Clash of Civilizations or Clash of Values? The Rhetoric of War and Peace.

This article was published in a slightly different version at Iran's View that includes a comment on Obama's first speech in an American Mosque in Baltimore on February 3, 2016.

Values and the West's double standards approach to ethical pluralism.

Ethical pluralism is focused on individual preferences in modern pluralistic societies.  It does not dictate what is ethical or what is not.  It only creates a space for rational dialogue on the diversity of values aimed at reaching a consensus within the limits of reason.  Ethical pluralism is practised in the West for controversial moral issues like abortion, gay rights and Euthanasia.  Although laws are legislated in these cases in some Western countries,  in many cases they do not constrain those who oppose them to live by them.  It is believed that ethical pluralsim creates more tolerance and more freedoms for the individual.  The essence of ethical pluralism is that moral codes cannot be forced, they emerge by consensus through a rational discourse and dialogue on values.  

Within western societies, theorizing ethical diversity and pluralism requires a commitment to dialogue within the limits of reason in order to reach a consensus on values.  I am referring here to the Habermasian theory of ethics for modern democratic societies, which Habermas calls ‘Discourse ethics’.  These pillars of ethical pluralism are denied by the West when advancing its own set of values in non Western societies. 

As such, Western moral values, having emerged by consensus, cannot be forced on other cultures and societies who did not participate in the rational discourse leading to a consensus on these values.  In most non Western societies, values are anchored, not in individual preferences, but in community norms, elders’ wisdoms and local laws, which ancient Greeks used to call ‘nomos’.   Moreover, in most non Western societies, core values are transmitted between generations, not discussed in the public sphere, where they tend to play a cohesive social role in which the individual self identifies more with the community than with the ego.

There is a tension in the West’s approach to values which allows the individual a greater space of liberty within Western societies but denies this liberty to individuals in other societies attached to their traditions and the norms of their communities.  In fact, there is a faulty assumption in the West that the individual Self in non-western societies is modeled on the Western Self, despite historical and cultural differences.  This tension has become palpable with the advent of the globalization of markets, cultures and ideas.  The West stands as the promoter of one set of values, its own, over others.   In many cultures, this tension is being tackled differently, either by total assimilation, peaceful but active resistance, distrust and retreat, or violent resentful extremism directed against the West in the case of Sunni Islam. Colonialism was built on the assumption that the colonized were different in humanity while globalization is built on the assumption that 'there is no such thing as society' (as Margaret Thatcher famously said) whereby only individuals detached from their historical and cultural roots exist as consumers having an infinite set of preferences determined by the markets.

Ethical pluralism, although unequally practised by the West, is not part of the relations the West establishes with other societies, where it is assumed that only individuals exist and that they must consume the product of the ethical consensus built by other individuals in the West.   What we have witnessed so far since 911 is the forcing and enforcing of Western values through military campaigns, invasions and occupations preceded and followed by violent backlashes from extremist fundamentalists.  Post 911, international relations have become a domain of confrontations thought to be confrontations of civilizations and values.

Many Muslims today live in communities, societies and countries which emphasize traditional values and the supremacy of the community over the individual.   However, Muslims are not the only ones who live in traditions which are antagonists to Western values, but they are currently the main culture and religion to react and to be targeted by this confrontation of values and it is mainly Sunni Muslims who are engaged in this confrontation.

A broken dialogue on values.

This is the reason why a dialogue on values is urgently needed between the West and Muslims.  Some in the West as well as in Muslim countries do not believe in the dialogue on values, firmly standing on both sides of the values divide, committed to wars.  But others, and they aren’t many, believe in this dialogue. President Obama articulated his desire for dialogue with Muslims in his Cairo’s discourse early during his first mandate.  But due to many factors, including America’s previous war commitments and voices of confrontation inside his own administration, Obama wasn’t able to act on his Cairo’s discourse. We will never know if Obama was sincere about this dialogue.  But what we know is that he did not blindly follow those who wanted a confrontation to the end with Iran. Recently Ayatollah Khamenei wrote on his twitter account that Obama wrote him a second letter in 2009 full of affirmative statements about Iran.  Khamenei said he had the intention to reply to the letter but after Obama supported the protests against the government in Iran in 2009 he refrained from doing so.  Obama acted against the voices of confrontation with Iran, but not before the failure of the 2009 colour revolution for regime change.  He finally succeeded in reaching a deal with Iran that, if its implementation is unhindered by more confrontation, should naturally open a dialogue on values between Muslims and the West.

On the Iranian side, the deal reached between Iran and the West silenced the voices of confrontation and opened possibilities to initiate a dialogue between Muslims and the West.  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was first to open this dialogue on the values of Islam with his two letters to western youth (January 2015 letter and November 2015 letter).  Khamenei’s initiatives came in a context of a renewed wave of Sunni terrorism by ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), more barbaric and more sectarian than the terrorism witnessed since 911, and threatening this time the Near East, the Levant and Europe.

While the nuclear deal was being worked out between the West and Iran during the year 2015, many terrorist attacks by Sunni Muslim extremists hit Muslim countries, especially Iraq and Syria, as well as Europe.  Most notable were the attacks in France claimed by ISIS that attracted wide and sustained attention in Western media.  ISIS is virulently anti-Iran and anti-Shia.  It promotes a return to the  Sunni Caliphate.  The first attacks were on January 7th at the offices of Charlie Hebdo and on a Jewish surpermarket in Paris and its suburb and killed seventeen and wounded others.  Khamenei’s first letter was published merely two weeks after these attacks.  It spoke of a different kind of Islam, attempting to educate Western youth on Islam and the real sources of knowledge on Islam, away from the terrible and negative image that was being presented to the West by ISIS.  The letter was deliberately addressed to youth.  Khamenei argued that dialogue with Western leaders was futile because these leaders not only promoted the kind of Muslim extremism embodied by ISIS but also did not appear to be willing to learn about the true religion of Islam and Muslims beyond the terrorists clichés. The second series of attacks in France in 2015 happened on Novembre 13 at the Bataclan concert venue and a café in Paris and killed hundred and thirty people and wounded many.  Ayatollah Khamenei’s second letter to Western youth was published two weeks later on November 29.  In it, Ayatollah Khamenei chides the West for its double standards towards the victims of terrorism and for the imposition of Western culture by force uniformly on Muslim societies.

Although the lives lost to terrorism in France weren’t more precious than other lives taken by blind terrorism elsewhere, the attacks were alarming, not only because they touched the heart of Europe, its cultural symbols and its youth, but because they threatened to create a greater wedge between European and Muslim populations inside and outside Europe, in neighbouring countries around the Meditterranean basin, and beyond in the Asian and African continents where the majority of Muslims live.  While American neocons, who so much wished for the clash of civilizations after 911, could observe the increasing wedge between Muslims and non Muslims far from their own shores separated and shielded from this clash by two oceans, Europe is increasingly becoming the theatre of the clash.   

A clash of values is not a clash of civilizations

What is the nature of the clash between Sunni extremism and the West?  It is important to make a distinction here between the clash of civllizations and the clash of values.  While the clash of civilizations includes also a clash of values, it is about more than values.  It is confrontational in essence because civilizations aim for self preservation and fight against their annihilation.  The term ‘civilization’ means not only values but a geopolitical, economic and military space.  The clash of values can be resolved through dialogue.  Values tend to evolve slowly and by consensus according to each society’s needs.   They can intersect between two civilizations and they can be passed on peacefully between civilizations. Many civilizations’ values evolve from the inside, but also from contacts with other civlizations.  In the ancient times, these contacts were mostly established through wars.  The citizens of ancient Greece considered non Greeks as barbarians and non humans because ancient Greece was a ‘closed’ civilization.  This perception changed during the Hellenistic period after contacts were made by Alexander the great with other civilizations through conquest and wars. 

The term ‘clash of civilizations’ is greatly misleading.  It implies a confrontation.  It is both a testimony to the neocons’ warring agenda as well as to their backward thinking.  Wars aren’t needed today to establish contacts with other civilizations.  Today’s means of communication are many, multi-level, fast and easy.

The fall of the former communist bloc countries should have led us to a more cooperative, less confrontational world, militarily speaking.  Instead, the neocons created the clash of civilizations to produce more wars and more confrontations to advance American hegemony in a unipolar world.  With 911 and its aftermath, Sunni Muslim terrorism, initially born out from the collaboration of America’s cold war ideology & Sunni Wahhabism against the former communist bloc, set the scene worldwide for a spectacular and threatening clash of values, mistaken for a clash of civilizations.  Wherever there was a clash of values, the neocons created wars resembling a clash of civilizations with their lot of humiliations, provocations and blasphemy of religious symbols,  leading to a greater clash of values, reinforcing in a loop the ‘clash of civilizations’.   

It is Europe and Asia where most people on the planet, and most Muslims live, that are set to take the full impact of this clash being prepared for decades now by the neocons. The neocons’ game in Europe is to treat Europe’s woes resulting from a clash of  values between east and west, between  north and south, with more confrontations and wars. 

This is the post 911 reality created by the neocons. A world that has every possible tool to make communication and dialogue on many issues, including values, easy and natural, yet is locked in confrontations and wars. As often, it takes two to dance.  The neocons’ project to produce a clash of civilizations is greatly helped by resentful extremism and its state sponsors.

To be aware of this post 911 reality is to make everything possible to prevent a great war in Europe and its geopolitical surroundings.   And fortunately for us, the majority of Muslims do not want this clash of civilizations which has been hurting Muslim countries and Muslims more than others.  Fortunately for us too, Iran refuses to engage in the clash of civilizations.  Amid the tensions of the post 911 world, Iran has shown the world it can make peace without losing its dignity.  I have argued elsewhere that both the nuclear deal and Khamenei’s letter to western youth form a coherent approach by Iran to treat the woes of Islam and show the West that there is an alternative to confrontation with Islam and Muslims, that there is an alternative to terrorism.

Those in the West who want a dialogue on values with Muslims to peacefully resolve differences instead of a clash of civilizations and wars can now count on Iran’s leadership.   A dialogue on values can be much more enriching than the forcing of western values on Muslim societies.  A dialogue on values doesn’t and shouldn’t end by one set of values taking on another but by finding common ground amid differences.  That’s the essence of communication and diplomacy and the respect for the dingity of others and our common humanity. 

Russia, which has worked hard to end Iran’s isolation, has a diplomacy that instinctively understands the potential of resolving the issue of the clash of civilizations that feeds today’s devastating terrorism eating at the heart of all these civilizations.  Because Russia's neighbour, Europe, is by excellence the theatre for this clash.  And because a clash of civilizations that counts on terrorism to provoke a confrontation of values  will undoubtedly lead to the end of civilizations. 

The US however, despite the nuclear deal and the recent détente with Iran, is still very much sitting on the fence, between war and peace.  Hesitations and mixed messages, as well as Obama’s end of mandate, risk annihilitating the dialogue that the Iran deal is promising, putting the initiative back in the hands of the neocons.

As I wrote in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, a dialogue on values is urgently needed to silence the voices of confrontation.  The clash of civilizations is an idea as backward as the barbaric terrorism it sets out to explain... and fight... by curtailing our civil liberties and creating an artificial wedge between civilizations otherwise destined to increase their common ground in an era of rapid communications where societies are becoming more open and more welcoming.  

The promoters of the clash of civilizations are the new enemies of the Open Society.

"Are we headed for a Bay of Pigs in Iran?"

Amid the western mainstream media propaganda-like coverage of Iran comes this clairevoyant analysis by Gary Sick.

About 15 years ago, when the United States was first experimenting with wide-ranging sanctions against Iran, an Iranian acquaintance remarked to me, "I certainly hope Iran doesn't become another Cuba."
At that point, the U.S. had imposed a total embargo on Cuba for more than three decades. As he said it, I detected that part of him could not believe that a rich and cultured nation on the other side of the globe could ever be treated like an island dictatorship off the American coast. But I also saw a glint of apprehension in his eyes as he considered for the first time how America's vision of its own national interests could change when viewed through the prism of raw domestic politics.
The cases are not at all the same. Yet today, Cuba has been under U.S. embargo for 50 years, and Iran has passed the 16-year mark. Cuba experienced a U.S.-sponsored invasion before the sanctions began. Iran is still waiting for its Bay of Pigs.
When the Obama administration came into office, talk was all about "smart sanctions." President Obama's foreign policy advisers had seen what indiscriminate sanctions had done to Iraq. Ordinary lives were destroyed and, in the words of a friend whose family was in Iraq, the entire middle class was criminalized, driven to smuggling and black-market dealings just to survive.
The sanctions also created a sympathetic backlash with the Iraqi population and visceral anti-Americanism throughout the world. We were not going to make that mistake again. Instead, we would target sanctions only against the decision-makers and abusers.
Yet today, the sanctions regime in Iran is resembling, more and more, the Iraqi and Cuban cases. We have arrived by a very different route. Instead of controlling all goods going into the country, we have ingeniously found ways of manipulating Iran's banking system. That, together with regional boycotts, has the prospect of blocking a large proportion of Iran's oil sales.
In Iran there has been a run on the currency, food prices are soaring, and every single person is beginning to experience some form of economic pain. That has been the source of considerable public satisfaction in Washington and elsewhere. It is also reminiscent of the early stages of the Iraqi experience. Add to that the serial murders of civilian scientists, cybertampering with Iran's centrifuges, flyovers of U.S. drones, and covert assistance to Iranian separatist groups.
Forget the euphemisms. What would we think if a nation were doing all of this to us? The benign image of sanctions as graduated pressure has been transformed. In reality, it is war with Iran in all but name.
Until now, the threat of escalation has been a tool for promoting sanctions. I remember vividly my own experience in the White House during the original Iranian hostage crisis. At that time, President Carter and his National Security Council staff quite deliberately used the threat of a possible U.S. military action against Iran to encourage Europeans and other allies to adopt sanctions against Iran. The purpose of the sanctions was to persuade Iran to release the American diplomatic hostages. It didn't work.
The threat of military action was, however, very effective in getting allies to take economic actions that were contrary to their own national interests. The thinking was that economic sanctions and boycotts, however disagreeable, were less costly than the outbreak of a military conflict in the oil-rich Persian Gulf.
The same tactic was used by the George W. Bush administration to twist the arms of reluctant allies. The presence of such uber-hawks as Vice President Dick Cheney, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and others, as well as the formal security doctrine of the administration to launch pre-emptive military attacks, gave the argument credibility.
Upon the arrival of the Obama administration and its initial policy of engagement with Iran, the role of enforcer shifted to Israel. The first major media storm about an Israeli attack on Iran came in the final months of the Bush administration, when John Bolton predicted without qualification in an interview with The Daily Telegraph that Israel would launch its attack before Bush left office, on the grounds that the incoming administration would be less sympathetic to the idea.
Since then, such predictions have become almost an annual event. Jeffrey Goldberg, writing in the Atlantic Monthly in September 2010 after extensive interviews with key Israelis, concluded that "there is a better than 50 percent chance that Israel will launch a strike by next July," 2011.
That date came and went. Then about a month ago, Israeli commentator Ronen Bergman wrote in The New York Times magazine that "After speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and the intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012."
It is a bit ironic that Bergman spoke to the same individuals who had previously convinced Goldberg that a strike was coming in 2011. Moreover, many of those interviewed openly expressed great doubt about the feasibility and wisdom of any such attack. This included the recently retired Mossad chief Meir Dagan and the former Israeli chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who said that "the Iranian threat was not as imminent" as some had suggested and that "a military strike would be catastrophic." But the article resonated powerfully, especially in an election year.
Congress has been extremely active in trying to prevent the administration from pursuing negotiations. H.R. 1905 -- the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 -- proposes to ban U.S. diplomats from contact with "any Iranian official who poses a threat to the United States." There is scarcely anyone in Iran who has not chanted "Death to America"; does that constitute a threat and disqualify that person from contact with American diplomats?
More recently, a proposed Sense of the Senate resolution tries to define the terms and acceptable objectives of any United States policy dealing with Iran:
• It rejects "any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat," thus ruling out a policy that the United States used successfully against the Soviet Union.
• It defines the U.S. "red line," where we would consider the use of force, not as Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon, but rather as an Iranian "nuclear weapons capability," which by many calculations Iran already has.
• Finally, it sets as the objective of any negotiations "the full and sustained suspension" of uranium enrichment by Iran. But Iran regards enrichment for peaceful purposes as a right conferred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that principle is supported by a vast majority of the Iranian population, including even the reformist opposition.
This resolution is not binding, and it does not yet have majority support in the Senate. However, it is apparently intended to be used as a centerpiece in the pro-Israeli AIPAC meeting that started this weekend in Washington. And it comes just at the moment when it appears that negotiations between Tehran and six major powers are likely to resume.
There is an inevitability about sanctions imposed for political reasons. Serious negotiations and compromise are precluded, and the appetite for ever-stronger sanctions grows with the realization that past efforts were a failure. If you set an impossible objective and then begin imposing sanctions to achieve it, the result is always more sanctions, until you arrive at the point where there are no more sanctions and only force remains.
We are approaching that point.

Iran draws the line with Turkey on Syria

Behind Iran's new Syria move is a calculated gamble that contrary to some Western perceptions, the Assad regime is not completely isolated and still enjoys a considerable mass following. This is reflected in huge pro-government rallies consistently ignored by the Western media, and that with sufficient internal and regional support, Damascus could survive and ride out the current storm. 

Complete article here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran, Syria, Regime Change, And The Resistance Axis

This is an opinion article by Elie Shlahoub in the June 27th edition of the Lebanese daily newspaper Al Akhbar.

“The Syrian turmoil is targeting the Islamic resistance in Lebanon; and defending Damascus constitutes protection for Beirut and Tehran. This is in short, the Iranian approach to the events taking place in the Levant as “We will not allow the hand of the Sayyed of the Resistance to be broken” and at the same time “we will not allow that the spring of the Arab revolutions be pirated.” Relations with Saudi Arabia are severed and relations with Qatar are frozen. As for Ankara, it must be cautious: Syria is a red line even if this calls for bombarding the American bases in Turkey."

That is to be expected.  Iran will not allow the overthrow of Assad.  Clearly, the Syrian revolution 2011, by accepting sponsorship from Hariri, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the US, is presenting itself as a threat to Syria's long time allies.  The Syrian revlution 2011 is targeting mainly Syria's foreign policy and not so much domestic policy.  That is another feature of the Syrian revolution 2011 that is not found in the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions which kept mostly the same foreign policy as hte old regimes they overthrew.

Much has been written and said about Turkey's role in the Syrian crisis but Iran is a powerful regional player and the guardian of the resistance axis. It will not allow any attempt at breaking this resistance axis to easily succeed.

Opposition and conspiracy in Syria

When I listened to Bashar El-Assad's speech, I first thought that his outside conspiracy accusations were exaggerated. I thought this is classic talk by leaders when they are challenged by their own people.

After all, Mubarak also claimed that the Egypt uprising was also an outside conspiracy. But in his case, he could hardly blame anyone from the outside, Mubarak was like a violent man who beats his wife but is absolutely charming and docile with everybody else except of course his own people and Hezbollah whom he sees as challenging Saudi hegemony. But how could Hezbollah mobilize women and children and millions to protest against him? What we saw in Tahrir square was a genuine popular movement by all classes and age range of the Egyptian society, men and women.

I was thinking recently that this is what is exactly missing in the protests in Syria. The protests in Syria are not reaching a critical mass and are not comprised of men, women, children, and all classes of the Syrian society, from the whole age range. And they are sparse...

Moreover, when I heard recently that Syrian security were shooting at the army because the army refused to shoot at protesters, I thought this is gross propaganda. If you want to intimidate a group, you kill one of them, not in the back, but in the front, and one, not 9! And on Joshua Landis blog, there is a picture of a document supposed to be an order to shoot at the army. The document was sent to the blog's author and it has blood stain. The staging and the fabrications were becoming more and more ridiculous.

There are also the videos circulating on the web and propagated by 'protesters'. I devoted a night watching all of them. I could not believe what I saw, few agitated men shouting and very little information. Most of these videos seem staged.

I believe there is indeed an outside conspiracy in Syria and it is not difficult to imagine who is behind. There are the classic enemies of Bashar himself, Rif'at and Khaddam. There are also enemies in Lebanon who are experienced in sowing sectarian discord and financing militias to spread rumors and kill in the streets. There is also the regional context. The regional context, since the fall of Mubarak is unfavorable to the Saudi-US-Israel axis and tipping in favor of the Hezbollah-Syria-Iran axis. An overthrow of the Syrian regime might give the former axis some gains.

But beside all this, there is clear malaise in Syria and real need for reforms. I am not sure what started first, the opposition expressing this malaise or the agitators. But I believe that given the regional context for a possible sectarian flare that will certainly spread to Lebanon, the real Syrian opposition, the one that vies for reforms and not destruction, has a responsibility. It cannot sit and watch hopping for the balance to tip in their favor. This is destructive not only for Syria and the region but also for the Syrian opposition. If the true opposition in Syria makes itself passively accomplice with conspirators, it discredits itself as a movement representative of the true aspirations of the Syrian people.

Saudi Arabia and the counter revolution in the middle east: Part 2

It is not only Israel that is freaking out at the thought of the Arab spring. The rulers of Saudi Arabia are in a state of panic. They invaded Bahraïn, they are maneuvering to influence the Egyptian revolution, and they are fomenting trouble through their proxy March 14 in Lebanon and they are trying their best in Syria. Saudi Arabia is leading the counter revolution in the middle east and there is so much to write about this (you can read here Part 1). However, Syria and Lebanon, because of their religious mosaics, are the sensitive part of this counter revolution. I think Saudis are playing with fire here. The fire that was ignited in Iraq will find fertile ground in Syria and Lebanon.

I don't mean here to diminish the true aspirations of the syrian people to freedom, democracy, prosperity, and more importantly, a corruption free country. However, one has to be aware that the gloves are off between Saudi Arabia and its Israel ally on one side and Syria, Hezbollah and Iran on the other side. This is very dangerous terrain that SA is willing to take in order to reign in on the aspirations of the Arab people. Remembering the king's words from the Wikileaks cable asking the US to bomb Iran and to cut the 'head of the snake', I am inclined to consider that Saudi Arabia's moves resemble a suicide mission that will bring with it the entire middle east.

Here are some links on the subject:

The Arab Spring And The Saudi Counter Revolution

From Jadaliyya: Saudi Hegemony Versus The Arab Spring

Angry Arab about the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and its subserviance to Saudi Arabia

Angry Arab about Saudi's takeover of the Egypt revolution

And finally, from Syria Comment, the story of the tragic death of the author's wife's cousin in Banyas shot by protesters in Banyas: The revolution strikes home. Nobody knows for sure who is shooting military personnel watching and monitoring the protests in Syria but this is not typical of freedom loving people, this is an indication of a civil war fomented by Saudi proxies in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria through the Syrian muslim brotherhood and through Saudi national Saad Hariri as well as the Syrian brotherhood ally in opposition to Bashar el Assad, Abdel-Halim Khaddam, and their kooks.

International diplomacy out of US hands

And with it the official dawn of a new era in world diplomacy.

With its feet dragged in Afghanistan and Iraq, its hands tied by the Israel lobby, its many crises at home, and its loss of credibility at the world stage when it comes to broker a peace deal, the US is no longer a real player when it comes to diplomacy.
Brazil and Turkey had just reached an agreement with Iran on their nuclear production.

Either way, skilful negotiating by two world leaders undermined the view, widely accepted in Washington, that Iran could only be made to compromise if it was threatened with sanctions and repeated warnings that the US would consider "all options" to block further progress in its nuclear program.

The New York Times is not happy about this: ''The agreement could well UNDERMINE the Obama administration’s chances of securing international approval for punitive measures against Iran.'' This journal which has advocated the war on Iraq and stands, most of the time, as a mouthpiece to Israel's interests in the region (i.e. no peace and war on every country and movement that emerges as strong) seems to consider that sanctions are the normal standard approach. So according to the New York Times, Peace may hinder sanctions and what sanctions can achieve ??? Famine instability and War. This is the logical contrary to their statement but they won't say it...

What this means also is that when countries genuinly want peace they can achieve it. Let Turkey broker the much needed peace between Palestinians and Israelis...I am sure the New York Times won't like it...because it may UNDERMINE current atrocities committed by Israelis toward Palestinians...

UPDATE: But the New York Times doesn't have to worry; In American wrestling parlance, it would be called the "P5 Smackdown". The permanent five members of the Security Council flattened Brazil and Turkey's effort at mediating the crisis, sending a clear message that only the big boys (and they are all boys) make or break the big deals.

Iran's Protesters' Trial: Confronting the West on Torture

The trial of Iran's protesters has renewed the urgency of a clear condemnation of Torture in the West. Mousavi, who is championed by the West, is accusing the regime of torturing the protesters before the trial and declared the statements of the accused as invalid because they were extracted under torture.
Mousavi knows very well what he is talking about. He presided, with the same techniques, over the trials of Iranian leftists at the hands of the new Mollahs regime, after the overthrow of the Shah.
This is an occasion for those in the West who champion democracy and regime change in Iran: will they condemn the torture of the protesters or will they remian silent ? Or will they, once again, try to justify torture for some and condemn it for others ?

A portrait of Mousavi and an analysis of the current inside struggle for power among Iran's religious elite.

Does The West Really Care About Human Rights In Iran ?

I suspect that the main reason Sen. McCain speaks out against the Iranian government is not its human-rights violations but rather he wants regime change in Iran. Sen. McCain wants a new regime that is subservient to the U.S. and does not pose any real or perceived threat to Israel.

It might be simpler if the West went ahead and ended economic sanctions on Iran. Then, a sizable number of Iranians, of their own free will, would probably import more of the junk that the West wants to dump on Iran, as has been shown by the popularity of many kinds of Western junk in such former official enemies of the capitalist West as China and Viet Nam.

Thanks Homeyra for the link.

Iran's present turmoil: Opportunism or Reformism ?

A dissident note in the chorus of western condemnations of Iran is necessary, and what if it is true ? Reading this critique from an Iranian American scholar who is an expert in vote fraud and was on the board of NGOs overseeing votes in many countries worldwide, it appears that the story of vote fraud in Iran is somehow twisted and overblown. Mousavi is more of an opportunist than a reformist. He is betting on western influence and the present uproar to do what he is unable to do hismself: win the elections in Iran or at least destabilise his opponent. This is the Lebanonisation of Iranian politics.

The point of view I have expressed here does not entail that I take sides. I am merely stating that western coverage of post elections Iran is a large scale interference used as a pressure on the regime by those who oppose AhmadiNejad. It is clear that what is going on is an internal struggle inside the regime between hardliners and 'reformists'. But comments from an Iranian blogger (Naj) here confirmed what I suspect is at the bottom of this struggle, the identity of the country: AhmadiNejad and his supporters in the religious hierarchy want a regional and political leadership for Iran focused on current Middle East problems: Palestine and sunni-shia political rivalries and that's a direction that goes against Israel's and the US will for the middle east, while those who oppose AhmadiNejad have set their priority in separating Iran from regional conflicts, namely conflicts in the Arab world. But in my opinion, and although AhmadiNejad and his supporters are labeled as conservatives, and although vote fraud may have taken place, the present turmoil has nothing to do with reforms, at least not from the perspective of Mousavi and some inside the religious hierarchy, but it is certainly for reform that most Iranians are demonstrating in the streets.

I wish Iranian people the best and most of all to be able to resolve the present turmoil in a peaceful manner.

From Le Monde Diplomatique: Betqeen religious and democratic legitimacy: Iran's stolen elections

Good news and bad news: the zionist entity is getting nervous

First: the good news---link found on Angry Arab's website---

The bad news, for us Arabs and for the Palestinians, is that every time the zionist entity is nervous because it is loosing in the PR war or because it is pressured into some action by the US and the international community, like the recent calls to stop illegal settlements, it tries to divert public opinion to another unrest in the middle east and the Islamic world and show that there are more urgent matters for the international community to attend to and more vilains elsewhere. In this case, Iran's unrest, as some Iranian clerics are claiming, may well be more than a coincidence.
Watch for example here French socialite, self appointed 'intellectual' and philosopher', and notorious zionist Bernard Henri Lévy, calling young Iranians to overthrow the regime (this man is a real intellectual crap if you want my opinion).

I think Iranians, after all they went through, some at the hands of their clerics, and some at the hands of US puppet Saddam, deserve to own a revolution, preferably not of the sort of the one that is going on in their streets now.

Message to the Young People of Iran by Bernard-Henri Lévy 
envoyé par BernardHL. - L'info internationale vidéo.

Now I don't like Ahmadi-Nejad, I don't like Mousavi either, and there is a real discontent among the Iranian people to feed some unrest, but looking at how events are unfolding in Iran and how western powers and their media are fanning the flames, and how the zionists are cheering, I am still sure of one thing: as long as there is no justice for Palestinians and no real peace in the middle east, we will always have this kind of unrest across the Arab and Muslim world which Israel considers as its first threat not because of their leaders, most of them carefully nursed by USrael, but because of their public opinions strongly opposed to the occupation of Palestine.

As for the elections in Lebanon, I am pleased: I would have liked Hezbollah and Aoun to win big but Lebanon's reality is this: across its tormented history, and except on one or two short occasions, it was never able to reach an equilibrium between political parties representing western allegiance like March 14th and parties that are against this allegiance like Hezbollah and Aoun, and this has been made even a more hard goal to reach in the context of today's mideast tensions - actually Aoun's and Hezbollah's political platform may help Lebanon reach this equilibrium by insisting on a secular governance and dissociation from foreign allegiance, but this is another story. And so I am pleased by the last Lebanese elections' results, the country and western and Saudi interference being what they are, a big win by Hezbollah may have brought more misery upon the country and its citizens. However, a win for Hezbollah and its Christian allies that position them as a strong opposition is a good enough win despite the fact that it represents a status quo for the country . But this political status quo is an imposed one because as I mentioned earlier, there is no real peace and prosperity in the middle east as long as Israel continues the ever expanding illegal occupation of Palestine.
Not only Palestinians, but the entire middle east is waiting for peace. It is frustrating but it has been going on for sixty years now and it will be going on as long as the US and the international community are unable to coerce the zionist entity into making peace with Palestine and Arab and Muslim countries.

1. And as the clamour of Iran's unrest is becoming regular coverage in western news outlets, nobody is noticing that Israel is defying the US with a new settlement plan.

2. Here is additional reporting from Reuters putting the unrest in Iran into a larger mideast context.

3. More from inside Iran on how western coverage is perceived:

If the government cheers, the media cheer, if the government condemns, the media condemns...

4. An informed comment from Juan Cole on the US and Obama's attitude toward the ongoing protests in Iran.

P.S: I was on vacation in a place where internet is a rare commodity. Sorry for this long absence.

Israel, the US administration, and the coming war on Iran: Update

The Israel lobby opposed the appointment of Chas Freeman at the National Intelligence Council in the Obama administration and it succeeded. Because the first step for a war on Iran will be to skew the intelligence. And Freeman, according to Juan Cole, didn't seem to be the right choice for this. The Obama administration caved and let Freeman go. Now, fasten your seat belt, maybe there won't be any war on Iran in the next four years, but there will be fabricated intelligence.

Freeman would have been in charge of editing future National Intelligence Estimates. As Andrew Sullivan rightly hinted, the Israel lobbies did not want someone there so unsympathetic to their conviction that Iran is an imminent and existential threat to Israel, and so unlikely to report out conclusions that would underpin a US war on Iran, or US permission to Israel to strike Iran. The NIC chairman's tenure can last for a decade, and the Israel lobbies' best hope for a war on Iran would come if the Republicans regained the presidency and at least the Senate in 2012. They would want cooked-up NIEs ready to go, as the deeply flawed 2002 Iraq NIE supported that war.

UPDATE: Obama's gestures toward Iran are ambiguous, to say the least.
Obama's recent video message which was seen as 'positive' by western analysts was not preceded neither followed by positive action, especially when it comes to sanctions against Iran confirming his secretary of state criticism during the democratic primary campaign that he is all words and no deeds.

Iranian analysts said easing sanctions held the key to allaying Tehran's suspicions.
Some said Obama's decision last week to renew the US boycott of Iran's oil industry was at odds with the message in his video.
Saeed Leylaz, a pro-reform analyst, said security guarantees would be needed to convince Khamenei that the US was serious about engagement. "I think Obama's message can be a significant step but it's not sufficient," Leylaz said.
Sadegh Kharazi, a former Iranian ambassador to Paris and the UN, said Obama's message changed US "body language" but still characterised Iran in a negative way.
"There's still a negative terminology towards Iran as terrorist-supporting and as a military problem and these descriptions aren't fair."

Obama and Israeli Leader Make Video Appeals to Iran I wonder where the idea for this apeal originated ? In Israel or in Washington DC ? The synchronisation of both appeals will be felt as a provocation by many in Iran. Ar least this is the way I personally feel. Expect nasty things from Mr. O.

Iran: Obama is wrong

An advice to Obama on Iran from my blogger friend Naj at Neo-resistance.

The Jewish Republic of Israel

Before Iranian society was taken by Islamists, a state, unlike the religious foundation of Israel, which everybody understands is transitory in Iran since there are many reformists in Iranian society, Israel banned the Beatles and refused them entrance for fear of bad influence on Israeli youth.

Still reeling from the sight of Israeli teenagers swooning to the tunes of Cliff Richard in 1963, Israel's publicly appointed guardians of good taste and morality, the interdepartmental committee for authorising the importation of foreign artists, refused their entry.

"Israel in the early 60s was afraid that from the west would come a bad wind of sex, alcohol and rock'n'roll".

Stem Cell Research: the Islamic world forges ahead

Stem cell researchers are branded by the Catholic church as playing God, but Iran's geneticists are unhindered by doctrine.

Is the United States moving toward military action with Iran?

I like the analysis because it is focused on regional dynamics, not on one country, one group, one organisation, one incident, at a time. Fragmented information is what the maisntream news media and uninformed citizen, and say ignorance, feed on day and night. The best example ? CNN...
6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran

And here is the seventh sign: the build-up argument, even if it is a gaffe repeated three times worldwide on all news channels (Sorry, four times now and counting). The illogic of the US wars is exactly this, repeat the lie-gaffe until it becomes admitted 'truth'.

And it is not only McCain who ia broadcasting lies: Bush erroneously says Iran announced desire to acquire nuclear weapons.

Iran training Al-Qaida ?

Well, at least that's what hopeful US presidential candidate and republican nominee John McCain said. Some may see it as a gaffe. But weren't Saddam's links to 9/11, relationships with Al-Qaida, and WMDs also gaffes ? They were documented gaffes, broadcasted, doctored, spinned, and never really taken back as their consequences continue to spill misery over millions of Iraqis and threaten an entire region.
Some may think that lies, which the Iraq war gaffes really are, are different from gaffes. But I think that McCain, not having to bother with the whole complexe issue of ME countries the US invades and their ethnic mosaics, learned the only official mantra in US foreign policy; what one says about the country the US wants to wage war on and invade is what is important, not the facts, not the facts...

So who cares if Saddam didn't have any relationship with Al-Qaida or wasn't linked to 9/11, or Iraq didn't have any WMDs, or Iran is not actually training Al-Qaida but some other groups which can be seen actually as Al-Qaida ennemies ? The most important thing is to make a case for war by proxy, by arguing that the US is threatened on its soil. Al-Qaida and 9/11 have been so far the best proxy. The argument that Iran is a threat to Israel doesn't seem to be convincing so far, Israel is surely a proxy, but not as much as the twin towers, hence McCain's gaffe, lie, or slip of the tongue...

Iran's Nuclear Program: An Illusory Threat

What is never said or written about the new imperialistic wars is that the other point of view is never heard. And this is probably the most prominent feature of imperialism. These imperialistic wars are not only presented with the cover of Humanitarianism and security (first fallacy), but they are presented to us as the most covered of wars, with embedded journalists, images, and an orgy of commentaries (the second fallacy), ignoring, however, a simple ethical principle, the voice of the other. And the western press is accomplice in this voluntary censorship. I underatnd that people may not want to listen to AhmadiNejad, but why on earth should they listen to Bush ? Moreover, if we admit that the official voice should be dismissed, on both sides, I suppose there are journalists and educated people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. Are we hearing their voices ? No. We are only hearing the voices of those of them who tell only what the West wants to hear.
The new imperialistic wars have a new weapon, their self censored information machine...Total deafness...We are only hearing our own voices. For this reason I asked my friend blogger Homeyra to translate this opinion piece on the Iranian nuclear program by the Iranian ambassador to France.


UPDATE: March 11th, 2008. Here is the translation from Homeyra, slightly edited by myself.

Iran's Nuclear Program: An Illusory Threat. By Ali Ahani
In the last years some western countries' opposition has turned the Iranian nuclear program into a challenge, and the international community, for precise reasons, is facing an important responsibility.
This responsibility of countries and international organizations to bring a solution and to strengthen the international peace becomes greater as the discussion on the Iranian nuclear program has become increasingly disproportionate.
The Iranian nuclear program isn't about confrontation with the International community. Quite the contrary, the question is to know what are the International community members' expectations regarding the current international situation in terms of rights and responsibilities as it is necessary to grant countries with their legitimate and inalienable rights.
The dual attitude of a few countries hostile to the peaceful Iranian nuclear program, brings the international community to face a difficult task. As the will of the large majority of the members of the international community is to give diplomacy a chance.
No State can decide of the limits of diplomacy. Western countries opposing the peaceful Iranian nuclear program must remain faithful to the United Nation charter and to a peaceful solution of international questions, according to the principles of justice and international law. Their opposition has two negative consequences: it is scorning the absolute rights of the Iranian people and weakening international institutions.
According to AIEA documents and proofs, as well as the recognition of the American and other countries' intelligence services conducting nuclear enrichment activities, the Iranian program is a peaceful program.
Therefore nothing justifies a vote for a binding resolution increasing sanctions against the Iranian people. A peaceful nuclear program within the NPT charter is the legitimate and undeniable right of all members of the AIEA.
A vote in favor of a resolution increasing the sanctions against Iran will, not only lead to a reduced function of the AIEA as the only valid technical and judicial body of the UN, but also limit the chances of negotiations – going against the logical demands of Iran and the expectations of the international community.
All countries are bound to protect the power of the AIEA in the fulfillment of its goals with the due respect for its prestige. The weakening of the AIEA would lead to anarchy and international disorder. Not only there would be no distinction among right and duty, but the validity of international decisions and documents would be questioned.
Flawed information and wrong interpretations of Iranian nuclear program are the basis of some countries’ discriminatory and even hostile position toward the Iranian government and people.
Some Western States' hostile rhetoric and the escalation of sanctions were born from the illusions entertained by some on the Iranian peaceful nuclear activities. Part of the NIE report proves this aspect.
According to the recent report of Mohamed Elbaradei, only realism, along with taking into account the good faith and the sincerity of the IRI in its cooperation with the AIEA, should be the core of international efforts to end the discriminatory approach to the Iranian nuclear program, to respect the Iranian peoples’ rights, and to consolidate world peace and security.
All members of the international community are responsible to maintain world peace, to respect the United Nations charter, and to use all their forces in this direction.
Occuring events after the occupation of Iraq, the admission of occupying forces of the lack of basis of their claims regarding the existence of WMD's, have proved that the Iraqi people have been victims of this kind of illusions.
This experience has convinced most of the international observers that a country cannot be threatened because of some illusions and fabrications of false pretences and be considered as a rogue state.
Considering the Iranian pacific nuclear program, nuclear powers must respect the legal and technical expertise of the AIEA and restrain from exerting pressure and creating negative impacts on the logical and lawful process of the AIEA activities.
The people of the Middle-East have a positive view of France and of its stance toward them in the past, specially in the Iraq war. The French government and people wish to maintain their position in the Middle East. Today France has precious opportunities. The Middle East conflict, the political crises in Lebanon, regional evolutions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Iranian nuclear question are matters of great opportunities for the French government to show its leadership in the region. With will and realism, France could play a historic and decisive role as a responsible country.
Original Source in French:

Le nucléaire iranien, une menace illusoire, par Ali Ahani
LE MONDE | 06.03.08

©

May I remind you that the visit of Israeli president Shimon Peres is meant exactly to pull France in the other direction regarding the Iranian nuclear program and Sarkozy seems to be more than willing to go Israel's way ?

CENTCOM Commander William Fallon Resigns over tensions on his opposition to the white house war plans on Iran.

The top US military commander in the Middle East is stepping down days after a magazine profile reported he was trying to block US military action against Iran.
Admiral William Fallon, the head of US Central Command, was described in an Esquire article published last week as a lone voice within the administration arguing for restraint.
The article's author, Thomas Barnett, had predicted that if Admiral Fallon was pushed out of his job "it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way".

Want another Bushism? Bush says official intelligence on Iran doesn't reflect his views!

"But in private conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week, the president all but disowned the document, said a senior administration official who accompanied Bush on his six-nation trip to the Mideast. "He told the Israelis that he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE's] conclusions don't reflect his own views""
I can't resist. I am posting too much Steve Bell cartoons these days but the man has captured the essence of Bush's visit to the ME more than any journalist, columnist, analyst, etc...

Cartoon from Steve Bell, The Guardian

More on the Filipino Monkey

France and Israel: "When leaders fall in love, so do the people"

Photo AFP

"Sarkozy did not hide his great support for Israel and openly expressed how impressed he was by the young country's achievements," the diplomat said.

"Throughout his presidential campaign, Sarkozy unabashedly declared he was an admirer of Israel. To his inner circle he spoke of a real affinity and on the occasion of his acceptance speech of his party's candidacy for president he described his visit to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial as one of the two most important events in his life.

"A French diplomat talking on condition of anonymity said the French were rediscovering Israel, and Israel was rediscovering France. "The music sounded by France is very pleasing to Israel, particularly on the Iranian issue. We see eye-to-eye on the issue of Iran nuclear armament," he said.

Israel's ambassador to France, Daniel Shek, also sounded upbeat about the warming of relations.

"I wouldn't say there was a fundamental shift on the basic policies of France toward Israel, but the tone has certainly changed," the ambassador said. "Sarkozy is stating clearly and openly that he is pro-Israel, pro-America and against Iran. What more can you ask for?" "