the IAEA was ready to give Iran a clean bill of health when the West suddenly brought up the issue of a laptop that had allegedly fallen into the hands of Western intelligence officials and which contained some information about a possible weaponization program in the past. Mr ElBradei had the issue investigated and declared it a forgery, and Iran has never been allowed to see the document. The IAEA Board of Governors was reluctant to send Iran's file to the Security Council, but as the result of intense US pressure and nuclear deal with India they managed to get enough votes to refer Iran to the Security Council. Whatever one may say about Iranian violations of the NPT, none of it was certainly strong enough to justify the use of the sanctions under Chapter Seven. That was a clear misuse of Security Council powers. This has been the main stumbling block in Almaty 2 negotiations. They make demands from Iran in return for minor concessions, but they never declare what the end game is going to be and whether Iran will be able to continue with enrichment. This is why Iran has made two major demands, putting all those demands in a general framework, so that they may know what the ultimate outcome would be; and secondly at least if Iran makes some major concessions the West should also make equal concessions in return, so that they do not give up all their bargaining points in return for minor concessions that might be withdrawn later.
The third point is that the Iranians have said that they are prepared to join and ratify the Additional Protocol, stop enrichment at 20 per cent, and allow much more intrusive inspection even beyond the requirements of the Additional Protocol in return for the 5+1 formally recognizing Iran's right to enrichment in keeping with the NPT regulations.
The fourth point is that even if one can somehow get round the Security Council resolutions, and even if the Obama Administration decides to reach a deal with Iran, the growing number of resolutions passed by the Congress imposing unilateral sanctions have actually tied the president's hand. So there is no way that the conflict can be resolved even if Iran surrenders.
It is clear that Iran's nuclear program is used for purposes other than for preventing proliferation. This policy is dishonest, misguided, and dangerous. In addition to paving the way for an eventual war, such a policy makes it even harder to deal with the real proliferators, such as North Korea, because it goes well beyond the requirements of the IAEA and the NPT.
Juan! As you know, after the 2002 peace proposal by the then Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah at the Arab League summit meeting in Beirut and re-endorsed at the Riyadh Summit in 2007, the entire Arab League declared that it would recognize the state of Israel in exchange for her complete withdrawal from the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem), but the Israeli government swiftly rejected it. Incidentally the Islamic Conference Organization, including Iran, has also endorsed that proposal. Iran’s official policy is that it will stand by any decision adopted by the Palestinians. Ironically, Ariel Sharon said that the new plan could not be accepted because it would replace US resolutions 242 and 338, which in fact Israel has no intention of implementing. Even HAMAS has grudgingly recognized Israel.
The founder of HAMAS, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was blown up in his wheelchair after morning prayers in March 2004 together with two bodyguards and nine bystanders, had offered a 100-year truce with Israel. HAMAS military commander Ahmed al-Jabari, who was killed in an Israeli strike as he was riding in a car in Gaza on 14 November 2012, which started the nine-day Israeli war with Gaza, was reportedly considering another long-time truce with Israel. So there has been no shortage of attempts by the Arabs to recognize Israel in return for her withdrawal from the occupied territories but Israel has officially annexed Jerusalem and has no intention of leaving most of the conquered territories.
The offer of money to buy East Jerusalem is a non-starter. However, as you say, now with the Palestinian Authority accepted as an observer member of the UN, it is time for all Arabs – and instead of making belligerent comments Iran should also joint them too – to push for the Arab League plan and for the international community to support them to achieve their goal, to ensure that Israel lives in peace with her neighbors, alongside an independent, viable Palestinian state.
President Obama once said that "American values sometimes clash with American interests". The sad part is that American interests - I would say short-term interests - always win over American values. The illegal invasion of Iraq and the constant saber rattling against Iran are two such examples. I would argue that in the long-term these interests would seem to be illusory. America would benefit more if it sticks to its values and act accordingly.
This was a truly amazing prediction and already we see its realization not only in the United States, but throughout the world where more and more people have access to the Internet. Maybe we are not still making the best use of its potentials for education. There is a certain amount of snobbishness in some academic circles who look down on articles published on the web as somewhat inferior to those published in some established journals, but some institutions such as the Open University and other Online Learning courses are already making greater use of this amazing tool. The present blog is a very good example of academic leaning and discussion at a high level.
I don't quite agree with his last comments about mysticism. He perhaps meant quacks who make use of mysticism to mislead or of astrologers that he mentions. Although I do not believe in religious dogma, I believe that mysticism at its best is an effort to understand the mystery behind life. Science can tell us about how the universe has come into being and how it works, and mysticism and philosophy can address the questions of why and to what end. To me, literature and mysticism are closely connected and both of them emanate from Imagination in its widest meaning. Our lives would be poorer if we do not at least speculate about the mystery of life. Otherwise, like Omar Khayyam we would feel frustrated
What, without asking, hither hurried whence?
And, without asking, whither hurried hence?
Another and another Cup to drown
The memory of this Impertinence!
Clearly some Israeli hardliners believe that offense is the best form of defense. Instead of acknowledging that President Obama’s visit to Israel and Palestine did not achieve anything for the Palestinians, on the contrary, he stressed that Israel would be a Jewish state, he did not condemn the illegal settlements, did not call on Israeli officials to dismantle them, spoke of Palestine as the historic homeland of the Jews without mentioning the Palestinians who have lived there continuously for thousands of years, nevertheless, they have attacked him for some general comments to some Israeli students about the benefits of peace.
However, I believe that instead of attacking him they should carefully read what he said in that speech. He told the new generation of the Israelis that “First, peace is necessary… Second, peace is just… Third, peace is possible.” But perhaps the most important part of his speech was when he referred to the changes in the Arab world. The Israelis are no longer facing a few Arab dictators who can be told by the West what they should do. They are faced with millions of young Arab men and women who like them want to live in peace and security. The time for the tired old men with fixed ideas from the two sides fighting has come to an end. The time has come for both Israeli and Arab young people to talk to each other and forge new peaceful relations.
However, I believe that instead of attacking him they should carefully read what he said in that speech. He told the new generation of Israelis that “First, peace is necessary… Second, peace is just… Third, peace is possible.” But perhaps the most important part of his speech was when he referred to the changes in the Arab world. The Israelis are no longer facing a few Arab dictators who can be told by the West what they should do. They are faced with millions of young Arab men and women who like them want to live in peace and security. The time for the tired old men with fixed ideas from the two sides fighting has come to an end. The time has come for both Israeli and Arab young people to talk to each other and forge new peaceful relations.
The tragedy is that the same is still happening. The distortions and lies about Iran's nuclear program are not only repeated without questioning them, some sections of the media go out of their way to sensationalize even what has been said, while the other side's arguments have never been put to the public. We have not learned any lessons from the Iraq debacle. Not only has there been no accountability for politicians, there has been no accountability for journalists either, and some of those who led us into war with Iraq are still holding influential positions in the media.
Pirouz! You are of course free to think what you like about 2009 presidential election. I have a great deal of respect for the Leveretts and I believe that most of what they write about Iran is very helpful and informative, but the evidence about the fraudulent nature of the 2009 election is incontrovertible. I have personally talked to many officials who were involved in the election, and they have told me that Mir-Hoseyn Musavi’s office was informed by the Interior Ministry that he had won and had to prepare his victory speech, but he was asked not to gloat. Shortly afterwards, everything changed and different results were announced.
Apart from the fact that the way that the candidates are vetted and selected by the rightwing Guardian Council that is an unelected body by itself makes the elections undemocratic, there is plenty of evidence that the 2009 election was even more undemocratic than usual. If you are so shocked that the election could have been rigged you should bear in mind that two former presidents of the same regime, Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, have openly stated that the election had been rigged. The reformist candidate Mir-Hoseyn Musavi who was a prime minister during Ayatollah Khomeini’s period, and the other candidate Mehdi Karrubi who had held very high positions under Khomeini and who had served twice as the parliamentary speaker are in jail or under house arrest because they said that the election had been rigged. Dozens were killed and hundreds of reformists and journalists were arrested and jailed – many of them are still languishing in jail – because they said that the election had been rigged.
You say that you have an open mind and are open to persuasion. I hope the following studies, the first two by an eminent Iranian scholar Professor Ali Ansari, another by a leading expert on elections, and two articles by me are sufficient to enable you to change your mind:
http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/109081
http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/twt/archive/view/169439
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/note29jun2009.pdf
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/iran-s-stolen-election-and-what-comes-next
http://www.payvand.com/news/09/jun/1267.html
This afternoon I took part in a very well-attended meeting at the London School of Economics and Political Science with lectures by two experts on the state of the Iranian nuclear program. Both speakers made it quite clear that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, but that Iran’s nuclear program is used by the Israelis mainly to put pressure on the Iranian government and divert attention from the moribund “peace process”. Contrary to the NPT regulations, the West and particularly the United States had not only tried to prevent Iran from pursuing an enrichment program, but initially they even wanted to prevent Iran from having a nuclear reactor and even prevented other countries from providing fuel for her sole nuclear reactor in Bushehr that had started under the Shah and that was almost 90 per cent complete by the time of the revolution. Consequently, Iran was forced to start enrichment in order to get fuel for that reactor. The two excellent lectures and discussions made it clear that all the fuss about Iran's nuclear program is very much like the false propaganda about Iraq's WMD.
I have just finished watching the press conference given by the US President and the Israeli Prime Minister live on Aljazeera, and it was every bit as frightening as the reports that you have quoted about the pressure brought to bear on US politicians prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Both Netanyahu and President Obama stressed that the relations between the two governments are closer now than they have ever been. After repeating the mantra that Iran's (non-existent) nuclear weapons posed an existential threat to Israel, Netanyahu kept repeating that President Obama had assured him that Israel was entitled to take any action necessary to defend herself and that he would not delegate responsibility for Israel's security to any other country, including its best friend the United States of America. President Obama in turn stressed that America’s policy towards Iran was not containment but the prevention of an Iranian nuclear weapon, that the window of opportunity to resolve the dispute was narrow and that all options were on the table.
Judging by this press conference and all the false propaganda that is repeated slavishly by the mainstream media, it seems that we are heading for a repetition of the same disastrous events that led to the invasion of Iraq, this time with even worse consequences.
But at the time when the Koran was written men were the bread winners and women mainly depended on their fathers or husbands. Consequently, the idea of giving the sons twice the inheritance of daughters made some sense, but to insist on the same teachings 1400 years later when the circumstances are completely different is insane. This would mean a fundamentalist or literalist view of Islam, and this is what Professor Cole is saying.
You are absolutely right. Robin Cook was one of the most intelligent and bravest members of Tony Blair's cabinet. He resigned just on the eve of the invasion and in a brilliant speech in the House of Commons on 17 March 2003 he said, "I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support." His speech was received by an unprecedented standing ovation by fellow MPs in the House of Commons, which showed the depth of the feeling about the illegal invasion. Clair Short resigned later and said that there had been no proper discussion of the invasion in the full cabinet and the decision had been taken by a small number of people, some of them from outside the cabinet.
Your comments then were both perceptive and brave, as well as rather rare among both scholars and the media. There were many signs that WMD was not the main cause of invasion. The so-called Downing Street Memo, which was the minutes of a British war cabinet meeting dated 23 July 2002, which were published after the war clearly showed that eight months prior to the invasion the decision to go to war had already been taken and the alleged existence of WMD was only to be used as an excuse to justify the war.
The head of MI6 who had recently returned from Washington after meeting his American counterpart and other senior security officials “reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”
That passage tells us all we need to know. The tragedy is that not only the officials who used those lies to wage an illegal war and commit many war crimes have not been punished they are allowed to repeat the same lies these days in order to justify another devastating war in the Middle East. It is no good just to condemn such practices, it is the time for all of us to take real action to bring those people to book and prevent further atrocities in the future.
I am grateful for so many well-informed comments on my short article. The purpose of the article was not to provide an exhaustive analysis of Iranian and Western claims regarding Iranian nuclear program. The aim was merely to point out that if the West so desires there is a possibility of reaching an agreement during the forthcoming round of talks between P5+1 and Iran. The fact of the matter is that Israel and the United States have been accusing Iran of wanting to manufacture a nuclear bomb. There is no evidence for that. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, up to only a short time ago, Mr. Netanyahu was threatening an imminent war in order to stop Iran’s nuclear program, although now Israeli officials say that Iran will not have a nuclear device before 2015 or 2016. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139013/jacques-e-c-hymans/iran-is-still-botching-the-bomb?cid=soc-facebook-in-postscripts-iran_is_still_botching_the_bomb-022113
As the former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta pointed out, current U.S. intelligence indicates that Iranian leaders have not made a decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon. Nevertheless, he went on to say: “But every indication is they want to continue to increase their nuclear capability, and that’s a concern. And that’s what we’re asking them to stop doing.” Most clearly what the United States wants is for Iran to stop her legal nuclear activities, something that Iran has refused to do.
In order to break the logjam, there is need for compromise by both sides. Iran has already taken a few steps to defuse the crisis. As BRTL points out, the IAEA and even Israeli intelligence admitted publicly last October that Iran was diverting much of its enriched uranium to the production of medical isotopes. A UN report due this week is expected to detail a decrease in Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium because it is diverting much of the material to make fuel according to a Reuters report. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/20/us-nuclear-iran-iaea-idUSBRE91J13620130220 As I am not a scientist, I cannot give a clear answer to Bill Buckel’s question, but in any case all Iran’s nuclear stockpiles are under IAEA inspection, and there is very little possibility of their diversion to military uses.
As Maz says, the sanctions imposed by the Congress have really tied the president’s hands, but the Security Council sanctions which even the Russians and the Chinese have agreed to implement are less stringent than unilateral sanctions imposed by the US Congress. European countries could say that while they would still abide by the Security Council sanctions they would ease up on additional US-imposed sanctions in order to reach a compromise. In order to enable them do so, Iran needs to make some additional gestures during the forthcoming talks. This is why I suggested that Iran could open up all her sites, by which I clearly meant all her nuclear sites, for inspection. Although Parchin is not a nuclear site, nevertheless, on the basis of some intelligence provided by an unnamed country the IAEA wants to visit that site again. Under Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA was allowed to visit Parchin and they did not find any incriminating evidence there. In order to show goodwill, Iran can allow the inspectors to visit that site again. However, Iran maintains that the IAEA keeps making more and more demands without giving anything in return. Iranian officials say that they are willing to allow Parchin to be inspected again, provided that it would be the end of such demands and that they would get something in return, but sadly what the West is offering in return is so puny as to be laughable. The ultimate aim should be Iran’s acceptance of the Additional Protocol (as she already did under President Khatami) and full access to IAEA inspectors to all her nuclear sites in return for the lifting of sanctions.
In any case, although the sanctions are hurting the Iranian people they do not seem to have produced the desired result. In fact, Iranian economy is not doing so badly. As the result of the restrictions on the sale of oil, Iran has concentrated on non-oil exports, which have shown a big increase. Iran’s non-oil exports will surpass $50 billion by the end of the current Iranian year (March 20), showing 30 per cent increase on the export of industrial and mineral goods. http://www.payvand.com/news/13/feb/1147.html
In the long term, the continuation of sanctions will make Iran less reliant on oil revenue. Despite intense US pressure, Pakistan has again reached out to Iran for energy security and wants to start the construction of a $1.5 billion gas pipeline. http://www.payvand.com/news/13/feb/1173.html
Soon other countries will also feel less constrained by US sanctions and will start doing business with Iran.
Iran’s next presidential election is just over three months away. Despite many Iranian overtures to the West under President Khatami, the United States responded with “the Axis of Evil” speech. More than anything else, that rebuff by the West resulted in the election of Mahmud Ahmadinezhad who advocated a tough policy towards the West. The rejection of Iran’s extended hand on the eve of the next presidential election would ensure the victory of another rightwing president and a further deterioration in relations between Iran and the West. On the other hand, if the Iranians can see a light at the end of the tunnel and the prospects of better relations with the West, there is every possibility for the victory of a more moderate candidate that would pave the way for a real breakthrough with the Obama Administration. If Iran and the West fail to break the current deadlock under this administration, the likelihood is that the situation would be much more dangerous under the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic. This is why it is important to use the forthcoming talks for ending the current deadlock.
Like most languages, Urdu has been used both by saints and scholars, as well as by terrorists. German was used both by Goethe and by Hitler, and Persian is the language of Ferdowsi, Rumi, Sa’di, and Hafiz, as well as of some narrow-minded, dogmatic and fundamentalist bigots. It is worth pointing out that more people speak Urdu in India as a mother tongue than in Pakistan (at least 55 million people in India, as opposed to 15 million in Pakistan), and together with Hindi, which is very akin to it, it is the fourth most commonly spoken language in the world (after Mandarin, English and Spanish). It is also so close to Persian that most Persian speakers understand at least 80 per cent of written or spoken Urdu. Therefore, there is no need to apologize for it in the face of some misguided descriptions of it as the ‘Muslim language’ or the ‘language of terrorists’. If for no other reason but for the fact that Iqbal Lahuri wrote some of his most beautiful poems in Urdu as well as in Persian, Urdu deserves a high place in the linguistic chart in the world.
I completely agree. What is happening in the Middle East is a region-wide civil war between an Islamist and a secular worldview, between various ideas of what it is to be an Arab or an Iranian or a Turk. Apart from the period immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union, we can turn our minds back to Western civil wars. The English Civil War (1642-16510) was a similar war between absolutist monarchy and parliamentarian democracy, between religious fundamentalism and secularism. Historical records count 84,830 dead, and counting the two Bishops' wars altogether more than 190,000 people were killed. It is estimated that roughly one in ten adult male population died.
The American Civil War (1861-1865) was equally brutal, which produced about 1,030,000 casualties, including 620,000 soldiers' deaths. Roughly three per cent of the population died, which would correspond to over nine million deaths out of today's population. More American soldiers died during the Civil War than in all foreign wars that America has fought.
The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) fought between fascism and republicanism resulted in 50,000-200,000 deaths. Thousands of Republicans were imprisoned and at least 30,000 were executed. The French and Russian revolutions produced even more casualties.
In comparison, revolutions in the Middle East, even in Libya and Syria, have been less brutal, and given the total rejection of theocracy by most Iranians and the ongoing battles against Islamism in Egypt, the hope is that future will belong to secular democracy. However, we need to be patient and above all to stop interfering in domestic affairs of other countries.
While it is good to see that the Israeli electorate is not as rightwing as its leaders and it has to some extent humiliated the extreme right politicians, it is the sign of how far the country has moved to the right when one can refer to Yarid Lapid as a centrist. While he is certainly an improvement on some of the scary people on the right of Israeli politics, if quotes attributed to him are correct, he is by no means a moderate politician in favor of negotiating an honorable deal with the Palestinians.
Arutz Sheva recently quoted him saying: “What I want is not a new Middle East, but to be rid of them and put a tall fence between us and them.” The important thing, he added, is "to maintain a Jewish majority in the Land of Israel." Regarding the status of Jerusalem that the international community and international law demand that should be divided or jointly run by the Israelis and Palestinians, Lapid said: "The Palestinians must be brought to an understanding that Jerusalem will always remain under Israeli sovereignty and that there is no point for them in opening negotiations about Jerusalem." http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/164389#.UP_7-EqLI2Z
So any coalition between Netanyahu and Lapid would ensure the continuation of former policies, with a veneer of respectability for those policies as the result of Lapid’s so-called centrist position.
Given the total number of the terrorists and the hostages, it seems that the Algerian forces have done as well as could be expected and contrasts favorably with the French attempt to release one of their hostages a few days ago in Somalia.
However, while the West is righty condemning the terrorists who attacked Ayn Imnas complex, it is strange that they are supporting and in some cases arming the same Jihadi and Salafi fighters who are fighting against the government in Syria.
It is good to see another excellent translation of Omar Khayyam again. In the Persian version given by Whinfield, there is a mistake in the first line, which also appears in translation. The line should read "chun vaqef ne'i ey pesar ze har asrari", namely "Since you're not aware of all the mysteries..." The meter is wrong without that ne'i, and it also does not correspond with the second line "Since you're not going to get your way..."
Ben,
Thank you for your response to my comment. I am a strong supporter of the state of Israel and hope that it will stay strong and live in peace next to a Palestinian state on pre-1967 borders. However, I feel that the present Israeli policies and almost unquestioning US support for those policies are not conducive to that outcome.
You are right to point out that US support for Israel comes with some strings attached. It is clear that when a superpower with global responsibilities provides billions of dollars to a small country and guarantees its security it would want to get something in return, but the US-Israeli relations are very lopsided and many people may be excused in believing that in this case it is the tail that wags the dog. The Obama Administration called on Israel to stop building additional settlements in the occupied territories in contravention of international law, yet on the day that Vice-President Biden arrived in Israel, Israeli officials provocatively announced the construction of thousands of new homes.
President Obama made great efforts to revive the so-called “Peace Process”, but Netanyahu refused to budge and in practice humiliated the US president. Yet, shortly afterwards, Netanyahu was invited to address the joint session of Congress, and while trashing the entire basis for the peace process he was given some 30 standing ovations.
The US has vetoed practically every single UN Security Council resolution that has been critical of an Israeli policy, more vetoes in the case of Israel than all other vetoes combined. Very often, it has been 14 votes against one. In most cases, such as the barbaric attacks on Gaza both in 2008-09 and last year and the attack on the aid flotilla in international waters, the US blocked the issue even being discussed by the Security Council.
In the recent UN General Assembly Resolution that recognized the Palestinian Authority as an observer state and the one condemning Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons, America was practically alone in voting against the resolutions. The latter resolution was passed with 174 votes for and six votes against and six abstentions. With the exception of the United States and Canada, only the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, and Israel voted against that resolution. Such partisan behavior is certainly not in America’s interest. It reduces the status of a global power to that of Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau.
Your comment about Netanyahu being able to stop terrorism tomorrow by expelling every single inhabitant of Gaza does not deserve an answer, but your argument that a weakened Israel might feel desperate enough to do it should also apply to other countries that feel threatened. We prohibit Iran or North Korea from having a nuclear program and we forbid many other countries in the Middle East from having long-range missiles because they might use them against Israel, but it seems that in the case of Israel they should be armed to the teeth, while the countries that Israel threatens should not have the means to protect themselves. This is not the issue of being leftwing or rightwing, but a simple issue of fairness and respect for international law.
It was quite predictable that someone would soon pop up to throw dirt prepared by various neocon and AIPAC sources at Hagel and claim that their opposition to him had nothing to do with his sane and balanced views regarding relations with Israel and not wanting to rush to war against Iran, which even by the admission of a large number of Israeli officials, has no nuclear weapons, in order to please the rightwing leaders of Israel, which has hundreds of nuclear weapons. However, by now, the tactics are well known, and they will not fool anyone. Here is an article by Charles W. “Chas” Freeman Jr. about a repeat performance by the Israeli lobby regarding Hagel
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/24/israel-lobby-takes-aim-again/
and here is another article by Arnaud de Borchgrave on Hagel and the Israeli lobby
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/de-Borchgrave/2013/01/04/Commentary-Hagel-and-the-Israeli-lobby/UPI-58881357306373/
Let us hope that as Professor Cole has pointed out, the latest hysterical outbursts will further expose the Israeli Lobby, and as Robert Parry says in the following article it will be the Neocons’ last stand, but I somehow doubt it
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/20/hagel-the-neocons-last-stand/
"I'm a US Senator, not an Israeli Senator." If more US politician could remember which country they were supposed to serve, both America and Israel would be much better off for it. The blind, unquestioning subservience to rightwing Israeli demands has encouraged Israeli extremists to think that they are above the law and act in ways that are detrimental to the long-term Israeli interests, not to say anything about US interests. If for no other reason but for the above statement Chuck Hagel deserves to be appointed secretary of defense. If his nomination is blocked by a bunch of extremist Zionist zealots it will send a wrong message to the world and would also prove the worst accusations about the inordinate strength of the Israeli lobby in US politics.
This excellent article, and especially Figure five, starkly show that America is on the wrong path. As Dr. Martin Luther King said, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” We really should not be surprised at Newtown shooting. As the NRA apologists say, it is not the guns that kill, it is the people who kill. Their twisted logic seems to have some truth to it after all, because it is the violence in society that gives rise to events such as the shooting of children in Newtown and thousands of deaths with firearms in US streets. We cannot pursue a militaristic policy abroad and remain immune from its effects at home. Ultimately, it will come to bite us.
This diagram provided by an unnamed official “from a country critical of Iran’s nuclear program” is as crude as Netanyahu’s comic bomb cartoon used in his UN speech and as reliable as “yellow cake from Niger”. It really shows how desperate they are getting to fabricate something incriminating Iran in the face of overwhelming evidence, no less by the IAEA, the US intelligence NIE, and even former Israeli MOSSAD leaders that there is absolutely no sign of the diversion of Iran’s enrichment program towards military purposes. This time the world should not fooled by such lies, but of course meanwhile they have achieved their purpose as Iranian people are suffering under the most stringent sanctions ever devised, affecting their banks, imports and exports and even resulting in the shortage of medicine, and there is no sign of a rethink in US policies after the election.
This excellent analysis should be read by everyone who wishes to vote in the forthcoming election. The neoconservatives who have brought the world to the present perilous situation want to turn the clock back, despite the fact that their warmongering philosophy was rejected roundly by American people and has been shown as a ghastly failure by history.
Do they think that the Americans have such a short memory and have already forgotten the calamity that President Bush's wars created for America and the world. Even President Bush learned that lesson during his second term. Governor Romney and his ultra rightwing advisors are much more extreme and dangerous than even President Bush and Vice-President Cheney during their first term.
The oft-repeated lie by Bush and Blair that they did not know that Saddam Hussein did not possess Weapons of Mass Destruction must be shown for what it is. Apart from the reports of the inspectors that they had not discovered any WMD, the so-called “Downing Street Memo”, which came to light in May 2005, clearly shows that Blair knew that Bush was manipulating the truth in his determined build-up to the invasion of Iraq as early as 2002. The memo summarized a meeting of Blair and his top defense and intelligence aides that had taken place on July 23, 2002, more than a year before the start of the invasion. It reported the head of the British foreign intelligence service, MI6, who had just returned from Washington after meeting with top US government and intelligence officials, saying: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
If Blair possessed any facts about Iraqi WMD he did not need to fabricate the “Dodgy Dossier”.
Worse still for Goldsmith’s argument that the first Security Council 1441 justified the invasion of Iraq, the British ambassador at the United Nations, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was one of the main architects of the resolution, told the council when it was being voted on:
“We heard loud and clear the concerns about ‘automaticity’ and ‘hidden triggers’ – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Security Council.
Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have just adopted. There is no ‘automaticity’ in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required by paragraph 12.”
Despite great efforts, Bush and Blair failed to get a second resolution. Therefore, the invasion of Iraq was morally and legally wrong.
The whole situation would have been hilarious were it not so tragic. Here is the only country in the Middle East with a huge nuclear arsenal, probably the third biggest nuclear power in the world, a country that has unilaterally attacked practically all its neighbors repeatedly, a country that is breaking international law not only by not evacuating occupied Palestinian territory but is expanding its illegal occupation as an affront to the whole world. Meanwhile, the leaders of that country almost on a daily basis say that they will attack Iran because it might at some point in the future have the capability of producing a single bomb! For the record, Peres is the person who is guilty of nuclear proliferation by arming Israel with nuclear weapons through deception.
All that he is now saying is not that an attack on Iran on those dubious grounds is wrong and illegal, he says that Netanyahu has to trust President Obama that he would attack Iran after the election if Iran does not stop its perfectly legal enrichment program. The reign of the mullahs is a disgrace and a tragedy for Iran, but the outrageous Israeli warmongering really is beyond the pale and requires a firm response from the international community before it is too late. Had the Israeli leaders been brought to justice for their war crimes against the Lebanese and especially against the defenseless people of Gaza who are kept in an open prison they would not dare call so openly for an attack on Iran, which would probably kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians in the process and would plunge the entire Middle East into chaos and bloodshed, so that some Zionist extremists could achieve their dream of Greater Israel.
Excellent coverage and excellent news. While the military in Turkey was powerful, it did not have a powerful and organized party to oppose it. There were many small parties in Turkey, ranging from extreme right to extreme left. However, in Egypt the largest party from whose ranks Mursi emerges is behind the president. It is surprising that Mursi moved against the powerful military so soon after Secretary of State Clinton's visit with her promise of continuing aid and closer links between the Egyptian and American armed forces.
While it is good to see that the elected president is asserting himself so soon after assuming power, what one has to watch is that he does not misuse his powers and will not establish a fundamentalist government. So far so good!
As someone who loves America and has great respect for Americans I find the behavior of Mitt Romney both during his visit to the United Kingdom and to Israel most embarrassing. It is truly sad to see the man who wishes to lead that great country and be “the leader of the free world” going cap in hand to a foreign land beginning for donations and making illegal and outrageous remarks about one of the most sensitive issues in international politics in the hope of getting some votes from rightwing Jews and evangelical Christians.
What he says about Jerusalem is not just illegal but also extremely dangerous, because it does not just affect the fate of a few million Palestinians but is the number one issue for 1.5 billion Muslims. At a time when most of the Middle East is on fire his remarks about Jerusalem and his warmongering bluster about Iran are likely to reignite the Arab-Israeli conflict and redirect the hostility of Muslim militants towards Israel. I believe that most sensible Jews and Christians are better than that and I hope that they will show that they will not allow international security to be jeopardized so that a cardboard man can get a few more votes.
The line "dar jam'e kamal sham'e ashab shodand" (In the circle of perfection [of wisdom] they shone like candles among apostles" may be an oblique reference to the Prophet Muhammad, because ashab or sahaba are terms that are used to refer to the Prophet's companions. So, the line is not only a reference to scholars and scientists, but Khayyam means to say that even the prophets did not find a way out of this "dark night" (shab-e tarik), but delivered some myths and fell deep asleep.
Although a covert US war in Somalia and Yemen has been an open secret for a long time, it is good that at last it has been officially admitted. A couple of points come to mind in this connection. First of all, the United States strongly condemns the Syrian government for its violent crackdown of the opposition that it calls terrorists and al-Qa’ida affiliates, while in Yemen where the situation is very similar to Syria, US government provides every support to the government to crack down on the opposition and even joins in the action. The second disturbing point is about the fairly widespread use of drones, because it blares the distinction between a war and extra-judicial killing. As a recent article in New Internationalist Magazine asks, “By preying on the weak and flouting all rules and conventions, is drone warfare a manifestation of our more primitive urges?” The article correctly points out: “Paradoxically the more people killed in these wars the more paranoid American leadership becomes about matters of security – a natural outcome of following irrational policies.”
http://www.newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2012/06/14/drone-killings-animal-instincts/
This is the best and clearest summary of various Egyptian presidential candidates that I have read. In view of the candidates trying to be all things to all people, there is a joke in Egyptian media referring to them as Ra'is al-Tawafuqi, or bipartisan presidents. There was a lovely cartoon in an Egyptian newspaper, with a woman having a scan to learn about the sex of her child. When both parents excitedly asked the doctor if it was a boy or a girl, the doctor replied: “It is bisexual.”
There is another joke going round that as there are so many candidates will similar views the best option would be for Sabahi to be president on Saturdays, Musri on Sundays, Abou’l-Futouh on Mondays, Shafiq on Tuesdays, Moussa on Wednesdays, al-Shater on Thursdays, and then people could assemble in Tahrir Square every Friday to chant: “Down with all of them!”
This is brilliant and so timely, when once again the issue of race and color is raising its ugly head, may be even during the forthcoming presidential election. Your piece shows the absurdity of dividing the people according to their racial or ethnic or even religious backgrounds. Indeed, when European scholars began to write about race, they identified only two races, the Caucasians (white and beautiful) and the Mongolians (brown and ugly). The irony is that many people, including over one million Iranians who have immigrated to the United States, many of whom come from the Caucasus, are classified as ethnic groups, and not as white. Max Weber rightly maintained that ethnic groups were artificial and a social construct, and of course they evolve over time. Historically, all societies have been formed as the result of waves of migration and it is difficult to find any pure races. In fact, on the basis of DNA studies we are all related together and there is only one race, the human race.
Apart from the folly of trying to bully India to stop purchasing Iranian oil or to reduce the amount, these pressures clearly show the insincerity of the Obama Administration about wishing to resolve Iran’s “nuclear issue” in a peaceful manner. After the last round of talks in Istanbul, Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and the head of the 5+1 negotiating team with Iran, described the talks as “positive and constructive”. If the Obama Administration were really sincere about wishing to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue through diplomatic means and without resorting to a devastating war, it would ease up the pressure on Iran prior to the next round of talks in Baghdad on 23 May, and give the negotiators a chance to reach a mutually beneficial resolution to the dispute. Yet, for the past few weeks, Hillary Clinton, Time Geithner and the ever-present Under Secretary of the Treasury Stuart Levy, whose sole job both under Bush and Obama Administrations seems to have been to tighten the economic noose round Iran, have been running like headless chicken to various countries, especially to Japan, China and India, to persuade them to cut off trade links with Iran. Such efforts are nothing short of trying to create an economic blockade round Iran. Why should the Iranians trust the goodwill of the West in nuclear talks, when they see such frenzied activities by those who are allegedly trying to find a peaceful solution to the nuclear issue?
The fact of the matter is that the Iranians and the Indians come from the same Indo-European stock. Their ancient Old Persian and Sanskrit languages come from the same root. They have had economic, cultural, political and social contacts with one another for thousands of years. Why should they sever those links in order to serve the short-term interests of Israel and its Western backers?
It is said that when Mahatma Gandhi came to Britain to talk about India’s independence, a rather overbearing English lady asked him: “Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of British Democracy?” to which Gandhi replied: “It would be a good idea”. Most of us believe that democracy is a good idea, our problem is that many nations including most Western countries have deviated from the true meaning of democracy. Elections do not make a democracy. Iran both under the Shah and under the Mullahs, Egypt under Hosni Mubarak and before, Israel under various regimes and even apartheid South Africa held regular elections. What democracy needs is true accountability of the rulers, something that is sadly lacking in most democracies, otherwise the likes of Tony Blair, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Ehud Barak, Netanyahu and many others would be at the Hague rather than sitting pretty in their fancy homes. One great American asset, which has so far remained intact but is in great danger of being lost, is the freedom of expression. Of course, even that does not mean that people like Juan Cole would be invited to write OpEds for New York Times and Washington Post on a regular basis, but at least they are tolerated to have their say outside the mainstream media.
One major distortion of American democracy has been the growing role that tainted money has been playing in public discourse, giving rise to the remark that the American democracy is the best that money can buy. What we should demand is a limit on the power of money and lobbies over politics, genuine freedom of expression for all, the rule of law, accountability and adherence to international law. Nearly ten years ago, the late Edward Said wrote a good article for the Guardian, under the title of “Give us back our democracy” which is still worth reading. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/20/usa.iraq
Trying to link Iran with terrorist groups and even with Bin Ladin is nothing new. On the day when 9/11 happened, the then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak who was stopping over in London after having visited the US on September 10, said that the “fight” had to go beyond Bin Laden and “the Palestinian resistance groups” to include countries that allegedly supported and harbored them, including “Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, to a certain degree North Korea and Libya, Sudan and a few other regimes that play a secondary role.” Benjamin Netanyahu also jumped on the bandwagon and tried to use the ghastly act to agitate against the states that were hostile to Israel. The Jerusalem Post reported Netanyahu’s calls for a coalition against “terrorist states like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian entity” that want to “devour the West.” This phony war has served Israel well, with Iraq, Libya, and Yasir Arafat’s “Palestinian entity” already removed, Sudan partitioned, Syria in turmoil and Iran being encircled by US forces and threatened with a devastating war.
Bin Ladin is dead but the mindset that was set in motion on 9/11 is still with us, both in America and sadly among the Israelis and the terrorists.
Link for the quotes: http://www.iranian.com/main/2010/sep/waking-9-11
Trying to link Iran with terrorist groups and even with Bin Ladin is nothing new. On the day when 9/11 happened, the then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak who was stopping over in London after having visited the US on September 10, said that the “fight” had to go beyond Bin Laden and “the Palestinian resistance groups” to include countries that allegedly supported and harbored them, including “Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, to a certain degree North Korea and Libya, Sudan and a few other regimes that play a secondary role.” Benjamin Netanyahu also jumped on the bandwagon and tried to use the ghastly act to agitate against the states that were hostile to Israel. The Jerusalem Post reported Netanyahu’s calls for a coalition against “terrorist states like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian entity” that want to “devour the West.” This phony war has served Israel well, with Iraq, Libya, and Yasir Arafat’s “Palestinian entity” already removed, Sudan partitioned, Syria in turmoil and Iran being encircled by US forces and threatened with a devastating war.
Bin Ladin is dead but the mindset that was set in motion on 9/11 is still with us, both in America and sadly among the Israelis and the terrorists.
"Without wine, purple flowers cannot grow" is a lovely twist to the line from Khayyam. However, the original line in most manuscripts reads "bi bade-ye golrang nami shayad zist", it is not seemly to live without rose-colored wine. In other words, spring showers have watered the grass and soon flowers will grow. In such a season it is not seemly to live without rose-colored wine.
The first comment in the NYTimes article that you quote reads: "The American Media is intent on propaganda not news. Their role is to support the American govt's versions of the events in the middle east and Syria as the west tries to reallign and reaarange the Middle east to serve their purpose and undermine the independence of governments." I trust Juan's expert opinion more than the accounts of a reporter.
The problem with Syria is that it is not the story of good versus evil, similar to the situation in Iraq. However, the fact remains that most of the killings of the Shi'is and Christians in Iraq took place by Sunni militants who were unhappy of having lost their former position. Similarly in Syria, the Christians will be better off under Asad's secular government than under a militant Wahhabi or Salafi government. The Alawites in Syria constitute only about 12 per cent of the population. If there is going to be the crackdown of minorities it would be by the Sunni majority against the Alawite minority, not vice versa. One has to condemn violence by any faction. The answer to the problems in Syria does not rest in a civil war or a sectarian conflict supported by Saudi Arabia and Iran, but in some form of reconciliation between the warring factions and arranging elections in the future to allow the Syrians to elect the government that they wish to have. Kofi Annan's mission is the best last chance for ending the conflict.
Again many thanks for these lovely translations.
The Whinfield's version of this ruba'i reads "guyand keh duzakhi bovad mardom-e mast" as translated by Juan (They say that drunkards are sonsigedn to hell), which does not correspond with the sixth line, namely "If loves and lushes are going to hell". Most other manuscripts have the above-mentioned line as "guyand keh duzakhi bovad asheq-o mast" (They say that lovers and drunkards are consigned to hell) which corresponds with the second half of the quatrain and is grammatically more correct.
Instead of concentrating on Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons, the well-meaning people in the West who would really like to help the Iranians and to create a more stable and harmonious world should concentrate on the clerical regime’s appalling human rights record, the growing government crackdown, the restrictions imposed both on the cyberspace as well as on the physical, mental and spiritual activities of the Iranians, their political participation, their freedom of expression, religious and ideological freedoms, free travel abroad, gender equality, universal right to education, etc.
A campaign for true freedom and democracy in Iran does not need bombs and bullets and will attract millions of Iranians who initially took part in the revolution with their slogans of “freedom, independence, social justice”, and who again poured to the streets in their millions three years ago after the fraudulent election results, asking “where is my vote?” If the West concentrated more on these issues and less on a military option they would find that a true and lasting regime change would take place from inside by the Iranians themselves. Thank you Juan for raising this issue.
These are some of President Obama’s most forthright, thoughtful and courageous statements on the issue of war with Iran that I have ever read. I am confident that when all the consequences of a war with Iran, or what some people in a cavalier tone refer to as “a strike on Iran”, are driven home the majority of Americans will see the irresponsibility and the idiocy of the warmongers. Unfortunately, given the number of platforms that the warmongers have at their disposal, there is need for much greater effort to bring home to the American public the forces that are at play and the cost of being led into another war based on lies, as was done in the case of Iraq. Watching a non-stop lineup of some very influential former officials and the usual pundits not only on the deplorable FOX News but sadly even on most of the more responsible media that should know better after the Iraqi debacle, one can see what a hill one has to climb to provide a small measure of balance to the debate. This is why web sites like this are not just useful, they are indispensable.
President Obama is surrounded by irresponsible hawks, not only among the Republicans, but among the Democrats too. He needs the assistance of all right-thinking people to bring his message to the public and to reveal the real motives of those who are pushing America to a disastrous war. We could not stop the Iraq war, but this is the time to put all minor squabbles aside, and unite for the rule of law in the international community, a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, justice for the Palestinians and to return America to its noble calling, namely to be a force for peace and a beacon of light to the rest of the world. This is a goal well worth fighting for.
Seeing that the leader of a tiny client state can bully the president of the world’s only superpower seems very strange to most people who watch this theater of absurd from abroad, but at least the Israelis themselves see it for what it is, as set out in the following article in Haaretz. I wish such articles could be published in US newspapers:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/it-s-just-a-matter-of-time-before-u-s-tires-of-israel-1.416297
The alternative is to talk. Ever since the time of former President Mohammad Khatami who officially proposed serious dialog and the settlement of all issues with the United States, including Iran's support for Hizbullah and HAMAS and Iranian nuclear program that he suspended for over two years, and even Ahmadinezhad's various efforts to start a dialog with the United States have all gone unanswered. Anytime that Iranians have tried to extend a hand to America, Israel and its friends have made sure that they came to nothing. Even worse, they included Iran in the “Axis of Evil”. This is why Iranian voters have turned further to the right.
President Obama made a promise of talks with Iran, but apart from a short 40-minute informal chat between a US and an Iranian official on the sidelines of talks with the 5+1, there has been no serious effort to reach out to Iran. The clearest example of the lack of seriousness on behalf of the United States was when President Obama chose one of the most fanatical enemies of Iran, Dennis Ross, to be his point man on Iran. Dennis Ross who has never set foot in Iran, who knows nothing about Iran and who had campaigned assiduously against Iran prior to his appointment to that post was certainly the wrong person to put in charge of such an important shift in policy.
Even now, when both sides have seen the danger of loose talk about war, it is not too late for President Obama to start a serious dialog with Iran, to accept Iran’s regional status and to push for honest and transparent negotiations. Iranian people would be better able to get rid of their dictatorial regime when they have relations with the West than when they are under hardship and sanctions at the behest of Israel. Millions of Iranians who supported the Green Movement have not gone away, but they will not side with those who wish to destroy their country.
The Israelis and their allies in the West have invested so much time, money and effort into demonizing Ahmadinezhad that they are not willing to lose that asset to their propaganda machine. This is why they were very unhappy about the prospect of the election of a reformist and moderate candidate in 2009 presidential election. Shortly before the election, Ephraim Inbar, director of the Begin Sadat Center at Bar Ilan University, said: "Just because Moussavi is called a moderate or a reformist doesn't mean he's a nice guy. After all he was approved by the Islamic leadership. If we have Ahmadinejad, we know where we stand. If we have Moussavi we have a serpent with a nice image.”
The then Mossad Chief Meir Dagan told a panel of Israeli lawmakers: "If the reformist candidate Mousavi had won, Israel would have had a more serious problem, because it would need to explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat."
Many thanks for these fine translations. Although your daily political comments are much appreciated and very informative and enlightening, these eternal gems may outlast all the mundane and transient political issues and may prove to be your greater contribution to posterity.
One minor quibble regarding line four of the translation. I think by "dar kar-e khoda kon ma ra" he means "leave our affairs to God". Otherwise, go and mind your own business. it is more in keeping with the rest of the poem where he says that his actions are not wrong, it is only the cleric who sees them crookedly. The line could be correct if you meant to write : "Take a deep breadth, and don't do God's work for us."
Terrorism is a very subjective term, and is freely used by both sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of course, according to the Israelis, anyone who opposes them is a terrorist, but one should look at the behavior of each side to see who really is a bigger threat to whom. The ratio of the number of Hamas and Hezbollah that have been killed by Israel is probably more than 100 to one, compared to the number of Israelis killed by either of those organizations.
Hezbollah was formed after Ariel Sharon’s brutal war on Lebanon in 1982 in order to protect the Lebanese Shi’is. In that unprovoked war over 27,623 Lebanese were killed for 657 Israelis. The number of wounded Lebanese also ran into tens of thousands. The cities of Tyre, Sidon and Beirut were mercilessly bombed for days on end and huge destruction was caused. Meanwhile, thousands of refugees – men, women and children – were massacred in Sabra and Shatila camps by the Phalangists, as they were surrounded by Israeli forces that fired illuminating flares over the camps to assist with their gruesome task.
During the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, more than 1,300 Lebanese were killed for 121 Israeli. Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese were forced to flee and during the last days of the conflict Israel fired millions of small cluster bombs in South Lebanon to make the area uninhabitable.
During Israel’s barbaric attack on Gaza Strip in December 2008, at least 1,417 Gazans, including 926 civilians, were killed for 13 Israelis, ten of them by the so-called friendly fire. Israel used forbidden white phosphorous bombs and destroyed a huge part of Gaza’s infrastructure, including schools and hospitals. Israel’s siege and almost daily killing of people in Gaza still continues, mainly unreported by Western media.
If you ask the Palestinians or the Lebanese they clearly have a different interpretation of terrorists than yours.
I don't think that people are dumb. Indeed, it is a great tribute to the American people if only 71% of them think that Iran has nuclear weapons. Given the vicious, constant, clever barrage of propaganda from the media, the pundits and most politicians it is surprising that still 30% of Americans cannot be fooled. Anyone who watches the daily diet of most mainstream US media about the evil Iranians and their deadly weapons is bound to be affected by it. After all, this is why candidates and businesses spend millions advertising because it pays. The sites like this one cannot possibly compete with well-orchestrated campaigns with millions at their disposal. Nevertheless, better to lit a candle than curse the darkness.
It is very difficult at this point to jump into any conclusion about who carried out those attacks, but I think the following passage is quite instructive:
"...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) " -- Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, pages 84-85.
And all this assumes that an Israeli strike will be successful. There is a strong possibility that the Israeli attack will fail, with many Israeli aircraft shot down and a number of Israeli pilots held hostage. America would then have to either risk a global conflagration in order to dig Israel out of the hole that it has dug for itself, or let Israel suffer the consequences of a self-inflicted wound contrary to strong US advice.
In an item reported earlier today by USA Today an Israeli put his finger on it saying “…if we win, we win. And if we lose, we lose the country - and people are in denial that this could happen." The success of an Israeli attack on Iran would be hard for Iran but manageable, but the defeat of Israel in such a major venture could be the end of the country. Your final solution is the best option. Even in the unlikely event that Iran developed nuclear weapons, the best option would be to contain it, as has happened in the case of all nuclear states so far.
You are right to point out that there are echoes of Tennyson in Khayyam’s quatrain. This is because Tennyson was very much influenced by Persian literature. It is not often known that Tennyson spent a long time studying Persian with Professor Edward Byles Cowell who had also taught Fitzgerald Persian. Tennyson read the entire Divan of Hafiz in Persian, and imitated many of his poems. Compare the following lines from Maud which have a distinctly Persian flavor:
She is coming, my own, my sweet;
Were it ever so airy a tread,
My heart would hear her and beat,
Were it earth in an earthy bed;
My dust would hear her and beat,
Had I lain for a century dead,
Would start and tremble under her feet,
And blossom in purple and red.
with the following lines from a beautiful ghazal of Hafiz as translated by Gertrude Bell:
Where are the tidings of union? that I may arise -
Forth from the dust I will rise up to welcome thee!
When to my grave thou turnest thy blessed feet,
Wine and the lute shalt thou bring in thy hand to me,
Thy voice shall ring through the folds of my winding-sheet
And I will arise and dance to thy minstrelsy.
And another ghazal:
When I am dead, open my grave and see
The cloud of smoke that rises from thy feet!
In my dead heart the fire still burns for thee;
Yea, the smoke rises from my winding-sheet.
Thank you for these lovely translations. I believe that, unlike some mystical poets, to Khayyam, who was a philosopher and one of the greatest freethinkers of all times, wine is the symbol of intellectual emancipation and the rejection of religious hypocrisy and dogmatism. He has a number of poems in the form of "guyand..." (it is said) and "man miguyam..." (but I say) in which he clearly rejects the idea of pure wine in heaven in favor of the juice of the grape. In my feeble translation of the first two lines (and I hope Juan will translate it into good English), one of the quatrains reads:
"It is said heaven with wine and houris is pleasant,
But I say the juice of the grape is pleasant
Ah, take the cash in hand and wave the rest;
Oh, the brave music of a distant drum!"
or
"It is said there will be a paradise with beautiful Houris
There will flow pure wine and honey;
If we have chosen the wine and the beloved, why blame us,
For this is going to be our lot at the end!"
There are quite a few quatrains like this, which make it clear that by wine he means the juice of the grape.
In another quatrain translated by Fitzgerald he again refers to wine as "tearing the garment of repentance"
Come, Fill the Cup, and in the Fire of Spring
The Winter Garment of Repentance fling;
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To fly - and Lo! the Bird is on the Wing
This shows that things are moving very fast. As one Tunisian commentator said on al-Jazeera "we had three leaders in 50 years, but now we have had three leaders in a single day".
However, as Juan has rightly pointed out, this is a very delicate situation and the country is poised between democracy and anarchy. Crowds have prevented some members of Ben Ali's family from fleeing the country and they have already killed his wife's nephew. They have set fire to the railway station in Tunis and scores of other buildings, especially those belonging to Ben Ali and his family have been looted and destroyed. Although understandably emotions are running very high, this is the time for the friends of Tunisia to urge caution. It is difficult to believe now that the Iranian revolution was initially progressive and called for greater freedom and democracy, but during the subsequent chaos it was hijacked by the clerics and resulted in a theocracy.
Some people seem to downplay the possibility of the Islamists taking power. Like most countries that have suffered from pro-Western secular dictatorships Islam seems to provide a welcome alternative, and religion has deep roots in all Islamic countries.
What should also alarm other Arab countries is that demonstrations are continuing for a second day both in Cairo and in Jordan. The events in Tunisia could have made a breach in the dam of Arab frustration and anger and it may engulf many other Arab countries. That could be a welcome development only if it leads to more freedom and democracy.
Dear Professor Cole,
Thank you for your timely reminder of the dangerous situation in Lebanon, which might provide an excuse for another regional war.
When former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated on Feb. 14 2005, the West and particularly the Bush Administration directly blamed Syria for that murder, and the United States withdrew its ambassador from Damascus. The West orchestrated a massive media campaign and organized and funded the so-called Cedar Revolution that forced Syria to pull out all her forces from Lebanon by April 2005. Ironically, Syrian forces had been invited by Lebanon’s Christian-led government to protect the Christians during the bloody Lebanese Civil War of 1975-76.
Hariri of course had many domestic and foreign enemies besides Syria, including among rival Lebanese groups, the Israeli government, Islamic extremists, and powerful financiers with interests in his multi-billion dollar reconstruction efforts backed by Saudi Arabia. After Hariri’s assassination, a previously unknown group calling itself "Victory and Jihad in Syria and Lebanon" claimed responsibility for the attack, citing Hariri's close ties to the Saudi monarchy.
It is difficult to be certain whether some elements within the Hizbullah were responsible for Hariri’s death, but after all the accusations initially levelled against Syria, the cynics might be forgiven for wondering whether this time the charges are backed by evidence or whether they are once again politically motivated. If it is now established that the Hizbullah, rather than Syria, was responsible for the murder, are US officials going to publicly apologize for falsely accusing Syria of the crime?
It is possible that after engineering Syria’s isolation and withdrawal from Lebanon, it is now time to move to the next phase of the plan to put an end to Syrian and Iranian influence in that country, especially as the devastating July-August 2006 invasion of Lebanon failed to achieve that goal. After all, as well as offering a strategic rationale for deposing Saddam Hussein, “A Clean Break” famously laid out a blueprint for “securing the northern border”:
“Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which Americans can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by: [1] paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces, [2] striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.” (http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm)
It is often stated by various political pundits that the first stages of a conflict with Iran will be fought as a proxy war in Lebanon against Hezbollah and Syria. It's high time for the Lebanese to start nurturing a collective possessiveness and a unified solidarity towards a single Lebanon, instead of being divided on sectarian lines and also providing a recipe for foreign interference and war.
I believe that you are right to draw attention to the incendiary language that is used against some domestic opponents. It would also be good to provide some examples of blood-curdling remarks by some politicians against their foreign foes, and how easily they state that war should be declared on one country or another.
However, at least as far as the domestic scene is concerned, those inflammatory statements would not lead to the murder of politicians and innocent bystanders were it not for the ready availability of firearms. It is sad that after a short-lived period of handwringing after every gun-related outrage the issue is once again forgotten and everything goes back to normal, as was the case after the massacre at the Virginia Tech in 2007 that claimed 33 lives, or the Columbine school massacre in 1999 that claimed 15 lives, etc.
May be most Americans do not realize the extent of the disparity between the level of violence in that country compared to the rest of the world. According to federal data, the number of deaths in the US from firearms has gone up from 28,874 in 1999, to 31,224 in 2007. These are not figures for a normal country living in a state of peace. This is warfare. Out of the top ten worst cities for murder in the the United States and Europe, eight of them are American cities. In Japan there are 0.0049 murders for 1,000 people. In Switzerland it is 0.0092, in Norway 0.0106, in Denmark 0.0106, in Germany 0.0116, in the UK 0.0140, even in Indonesia it is 0.0091. In the United States it is 0.0428 for 1,000 people. The number of homicides in the United States is proportionately 40 times that of most European countries.
Compared to other countries in the industrialized world, these figures are not just high, but ridiculously so. More than 80 percent of all firearms deaths in 23 of the wealthiest nations in the world occur in the United States. Nearly 9 out of 10 women and children killed with firearms were killed here. And this has to be expected, as more than 5.4 million guns were produced in 2009 in the United States, to say nothing of trillions of dollars that the United States spends on waging war abroad, and tens of billions of dollars worth of deadly weapons that she exports to other countries, its most lucrative exports.
If these figures do not shock the Americans to re-examine their love affair with guns and their obsession with violence both at home and abroad, then nothing will. The Second Amendment was passed at a time when US standing army and police were weak and people were allowed to bear arms to protect themselves. Gun ownership has no place in a country which is the sole remaining super-power and which domestically wishes to live by the rule of law. It is time that the United States brought the easy access to firearms under some proper control and drastically cut its military spending, and turned more to diplomacy than war in her foreign policy.
Whether Sara Palin or the extreme right are directly responsible for the murders carried out by Jared Lee Loughner, one thing is certain that the United States political scene has become very polarised during the past few years. The language used by US politicians and commentators is no longer the discourse of civilized people rationally debating an issue, but the charged polemics of deadly enemies and religious fanatics demonizing their opponents.
Only two or three days prior to this dastardly act, when a fanatical gunman killed Salman Taseer, the moderate governor of the Punjab, in Pakistan for the crime of speaking against the blasphemy law, that murder was rightly criticized as a sign of sickness at the heart of the Pakistani society. Many Americans would not like to recognise an analogy between that act and the attempted murder of a moderate US Congresswoman, but some people outside the United States see the ready availability of firearms, the growth of the military-industrial complex and the philosophy of “full-spectrum dominance” as signs of a sickness at the heart of American society.
It is time for Americans to return to traditional civilities in their political and religious discourse and also to move away from too much reliance on guns and on a military-dominated foreign policy. History has shown that militarized societies have not only posed a threat to their adversaries, but ultimately to themselves, because violence breeds violence and has a corrosive effect on the society that condones it. This trend of political violence must be stopped before we see a repeat of the 1960s and greater tragedies to come.