Photo by Peter Macdiarnid / Getty Images
America’s international standing is under mounting strain on multiple fronts. Nowhere is this more glaring than in the Middle East, where the balance of influence (and hence, power) is shifting away from the United States and toward Iran, Turkey and their allies. This trend may, in fact, accelerate as a consequence of ongoing unrest in Egypt and several other Arab states.
As our colleague Seyed Mohammad Marandi wrote here presciently a few weeks ago:
“In Tehran, there is a strong belief that the region is changing dramatically in favor of Hezbollah, the Palestinians, and the Resistance. The rise of an independent Turkey, whose government has a worldview very different from that of the U.S., German, British, and French governments, along with the relative decline of Saudi and Egyptian regional influence, signals a major shift in the regional balance of power. Saudi military incompetence during the fighting with Yemeni tribes along the border between the two countries, the general decline of the Egyptian regime in all respects, and the almost universal contempt among Arabs as a whole for the leaders of these two countries and other pro-western Arab regimes and their corrupt elites, are seen as signs that the center cannot hold. The fact that the Iranian president and the Turkish prime minister are so popular in Arab countries, while most Arab leaders are deeply unpopular, is a sign that the region is changing.”
U.S. officials are treading very carefully with their words, especially regarding Egypt. We have previously pointed out that the United States and Israel have accrued enormous strategic benefits that from their alliance with Egypt—this is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment and, therefore, should not be characterized as “glowing” support. This strategic reality shapes the dilemma which U.S. policymakers believe they are facing. For, while they don’t want to be seen as turning away from or otherwise undermining an ally, they also feel compelled to express at least ritual support for the rights and “aspirations” of the Egyptian people.
Today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has taken the lead for the Obama Administration (President Obama ducked the issue during his State of the Union address earlier this week) in calling on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his government to pursue sweeping political, economic, and social reforms as the key to restoring Egypt’s stability. Like her predecessor, Condoleeza Rice, and many contemporary commentators, Secretary Clinton seems to think that popular movements for political change in Arab countries are ultimately good news for the United States. The unspoken (and, we suspect, unexamined) assumption is that, by prompting “liberalization” or even “democratization”, such movements not only affirm values Americans hold dear, but also help to stabilize and ensure the longevity of America’s key strategic partnerships in the Middle East. The flip side of this assumption, which is also reflected in much current commentary, is that political change in the Arab world is inevitably bad news for the Islamic Republic.
It remains to be seen, of course, how much change actually takes place in Egypt and other Arab countries. But, to us, it seems clear that, to the extent that political orders in Egypt, Tunisia, or some other “pro-Western” Arab countries becomes more “authentic” and reflective of popular interests, preferences, and sentiments, those countries will become less enthusiastic about strategic cooperation with the United States and more inclined toward closer relations with the Islamic Republic.
During her tenure as Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice egregiously miscalculated the results of genuinely democratic Palestinian elections in 2006, which produced a Hamas victory. (Rice famously challenged, in retrospect, that no one could have foreseen such an outcome. No one, that is, except anyone who knew anything about the Palestinian street.) She and her colleagues also blew it in their efforts to create a pro-Western “democracy” in Lebanon following former Prime Minister Rafiq al Hariri’s assassination in 2005.
In this regard, we are struck that many of those who think that what is happening in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen represents an authentic push for fundamental political change in these societies seem disinclined to think about recent developments in Lebanon in the same way. We consider what is happening in Lebanon is very important, and will write about it in greater detail in a separate piece. For now, we would note that, in the view of many American commentators, what is happening in Lebanon is a thoroughly negative turn of events, quite the opposite of the “hopeful” and “promising” manifestations of popular sentiment displayed in some other Arab states. Hizballah is routinely discussed as if it were some foreign actor, imposed on an otherwise happy Lebanese society by nefarious outside forces and now, by some descriptions, holding Lebanon “hostage”.
Why is Hizballah, which manifests its deep reserves of popular support every day, routinely depicted in this way? At the same time, why do Western commentators persist in glorifying the March 14 movement—most of which opposes “one person, one vote” democracy in Lebanon and would not exist but for massive external support from the United States, France, Saudi Arabia—as the heroic embodiment of the aspirations of (some) Lebanese for a pro-Western, democratic (for some) political order?
We think that what is happening in Lebanon—and, perhaps, what is happening in some other Arab states—will accelerate ongoing shifts in the Middle East’s balance of power. On this point, we were also struck that Ayatollah Seyyed Ahmad Khatami, Tehran’s interim Friday prayer leader, today challenged “those who still do not want to see the realities”, arguing that “all these protests in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, and Yemen are inspired by Iran’s Islamic revolution” and that “an Islamic Middle East is being created based on Islam, religion, and democracy”; see here and here.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Eric: From the Model Additional Protocol:
Article 2
a. ………. shall provide the Agency with a declaration containing:
(i) A general description of and information specifying the location of nuclear fuel cycle-related research and development activities1 not involving nuclear material carried out anywhere that are funded, specifically authorized or controlled by, or carried out on behalf of, ………. .
MY NOTE: Clearly this allows the IAEA to essentially ask for information about and thus to go anywhere it believes may be related to any form of nuclear research even if it does not specifically involve declared nuclear materials.
b. ………. shall make every reasonable effort to provide the Agency with the
following information:
(i) A general description of and information specifying the location of nuclear fuel cycle-related research and development activities not involving nuclear material which are specifically related to enrichment, reprocessing of nuclear fuel or the processing of intermediate or high-level waste containing plutonium, high enriched uranium or uranium-233 that are carried out anywhere in ………. but which are not funded, specifically authorized or controlled by, or carried out on behalf of, ………. . For the purpose of this paragraph, “processing” of intermediate or highlevel waste does not include repackaging of the waste or its conditioning not involving the separation of elements, for storage or disposal.
MY NOTE: Clearly this does the same.
(ii) A general description of activities AND THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON [my emphasis] or entity carrying out such activities, at locations identified by the Agency outside a site which the Agency considers might be functionally related to the activities of that site. The provision of this information is subject to a specific request by the Agency. It shall be provided in consultation with the Agency and in a timely fashion.
MY NOTE: What part of “THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON” does not allow the IAEA to identify specific Iranian personnel involved in nuclear research activities?
COMPLEMENTARY ACCESS
Article 4
The following shall apply in connection with the implementation of complementary access under Article 5 of this Protocol:
a. The Agency shall not mechanistically or systematically seek to verify the
information referred to in Article 2; however, the Agency shall have access to:
(i) Any location referred to in Article 5.a.(i) or (ii) on a selective basis in order to assure the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities;
MY NOTE: This clearly authorizes the IAEA to request access to anywhere it believes may be related to the nuclear program. And by “access” this clearly allows the IAEA to request information on any one involved in such a location.
Even if the IAEA is not authorized for that information, the problem for Iran is that the presence of CIA personnel on the teams or the leaking of information gleaned by the teams to the US is a security threat. I note you didn’t try to address that point at all, which is irrelevant to what the AP does or does not authorize the IAEA to request. Another example of you’re deliberately ignoring the main point.
(ii) Any location referred to in Article 5.b. or c. to resolve a question relating to the correctness and completeness of the information provided pursuant to Article 2 or to resolve an inconsistency relating to that information;
(iii) Any location referred to in Article 5.a.(iii) to the extent necessary for the Agency to confirm, for safeguards purposes, ……….’s declaration of the decommissioned status of a facility or of a location outside facilities where nuclear material was customarily used.
MY NOTE: Same.
Article 5
………. shall provide the Agency with access to:
a. (i) Any place on a site;
(ii) Any location identified by ………. under Article 2.a.(v)-(viii);
(iii) Any decommissioned facility or decommissioned location outside facilities where nuclear material was customarily used.
b. Any location identified by ………. under Article 2.a.(i), Article 2.a.(iv),
Article 2.a.(ix)(b) or Article 2.b, other than those referred to in paragraph a.(i) above, provided that if ………. is unable to provide such access, ……….
shall make every reasonable effort to satisfy Agency requirements, without delay, through other means.
c. Any location specified by the Agency, other than locations referred to in paragraphs a. and b. above, to carry out location-specific environmental sampling, provided that if ………. is unable to provide such access, ………. shall make every reasonable effort to satisfy Agency requirements, without delay, at adjacent locations or through other means.
MY NOTE: “Environmental sampling”, by definition, is intended to detect unauthorized/undeclared nuclear materials which may be used in a military context. How do you conduct such sampling without access to the places where you suspect such military activities are being conducted – which by definition are likely to be military facilities?
ALSO – Iran’s nuclear facilities are being protected by military facilities. The mere presence of IAEA teams in the vicinity of these military facilities could provide useful intelligence to the US or Israel.
Article 7
a. Upon request by ………., the Agency and ………. shall make arrangements
for managed access under this Protocol in order to prevent the dissemination of proliferation sensitive information, to meet safety or physical protection requirements, or to protect proprietary or commercially sensitive information. Such arrangements shall not preclude the Agency from conducting activities necessary to provide credible assurance of the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities at the location in question, including the resolution of a question relating to the correctness and completeness of the information referred to in Article 2 or of an inconsistency relating to that information.
MY NOTE: This proviso specifically states that the IAEA’s requirement to assure no unauthorized activities shall trump any requirement to protect commercial or proprietary information, which clearly trumps any requirement to protect the names of Iranian personnel working on nuclear activities.
I re-iterate: Your demand that I read the AP is a red herring. First, because the AP itself clearly allows the IAEA to do what Arnold and I have alleged. And second, because even if the AP does not allow the IAEA to what we allege, it still presents Iran with a security threat if there is any presence of CIA or other intelligence agents on the IAEA teams. This is the situation even now. Implementing the AP would merely expand the possibilities for the CIA or Israel.
And again, even if the IAEA has no foreign intelligence agents on its teams, the information gleaned from the IAEA through leaks from its diplomats – or even penetration by foreign intelligence of its data – could, if combined with intelligence gleaned either from other intelligence operations or open source methods, contribute to a threat to Iranian security. Again, this is the situation now which Iran has already complained about. Implementing the AP would merely expand the threat.
All of which is a further red herring because your only real purpose in reducing this argument to AP technicalities is to divert attention from your real problem: you can’t answer my points about the value of a US admission on enrichment legality.
Really, you’re just flailing at this point. Give it up.
Did the IAEA ask and was permitted to visit the military missile test site at Parchin because at the time Iran was voluntarily observing the AP?
Can IAEA now that Iran no longer implements the AP ask to go back?
Maybe we should start to focus on where the counter-revolution is going to come from, and how its going to come. It won’t only be covert actions from Washington and Tel Aviv, although there will be plenty of that (remember the Lavon Affair)… it will be from within Cairo itself, and from Saudi Arabia.
I think, too, finally an analysis of how Mubarak became Mubarak can start to be spoken in the west. It wasn’t even a week ago that VP Biden said “I don’t think we should call him a dictator.” The whole Egyptian apparatus has been presented in the west as enlightened authoritarianism… and attention has been regularly given to the elections as if they meant something, and the MB has been forever portrayed as what it is not… perhaps now a conversation in the west can at last begin… perhaps.
For those who wonder about the Lavon Affair (from Wikipedia for heaven’s sake):
The Lavon Affair refers to a failed Israeli covert operation, code named Operation Susannah, conducted in Egypt in the Summer of 1954. As part of the false flag operation, a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence for plans to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American and British-owned targets. The attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Communists, “unspecified malcontents” or “local nationalists” with the aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in Egypt’s Suez Canal zone.[1] The operation caused no casualties, except for the members of the cell who committed suicide after being captured.
The operation became known as the Lavon Affair after the Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon, who was forced to resign because of the incident, or euphemistically as the Unfortunate Affair or The Bad Business (Hebrew: העסק ביש, HaEsek Bish or העסק הביש, HaEsek HaBish). After being denied for 51 years, the surviving agents were in 2005 officially honored with a certificate of appreciation by the Israeli President Moshe Katzav.[2]
Here is more Obama/Hillary delusional thinking at work:
A tight-lipped White House is taking an even-handed approach to the crisis in Egypt, suggesting that President Mubarak might be able to hold onto power if he allows competitive elections and restores individual freedoms…Obama is monitoring events through regular briefings with staff and close consultation with regional allies.
If there were real elections, Mubarak would lose. They just had an election! It was a total farce. The US applauded Iranians demonstrating against the ruling elites there. But not in Egypt. There will be no pictures of cute dead ladies with weeping Zionist commentators wailing about what a crime it is to shoot unarmed women! Of course, the IDF does this all the time, children, too. Without batting an eye and none of these victims ever, ever are mentioned by our media mavens who weep for Iranian women all the time. Iranian women should be happy, they are so beloved.
Parchin
Parchin first surfaced internationally in August 2004 when ISIS was alerted by ABC News to allegations that the complex, some 30 kilometers southeast of Tehran, was being used for high explosives testing that may be consistent with that used for nuclear weapons research. Commercial satellite imagery of the site was released publicly by ISIS in September 2004. The large complex is dedicated to research, development, and production of ammunition, rockets, and high explosives. The site is owned by Iran’s DIO, and has hundreds of buildings and test sites.
Within the larger complex, there is an isolated, separately secured site at which it was believed the weapons-related research was taking place. Prior to public release of the imagery, the IAEA was aware of the facility through analysis of commercial satellite imagery and its potential for nuclear weapons-related work. Iran initially rebuffed IAEA requests to inspect the site, eventually allowing access to parts of the facility in early 2005.
On November 1, 2005 Agency inspectors were given access to a military site at Parchin and were able to take several environmental samples. The IAEA’s February 2006 report notes that “The Agency did not observe any unusual activities in the buildings visited, and the results of the analysis of environmental samples did not indicate the presence of nuclear material at those locations.” Visual inspection showed that sites were not as capable as suggested by satellite imagery. Although this visit dampened suspicions that this sites was dedicated to high explosive testing for nuclear weapons, suspicions about the Parchin site persist and more inspections are warranted.
Pepe gets it right.
“Expect the counter-revolution to be fierce. And extending way beyond a few bunkers in Cairo.”
This, too, is the correct conclusion.
Excellent Pepe Escobar piece on Egypt. A must read.
Rage, rage against counter-revolution
:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB01Ak02.html
Quote
Islamophobes of the world, shut up and listen to the sound of people power. Your artificial Middle East dichotomy – it’s either “our” dictators or jihadism – was never more than a cheap trick. Political repression, mass unemployment and rising food prices are more lethal than an army of suicide bombers. This is the actual way history is written; a country of 80 million – two-thirds of which born after their dictator came to power in 1981, and no less than the heart of the Arab world – finally shatters the Wall of Fear and crosses to the side of self-respect
This is no think-tank-engineered color revolution, this is not regimented Islamists; this is average Egyptians bearing the national flag, “together, as individuals, in a great co-operative effort to reclaim our country”, in the words of Egyptian Nobel prize-winning novelist Ahdaf Soueif.
Made in USA fighter jets and military helicopters “bravely” flying low over the crowds at Tahrir Square (picture the Mubarak regime as the occupation army in Egypt; and imagine the West’s outrage if this was happening in Tehran).
We are all Egyptians now.
Pharaoh 2011 does look like a remix of Shah of Iran 1979. Sure, there’s no ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to lead the Egyptian masses, and former International Atomic Energy Agency chief, Egyptian Mohamed ElBaradei, is being accused by quite a few in the streets of “stealing our revolution”. But it’s hard not to remember that the Shah of Iran is buried in Cairo because Iranians wouldn’t allow his body to rejoin the motherland.
Yet imperialists should take note: the last time the Egyptian street gelled this way was during the 1919 revolution against the British. Now, for Muslims and Christians, the working class, the middle class, the unemployed masses, lawyers, judges, scholars from al-Azhar University, students, peasants, theologians, independent journalists and bloggers, Muslim Brotherhood activists, the National Association for Change, the April 6th movement, for all them the days of Mubarak’s Animal Farm are numbered.
Five opposition movements – including the Muslim Brotherhood – have mandated ElBaradei to negotiate the formation of a transitional “national salvation government”. The odds that the Pharaoh will negotiate anything are next to zero. To add to the complexity the bulk of the urban young activist generation trusts “popular committees” rather than ElBaradei.
So it’s not puzzling that this is not an Islamic revolution, like Iran in 1979. It’s the economy, stupid. Islam in Egypt today is essentially split between two currents; non-politicized Salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood – decimated by decades of repression and torture, and ultimately also without an explicit political program apart from providing social services neglected by the state.
The fact that the Brotherhood has been in the revolutionary backstage so far has to do with two factors. If it exposed itself too much, Mubarak would have had the perfect excuse to label the revolution as concocted by “terrorists”. Additionally, the Brotherhood evaluated that this time it is only one actor among many.
This is a spontaneous popular movement following on the heels of Kefaya (“Enough!”) – a “yellow” popular movement (its color of choice) by intellectuals and political activists whose slogan already in 2004 was La lil-tamdid, La lil-tawrith (“No to another mandate, no to a hereditary republic”).
Kefaya, although an elite, leaderless, non-ideological movement, was the spark that launched a thousand movements, such as “Journalists for Change”, Workers for Change”, Doctors for Change” or “Youngsters for Change” that led to the current wave of urban, middle and lower middle class, web-savvy citizens organizing countless online forums.
Another crucial development has been the 2008 strike by textile workers in the Nile Delta town of Mahalla al-Kubra when three people were killed by Mubarak’s security apparatus on April 16 – inspiring the homonymous online movement.
The Holy Grail was always to fully mobilize the masses. Last week, they finally crossed over. The Kefaya-influenced young still prefer popular committees over politicians to guide this revolution on the go. The pulse of the streets seems to point to many Egyptians not wanting any political or religious ideology to monopolize what is essentially a liquid, pluralistic, multiform movement bent on radically reforming the country and propelling it as a new model for the whole Arab world. It’s all so seductively romantic, perhaps. But the yearning for a catharsis is inevitable after three decades of living in an Animal Farm.
Egypt won’t become a working democracy because of lack of political infrastructure. But it has to restart from scratch, with most of the opposition almost as reviled as the regime. The younger generation – empowered by the feeling of being on the right side of history – will be crucial.
They won’t accept an optical illusion of regime change that ensures continuous “stability”. They won’t accept being hijacked by the US and Europe and presented with a new puppet. What they want is the shock of the new; a truly sovereign government, no more neo-liberalism, and a new Middle East political order. Expect the counter-revolution to be fierce. And extending way beyond a few bunkers in Cairo.
End Quotes
Richard,
I must insist that you read and cite the Additional Protocol. Tell all of us, specifically, which provision of the Additional Protocol requires Iran to divulge the existence, much less the identity, of a single Iranian nuclear scientist, cafeteria worker or trash remover. Tell all of us, specifically, which provision of the Additional Protocol would allow the IAEA to inspect a military facility.
Cite the article. Quote the part you’re relying on. Tell us why you think it supports what you claim to believe.
We’re both several decades too old to rely on “Surely you don’t believe that…” arguments. Time for you to start citing chapter and verse.
Eric: “That will mean, for example, that Iran need not let anyone talk to a nuclear scientist, or identify a nuclear scientist, or let anyone see one, hear one, smell one, touch one, or even know that one exists. Same for secretaries, cafeteria personnel and the guys who take out the trash. Nothing in the AP requires any of that information.”
Oh, really? Here is the description direct from the IAEA on what an Additional Protocol allows the IAEA to do:
Quote
Measures under Additional Protocols
* State provision of information about, and IAEA inspector access to, all parts of a State’s nuclear fuel cycle – including uranium mines, fuel fabrication and enrichment plants, and nuclear waste sites – as well as to any other location where nuclear material is or may be present.
* State provision of information on, and IAEA short-notice access to, all buildings on a nuclear site. (The Protocol provides for IAEA inspectors to have “complementary” access to assure the absence of undeclared nuclear material or to resolve questions or inconsistencies in the information a State has provided about its nuclear activities. Advance notice in most cases is at least 24 hours. The advance notice is shorter – at least two hours – for access to any place on a site that is sought in conjunction with design information verification or ad hoc or routine inspections at that site. The activities carried out during complementary access could include examination of records, visual observation, environmental sampling, utilization of radiation detection and measurement devices, and the application of seals and other identifying and tamper-indicating devices).
* IAEA collection of environmental samples at locations beyond declared locations when deemed necessary by the Agency. (Wider area environmental sampling would require IAEA Board approval of such sampling and consultations with the State concerned).
* IAEA right to make use of internationally established communications systems, including satellite systems and other forms of telecommunication.
* State acceptance of IAEA inspector designations and issuance of multiple entry visas (valid for at least one year) for inspectors.
* State provision of information about, and IAEA verification mechanisms for, its research and development activities related to its nuclear fuel cycle.
* State provision of information on the manufacture and export of sensitive nuclear-related technologies, and IAEA verification mechanisms for manufacturing and import locations in the State.
End Quote
You don’t see any possibility of an Iranian nuclear scientist being identified in the following: “* State provision of information about, and IAEA inspector access to, all parts of a State’s nuclear fuel cycle – including uranium mines, fuel fabrication and enrichment plants, and nuclear waste sites – as well as to any other location where nuclear material is or may be present.”
Really? That is one bizarre statement. Where do you think Iranian nuclear scientists work – in bars? Oh, wait, Islamic country – no bars. How about brothels?
Can’t go to military facilities? Really? What part of “* IAEA collection of environmental samples at locations beyond declared locations when deemed necessary by the Agency. (Wider area environmental sampling would require IAEA Board approval of such sampling and consultations with the State concerned)” prevents the IAEA from declaring ANY military facility in Iran as a potential “nuclear site” if it wants to prove Iran’s military has no connection to its nuclear program?
What part of THIS – “* State provision of information about, and IAEA verification mechanisms for, its research and development activities related to its nuclear fuel cycle – doesn’t CLEARLY require Iran to provide the names and activities of its nuclear scientists?
Really – you’re just lying now about the issue. You’re just assuming I won’t look up what an Additional Protocol can require. Even if Iran managed to negotiate an Additional Protocol which does not include all the above, this will just allow the US to claim Iran hasn’t “really” implemented the AP because the AP is “inadequate.” And do you really believe that Iran, the most persecuted country in history over its nuclear program, would even be able to negotiate an Additional Protocol that did not include much of the above, under the current administration of the IAEA?
Really, this is just beneath you to make such a ridiculous claim that Iran could protect every single one of its scientists from disclosure.
Richard,
“By definition, no one knows what will be revealed UNTIL THE IAEA DEMANDS IT. Which is precisely the point – Iran must agree to divulge anything the IAEA (or the CIA or the US in general via the IAEA) demands or the US will claim Iran is not living up to its “obligations” under the AP.”
I usually refrain from falling back on the “Read the document” argument. But I’m really beginning to wonder whether you’ve ever actually read the Additional Protocol. I’ll go a step further: I’m pretty sure you never have, or at least you’ve forgotten what you’ve read.
Of course we don’t know what will be revealed until it’s revealed. All we know is what the AP requires Iran to reveal. Maybe Iran will present the IAEA with a neatly typed list of every nuclear scientist’s name and address, the names and ages of their children, where they attend school, and their favorite flavors of ice cream and candy. Obviously, the people involved in Iran’s nuclear program don’t always do what they’re trained to do – witness Stuxnet, which would have had no effect whatsoever on Iran’s nuclear program if everyone had followed Rule 1 of Computer Security 101: Don’t plug a removable memory device into a closed network.
On the other hand, maybe Iran’s nuclear program people won’t screw up next time. Maybe they’ll just disclose what the AP requires, nothing more. That will mean, for example, that Iran need not let anyone talk to a nuclear scientist, or identify a nuclear scientist, or let anyone see one, hear one, smell one, touch one, or even know that one exists. Same for secretaries, cafeteria personnel and the guys who take out the trash. Nothing in the AP requires any of that information. If you’d ever really read the AP, you would know this, but I don’t think you have read it and so I doubt you do know this.
If I were Iran, and were concerned that many people out there, like you, don’t understand this basic fact, I’d probably announce something like this, right up front:
“We’re going to comply with the Additional Protocol, fully, but we want everyone to know ahead of time we’re not going to be giving out any scientists’ names or any other information from which anyone involved in our nuclear program can be identified. There’s no question that the AP doesn’t call for this information, and we don’t intend to volunteer it. Someone has been killing our scientists, and we want that to stop. We think most people in the world agree with us about that.”
Maybe the US will claim Iran isn’t complying with the AP, even if Iran complies with it fully. Although that didn’t happen last time (the IAEA’s complaints related to questions arising from the “alleged studies,” not Iran’s AP answers), maybe your baseless speculation will turn out to be correct, however baseless it may be.
But what concerns me most is that you really don’t seem to understand that Iran isn’t required to disclose any such information. For this reason, before you dash off another response, please sit down and read the Additional Protocol, and tell me you’ve read it at the beginning of your response. It will be best for both of us that you do that first.
fyi:
I was informed by my Egyptian friends that there are around 3 million Egyptians in Saudi Arabia, hating Mubarak and his regime. it would be like playing with fire for Saudies to accept Mubarak. I guess, Netherlands or France could be the possible places for him.
Mubarak has been a puppet and a loyal servant of Israel & the US for the past 30 years.
USA and Israel will not let go of Egypt that easily, the covert and “PSYOP” is in full force, more bloodshed is inevitable but you will not see the picture of victims on CNN and fox news as Neda’s was for propaganda purposes.
Eric: Ah, back to your old “head in the sand” argument – we “don’t know” whereof we speak.
Also, once again reframing the argument rather than dealing with it directly.
Arnold: “One of two things must be true: AP disclosures give no information that could help US efforts to harm Iran’s nuclear program or they give information that could harm Iran.”
Eric: “Indeed, one of those two statements is true. And neither you nor I knows which it is.”
Clear statement of what YOU believe to be “”knowing” rather than “speculation.”
“The point is that you don’t have a clue what’s revealed in any Iranian AP disclosures.”
Which is completely irrelevant to the argument. By definition, no one knows what will be revealed UNTIL THE IAEA DEMANDS IT. Which is precisely the point – Iran must agree to divulge anything the IAEA (or the CIA or the US in general via the IAEA) demands or the US will claim Iran is not living up to its “obligations” under the AP.
Therefore Iran must consider the PROBABILITY rather than the FACT that the US will use the AP to seek out Iranian vulnerabilities.
“Even if you did, the fact would remain that you don’t have a clue what the US and Israel know about Iranian targets apart from those AP disclosures.”
Also completely irrelevant to the point. From Iran’s perspective, it can’t know what the US or Israel does or does not know. It has to deal with the threat, not the outcome. But if it doesn’t deal with the threat, it will face the outcome.
“Since you don’t have a clue about either of those two facts — both of which, obviously, you’d need to know in order to determine whether the AP disclosures make a difference”
Wrong again. We don’t need to know the possible threats a priori, We only need to know that by definition the implementation of the AP in the face of a hostile power is a threat to Iranian military and technological security.
“Why don’t you have to prove guess is wrong?”
Because it’s not a “guess”. The threat is a fact by definition. Here again you reframe what is logically true as something other than what it is – something weaker, a “guess”, like you reframe an admission by the US of legal enrichment as a “approval” or a “proposal”. But it’s not a guess. It’s a fact. Iran can only implement the AP in the face of a hostile power if it gets something worth more to it than the probability of some of its secrets being revealed. It tried that years ago and all it got was illegal referral to the UN and more sanctions. Now it has only the AP to offer for a US admission of enrichment legality, which you’d like it to throw away in return for nothing despite the clear and present intelligence threat it poses.
“This really isn’t disputable. I’m surprised you’ve chosen to pursue it.”
It’s highly disputable. I’ve just done it.
Kooshy: Gareth Porter usually gets it right. That was a nice summary which echoes my comments earlier about how US foreign policy is in complete disarray at this point.
The Muslim Brotherhood does not, repeat, does not hold dominant power in the Egyptian polity. For it to get that support, much would have to change. The MB might come out of the gate strong, but others will quickly catch up, if there’s freedom for them to do so.
There’s a generation of leaders whom we aren’t discussing, whom we don’t know, who are close to the surface, who will emerge… if there’s freedom.
BiBiJon: All hogwash. Iran is not going to implement the AP without an admission from the US that enrichment is legal – and this is as it should be.
If you have any information from an official Iranian source (on or off the record) to the contrary, link to it. Otherwise it’s hogwash. The Iranians are considerably better diplomats than Eric, you or I, but I suspect they know perfectly well no one throws away their one bargaining chip for nothing – even if they may never get to play that bargaining chip due to the intransigence of their opponents.
I should make clear what I mean by “bargaining chip” here, since I’ve also said in the past that demanding an admission from the US is not a bargaining chip.
In fact, demanding an admission is not the bargaining chip. Offering the AP in exchange for that is the bargaining chip. The admission itself is the prize. It is the one thing the US will never offer on the table because it destroys the whole basis for the US persecution of Iran.
But Iran has nothing to offer the US for that prize except the AP. The US demands suspension of enrichment only – nothing less. Iran and the US both know Iran will never do that (absent some really grand bargain offer from the US that offers Iran even more than legal recognition, which Iran might consider worth the suspension, at least temporarily – but that’s outside this discussion.)
So the only way Iran can even continue to negotiate – despite the fact that negotiations will go no where – is to withhold the AP as its final bargaining chip. The AP is the bargaining chip, but the admission of legal enrichment is the prize, just as suspension of enrichment is the US’s prize (short of war which is the US’s real prize.)
In fact, this whole discussion is a complete waste of time for everyone. I don’t know why Eric continues to press this recommendation unless he feels that it makes him seem “superior” somehow in his analysis of the situation. Everyone (except you apparently) knows Iran is not going to unilaterally implement the AP. Everyone (even Eric) knows that if it did, nothing would change materially in US intentions or propaganda (let alone Israel’s). Eric has only a set of imaginary benefits that he can’t offer the slightest evidence for either materializing or having any significant effect on US intentions or propaganda.
So why are we even having this discussion? Basically because Eric has proposed this notion for…why? Can he even explain why? I doubt it. And both Arnold and I (and others) have seen the essential nonsense of the notion and responded to that effect.
It really doesn’t appear to be anything more than some pet notion of Eric’s (and now perhaps you) that he continues to flog at every opportunity without any indication that it’s even relevant in the real world.
I suppose some people would note that in that respect it’s similar to my notion that the UN should reverse the 1947 partitioning of Palestine, declare Israel an illegal state, and reassert control of the region pending creating a new Palestinian state. I freely acknowledge and always have that this isn’t going to happen. I merely state that it is the correct approach to the problem. So perhaps Eric is saying that Iran’s unilaterally implementing the AP is the “correct” approach to Iran’s problem.
Except I can point to actual results from the world delegitimizing Israel while Eric can’t do anything but hypothesize “benefits” that the history of the Iran issue has already shown won’t happen. And I can show that IF the US DID make an admission of enrichment legality, that would materially change the situation even if the US otherwise refused to change its posture.
So the question boils down to: why not let Eric flog his pet notion at every opportunity? Well, because it’s nonsense – and we have enough nonsense in the Iran issue to tolerate any more. It’s an issue of intellectual integrity.
Egypt Protests Show American Foreign-Policy Folly:
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/28/egypt-protests-show-american-foreign-policy-folly.html
Eric A. Brill says: January 31, 2011 at 10:05 pm
The post Mubarak Egyptian government will not abrogate the Peace Treaty with Israel.
Most likely, they will recall their Ambassador from Israel and leave it at that.
The more likely scenario will be to opne the border with Gaza: that could, eventually, lead to war with Israel in case Israel attacks Gaza again.
I think PA is finished and I think that Israel’s ability to attack Gaza at will is also severly circmscribed in the future.
For Muslim Bortherhood to execute a truly revolutionary change in Egypt it has to cause the breakup of the Egyptian Armed Forces. I do not think that they have the ruthlessness or the ability to do that now. So, a revolutionary change in Cairo, as opposed to what happened in Tehran, is not probable.
The Muslim Brothers, in my opinion, will be a significant political force in Egypt but they will not be able to overcome the power of the Armed Forces. Your best comparison is Indonesia after Suharto or Pakistan after Ayub Khan.
Police attack praying Egyptians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLWWFi5LiAQ&feature=player_embedded
After some initial hesitation, born of uncertainty about what the turmoil in Egypt means for the United States, mainstream US commentators (such as Nicholas Kristof in today’s NY Times) – even some in Israel – now seem to be stumbling all over themselves to proclaim that “This is not about the United States [or Israel]; it’s about Egypt” – meaning that we should be championing democracy in Egypt regardless of the consequences to the United States (and a certain ally).
I happen to believe that is the best course for Egypt. What I’m far less certain about is whether all of these noble commentators will be writing the same thing when the first national election is held, the Muslim Brotherhood wins, and the new Egyptian government takes a fresh look at the Egypt-Israel peace treaty.
I’m willing to bet we’ll then be reading more nuanced views about democracy in Egypt.
FYI: I want to thank you for the interchange, and for your insistence on your points.
Empty, I am happy for the clarification.
The biggest oil refinery of the Middle East will be inaugurated in Shazand in the central Iranian city of Arak.
http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20110129045251
Gareth Porter failed to take account of the kingpin linch pin: the dollar as reserve currency and the interests of the financiers.
How much does the U.S. spend on Egypt?
http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/f.a.q.-on-u.s.-aid-to-egypt-where-does-the-money-go-who-decides-how-spent
Empty says: January 31, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Yes, I meant consices.
“So long as Egypt refrains from warring against Israel, other Arab states cannot take military action by themselves…” – Leslie Gelb
the main concern is how to deal with symptoms. Why not be honest about what the causes of a war might be, and eliminate/ameliorate the causes? Israel is treating Palestinians unjustly. How many times does that have to be recited? Stop crapping on Palestinians and maybe Arab states will have no incitement to “take military action.”
“They asked him to serve as the protector of U.S. security interests in the Persian Gulf at a time when the British were withdrawing and the United States was tied down in Indochina. Not only was Iran (and specifically the shah) the linchpin of U.S. regional security, but the United States had no backup plan. So confident was everyone that the shah or his successor would maintain this highly personal relationship that there had been no effort to fashion a Plan B in the event of an unexpected catastrophe.”
Andrew Bacevich has a very good essay on the Carter Doctrine, and why it should have been revisited long ago: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/new/blogs/bacevich/The_Carter_Doctrine_at_30
PG
In a way I understood that he meant they were the ones that tried to inflame the dispute, originally in Iraq and later on in Pakistan that I believe is correct, remember the Samareh mosque incident.
kooshy says:
January 31, 2011 at 5:59 pm
It was indeed a very revealing article. thanks for sharing. I also put it in facebook.
However, I did not expect from Gareth Porter, as the one who I suspect is a regular reader of this website, to flip-flop on the dirty sectarian divide. I always admire him as a fair journalist, but this one was a bit disappointing of him.
We are witnessing the initial stages of the prophesied War of Gog and Magog found in the Book of Ezekiel – an alliance of Islamic nations which will unite in an attempt to annihilate Israel. As successive Middle Eastern nations turn to embrace political Islam, Israel is inhabiting an increasingly hostile, angry and soon vengeful neighborhood.
Leverett’s analysis is spot on – unfortunately they are accurately predicting the most horrific war the Middle East will ever see – likely within the decade.
RSH
kooshy — I’m not advocating that US engage in such coup d’etats, I’m just passing along information re what might be going on in the background.
_________
I am not aware of the details of the Sept 19789 protest in Tehran. Wikileaks suggests that “zionists” fired on the crowd. Why would Israel shoot Iranians if Iran was an essential element in Israel’s periphery doctrine?
Besides, wasn’t Israel receiving significant revenue streams from its involvment in Iranian oil and weapons industries?
_____
If Mubarak falls, and a government suitable to US and Israel is not installed, Iran will come in for even more harsh treatment by Israel. If US is able to steady the ship and keep Israel pacified, status quo will prevail. Hell, what’s 80 million Egyptians when American Jewish campaign contributions hang in the balance?
Does Obama remember that in 2008, no such momentous imbalances in Israel’s position prevailed, but Israel STILL heaped venom on Obama and made numerous demands that he profess his fealty to the Israeli state? And upon taking office, those bowings and scrapings were required to be accompanied by cash.
Islamic Republic is the only country in the region which has voiced its support for the demonstrations in Tunis and Egypt – from Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani, deputy head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps General Hossein Salami to Tehran’s provisional Friday prayers leader Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami.
“Egypt is the heart of the Arab world. Therefore, any political changes or socio-political revolutions in Egypt could repeat in many other Islamic countries. …. Egypt had become a backyard for Israel and geostrategic back-up for the United States’ policies toward Africa,” said General Hossein Salami.
Israel’s ‘Save Mubarak’ Campaign
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/israels-save-mubarak-campaign/
Eric,
Don’t miss Ali Abunimah’s ‘The Palestine Papers and the “Gaza Coup”‘ (a piece Tom Friedman needs to read).
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11756.shtml
“Additional background on how US “manages” changings of the guards is also available on Voltairenet — this one is very helpful, though it may dash hopes for a reformed US foreign policy: The Technique of a Coup d’Etat”
Fiorangela
That doesn’t make much sense, there are a lot less risky ways to bring about a color revolution then going to this extreme and jeopardizing the whole regional policy. Geopolitical consequences for that kind of planning is too high to take a risk like that.
The Worst of Both Worlds
As the revolt in Egypt spreads, Barack Obama faces a familiar dilemma in the Middle East.
BY GARY SICK | JANUARY 29, 2011
The string of popular uprisings that are rocking the Arab world, most recently in Egypt, have created a fundamental dilemma for U.S. policy in the Middle East. Policymakers are being forced to place a bet on an outcome that is inherently unpredictable and pregnant with some unsavory consequences.
There is no shortage of talk about the conditions in these Arab countries that has given rise to the revolts. They have very young populations, poor economic performance, meager future prospects, a widening divide between the wealthy and the poor, and live with a culture of authoritarian arrogance from governments that have come to regard their position as a matter of entitlement. The line between monarchies and “republics” has become so blurred as to be meaningless. Family dynasties rule … and rule and rule, seemingly forever.
Just about everyone agreed it had to change. But the masses appeared so passive, the governments so efficient at repression — the one job they did really well — that no one was willing to predict when or how change would happen.
Now that the status quo is shaking, there are expressions of amazement that the U.S. government made its bed with such dictatorial regimes for so long. We coddled them and gave them huge sums of money while averting our eyes from the more distasteful aspects of their rule. How to explain this hypocrisy?
The facts are not so mysterious. It was an Egyptian dictator (Anwar Sadat) who made peace with Israel, leading to his assassination; and it was another dictator (Hosni Mubarak) who kept that peace, however cold, for the past 30 years. As part of that initial bargain and successive agreements, the United States has paid in excess of $60 billion to the government of Egypt and an amount approaching $100 billion to Israel. The investment may be huge, but since the Camp David agreement negotiated by President Jimmy Carter in 1978 there has been no new Arab-Israel war.
Some may quibble with the crude implication of a payoff or the collapsing of several generations of politics in the Middle East into this simple formula. But it has some validity. Here is how Vice President Joe Biden answered when PBS anchor Jim Lehrer asked him whether Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was a dictator:
Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things and he’s been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interests in the region: Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing the relationship with Israel.
And I think that it would be — I would not refer to him as a dictator.
Leslie Gelb, a former senior U.S. government official and president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, put it this way:
The stakes are sky high. Egypt is the linchpin to peace in the Middle East. So long as Egypt refrains from warring against Israel, other Arab states cannot take military action by themselves…
So in some minds, the issue is primarily about Israel. As far as I can tell, the government of Israel has yet to declare itself on the wave of uprisings in the Arab world. But if this is an Israeli issue, then it is not just a U.S. foreign-policy problem but also a domestic one, especially in the run up to a presidential election year. The stakes, indeed, could be very high.
It is often forgotten, but there was a major Israeli dimension to the Iranian revolution of 1978-79 as well. The shah of Iran was Israel’s best friend in the Muslim world, an essential part of Israel’s doctrine of the periphery. Israel not only cultivated nations just outside the core Arab center, but in the case of Iran received a substantial portion of its energy supplies via covert oil deliveries to Eilat from the Persian Gulf. Israel and Iran also collaborated on joint development and testing of a ballistic missile system capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.
President Richard Nixon and his advisor Henry Kissinger formalized the U.S. relationship during a meeting with the shah in 1972. They asked him to serve as the protector of U.S. security interests in the Persian Gulf at a time when the British were withdrawing and the United States was tied down in Indochina. Not only was Iran (and specifically the shah) the linchpin of U.S. regional security, but the United States had no backup plan. So confident was everyone that the shah or his successor would maintain this highly personal relationship that there had been no effort to fashion a Plan B in the event of an unexpected catastrophe.
There is genuine irony in the fact that Carter, Sadat, and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin were at Camp David, in meetings that set the terms for more than a generation of uneasy peace in the Middle East, on the same day that the shah’s regime experienced what would eventually prove to be its death blow — the massacre of protestors at Jaleh Square in Tehran on Sept. 8, 1978.
There is no need to strain the analogy. Iran and Egypt were and are very different places, with very different political dynamics. But the fundamental nature of the decision that is required today by the United States is not very different from the dilemma faced by the Carter administration three decades ago. Should you back the regime to the hilt, in the conviction that a change of leadership would likely endanger your most precious security interests? Or should you side with the opposition — either because you agree with its goals or simply because you want to be on the “right side of history” (and in a better position to pursue your policy objectives) once the dust has settled?
Of course, there is a third way. You may try to carefully maintain your ties with the current ruler (see Biden above), while offering rhetorical support to freedom of expression, democracy, and human rights. Regrettably, as the Carter administration can attest, that may produce the worst of both worlds. If the ruler falls, he and his supporters will accuse you of being so lukewarm in your support that it was perceived as disavowal; whereas the opposition will dismiss your pious expressions as cynical and ineffectual.
Revolutions are inherently unpredictable. They may fizzle or subside in the face of sustained regime oppression. They may inspire a hard line military man to “restore order” and perhaps thereby elevate himself into a position of political authority that he is later loathe to relinquish. They may propel a determined radical fringe into power and thereby impose an ideology that has nothing to do with what people thought they were fighting for. They may go on far longer than anyone imagined at the start.
But for engaged outside powers, such as the United States in the Egyptian situation, a major revolt calls for a leap into the unknown. If you sit back and wait, events may simply pass you by. But if you jump into the fray too early (or with a mistaken notion of what is actually going on) you may lose all influence in the future political construct, whatever that may be. In any event, you should start thinking about how to repair or rebuild a security structure that had been safely on autopilot for too long.
Welcome to the real world, Mr. Obama.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/29/the_worst_of_both_worlds?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full
Fio:
I think the US is trying to keep Mubarak in power and has few cards to do so. The hope is that Suleiman can hang on. Egypt’s people seem adamant against that and if it reaches the point where either the country falls apart or the army gives in to the people, I think the army will give in to the people.
Tunisia is also, as far as I can tell, in flux.
I doubt the US wanted or planned either just because I can’t see how the US is better off in either case than if the situation of January 1 had continued for the rest of the year.
Feltman is trying to salvage Tunisia but the Islamist party will have a voice in government that will only grow from here. Clinton and the entire foreign policy apparatus of the US is trying to salvage Egypt against the millions of people who are organized in Egypt working against it.
We’ll see what happens, but if the US can avoid an abject disaster, it still looks to take a serious loss in Egypt.
kooshy,
Great piece by Gareth Porter you linked. And yes, the illegal invasion of Iraq was intended to create a stable ally of Israel (and the US) – - all the hooey about WMD was just a cover story for the real deal.
Regarding the lunacy of US policy toward Southeast Asia in the 1960s, Robert McNamara (Secretary of “Defense” and former Ford Motor Company accountant) claimed that failure to keep South Vietnam independent would result in the withdrawal of Greece and Turkey from NATO!
Porter is right, that the militarist lobby and the Israel lobby are driving the foolish US Middle East policy.
Giving the United States, while it has operatives inside and outside Iran sabotaging its program in many known and unknown ways, wide new areas of information relative to Iran’s nuclear program would help the US’ efforts to harm its nuclear program.
I guess now you’re saying maybe it would, maybe it would not.
1) How could it not? A party that is trying to harm Iran’s nuclear program learns more about Iran’s nuclear program, how would it be possible that none of the information would be relevant?
2) I’ll defer to Iran’s opinion which is obviously that it would.
3) If I accept your position, that maybe there would be no harm, that still leaves a possibility that there would be harm. That possibility of harm, of information contributing to the death of Iranian scientists, is a tangible cost. What benefit compensates for that possibility that there would be harm?
As I said either you argue that there is no harm (and maybe there is no harm, nobody knows, doesn’t count) or you argue that there are tangible benefits (who knows? doesn’t count) to Iran unilaterally implementing the AP.
Or you wait for a later thread and repeat your earlier argument. I can’t imagine the person this last response would have been persuasive to.
What are you doing, Eric?
Arnold Evans, yesterday Castellio posted a link to an item on Voltairenet that demonstrated that the Tunisia protest was very much in the format of a US-CIA-Mossad “color revolution,” complete with slick Madison Avenue-esque posters, in English, with the flag of Tunisia reduced to a squiggle.
Additional background on how US “manages” changings of the guards is also available on Voltairenet — this one is very helpful, though it may dash hopes for a reformed US foreign policy: The Technique of a Coup d’Etat
Tunisia has not so far had a ‘revolution,’ it had a moment involving an unfortunate, desperate, and dead, young man, that US (spelled Jeffrey Feltman) exploited for US purposes.
Given all the hallmarks of a color revolution as described in “Technique of a Coup d’Etat,” and given that US congressmen such as California’s Ed Royce stated that the intent of US sanctions on Iran was to create the conditions for a ‘revolution,’ it’s reasonable to speculate that the Green movement was Made in the USA. Who sez the US no longer has a manufacturing base?
More and more, it seems like the Egyptian Revolution WAS homegrown and caught the US by surprise, but that just as Hillary quickly regained her footing after she fell while boarding a plane in Yemen, she has regained her footing and will exploit and manage the Egypt revolution to suit her — and Israel’s — purposes. I fear we will witness a double-shaft of young Egyptians; I hope it does not become bloody.
I also believe we all — and Israelis especially — will sooner or later rue this day that they were not forced to come to grips with the inevitability of the fragmentation of the “zionist entity.”
Arnold,
“One of two things must be true: AP disclosures give no information that could help US efforts to harm Iran’s nuclear program or they give information that could harm Iran.”
Indeed, one of those two statements is true. And neither you nor I knows which it is.
You’re backing a losing horse here. The point is that you don’t have a clue what’s revealed in any Iranian AP disclosures. Even if you did, the fact would remain that you don’t have a clue what the US and Israel know about Iranian targets apart from those AP disclosures. Since you don’t have a clue about either of those two facts — both of which, obviously, you’d need to know in order to determine whether the AP disclosures make a difference — it follows that you don’t have a clue whether those AP disclosures would make a difference. You may be “pretty sure” you’re right, but so what? You’re just guessing. And for some reason you don’t explain, you conclude I have some obligation to prove your guess is wrong. I give up: Why? Why don’t you have to prove guess is wrong?
This really isn’t disputable. I’m surprised you’ve chosen to pursue it.
A good article
Published on Monday, January 31, 2011 by CommonDreams.org
Why Washington Clings to a Failed Middle East Strategy
by Gareth Porter
The death throes of the Mubarak regime in Egypt signal a new level of crisis for a U.S. Middle East strategy that has shown itself over and over again in recent years to be based on nothing more than the illusion of power. The incipient loss of the U.S. client regime in Egypt is an obvious moment for a fundamental adjustment in that strategy.
But those moments have been coming with increasing regularity in recent years, and the U.S. national security bureaucracy has shown itself to be remarkably resistant to giving it up. The troubled history of that strategy suggests that it is an expression of some powerful political forces at work in this society, as former NSC official Gary Sick hinted in a commentary on the crisis.
Ever since the Islamic Republic of Iran was established in 1979, every U.S. administration has operated on the assumption that the United States, with Israel and Egypt as key client states, occupies a power position in the Middle East that allows it to pursue an aggressive strategy of unrelenting pressure on all those “rogue” regimes and parties in the region which have resisted dominance by the U.S.-Israeli tandem: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.
The Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq was only the most extreme expression of that broader strategic concept. It assumed that the United States and Israel could establish pro-Western regime in Iraq as the base from which it would press for the elimination of resistance from any of their remaining adversaries in the region.
But since that more aggressive version of the strategy was launched, the illusory nature of the regional dominance strategy has been laid bare in one country after another.
• The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq merely empowered Shi’a forces to form a regime whose geostrategic interests are far closer to Iran than to the United States;
• The U.S.-encouraged Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 only strengthened the position of Hezbollah as the largest, most popular and most disciplined political-military force in the country, leading ultimately the Hezbollah-backed government now being formed.
• Israeli and U.S. threats to attack Iran, Hezbollah and Syria since 2006 brought an even more massive influx of rockets and missiles into Lebanon and Syria which now appears to deter Israeli aggressiveness toward its adversaries for the first time.
• U.S.-Israeli efforts to create a client Palestinian entity and crush Hamas through the siege of Gaza has backfired, strengthening the Hamas claim to be the only viable Palestinian entity.
• The U.S. insistence on demonstrating the effectiveness of its military power in Afghanistan has only revealed the inability of the U.S. military to master the Afghan insurgency.
And now the Mubarak regime is in its final days. As one talking head after another has pointed out in recent days, it has been the lynchpin of the U.S. strategy. The main function of the U.S. client state relationship with Egypt was to allow Israel to avoid coming to terms with Palestinian demands.
The costs of the illusory quest for dominance in the Middle East have been incalculable. By continuing to support Israeli extremist refusal to seek a peaceful settlement, trying to prop up Arab authoritarian regimes that are friendly with Israel and seeking to project military power in the region through both airbases in the Gulf States and a semi-permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the strategy has assiduously built up long-term antagonism toward the United States and pushed many throughout the Islamic world to sympathize with Al Qaeda-style jihadism. It has also fed Sunni-Shi’a tensions in the region and created a crisis over Iran’s nuclear program.
Although this is clearly the time to scrap that Middle East strategy, the nature of U.S. national security policymaking poses formidable obstacles to such an adjustment Bureaucrats and bureaucracies always want to hold on to policies and programs that have given them power and prestige, even if those policies and programs have been costly failures. Above all, in fact, they want to avoid having to admit the failure and the costs involved. So they go on defending and pursuing strategies long after the costs and failure have become clear.
An historical parallel to the present strategy in the Middle East is the Cold War strategy in East Asia, including the policy of surrounding, isolating and pressuring the Communist Chinese regime. As documented in my own history of the U.S. path to war in Vietnam, Perils of Dominance , the national security bureaucracy was so committed to that strategy that it resisted any alternative to war in South Vietnam in 1964-65, because it believed the loss of South Vietnam would mean the end of Cold War strategy, with its military alliances, client regimes and network of military bases surrounding China. It was only during the Nixon administration that the White House wrested control of national security policy from the bureaucracy sufficiently to scrap that Cold War strategy in East Asia and reach an historic accommodation with China.
The present strategic crisis can only be resolved by a similar political decision to reach another historical accommodation – this time with the “resistance bloc” in the Middle East. Despite the demonization of Iran and the rest of the “resistance bloc”, their interests on the primary issue of al Qaeda-like global terrorism have long been more aligned with the objective security interests of the United States than those of some regimes with which the United States has been allied (e.g., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan).
Scrapping the failed strategy in favor of an historic accommodation in the region would:
• reduce the Sunni-Shi’a geopolitical tensions in the region by supporting a new Iran-Egypt relationship;
• force Israel to reconsider its refusal to enter into real negotiations on a Palestinian settlement;
• reduce the level of antagonism toward the United States in the Islamic world and
• create a new opportunity for agreement between the United States and Iran that could resolve the nuclear issue.
It will be far more difficult, however, for the United States to make this strategic adjustment than it was for Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger to secretly set in motion their accommodation with China. Unconditional support for Israel, the search for client states and determination to project military power into the Middle East, which are central to the failed strategy, have long reflected the interests of the two most powerful domestic U.S. political power blocs bearing on national security policy: the pro-Israel bloc and the militarist bloc. Whereas Nixon and Kissinger were not immobilized by fealty to any such power bloc, both the pro-Israel and militarist power blocs now dominate both parties in the White House as well as in Congress.
One looks in vain for a political force in this country that is free to press for fundamental change in Middle East strategy. And without a push for such a change from outside, we face the distinct possibility of a national security bureaucracy and White House continuing to deny the strategy’s utter failure and disastrous consequences.
Castellio, Richard Silverstein seems to have gotten into a dustup with a participant on his blog. ’twill be interesting to see if the particpant responds to Silverstein’s charge that the participant “lied,” and/or if Silverstein will post the response.
Mubarak’s wife was a nurse from Pontypridd, Wales (who married an Egyptian doctor she met while working at a hospital in London).
fyi,
With Quran verses that I post here, I am personally doing a direct translations/interpretation from Arabic to English. I insist on putting the statement regarding *interpretation* as well since sometimes I agonize about what specific words I have to use so that they closely convey the meaning intended in original and I am taking full responsibility for that interpretation and the mistakes that go with it. I could do Latin translations but not Hebrew or Greek.
Regarding “dense” perhaps you mean a “concise summary” or something like that? Or do you mean “incomprehensible”?
Richard Steven Hack says:
January 31, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Richard:
I admit it has been a hectic week trying to make sense of things. I hope I’m not too far gone.
It occured to me, with Mid East on flames, the West is in no position to demand or pretend to demand any thing. If Iran were ever to do the AP, now would be the time. If not, the question then becomes ‘what if never’.
If ‘never’, then a lot of Eric’s points start to take on a life of their own.
If short while after Saturday, US has not made friendly gestures, and more explicitly accpted Iran’s rights, then Iran can once again withdraw from AP.
All hogwash, or does the idea provoke a thought?
James,
I’d say your impressions of our Mr. Huckabee are pretty accurate.
Eric
Eric,
So, Mike Huckabee thinks it would be discriminatory not to allow illegal Jewish colonists to build illegal houses in the West Bank! Amazing! (Or should be… Huckabee wants to make clear he is a whore of the Israel lobby).
BiBiJon: I don’t have $5 to spare for anything, least of all a bet.
It’s not happening, get over it. I don’t how you caught this hallucination from Eric, but forget about it.
Clinton: US Won’t Support Mubarak’s Ouster
:http://news.antiwar.com/2011/01/30/clinton-us-wont-support-mubaraks-ouster/
The code word is “managed change”, i.e. the US wants Mubarak to stay, just shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Meanwhile (although this comes form a highly biased source, The Jerusalem Post):
Cairo: Anger starting to focus on Israel, US
:http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=205931
Quote
“The USA does not support democracy; they’re supporting Israel, which is like their baby,” said Ahmed, a 26-year-old Cairo resident. “They think Egypt is functional because it’s in favor of their considerations.”
“I don’t care if we have peace [with Israel] or not,” Ahmed continued, echoing the indifference of many demonstrators who don’t have a clear agenda for what they want a future Egypt to look like, as long as it does not include Mubarak. “But will Israel allow us to have a real president? For example, Turkey elected an Islamic government, but it was their choice. Will Israel give us the freedom to make the same choice?” he asked.
End Quote
Eric,
The Hamas takeover in Gaza was more of a counter-coup, to forestall a Fatah coup. But Tom Friedman would not want to confuse his host.
Justin Raimondo mentions:
Quote
IMPORTANT UPDATE: Egypt Army Says They Won’t Fire on Their Own People
January 31, 2011| News | Justin Raimondo
The Egyptian army has reportedly issued a statement declaring they will not fire on the hundreds of thousands of protesters occupying Tahrir Square.
This occurs as the protesters, led by the April 6 movement, issue a call for a general strike and a “million man march” to finally topple the US-backed regime.
I think we can say, with near certainty, that Mubarak is finished.
Here is a more comprehensive report on the statement, which reads in part:
“The presence of the army in the streets is for your sake and to ensure your safety and wellbeing. The armed forces will not resort to use of force against our great people.
“Your armed forces, who are aware of the legitimacy of your demands and are keen to assume their responsibility in protecting the nation and the citizens, affirms that freedom of expression through peaceful means is guaranteed to everybody.”
End Quote
Meanwhile:
And There It Is: Neocons Test Idea of US Intervention in Egypt
:http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/01/31/and-there-it-is-neocons-test-idea-of-us-intervention-in-egypt/
Not that I take that as a serious likelihood at this point, but it shows that I’m not wrong when I suggest that the US and Israel may resort to it at some point in the future if trends continue the way they are. It may not happen under Obama, but as the article on Huckabee shows, it probably will if he ever becomes President.
Richard Steven Hack says:
January 31, 2011 at 5:10 pm
$5 to my favorite charity if I’m right.
BiBiJon: “IMHO, before the week is out, Iran will announce that she is reinstituting it.”
Yeah, I’ll check in Saturday about that.
Empty says: January 31, 2011 at 3:53 pm
The key passage is in the description of the crucification in the Quran; that his “similie” was killed by not Jesus.
This idea of the “similie” occurs in gnostic texts.
And the gnostic texts do not support the Nicean Creed and the Jesus as God and Man. The gnostic texts’ portrayal of Jesus actually make sense within the mystical tradition of Islam as the Perfect Man – he who has reached such high level of gnostic illumination that he is a co-participant, with God, in the active life of the Universe. Thus it is that he is the Word of God – Spirit of God.
I am somewhat tied up and caanot do justice to the topics that I raise. Each of them, I am afraid, deserves much more attention and care than I can supply with my meager understanding and formal knowledge. I wanted to share what I had learnt – however incomplete and imperfect.
To do justice to these topics, one would need to know Arabic, Ancient Greek, Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, German, French, and English as well as Christian Doctine and Muslim Religious sciences.
In regards to density of the Quran: the second Surah is a very dense recapitulation of the Judaic tradition.
If one uses Troah, Hagaddah etc. one actually could expand that Surah quite a bit.
Castellio,
RE: “I don’t understand your instructions, and then partial withdrawal, to FYI.
I wrote that as I have noticed that fyi makes a lot of references to Quran without providing actual evidence from it and they are incorrect even by the most literal translations of Quran. So the initial instruction was to bring his attention to it. Then I thought about it and realized that great portion of what he alleges about Quran is also alleged in various media. By him continuing to say these things, he is actually providing us with an opportunity to address them.
RE: “Who is the opponent here? And is the opponent an enemy in your regard?”
The opponents are either those in the mainstream media or in some public/social places that systematically attack Quran without providing any evidence. Some might be just unaware and some are deliberate. And there some who know exactly what Quran says and oppose it (violently and deceitfully) precisely because of what It says. It is the last group that I would regard as an enemy.
RE: “What undeclared battle do you see going on?”
I do not believe the battle to be undeclared. I believe it’s very much declared!
On this forum and related to your discussion with fyi about the topic of religion, beliefs, etc., I have not seen any evidence to consider you’re coming from the position of either an enemy or an opponent [just in case that's what you were wondering].
Fiorangela: “has it occurred to you that Clinton might be thinking that it’s time to demand that Israel behave?”
Nope. Never crossed my mind. Shouldn’t have crossed yours since it’s about as likely as me flapping my arms and flying to the moon.
Fiorangela says:
January 31, 2011 at 4:37 pm
If I were Hillary, I would ask Hamas permission to move the fifth fleet from Bahrain to Gaza.
Fio:
Mubarak “is as close as Israel can get to a friend in the Middle East.”
I heard that in the report and entirely missed it. I’m glad you caught it.
I’ve put this quote from right-wing Israeli strategist Arnon Soffer here multiple times.
http://www.jpost.com/home/article.aspx?id=77909
Question: When you refer to Egypt, you are talking about President Hosni Mubarak. But what about the Muslim Brotherhood – a powerful and spreading force there?
Rosen: Every morning, when I read the papers and see that Jordanian King Abdullah II is healthy and Mubarak is still alive, I know we’ve earned another day. I live with the sense that one day we will wake up to the news of a coup in Jordan and Egypt. And woe is the day when insane Islam takes over those two countries. In other words, in spite of everything he does, Mubarak is still among our friends. He’s also got problems.
UU,
I suggest a little immersion in the works of Shahid Sadr to rediscover the beauty of usuli jurisprudence. In Jafari fiqh we have an era pre Shahid Sadr and Imam and an era post these two giants. As Shahid Sadr said about Imam “Zubu fi Khomeini kama zubuhu fi Islam”. Also Shahid Sadr’s reworking of logic using inductive probability opens up many new horizons in jurisprudence, kalaam and tafsir.
I believe that a morality police is certainly legitimate but as pointed out, the problem is the lack of specificity of the law, not the law enforcement officer. I think it would be good if the law clearly spells out what it considers examples of correct and incorrect public dress and the legal sanctions relating to it. In fact all societies do this. Like I said it has become a “rusariye Osman” (BTY, your silence on this brilliant play on “piraane Osman” saddened me :-)
Eric:
I’m happy with how the thread looks right now. You can engage or you can not. As I said, I’m completely confident that a reasonable reader would conclude that your position is less persuasive.
To look at the example you brought up:
Here, for example, is what you refer to as a “fact” in your 2:17 post, which you tell me I haven’t proved “wrong” and for some unexplained reason am required to do so:
“Are you asserting that there is no information in the AP disclosures that the US does not already have that would be helpful in sabotaging or harming Iran’s nuclear program? I’m pretty sure that assertion is wrong, if that’s what you’re saying.”
Is there some “fact” that I’m overlooking? I speculated (as I’d made clear) that this fear is overblown, for reasons I specified. You speculated in response, without giving any reasons at all, that you are “pretty sure” I’m wrong about that. What, exactly, is the “fact” here – your “pretty sureness?” I don’t question that.
One of two things must be true: AP disclosures give no information that could help US efforts to harm Iran’s nuclear program or they give information that could harm Iran.
Of the two, you didn’t explicitly choose one, but since the first is ridiculous, I assumed you argue or would argue the second, there is tangible damage to Iran from releasing information and I assumed you would argue that the benefit outweighs that tangible damage.
You didn’t engage at all. You could have said “I argue that there is no information whose release would be harmful.” If you said that, I’d put in the effort to showing that it is a ridiculous position. You can do it now if you want. Go ahead now and assert that no AP information could be used to harm Iran’s nuclear program and I’ll look up what I have to look up to demonstrate that it is just an absurd position.
I’m not going to argue against it until you say it though. Until then, “I’m pretty sure it’s wrong” is enough. I have no reason to disprove arguments you’re not willing to make. I assumed you were not making that argument and it looks like I assumed correctly.
You say now, that the cost is overblown. You may have thought it before, but you didn’t say it. That is a weakness of using devices like “Iran’s hypothetical analysis” rather than just making your points in your own voice.
But now, in your voice, you say the harm of providing information is overblown. What does that even mean? Three scientists were attacked and two killed. What do you mean overblown? If you’re saying the harm is zero, or non-existent, then that’s ridiculous. By saying the cost is overblown if anything you’re conceding that there is a tangible cost.
I guess you’re claiming the cost is small, relative to what I don’t know. If implementing the AP in any way increases the chance that one centrifuge would not be constructed that otherwise would by 1%, then that is a tangible reason not to do it. If it increases the chance by 1% that a scientist working on Iran’s nuclear program could be successfully targeted, that is more than enough reason not to implement it.
So taking your concession that there is a real cost, even if you claim that cost is overblown, we can look and see if there is a real benefit, overblown or not.
Your benefits don’t seem to me, for the reasons in the 2:17 post, to outweigh even overblown costs that you concede. You say it would weaken the arguments of US and Israeli officials. I’ve never seen the argument they’ve made that it would weaken. Can you provide an example of one?
So anyway, that’s where we are.
You can argue that I was wrong at 2:17 in claiming there is a cost, or you can argue that I was wrong at 2:17 claiming there are no benefits.
Or you can wait for a new thread and make the arguments of 1:04 again. I’m perfectly happy either way.
AP or NOT AP, is no longer even a question.
IMHO, before the week is out, Iran will announce that she is reinstituting it.
I had previously toyed with the notion that “Iran has been cornered”, and the dichotomy Iran faces between the seemingly worthless accolades she wins in championships “B”, and equally worthless derision she gets in Championships “A”. Let me jump to the conclusions.
For all of the valid reasons that Arnold, and Richard have been putting forward, on balance, until now, it did not make sense for Iran to ingratiate her antagonists with anything. Indeed, Iran probably started to see some benefit in nuclear ambiguity. The Qom enrichment site(and the announcement of plans for another 10 hardened sites) was partly meant to go 180 degrees from the spirit of AP.
However, the crux of the West’s fear-mongering has been how irresistibly influential Iran will become in the future IF she were to develop a nuclear weapon capability. Well, Tunisia, Lebanon, and much much more importantly Egypt, has cratered that argument — either no such influence was ever necessary, or Iran already had plenty influence to spare even with her (at present) modest set of nuclear accomplishments.
The current state of affairs in the Middle East creates an opportunity for Iran to avail herself of all the benefits of AP which Eric has speculated on at a time when championship “A” has totally lost its luster. She will not be seen as caving in to Western pressure, nor impishly plaing to the rifraf. There can be no doubt Iran is saying ‘neither West, nor East’ when she makes her AP announcement before the week is out.
Quiz for the day, in two parts:
QUESTION ONE:
When the United States military invades Iraq to protect the United States from “weapons of mass destruction” that didn’t exist, and later suppresses armed resistance from remaining supporters of the overthrown government, what is that called?
ANSWER ONE:
Rounding up regime dead-enders.
QUESTION TWO:
When Hamas takes control of the Gaza government through elections certified as fair by impartial international observers, including former US president Jimmy Carter, and later suppresses armed resistance by disappointed members of the losing Fatah party, what is that called?
ANSWER TWO:
According to Tom Friedman on Meet the Press yesterday, that is referred to as a “coup d’etat.”
See Friedman video clip available at this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/world/middleeast/01egypt.html?_r=1&hp
Empty, I don’t understand your instructions, and then partial withdrawal, to FYI.
Who is the opponent here? And is the opponent an enemy in your regard?
What undeclared battle do you see going on?
RSH, Castellio, has it occurred to you that Clinton might be thinking that it’s time to demand that Israel behave? I look at things only through the experience of having parented children (speak softly twice, then lower the boom — primitive but effective).
How would you formulate a strategy to confront an ‘ally’ whose bad behavior you have been blind to for years, but with whom you can no longer ‘up with put’? How would you — in possession of the strongest army on the globe, surrounding Iran, yes, but also surrounding Israel — how would you structure a ‘come to jesus’ moment for Israel, if you were Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus and Mike Mullen?
re video, “Israel supports Mubarak,” (Castellio at 3:24; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSfu3reCNqg&feature=player_embedded )
“Mubarak “is as close as Israel can get to a friend in the Middle East.”
On an emotional level, that breaks my heart: it’s like saying, “the kid down the street is so ugly and so nasty and so unloved that he has to bribe and bully people to invite him to parties.”
Ratcheting up an intellectual notch, that statement seems to indicate that not only can the Middle East conflict not be solved by military means, it cannot be solved by political means. And that is completely logical: the problem in the middle east is Israel, and Israel’s problems are psychological: the situation cannot be changed without a dramatic change in the Israeli zionist psyche.
“You have the light, but you have no humanity. Seek humanity, for that is the goal.” –Rumi
Eric argues that Iran should change the behavior dynamic by signing the AP, and has further argued that Iran is not able to change American and Israeli behavior (Eric ignored my last response to that proposition).
To the question, How can American and Israeli behavior be changed, I would respond with three alternatives:
1. the Norman Finkelstein option — “Israel must suffer a devastating defeat, like Germany in 1945;” aka the military or violence option.
2. Israel/America can choose to maintain the status quo: I read recently about Marty Peretz, that he had moved to from New York to Israel. His wife of 30+ years said it did not make him any less angry — “He is always angry; 30 years of therapy and he is still angry.” This man prefers the status quo; it may be the case that Israel derives such benefit from preserving the status quo — from remaining angry, from casting itself as the victim, that it neither seeks nor knows the categories of another way of being in the world. The status quo option may be the most unpleasant of all — a kind of Multiplicative Protocol. nb. I don’t think the US will tolerate an Israeli status quo for more than another decade, maybe less — Peter Beinart has warned that young American Jews are no longer unconconditionally supportive of Israel.
3. As I stated above, I believe Israel’ problem is psychological; Israeli ideology — the things it tells itself — and teaches its young — are harmful and not congruent with reality. Some years ago, psychiatrists Aaron T. Beck and David Burns developed a “reality-based” therapy to address issues that were causing personal and interpersonal conflicts. Their therapy was based on logic, when you boiled it down: is what I am thinking true? correct? useful to me? etc. I think Israel needs reality therapy — and Fast! Israel is hurting people with its wild mood swings and unrealistic narratives. The longest-lasting form of change and healing is by confronting truth and reality, and conforming one’s life to that truth.
I see Ahmadinejad as a kind of mood therapist. Think about it: did AN impulsively decide one day that Tehran should host a holocaust conference and poof, it happened? Did he do it all by himself? Does an Iranian typically do something without a longer-range goal in mind?
As Naomi Klein has pointed out in her study of “Shock and Awe,” the concept emerged from psychiatric treatments for mental disorders. Sometimes, before a person (or a state) is motivated to confront its harmful behaviors, it has to “hit the wall;” experience a shock, or at least, an intervention.
The “truth,” the reality, that Israel has been hiding from, and the false narrative that Israel has been nursing all these years, revolves around the holocaust and the notion of Jews as perpetual victims. Both narratives need to be confronted, firmly and factually, and “de-catastrophised,” to use David Burns’ language. Israel, and the United States, its enabler-in-chief, must engage in a Truth and Reconciliation confrontation with themselves and those whom they have harmed.
There is no other way. No additional protocol. Truth is the only protocol.
Castellio: Yes, I’d rather stop repeating myself to Eric, it’s tiresome.
“How will Israel and the US react to the current situation in Egypt? You suggest war… you might be right. What should we be looking for as signs of that potentiality?”
This State Department meeting might be one indication, but that’s speculative at this point. Something more concrete would need to surface, something military. Movement of US naval forces in the region closer to Egypt and Lebanon, perhaps. Movement of Israeli forces to the border with Lebanon would be a signal.
I don’t expect this to occur right away. I think the US realizes it can’t charge into Egypt at this point. My speculation was that IF Egypt’s development over the next couple years, assuming a transition to a less “puppet” government, develops in a direction that threatens Israel’s control of Gaza or Egyptian cooperation with Israel in general, and IF Lebanon’s development strengthens Hizballah and neuters the threat of the Tribunal, and IF an “axis” develops between Iraq-Iran-Turkey-Lebanon-Egypt and possibly IF further developments occur in Jordan, then the US and Israel will find themselves in a worse position than they are now, and their options will shift more towards trying to break these countries up more directly than relying on diplomatic tricks that get turned against them by events on the ground.
This is why I see the State Department meeting as interesting. As I indicated below, Obama’s foreign policy is in total disarray now. The Wikileaks cable papers and then the “Palestine Papers” have completely wrecked the world’s view of the US diplomatic process. Hizballah has neutered the Tribunal by collapsing Hariri’s government. Iran has dismissed further talks over the nuclear issue, recognizing their futility, regardless of what Ahmadinejad has said about future talks. Afghanistan is a mess. Iraq is shifting more into the Iranian orbit. There’s hardly a single piece of good news for the US and Israel anywhere to be found.
Without resorting to their usual last (and frequently first) resort – military force – what is the US and Israel to do to reverse this clear trend?
Richard Steven Hack,
RE: “I suppose it could signal some major US policy initiative – like bombing Iran or something.”
Interestingly, you make more rational arguments about subjects in which you’re not emotionally invested (i.e. AP & Iran’s uranium enrichment rights) than about the subject of war.
Huckabee: Israel can build in West Bank, Jerusalem
By JOSH LEDERMAN, Associated Press – 34 mins ago
JERUSALEM – Potential 2012 U.S. presidential candidate Mike Huckabee told Jewish settlers Monday that attempts to prevent them from building in east Jerusalem are as outrageous as housing discrimination in the United States.
“I cannot imagine, as an American, being told I could not live in certain places in America because I was Christian, or because I was white, or because I spoke English,” he said.
Huckabee dismissed the notion that Jewish settlements on land the Palestinians want for a future state are obstacles to peace. Instead, he backed the settlers’ view that they have the right to build anywhere in “the place that God gave them.”
Most of the international community — including President Barack Obama — considers the settlements illegal because they are built on occupied land. Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and a serious contender for president in 2008, is expected to seek the Republican nomination to run against Obama in 2012.
An evangelical minister and Fox News host, Huckabee makes frequent trips to Israel to voice support for Jewish development throughout the biblical Land of Israel. On his last trip in August 2009, he rebuffed Washington by opposing a Palestinian state.
Huckabee spoke Monday at the dedication of a new Jewish neighborhood in east Jerusalem.
The Palestinians claim east Jerusalem, captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, as the capital of a future independent state, but Huckabee referred to the area as part of Israel’s “eternal capital.” He also met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and members of Israel’s parliament.
The Jerusalem Reclamation Project, a group that promotes settlements in an attempt to bolster a Jewish presence in mostly Arab areas, hosted Huckabee and actor Jon Voight on the first day of their three-day visit.
Huckabee visited the Shepherd Hotel, the former residence of the mufti of Jerusalem that was destroyed in early January to make way for Jewish homes. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had rebuked Israel for knocking down the hotel — a position Huckabee brushed off.
“I think we ought to be more concerned about Iran building bombs than Israelis building bedrooms,” Huckabee said.
Arnold: Re the State Dept, see Castellio’s 1:13 post:
“Although the meeting has been called to discuss U.S. foreign policy priorities for 2011, officials say Clinton plans to meet personally with ambassadors from front-line states to hear about developments on the ground. Officials also expect that specific concerns about the WikiLeaks revelations will be raised.”
Based on that, my impression is this is a “batten down the hatches” and “make sure everyone is on the same page” meeting since Obama’s foreign policy is in total disarray at this point. I suppose it could signal some major US policy initiative – like bombing Iran or something. We’ll see.
fyi,
Please scratch this part of my statement and do as you are doing. For a moment I overlooked the advantage of you doing that.
“If you are going to talk the talk, please do also walk the walk. A bad defense is as equally damaging as a good offense by the opponents. So, please do take great care in your assertions/allegations.”
RSH .. we need you thinking other thoughts. Get out of left field and take your spot as shortstop.
How will Israel and the US react to the current situation in Egypt? You suggest war… you might be right. What should we be looking for as signs of that potentiality?
I wonder what’s going through the minds in Washington & Israel, as well as other Arab States? but it seems the People of Egypt have the upper hand here. Too bad the “O” didn’t follow through on his speech that he gave in Cairo 2 years ago. Again, the U.S. has been caught flat footed. Just what are those Billions of $$$$ being spent on? Perhaps all the Intelligence services need to be abolished and start over. They can even get rid of those so called think tanks too. Now I am not boasting but I did get the call right, I am willing to offer my services for under a billion!
Eric: Then I suppose you won’t mind if I just dismiss this last post from you as admitting you can’t even come close to dealing with my arguments or Arnold’s. You’re hiding behind complaints about my debating style.
That’s just spurious. It should be clear to everyone here that is the case.
Eric: I like how you immediately switch from engaging Arnold’s specific argument back to whether it’s all “speculation” and therefore your position is as good as his, while completely ignoring my arguments once again.
This is your pattern: Ignore the actual argument, refuse to answer specific questions about an argument, recast the argument as something else (e.g., recasting an admission as a “promise”), claim the argument is “speculation”, then speculate yourself about possible benefits never seen in evidence in the history of the issue, then claim your speculation is as good as ours, therefore we’re being mean to you to point this whole farrago out.
Take the specific question Arnold asked you that you’re ignoring below. We’ve both made it clear that Iran clearly must have specific concerns about implementing the AP given the hostile nature of the US and its military intelligence gathering that was engaged in during the UNSCOM inspections in Iraq. I don’t emphasize this point as much as Arnold because to me it’s the weaker point 2 of his points 1 and 2, much less my points 3 and 4. Nonetheless it’s a valid point.
Instead of engaging that point, you decide that it’s “overblown” and just as “speculative” as your alleged benefits (from which I must conclude that you regard your alleged benefits as “speculative” and therefore agree with Arnold that most of the benefits are in your own mind.) Your previously offered reasons for that boil down, if I remember correctly, to there’s no reason to believe the US needs the AP to obtain useful information because it can get it from somewhere else using conventional intelligence techniques. While this may be a generally correct statement, it ignores the reality of the UNSCOM inspections in Iraq which everyone now admits included handing over intelligence to the CIA and having CIA personnel on the teams.
However, your specific question in THIS thread in response to Arnold’s claim that you haven’t addressed this point was to ask the following question:
Arnold:“[I]mplementing the AP will give the US additional information that it can use to decide which scientists to kill.”
Eric: How so? Is it your impression that the AP requires names?”
Now I DO remember explicitly pointing out in a previous thread that clearly the AP would require the IAEA to talk to people on the ground at any facility that the IAEA could claim might have something to do with the nuclear program and that therefore names would by definition have to be revealed. You ignored this. More importantly than my explication of this is the fact that it is obvious to anyone who thinks for five seconds about the problem that names – and more – will be revealed.
You have also, if I remember correctly – or someone has – suggested that military facilities would be excluded. Given that the purpose of the AP is to allow the IAEA to verify that there is no military dimension to the Iranian nuclear program, this is more than speculative; it is disingenuous to suggest that this concern is “overblown”, especially given the UNSCOM history in Iraq, and especially concerning the known fact of IAEA leaks from the US or other diplomats assigned to it.
When I explicitly restated this point in this thread, subsequently you ignored the issue.
Also, in your long post you repeated your assertions that Iran would achieve some “benefits” from unilaterally implementing the AP. Arnold pointed out that these benefits were essentially hallucinatory, or as I prefer to state, never seen in evidence during the history of the issue and therefore truly speculative.
More importantly, I then called you on your persistent tactic of referring to a US admission that Iran’s enrichment is legal as a “promise” rather than a concrete benefit:
Quote from my earlier post:
Eric: Dismissing your long post by merely quoting this part: “A. Refuse to observe the AP because Iran would look weak to give up “something for nothing,” even though what Iran considers to be “something” has no bargaining-chip value whatsoever to the US government”
I call BS. As I’ve REPEATEDLY said here – and you just as REPEATEDLY IGNORE[D] – the POINT of demanding a recognition of Iranian enrichment rights in exchange for recognizing the AP is NOT to get a “bargaining chip” with the US government but to establish once and for all to the world Iran’s LEGAL RIGHTS! This is NOT “nothing”.
You claim that Iran should unilaterally implement the AP because it would “buy time” to keep the US at bay. Number one, this is not true. However, if ANYTHING can keep the US at bay, it would be the world recognizing – and the US ADMITTING – that Iran has a legal right to enrich. As the Leveretts have repeatedly pointed out here, this means the US would be UNABLE to find any JUSTIFICATION for a military attack EXCEPT by MANUFACTURING a casus belli. While I don’t doubt the US would do that, it makes it that much PHYSICALLY and LEGALLY HARDER for the US to attack Iran.
THAT is NOT “nothing”. THAT is NOT a “promise”. THAT is NOT a “bargaining chip”. THAT has REAL VALUE.
End Quote
You then claimed that there might be any number of reasons why you did not acknowledge this point OR the other point about names – without bothering to state which reason was applicable here – or indeed if any such reason was applicable here, while at the same time complaining about my debating style.
Subsequently – and in fact since I first made the points – you have ignored my arguments 3 and 4.
In a thread above my quoted post, you continued to re-iterate:
“For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people feel that an action by Iran has validity only if the United States of America expresses its approval.”
Which forced me to repeat myself yet again that there is nothing about an admission from the US recognizing Iran’s legal right to enrich that is a matter of “approval” or “promise”, but rather an admission.
You have yet to engage this fact at all in ANY thread on this site.
Arnold has recapped our disagreements with you as follows:
1) Your supposed benefits to Iran of implementing the AP don’t really exist outside of your own mind.
2) There is a real cost to Iran of implementing the AP since the US is using IAEA information to harass Iran’s nuclear program today in serious ways both publicly known and unknown, including killing Iranian scientists.
Note: Arnold asserts this cost outweighs your supposed benefits of unilaterally implementing the AP because of 1).
3) Pressuring the US to admit Iran and other NPT countries have the right to enrich uranium would have a real benefit to Iran and other NPT countries. To be more precise, I assert that the only real benefit will be to establish once and for all the legal status of Iran’s program, which essentially destroys the basis of the US propaganda that Iran is somehow doing something illegal which justifies UN sanctions.
Note: I know the sequence of events that resulted in those sanctions is more complicated than that, but in US propaganda the implication is that Iranian enrichment is “illegal” as a result of supposed Iranian “violations” of the NPT which resulted in UN calls for Iranian enrichment to be suspended (and of course the US always demanded it be suspended regardless until Iran can “prove a negative.”)
4) Iran’s refusal to accept further voluntary extensions of its reporting obligations represents leverage, not perfect or decisive leverage, but the best leverage Iran has to pressure the US to admit the right to enrich.
You have dodged Arnold’s points 1 and 2. You have refused to substantively engage my points 3 and 4 except by denying that 3 can ever happen (which isn’t even relevant to my point and which I have acknowledged is probably true) and denying 4 altogether.
You have never once provided anything but speculation that Iran would achieve various “benefits” from your prescribed course of action despite all evidence throughout the history of the issue that such benefits have never materialized and would not materially affect the US position. The latter you’ve acknowledged is true just as I have acknowledged the US stated position wouldn’t change if it acknowledged Iran’s right to enrich.
The issue boils down to whether Iran should give up its one bargaining point. I have asserted that since it is Iran’s only bargaining point, if Iran gives it up without receiving anything in return, there would be no further reason for Iran to even come to the table. US intentions and its propaganda position would be unchanged.
The difference is that if Iran DID succeed in getting the US to acknowledge legal enrichment, the entire case for the US collapses visibly to the entire world. While this wouldn’t change US intentions or propaganda, the propaganda would be much harder to do.
This is a real tangible benefit for Iran. Not enough to avoid war, perhaps, but you’ve said that really your own only tangible benefit for your prescription is that it buys Iran more time (which I deny). When I’ve pointed out that establishing Iran’s program as legal clearly buys more time – because it destroys the US argument, and makes US propaganda harder – you’ve ignored that point.
Engage the four points above please, without re-framing them into your own words.
fyi,
RE: “Interesting that you like gnostic Christianity – that is how Quran portrays the Ministry of Jesus (but in a very dense manner).”
In what way is it stated in a dense manner? Please give specific examples. Please do pick up a Quran, extract the portion that appears to you to be written “in a very dense manner” about the Ministry of Jesus and cite it so that we are able to explore it, research it, and evaluate its “density.” If you are going to talk the talk, please do also walk the walk. A bad defense is as equally damaging as a good offense by the opponents. So, please do take great care in your assertions/allegations.
There are 11 Chapters in which Quran directly references Jesus and Christianity. Most verses in Chapter 19 (Maryam) focuses on the story of Hazrat Mary and Jesus. Verse 34-35, for example, corrects a major ‘modification’ (tahrif) (translated/interpreted) as follows: “This is Jesus the son of Mary, the truth of their story which they are doubting (34). God does not take a child as it is beyond God’s glory to do so; God orders ‘Be.’ and there it shall be (35).”
Chapter 2, verses 135-136 it is stated (translation/interpretation):
“They said, ‘you have to be Jewish, or Christian, to be guided.’ Say, ‘we follow the religion of Abraham, the monotheist; he was never an idol worshiper’ (135). Say, ‘We believe in God, and in what was revealed to us, and in what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Issac, Jacob, and the ancestors and what was given to Moses and Jesus and in what was given to all the prophets from their God (Rabb); we make no distinction among any of them; we submit only to God (136).”
James Canning, at 6:01 on Jan 28 you wrote (and my eyes lit on it as I was thinking about the protesters):
“The Egyptians of course are very “Arab” culturally, but clearly not “Arab” by descent.”
The thought that had flitted across my mind was that, based on the blogs I’ve read these past few days, much of the world seems to be sympathetically drawn to the protesters in their humanness (with the exception of a few zionist trolls, whose veins pulse with schemes and strategies; and ignorant Americans, who seek first the kingdom of ME — but not with humanity.
The frontispiece of M. Shahid Alam’s “Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism,” reads:
“You have the light, but you have no humanity. Seek humanity, for that is the goal.” –Rumi
I’m not sure what the difference is between an “Arab” and an “Egyptian”? Do they bleed differently? Do the bones of an Arab break differently from the bones of an Anglo-Saxon? Is the hunger of an Egyptian more or less painful than the hunger experienced by an Iranian?
OK tho, maybe you are saying something a little different: is there a different world view expressed or lived by Egyptians as compared to Arabs (as compared to Israelis as compared to Iranians as compared to Muslims as compared to AngloSaxon Americans, Black Americans, Hispanic Americans . . . there are so many flavors of human!)
I started to read a book by Samuel Huntington, “Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity.” I put it down after the first 10 pages — Huntington’s thesis is that America was founded on Anglo-Protestant values; the migration to the US of so many Hispanics threatens that heritage; America must return to its Anglo Protestant heritage. Having been raised in an intense Roman Catholic environment, Huntington’s prescription would leave me out in the cold — I understand and have enormous respect for Anglo Protestant values, but I value Roman Catholic values as well.
In terms of the role of the Egyptian army, Seymour pretty well comes to the same conclusions as here:
“As Lenin, Trotsky & Lukacs all agreed, the armed forces are crucial in any revolution. Against a cohesive, well-led and opposing army, no revolution can prevail. The people are either unarmed or poorly armed, and thus easily outgunned if they do not win the army. This is why it is so crucial that the protesters consciously sought to win over the soldiers, and that the troops, far from turning their guns on the demonstrators, have joined in celebrations with them, allowing them to paint anti-Mubarak graffiti on the tanks, sometimes even protecting them from police violence. The latest news is that the army has arrested two leading NDP figures, including a well-known thug by the name of Ahmad Ezz, and the Interior Minister Habib Al Adly. This looks like an attempt to punish the government for its violence against the protesters, but so far there has been no move against Mubarak. The army command is still presumably banking on gradual transference of power within the regime, perhaps to the intelligence chief Omar Suleiman. Stratfor’s analysis suggests that army chiefs are basically managing the situation behind the scenes according to directions from the US State Department. This would explain why they’re limiting potentially damaging and counter-productive violence against protesters, but also insulating Mubarak for the time being. Such would seem to be supported by some of the army’s moves, such as despatching troops to guard the Rafah crossing and prevent any spread of this insurgent spirit into Gaza. If this is the case, then any political advances will be limited without a split in the army between the commanding officers and the lower ranks. It’s clear that the protesters aren’t going to just give up, and the refusal of the army to simply butcher hundreds of people means that they will continue to have an effect. Apart from the protests, tens of thousands of workers are effectively on strike, hurting ruling class interests and potentially compelling them to yield some concessions. But whether this becomes more than a managed transition to a slightly more benign regime will depend on just how cohesive the army is.”
Arnold, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSfu3reCNqg&feature=player_embedded
Israeli pressure on the US to support Mubarak.
FYI writes: “Again, the point I am hoping to make is that one could view revelation as a natural phenomenon and go from there.”
Yes.
Castellio says: January 31, 2011 at 2:46 pm
A man reads a copy of the Quran (or the New Testament) and it talks to him.
The man is in state of spiritual crisis, you see.
He is not making epistomological or ontological mistakes; he is changing his world-view. He is re-born.
Interesting that you like gnostic Christianity – that is how Quran portays the Minsitry of Jesus (but in a very dense manner).
Again, the point I am hoping to make is that one could view revelation as a natural phenomenon and go from there.
The top envoys from nearly all of America’s 260 embassies, consulates and other posts in more than 180 countries will be gathering at the State Department beginning on Monday. Officials say it’s the first such global conference.
What can this mean? When was this planned?
Anyone have more information about it?
No, they are not mad. Far from it. However, through reiffication, they take a process and give it the name of a noun. That is, they deny the historical nature within their thoughts – although of course they claim the historical nature of their influence on others.
Of the three monotheisms, it is my opinion that Islam is the most philosophically coherent: it culled from the previous traditions in astute ways. Although, to be honest, I quite like the early Christian gnostics (Clement in particular).
Having said that, I don’t think revelatory monotheisms are, in general, at this time, either necessary nor progressive.
My current reading is much more in terms of “The Northern School and the Formation of Early Ch’an Buddhism” (John McRae), where we meet a highly moral tradition that is not revelatory and has appropriate misgivings about the nature of language.
Richard,
I’ve explained to you why I rarely respond to your posts. See my post of January 29, 2011 at 9:11 pm.
As I explained there, sometimes I find your arguments to be sound. I just don’t find them worth responding to because of the flaws I described in that post. I may or may not be fair in my assessment – I’ll leave that for you and others to judge – but I need only to persuade myself on that issue.
BiB:
Being a medivealist, I got the Tarantino reference no problem :o)
As far as teh gay bar metaphor, I realize it was a bit risque, but I figured that if any audience can understand the concept of metaphor, it is the good intelligent folk that inhabit and make up the RFI community. (One of the major problems that we have is that many if not most literalists simply do not understand the concept of metaphor…) I don’t need to tell you, but it might be worth reiterating that I was merely trying to point out the certain peculiarity of people who allegedly hate the perspectives and alleged hypocrisy of this community, but keep coming back for more, as if they are a glutton for punishment. I just used the first idea that came into my head. I suppose I could have used an S&M bar instead, where our Three Stooges come and get whipped, and then out of a sense of shame, lash out (get it?) at the rest of us that “What you are doing is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!” And then , to the charge that what the hell is it to you anyway, what are you doing here and why do you keep coming back, answer something to the effect that I am only here to save you from yourselves, for ye know not what ye do. Pathetic, really; but there you have it. But I do prefer gay bar metaphor as it works better on a comedic level.
We’ll have to agree to disagree regarding the efficacy/ legitimacy of the morality police, as well as, I suspect, the relevance of much of what passes as fiqh nowadays. In a phrase, my experation date for that carton of milk is, I believe, much shorter than yours. That being said, it is, sad to say, the best thing there is out there, but that is not saying much. Orthopraxis avoids all the pitfalls of orthodoxy, but has enormous pitfalls of its own, which become exacerbated with the geometric increase in novelty as a result of technology-driven change (thanks to frankenstein-science for its own sake, rather than for the sake of the sacred community’s desire to excel in their effort to live in submission to the will of God).
Maybe one of these days I will share with you my take on the difference between the elaboration and crystallization of the concept of the immamate as contradistinct from the institution of the khalifate as metasticized by our Sunni brethren, wherein the role of jurisconsult is doomed from the start, not just because of its theoretical separation from the state (and practical subservience to it), but because of its defeatist auto-closure of the bab of ijtihad (Gate of Juridical Endeavor).
Eric: “It is not appropriate – and often reflects insecurity – for one debater to appoint himself as judge and then to announce he has won.”
It is inappropriate for one side to refuse to engage in the debate, while waving propaganda placards in the street outside, which is what you do.
“It is especially inappropriate to write that your opponent has been deceptive because he neglected to announce that you have previously “destroyed” the arguments he is presenting. You should consider the possibility that he does not agree this has occurred.”
Which is irrelevant to the point that you refuse to acknowledge that there is a counter-argument, deliberately so in order to confuse the new member of the audience.
This isn’t even debating tactics, it’s more propagandizing.
You’ve been circling around Arnold’s points 1 and 2 in his recap, while ignoring my points 3 and 4 completely because you can’t engage them at all. Again, ignoring counter-arguments while proselytizing your arguments is not engaging in debate, it’s propaganda.
Castellio says: January 31, 2011 at 2:22 pm
I think we are getting closer.
You wrote:
4. There is no doubt that Revelation acts on human history. Revelation, however, is an historical phenomenon like all others.
Indeed that is one way that God is acting in Human History. Another way is when he directly acts throught mechanisms that we might call accidents or Acts of God.
No issue here.
You also wrote:
5. The existence and influence of Revelation can’t be doubted or denied. However, the acceptance of Revelation as the main source of wisdom or guidance is a theoretical position rooted in a false ‘positivism’ of human knowledge.
I think you are invoking Human Reason to dismiss people who chose to believe in the Revelation. I do not think that is a sound approach since, clearly, very intelligent and aware people believe in the Revelation. They are not mad.
Arnold,
“You’ve made no effort to indicate what in my 2:17 post is wrong. By now I don’t expect you to make even the most token effort to do so.”
You’re getting a bit carried away, Arnold.
Here, for example, is what you refer to as a “fact” in your 2:17 post, which you tell me I haven’t proved “wrong” and for some unexplained reason am required to do so:
“Are you asserting that there is no information in the AP disclosures that the US does not already have that would be helpful in sabotaging or harming Iran’s nuclear program? I’m pretty sure that assertion is wrong, if that’s what you’re saying.”
Is there some “fact” that I’m overlooking? I speculated (as I’d made clear) that this fear is overblown, for reasons I specified. You speculated in response, without giving any reasons at all, that you are “pretty sure” I’m wrong about that. What, exactly, is the “fact” here – your “pretty sureness?” I don’t question that.
You didn’t offer any reasons why you’re “pretty sure” that you’re right and I’m wrong. What can one legitimately be asked to say in response to “pretty sure,” other than “Oh.”
I don’t claim that your position is invalid unless you can prove my speculation to be wrong. Nor should you claim my position is invalid unless I can prove your speculation to be wrong. Neither of us knows. Neither of us claimed to know.
FYI
You’ve made four statements, followed by a ‘mediator’ (their application to Revelation is this) and then a further five statements (one of those statements having two sentences, which may or may not follow from each other).
My response is:
1. Human beings, and other sentient animals, have thoughts;
2. We can point to the origin of the vast majority of our thoughts, and those which somehow go beyond that investigation derive meaning from their relationship to thoughts whose origins we understand;
3. Thoughts certainly influence actions, although many thoughts are rationalizations of actions already taken;
4. The above three points are empirical, in our common understanding of that term.
Their application to Revelation is this:
1. There is a body of thought which we call Revelation which influences human action;
2. No body of thought is ‘completely’ amenable to rational analysis (but perhaps not for the reasons I imagine you assume), but all larger collections of thought are amenable to rational synthesis;
3. Analysis of revelation will always lead to contradictions, for meaning itself is necessarily imbedded in contradiction. (That is, language can only point to truth, but defines error exactly, for error is a function of language, while truth is not.)
4. There is no doubt that Revelation acts on human history. Revelation, however, is an historical phenomenon like all others.
5. The existence and influence of Revelation can’t be doubted or denied. However, the acceptance of Revelation as the main source of wisdom or guidance is a theoretical position rooted in a false ‘positivism’ of human knowledge.
Arnold: Agree with your #1 and #2, of course, and yes, #3-4 are as you recap.
As for “A reasonable newcomer, in my best estimation, would be quickly brought up to speed and our responses may well even be overkill.” – I’m not so sure. I agree that Eric waits around to push his argument to people who haven’t heard it before (or at least haven’t said they’ve heard it), so in my view I see no reason to cut him any slack. If the argument isn’t rebutted, it gains ground just be being repeated. It’s basically a debate tactic. It’s how Iran got demonized in the first place. Eric’s a lawyer, he knows how to argue.
I should, however, limit my post to my precise argument without bothering to get irritated with his intellectually dishonest tactics as by now it’s expected. Useful to point out the tactic, though, with some indignation.
Fiorangela,
Yes, I do favor allowing British oilfield workers to help Iran develop its oil and gas reserves. Does the government of Iran not allow it?
Do you think Mossadegh played his hand shrewdly?
Castellio,
Help me out: did FYI mean that the Iranian people were slaves, if Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. was owned by non-Iranians? If so, were the Saudis slaves when Arabian-American Oil Co. was owned by non-Saudis?
Or was the reference to Mossadegh? He had support from Britain and America early on.
I am amazed of the similarity between Carter and Obama admin. Iran was the island of stability, and Egypt was chosen as a role model of the Arab world to reach out Muslims. and Obama’s tacit approval of Mubarak at the moment matches with Carter admin’s action somehow. Is Obama going to have the same eventuality as Carter in 2012? the economy is even worse. and btw, unlike USSR’s decline at the time, the U.S rivals are rising this time.
kooshy,
From reading the Reuters report you linked, I take it Liam Fox, the British defence minister, has no intelligence that the Iranian government wants to build nuclear weapons. He wants the “west” to assume, that if Iran did decide to build nukes, it could build them within two years.
For the record, yet a new Iran bomb date ( to be considered for bomb Iran date) is announced
Iran could have nuclear weapon by 2012: Britain
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-iran-nuclear-britain-idUSTRE70U5SV20110131
I don’t know what to say Eric. As Castellio says, there is some benefit to these discussions and in that way I’m grateful for them.
I’ve read over the 9:27 post and it doesn’t say, as far as I read, what you seem to be claiming it says.
I’m fairly confident that a reasonable reader of this thread will conclude that you have not shown any benefit that survives scrutiny of Iran implementing the AP. And will also conclude that you have not refuted or even seriously tried to refute idea that there are tangible costs to Iran of implementing the AP.
RHS focuses on different things. I’m fairly confident a reasonable reader of this thread will conclude that he’s addressed your points and you haven’t addressed his.
You seem to be leaving it that way, which is fine with me.
If later on you make the same arguments you’ve made, not addressing me, but addressing someone else, I may again apply the same scrutiny and I think a reasonable reader then will conclude again that you have not made any arguments that survive scrutiny.
I imagine you disagree. You think it is possible to read your post of January 30, 2011 at 1:04 pm and my post of January 30, 2011 at 2:17 pm and conclude after reading both that the benefits of Iran implementing the AP outweighs the costs. You haven’t explained how. For that to be true, something in my 2:17 post has to be wrong. You’ve made no effort to indicate what in my 2:17 post is wrong. By now I don’t expect you to make even the most token effort to do so.
Instead, I expect you, maybe in this thread, maybe a few threads from now, to pretty much repeat your 1:04 post directed at someone else, as the 1:04 post was a modified and less offensively worded repeat of a post you made one or two threads ago that I replied to and after which reply you laid silent or addressed only side issues of the discussion. When you do, it won’t be for the benefit of anyone who has already seen the arguments of your 1:04 post addressed, but for anyone who has not.
I’m fine with that. But that’s what I see happening.
Correction, it’s supposed to read “najasate ahle kitab”
UU, fyi,
UU thank you for the esteem which is undeserved. It’s a pleasure to read your posts, and I would say that you shouldn’t view yourself merely as a court jester (although I understand the serious role of a court jester). I gave you extra points for the use of “ragamuffin” in a post about al-Qaeda (using Jamaicanisms requires a high level of skill- kids, don’t try it at home) and today I will give you super extra points and a smiley face with golden stars for the very funny “the camel in the tent”. Your comparison to a gay bar, well I all I can say is that I never thought of it that way, it was very funny, but if you do that again I’m going have to get basiji on your ass (of course no pun intended nor reference to certain nasty allegations made by trolls, reference to “baradar Tarantino” …reference within a reference within a…).
As for your arzyabi of our dear Imam (ra), yes he is a trailblazer and a mujaddad and the most fearless human being I have ever seen (notice I use the present tense). We were spiritually dead and Allah (swt) brought us to life through Imam (ra). The famous chant “Ruhe mani Khomeini, botshekani Khomeini” sums it up beautifully. Imam (ra) as the great arif and hakim was one facet of that vast human being. Another facet was that of faqih and political leader par excellence. As faqih his views are what many would consider conservative`, even ultra conservative (i.e. najasat kafir).
The genius Shahid Sadr (ra) described Imam’s (ra) distinction as faqih in this way: “We sat around and discussed how theft is haraam and how the hand of the thief has to be cut off, whereas Imam discussed how theft is haraam and how the hand of America has to be cut off.” Same hukm, larger and more important context.
In terms of the moral police I think fyi’s characterizatons (as so often unfortunately) are overstated. “The youth” in Iran is a very diverse group and most of the youth in Iran are not of the type described. Also remember that Tehran is a relatively recent city in Iranian history, many areas in the north have only been populated in the last century (expect old Shemiranat towns like Tajrish, Dezashib or Evin-Darakeh which retain a much more traditional culture). As we like to say certain areas of Tehran “saheb nadare”, which is very different than other large cities like Isfahan, Shiraz, Mashhad even Tabriz (which has similarities with Tehran). The moral police is an issue if you want to attract votes in certain north Tehran neighborhoods and a tool used against Ahmadinejad to get the religious groups riled up against him. As such, it is a political tool that is used and abused by whoever wants to manipulate it.
In terms of a conclusion to the hijab debate: it will only happen when the examples of “proper” and “improper” hijab are specifically defined by the law- WHICH NO POLITICIAN IN MAJLIS HAS THE BALLS TO DO! The police shouldn’t be blamed because the officer on the street is not clear about what he has to enforce. Once we are clear about what the proper masaadiq of hijab are, the issue will be resolved. And by that I also mean that at that time certain folks will no longer be able to manipulate the religious folks whenever its convinient. You now see why many so-called liberals like the sitaution to remain exactly as it is. It is, if you like, a “rusariye Osman” (UU, I think that deserves some extra points).
Castellio says: January 31, 2011 at 12:58 pm
We all could agree, I strongly believe, that human beings give birth to thoughts.
I also think we could agree that we do not know where all of our thoughts come from.
And lastly, I think we could all agree that thoughts – given birth by human beings – can take-over (in a manner of speaking) very many human minds and thus influence their actions.
These are all, in my view, empirical statements beyond doubt.
Their application to Revelation is this:
Thaty there is a body of thought that we call revelation which influences human action.
Furthermore, this body of thought is not completely amenable to rational analysis nor is amenable to rational synthesis.
That is, analysis of revelation will always lead to contraditions with human knowlege. Furthermore, this body of thought can neither be inferred from the elaboration of any extant human-created metaphysical system nor can it be deduced from empricial observations.
Yet, from an empirical point of view, this body of thought is acting on human history through its engagement of human minds and the consequent modifications of their behavior based on that.
One can argue the Divine versus the Human origin of Revelation but from an empirical point of view its existence and influence cannot be doubted.
Nice pics, VoT. I would be a poor student of religion if I didn’t know about Rumpelstilzchen, now wouldn’t I? Indeed, I remember the tune of the nursery rhyme well from my time as a kid playing with my German cousins: Ach wie gut, dass niemand weiß, dass ich Rumpelstilzchen heiß!
Unknown Unknowns says:
January 31, 2011 at 10:47 am
I would have to defer to my esteemed Bussed-In Basiji colleauge, who has more of an expertise in this specific regard.
Dear BiB , I defientely agree with UU , your input is highly appreciated.
UU already gave some good hints , however you could fine-tune it to reflect the present situation.
“Arnold: yes, it is worth it. We have to give credit to Eric for his tenacity, and it is for us to learn from it how to cut to the chase in conversations with others.”
I agree, he certainly has helped on how to take the devil out, not only on this but on many Iran related issues.
Something is going on….
“WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is convening an unprecedented mass meeting of U.S. ambassadors.
The top envoys from nearly all of America’s 260 embassies, consulates and other posts in more than 180 countries will be gathering at the State Department beginning on Monday. Officials say it’s the first such global conference.
The gathering comes at a time of crisis in Egypt that could reshape dynamics in the Middle East, fallout from leaked diplomatic documents and congressional calls for sweeping cuts in foreign aid.
Although the meeting has been called to discuss U.S. foreign policy priorities for 2011, officials say Clinton plans to meet personally with ambassadors from front-line states to hear about developments on the ground. Officials also expect that specific concerns about the WikiLeaks revelations will be raised.”
Arnold,
You should consider whether your Jan. 31, 9:27 AM post is beneath your considerable dignity.
In any proper debate, the opposing sides present their best arguments, pick apart their opponent’s arguments, and let the judge or audience decide whose arguments are more persuasive. It is not appropriate – and often reflects insecurity – for one debater to appoint himself as judge and then to announce he has won.
It is especially inappropriate to write that your opponent has been deceptive because he neglected to announce that you have previously “destroyed” the arguments he is presenting. You should consider the possibility that he does not agree this has occurred.
Better for you to stay out of the “judging” business. Readers on this website are intelligent and can decide for themselves.
Unknown Unknowns says:
January 31, 2011 at 12:40 pm
“Well, now that you ask, Rumplestiltskin is my name, my middle name, but you can call me Unknowns for short.”
You are absolutely amazing UU , how on earth do you know about Rumpelstilzchen ??
The German version goes like this :
“Ach wie gut, dass niemand weiß, dass ich Rumpelstilzchen heiß”
and some pictures of the same :
http://www.google.de/images?hl=de&q=rumpelstilzchen&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=9PlGTeX8Mo6SOoqxhLIB&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CDoQsAQwAQ
Fiorangela, time to head back to Richard Silverstein for his most recent comments on the Israeli response to Egypt’s revolts.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/
Arnold: yes, it is worth it. We have to give credit to Eric for his tenacity, and it is for us to learn from it how to cut to the chase in conversations with others.
James was belatedly defending himself from the most precise of attacks.
James had earlier commented: “fyi. Britain did not want to incorporate Persia into the British Empire and basically wanted stability at the minimum cost achievable (in men and resources). But Britain did not want Russia to take over Persia. If Mossadegh had not nationalized Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., the British would not have been keen to overthrow him.”
FYI brilliantly (I thought) conflated two preoccupations on this thread (Platonic thought and imperialism) with his deft response: “Yes, James, indeed. Plato’s Republic would be functioning today if only masters could be taught to act as masters and slaves as slaves”.
However, why I previously asked if there were two FYIs; in this adroit moment he is being critical of Platonic thought, but in terms of revelation, he is pro Platonic thought. (I recognize, FYI, that I continue to drag my feet.)
Castellio and Irshad:
Your points are exactly right. I find these disputes, possibly annoying and certainly repetitive as they may be, are sharpening the language we use and bringing out concepts in discussing Iran’s nuclear program and global nuclear policy generally.
Fiorangela:
Well, now that you ask, Rumplestiltskin is my name, my middle name, but you can call me Unknowns for short.
Yeah, I was tempted to respond to James’ comment about Mossaddeq “overplaying his hand”, but I had already mentioned it in one of my early posts that he didn’t want to nationalize AIOC, but that the Brits didn’t leave him a choice. He didn’t want to nationalize the company becuase (1) we didn’t have the expertise to run the refinery ourselves, and (2) he knew that that end game would involve facing down the guns of the British warships. All he wanted was to be given the same deal that Aramco had given teh Saudi’s, i.e., a 50/50 arrangement. He didn’t even insist that AIOC’s books, which were cooked to no end, be auditable at any given time – no Additional Protocol, if you will. He insisted on the 50/50 arrangement, as it was a matter of national pride. We were put in an impossible situation where on teh one hand the share of the profits we were given was less than the amount of tax AIOC paid to the Crown from its profits (which was shameful and unjust enough), but to make matters worse, the Brits and that asshole Churchill in particular, refused to offer the same deal to Iran with its glorious past history, which was extended to a desert bedouin clan of no consequence short of their utility to Anglo-American Vampiregesellschaft.
Arnold: For the record, regarding your recent summary comments on the AP, there are two reasons behind your point 2 [that there would be a cost to Iran in implementing the AP]. There is the cost, as you point out, in the relentless search for information with which to continue and broaden America’s covert actions. And there is the related cost in that Iran’s refusal to give that requested information will immediately be used in the public relations battle as “yet another” Iranian betrayal of the “spirit” of the agreement, and attempt to “hide” even though they recently signed the AP.
In other words, although Eric presents signing the AP as step forward in public perceptions for Iran, it will soon be turned into a step backward, unless the Iranians are foolish enough to provide the US with the information it seeks on all things military.
I think Irshad is pointing in the right direction: the US does not believe that certain countries should have the right to enrich uranium. Full stop. That is counter to the NPT. Full stop. This is after-the-fact renegotiation by diktat.
It is amusing how Mousavi thinks the green movement in Iran inspired the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt. If this is true, it is deeply ironic.
However, I think he will find that Mohammad Bouazizi’s self-immolation was the act which inspired this popular wave.
Unknown Unknowns (is Unknown your first name or your surname?) wrote:
“DUBAI: Iran will open what is being touted as the Middle East’s largest oil refinery, Shazand, in the central Iranian city of Arak in the next few days, according to a news report. ”
What terrific news!
I understand UK has a bit of a problem with unemployment.
The other day, James Canning wrote: @1:56 on Jan 30) “I don’t think it is necessary to view the people of a country as “slaves” if a prominent oil company is 60% owned by the British government. Iranian disputes with Anglo-Persian Oil often revolved around the fact the company was not buying enough Iranian oil to suit the purposes of the government.
Mossadegh overplayed his hand.”
If that’s the case, that the situation for Iranians was so peachy as they worked oil fields from which AngloPersian collected the lion’s share of the profit, then surely James Canning will be eager for his British countryment to find employment in Iran’s oil fields with the same status, the same conditions, the same wages as Iranians enjoyed before “Mossadegh overplayed his hand.”
What d’ya say, James Canning? Deal?
I can see the protesters trying to seize the U.S and British Embassies if the U.S and Britain continue with their ambiguous position! The Egyptian people have spoken clearly that Mubarak and his puppet regime must go, and yet the U.S and Britain are pulling the strings behind scenes trying to save their puppet regime.They are even trying to paint the picture of ” radical Islamism ” on Muslim Brotherhood.
Fiorangela:
I can understand why your president is not demanding Mubarak’s resignation: he values his life. But what about your ex-President, George the Younger, that Champion Exporter of Democracy to the Dune-Coon-istans? He is out of office now, so he is safe. Why is he keeping mum, pray tell? LOL
@fyi – off topic, but thought you woud like to know (if you dont know already)
Qatar signed an agreement with iran to develop telecommunication satelites and launching them to space.
It seems, the Qataris have had enough of NileSat and ArabSat having a monopoly on trasnmitting Al-Jazeera in the Middle East and want to have an independent satelite broadcasting system. Iran wants this aswell, as the named satelitte operators have stopped broadcasting Irans, Arabic news chanel in Egypt and Saudi.
Also about Jack Strw – he was replaced not because he believed an attack on Iran will be insane- but because he invited Condy Rice to visit his constituency in North East England. Jack Straw is heavily reliant on Muslims living there to be a member of parliament – and when the Americans realised this, they pressed B-Liar for a reshuffle and for him to be moved. They did not want a poltician who is reliant on the Muslim vote to be Forign Minister – in case they influence him in any way.
The funny thing about that episode was, Jack Straw wanted Codny to visit a Mosque in his constituency – the Mosque was happy to do so but worshippers and other members of the Muslim community did not want her to come for her role in the epic destruction they have brought on the Muslim world AND…the Mosque did not allow female worshippers, so why was they allowing Condy in???!!!!!lol – in the end they ddint go to the Mosque.
On topic (just for a change of pace): The Shah’s family in DC is reportedly scrambling to transfer his bones out of Cairo. I shit ye not.
It is indeed a hole that they have dug adn continue to dig for themsleves. Why are they doing this? I’m not sure. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that power has been diffused since the revolution (so that it is no longer any one person’s say-so). But more importatnly, I think we continue to underestimate exactly how conservative a very large swath of the population is. They just executed two people for running a pornography website. Recall that Imam Khomeini was a moderate progressive, meaning that he was a “flaming liberal” in the eyes of the arch-conservatives. I remember reading in his memoires how the wives of other students in the howzeh would not wash their clothes in the same pool as the Imam’s mother, as teh whole of the seminary considered her family’s clothes as najis (ritually impure, for our English-speaking audience). Why? Becuase one of her sons, the young Khomeini, who was a young lecturer at the time, taught hekmat (theosophy) and falsafa (philosophy), which was anathema to the prevailing mindset.
That’s what’s the deal we’re dealing in.
If you want to get an idea of the distance teh forces of reaction span from the center, all you need do is consider how far the fringes of the left are from the center, the light years between the center of society and communists, atheists, monarchists, post-modernists, etc., and then double it for the reactionary mindset.
Or put it another way: you know how dump the average person is? Statistically, 50% of teh population is dumber than that ;o)
I would have to defer to my esteemed Bussed-In Basiji colleauge, who has more of an expertise in this specific regard.
Unknown Unknowns says: January 31, 2011 at 12:49 am
I agree with you that historically Iran has changed only when the polity was not under stress.
But removing the Moral Police from the street scenes in Tehran is going to go a long way to neutralize the anger in Tehran.
As I am sure you are aware, Tehran is emulated – by degrees – by others all over Iran.
The Islamic leadership, the Doctors of Religion, Mr. Khamenei, and religiously-inclined people have lost the young men and women of Iran on hejab. Why can’t they stop digging themselves more into this hole? Are they mentally blind?
Unknown Unknowns
How do you say “WE ARE THE WORLD….” in Farsi, I just don’t know.
DUBAI: Iran will open what is being touted as the Middle East’s largest oil refinery, Shazand, in the central Iranian city of Arak in the next few days, according to a news report.
Once the first phase of the $3.5 billion Shazand oil refinery comes onstream, some 2 million barrels per day would be added to the country’s gasoline production capacity. Subsequently, following the completion of the remaining development phases under the refinery project, the nation’s gasoline production capacity would be raised by 16 million barrels per day, the Tehran Times has reported.
According to the report, the gasoline production unit of Iran’s Abadan oil refinery will also be inaugurated in the next few days. The unit was completed at the cost of $1 billion and would add over one million barrels to the country’s daily gasoline production capacity.
The new development plans for the oil refinery industry are focused on reduction of sulfur and other pollutants in order to produce Euro-5 norms-compliant petrol for cars, the report said.
Arnold Evans,
Countries such as the UAE have undermined their soverignty and the NPT by signing the 123 agreement with USA to get access to nuclear power plants from the US and its allies. The 123 agreements clearly states that UAE cannot have an enrichment programme on its territory.
The USA sees this agreement with the UAE has an model for other Arab countries to follow. They are trying to force this on the Saudis and on the Jordanians. Time will tell if they yeild to the USA.
I am sure this has an effect on the US attitude and its dealins with Irans nuclear prograame.
Eric – I am sure that I read somewhere, that Iran will adopt the AP if UN sanctions are lifted and the nuclear dispute is moved back to the IAEA from the UNSC and for it to be discussed there. As US-EU axis refuse this, Iran will not introduce AP.
It seems the AP is something for Iran and the West to negotiate about. Why give something for free when you can get some tangible beenfits via negotiations at a latter date?
Also, the American political and Military establishment does not care about Muslim and/Or brown people except as long as its objectives are met. Be they innocent people or govt. This can be clearly seen throught American hstory.
- Mass bombing of Vietnam including Agent Orange
- Mass bombing of Cambodia and Laos
- Supporting Isreal in its wars against non-state actors in other Arab coutnries, whcihr esults in large civilian deaths
- Supporting Saddam and letting him use chemical weapons against Iran and his own populatiion
- The shooting down of an Iran Air plane in the gulf and awarding medals to the captian of the ship responsible
- Imposing sanctions on Iraq after second gulf war which led to the death of over 1.5million people during its duration.
- This was crystallised when Madeline Allbright, stated on US media that “the price was worth it” – let innocent Iraqis die as long as we santion Iraq
- 3rd gulf war and the use of massive force and resulting in large civilian casualties – the numbers killed we still dont know as the US military doesnt count dead iraqis
- etc. etc. et.
For countries to be independent, they must work to imrpove and stregthen their country and ignore the demands of US/EU and meet the aspiration of their own people.
More mojo from Bhadrakumar:
What is the worst-case scenario for Israel? Israeli fears appear on several templates. Without doubt, the strategic challenge is that Israel may face acute regional isolation. A commentator in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz newspaper noted, “The fading power of … Mubarak’s government leaves Israel in a state of strategic distress. Without Mubarak, Israel is left with almost no friends in the Middle East; last year Israel saw its alliance with Turkey collapse. From now on it will be hard for Israel to trust an Egyptian government torn apart by internal strife.”
…
The uncertainties in Egypt necessitate a major redeployment of forces in the south, especially on the Philadelphi Corridor between Sinai and Gaza, which Palestinian guerillas use to source supplies.
…
Israel endeavored to divert the US’s attention from the Middle East peace process and take it toward Iran’s nuclear program. This ploy has worked well so far, but the Middle Eastern crisis brings the Palestinian issue back into the vortex of regional politics. It is the camel in the tent that cannot be ignored.
…
The heart of the matter is that US and Israeli interests significantly diverge. There is no “anti-US” slant yet in the uprising. However, the successor regimes will seriously oppose the US’s seamless support of Israel and it can’t be business as usual. Israel’s biggest worry will be that the new Middle Eastern realities may finally compel the US to reset its regional sights.
… as Helena Cobban blogged, it is a first-rate policy breakdown of the “blind leading the blind and the blind advising the blind” in the Oval Office.
The time may have come for the “State Department Arabists” who were kept in the wilderness on ideological grounds to replace the long-time pro-Israel activists who surround Obama as advisers
Why aren’t these fools storming the Israeli embassy???
Here’s the juicy part from the Bhadrakumar’s article linked by Persian Gulf:
The overall regional situation is moving in a direction favorable to Iran. A Tehran-sponsored government has begun working in Baghdad and a Hezbollah-dominated government is assuming power in Beirut. The al-Jazeera leaks regarding secret deals between the head of Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas and US and Israel boosts Hamas’ status as the voice of resistance. Iran’s ties with Syria remain strong and the harmony with Turkey is unprecedented.
…
Meanwhile, the entire US strategy to isolate Iran in its region by erecting a phalanx of “pro-West” Arab regimes plus Israel is withering away and Iran’s influence as a regional power may touch a qualitatively new level.
RSH:
Arnold: These are the questions Eric can’t answer, and in my view are a harder argument for him to deal with than what you’re discussing. Which is one reason he ignores me completely.
I find our arguments with Eric to be over different things. He doesn’t engage either, but ours are not exclusive.
My points are 1) his supposed benefits to Iran of implementing the AP don’t really exist outside of his mind 2) there is a real cost to Iran of implementing the AP since the US is using IAEA information to harass Iran’s nuclear program today in serious ways both publicly known and unknown, including killing Iranian scientists.
My understanding is that you agree with both my 1) and 2) and add 3) pressuring the US to admit Iran and other NPT countries have the right to enrich uranium would have a real benefit to Iran and other NPT countries and 4) Iran’s refusal to accept further voluntary extensions of its reporting obligations represents leverage, not perfect or decisive leverage, but the best leverage Iran has to pressure the US to admit the right to enrich
I agree with your 3) and 4) if I understand them correctly.
Eric has established a pattern of kind of waiting around until someone who is not a regular posts something about Iran’s nuclear program, or who has not already personally shot down the arguments he has been regularly making for approaching a year now. Then he mischaracterizes both of our arguments and argues against them supposedly to this new person, aware that we’ll read them.
We’ve established a pattern of adopting a tone of annoyance while we, again, demonstrate that different aspects of his argument just are not coherent. We also have been trying to figure out what would motivate a person to continually make non-coherent arguments and posting our best guesses about that.
We’re at an equilibrium here. The regulars are very familiar with Eric’s arguments and responses to them. A reasonable newcomer, in my best estimation, would be quickly brought up to speed and our responses may well even be overkill.
So all is well.
@ Empty
Ah, that must be it. Some new-fangled psycho-religion such as EST or Scientology. So he must be from LA LA land and its environs. Yes, that would explain it. Thank you.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (and continuing in my self-appointed role as Mobser of Aliases), I suggest Voice of Tehran go back to being Voice OF Tehran. I mean, it is not as if, dear VoT, you ever claimed to be THE Voice of Tehran, but simply A voice. Never mind Unbeliever, he is still in denial, like certain others that love to hang around our watering hole. Its a process, as the cliche goes :o)
They are “floundering heedless in a flood of confusion”, as they chose a mighty and powerful gheflat on the Day of Alast, so give them a wide berth. And give ME the number of that smiling managing director ;o)
Iran wins, Israel loses in turmoil
By M K Bhadrakumar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB01Ak01.html
kooshy:
I am well aware of the history of Nader’s era, for sure beyond the info from Wikipedia. btw, it was Ismaeili not Jafari. he was genius militarily, no doubt about it. and he reinvigorated an already dead empire, only to destroy it altogether with his latest policies; i.e over spending on military, his paranoia, and zero tolerance of the opponents. it was a one man absolute dictatorship, no wonder he was afraid of everybody around; i.e wrongly getting suspicious of his son for an assassination plot in Mazandaran that had nothing to do with that guy. I don’t think Mr.Khamenie should look at him as a role model.
Strange how there is no sign of US or Israeli flags being burned.
Unknown Unknowns,
RE: Unbeliever’s alias, you’re asking the wrong person to be the judge. I myself am so full of *it* that even my eyes are brown. Yet, look at the alias I chose. Perhaps Unbeliever is in going through step 1 of some multi-step treatment program which is to admit that she/he has a problem. And perhaps she/he will come out the other end being a genuinely true believer. :)
Unbeliever,
If you fought at least there is some hope for you in the next world. Unfortunately the privilege of fighting didn’t teach you shit about life and your own self. If you ended up being an unbeliever, it would have been better for who to have left like so many others and gone to London or Paris or LA. At least that way you could plead ignorance and not having been in the presence of the best human beings during battle. But you lost everything, this world and the next and you have no excuses left for your misery.
As far as your portrayal of what “believers” are, it’s a gross caricature and anyone living in Iran doesn’t even take such characterizations serious because their daily interaction with believers offers a very a different picture. Prof. Shahid Shahriari and Prof. Shahid Alimohammadi and many others were/are also believers and yet your simplistic characterizations and worldview doesn’t have an explanation for them (not to mention the old classical scientists who were all believers). The problem lies with your ignorance and arrogance, not the believers beliefs.
In terms of your parrot-like repetition of lies about the alleged crimes of government, first it’s a rehash of much of what has been shown to be lies. As Liz pointed out Kahrizak was staffed by police, not basiji and it was shut down within 48 hours of the crimes becoming known and the criminals were punished. That in fact shows that Iran is much better in this regard than most other countries, including many so-called liberal countries (we don’t even need to mention the US or Israeli prison system).
Also get this through head the basij are from the people, they are your neighbors, co-workers, uncles, cousins, grandparents etc. In fact in Iran it was the people beating up the green thugs. Our dear brothers in the police initially ran away at the beginning of the riots. In Egypt the police is beating the people. That’s the difference which unfortunately you are too blind to see. In other words, you and your lame cohorts want to claim the mantle of “the people” in Iran but unfortunately your desire has no basis in reality. The basij on the other hand can claim the support of the majority of the people because they are a volunteer force from within the people. I know this a fundamental problem for you guys. Like I said there isn’t shit you can do about this for the time being.
So when I tell you that the majority of the people are believers and don’t agree with your views, this not a “canard” but a fact, a fact which you might not like, but nevertheless a fact which tempers your claims and makes yor political desires for Iran academically interesting but largely irrelevant. Like I said go celebrate your short desperate life wherever you get the most pleasure, and leave the wretched insane ignorant believers to themselves. God blessed you by allowing you to fight in His way, but you blew it.
Voice in Tehran – may be un-believer is missing great number of brothels in Iran. But no problem I will recommend him/her to visit the state-of-art city of Tel Aviv – the Israeli capital which boast 280 Jewish brothels and is considered the Vatican of gay movement.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/israelis-and-gays-birds-of-a-feather/
Fiorangela,
“Is Scott Lucas vacationing on a remote island?”
A vacation would be lovely but EA WorldView is now on the front-line of English-language coverage of Tunisia and Egypt as well as Iran and the Middle East.
It’s a pity your computer’s shakes are paralleling Mubarak’s shutdown of the Internet :-)
Best,
S.
Unbeliever says:
January 30, 2011 at 5:56 pm
LIz and Bussed-in-Basiji and Voice of Tehran,
You wrote:
Voice of Tehran: I seriously doubt that you are in Tehran, much less being a voice for it. If you are you must have impaired eyesight and be hard of hearing. I have been to both South and North Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Mashad and Yazd, and I do not need to be told that Iran is the heaven on earth when the evidence of my eyes says otherwise. If you can see and hear, count the smiles and laughters you come across tomorrow when you go out.
Ex-Iranian Unbeliever , in one aspect you are right , as I am not the voice OF Tehran , rather I am a Voice IN Tehran , thus from now on I will change my user name to Voice IN Tehran , the rest of your ‘ assessments ‘is worth nothing and I feel sorry for you from the bottom of my heart.
Khoda Aghebateto Bekheir Kone !
Voice in Tehran
P.S. Yes this morning , when I was using the elevetor of our office building a real beautiful lady SMILED at me and I smiled back , out of politeness.
She is the managing director of a marketing company on the fourth floor and graduated from a french university.
Unbeliever,
“How do you know I did not fight for Iran in that war?”
You’ve sparked my curiosity, did you?
Castellio,
Thanks for the link to the Huffington Post article on US cable networks’ self-censorship. Here’s an especially good passage from it:
“Other than in a handful of pockets across the U.S. – including Ohio, Vermont and Washington, D.C. – cable carriers do not give viewers the choice of watching Al Jazeera. That corporate censorship comes as American diplomats harshly criticize the Egyptian government for blocking Internet communication inside the country and as Egypt attempts to block Al Jazeera from broadcasting.”
If you want a good example of self-censorship in America, go to Huffington Post and read their article on Al-Jazeera not being available in the US.
Apparently, it would take a Phd to understand why no US cable company will carry it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/30/al-jazeera-english-us_n_816030.html
PG
We read the same history of Nader as everyone else since the history of his period are all mostly extracted and written from Jahangosha e Nadri
We also read that he foolishly blinded his son etc so did all the Sfavid kings including Shah Abbas before him,. the reason he is a hero is because he expanded and took back lost territory of Iran when it was shrunken by foreign invaders some 250 years ago, does that number sound familiar, often you read that Iran has not invaded a foreign country in 250 years, that’s what they mean, just think every time you look at Iran’s national jewels who is the first person you think of. Indecently you might be blinding (shrinking) one of Iranians national heroes.
To be sure he is one person I have read a lot about, since we share the same last name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah
Unbeliever,
The fact that there were no baseej members in Kahrizak (it was run by the police), shows the extent of your knowledge. The other claims are as absurd as your claim about Ayatollah Khomeini’s face appearing in the moon.
fyi says:
January 30, 2011 at 11:52 pm
“Your implicit defense of the moral police and social oppression of the individual liberties in Iran are indefensible.”
I am not defending oppression, dear fyi, either explicitly or implicitly. What I was hoping to convey (unsuccessfully?) was my belief that although there are myriad problems and all is not well in the “Shi’a Utopia” project as you characterize it fittingly enough,
1. that Iran and its people should be given the space to work out their own problems
2. that this cannot and will not happen while it is under a state of siege
3. that the siege mentality is the immediate and at times proximate cause of many of the problems (viz. the sanctions and warm war)
4. that the blame the victim mentality of diasporic types detached from the main fabric of Iranian society is part of the problem
5. and finally, that the aforementioned people would be well-advised to fight the good fight on their own home fronts against policies that militate and exacerbate the situation, so that those of us who are unencumbered by the accretions of a millennium plus of obsolescent and irrelevant theory and practice can work, as Imam Khomeini did, from the center, to pull the widely disparate wings of Iranian culture together, the better and stronger for us all to enter the 21st. century. This was his No Child Left Behind policy, if you will.
In regards to what you suggested about executive orders of US President; regrettably the time for that type of gesture is past. Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush (prior to 2001) could have made a substantial contribution to the resolution of US-Iran differences had they issued such executive orders. A number of Americans, both inside US government and outisde of it, in fact made such suggestions. They fell on deaf ears.
Well, I think FYI description of the Egyptian MB a bit unfair… (are there two FYIs?) but, hey, they have their own English website, and the longer you follow it the more their concerns become clear.
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/
Adam P,
Thanks. I was only commenting on the writer’s mistaken description of the IAEA as a UN unit — not so much that he’d made the mistake, but that his mistaken belief is so prevalent that it even slipped by the NY Times editor without notice.
http://inn.ir/picturenewsdetail.aspx?id=67021
kooshy & fyi:
your description of Nader Shah makes me laugh, with all due respect. it clearly shows you did not go to schools in Iran for the past 3 decades. Nader is not seen as the type of the hero you have in mind obviously bc the stupid action of blinding his son, and heir, is emphasized in the school courses with the same magnitude as his successes. he is seen as a great man, yes, but, rightly so, an IRRATIONAL one the one that eventually destroyed everything even his dynasty. so, no point to be a role model. Goharshad mosque resembles, in the mind of ordinary Iranians, more the second aspect of his life than the former, presumably glorious, one.
btw, I don’t hear Obama barking for Iran anymore! is this just a coincident or it has something to do with the changing strategic environment of the Arab world to the detriment of his plan?! I regularly listen to his speech in Cairo these days and laugh. did he really though the Muslim world is that stupid? he forgot that Muslims, unlike Americans, speak languages different than english. no effect of the beauty of his words and compounds.
Fiorangela says: January 30, 2011 at 11:39 pm
I think you are too optimistic about Muslim Brotherhood. Their agenda is a bigotted and virulently intolerant form of Islamic rule with all the ossifications of the previous centuries treated as Sacred.
Unknown Unknowns says: January 30, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Your implicit defense of the moral police and social oppression of the individual liberties in Iran are indefensible.
If the Prophet shows up toady in Tehran, he will arrested and his long hair forcibly shaved.
And God only knows how the moral police would treat Khadijeh.
The siege mentality of the Iranian leaders may be understood and indeed justifiale but harrasin young women because they are wearing stylish boots are stupid.
And, in fact, Mr. Ahmadinejad has distanced himself from such things.
That part of the regime that has been pushing this agenda – including Mr. Khamenei – have lost the Iranian people on this point. Just go to Naziabad and watch the young women and how they dress themselves.
In regards to what you suggested about executive orders of US President; regrettably the time for that type of gesture is past. Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush (prior to 2001) could have made a substantial contribution to the resolution of US-Iran differences had they issued such executive orders. A number of Americans, both inside US government and outisde of it, in fact made such suggestions. They fell on deaf ears.
Eric: This from a NY Times article on the Egyptian situation:
“Whether Dr. ElBaradei can emerge as that consensus figure remained unclear. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 for his work leading the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.”
It seems to me now days, a Noble Peace Prize is a requirement to be a good president of a western oriented country, some will get the prize when they throw their pastor under the bus and claim they had never really listened to what he said (sniffed but they really didn’t inhale), some potential future presidents get it while they are waiting for their revolution to happen so they can move in like Shrine Ebadi, or perhaps Mr. El Baradei, or this new Chins guy that I don’t care to remember his name.
Adam P wrote: “Contrary to Western belief, the MB is not the radical organization it once was when it followed the preaching of Seyyed Qutb. In recent years, they have largely abandoned his ideology altogether and are returning to the founder’s progressive social justice message.”
So — Muslim Brotherhood had a radical and violent branch and period, but has now returned to “the founder’s message” of social justice.
Hezbollah has evolved into an organization that is capable of using violence to defend, but has evolved into a social justice and political organization.
Zionist Israel was established on the militarist, expulsionist ideology and tactics of Jabotinsky and Ben Gurion, whose path Benjamin Netanyahu follows and in whose ideology the Israeli people are brainwashed.
Americans don’t know what they believe and are only gradually awakening to the realization that they have been lied to by their government, but they enjoyed the lie because it seemed to support the good life.
Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain laid low, and the crooked made straight, and the rough places plain.
Egypt and Lebanon (and Turkey and Iran) have good chances of finding themselves — they’re on the right path, if US does not muck it up.
Israel cannot be reformed by merely rejiggering its political elite; it’s ideological core is rotten.
The US stands a chance of righting itself — it will inevitably endure a chastening: it is my perception that many Americans are aware of the evil that they have supported and see the need to renounce it — that’s a first step. Obama is not fit to lead the US through its required renovation. Marcy Kaptur, Ron Paul, some elements of Tom Coburn — they’ve got the steel.
Believing Unbeliever:
I agree with a lot of the basic facts to which you point, and enjoyed teh passion and civility* (*see below) that comes through your posts. However, as far as I am concerned, you miss the big picture, which is that we are in a state of war, and as such, you have two choices. Support the legitimate government (albeit with reservations), or support the enemy.
BTW, Voice of Tehran is indeed in Tehran, and I am in a neighboring province, and I love to see the smiling faces of children and men hanging around chatting in the streets every day.
I often find much negativity in a certain mindset within the populace (with just enough exposure to other ways of life to get themselves in trouble), when they complain bitterly about the status quo. I say to them: OK, let’s assume that all you say is correct. Fine. Now: what are you going to DO about it? Urge the US to bomb Iran, or urge it to lift sanctions and allow the government organically to exit its siege mentality? The US is unlikely to do that, as its government has been hijacked. Therefore, until further notice, the only choice available is to work with the system within the limitations imposed from without and within the limitations our own culture and history impose on us if we are to be true to them. It is tedious work, but there it is. We can talk about male rape in prisons here or state-side all we want. The single most liberating thing Obama can do with the stroke of a pen is to sign an executive order recognizing the Iranian government, lifting all sanctions, and paying back the “frozen” (i.e., stolen) assets, with interest. The boon that this single act would generate to the Iranian political economy would be like a tidal wave that would raise the water line so high that even the “howzeh dinosaurs” will be afforded new perspectives by their belvederes on the new high ground. But that is not going to happen as Obama would not have passed through the US Election Filtering System if there was even a slight possibility of his issuing such an executive order. And so, we are back to square one of rolling up our sleeves, putting out and shutting up.
Lastly, with regard to your contention that what you wear and listen to is none of anyone else’s concern, I suggest that it is an utterance with origins in a culture of radical individualism that has no place in the current Iranian scene, and offer you the following: The most important (and least considered) element in macro discussions of cultures and societies (and prognostications and prescriptions thereof) is the spectrum of its cultural cohesiveness. If one posits a spectrum wherein at one end we have societies that are culturally homogenous and monolithic, and at the other, cultures that are so diversified and its constituent members so “individuated” that one cannot properly (i.e., definitionally) call it a culture anymore, then we can see in light of this analysis that teh efficacy, efficiency and practical value of a given polity (with the train of values and legislation set up to buttress those values) on one end of the spectrum cannot apply to that of a culture on the other end of it.
I personally agree that it is surely a passing phase that, for example, women in government jobs and those working in large companies with business interests tied to that of the government are made to wear head coverings of a certain uniform color and tailoring. But this is an internal matter, that will be sorted out, inshallah, in the fullness of time. And the resolution to this and a myriad of other much more serious problems will be hastened when good-intentioned and intelligent people such as yourself stop taking cheap – indeed gratuitous – potshots at our beloved country and its legitimate leadership from the sidelines, and start fighting the violence-addicted ZOG and all its tentacles that are running the show in your domicile, so that our progress can be made in peace. Ameen.
*The choice of the handle Unbeliever in a forum discussing the fate of a nation of Believers is inherently uncivil, insensitive adn even inflammatory. If your intention is to hang around and be a force for positive engagement in this and other fora, I would recommend choosing a less antagonizing handle. Empty: am I being too anal here? Oh, ok, keep your oxymoronic handle if you like it so much :o)
Brill,
El Baradei is seen by some as being detached from Egypt, having spent a large portion of his life abroad. Ayman Nour, the former presidential candidate, could also emerge in a strong position…
Jeff Cohen: America supports Islamists against secularists
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/jeff-cohen-america-supports-islamists-against-secularists/
This from a NY Times article on the Egyptian situation:
“Whether Dr. ElBaradei can emerge as that consensus figure remained unclear. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 for his work leading the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.”
Minor point, but the IAEA is entirely independent from the UN — or at least one would so conclude if they read the IAEA Statute.
kooshy says: January 30, 2011 at 10:52 pm
I am aware of the history of the monument.
I was making a comment on my personal observations; I do not recall Nader Shah being as much popular as he is now.
Fyi
Praise of Nader Shah in Iran is not a recent phenomenon, his monument was made in the last regime and no one dared to touch it after the revolution, much like Ferdoosie’s statue and monument, why, because both are national heroes for different reasons, his popularity is because, he is a hero for restoring the Iran’s national might after a period of decline, very much like any general who won the foreign wars and became an emperor. For Iranians, nationalistically his status is somewhat similar to a modern Rostam.
Eric: “Anyone who hears Iran insist on such a link would consider its offer to be insincere,”
Wow. So your argument boils down to: Iran should give away its last bargaining chip so it can be seen as “sincere”.
This, despite your argument that Iran should not look for Western “approval”.
Contradict yourself much?
Adam P: I agree that it seems there is a shift in the balance of power against the US and Israel occurring. It doesn’t seem to have much leverage at the moment, but it does appear to be growing. Lebanon is now swinging very much against the US with a new Hizballah government, which will only strengthen ties with Syria and Iran and probably Turkey. If Egypt gets a moderate government, it is likely to be less amenable to US pressure than the current government, if not entirely so. This leaves Jordan – already the target of demonstrations – as the lone US ally next to Israel. If Jordan should fall in the next couple years, Israel will once again be surrounded with countries not really interested in supporting the US/Israeli agenda.
This will also up the pressure on the Saudis and the UAE who will now be surrounded by Iran, an Iran-partial Iraq, and Syria/Lebanon/Egypt and Turkey. Not looking good for them.
The only option the US and Israel has to try to break this geopolitical disaster is war. Israel will have to try once again to destroy Hizballah and Hamas, threaten Egypt and Syria (as part of its campaign against Hizballah), and pressure the US to attack Iran, which will devastate both Iran and Iraq again as Iraq is likely to support Iran in that event. Israel cannot win such a conflict on its own – the US has to be an active partner in this.
So can Israel persuade the US to do this? I say it can, not so much because of the Israel Lobby, although that is a potent influence, but more because it fits in with the US hegemonic intent and the desire for war profits. The US will be a willing partner in this – not much Israeli pressure needed.
RSH, yes.
If they can look to Turkey, which moved from military governments to a democratic and popular government addressing their sovereign needs…
They actually need to align (as Turkey did when the Europeans wouldn’t have them) with the BRIC countries…
Castellio says: January 30, 2011 at 10:35 pm
There is no one in US who could state what you have stated and be elected to public office or even be employed by the government.
But they are not alone in this.
If you state, in Iran, that Oil Industry is best privatized and the oil ministry abolished you will find yourself very quickly out of the government.
BiBiJon,
“There seems to be 2 championships that Iran is qualified to participate in. Championship “A” is with P5+1 who represent the “first world” countries. … Regardless of what happens at the championships, Iran is always portrayed as the obstinate loser. … Championship “B”, where third world countries of the world participate in, is where Iran’s efforts are openly appreciated and she routinely wins medals, accolades, and respect.”
Good observation.
Jalili’s performance at the Istanbul talks is a classic example of how the same words are interpreted much differently by these two audiences. Jalili stood up and said, in essence: “Iran has a sincere desire to clear up misunderstandings that have arisen concerning its peaceful nuclear energy program. I am confident we can achieve this goal through good faith negotiations between equals, based on our mutual understanding that Iran is entitled to conduct its peaceful nuclear energy program, including enrichment of uranium, in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Iran’s Safeguards Agreement.”
To the “Championship B” audience, this was heady stuff. Their reaction, in essence, was this: “Did you hear about the tongue-lashing Jalili delivered to those Western hypocrites in Istanbul? Treat us like equals, he told them, and we’ll be more than happy to talk. Equal treatment was the last thing on their minds, of course, so they all got up and walked out. What an impressive performance by Jalili!”
To the “Championship A” audience, Jalili’s words were received somewhat differently. Their essential reaction was this: “Did you hear what happened in Istanbul? We’re all there to talk about Iran’s nuclear program, and our people announce we’ve come with open minds, no preconditions. Then Jalili stands up and insists he’ll talk only if we cave in to Iran’s demands before negotiations even begin. Can you believe it – right after we’d got done saying we had no preconditions! Then Jalili launches into some canned speech about – what else? – Israel! Bad man! Bad country! Obviously talking won’t work with these mad mullahs. What will?”
Same words – lots of medals in the “Championship B” games; not so many in “Championship A.”
“Bottom line is this: Iran should announce her decision to reinstitute the AP in a G77 meeting, with zero press releases for first worlders. Let Western media pick it up secondhand from IAEA.”
Good idea.
“Iran should pin the AP to a binding resolution at UNSC condemning assassination of scientists, and cyber-attacks.”
You’re succumbing to the same old temptation. Iran should either do it or not do it. Anyone who hears Iran insist on such a link would consider its offer to be insincere, since everyone will recognize that such a resolution will never be adopted by the UNSC. This is not to say that it shouldn’t be adopted – simply that it never would be. Iran couldn’t get the UNSC to pass a resolution declaring that Tuesday is the day that follows Monday, much less this one.
Castellio: If what you say is true, then the military is between a rock and a hard place.
If they continue to support Mubarak, eventually it will come down to a fight between them and the people – and the military will lose as they always do in such a situation. If they had crushed this rebellion early, they might have had a chance. Once you have half a million or more people on the streets with broad popular support, it’s too late for that approach.
If they dump Mubarak and set up a military dictatorship which doesn’t address the needs of the people, they will – eventually, if not now – end up in the same place.
If they dump Mubarak and attempt to address the will of the people to some degree, they can hold on to power for a few more years, maybe another decade or two. Because I don’t think the Egyptians desire for justice for the Palestinians trumps their own self-interest, so they will cut the military some slack if some of their needs are at least partly addressed.
But in the end, whether it be now or twenty years from now, eventually the Egyptians are going to remember these days, and the military is going to have to transition to a more democratic government which is less amenable to the US and Israel, regardless of whether they are afraid of Israel.
Hopefully, before that happens, something will happen in the region to put Israel more on the defensive and allow the Egyptian military to take more chances with its own people.
Adam, if you are saying that the MB should be part of the ruling mix of Egypt, I completely agree. I agree, also, with how you portray their recent evolution (given the broad strokes of blogging). I caution that they are not representative of the majority of the people. You will note my comments on their anti-women inclinations, and their petite-bourgeois (am I allowed using that word) anti-worker habits.
You know, the only disagreement I might have with you is the statement that this current trend in the Middle east goes against American interests. It doesn’t really, although the American elite represents it that way. Erroneously.
Declare the 67 borders of Israel, declare the Palestinian state, push for equal rights of all citizens in Israel, endorse the Iranian right to enrich uranium, push for AEIA ispection of Israeli sites and her signing of the NPT, withdraw all soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan, retool her domestic industrial and educational structure with money currently wasted on the military and financial services… all of these are actually in America’s interests. Immediate interests.
Is there really no-one in America who can speak the obvious?
At this point and time since there is no known leader for this new Arab uprising it will be hard to predict what will be coming in Egypt and the rest of the Arab world , regardless, this is one step forward for the region even if this was orchestrated for a transition by the traditional hegemonic powers, Starting this last week US’s Middle East foreign policy has to be re configured with this new unfolding and un predictable realities, any new government taking position in Egypt no longer can last without inclusion of MB which will have to be as much anti hegemony as it will have to be pro Arab otherwise it would not last, further more will have to restore relations with all the regional countries including Iran and Iraq, which is plus for Iran and a minus for Israel/ west
There is a grit in Hizbullah which comes from constant war against invaders, a no-holds barred assessment of reality. Nasrallah is a great realist. Even the Israelis trust Nasrallah’s words more than the words of their own leaders. And Iran came through the revolution, came through the Iran-Iraq war, is coming through international sanctions and an on-going covert war. Lebanon and Iran are changed places.
Egypt, in that sense, is not yet a “changed place”. But it can’t go back, either. The economic situation is too urgent.
Yes, FYI is right, stasis will lead to a split within the military. But remember, this is a relatively pampered military, not a fierce resistance movement as in Lebanon, or a blooded army, as in Iran. They’ve been trained under Mubarak’s caution for thirty years.
kooshy says: January 30, 2011 at 10:08 pm
You misunderstand me.
To me, the recent visible popularity of Nader Shah among Iranians is indicative of an unbending and martial spirit among the Iranians. It is an interesting sociological phenomenon on its own right, I think, when you sense that the population somehow has shifted mentally and has become fiercely nationalistic.
The ramification is that they will not be cowed.
……………without any objection, for Iranians Nader is much like Napoleon for the French.
To RSH and Castellio,
I largely agree with your points on the MB however, I would like to propose that the MB is the greatest hope for bringing democracy to Egypt, more so than Western backed individuals. Before I state why, I think its important to remember that democracy reflects the will of the people, not necessarily the will of outside governments. Having said that, the MB is one of the only legitimate (in the eyes of the people, since the gov. has them officially banned) and organized opposition groups in Egypt. They have the ability to mobilize a large religious following against the repressive regime (something we saw on Friday). Contrary to Western belief, the MB is not the radical organization it once was when it followed the preaching of Seyyed Qutb. In recent years, they have largely abandoned his ideology altogether and are returning to the founder’s progressive social justice message. Additionally, the MB accepts the Arab Republic of Egypt and as such, does not wish to see the republic overthrown, which should be distinguished from advocating its president overthrown within that system.
Of course, it would be difficult for them to garner support from all sections of Egypt, and that is precisely where I see the role of more liberal or western backed individuals, in the form of a unity government. Again, it is hard to say whether this will actually happen but I believe that it is Egypt’s best chance for a true organic democracy even if it is not in the interest of some regional and super powers, ie. Israel and the United States. We are seeing a shifting of balance in the Middle East, one that is not necessarily the US’ favor.
Fyi, I agree
Nader Shah’s statue and memorial is proudly still standing in Mashhad, even after the revolution with any objection, for Iranians Nader is much like Napoleon for the French.
Castellio says: January 30, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Egyptian Army will like fracture if the current stalemate persists.
The answer is complex. The military holds all the cards except for the people’s situation, which is untenable, and needs urgent change on many fronts; stop the torture, stop the secret police, stop the lack of freedom of speech and association, stop the farce of elections where the strong candidates are all in jail and the ballots are stuffed or road blocks are thrown up against voters (etc.), stop censoring the press, break apart the clique of business men who operate through government sponsored cartels. You get the point, but I could go on for several pages.
There are many things which have to stop. Stop rounding up young men with beards because you think they must be the enemy, stop torturing wives to ensure the man you seek will show up and turn himself in, to be tortured in turn… and on, and on. The people have been treated with great injustice, throughout the land, in every city, for a long time. Finally, that seems to be getting through to the ‘civilized, well informed” west. What does it take?
Yes, it’s all military right now, but they don’t have the knowledge necessary to address the economic and social forces current in Egypt. They simply don’t. They need help, NOT American consultants (heaven forbid), not German consultants… they need to reach into and draw from their own educated people.
Mubarak the elder believed his son was part of the secular revolution, and that the sycophants gathered about him were the educated economic elite that would fashion long-lasting change. His nepotism was rationalized as precisely what I’m calling for…. and the Americans treated Gamal the same way.
The unions? Which unions? There are corrupt state unions, to a greater and lesser degree, and there are a very few independent unions. That is what 2008 was all about, the workers defied their state run unions! And they didn’t do that in the name of Islam.. the men were shamed into it by the solidarity of the women workers. Historical fact. The women workers are extremely wary of the MB, for its anti-labour stance (which it associates with Godless communism) and its anti-woman traditional stance. Very few women see the MB as the future, even in the rural areas.
So yes, the military, then the unions, but not the corrupt state unions, (so who chooses?) and El Baradei because he represents an educated international player who understands the issues and is moderate, and the Enough party, the secular liberals who seek a chance to become the new elite…. most of the opposition parties, however, are not parties at all in our sense, they are storefronts.
On to Gaze. The bad news is that the Egyptian military is frightened of Israel, and for good reason. Mubarak is terrified of Israel. (Why don’t people discuss this?) He thinks he’s been good for Egypt because Israel has not annihilated it, as it has threatened to do. The defeat of Nasser was momentous for the Egyptians. Sadat’s semi-victory was the best that the Egyptian military feels it can do. They have hidden ever since, and they know the Americans hold them in contempt, and ensure Israeli military pre-eminence . I do not see the Egyptian military breaking the siege of Gaza easily, even though it is the will of the people.
So, from a contemporary historical point of view (not an interview process with current Egyptian military)… the Egyptian military will not oppose American limits on Egyptian sovereignty, for the same reasons Mubarak didn’t. Fear. They believe that agreeing with the Americans holds the Israelis on a leash.
Empty says: January 30, 2011 at 7:09 pm
They think of that Nader who expelled foreigners out of Iran.
For inside Iran’s feeling with new developments in the region, look at this drawings of Uncle Sam in 2004 -2008-2011 in an Iranian website Alef,
http://alef.ir/1388/content/view/94103/
Title of the article is “Uncle Sam, what were you thinking,( Now see) what happened “
The rest you would figure out
Interesting piece on the situation in Lebanon:
Lebanon: Hezbollah the New Government
:http://www.opinion-maker.org/2011/01/lebanon-hezbollah-the-new-government/
Nasrallah: 1 Obama/Netanyahu: 0
Castellio: OK, so we can expect whatever new government comes in to be mostly military, with maybe some lip service to power sharing with other Egyptian factions such as the Muslim Brotherhood, El Baradei, labor movements, etc.
Next question: Does the military think it should be supporting Israel’s desire to keep Gaza isolated? Or does the military agree that for Egypt’s own security it needs to keep Gaza closed, so as not to be seen aiding Hamas in smuggling weapons into Gaza? Or does the military still smart from Israeli defeats and would prefer to see Israel get more problems from Gaza?
One point Robert Baer makes in his article I just posted a link to is that the US doesn’t really know or understand the Egyptian military. I would think this would make it a little harder for the US to pressure them – aside from the military foreign aid the US provides which of course it could threaten to cut off. So will the military bow to US pressure or not?
Food staples starting to run out in Egypt
:http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/01/30/egypt.protests.food/index.html
So in a few days, people will start to get hungry. Then the revolution either peters out – or gets more violent as people, already poor, get even more pissed.
Well, RSH, when you discuss Gaza you put your finger on it, and answer Fiorangela’s concern that an open border is of no consequence to Israel.
The MB is not able to rule Egypt alone. It probably doesn’t even want to. It holds about, what, at max 35% of the population? Max.
And a good number of the MB are ’secular’. Laugh if you want, but it’s not the foaming at the mouth group of radicals some seem to either want or fear.
It’s tradition is fiercely anti-labour, and the labour movement has little use for it. The young have insisted on this revolt, and the young are not, first and foremost, Muslim Brothers. To them, that is a defeated past.
All of this action has as much, perhaps more, to do with the successful strikes during 2008 as it does with the Tunisian revolt, but then, the strikes of 2008 were hardly covered here… who analyzed them? (Richard Seymour did, to his credit.)
If there is anyone, anyone at all, cognizant of Egyptian history in the State Department, they would be arguing for truly free elections as soon as possible, knowing that it will take a decade of transition, but that no real alternative exists, other than the army, which is a dead end from the word go.
I have great faith in the Egyptian people, if they can get the Americans and the military off their backs. Not so easy, but they know what has to be done.
There is NO government in waiting that is not military in nature. NONE. The MB are only part of the mix, and will have to evolve quickly if they want to (as they should) share power.
(When I communicate with RHS, I reserve the right to use CAPS.)
The One Person Who May Know What Egypt’s Generals Will Do
:http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2045174,00.html
This isn’t particularly good news. If Sulieman can convince the generals to support Mubarak, the revolution may be in trouble – temporarily at least.
However, the question boils down to: Will the generals see Sulieman as viable, or will it just be a “kick the can down the road” situation? In which case they might as well side with the people now rather than later when the situation will be worse than it is now.
If I were an Egyptian general, despite being afraid of being arrested and tortured, I would try to establish a military dictatorship, dumping Mubarak and Sulieman, and agree to some reforms to get the people on my side, which is where they tend to want to be anyway. That’s a win-win for the military, whereas supporting the status quo is obviously going to be a lose, if not now, then later.
Duh! Ya think?
Egyptian disappointment with U.S. likely to increase
:http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/01/30/egypt.us/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
Eric: “For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people feel that an action by Iran has validity only if the United States of America expresses its approval.”
Here we go again! You just decided once again to “re-tune” the recognition by the US of Iran’s legal enrichment rights as “approval” and a “promise”.
BULLSHIT!
I have NEVER used those words! And those words are NOT correct to describe what is achieved by such a recognition, however small an achievement it might be in terms of the end result of war or no war.
Why is it you can’t use the word “ADMISSION” in describing such a US public recognition? I’ll tell you why. It’s because you can’t handle the implied meaning of the word “admission”! Because the implied meaning is that it is a NEGATIVE result for the US. And your whole argument for Iran unilaterally implementing the AP is that there cannot be a positive result from Iran’s approach to negotiations and therefore they have to hand over the goods without any hope of one.
But in fact, as I’ve repeatedly stated here and you have ignored here over and over with this recasting of words to suit your theory – yes, here we are again just a few posts above where we were yesterday! – an ADMISSION by the US that Iran has a legal right to enrich completely destroys the US position in the negotiations! The entire US position towards Iran is that Iran must stop enrichment because it has “violated” the NPT because…well, because Iran is enriching! That’s how weak the US position is. An admission from the US that Iran has a legal right to do what it’s doing would destroy the US position. Which is why the US is not willing to even remotely grant such an admission except in the vague terms that “Iran has a right to a nuclear energy program” – which means nothing without the legal right to enrich.
The US has a standing position that no country other than the weapon states has a right to enrich. This position is hypocritical, of course, since numerous states which are US allies enrich. The ONLY countries not allowed to enrich are Arab states.
But the US position is not legal. It is not supported by international law. It does not justify military threats against any state. And it is hypocritical.
All of this is recognized by most of the world outside of the US, Israel, and the EU.
As I have said repeatedly, and again you have ignored, is that Iran has only this one bargaining chip – agree to implement the AP in exchange for an admission that it has a legal right to enrich.
That’s it! There is no other way Iran can bargain. Without that chip, there are no negotiations. Iran might as well leave the NPT if it can’t bargain with that one legal chip.
And you want Iran to throw that chip away for nothing!
The fact that the US would not change its course for war if it DID make that admission and if Iran implements the AP as a result does not change this calculation in the slightest. It still has actual value because it makes it harder for the US to arbitrarily declare that Iran’s enrichment is a violation of the NPT. That may not count for much in the end of war or no war, but it is NOT “nothing”, it is NOT an “approval”, it is NOT a “promise”, it is a concrete ADMISSION which changes the game.
Really, you’re getting ridiculous with this ducking and weaving and changing words around to avoid the real issue.
And then you argue that Iran would gain the support of other countries more if it unilaterally implemented the AP. Well, HOW MUCH MORE support from other countries would it get if the US was forced to ADMIT that what Iran is doing is LEGAL?
You can’t answer that question either.
Arnold: These are the questions Eric can’t answer, and in my view are a harder argument for him to deal with than what you’re discussing. Which is one reason he ignores me completely.
All he does is just find someone else he can repeat his same argument to, without materially changing the argument, rather than engaging directly with the strongest argument against his proposition. It’s fundamentally intellectually dishonest.
Basically the question of Egypt devolves down to: will the military allow the Muslim Brotherhood to take power IF in fact the Brotherhood has sufficient support from the people? I’ve never followed Egypt that closely – anyone have any concrete evidence for either proposition?
Because if the Muslim Brotherhood takes control of Egypt, Israel can probably forget about Egypt blocking access to Gaza, or at least control will be on the surface only. Egypt’s control of Gaza is already a joke – the US tried to build a steel underground wall to prevent tunneling – that failed miserably. It will be worse under a real Egyptian government not run by a US puppet.
Which means, for Israel, an equivalent of those 40,000 rockets Hizballah has in Lebanon will be in Gaza within a couple years as a result of smuggling via Egypt.
And that’s a game changer to some degree.
From CNN article on how Egyptians are disappointed in US response to their revolution:
“Obama administration has made it clear that it’s not in the business of encouraging ‘regime change’”
Except in Iran, of course! You can’t find more hypocrisy than this.
Andrew Bacevich, on Carter Doctrine at 30
Arnold,
I agree with FYI the notion of “democracy” in Saudi Arabia is a nonstarter and will be for decades to come. Egypt, possibly, but certainly not easily.
fyi,
I agree with you the US could adequately protect its interests in the Persian Gulf area with its bases in Qatar and Bahrain, and nothing else is needed.
In any event, the “Carter doctrine” arose from a misreading of Soviet intentions related to the invasion of Afghanistan. Carter’s team thought the USSR wanted to take control of the Gulf, and that this was an opening move. At the time, I thought that idea was preposterous.
RE: “That is why Nader Shah has become so popular among the Iranians.”
Especially among those whose eyes he poked out.
An essay by the Chairman of the Al Islam Foundation of Sri Lanka on the occasion of Islamic Republic of Iran’s 32nd anniversary.
http://www.dailynews.lk/2011/01/31/fea01.asp
kooshy says: January 30, 2011 at 6:00 pm
You are right about fierce nationalism.
That is why Nader Shah has become so popular among the Iranians.
Arnold Evans says: January 30, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Kooshy,
“I think the sequence was that Iran resumed conversion of uranium in August 2005. “
Correct but at the time Iran was still voluntarily observing the AP like any other country that has ratified the AP is allowed to enrich under her NPT rights
“The West began threatening to report Iran to the UNSC at that time.”
Yes and Iran threaten to stop voluntarily observing the AP if her cased is sent to UNSC and a resolution is adopted.
“Iran began what now was a tiny tiny scale of enrichment in January 2006 and if the US had back then agreed to that as a limit, Iran might have only a few hundred pounds of 3.5% LEU by now but without the sanctions. But alas, the US did engineer a referral to the UNSC.”
“Iran was implementing the AP at that time.”
“So the referral went, from memory in February 2006 to the UNSC”
Yes and if China or Russia were interested for an argument for not adopting a UNSC resolution against Iran’s NPT rights, they would have notified both Iranians and the Americans at that point, which Iran was technically still observing the AP which means that Iranians had continued to observe the AP and the Americans wouldn’t waste the time to ask for the referral.
My recollection is that Iran explicitly threatens if her case is moved out of IAEA she will order the government to reduce voluntary measures, so the argument is if Iran’s additional cooperation and AP adaptation had any value for Russia and China to accept Iran’s enrichment rights, they would have been stopped at that point.
So it’s not about Iran’s more cooperation or confidence building measures, this is all about Iran’s fuel cycle enrichment rights, I would argue not even that, it’s about containment, this is what this has been all about since the 79, how to contain an Idea so it can’t be spread with whatever measures or tools available. Nuclear is one of them. Sadam was another sorry ass tool, so on. The problem they have which it seem to me they do not even want to understand on this independence issue is that they are confronting the fierce nationalism of the 70 million Iranians. Basically Iranian’s are the wrong set of people to make them accept, you can’t have what is your right to have.
Thanks
Arnold Evans says: January 30, 2011 at 5:47 pm
If there are free elections in Tunisia and in Egypt and the results are respected and sustained over 2 electoral cycles; then I think it will have an excellent chance of having free elections and liberty everywhere elese – including the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Saudi Arabia – I do not know. There is no history of constitutionalism, civic law, elections, etc. I seriously doubt that there can be any lasting progress in that country even if the Al Saud leave the political scene. I know that that society is fairly tribal and I just cannot see how one can move from tribal polity of a civic democracy overnight.
Look no further than the Islamic Republic of Iran: more than 150 years of attempts at reform (based on European models), more than 100 years of constitutionalism, 2 revolutions, 3 coup d’etats and the only truly free years in that country where 1948-1953 and 1979-1980.
LIz and Bussed-in-Basiji and Voice of Tehran,
Liz: ‘will of the people’ does not equal to dictatorship of the majority because there is such a thing as the rights of the citizen. Was the buggery that was committed by the thug Bassijis on the prisoners o fKahrizak the ‘will of the people’? Is it the ‘will of the people’ that dictates what I listen to (whether it is Britney Spears or whoever is no business of yours). And is it the ‘will of the people’ that determines what I should read, what colour clothes the I wear (again what style of fashion I adopt is my decision and not a matter for you).
Thuggish Greens? last I saw it was the Greens who were getting killed in the street, raped in prisons, burnt, hung and disappearing in the desert. You can shout as much as you want on the internet but those whose saw it know who committed violence against whom.
Bussed in Bassiji: I would not have expected better from you and certainly did not get it. You beat your chest about the Iran-Iraq war and make it a stick to beat others with it. How do you know I did not fight for Iran in that war?
As for majority Iranians being believers; if they believe that the world was created in 7 days, earth being flat and on the horn of a bull or Khomeini’s face appearing in the moon, do their beliefs make it true? Ignorance persists until reason casts light on their darkness. So please don’t throw that canard about the majority being believers in my face, even the educated Mullahs do not believe that anymore, which is why Iran is a kleptocracy and indeed Islam has become true opium of the Iranian masses.
Voice of Tehran: I seriously doubt that you are in Tehran, much less being a voice for it. If you are you must have impaired eyesight and be hard of hearing. I have been to both South and North Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Mashad and Yazd, and I do not need to be told that Iran is the heaven on earth when the evidence of my eyes says otherwise. If you can see and hear, count the smiles and laughters you come across tomorrow when you go out.
Liz says: January 30, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Temporarily yes (several weeks) but any successor state will have to sell oit to keep the country going.
In fact, with the demise of the Soviet Union, and the destruction of the Ba’ath state by US there is no longer any reason for US to maintain a presence in the Persian Gulf. There is no local threat to the oil wells – no the bad ugly hariy Iranians are not going to take over Kuwait – they do not have the military to do it.
Furthermore, there are no external threats either: I cannot see Egypt, India, or Pakistan attacking any Southern Persian Gulf state in order to pirate their oil.
US, in my opinion, is in the position to re-evaluate the Carter Doctrine. I personally think she can take the risk of dissolving the Central Command and to confine herself to a minimal presence in Bahrain and in Qatar.
Liz:
Is it too early to start wondering, hoping, guessing who will come next?
We haven’t seen how the situation will stabilize in either Tunisia or Egypt and we can be sure the US is expending its full effort to limiting the democratic scope of both, especially Egypt.
I’m happy that ElBaradei is saying that the US is losing credibility by advocating that Mubarak stay on. On the other hand the US has been incredibly open about its support for Mubarak and the reasons for it, which was a huge mistake that looks just amateur to tell the truth. In fairness, events happened faster than smart people could be put on the case, so US performance may be better in the coming weeks and months.
But if Egypt was to become democratic and Saudi Arabia next, the region would be just unrecognizable. It would be far beyond my wildest fantasies could have been even two weeks ago.
Is it possible? Somebody tell me it’s possible.
Voice of Tehran says: January 30, 2011 at 3:29 pm
The estimate of the size of financial instruments that cannot be backed by the real economy of the world is 222 trillion dollars.
The actual figure might be close to 300 trillion dollars.
US is responsible for 1/3 of global production. Thus her share of bad assets would be – at a minimum – close to 70 trillion dollars. – might even be closer to ~ 100 trillion dollars.
The zie of US economy is ~ 14 trillion dollars a year.
There is no way to redeem these (bad) assets with nominal valuation of 70 to 100 trillion dollars within the size of the US ecomony.
US government has purchased 5 trillion dollars worth of mortgages and is just sitting on them – not forcing the liquidation of the debtors.
US also is priniting money – Quantitative Easing II – and thus taxting the rest of the world to pay for her current account deficits (the wars in the Middle East) as well as to protect her financial sector.
The right way for US, in my opinion, would be state that various financial instruments that were created by her financial sector cannot be redeemed at face-value; say 10 cents ( or even 20 cents) on the nominal dollar value.
Such a ten fold reduction in debt will enable US government and US economy to retire these debts and move ahead.
But it create significant reduction in standard of living in the United States and elsewhere as pension funds and retirement savings account loose much of their nominal values. This would be very very painful for US but it will not kill US.
I think US will eventually adopt such an approach since the QE II will reach a dead end as world trade shift to other currencies or turns into barter. Already, Iran, which thanks to US was forced off using dollar and later Euro – is conducting much of her trade with China, Korea, and Japan in non-dollar currencies.
If the Saudi’s fall, the price of oil will go through the roof!
Who Speaks for Egypt?
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/28/egypt_in_washington/index.html
Lobbyists who are contracted to work for Egypt/Mubarak.
Podesta = first named lobby firm. John Podesta was head of Barack Obama’s transition team.
The word, podesta, signified one who functioned as coordinator between government and military-business interests in the era of the Italian city-states. The term for the group on the opposite side of that function, those who represented the people’s interests, is, populare. It looks like the Egyptian populare are attempting to break the relationship between Egyptian government and American podesta.
Kooshy,
I think the sequence was that Iran resumed conversion of uranium in August 2005. The West began threatening to report Iran to the UNSC at that time.
Iran’s Majlis or parliament, I think in December 2005 passed a law requiring the President to stop voluntary cooperation with the IAEA, I think specifically naming the AP, if the case was reported to the UNSC.
Iran began what now was a tiny tiny scale of enrichment in January 2006 and if the US had back then agreed to that as a limit, Iran might have only a few hundred pounds of 3.5% LEU by now but without the sanctions. But alas, the US did engineer a referral to the UNSC.
Iran was implementing the AP at that time.
So the referral went, from memory in February 2006 to the UNSC
By mid February 2006 Iran notified the IAEA that it was no longer subject to any of the voluntary confidence-building measures it had adopted since 2003.
(I think but would have to check, that this is when, from Iran’s point of view, it reverted to the original section 3.1 also. But the IAEA brought it that up in 2007 and Iran said then that it is no longer bound by voluntary confidence building measures.)
Then the first resolution, a President’s statement came in early summer, maybe June 2006. By that time all parties involved knew Iran was not observing the AP.
All parties also knew that returning the file to the IAEA would result in Iran re-implementing the voluntary measures, including the AP. All parties involved did not consider an Iranian commitment to implement the AP worth giving up a UNSC President’s statement.
Arnold
“There is no “who knows” about this. If Russia would have vetoed a resolution if only Iran had unilaterally implemented the AP, Russia would have told Iran and Iran may well have unilaterally implemented the AP, if avoiding a resolution would have been worth the cost according to Iranian calculations. Iran knows exactly what impact unilaterally implementing the AP would have on Russia and China and so far has decided not to unilaterally implement the AP. It must not be worth it to Iran.”
Precisely, if this was the case and unitarily adopting the AP by Iran had a value for Russia or china they could have and would have vetoed the first UN resolution adopted against Iran while Iran was voluntarily observing the AP when the resolution was adopted.
Eric,
“If Iran’s leaders agree with me, I expect that Iran will not follow your suggested course of action.”
Presumably so. You’ve written the same sentence several times, but never before have I seen it begin with “if.” I think that addition improves the sentence.
You seem, especially on this subject, to have knack for finding the least important parts of my posts to respond to. Do I seem that way to you also? I was responding to your argument that the benefits of implementing the AP outweighed the costs. I thought that was at least one of the more important points you were making. Did you think it was not? Did you think that wasn’t what I was responding to?
You responded to the word “if”. It was a toss up, I easily could have crafted the sentence with the word “obviously” and felt just as comfortable writing it.
The point of that sentence is that I’m not sure what you think you know that Iran doesn’t. You’re welcome to explain why you think Iran seems not to agree with you that the benefits are worth the costs of implementing the AP. If you want to respond substantively to what was not a major thrust of my argument.
But that wasn’t even a substantive response to something that wasn’t even an important part of my argument.
Did you think you were responding to one of the substantive points I was making?
Do you feel like I ignore your substantive points the same way?
I can ask questions instead that if you answer them will force you to address the points I consider important. Or not. This is just seems a little strange to me.
Unbeliever says:
January 30, 2011 at 1:55 pm
In Iran we had our revolution in 1979 and Iran and Iranians are looking with pride and self-confidence into the future.
In which stage do you consider yourself (as an Ex-Iranian , wherever you live) in below conversation with Max Keiser :
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/max-keiser-america-a-walking-dead-zombie-country/
Paul Craig Roberts wrote in an essay called “The Ecstacy of Empire: How close is America’s Demise?”, that was published this week, the following:
“The United States and the welfare of its 300 million people cannot be restored unless the neocons, Wall Street, the corporations, and their servile slaves in Congress and the White House can be defeated. Without a revolution, Americans are history.”[6]
Do you share my opinion that the United States belongs to the least places in the world, where a revolution has to be expected right now?
America died two years ago. It’s a walking dead-zombie country, and anybody who still lives in that country should get re-familiarize themselves with cotton-picking, because once the dollar crashes, the only crop that America will be able to export, is cotton. It will be King Cotton again. It will be 1840 again. The only job available will be as a cotton-picker working on a Wal Mart or Goldman Sachs plantation. This is the reality of the situation. There is no turning back at this point. The die has been cast. The American experience lasted from 1776 to 2008. Those were the years it was kicking ass and taking names. But the second Obama took office, who took Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner with him – it died. That was the end. Every day since then has been Post-America….
…In the case of China, obviously they want to squeeze every last drop out of the brain-dead American consumer. When the American consumer has bought the last plastic toy and snow shovel made in China from Wal Mart that he can buy from the borrowed money on the 100th uncollateralized credit-card and they can’t hyper-consume one penny more, like the fat guy who eats the wafer at the end of the meal in the famous Monty Python sketch – who then explodes in a storm of half eaten foie gras and guts – then China will drop the bomb by announcing a gold-backed currency and the sale of a trillion in U.S.-government securities…
Not to forget Armenians and Georgians…
James:
Have we seen anything regarding the Russian or Chinese attitude toward Iran’s adoption of the AP?
Eric says he has. I can’t think of any. We see statements that Iran should disclose more or that it should be fully transparent. Neither of these refers specifically to the AP and either could be made if Iran was now implementing the AP. Both were made when Iran was implementing the AP.
I’ve never seen any statement like “Iran should implement the AP like some other countries voluntarily do” never anything like “If Iran had implemented the AP we’d have a better idea about its nuclear program” never “Iran doesn’t even implement the AP, which is a reasonable request” certainly never “We had no choice but to go along on this measure against Iran because Iran won’t implement the AP.”
One of my points though, is that Russia and China I’m sure have made their exact positions about many and possibly every aspect of Iran’s disclosure policy known to the Iranians in private discussions that we know for certain happen because we see foreign ministers flying to each others’ countries.
There is no “who knows” about this. If Russia would have vetoed a resolution if only Iran had unilaterally implemented the AP, Russia would have told Iran and Iran may well have unilaterally implemented the AP, if avoiding a resolution would have been worth the cost according to Iranian calculations. Iran knows exactly what impact unilaterally implementing the AP would have on Russia and China and so far has decided not to unilaterally implement the AP. It must not be worth it to Iran.
We’ll see if Eric finds a link.
James,
In over 5,000 years the character hasn’t changed much. Everyone who comes to Iran- Arabs, Mongols, Macedonians, Ethiopians, Afghans, Turks- they all become culturally Iranian- with all the positive and negative points this brings with it.
I like the idea of 200 million Iranians…
ElBaradei: No going back in Egypt
Nobel laureate tells defiant Cairo crowd that he has a mandate to negotiate with Mubarak government.
Mohamed ElBaradei, a leading opposition figure, has joined thousands of protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, in continued demonstrations demanding an end to President Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year rule.
The former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency told the crowd on Sunday night that “what we have begun cannot go back” referring to days of anti-government protests.
The National Coalition for Change, which groups several opposition movements including the Muslim Brotherhood, wants ElBaradei to negotiate with the Mubarak government.
Does he have a mandate to negotiate with Mr. Mubarak? if so why don’t they publish the details on what and how he is to negotiate.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/2011130165636218719.html
Arnold,
“If Iran’s leaders agree with me, I expect that Iran will not follow your suggested course of action.”
Presumably so. You’ve written the same sentence several times, but never before have I seen it begin with “if.” I think that addition improves the sentence.
BIB,
If Iran grows to 200 million people, with tens of millions of immigrants, it will change the character of the people. But perhaps that does not matter.
James,
We currently have millions of refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq- many of whom are unregistered workers. In other words they contribute to the economy but it is not statistically recorded. Also most of the post-war building boom occured using Afghan construction workers.
The Islamic view of population growth is not Malthusian. Our view is the more children, the better. Like I said we can support a population of 120-130 million if we continue to grow.
I recommend Alistair Crooke’s comments today regarding Tony Blair’s collusion with George W. Bush, and how this worked against resolving the Israel/Palestine problem (“Europe’s failure on Middle East peace”).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/30/europe-failure-middle-east-peace
The Phyllis Bennis-Paul Jay discussion (posted by Castellio @ 1:03 pm) of the way relationships may re-form in the wake of Egyptian uprising was comprehensive.
Bennis speculated that a new Egyptian government will probably open the Egyptian border to Gaza which, said Bennis, “will put tremendous pressure on Israel.”
I think she’s exactly wrong on that point: the toothpaste-tube rule will apply: Israel will take advantage of an open border between Gaza and Egypt to squeeze Palestinians into Egypt while Israel continues its tight borders against Palestinian Arabs, and continues settlement-building. After all, the two-state solution, recently most sincerely dead-ed, was Israel’s last, fall-back position. The first choice for zionist Israel was the expulsion of all Arabs; second choice was transfer of all Arabs from eretz Palestine to neighboring states — Jordan was most frequently mentioned. With a reconfigured Egypt, Palestinian Arabs will be funneled in that direction. Israel will not give ground, no way no how.
Bussed-In Basiji,
If the Iranian economy continues to grow, Iran will suck in millions of immigrants from central and south Asia. Thoughts of achieving a stable population before too long probably are not unwarranted.
Arnold,
Have we seen anything regarding the Russian or Chinese attitude toward Iran’s adoption of the AP?
Egyptian unrest has cut off fuel smuggling to Gaza, and ambulance drivers are obliged to spend 3 hours waiting in line to buy petrol. Good report in the Guardian today.
Unbeliever,
Get this through your head, wearing the latest fashion or listening to the latest piece of shit from Britney Spears or getting publicly wasted (plenty of it going on privately) are nothing compared to literacy, basic needs and independence. The Islamic Republic has done that faster and better than most others in human history. Aspirations, well what would the U.S. be without immigrants with aspirations? Immigration is a normal part of human life. If I’m miserable in country X I will immigrate to country Y. Most people I know who emigrated remained miserable no matter where they are because their misery has more to do with themselves than with outside factors. Besides we have many young people, so immigration is not a problem long-term. In the next generation Iran will be hitting 85-90 million as the “echo” of the 1980s baby boom occurs. I estimate that Iran can support 120-130 million population.
We conducted the revolution because we wanted to save Iran’s Islamic identity. We did it and then we fought the war alone without any support except for the Syrians. And we are willing to sacrifice our lives for the Islamic Republic, our Supreme Leader and for Islam. And until you don’t do the same for your (un)beliefs, we will continue to dominate Iran. It’s as simple as that. The people who conducted the revolution and fought the war and their children will continue to defend the revolution. There isn’t shit you can do about it.
You can leave us insane God worshippers who look forward to our eternal life and stay where you are and “celebrate your short [pointless] life”. You have that right but not the right to force that vision of life an the overwhelming majority of Iranians who don’t share your views (despite your illusions in this regard).
hans,
Yes, the military was the key factor in causing exit of president of Tunisia. His wife had been trying to get him to leave, long before the situation erupted.
Russian Revolution was direct result of military disasters suffered in the First World War. Kerensky made a fatal error by continuing the war after the Tsar was overthrown.
Unbeliever,
I believe that you must accept the majority in Iran who are believers and oppose the green thugs that tried to squash the aspirations of the vast majority of the population.
Eric:
Another reason: the IAEA might pass on our disclosures to the US government, which otherwise might not figure out where our uranium mines are located, or which might naively believe that we cannot or would not move all of our disclosed operations to other locations the moment US bombers leave the ground.
As far as I know, this is your first substantial response to this argument since you saw it at latest in June.
So let’s look at it. Are you asserting that there is no information in the AP disclosures that the US does not already have that would be helpful in sabotaging or harming Iran’s nuclear program?
I’m pretty sure that assertion is wrong, if that’s what you’re saying.
Or are you saying that disclosures would be useful to the US’ efforts and thereby harmful to Iran, but that the damage would be less than the benefit?
I’m going to assume that’s what you’re saying and let’s see where we find a benefit that would outweigh the tangible cost I’m assuming you would concede.
On the other hand, we’d be in a stronger position if we could point out that we’re disclosing the very same information that 100 other countries disclose, and thus are not playing “hide the ball” as the US and Israel incessantly argue.
You’ll admit this is not a tangible benefit.
Let’s get a link to one of these arguments that you claim the US and Israel make but would not be able to make if Iran implemented the AP. I haven’t come across one and I’ve asked you to provide one and so far you have not.
Once we look at an actual argument we can determine better what impact Iran unilaterally implementing the AP would have on that argument’s strength or weakness. I don’t think anyone is convinced by these arguments, before seeing whatever argument you have in mind, that would not be convinced if Iran had been implementing the AP. I think world-wide there are zero people, repeat zero, who find the US arguments convincing but would not if Iran was implementing the AP, unless you personally are the one.
More people might understand that what the US really demands from us goes way beyond what either our Safeguards Agreement or the Additional Protocol requires – that the US is insisting we let the IAEA nose around in our military secrets, something that isn’t required from other countries and shouldn’t be required from us either.
Which people are these who might understand that, but don’t understand it just by reading the documents?
Most of the relevant people regarding tangible impacts on Iran’s nuclear program understand which documents require what very well, and most of the relevant people have some agenda or other that extends beyond the documents. When I say most, I mean all for all I know. I can’t think of an exception.
That’s not good enough, obviously, but it suggests that we might be able to peel off some more important countries – Russia and China – if we give them something they can hold up to the US as a basis for declining to ratchet up the sanctions another notch. After all, we’ve already got Russia somewhat back in the game, helping to run Bushehr for us. If we commit to more open disclosures about our nuclear program, toss in some more juicy contracts for the Russians and a huge oil commitment for the Chinese – who knows? It’s far from clear, after all, that either of those countries is really in love with the US. They might just come up with some reason not to support the US blindly as they have been for the past several years.
You know what, then let’s wait for Russia and China, which are in direct constant communication with Iran’s diplomats to ask Iran to implement the AP and to tell Iran in their own words what they would be willing to trade for Iran’s unilateral implementation.
“Who knows?” is obviously, at best, a non-tangible benefit.
****
Overall I see a tangible cost and no tangible benefit from your suggested course of action.
If Iran’s leaders agree with me, I expect that Iran will not follow your suggested course of action.
fyi,
I don’t think it is necessary to view the people of a country as “slaves” if a prominent oil company is 60% owned by the British government. Iranian disputes with Anglo-Persian Oil often revolved around the fact the company was not buying enough Iranian oil to suit the purposes of the government.
Mossadegh overplayed his hand.
Unknown Unknowns and Liz,
1) Belief, of course I have them, but because I am also intellectually honest I also have doubt a lot of the time. Of one thing I am certain though: even if there is a Creator it is not the Allah of Islam or God of Christianity or Yahweh of Judaism. The rest of your equation does not even merit a mention – Imamat, what nonsense!
2) ‘Different strokes for different for different people’: may be people like you like a vision of Iran where authorities dictate what colour clothes people should wear – mainly black and white, or what sounds they should listen to, or what they should drink and what not. I personally think that vision of Iran is passed its sell by date, it suffocates the citizens and that is why they are leaving Iran in droves. That was the personal freedom bit; on the political side do you suggest that the Iranian politic allows for free expression of views – people having their say- and choosing their leaders? Why are there so few parties and why are their leaders mainly in jail? What is the role of the Velayat-e-Faghih? Is his (why can it never be a she?) role above politics or doesn’t it? Why has he – as defender of faith not directed the judiciary to bring to justice perpetrators of male ra/pe in prisons following the Green uprising? Is he defender of rights for some Iranians or all Iranians?
Liz: “depressed pro-Western Green” ….. actually my foreign policy is pretty close to yours, and I am not generally depressed except when I see people like you – whom I presume to be intelligent and moral – support the thugs that rule Iran and squash the aspirations of huge sections of its population. Yes, people like you depress me!
Fiorangela,
I was a great fan of Pierre Salinger and I will have to read his book asap. Did he mention the blunder of April Glaspie that largely prompted Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait? Glaspie led him to believe the US was “neutral” in the dispute and Saddam took this to mean he could use military means to achieve a resolution of the matter – - without US reprisal. The Iraqi generals warned that an invasion of Kuwait would bring in the US in force and disaster for the Iraqi aremed forces.
Fiorangela: The responses received were:
Standard rotation. The multi-national force has been there since ‘79:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_and_Observers
Posted by: Fred | 28 January 2011 at 02:56 PM
Those MNFO deployments have been going on for more than twenty years.
Posted by: Green Zone Cafe | 28 January 2011 at 01:58 PM
Arnold Evans says: January 30, 2011 at 11:57 am
I am not suggesting that a Suuni-based Islamic state is desirable in Egypt, or in Turkey or in any other Sunni polity.
The Islamic Disaster in Shia Iran would be a Shinning City on the Hill compared to any exlcusivbely Sunni-based political dispensation in any Arab or non-Arab Muslim state.
My view, in regards to Egyot and to Tunisia is that the religious element in opposition to Mubarak and to the ben Ali regimes were not predominant, as opposed to the situation in Iran.
And my sense of this is that while Arabs and Muslims might appreciate the political independence of Iran, the repression of personal liberties of the Iranian people by the state apparatus – in search of a dubious Shia Utopia – is also understood by Arabs and other Muslims.
I think the external political ramifications of these regime-changes in Egypt and Tunisia is that the political program of US-EU Axis in the Levant, in North Africa, and in the Persian Gulf is now kaput.
The US-EU Axis position has gone up in smoke in Cair/Suez/Alexandria/Tunis.
since when does NATIONAL Guard regularly rotate to off-shore deployments?
1. Don’t take your eyes off Tunisia. Feltman is shaping events there; no way this can be defined as a good thing for Tunisian people, the American people, Arabs, Muslims, Iranians. Feltman serves Israeli interests and US uses/is used by Israel to feed the corpus that supports Israeli hegemonic practices. Yes, America is in the imperialist mode up to its armpits, but it is important to recognize that the ideology is NOT intrinsic to the American value system; it IS an essential component — perhaps THE essential component — of the zionist world view.
Tom Ridge on C Span Wash Journal today spoke fluidly and without hesitations until a caller posed the question: If Iran, Iraq, the Arab states so radicalized with Islamic ideology and threats to West, as you said, why does US sell so much weaponry to those same states?”
Ridge finally ummed and uhhed his way into a “balance between our values and our interests” formula. A later stroke of genius inspired Ridge to declare, “The US has global responsibilities to protect the world’s oil supply!!” Which Ridge believes is best accomplished by
~calling Ahmadinejad “diabolical,”
~labelling Iran “a threat to the entire Western world,” and
~embracing peace-loving, put-upon MEK and urging its removal from terror list, so they can lead the effort to democratize Iran.
Ideology aside, Ridge’s tactics are nuts: a. What’s Iran going to do with its oil, drink it? b. Isn’t it cheaper, AND more consistent with American values, to trade fairly with nations who possess resources that the US needs? Isn’t it??
Which leads to:
2. I suggest that one model of ‘conflict resolution’ (empire-style) that should be considered re Tunisia and Egypt is the Iraq-Kuwait model. Pierre Salinger had been J F K’s press secretary, a US Senator, and practicing journalist with postings in Europe and the Middle East. In 1990, he was a practicing journalist with rich contacts in the ME. He watched events unfold as the Iran-Iraq war was ’settled’ (by a treaty that Iraq did not participate in composing — see Giandomenico Picco,)
:http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event_summary&event_id=508598
then, two years later, Iraq once again was embroiled in a war.
Salinger’s book, “Secret Dossier: The Hidden Agenda Behind the Gulf War,” is his record of those events. His purpose for writing the book is to demonstrate “how war could have been avoided.” The two main scenarios of the book are:
1.“What happened between the end of the Iran-Iraq war [Aug 1988], and invasion of Kuwait” [Aug 1990], that stimulated Saddam to make this invasion.
and
2. “How the Arab world tried desperately to solve the problem quickly, particularly through King Hussein of Jordan, only to find its efforts undercut by pressure from the United States government, pushing Arab nations to join its condemnation of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait.”
The “pressure” coming from the United States government” was not monolithic, it was divided. On the side of an irenic settlement were (initially) George H W Bush, Brent Skowcroft, James Baker.
On the side of sanctions, punitive actions, setting Arab against Arab to derail an Arab-negotiated settlement, were Dennis Ross, Paul Wolfowitz.
Ya’ll know who won out.
If one were to score that contest on the Ridge formula, “American values or American interests,” one would have to conclude: American values: 0; American interests: 0.
Pirouz,
YOU WROTE:
“Let’s take a little walk down memory lane, shall we? How about the Paris Agreement of 2004? You remember, that was when the Iranians voluntarily put into effect the AP and got NOTHING in return.”
COMMENT:
For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people feel that an action by Iran has validity only if the United States of America expresses its approval. Iran has the right to enrich uranium, period. It doesn’t need the US’ approval. Not only that, but Iran is in fact enriching uranium, as I write these very words.
Having the US’ approval would be nice, if and only if it led the US actually to do something useful for Iran – lift the sanctions, for example, or stop other types of interference with Iran’s nuclear program. My main point yesterday is that I can’t envision this occurring – probably ever, but certainly not before the 2012 US presidential election. I find it implausible, to the point of amusing, that anyone sincerely believes Iran’s agreement to observe the Additional Protocol has some “bargaining-chip” value to the US – that such a commitment would move the US an inch closer to acknowledging Iran’s enrichment rights or reducing the sanctions. You point out, as do many others, that the last time Iran agreed to observe the AP, the West reneged on its promise to allow enrichment (on some to-be-determined conditions). The West having reneged on that promise, what do many of Iran’s supporters demand this time? Another promise. That baffles me: I think that promise would be worth about as much as it was last time.
I recognize you’re not really this naïve, of course. What you really mean by “promise” is a promise plus concrete actions – most important, the lifting of sanctions. Presumably also an end to Stuxnet shenaningans, scientist assassinations, and other forms of interference. In especially hopeful moments, you might even imagine that the US will send nuclear scientists to help Iran work out the bugs in its centrifuges. In my opinion, there is zero chance, at least before the 2012 US election, that the US will acknowledge Iran’s enrichment rights or agree to reduce the sanctions already imposed. Also in my opinion, there is a less than zero chance that the US (and Israel) will cease other forms of interference any time soon (Stuxnet, assassinations, support of anti-Iran groups, etc.); by “less than zero,” I mean that those other forms of interference are likely to increase, not to stay at current levels or decrease. My predictions about US reaction would not change if Iran were to commit to the Additional Protocol, or to observe new Code 3.1, or to place 24-hour video cameras in Ahmadinejad’s bedroom, or even to donate half of Tehran for the establishment of a new Israeli settlement.
If you believe I’m right about this (I’m confident you do), then I hope you’ll also agree that the proper way for Iran to think about the Additional Protocol is essentially as follows:
IRAN’S HYPOTHETICAL ANALYSIS.
Committing to the Additional Protocol will have zero value to the US, and so we should not delude ourselves to consider that our refusal to observe the AP preserves its value as a “bargaining chip.” In fact, some people argue persuasively that it’s worth more to the US for us NOT to play that “bargaining chip,” since the US finds it much easier to demonize us as long as we don’t.
Are there nevertheless sufficient reasons not to observe the Additional Protocol? The US is not the only actor on the world stage, after all. One obvious reason not to, of course, is that compliance would involve an additional reporting burden for us, albeit not a considerable one. Another reason: the IAEA might pass on our disclosures to the US government, which otherwise might not figure out where our uranium mines are located, or which might naively believe that we cannot or would not move all of our disclosed operations to other locations the moment US bombers leave the ground. (We can’t move our large enrichment facilities and reactors, of course, but the US already knows where those are.) Still another reason not to: We might look like wimps to give up “something for nothing” – even if our refusal to do so for that reason makes us look stupid to people who recognize that what we’re withholding has no bargaining-chip value in the first place.
On the other hand, we’d be in a stronger position if we could point out that we’re disclosing the very same information that 100 other countries disclose, and thus are not playing “hide the ball” as the US and Israel incessantly argue. More people might understand that what the US really demands from us goes way beyond what either our Safeguards Agreement or the Additional Protocol requires – that the US is insisting we let the IAEA nose around in our military secrets, something that isn’t required from other countries and shouldn’t be required from us either. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, and have good reasons to believe our enemies would obtain and make use of our military secrets. That’s something we think most countries in the world can understand – and they’ll understand it even better if we insist that the US make the same demands on other countries that they make on us.
Finally, though we have zero chance of changing the US’ mind about acknowledging our enrichment rights or reducing the sanctions, the US needs support from other countries to tighten the screws further on us. We’ve already persuaded some second-tier countries, such as Turkey and Brazil, that we’re decent people, worth doing business with on this nuclear issue. That’s not good enough, obviously, but it suggests that we might be able to peel off some more important countries – Russia and China – if we give them something they can hold up to the US as a basis for declining to ratchet up the sanctions another notch. After all, we’ve already got Russia somewhat back in the game, helping to run Bushehr for us. If we commit to more open disclosures about our nuclear program, toss in some more juicy contracts for the Russians and a huge oil commitment for the Chinese – who knows? It’s far from clear, after all, that either of those countries is really in love with the US. They might just come up with some reason not to support the US blindly as they have been for the past several years. Maybe that hope is far too optimistic, but maybe not. And what’s our downside? We’re not working on nuclear weapons, after all, and never will. Disclosing more about our nuclear program won’t interfere with some secret bomb-making operation that doesn’t exist in the first place. Why continue to get punished – and probably get punished even more harshly down the road – for doing something we’re not even doing?
END OF IRAN’S HYPOTHETICAL ANALYSIS.
In short, if I were Iran, I would drop its reflexive “How will the US respond to what we do?” approach, commit to disclose what is disclosed by other countries that prefer not to let their enemies effortlessly cast them as international pariahs, use that commitment to draw a sharp new disclosure line (on the “no” side of military secrets) that highlights the over-reaching information demands of Iran’s arch-enemy, and try to peel other countries away from the US orbit with a combination of greater disclosures and substantial economic enticements that will benefit both those countries and Iran itself.
Fiorangela, Arnold, RSH
I posted the article on the Connecticut National Guard going to the Sinai at Colonel Lang’s blog, asking for an interpretation. Two writers quickly pointed out that it was part of a normal rotation.
I think Phyliss Bennis gets it right – although nothing new – at:
:http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6188
An article that surprised me for its detail and scope, and I don’t think has been brought to attention on this blog is:
:http://www.voltairenet.org/article168224.html
Is Meyssan right?
For myself: clearly the Egyptian military is the fall back position, not only for Mubarak, but both for the Americans and the people themselves. All of Mubarak’s recent appointments have been military. The historical fact that it was a military revolt which led to Egyptian self-government under Nasser (albeit authoritarian self-government) has fused in the popular imagination the national will with the army.
So the question becomes: will the Egyptian military support a transition to open democracy in Egypt?
I don’t have the answer to that. My bets are that it won’t. However, if the Egyptian people can maintain enough pressure, perhaps sufficient steps will be taken that will lead to an “inevitability” of free elections. This would lead to a situation not that unlike Turkey, and is the best we can hope for. (Egypt has no desire to be like Iran. They are, in essential respects, very different.)
We can hope that new leaders are being forged in this fire.
“Groton – Connecticut National Guard Detachment 2, Company I, 185th Aviation Regiment of Groton has mobilized and will deploy to the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, to support the Multinational Force and Observers.”
comments from Col. P Lang (retired) indicate these are part of the normal rotation of troops.
Fio, what an interesting article:
Groton – Connecticut National Guard Detachment 2, Company I, 185th Aviation Regiment of Groton has mobilized and will deploy to the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, to support the Multinational Force and Observers.
The unit left Connecticut Jan. 15 for Fort Benning, Ga., for further training and validation. The unit operates C-23C Sherpa aircraft and has deployed three times in the last seven years in support of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The unit will provide an on-demand aviation asset to the Multinational Force and Observers commander to support its mission of supervising the security provisions of the Egypt/ Israel Peace Treaty.
Chief Warrant Officer Four James Smith of Ivoryton commands the aviation unit.
On demand aviation asset? Does that mean the US thinks it might bomb forces in the area? Or just for reconnaissance?
Arnold Evans wrote (to Empty):
“Was it here or somewhere else that I read a vague suggestion that the US was flying some form of squadron to the Sinai?”
I believe I posted here that a National Guard unit from Connecticut had been activated with orders to travel to Egypt. http://www.theday.com/article/20110124/NWS09/301249955/-1/nws
Huffington Post picked up the story.
Pirouz:
Apparently the Israelis are not the only ones making a run on diapers. this from Press TV:
Saudi Prince Turki bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud has warned the country’s royal family to step down and flee before a military coup or a popular uprising overthrows the kingdom.
In a letter published by Wagze news agency on Tuesday, the Cairo-based prince warned Saudi Arabia’s ruling family of a fate similar to that of Iraq’s executed dictator Saddam Hussein and the ousted Iranian Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, calling on them to escape before people “cut off our heads in streets.”
He warned that the Saudi royal family is no longer able to “impose” itself on people, arguing that deviations in carrying out the religious concepts that make up the basis of the Saudi government “have gotten out of our hands,” so that the opposition views our acts as “interfering in people’s private life and restricting their liberties.”
“If we are wise, we must leave this country to its people, whose dislike for us is increasing,” said Prince Turki, advising Saudi officials to escape with their families.
“Do it today before tomorrow as long as the money we have is enough for us to live anywhere in the world; from Switzerland to Canada and Australia…we should not return as long as we are able to get out safely, we must take our families quickly and pull out,” he urged.
“Do not fool yourself by relying on the United States or Britain or Israel, because they will not survive the loss; the only door open is now the exit door of no return. Let us go before it closes.”
He finally warned against a military coup against the ruling family, saying “no one will attack us from outside but our armed forces will attack us.”
Prince Turki is a member of the liberal Free Princes movement founded in the 1950s amid tensions between King Faisal and his brother King Saud, requesting the Saudi authorities to implement political reforms and set out a constitution.
The late King Faisal expelled members of the civil rights group to Egypt but later on pardoned them.
Pirouz_2: Here’s hoping.
FYI: Egypt seems it is not becoming an Islamic state and also not completely independent, meaning that Turkey still has vestiges in its policy of the period when it was run by a pro-US/Israel oligarchy. Egypt will not be a leader of the resistance for a substantial time, most likely, because the US and Israel has dug themselves deep into Egypt’s military culture.
But still vastly different, especially in short term policies and diplomacy than it is today.
ugh.
apologies for all the formatting errors in my un-Tweet-able post earlier.
Rehmat: put a sock in it.
Empty:
I also predict that hundreds of people are going to be killed and injured to prepare the “international” and the “world’s” public opinion to justify a combination of Israeli/US and later UN military forces occupying strategic ports and northeast corner of Egypt.
I’m going to disagree and not be insulting, but there are not going to be any foreign troops at least in Cairo. I’m essentially 100% certain of that. Definitely not Israeli.
Interesting about the Sinai though. Was it here or somewhere else that I read a vague suggestion that the US was flying some form of squadron to the Sinai? I think it was at debka file that I read both that Hamas had put soldiers into the Sinai who can confront Egyptian forces and that the Gaza/Egypt border has been sealed by Mubarak during the protests.
On the one hand, Hamas might take advantage of the confusion to reopen the border crossing as it did in 2009. On the other hand, there is a principle that you let situations that are evolving in your favor play out without interfering. That principle I think is behind Iran being quiet in Iraq and also Lebanon until very recently when Hariri wouldn’t put STL cooperation to at least a cabinet vote.
But the principle of just letting things fall into place would argue for Hamas not to take any steps that could distract the situation in Cairo unless it has been planned and decided that such a step would be helpful for the situation in Cairo by players there.
So for me, that explains the quiet on the Gaza border for now. It would only change if people in Cairo thought an event there would change the situation for the better.
Now about the RSH statement that one should not try to predict mass movements. I disagree. First, it was clear to me a day or two after Iran’s June 2009 election that Iran’s protest movement would run out of steam. As soon as I asked for evidence of fraud and didn’t get any from Mousavi supporters on the internet that struck me as reasonable it didn’t seem like protests over electoral fraud could be sustainable. So I may be a victim of hubris now.
Second though, what else can one do from outside of Egypt but try to get as much information as one can and develop an analysis of what’s going on? Such an analysis would, for me, include a prediction if it is possible.
A problem is that my analysis has elements of hopeful thinking. I hope I’m right that Mubarak is out and Egypt is independent over the short term. We’ll see.
Rehmat, I believe you are referring to Rand Paul, not Ron Paul.
Empty, thank you thank you thank you for your extremely important post at 8:41 am.
When we see someone like Mark Zuckerberg suddenly vaulted from geekdom to rock star, the subject of a Hollywood production, man-of-the-year status; when that same Zuckerberg tells facebook users, in so many words, “If you use facebook, fuggetabout privacy; when the facebook phenomenon garners billions of dollars for a few shareholders; when facebook co-inventor David Morin is a founding “angel” of “NoLabels,” the next new attempt to subvert American political independence; when facebook, along with its partner-in-crime Twitter, is relentlessly pushed on the American public by even that bastion of trustworthiness, C Span,** one really ought to smell a rat.
<i?Cui bono?
It is my opinion that Facebook and Twitter are means of US-Israeli information-gathering and social control. It’s cheaper than propaganda movies such as those produced by Hollywood to con Americans into plunging into wars in Europe, and it has the added attraction of a feedback loop.
**C Span rolled out its Twitter facility in preparation for 2008 election returns reporting. Precisely because C Span is considered unassailably trustworthy is very good reason to maintain an attitude of skepticism toward C Span activities: people with subversion on their minds do not seek out non-credible media to get information out and to take information in; they infiltrate the most trustworthy of resources. That C Span is free is a tremendous boon. When I saw Steve Scully (a C Span moderator who has achieved a great deal of professional respect in the DC journalism establishment, do all but lick James Glassman’s toes under the table, in a segment in July 2008: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SDiplo
After introducing Glassman as the new Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Scully opened the interview with the question, “How do we win the war of ideas?” (Sledge hammer alert: WAR of ideas — did Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Monroe go to WAR with the texts of Cicero, Petrarch, Thucydides, Plato, or did they engage in intellectual effort at enlightenment and understanding of their ideas? Did Jabotinsky establish zionism on the basis of perpetual militarism, or on the basis of the fullness of ideas, critically analysed?)
Glassman responded to Scully’s question: “[Our goal is to] create an environment that is hostile to violent extremism.”
1. Anyone who knows anything about how the brain functions to process information knows that “creating a hostile environment” is the way to shut down critical faculties and ratchet up fear responses.
2. One has to wonder how Glassman defines “violent extremism,” and whether the term is applied on the basis of logic — ie. who is rampaging about the world killing people — Iran/Palestinians/Iraqis/Afghanis, or US and Israel — or on the basis of ideology and propaganda — “violent extremists are anyone, especially Muslims, who interfere with US/Israeli imperialist ambitions.
“Choirboy” Scully conveniently answers the question for us. Reading from an op-ed of Glassman’s that was published in the Wall Street Journal:
You wrote, “For starters, we should confront the ideology of violent extremism directly. . . .The most credible voices here are those of Muslims themselves.”
ahh. “Violent extremism” = Muslims. Don’t look at those nice American jeezuzz saved me Christian boys sitting in air-conditioned offices in the Nevada desert, cradling joy-sticks and dropping bombs from drones hovering over, er, Muslim villages in Afghanistan — nothing extreme or ideologically driven about these apple-pie heroes, no siree bob.
In a video interview, after explaining the agenda and the tactics of US imperialism as carried out by “economic hitmen” and, if necessary, their supporting “jackals,” John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” explained that Islam is the master target of the US/Israeli project of economic dominance. :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8 25 min –>
nb. “extremism” takes on different targets at different times, but always the same definition: those who would interfere with the US/zionist agenda of imperial dominance are “extremists” and their “brand” must be annihilated. Ask Henry Ford. The campaign — ultimately successful– to scrub from the awareness of the American people Ford’s million-dollars of research into the extent of Jewish involvement with international finance. was spearheaded by Samuel Untermeyer of the American Jewish Committee,**** the same Samuel Untermeyer who lavishly funded Cyrus Scofield, who compiled the ‘Scofield Bible’ that is the touchstone for Christian zionist beliefs in the essentiality of Jewish dominance of Palestine.*&*&*&
All of these characters, together with Vladimir Jabotinsky and David ben Gurion, fathers of zionism, were active in the United States in the years before and between the two world wars, before the rise of Nazism, and while Arthur Ruppin was secretly buying Palestinian lands and building European-style cities on them, with the goal of displacing and obliterating Arab markets from the region. &&&&&&&
****:http://www.jrbooksonline.com/intro_by_gerald_smith.htm
*&*&*& :http://www.stateofthechurch.com/Foundational_Issues/Which_Bible_Translations/Challenge/Bible%20Comparison/Bible_Viruses/SCOFIELD/scofield_bible.htm
&&&&&&& :http://www.tau.ac.il/tarbut/tezot/bloom/EtanBloom-PhD-ArthurRuppin.pdf
PS. Apologies — this information exceeds the 140-character limit of a Tweet.
I do agree with pro-Israel Senator Ron Paul that the taxpayers’ money being wasted on an entity (Israel) which has this great evil habbit of shooting Americans from behind – it should be used to provide the necessary medicare, education and housing to its tens of millions of US citizens who cannot afford these basic needs.
Ron Paul irks Jewish Lobby
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/ron-paul-irks-jewish-lobby/
Arnold Evans says: January 30, 2011 at 10:58 am
I think that the Egyptian Revolution will not go Islamic by way of Iran as the slogans shouted by the crowds do not have explicitly Muslim content.
Note that in Tehran, during the Iranian Revolution, the cry of “Allah u Akbar” was being shouted from rooftope all over the city.
Arnold,
Richard Steven Hack’s statement that “Once people take to the streets, such things tend to have their own dynamic and could very well lead to surprises for both those who support them and those who oppose – or attempt to manipulate – them.” is the most realistic assessment about what might happen in Egypt.
I also predict that hundreds of people are going to be killed and injured to prepare the “international” and the “world’s” public opinion to justify a combination of Israeli/US and later UN military forces occupying strategic ports and northeast corner of Egypt. Then, various groups that include legitimate groups (e.g., Ekhvanol-Moslemin, secular groups, nationalists, etc.) and other imported assassins and so-called Al Qaeda members will be fighting for next few years. Looting, destruction, and damages would be such that the country will need spend most of its resources to build a fraction of what will be destroyed (plus several times the interest).
@Arnold Evans,
Re Your message on January 30, 2011 at 10:58 am:
I became more optimistic about Egypt when I saw slogans of “Mobarak is a US collaborator” being carried by the people and when I saw that they had carved star of David on police personnel carriers.
I don’t get exited about social movements UNTIL I see that the social movement is a progressive one, protests which are backward are nothing to be happy about.
When I saw those slogans and when I saw pictures of Nasser being carried by people, that was the time I became ‘hopeful’.
Still I hope to see the anti-imperialist/anti-Israeli theme more pronounced and to see more pictures of Nasser being carried.
By the way, I am very sorry for the crude nature of my following joke but: I have a feeling that the demand for diapers must have gone up very sharply in Israel!!
I’m more optimistic about Egypt now than I was yesterday. What seems to be going on is that Egypt will not return to normal until the protesters are satisfied, and the protesters are not going to be satisfied until Mubarak and now Suleiman are out.
I doubt Hosni Mubarak or Suleiman will be president of Egypt 30 days from now. The army is going to decide that getting back to normal is more important than keeping Mubarak.
After that I’m fairly confident that there will be elections that all parties can participate in in 2011 and that Egypt will be much much more independent of the US in January 2012 than it is today.
That’s how it looks right now to me. Thoughts?
Fighter jets flying low over Cairo ! I wonder if this is an orchestrated show of power by the Mubarak regime to scare protesters, or if there is some sort of division between the army and the air force.
Empty – I agree with your talents for making ‘long stories’ – but unfortunately, idiotic hasbara rants with no prrof to back-up.
The truth is, no matter which angle of hasbara, you view it – Arabs are waking-up and the Zionist entity is loosing its regional allies and bodyguards. Last year it lost Turkey, and now it may lose Egypt followed by Yemen.
Contrary to that, Syria just succeeded putting his secularist pro-Saudi billionaire as the new Prime Minister of Lebanon. Mikati is no supporter of Hizbullah or an Islamist – but he has to put the US-Israeli STL rat back into the bottle and throw it on Ben-Obama’s face – in order to survive in his new chair.
I don’t know what I should call the recent events – a victory for Tehran or an Arab slap on Benji’s face?
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/hersh-anti-islam-ziofacists-control-the-us/
Of Cell phones, Teewters, Facebooks, Internet Blogs, and YouTube “revolutions”…..
So many people are so excited about the conveniences these technologies offer. So what? Who wouldn’t? [Well, I wouldn’t. But that’s neither here nor there.] Sincere justice-seeking masses “consume” these tools and oppressive arrogant powers “manufacture and push” these tools. The reasons for use by the former groups are well publicized and are often embellished and left unexamined. Potentially critical reasons for the latter groups’ manufacturing and push to keep these technologies well financed and open are similarly left unexamined. There were reasons, for example, that during the 2009 Iranian elections the U.S. state department, google/youtube, tweeter and facebook, and CIA folks all were working around the clock to keep things rolling. There are also very good reasons why the United States, Israel, and Britain are all demanding in unison uninterrupted cell phone, tweeter, and internet services in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere for that matter.
Traditionally, intelligence information has been collected mostly through putting trained agents on the ground. This is slow, costly, and not always reliable especially at the times of chaos and mayhem. What if, however, intelligence information about the very people on whom one is attempting to collect information is sent directly by those very same people without a charge to the one interested in such information? It’s always good to remember that the databases of the above technological conveniences are all linked and monitored through none other than HSIN. These data are analyzed 24/7 . Of course, the masses on the street, the very real backbone of people-driven revolution, don’t run home every few hours to see what is uploaded on the youtube about mass demonstrations on the other side of the town. Highly-paid staff in HS offices of certain countries after they have poured in and gobbled their morning cup of coffee and sat behind their computer monitors do.
So what? Bear with me. I have a special talent of making really short stories quite long.
DRIPS is a syndrome most people suffer from in an information age. Even I and you. It stands for Data Rich Information Poor Syndrome. We receive a lot of “data” from everywhere but we don’t know what they really mean and how we can make decisions based on them. The more the “data”, the harder it is to extract meaningful “information”. Not surprisingly, I am reminded of how autoimmune diseases in a human body work. That’s when the body is exposed to a lot of different substances that are considered “foreign”—these are called antigens—in response to which the body naturally produces a lot of antibodies. Antibodies are the most important components of body’s defense system. But there comes a point that the body gets “information/antigen/antibody” overload and can’t distinguish the “friendly” from the “unfriendly” substances. When the body gets to that point, there is no cure but a sustained long-term fasting. Anything else is just short-term fix that fails. A system that is addicted to information overload is also a system that is vulnerable to information overload especially allergy-causing data. Knowing this is quite useful to justice-seeking masses.
Passerby: Your “comparisons” are idiotic because the surface similarities you claim exist are belied by the underlying facts. This is to be expected since it is clear your knowledge of Iran, its political and geopolitical nature and history, and just about everything else about the country, is limited to your own bias.
And “getting in and getting out” is generally considered the mark of a troll.
Note the extreme hypocrisy, when Iran cracked down on demonstrators the whole world condemn Iran and even sanctioned them for it. When the US/zionist puppets in the arabworld crack down on demonstrators, the west applaude them.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich’s article is speculative at best, disinformation at worst.
It is clear from interviews with Egyptians that they aren’t going to be satisfied with any of Mubarak’s cronies coming to power. And even assuming El Baradei gets in, which is by no means certain as it appears he has little support in Egypt compared to, say, the Muslim Brotherhood, he still is not as likely to be a US puppet as Mubarak is. El Baradei did his best to keep Iran from being attacked by the US over its nuclear program. While I certainly don’t expect one such as him to be able to resist US pressure entirely, I don’t expect him to continue to oppress Egyptians as Mubarak has done. Again, assuming he even gets in to power.
Let’s not predispose what will happen in Egypt until it happens. Once people take to the streets, such things tend to have their own dynamic and could very well lead to surprises for both those who support them and those who oppose – or attempt to manipulate – them.
As an aside, both Jordan and Sudan are now dealing with demonstrations in the streets against their governments.
This is an excellent article – and something to think about!!!
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2011/01/rude-awakening.html
Rude Awakening!
by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
Eyes fixed on Egypt, the consensus is that we are witnessing a global awakening. Mesmerized by the crowds, mainstream media reports, and ‘pundits’ analysis, we have abandoned our ability to think critically — we fail to ask the right question: Why is the mainstream media in the U.S., the propaganda apparatus of the State and interest groups, condemning the Egyptian leader — America and Israel’s most subservient ally?
Clearly, we no longer suffer from short term memory in this country — we suffer from a total loss of memory.
We tend to forget that well over a year ago, political actors in America and allied nations had full knowledge that Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak was terminally ill. Certain that his reign was coming to a close, they devised a plan to compensate the inevitable loss of Mubarak’s unconditional support. A plan was put into motion to assist orchestrate an uprising which would benefit their interests. The idea was to support the uprising so that an ally could be placed in Egypt without raising suspicion. Not only would America be seen as a benevolent force acting in good faith, contrary to its hypocritical policies, but perhaps more importantly for the decision makers, Israel’s interests would be served – again – at the expense of the Arab world.
Who would be the wiser for it? It seems the public has fallen for the plan.
Media ‘pundits’ are eager to blame the timing of the protests in Egypt on economic hardships. Citing Egypt’s jobless and inordinate poverty, they would have us believe that the American ’social media’, Tweeter in particular, has prompted and aided the protests. They would have us believe that in spite of the fact that the Egyptians cry over the price of wheat, they have cell phones and access to social media. We are to accept that the poor, hungry, and jobless Egyptians are revolting against their lot by ‘tweeting’ in English.
Their access to modern technology aside, we are told to accept that the knowledge of English among 80 million Egyptians is so strong that they can ‘tweet’ — fully comfortable with tweeter abbreviations and acronyms. Else, we are to believe that Egypt is busy ‘tweeting’ in Arabic even if Twitter does not lend itself to Arabic any more than it does to Persian.
When Iran’s opposition leader, Mir-Hossein Mousavi compared the Egypt uprising to the 2009 post-election protests in Iran, he had a point. Both had an outside source. During the 2009 protests in Iran, ‘tweets’ were traced back to Israel (see link). The rumors and support for the “opposition” initiated in the West though Tehran Bureau — partnered with the American PBS. A CNN desk was created to give the protests full coverage.
America has been attempting to undermine Iran’s government for over 30 years. The media has helped to demonize the regime. Why would the media treat this obedient tyrant the same way? The mainstream media, as well as the ‘left’ are reporting on Egypt’s protests round the clock. It is important to ask why.
For decades, the American government and allies have snuffed nationalist sentiments in the region in favor of dictators. Iran’s Mossadegh, a fierce secular nationalist, who was democratically elected to be prime minister of Iran, was removed by a CIA-backed coup when he nationalized Iran’s oil and the oppressive Shah put in power. This political action led to the 1979 revolution. America lost a valuable puppet in the region.
Similarly, the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egypt’s patriotic Nasser led to his demise, paving the way for the eventual installation of a puppet regime – Mubarak.
But Mubarak is dying. Fearful of losing an important ally in Egypt’s Mubarak, the political elite in America have undertaken a calculated risk: siding with the Egyptians to promote ‘democracy’ – hoping to help put in place one of their own. How likely is it that they will prevail in Egypt where they failed in Iran? Could it be that apprehensive about the future of Egypt, more importantly, its alliance with and subordination to Israel, the Noble Laureate option is being played?
Amongst the neoliberals, a new wave of thinking emerged which endorsed the idea of promoting ‘democracy’ (“liberal Imperialism”) in order to evolve hegemonism to imperialism. Their thinking emphasized the ‘character of the political leadership’. A wave of books centered on ‘democratic transitions’ that focused on the character of the leader with the right ideas appeared. They planned to emphasis new successful leaders such as Vaclav Havel, Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa in order to promote their own in places of interest.
These neoliberals believed that “transition to ‘democracy’ required focusing on “political strategies” and introducing “indeterminancy” and “uncertainty” into the process of political change which they believed would be ground for cautious optimism that ‘democracy’ could catch on. Laureates were appointed: Shirin Ebadi, El Baradei, Obama, Liu Xiaobo…
Mr. ElBaradei, the Nobel Laureate and former chief of IAEA, applauded the violation of the NNPT with his acceptance speech as he praised the Bush-India nuclear deal – an NPT violation. Ally S. Korea’s NPT violations were given a pass under his supervision, as well as that of Egypt’s. In violation of the spirit of the NPT, he allowed the illegal referral of Iran to the UN Security Council. Mr. ElBaradei had proven himself worthy of American trust – he could be relied on and deserved a Nobel prize. He announced his readiness to run for president of Egypt.
Although not supported by protestors (no doubt placing him under house arrest will give him a boost), ElBaradei’s return to Egypt enables the American politicians to speak from both sides of their mouths — supporting the protestors’ rights while supporting their ally. How could they go wrong? The thought process in this country (and elsewhere) has been guided and controlled by mainstream media and pundits, many of them neoconservatives. Curiously, the 24-7 media and its pundits have steered clear of ElBaradei and his arrest.
Sadly, the American political elite love Einstein’s science but ignore his wisdom. When Einstein alerted FDR to the possibility of a nuclear weapon by the Germans, he was listened to and the way was paved for the Manhattan Project. America developed the heinous weapons of mass murder and dropped it on hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizen in the name of peace. Regrettably, as the Middle East and Africa react to America’s decades of neocolonialist policies, Einstein’s definition of insanity –”doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” — is more apt than ever.
America (and her allies) has practiced the same damning foreign policy for several decades, each time expecting a new result. This political insanity manifests itself as the decision makers interfere in sovereignty of other countries – believing that they can continue to fool all the people all the time. Their controlled chaos may get out of hand and following the painful ‘pangs’ of neocolonial rule, we may witness the birth of a new world order.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has a degree in Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg for Communication and Journalism. She is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.
It’s is not because of the internet that a revolution would start.
Revolutions always come from the combination of two factors:
1) the people
2) an external power or a higher power
if the tunisian revolution was “successful” , it is because the army stopped supporting Ben Ali. Also the army in tunisia has been equipped and trained with western cooperation. It is probable that western companies’ business in tunisia was starting to be hampered by the corruption of benali’s networks.
If you don’t agree with this ask yourself why the Russian revolution of 1905 didnt work and that of 1917 (supported by wall street) was successful.
Same thing for the first French revolution.
two elements:
- angry and starving people
- influence of masonic lodges within the country and from an external power: England ( england took over many French colonies due to the inability of France to intervene because of the Revolution)
—————-
IRAN revolution when the US stopped to back the SHah
etc. etc
————-
Finally, it is DEFINITELY not Facebook that will trigger anything. Support of lack of support from the US will be a determining factor.
—————–
Also the Jasmine revolution is a fraud and its silly name makes it even more obvious. Coloured revolution:
green in Iran
orange in Ukraine
were ALL supported by the US (and its allied)
Don’t be naive to think that facebook and internet will be enough for people to bring down the system.
Also, as Mohammad wrote earlier
1. The main issue is whether the majority of the population supports the uprising. We have to look at opinion polls, but the Egyptian uprising seems to be supported by the majority of Egyptians, like the 1979 Iranian revolution. The Green movement was not, which was the main reason it failed.
2. After a few days, Egyptian officials have turned to widespread curfew and military help in suppressing the riots (which reminds us of what Shah did at 1978-1979). By contrast, in 2009 there was no visible military presence on Iranian streets and no curfew was neede.
3. The Green movement protests were largely confined to north and downtown Tehran, while the Egyptian uprising (as well as Tunisian and 1979 Iranian) seems to be even more serious in cities other than the capital (like Suez).
4. The Iranian government ultimately turned to its own mass demonstrations to defeat the Green movement (the most decisive one being Bahman 22nd (February 11th) last year). Mubarak, Shah and Ben Ali are/were not capable of that (which partly reflects their unpopularity).
5. ‘Social networking’ tools are used in all uprisings, but their specific nature depends on the technology of the time. Iranian Islamic revolutionaries used the then ‘offline’ social networks extensively, relying on tape cassettes, copying machines, written pronouncements and word-of-mouth to disseminate demonstration news and Ayatollah Khomeini’s directives in neighborhood, bazaar and mosque social networks.
You summed up other differences between Green movement and Egyptian uprising well, albeit I don’t agree with some of the similarities.
There is a world of difference between the two:
In Iran there was a real election and no evidence of fraud.
In Iran the anti-Mousavi rallies were enormous and held all over the country.
Mousavi was only able to gather large amounts of supporters in Tehran.
In Iran there was no cerfew and there was only major trouble in the northern half of Tehra.
A passerby can come in and out without getting entangled with idiotic arguments over nothing. A passerby can stop by to simply point out the hypocrisy of those who support the murderous government of the Islamic Republic.
- Eric’s report might as well have been about Mubarak’s election – that’s how credible it is when it bases its “facts” on government reports.
- When people rise up in Egypt, IRIB calls them people, when they rise up in Iran – they are seditionists and hoodlums.
- When 50,000 people show up in a square in Cairo, the IRIB repeatedly shows it, but not a single shot of the million man march of the 25 Khordad of the Greens.
- When CNN, BBC and VOA show images of the Iranian uprising, that’s proof enough that the Western powers are supporting the protests. When the very same networks show the Egyptian uprising, not only they are not supporters of the uprising – their footage is used over and over by the IRIB.
This and many more comparisons – done well here:
http://www.kaleme.com/1389/11/10/klm-45565/
Sakineh Bagoom says:
January 30, 2011 at 12:20 am
Hmmmm. Not sure about that, or even if I properly understand teh question. What I CAN say is that traditionally, Sunni ‘aqida (= creedal belief or dogmatic position, be it ‘Ashari, Maturidi or Zaheri/ Hanbali) has been deterministic (full-on jabr), whereas the Mutazilites, if I am not mistaken, believed in freewill. The Shi’a position, probably first expressed by Imam Ali and elaborated by Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (or by his father Muhammad al-Baqir) is that it is [an] amrun bayn ul-amrayn (“something between the two [positions]“.
Though this does not fit into the Aristotelian binary logic schema, it is, nonetheless, the correct position, methinks :o)
UU
January 29, 2011 at 12:10 pm
There is a school of thought by the name of Jabryoon (pre-ordained, pre-destined, or force [of nature]) that says, what may come, will come. It is destined. It is written in our foreheads, or in this case Iran’s forehead. I was not thinking of this school of thought when I previously wrote: some unknown will remain unknown, until they become known. But, in this case I think it obtains/applies. Don’t you think?
RSH, I LOVE THAT POSTER!!
Forgot this great poster made from a photo:
Fight Back – Because the Odds Don’t Matter Any More
:http://jimbovard.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/163747_178318832203220_133646306670473_374741_3473951_n-anti-cop-poster.jpg
Some really excellent videos from Egypt on YouTube.
Egyptian man stands in front of riot control vehicle:
Tiananmen-like courage in Cairo: Egypt’s 25 Jan protests
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1m4_q_HP5o&feature=related
Listen to the man at 0:45 – 0:58:
The Most AMAZING video on the internet #Egypt #jan25
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThvBJMzmSZI&feature=player_embedded
Rehmat
Thanks for the article, well worth reading
Revival of a Military Option:
Israel’s Covert War Against Iran Is On
by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach, January 26, 2011
http://www.mirak-weissbach.de/Publications/Articles/Articles.html
By the way, I might start keeping all my posts here with date and time copied to a running text file, so I can repost the relevant bit every time Eric ducks one of my points I’ve made before. I should spend a day going through all my posts here for the last several months and do that.
Then I can just cut and paste and not have to constantly rewrite everything.
Then I can do the same for Eric’s posts to show how he’s ducked these issues over and over and merely repeats his same arguments no matter how many times they’ve been crushed.
Arnold: I agree with Castellio. Post away and be damned! :-)
I might add: “Your posts often have one or both of two attributes that leave one inclined not to respond to them on the merits, even though you often make excellent points if one can get that far.”
And one of those is your consistent ducking of explicitly made points in favor of your own “re-tuned version” of those points when you can’t answer the explicit point.
Eric: So, your response to my statement of fact that we’ve gone over this before is to declaim that first of all, you might have some reason – unstated – for either not reading or not remembering that we’ve gone over this before, and second, to declaim once again that you prefer the “Spaghetti Monster” argument and quibbling about the definition of the word “know” rather than adopting pragmatic certainty about various issues where we know the facts on the ground support the proposition and no facts on the ground do not support the proposition.
Bottom line: You’re ducking me again because you can’t answer my argument that a recognition of Iran’s legal enrichment rights is in fact a useful bargaining chip – at least if Iran could get the US to agree to it. You also clearly continue to argue that Iran should give up that one bargaining chip unilaterally just because it’s having difficulty getting the US to agree to it, just leaving Iran with nothing whatever and therefore no reason to even bother to come to the bargaining table. You also continue to argue that Iran derives no benefit from this approach despite the obvious fact that the one thing which could slow a US drive to war is the US admission that what Iran is doing – and what the US is able to prove Iran is doing – is legal.
How you can dismiss the value of that admission as a bargaining chip is just bizarre – and I think the same people here that you suggest dislike my arguing style also agree that your proposition is bizarre.
James Canning says: January 29, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Yes, James, indeed.
Plato’s Republic would be functioning today if only masters could be taught to act as masters and slaves as slaves.
Arnold, if we are short a long and funny posting that you wrote due to my comments, then I regret them.
I’m wondering if there is anyone on staff in Washington dealing with the Middle East who can actually think outside the Israeli box…
Any names people want to share?
Historians are going to have a field day with the depth of ignorance in the heart of the Empire.
Eric, you are in rare form today.
I just deleted a long post detailing how these posts have gone. I found it funny, but Castellio probably wouldn’t.
The short version is, somebody has to get you elected president of the United States. Then Iran should implement the AP and it will avoid you bombing it.
Richard,
Your posts often have one or both of two attributes that leave one inclined not to respond to them on the merits, even though you often make excellent points if one can get that far.
First, you often announce that “we’ve covered this before” – sometimes with an “all caps” emphasis, as in “As I’ve REPEATEDLY said here…” – as if, much to your annoyance, you’re finding it necessary to remind the negligent reader that he has overlooked some holy-book passage that indisputably settles the matter. You should consider three possibilities: (1) your reader has not read what you wrote earlier (there are several reasons why this might be the case); (2) your reader has read what you wrote earlier but it has not stuck in his mind (once again, there are several reasons why this might have happened); or (3) your reader has read what you wrote before but disagrees with you (yet again, there are several reasons why this might be the case) – when you first wrote it, when you repeated it, when you announced that you’d previously repeated it, and even when you reminded the reader in all caps that you’d previously repeated it. Repetition has its uses; unfortunately for you, some stubborn readers form an impression the first time they read something and just stick with that impression no matter how many times the statement is repeated.
Although each of these three possibilities is different, they have at least one element in common: your reader may feel that your earlier writing falls somewhat short of a passage from the Bible or the Koran – in other words, that something more is required to settle the disagreement than a reminder that you’ve made an earlier pronouncement on the subject.
Second, your posts often contain a statement of opinion or belief passed off as indisputable fact – even if you have no basis for presenting it as fact. This serious defect is less likely to be noticed when your statement of “fact” happens to involve a matter on which the reader agrees with your view – for example, that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. The responsible reader nevertheless recognizes that neither you nor he has any basis for claiming to “know” what you claim to know. As a result, though he may agree strongly with your viewpoint and wish that your unsubstantiated claim were in fact fact, he dutifully acknowledges that you are merely speculating and, therefore, that he has no intellectually honest choice but to discount whatever arguments you may build on this shaky foundation.
Just some thoughts for you to consider or discard as you see fit. I would add the obligatory “I speak only for myself” but, frankly, I doubt that’s the case and so I won’t add that.
So Eric, you seem to advocate the Iranians take a more pragmatic approach. Let’s take a little walk down memory lane, shall we? How about the Paris Agreement of 2004? You remember, that was when the Iranians voluntarily put into effect the AP and got NOTHING in return. Or how about the fax to the Swiss embassy in 2003, where the Iranians attempted to capitulate to the US over their nuclear program in return for a security guarantee. Where did that get them? Nowhere. So much for pragmatism. So in 2005 the Iranians decided to stick up for themselves, more assertively. Can you blame them for switching tracks? Sure, there’s a price to be paid in terms of more intensified economic warfare being directed against the country, but this was expected ever since the US’ declaration that Iran comprised an element of the so-called “Axis of Evil.” It doesn’t get any more “real life” than that, Mr. Brill.
Eric, the acts that slowed down Iran’s nuclear program were not Iran’s acts/behavior but the acts of outsiders — US/Israel. The acts of outsiders slowed down Iran’s nuclear program but did NOT change Iran’s behaviors with respect to demands made upon Iran by her antagonists.
More importantly, those acts did NOT impair Iran’s self-confident behavior and its display of its self-confidence to its Muslim neighbors: American pundits (granted, of the genus idiosus) are blaming the protests in Egypt on Iran-backed Hamas agitators. It’s reasonable to expect Hamas has agents in Egypt, but the larger point is that Iran thumbing its nose at Israel emboldened Egyptians and Tunisians to take a stand against their oppressive governments.
(Richard Silverstein has theorized that the “massive protests” that Iran’s “Green movement” lodged against the “fraudulent election” in Iran is the model for protests in Tunisia and Egypt. There is so much wrong with that analysis that it’s hardly worth dissecting. It’s just wrong in every way.)
Fiorangela,
“Have sanctions, assassinations, subversion, Stuxnet changed Iran’s behavior?”
Of course they have. Each of these foreign actions has slowed down Iran’s nuclear program. For that very reason, we can expect more of all of them, although I think this is all beside the point.
By contrast, Jalili’s impressive performance probably will not affect US or Israeli behavior – except perhaps to make it worse. To stand up and say “Let’s talk about Israel’s nuclear weapons” at the outset of talks on Iran’s nuclear program makes one feel good and leads to praise from some observers – the whole world, for a moment, is one’s audience. But is it a good “real life” approach? It just puts a quick end to talks, after which each side blames the other and the stage is set for the next round of sanctions.
Israeli covert terrorism against Islamic Republic
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/israeli-covert-terrorism-against-islamic-republic/
Good recap of the situation in Time:
Egypt’s Turmoil: The Army’s OK with the Protesters, for Now
:http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2045124,00.html
Interesting quotes:
Most say the revolution is far from over. “We will continue this until we achieve victory,” says Khaled Tantawy, a member of the band Muslim Brotherhood, who had returned to Tahrir Square for the fifth day in a row despite a cracked rib suffered in a police beating. “This big process is to get [President Hosni] Mubarak to leave.”
And a prominent Bedouin smuggler in the Sinai peninsula told TIME that Bedouin are now in control of the two towns closest to the Gaza Strip, and that they planned to press on to attack the Suez Canal if Mubarak does not step down. He also said that police stations in the south Sinai would be attacked if Bedouin prisoners were not released.
In the wealthy district of Heliopolis, the presidential palace is only lightly guarded by a mix of soldiers and police. In the days before demonstrations broke out just a few blocks away but now all is quiet because the army has restored order, residents say. Lotfi says the palace guard are little more than a core group of Mubarak supporters that will never fall away. “It’s natural,” he says. “But if the people go there, it will be a violent face off. This might happen at a later stage if the president insists on holding on to power.”
As for Mubarak himself, shouts would go up among the crowds in Tahrir Square every time a rumor rippled through that he had left the country. It is widely believed, however, that the president remains in his vacation home in the Egyptian resort town of Sharm el-Sheik in the south Sinai — the very spot the Bedouin have their eyes on.
End Quotes
fyi,
Britain did not want to incorporate Persia into the British Empire and basically wanted stability at the minimum cost achievable (in men and resources). But Britain did not want Russia to take over Persia.
If Mossadegh had not nationalized Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., the British would not have been keen to overthrow him.
Fiorangela,
the Israeli tails wags the American dog thanks in large part to stooges like Howard Berman. What a liar! “The Stuxnet revelations. . . underscore how committed Iran is to producingl a bomb.”
Speaking of Egypt: The situation on the ground is that Egyptians can’t Twitter except for maybe one small ISP. Supporters of the revolution are contacting Egyptians by landline and tweeting their reports. The Army is apparently still doing nothing against the protesters. The Bedouins are now in control of two towns next to Gaza. Palestinians are holding rallies in support of the Egyptians. Eliza Dushku, a heavily followed actress on Twitter, tweeted the US Egyptian Embassy’s phone number and suggested everyone call them, which ought to DoS their phone lines. Mubarak’s thugs went on a looting rampage, but Egyptian civilians grabbed them, beat the crap out of them and handed them over to the Army. There was some looting at the Cairo Museum, but Egyptians protected the place. Right now, there is little presence of the Army on the street. The Army has asked Egyptians to protect their own property, so a lot of people are making Molotov cocktails to defend against the regime looters. Naturally, those cocktails will also come in handy if the Army moves against the protesters or against whatever police are left operating which appears to be minimal. As of 9PM, there was still an estimated 50,000 people if Tahrir Square, defying the curfew. El Baradei has called for Mubarak to step down. There are snipers on top of the Ministry of Interior building shooting at protesters, 12 killed, dozens injured. Regime thugs are cutting off the water in Alexandria and Cairo.
All in all, this is continuing and showing no signs of slowing down. I’m doubting the suggested “rope a dope” strategy is going to work.
Arnold: You can back off, but I’m not letting Eric get away with this crap. He’s trying to say US recognition of Iran’s legal enrichment rights is “nothing”, which is utter nonsense, while saying a unilateral AP implementation has some value despite the fact the US would ignore it and it would leave Iran with ZERO bargaining chips.
It’s so ridiculous it irritates the crap out of me. It’s like Eric suggesting every kid in school offer his lunch money to the nearest bully before even being asked.
One thing Egypt is doing is really demonstrating more clearly than I ever could have the relationship between the US and its colonies in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and others.
I’m surprised by the degree to which early US statements explicitly linked US support for Mubarak to his ties with Israel.
This was an historic test for the United States and whether its claimed values are its actual values, and with Barack Hussein Obama as president, no matter what happens in Egypt, the US failed miserably.
Eric, @ 5:53: “I agree that Jalili performed this task well. I was impressed. Has it had any effect on US or Israeli behavior?”
Have sanctions, assassinations, subversion, Stuxnet changed Iran’s behavior?
Eric: “Is it your impression that the AP requires names?”
And we’ve covered THIS before, which you ignore. OBVIOUSLY the AP requires names. To DO the AP, the IAEA has to talk to people IN IRAN. People connected with the nuclear program at any level. By definition, if the IAEA allows these interviews to leak – and they will leak to the US diplomats in the IAEA who WILL pass that information on to the CIA – if they aren’t CIA themselves – then obviously names will be passed along and evaluated by US intelligence. And no doubt, most of those names will end up in Israeli intelligence if they aren’t already there.
As I said, we’ve covered this before here.
-Castellio — Chossudovsky is on target: Feltman is in Tunisia to ensure that the right puppet is tied to the strings of the puppetmaster, and those strings in Tunisia, as in Egypt, remain invisible and undisturbed: nothing will really change in either place — Israel has decided that “Arabs are not yet ready for democracy.”
from Chossudovsky’s article at Global Research:
“In Egypt, a devastating IMF program was imposed in 1991 at the height of the Gulf War. It was negotiated in exchange for the annulment of Egypt’s multibillion dollar military debt to the US as well as its participation in the war. The resulting deregulation of food prices, sweeping privatisation and massive austerity measures led to the impoverishment of the Egyptian population and the destabilization of its economy. The Mubarak government was praised as a model “IMF pupil”.
The role of Ben Ali’s government in Tunisia was to enforce the IMF’s deadly economic medicine, which over a period of more than twenty years served to destabilize the national economy and impoverish the Tunisian population. Over the last 23 years, economic and social policy in Tunisia has been dictated by the Washington Consensus.
Both Hosni Mubarak and Ben Ali stayed in power because their governments obeyed and effectively enforced the diktats of the IMF. “
Done it before, doint it again: “Confessions of an Economic Hitman;” John Perkins, on Democracy Now:
:http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8
Eric: Dismissing your long post by merely quoting this part: “A. Refuse to observe the AP because Iran would look weak to give up “something for nothing,” even though what Iran considers to be “something” has no bargaining-chip value whatsoever to the US government”
I call BS. As I’ve REPEATEDLY said here – and you just as REPEATEDLY IGNORE – the POINT of demanding a recognition of Iranian enrichment rights in exchange for recognizing the AP is NOT to get a “bargaining chip” with the US government but to establish once and for all to the world Iran’s LEGAL RIGHTS! This is NOT “nothing”.
You claim that Iran should unilaterally implement the AP because it would “buy time” to keep the US at bay. Number one, this is not true. However, if ANYTHING can keep the US at bay, it would be the world recognizing – and the US ADMITTING – that Iran has a legal right to enrich. As the Leveretts have repeatedly pointed out here, this means the US would be UNABLE to find any JUSTIFICATION for a military attack EXCEPT by MANUFACTURING a casus belli. While I don’t doubt the US would do that, it makes it that much PHYSICALLY and LEGALLY HARDER for the US to attack Iran.
THAT is NOT “nothing”. THAT is NOT a “promise”. THAT is NOT a “bargaining chip”. THAT has REAL VALUE.
If you can’t deal with this argument, admit it. Stop trying to evade it by claiming there is no value in a US recognition of Iran’s legal enrichment rights or trying to convert that very real benefit into some other notion so you can evade that point.
It’s intellectually dishonest and you know it.
Castellio:
I’m done. I’m just going to start mocking the AP stuff when it comes up and I don’t feel like ignoring it.
Sorry for the space that last exchange took up.
Castellio:
I apologize to you and everyone else who is bored by this. I know this is very well worn territory.
Eric:
Really? I’ve read reports of officials from all of those countries, among many others, complaining that Iran refuses to observe the Additional Protocol. So have you — I’m surprised you don’t remember reading them.
Do you have a link?
Pick up any of the several Security Council resolutions, for example.
The UNSC resolutions are not statements from Chinese, Russian or Israeli officials. If you think there would be no resolutions if Iran had ratified the AP, then we disagree, but on the other hand, Iran said it would pull out of the AP if the UNSC resolution process began, and it did. Iran has said it will re-implement the AP if the UNSC resolution process stops. It does not. If you think the AP would have prevented the AP, you’re pretty much just wrong on the facts.
But Lavrov, Chinese ministers and others, including US officials, speak of Iran’s nuclear program fairly often. Find a link to one mentioning the AP. I doubt you can.
That obvious fact is a big part of my point: other countries DO make quite a big deal out of Iran’s refusal to observe the AP.
Then finding a link would be fast, right?
About the misquote, if I say kill scientists, or sabotage facilities or … then your response ending the sentence at kill scientists, then saying the AP doesn’t require names of scientists deliberately misses the point I was making. I’ll add though that information about available materials and facilities can be helpful in deciding which scientists to target.
Bearing this in mind, Japan or Brazil — or Iran — could produce a nuclear bomb only on one of two conditions: …
This whole analysis is really wrong, in ways I’ve explained at length many times. But let’s say you’re right. All you have to do is explain to Barack Obama that Iran can enrich and keep a domestic stockpile of uranium as long as it implements the AP, because if Iran was to build a weapon under those circumstances, the US would have plenty of time to bomb it.
If Barack Obama thought you were right, or agreed with your analysis that countries that implement the AP and make further disclosures about weaponization efforts are not a strategic threat, there would not be a dispute.
When the US says Iranian enrichment is unacceptable, AP or not, the US is saying Eric Brill’s analysis is wrong. I agree with the US. Even if you’re right though, because every relevant US political administration thinks you’re wrong, your analysis even if it was right would have no impact on the situation or on the result of Iran unilaterally implementing the AP.
Your suggestion that Iran should continue NOT to do what Japan does — that Iran disclose far less about its nuclear program than Japan does — means to me, and always has meant to me, that you consider it important for Iran to preserve a “useful ambiguity” about its nuclear intentions — what I sometimes call “hide the ball.”
You made up the thing about useful ambiguity. And hiding the ball. I never said that. It never was a reasonable interpretation of what I’ve written. From the first time you brought it up, maybe 6 months ago, and at least once a month since then and often once a week, I’ve explained that is not the reason it is important that Iran not ratify the additional protocols before the US accepts its right to enrich.
I also have been clear, as the Iranians have, that Iran should and would implement the additional protocols if allowed to have the type of nuclear program Japan has. The US has been clear that Iran, AP or not, cannot have the type of nuclear program Japan has. Again, you’re the only one the AP matters to.
But you claim that is the only possible reason, skipping without meaningful comment the reason I and others actually say Iran should not unilaterally implement the AP before the US accepts its right to have the type of program Japan has
5) The actual argument that I and other people make, that implementing the AP will give the US additional information that it can use to decide which scientists to kill or which computers to sabotage, or which facilities to blow up in covert actions or which targets to attack in a war, you’ve never addressed and rarely even acknowledged. This is a serious argument and beyond principle the most important reason Iran does not unilaterally implement the AP or give the IAEA more information than it is required under binding and ratified agreements. You don’t address it at all even though you’ve seen from me and others at least ten times.
How can you now say the only possible reason not to implement the AP is to hide the ball, when you see a reason that you can’t refute time and time again. What is that even about? There is a serious and good reason that you keep ignoring.
You think Iran should be able to have as full a nuclear program as Japan if it implements the AP? If that is your new position, you’ve said the direct opposite earlier, but now you agree with me and you agree with Iran. You disagree with the US.
If you think Iran and right and the US is wrong and you vote for the government of the US, maybe you should be lobbying the US to change policies.
Once again you just want to believe the US is reasonable. You still have not said the attacks on Iran regarding the Holocaust are unreasonable, even though you’ve conceded every element of your argument.
So you want to think if only Iran implemented the AP it would improve hold off a US attack or something. That’s something a person would say who wants US hostility to be Iran’s fault.
It’s not. Every element of your argument on this, just like the Holocaust, has been refuted successfully so that you don’t address direct arguments any more. If you’re not deliberately mischaracterizing my arguments and others arguments by this point then you’re mischaracterizing them unknowingly after they have been accurately explained to you very patiently many times over a long period of time.
You have an attachment to the idea that the nuclear issue is Iran’s fault that you don’t, whether you’re aware of it or not, want to let go of.
I thought not. It makes my job more difficult.
Castellio says: January 29, 2011 at 5:26 pm
I never use that word nor do I think about it.
BiBiJon,
I’ll respond later to your post. (I know I still owe you a response to an earlier post from another thread, which I thought was excellent even though I didn’t have the time to respond then — I’ll try to make up for that this time.)
Eric
Fiorangela,
“At strategic opportunities, Iran should make clear to international bodies that US and Israel are the parties in the wrong; Jalili seemed to perform that task with aplomb in the Spiegel interview.”
I agree that Jalili performed this task well. I was impressed. Has it had any effect on US or Israeli behavior?
Eric A. Brill says:
January 29, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Eric,
You are very close to convincing me that Iran should reinstitute the AP. However, there is something amiss in your arguments.
There seems to be 2 championships that Iran is qualified to participate in.
Championship “A” is with P5+1 who represent the “first world” countries. Iran is the absolute bottom rung in championship “A”. Not only she has won no medals, but her best efforts are routinely laughed at, or worse, help create new ‘negative’ talking points, war mongering, etc. Every time Iran accepts an invitation to a negotiating session for example, the media is dripping with how marvelously the “pressure track” is working. Regardless of what happens at the championships, Iran is always portrayed as the obstinate loser.
Championship “B”, where third world countries of the world participate in, is where Iran’s efforts are openly appreciated and she routinely wins medals, accolades, and respect. “Second world” countries (e.g. Turkey and Iran) have no championship of their own. There is no championship “A-“ or “B+”. They so not belong here nor there, that among themselves second world countries don’t compete. They cooperate with one another. There’s a serious debate among “second world” countries as to whether first world countries have staying power.
Bottom line is this: Iran should announce her decision to reinstitute the AP in a G77 meeting, with zero press releases for first worlders. Let Western media pick it up secondhand from IAEA. Iran should pin the AP to a binding resolution at UNSC condemning assassination of scientists, and cyber-attacks.
predictably, American main stream news says the uprising in Egypt was orchestrated by Hamas agents set up by You-Know-Who.
_____
M J Rosenberg, also predictably, has a more rational view of events:
” . . . Israeli officials say that any Iran bomb will be delayed for years and maybe forever.
One would think that the lobby would be ecstatic, but it barely mentions the Stuxnet triumph. Why is that?
Because it was never really worried about an Iranian bomb (especially since Israel has 200 nuclear weapons) but worried that a nuclear-armed Iran would challenge Israel’s regional hegemony. (It’s the same reason the lobby despises Turkey.) So the lobby pretends as though Stuxnet didn’t happen. We need more “crippling sanctions” and then possibly war, they maintain.
This is from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA). (Note: Rep. Howard Berman is, by far, the member of Congress closest to AIPAC.)
The Stuxnet revelations, if anything, reinforce the need for a tough stance, said Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee. They underscore how committed Iran is to producing a bomb, he told JTA.
“It’s a reason to push down on the pedal,” said Berman, who crafted the most recent Iran sanctions law in the Congress.
Berman added:
“Let me know when Iran certifiably suspends enrichment and allows inspections, throughout all its territory, and then we can have a conversation about sanctions,” he said. “Having that military option on the table is an important part of achieving that goal and affecting their calculations.”
Prime Minister Netanyahu himself, who uses the Iran nuclear threat to win support at home and in the United States, is also unhappy. Reuters reported that he is “miffed” at the Mossad for reporting on the diminished nuclear threat. He is angry that Stuxnet removed his pretense for war. And that means Congress, pushed by AIPAC, will keep passing sanctions bills that punish not the Iranian regime but the Iranian people.
And Iranians will always remember it and hold it against us.
Isn’t it time for the United States to begin implementing policies that are in our national interests, not the lobby’s organizational interests? Policies that are good for America are good for Israel, too. Policies that weaken America, that reduce our influence throughout the entire Middle East, are also bad for Israel.
That’s one of many lessons that we can learn from the bloody events in Egypt. It’s not too late for America to get on the right side of history.”
_____
Eric Brill, I suppose some streak of dogmatism in me causes me to resist the demand that Iran take steps that would harm Iran, in order to deflect blows unjustly aimed at Iran by Israel and the US.
Where you and I disagree, I think, is with the key phrase– US and Israel are the bad actors; they are dealing unjustly with Iran. If that is the case, then Israel and the US must be made to make a behavior change. Iran would be wise to adapt itself to US-Israeli intransigence in whatever low-cost low-impact ways it can, but not to take any steps that would signal capitulation to US-Israel wrongdoing. Israeli ‘think-tankers” in the US are fond of reciting how “those people only respond to force.” We’ve seen that that is not true wrt Iran; what the statement means is that Israel respects only strenght, and mows down weakness: look at Abbas, look at Ahmadinejad.
At strategic opportunities, Iran should make clear to international bodies that US and Israel are the parties in the wrong; Jalili seemed to perform that task with aplomb in the Spiegel interview.
James Canning says: January 29, 2011 at 3:43 pm
At the turn of the 20-th Cnetury, the Russian Empire and the British Empire were stalemated in Iran; they could not agree how to divide it. So Iran remained nominally independent.
At the same time and in a very analogous manner, Korea was gobbled up by Japan since there were no other great powers coveting her.
Iran remained independent after WWII againg because the Russians and the Americans could not agree on how to divide her up. And then Americans pre-empted the Russians by overthrowing Mossadeq and making Iran a Western-oriented state.
In regards to WWII, Iran had nothing to do with protogonists; her best interest was to maintain her neutrality as USSR and Great Britain weakened. She was, regrettably, too weak, disorganized, and poorly led to either defend her neutrality (like Turkey could) or get paid a lot for her taking sides in that war.
The lessons for Iran are quite clear; do not be weak, do not be poorly led, do not be disorganized.
I am grateful for late Mr. Hussien and US-EU Axis for impressing these valuable lessons to the Iranian people.
Without Egypt, Israel will be left with no friends in Mideast.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/without-egypt-israel-will-be-left-with-no-friends-in-mideast-1.339926
Arnold,
“I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Chinese or Russian official even mention the AP. Not even a European official, not even an Israeli official.”
Really? I’ve read reports of officials from all of those countries, among many others, complaining that Iran refuses to observe the Additional Protocol. So have you — I’m surprised you don’t remember reading them.
Pick up any of the several Security Council resolutions, for example. They all mention Iran’s refusal to observe the AP. Those resolutions have all been approved by “Chinese and Russian officials,” and by officials of whatever European countries happen to be on the Security Council at the time. That obvious fact is a big part of my point: other countries DO make quite a big deal out of Iran’s refusal to observe the AP. I agree with you that they ought not to, since Iran would not and should not reveal its military secrets even if it did observe the AP. But they do nonetheless, and I’m mystified that you would claim not to be aware of this.
fyi… I am getting somewhere with my succinct reply to you… however, how do you feel about the word “reification”. Do you use it, do you think about it? I am serious…
Arnold, Eric… with respect… The positions are clear.
Fiorangela et al might take a look at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22993
I go hot and cold with Michel Chossudovsky, but his point in this case is worth considering: how to ensure that all of this effort doesn’t reduce to choosing the new puppet.
Empty says: January 29, 2011 at 3:06 pm
There is an ancient argument made by Aristotle in which he demolishes (human) attempts at Justice by noting that (human) Justice often involves adjudication among things that are qualitatively dissimilar.
So men can only dispense Law and not Justice; it is reserved for the Almighty.
I do not know where and how he formed his notion of Justice (“Adl” is closer to his usage). May be he got it from Zarathustra, may be from the Magi. I do not know.
Arnold,
Your 5:11 post suggests that I misstated the meaning of the line I quoted by not including the entire sentence. I have no idea what you mean by that, and I’ve just re-read what you wrote. Can you explain what you mean?
Is Scott Lucas vacationing on a remote island? Has he published this at EA (I don’t go there: gives my computer the agita).
January 29, 2011 at 9:35 AM
Many bloggers in Tunisia who played an important role in spreading the news about their revolution have said that they were influenced by what the Iranian youth had done. I believe that is probably the case in Egypt as well. In the era of internet and facebook such mutual influence cannot be avoided. I am sure and I know that Iranians are watching the developments very closely.
In fact, Mir Hossein Mousavi, the Green Movement leader, issued a statement today, praising the people of Tunisia and Egypt and warning the Islamic Republic leaders that they are running out of time.
Here is what Mousavi said in his statement:
In the name of Allah
The Middle East is on the verge of a defining and massive moments which can change the course of the destiny of this region, the world and the fate of other nations in the region. What is taking shape now is certainly overthrowing a despotic and tyrannical rule and trend which has been overwhelming the fate of many nations in the region. The starting point of what we are now witnessing on the streets of Tunis, Sanaa, Cairo, Alexandria and Suez can be undoubtedly traced back to days of 15th, 18th and 20th June 2009 when people took to the streets of Tehran in millions shouting “Where is my vote?” and peacefully demanded to get back their denied rights.
Today, the slogan of “Where is my vote?” of the people of Iran has reached Egypt and transformed into “The people want the overthrow of the regime”. In order to discover the secret of these links and these similarities, one does not have to go too far. You just have to compare the recent elections in Egypt with our own and compare it with the chairman of the Guardian Council who explicitly says there is no need for millions of votes by Green citizens. If we look at the collapsing political regimes in the Arab world and the Middle East carefully, we can identify a similar pattern of invading and shutting down social networks, the press and the cyber space. In an amazingly similar fashion, they have all blocked SMS systems, mobile phones and the internet, have banned all writers and taken dissidents to prisons.
Unfortunately, the interests of the ruling ideology in Iran do not allow the realities to be revealed as they are. The preachers of the obedient public outlets fail to pay any attention to the corrupt and despotic methods of the present day pharaoh of Egypt, who has created an explosive situation in his country by arrests, forced confessions, framing people and looting the nations through gangs and organised groups of the people surrounding them. They do refer to the ‘Wrath of the people” of Egypt, but they never explain that this day of wrath has come about as a consequence of inefficiency and corruption at the highest levels of stat, extravagance and wasting people’s funds, censorship, shutting people down, executions and lining up gallows to create fear in people. They never say that of the ruling system of Egypt had respected people’s right to determining their own destiny and had not tampered with people’s votes in the recent elections of Egypt, they would not have to face the demand for the ‘overthrow of the regime’ by the dear nation of Egypt. Perhaps, they do not realise that continuing policies of intimidation will eventually turn against itself and then the coming of “the day of wrath” and days of national wrath will be inevitable. Pharaohs usually hear the voice of the nation when it is too late.
Our nation deeply respects the glorious uprising of the brave people of Tunis and that of the people of Egypt, Yemen and other countries in quest for their rights. We commend the courageous, cognisant and resisting people of Egypt, Tunis, Jordan and Yemen and we pray to Allah that they may be successful and victorious in their struggle for their rights.
MirHossein Mousavi
Arnold,
“Your idea that the US will attack Iran before it reaches a point that it could make a weapon in an emergency the way Japan or Brazil could is certainly wrong if Iran can reach that point in the next couple of years, and likely wrong over a longer time frame than that.”
I recognize that Safeguards Agreements focus on nuclear material, not on weapons devices. That is not true of the NPT itself, however, which prohibits a country from making nuclear weapons — not just the highly enriched uranium (HEU) that gets dropped into them.
Bearing this in mind, Japan or Brazil — or Iran — could produce a nuclear bomb only on one of two conditions:
1. The country is already secretly producing actual weapons devices, in violation of the NPT (assuming you’re not reverting to your argument that a nuclear weapon without fuel is not really a nuclear weapon), so that the country needs merely to whip up a batch of HEU after it withdraws from the NPT, drop it into the already-complete weapons device, aim it in the direction of the US, and press a button; or
2. The country withdraws from the NPT, and THEN starts secretly producing actual weapons devices — a considerably longer undertaking — and the US and Israel simply sit back and wait for it to finish (since, after all, the country will no longer be a party to the NPT and thus has a right to build a nuclear bomb any time it feels like doing so).
I consider CHOICE #2 to be so absurd that it is not even worth evaluating, so let’s consider CHOICE #1 and assume this country is Iran.
Iran needs merely to hope that it can refine the requisite HEU after withdrawing from the NPT, drop it into the waiting weapons device, aim it in the direction of the US, and press a button. You’ve said in the past this might take up to a year after Iran withdraws from the NPT. I’ll be charitable here and assume it would take only a week after Iran withdraws from the NPT. However long it takes, my confident prediction is that the US would attack sooner — after hesitating for perhaps three seconds while it considers whether to refrain from attacking because Iran might become upset and respond in an unfriendly way. If it took Iran three days to get its working bomb on the launching pad, for example, and it takes two days for bomb-laden B-52s to fly from Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri to Tehran, I am confident those planes would arrive in Tehran roughly 23 hours before Iran was finished with its bomb.
Whether Iran would even get this far depends, of course, on its presumed success in carrying out its secret development of its weapons device prior to its withdrawal from the NPT — all the while risking the lives of the Iranian people, since the US almost certainly would attack Iran promptly if it ever discovered that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon in violation of the NPT.
You’re correct that we agree that Iran, just like Japan, would learn a lot by developing its peaceful nuclear energy program that would also be useful in making nuclear bombs — enriching uranium, for example, is useful for both purposes. But I’m afraid I can’t agree that you’ve always said this is all you have in mind when you describe Iran’s “Japan option.” If it were, after all, you would not consider it so important that Iran insist on its right not to observe the Additional Protocol. This makes Iran different from Japan, which adopted the Additional Protocol very shortly after it was drafted and has observed it scrupulously ever since. Your suggestion that Iran should continue NOT to do what Japan does — that Iran disclose far less about its nuclear program than Japan does — means to me, and always has meant to me, that you consider it important for Iran to preserve a “useful ambiguity” about its nuclear intentions — what I sometimes call “hide the ball.”
I really don’t think Iran desires to “hide the ball,” but I do think that’s what you think it ought to do. Otherwise, why not just recommend that Iran insist on nothing more than the same “Japan option” that Japan itself has — the “don’t hide the ball” type?
Also, Eric, the line you quoted ends with a comma, then an “or”. Not a period.
That was deliberate alteration of the meaning of the phrase. Why? What would the point have been with the source a few lines down the screen?
You start doing this sometimes. Don’t.
1) It’s my impression that as long as the US is actively using information given to the IAEA to target Iran’s nuclear program Iran is justified in giving the IAEA the minimum information allowable under agreements it ratified. It is certainly my impression that information given to the IAEA if Iran was to implement the AP would be used by the US in one or more ways to sabotage its program.
This isn’t the first time you’ve read this, but if you respond it may well be the first time.
2) About how the AP would make it harder for enemies of Iran to demonize it, can you find one article or opinion piece or column demonizing Iran that mentions the AP? Can you find one sentence in one article or opinion piece or column that the author would not have written if Iran had implemented the AP?
I have not examined every single article with that in mind, but I’m about 99% sure you would not be able to find one statement demonizing Iran that would not have been made if Iran was still implementing the AP.
This is your obsession and nobody else’s.
I’m interested in how Israeli hawks will try to take advantage of what it must see as this moment of Egyptian confusion.
Arnold,
I don’t know that I’ll respond to all of your points, because I think we’ve each made our positions clear, but this statement may highlight a point I made in my earlier post:
“[I]mplementing the AP will give the US additional information that it can use to decide which scientists to kill.”
How so? Is it your impression that the AP requires names?
Eric:
First, the dramatic devices, in my opinion, detract rather than add to your argument, just because along with your argument there is a lot of imaginative stuff that doesn’t matter to what we are talking about.
With that said:
1) I have not seen any evidence that anyone but you cares about the additional protocols. If China really wants Iran to ratify them, or Russia, and the unilateral Iranian implementation of them would impact either’s calculus to a degree that it would benefit Iran, they can tell Iran, and Iran will take that into account. China and Russia are in direct regular communication with Iran. They can express the importance of the additional protocols without your help. If they consider it important.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Chinese or Russian official even mention the AP. Not even a European official, not even an Israeli official. Nor has it ever figured in one of the bomb Iran editorials I constantly read in Western press sources.
We’re going to have to come back to this point.
2) Iraq did not have a nuclear weapon, nor could it have gotten one because Iran’s fissile material was all safeguarded. Iraq was closer to a Japan option than the IAEA knew, but Iraq no closer to a nuclear weapon than it is allowed to be under the NPT. This is just a misunderstanding of what the AP is and does on your part, which again raises the question of why these protocols that you’re only glancingly familiar with are so important to you.
3) Japan ratified and implemented the AP. Japan is allowed to have a Japan option. If the US decided that the NPT doesn’t apply to Japan, that Japan is not allowed to have a Japan option, it is doubtful that Japan would behave any differently than Iran. If Iran is allowed to have a Japan option, being that it is subject to the same NPT that Japan is, then Iran has said repeatedly that it is willing to implement the AP. The United States has said repeatedly that AP or no AP, Iran cannot have the NPT rights that Japan and other countries have.
4) This may be the sixth time, or even more, that I’ve corrected you on this point. Implementing the AP would not prevent Iran from having a Japan option, or the ability, in an emergency, as Japan could, to pull out of the treaty and build a weapon. You keep saying somebody is arguing that. We keep saying nobody is arguing that. It seems like a willful mischaracterization of my and other people’s argument. You have to know by now that this is not the argument anyone is making, and you keep presenting it as if it is an argument someone is making.
5) The actual argument that I and other people make, that implementing the AP will give the US additional information that it can use to decide which scientists to kill or which computers to sabotage, or which facilities to blow up in covert actions or which targets to attack in a war, you’ve never addressed and rarely even acknowledged. This is a serious argument and beyond principle the most important reason Iran does not unilaterally implement the AP or give the IAEA more information than it is required under binding and ratified agreements. You don’t address it at all even though you’ve seen from me and others at least ten times.
6) Your idea that the US will attack Iran before it reaches a point that it could make a weapon in an emergency the way Japan or Brazil could is certainly wrong if Iran can reach that point in the next couple of years, and likely wrong over a longer time frame than that. But you don’t defend this idea of yours. What factors would come into play in a US decision to attack Iran? What retaliation would the US expect, under what circumstances would the US consider an attack to be “worth it”. You’ve never answered these questions but without answering these questions, you cannot fairly assert that the US will attack Iran.
And now back to the AP. I find this similar to your idea that Ahmadinejad invited reasonable attacks from Jewish people by “repeatedly denying” the holocaust. It turned out that you don’t have a single example of Ahmadinejad denying the holocaust. It also turned out that the answer you would suggest Ahmadinejad give when questioned, after revision, is just as “evasive” as the answers Ahmadinejad gives on his feet.
You want to believe Iran is doing something wrong, so you’ll believe it and time after time I and other people will correct your mischaracterizations of our arguments, we’ll put our real arguments for you to ignore.
What the AP is is something you can criticize Iran on. If Iran ratifies the AP, there will be something else. The West is not going to be satisfied, as Western officials admit, and if they aren’t satisfied, your desire to see them as reasonable means that you won’t be satisfied.
A lot of times I ignore this AP stuff these days but once in a while I’ll respond. No progress is going to be made. I don’t think there is one sentence in this that doesn’t appear in the raceforiran.com archives at least three other times in an identical form.
Fiorangela,
Please take a look at your January 29, 1:33 PM post with this thought in mind:
I agree entirely that other ways of handling relations among the US, Israel and Iran would yield better results for the people and governments of all three countries. You correctly point out that my “rope-a-dope” strategy would be outshone by a strategy based on the US’ frank recognition that it would be better off working toward a long-term cooperative relationship with Iran. But we live in a real world where countries often do not do what they ought to. With all this in mind, can you suggest any “real life” strategy for Iran that is preferable to mine?
Many people write here about what the US or Israel “ought” to do, as if that is sufficient to solve problems. When asked how Iran ought to proceed if the US or Israel does not respond as they “ought” to, the writer typically either makes clear that he hasn’t considered that possibility or lays out some “scorched-earth” response for Iran, replete with confident assertions about “second-strike capability” and the unquestioned willingness of Iran’s 70 million people to die for something or other. Sometimes I find such scenarios entertaining, much as I am entertained to watch my 13-year old son play video games (though I wish he did so less often), but I find them depressing and useless when I remind myself the proponent is actually talking about real life.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/dozens-of-israelis-flee-egypt-on-emergency-flight-1.339967
Kathleen,
Weiss suggests that racism is one reason the US has such poor coverage of the Middle East and North Africa on US news media. An irrational fear of Islam is not “racist”, even if it is irrational.
Don’t Trust Your Enemy wrote:
“What is this nonsense? Iran should not observe additional protocol unless the war mongers recognize Iran nuclear program FULLY and remove all the illegal SANCTIONS.”
COMMENT:
You’re hardly the first to respond like this.
But wait — someone just handed me a note. It must be important: it’s been signed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Here’s what the note says:
“We’d like you to get something across to those people who think the US government gives a good god-damn about whether Iran observes the Additional Protocol or not — especially those who think the US government might actually acknowledge Iran’s right to enrich uranium and remove the sanctions in return. Are these people serious? Even sane? Maybe the limp-wristed Chinese and Russians might fall for such a trick — at least if Iran offers to toss in 100 million barrels of oil and some juicy development contracts — but it will be a cold day in hell before the US government ever OKs Iranian enrichment or agrees to lift the sanctions, no matter what Iran does or does not do. We think Iran is delusional if it imagines that its agreement to observe the AP has some bargaining-chip value to us. It has value to us, that’s for sure, but just the opposite of what Iran imagines the value to be. It’s valuable for us only for so long as Iran keeps behaving exactly as it does now. The longer Iran refuses to disclose what 100 other countries willingly disclose about their nuclear programs, the easier it is for us to persuade the world that Iran is up to no good. Look what we’ve accomplished, after all. Polls show that 70% of Americans believe Iran already has a nuclear bomb — not just that it’s working on a bomb, or thinking about a bomb, but that it’s already got one, sitting on a launching pad somewhere, ready to fire. Nearly every important country in the world has signed up for sanctions against Iran — including even the Russians and the Chinese, who Iran once imagined were its allies on the UN Security Council. All this, without a shred of actual evidence that Iran is even thinking about a bomb, much less that it already has one. It would be a lot more difficult to keep people believing all of this if Iran suddenly were to announce: “We’ve got nothing to hide. We’ll start disclosing what other countries disclose. But we remind people that the AP doesn’t authorize demands that we disclose our military secrets, and we won’t disclose them — just as other countries don’t disclose theirs.” If Iran were ever to say something like that, people soon might recognize that we’ve been unjustifiably demanding secret military information that isn’t called for even under the AP. Needless to say, we don’t want anyone to understand that, and so we hope and pray that Iran will hold out as long as possible. Please don’t tell Iran we feel this way — it has a nasty habit of doing the opposite of what it thinks we want.” (Signed: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton).
You might think I’m making this up, but I swear I got this note. Who knows if Obama and Clinton really mean what they wrote. But if they do mean it (and I’m confident they do), what should Iran do?
Here are the choices I see for Iran (I’ll list first the one you recommend):
A. Refuse to observe the AP because Iran would look weak to give up “something for nothing,” even though what Iran considers to be “something” has no bargaining-chip value whatsoever to the US government — which, to the contrary, considers it much more “valuable” for Iran to continue doing exactly what it’s doing: adamantly refuse to disclose what 100 other countries willingly disclose about their nuclear programs.
B. Refuse to observe the AP because limiting its nuclear-program disclosures will enable Iran to maintain the useful illusion that it can produce and deliver a nuclear bomb if the US ever does something that really gets Iran upset. IMPORTANT NOTE: This choice is not available unless you first persuade an independent panel of specially trained psychologists that you honestly believe the US and Israel will sit back and refrain from attacking long enough for Iran to achieve this leverage; to date, very few proponents of this view have managed to pass this “straight face” test.
C. Refuse to observe the AP because disclosures under the AP would provide useful “targeting” information to the US and Israel when they attack. IMPORTANT NOTE: This choice is not available unless you have actually read the AP (which would place you within a small subset of the many people who feel qualified to comment on this AP issue) and then have considered just how much “targeting” information Iran’s disclosures under the AP would provide to the US and Israel that they don’t already have or can acquire in about 15 minutes from any self-respecting informant.
D. Agree to observe the AP because Iran recognizes that its refusal to do so plays right into the hands of the war-mongers who encourage the US and Israel to attack Iran even though there’s not a shred of evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
E. Agree to observe the AP because doing so would give Russia and China some ground for resisting the next US demand to ratchet up sanctions, something that — along with, say, Iranian offers to toss in 100 million barrels of oil and some juicy development contracts — might persuade Russia and/or China to tell the US that they consider the present sanctions to be sufficient for the time being.
F. Agree to observe the AP because, if Iran really isn’t working on nuclear weapons (which is what Iran claims, and what I believe), complying with the AP really isn’t a big burden.
G. Agree to observe the AP because preventing nuclear proliferation is a worthy goal that Iran claims to share (and does share, I believe) — a goal that, 20 years ago, the world recognized could not be achieved under the original Safeguards Agreement monitoring scheme when it learned that Saddam Hussein had been developing nuclear weapons right under the noses of IAEA inspectors.
*******************
So far, Don’t Trust Your Enemy, you’ve picked only Choice A, which may mean you simply haven’t thought this through enough to recognize that this entitles you to add Choices B and C if you like (provided you satisfy the “IMPORTANT NOTE” conditions of those two Choices).
But you might also give some thought to Choices D, E, F and G – bearing in mind, as you do, that Choices A, B and C have resulted so far in what I consider to be an extreme irony. Those who insist that urging Iran to observe the Additional Protocol elevates the Additional Protocol to an importance it does not deserve are themselves doing exactly what they accuse their opponents of doing. I’ll confidently venture a guess that over 95% of Americans (possibly 99%+) believe Iran is refusing to comply with the Additional Protocol because it wants to hide a nuclear military program. Very, very few people understand that the IAEA’s US-backed demands for secret Iranian military information are not based on the Additional Protocol at all. If Iran were to begin observing the Additional Protocol and yet continue to refuse to disclose its military secrets, pointing out that the AP does not require this and that other countries that observe the AP don’t disclose their military secrets either, far more people would understand that the US has no legitimate ground for demanding disclosure of Iranian military secrets. Rather than elevating the Additional Protocol to an importance it does not deserve, the Additional Protocol would be reduced to the relatively low importance it deserves. It would no longer be the very effective propaganda tool that the US has made of it.
I have no illusions that this would dissuade the war-mongers from continuing to press for a US or Israel attack on Iran. But it would slow them down a bit by peeling away considerable public-opinion support (and possibly Russian and China, the next time the Security Council takes up a US demand for tougher sanctions), enabling Iran to occupy the moral high ground for a while by pointing out that it is disclosing as much information as the 100 other countries that observe the AP. If one pursues the “rope-a-dope” strategy I believe Iran should employ toward the US, every year of delay moves Iran closer to the point in time at which the US no longer poses a meaningful threat. Agreeing to observe the Additional Protocol – without holding out for some quid pro quo that will never be offered – could improve Iran’s current situation significantly, at what strikes me as a very low cost.
fyi,
The exigencies of global war meant that Iran was certain to be a transit route for American supplies heading to the Soviet Union. A stronger Iran perhaps could have made a deal to allow a small number of foreign forces to protect the war materials while en route. As it happened, US pressure was essential element is saving Iran from probable partition, or even annexation into Soviet Union.
British Empire prevented the incorporation of Persia into the Russian Empire.
“disappointing” rather.
Voice of Tehran,
It would be quite disappointed to buy the idea that weapons of mass destruction bring salvation to any nation.
RE: “Million people around the world ( Muslims and Non-Muslims ) are looking with unrecendented enthusiasm at the ‘Iranian Way ‘ and would be deeply and irreversibly disappointed , should we leave our righteous path , especially if this path is endorsed by our leaders.”
Let’s hope we and the leaders have the courage not to disappoint God. The rest would be taken care of.
Unknown Unknowns,
Your Insan equation is an interesting one. I had not thought about that.
Fio thanks
Liz lots about that over at Mondoweiss
The Egyptian revolution threatens an American-imposed order of Arabophobia and false choices
Kathleen, if you’re still at the library, you might want to see if your library has a copy of a Teaching Company series, United States and the Middle East, 1914 – 2001, by Dr. Salim Yaqub. It’s a fine overview of US involvement in the region by a reasonably objective scholar.
Particularly useful is Yaqub’s discussion of the hypocrisy of certain of Woodrow Wilson’s sentimental and bible-based decisions regarding Palestine, where he abdicated his ideal that all peoples were entitled to self-determination, in favor of endorsing a state for Jews in Palestine.
fyi,
I think your statement supports my suggestion that if Plato conceived of any sort of justice, it could not have been independent of the influence of monotheistic teachings of his time whether he admits it or not. A secular doctrine cannot stand on solid grounds to justify “WHY” there should be any justice in the first place.
@Unknown Unknowns , Empty , fyi
I thank the Three of you for your valuable , and brilliant comments , which are in many aspects amazing and profound especially those related to fyi’s statement :
““I hope those who read this will comprehend the absolute strategic necessity of Iran leaving NPT and deploying deliverable nuclear weapons.”
For my part I am deeply opposed to fyi’s idea of an nuclear armed Iran , leaving the NPT.
The North Korean way might work out for them under the power constallation in that part of the world , but it can definetely not be copy-pasted on Iran.
Ayattolah Khamenei issued the Fatwa based on deep religious fundaments and it should not be challenged.
Million people around the world ( Muslims and Non-Muslims ) are looking with unrecendented enthusiasm at the ‘Iranian Way ‘ and would be deeply and irreversibly dissappointed , should we leave our righteous path , epecially if this path is endorsed by our leaders.
The logic of power must be replaced by the power of logic , as Ahmadinejad said once in NY.
Empty says: January 29, 2011 at 2:50 pm
My point was that a collective of human beings are recognized to be evil by God and so destroyed.
I did not infer that any among them might not have been evil.
My larger point was that the ethical principles of Revelations pertain to the individual and not to the collection of individuals. Thus, the moral theory, must expand to deal with collective actions as well as with individual human actions.
Fyi,
“To my knowledge, The Quran, like the Old Testament, endorses the idea that certain collection human beings so organized may be collectively held to be evil. Thus Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed as well as the A’ad and Samud. That is, the Quran and the Old Testament establish the principle of collective punishment meted out by God.”
I’m glad you used an example as it gives me a specific area to focus on and bring evidence that Quran, in fact, does not in any way advocate collective punishment. Doing so would be in direct contradiction to the principle of justice (or Adl) which Quran so vigorously advocates.
There are 14 chapters in which Quran directly addresses the story of Lut’s people and their story (in more than 50+ Verses). Not in a single place does it say that the innocent person is punished as part of a collective punishment. Chapter 7, Verses 82-84, for example (translation/interpretation) when the town people actually evict Lut and his family just for objecting, it says, “the only answer his people gave him was, ‘evict these people from your town as they wish to be holy’ (82). Consequently, we saved him and his family but not his wife since she was guilty (83). We showered them with a miserable shower. Note the consequences for the wrong doer (84).”
In Chapter 11, Verse 82-83, this is so precise that that says: “When our judgment came, we turned it upside down and showered them with a barrage of ‘sejjeel’ [rock-like items] (82). Trained by your ‘Rabb’ [or parvardegar as Unknown Unknowns would say], the rocks struck directly at the oppressor (83).” In other words, it’s a sort of precision bombing (unlike the so-called smart bombs by the U.S. military that kills 150 people for each supposed Al Qa’edeh member).
I would be very interested to examine any verse in Quran that suggests innocent people are punished for the wrong-doing of the guilty.
James Canning says: January 29, 2011 at 2:19 pm
I am aware of that.
But had Iran been sufficiently strong, that situation would not have arisen in the first place.
fyi,
As you are well aware, the US forced the USSR to get out of Iran after the Second World War ended.
Iran’s growing strength is entirely natural, given its resources etc. Priority should be not to allow Iran to be portrayed as a “threat” to its neighbors when Iran is not a threat to its neighbors.
Sounds like another tyrant is getting his invitation to settle in the tyrant’s row in the Saudi Arabia
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704653204576111780673298292.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
JANUARY 29, 2011, 12:43 P.M. ET
Saudi Arabia Voices Support for Mubarak
Saudi Arabia strongly criticized Egyptian protesters and voiced support for beleaguered Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Saturday, appearing to underscore growing concern across the Arab world over possible spill-over from popular protests that have ousted Tunisia’s long-time strongman and now threaten Mr. Mubarak’s grip on power.
In a statement carried by Saudi’s state news agency, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud said protests rocking Egypt were instigated by “infiltrators,” who “in the name of freedom of expression, have infiltrated into the brotherly people of Egypt, to destabilize its security.”
The king said protesters had been “exploited to spew out their hatred in destruction . . . inciting a malicious sedition,” according to the statement, posted on the English website of the Saudi Press Agency.
The statement said the king telephoned Mr. Mubarak early Saturday and had been “reassured about the situation in Egypt.” Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been strong allies in the region, representing two of the most important U.S.-allied Arab bulwarks against Iran.
In the wake of the Tunisia unrest, several Arab regimes, including Jordan and Yemen, have also been rocked by large protests. Those demonstrations and the ones now buffeting Egypt have raised the specter of protests spreading wider, including to the relatively wealthy, but still-authoritarian, Arab regimes of the Persian Gulf.
A succession of rallies and demonstrations, in Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and Algeria have been inspired directly by the popular outpouring of anger that toppled Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. See how these uprising progressed.
The king’s harsh criticism of the Egyptian protesters on Saturday suggested Riyadh is eager to signal it won’t tolerate unrest inside the kingdom’s own borders.
Saudi’s oil wealth has allowed Riyadh to insulate the Saudi population to some degree from the economic ills that have helped trigger the recent regional unrest. Flush with oil revenues, Saudi has embarked on a massive infrastructure and development splurge, including plans for giant new cities aimed at creating jobs for its ballooning youth.
Iranian officials, meanwhile, voiced continued support on Saturday for demonstrators in Egypt. The Shiite-led Iranian government in Tehran has long been at odds with its neighboring Arab states, in particular Mr. Mubarak’s Egypt.
A spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry said Saturday that Tehran expected Egypt to “respond to (protesters’) rightful demands and refrain from exerting violence,” according to Press TV, Iran’s English-language state media.
According to some of my Egyptian friends, the US and Israel want Mubarak to stay and if that is not possible they would prefer Suleiman and if that is not possible their last option is El Baradei. However, I doubt any of them can last for long, because none represent ordinary Egyptians.
James Canning says: January 29, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Yes.
Unfortunately, foreigners are not inclined to leave Iran alone.
They invaded her, inspite of her declared neutrality, in WWI, in WWII, would not leave occupied portion of Iran, overthrew her government, make journalistic threats….
There is no other way.
Over at Mondoweiss (unable to link)
American television networks and an endless parade of mostly white men pundits (brought out and dusted off with their cobwebs) should take lessons from Al-Jazeera in live reportage, in not having pundits talk over the chants of a mass of humanity, in having Arab reporters covering what they know best, in remarkably evocative and courageous camerawork and in just being able to cover history like no other television network has ever been able to do before. And yes, I also mean that CNN during the first Gulf War was not as good as this.
It is so important to remember that the vast MAJORITY of those on the streets around the country do not have the time, the ability, the resources (including smartphones) and certainly no access to working mobile phone service. This revolution is JUST NOT BEING TWITTERED by the people who are actually protesting.
The only people tweeting are either reporters with huge bureaus and live cameras to back them or people like me reporting from the cyber-frontlines talking to the few friends in Cairo we can reach on their landlines.
To tweet this revolution and Egypt’s complex back-story in 140 characters or less is impossible.
Interestingly Al-Jazeera which is doing a stellar job is also more interested in covering the revolution (amazingly) in what is essentially wide-shots to show the extent of the chaos. Ayman’s camera is focused on the thousands in Tahrir. Not many correspondents are able to get to neighborhoods like Rihab, Mohandasin, Zamalek, Maadi—which cyber-reporters/tweeters like me are able to do by talking only on landlines (mobiles are not working) to our friends—ordinary citizens. Hopefully this below, is an example of that.
I must mention that some amazing independent reporters like Ahmed Moor (who is writing for Mondoweiss and sometimes Al-Jazeera English) and Sharif Koudouss (of Democracy Now—who just flew into Cairo) are doing remarkable reportage, even though they are not necessarily backed by major news bureaus
Empty says: January 29, 2011 at 1:36 pm
The gnostic/mystical element is quite clear in the Republic and the allegory of cave; where men perceive shadows until exposed to Light (the Gnostic Knowledge/Philosophic knowledge).
A mystic can conclude that there is a God – that is not too hard a concept to grasp; one could just look up on a clear Winter night and behold the stars to infer and develop the conception of a unique and eternal presence that has caused everthing to exist.
However, Plato never arrived at the proposition that every single human life is valuable, intrinsically. He could never justify such a proposition on basis of his doctrine of Justice nor would his use of logic permit him to conclude that the Creator/God/Principle/Absolute cares about every single human being that has lived or will live. That, in fact, God has a covenant with each human being.
This insight, this assumption, this proposition, is owed to the Revelations of God first stated in the First Book of Moses. That is what is meant by Faith.
What would free and fair elections look like in Egypt?
Would El Baradei be a contender?
Seems like Israel would do their best to make sure he was not
As folks noted Mondoweiss is back up but they were absolutely down for awhile. Some amazing blogging happenning directly from Egypt over there. Informed Comment still down. Wonder who they are trying to stream from Egypt.
Just wish the protest in the states before the invasion of Iraq would have received even a fraction of the coverage that these protest are receiving. Hundreds of thousands might be alive today. maybe
When will our MSM cover the Palestinian protest that have taken place over decades?
fyi,
Does the production of LEU make Iran “strong”? Isn’t the matter almost entirely one of national pride rather than strength? This of course assumes Iran will not develop or attempt to develop nukes.
RE: “I hope Passerby changes his name if he decides to linger.”
Picking on aliases again, ha?! :) not to worry….under George Bush’s “Blue Sky Initiative,” they enacted a host of policies that were some of the most notoriously air polluting policies ever enacted in the United States.
War is peace….kachal is zolfali….koor is einali….Ariel Sharon is a man of peace, and a passerby eats کنگر and throws لنگر.
Unknown Unknowns says: January 29, 2011 at 12:55 pm
In regards to your comments specifically on Alast and God’s Covenant with Souls of all human beings who were ever to live: this reminds me of the Covenant of the Wise Lord in Din Behi with the Souls of all human beings.
The Wise Lord offered these souls the choice to enter the world (speicifically created to trap the Evil Essence and to neutralize it) and to fight the Lord of Lies and to die in the world – but with the promise of Eternal life was the Evil Essence’s potentiality has been captured and imprisoned forever.
Empty:
The stroy of Cane and Abel are pertinent to the human beings and not to the collection of human beings organized in states, tribes, families, etc. It is incumbent on the Mulsim Thinkers to develop the moral structure applicable to collection of human beings. Such a moral theory does not currently exist among Muslims.
To my knowledge, The Quran, like the Old Testament, endorses the idea that certain collection human beings so organized may be collectively held to be evil. Thus Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed as well as the A’ad and Samud. That is, the Quran and the Old Testament establish the principle of collective punishment meted out by God.
US-EU Axis, the Russian, the Chinese, the Indians, the Japanese subscribe to the idea of Collective Punishment and Collective Guilt. And they firmly and implicity believe in the Fall of Man. It is only in this manner that their strategic framework could be understood.
fyi says: January 29, 2011 at 1:18 pm
fleeing to Saudi Arabia= openly welcoming the disease.
with the level of anger that we see in the Arab world, it will be equal to committing suicide for Saudis. I don’t think they would do that. obviously there are not that stupid.
Given that Suleiman has been named Vice President in Egypt, it is clear that Mubarak and the US are going for the most superficial of “changes”, and intend to wait out the demonstrators, in the belief that the opposition hasn’t a structure strong enough not to whither on the vine.
Ignore that one, try this one:
BibiJon,
RE: “Correct me if I’m wrong but Plato (part of curriculum of Islamic scholars), with no reference to Moses (PBH), Jesus (PBH), or Mohammad (PBH), arrived at the same conclusions. Tyranny, arrogance, etc. are self-defeating because they are unjust.”
I’d like to pick apart your statement (if you don’t mind) to open up a couple of important but implicit points it contains.
1. “Plato (part of curriculum of Islamic scholars), with no reference to Moses (PBH), Jesus (PBH), or Mohammad (PBH), arrived at the same conclusions.”
I do recognize the gist of your statement that perhaps you mean to suggest a direct reference by Plato to the teachings of the monotheistic religions about justice and injustice does not exist. This would be a reference to Abraham (PBH) and Moses (PBH) and Zoroaster, for example, since Plato could not have directly referenced Jesus (PBH) or Mohammad (PBH) as he lived prior to them but your point still remains valid as the two latter ones build on the previous ones.
Too bad that the authenticity of a lot of writings ascribed to Plato is still disputed and he is not around for us to ask and verify. Most Western historians, in their unfortunate attempts to emphasize a supremacy in history and philosophy of the “west” and to deemphasize any influence and link to religious teachings of the time coming from the east, have deliberately “dimmed” the lights of any historical evidence that shows such connections. I think it to be quite extraordinary for a scholar of philosophy and ethics between 3rd – 4th Century BC not to have known the philosophical and ethical teachings based on which Cyrus Cylinder was written in 5th Century BC:
…..his fear of God of the gods came to an end and he increased his cruelty to his people and kingdom every day…..he brought ruin on them all by a yoke without relief…..he explored all lands looking for a just ruler.
A scholar cannot be called intellectually curious if she/he did not fully explore all that were related to her/his field of study. It is entirely possible that he was influenced but a) was not conscious of the influence; b) did not openly admit to and reference such influence; c) did referenced it but was omitted from the pool of evidence and records. Historical evidence does suggest that there were travels and exchanges of all sorts including commercial and cultural between the east and the west (and not just military) at the time such philosophical debates were going on in Greece. All this to say that Plato (and Socrates fro that matter) could not have possibly arrived at his conclusions about ethics in a vacuum and spontaneously independent of the ocean of thoughts within which Greece was nestled. That is just not how the mind or the collective consciousness of society works.
2. Tyranny, arrogance, etc. are self-defeating because they are unjust.
Here, you seem to be suggesting a couple of things: a) that which is unjust is also self defeating; b) tyranny and arrogance are unjust therefore they are self defeating. If indeed those are what you said, then I could add that it is also possible for a list of other things such as democracy to be unjust and thus self defeating (sooner or later). That’s not to say that a democracy is necessarily unjust. It is to assert, however, that just because it’s a democracy it doesn’t mean it is also just.
BibiJon, sorry for the italicized not terminating where it need to.
BibiJon,
RE: “Correct me if I’m wrong but Plato (part of curriculum of Islamic scholars), with no reference to Moses (PBH), Jesus (PBH), or Mohammad (PBH), arrived at the same conclusions. Tyranny, arrogance, etc. are self-defeating because they are unjust.”
I’d like to pick apart your statement (if you don’t mind) to open up a couple of important but implicit points it contains.
1. “Plato (part of curriculum of Islamic scholars), with no reference to Moses (PBH), Jesus (PBH), or Mohammad (PBH), arrived at the same conclusions.”
I do recognize the gist of your statement that perhaps you mean to suggest a direct reference by Plato to the teachings of the monotheistic religions about justice and injustice does not exist. This would be a reference to Abraham (PBH) and Moses (PBH) and Zoroaster, for example, since Plato could not have directly referenced Jesus (PBH) or Mohammad (PBH) as he lived prior to them but your point still remains valid as the two latter ones build on the previous ones.
Too bad that the authenticity of a lot of writings ascribed to Plato is still disputed and he is not around for us to ask and verify. Most Western historians, in their unfortunate attempts to emphasize a supremacy in history and philosophy of the “west” and to deemphasize any influence and link to religious teachings of the time coming from the east, have deliberately “dimmed” the lights of any historical evidence that shows such connections. I think it to be quite extraordinary for a scholar of philosophy and ethics between 3rd – 4th Century BC not to have known the philosophical and ethical teachings based on which Cyrus Cylinder was written in 5th Century BC:
…..his fear of God of the gods came to an end and he increased his cruelty to his people and kingdom every day…..he brought ruin on them all by a yoke without relief…..he explored all lands looking for a just ruler.
A scholar cannot be called intellectually curious if she/he did not fully explore all that were related to her/his field of study. It is entirely possible that he was influenced but a) was not conscious of the influence; b) did not openly admit to and reference such influence; c) did referenced it but was omitted from the pool of evidence and records. Historical evidence does suggest that there were travels and exchanges of all sorts including commercial and cultural between the east and the west (and not just military) at the time such philosophical debates were going on in Greece. All this to say that Plato (and Socrates fro that matter) could not have possibly arrived at his conclusions about ethics in a vacuum and spontaneously independent of the ocean of thoughts within which Greece was nestled. That is just not how the mind or the collective consciousness of society works.
2. Tyranny, arrogance, etc. are self-defeating because they are unjust.
Here, you seem to be suggesting a couple of things: a) that which is unjust is also self defeating; b) tyranny and arrogance are unjust therefore they are self defeating. If indeed those are what you said, then I could add that it is also possible for a list of other things such as democracy to be unjust and thus self defeating (sooner or later). That’s not to say that a democracy is necessarily unjust. It is to assert, however, that just because it’s a democracy it doesn’t mean it is also just.
So, Eric, how does Arnold Evans’ key question apply to the rights of citizens in Iran/Egypt vis a vis their governments, and what part does US play in supporting which?
If “rope-a-dope” strategy is used by Egypt, Mubarek remains in power, the situation of the people of Egypt is not changed, US rhetoric of “spreading democracy” is exposed as hollow; American and Israeli interests are protected. Status quo all around; the people of Egypt lose.
If “rope-a-dope” strategy is used by Iran, the Islamic government remains in power; US-Israeli pressure causes a coalescence of the Iranian people around a government that they might not see as optimal but that is expedient to keep the West at bay, in other words, the situation of the people of Iran is moderately-negatively impacted; US rhetoric of “spreading democracy” is exposed as hollow; American and Israeli interests are frustrated. Pressuring Iran allows Israel to keep its population in a status quo status — suitably kept in a state of dystopia, and the American people’s interests are harmed by being kept in a dystopic state, by being kept in a war-footing rather than open and robust trade posture with Iran. Score: Iranian government: positive; Iranian people: neutral; American people: lose. American government: losers. Israeli people: lose. Israeli government/ideologues: gain.
I accessed Mondoweiss no problem, couldn’t access Informed Comment.
Tel Aviv = Saudi Arabia
Persian Gulf says: January 29, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Saudi Arabia.
where will Mubarak flee to? Tel Aviv?
Re: U.S. foreign policy; can you say “tits up”?
My predictions for the end-game in Egypt are colored by wishful thinking. I definitely want to see Mubarak out.
The US strategy is to make reforms that will not touch on the areas the US cares about and as a second line of defense, position other pro-US regime figures to take the reigns if Mubarak actually falls.
I hope it does not work, but I don’t feel a strong ground for predicting whether it will or not. A leadership will develop if the protests continue, and not the timid and dull El-Baradei, but decisions will begin being made of which structures to surround for example and the people making those decisions will find themselves the leaders of the movement.
The people protesting now will not accept Mubarak or Suleiman, and there is no protester whose surrender would end the protests.
I wish I had a better idea of what is going to happen. I’m sure Mubarak and Suleiman are in firm control of the army. I’m not sure the army will fire on protesters on a large scale.
I find the situation hard to predict from here.
Un known unknowns thanks. Am in direct contact with Weiss. Something is up. Also blocked at Informed Comment.
Why?
Her biggest trip of all was voting for the Iraq war resolution. She seems to feel no quilt what so ever. Plenty of blood on her hands
Suki says:
January 29, 2011 at 9:45 am
US Middle East policy summed-up in one hilarious Hillary moment.
Enjoy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12170071
Kathleen: This is what I got at [Only Slightly Better] Informed Comment:
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@juancole.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
I hope Passerby changes his name if he decides to linger. I imagine there was a time when my buddy Pak (who I kid only becuase he is young and has broad shoulders) was just “passing by”, but then decided to stay.
Just a word of warning, though, Passerby: RFI is kinda like a gay bar, where every once in a while we get the born-again bible-thumper who comes in railing at how evil we are, and begging us to reconsider and change our evil ways. Come to Jeeeeezus… That’s fair enough, in passing. But if you fail to pass on by, you become a troll in so far as you start liking the attention you are getting from the old fogies who are hoping to “turn” the neophyte. So, if you decide to stay, and you are welcome to, just remember to change your name to Gaylord or something similarly appropriate, and remember that this is a gay bar. If you want straight discussion, go to Iranian.com or some other straight sight.
Would folks try getting to Mondoweiss and Informed Comment?
Trouble accessing?
Phillip Weiss has responded and there are problems accessing at Mondoweiss. Also at Informed Comment
Unbeliever is another depressed pro-western green who can’t stand to see the picture at the top of the article.
@ Unbeliever
1. Welcome to RFI
2. There is no such thing as an unbeliever. You cannot get away from believing in something. It is just a question of what it is that you believe in, and whether you join the intersubjective reality of your community, or chose to live the life of an irrelevant martyr on the disenfranchised fringe. Witness the two different readings of the sentence “Nothing is sacred” (iranian.com’s oxymoronic subheading – sorry JJ). The second reading posits Nothing or nothingness as sacred, which is indeed the nihilism you end up with when you reject the revelation of your Lord and Maker.
3. “There is nowhere I have visited that is as miserable as Iran.” Different strokes for different folks, I guess. For me, it is heaven on earth here. Possibly what you characterize as misery was cognitive dissonance?
Unbeliever says: January 29, 2011 at 12:00 pm
What alternative moral structure do you propose that will give value and dignity to human life?
Castellio is still thinking(about an alternative).
the I lobby will be up in arms if El Baradei was chosen to lead a transition in Egypt. Sure don’t want any one bringing up Israel’c continued refusal to sign onto the NPT. Along with India and Pakistan.
amazing how much coverage these protest are getting. Hell the Palestinians have been protesting for decades. Our MSM is silent. Goldstone report…silence.
Hell hundreds of thousands of us (millions nation wide, 30 million world wide) protested the invasion of Iraq before the invasion. We barely received minutes of coverage from our .
Hell Rachel Maddow eill cover protesters in Iran and Egypt but forget about Palestinian or anti war protesters.
Unbeliever says:
January 29, 2011 at 12:00 pm
You wrote :
“There is nowhere I have visited that is as miserable as Iran.”
Iran is a huge country of around 1.7 million sqm , where have you been “insanE” Unbeliever , tell us…
@ fyi:
I submit that ultimately, I cannot be sure. I have little confidence in the opinions of our so-called ‘ulama, who by and large are not even trying to catch up on 1,000 years of gheflat. But my gut tells me that Seyyed Khamenei’s position is the correct one. But, having said that, it could simply be the optimism of youth speaking ;o)
O.K. Now this is interesting. Am at a public library in Dayton Ohio and can not access Phillip Weiss and Adam Horowitz’s site Mondoweiss and can not access Professor Juan Cole’s site. The library technician said access is shut down.
Just sent this off to Phil and Adam
Phil /Adam am at a public library in Dayton Ohio can not access your site from the library. Just asked a library technician what the problem is. She said access has been shut down. Do you know what this is all about?
this is what keeps coming up:
” Network Access Message: The website cannot be found
Explanation: There was no response to the name resolution request. As a result the IP address for the website you requested could not be found.
Try the following:
Refresh page: Search for the page again by clicking the Refresh button. The timeout may have occurred due to Internet congestion.
Check spelling: Check that you typed the Web page address correctly. The address may have been mistyped.
Access from a link: If there is a link to the page you are looking for, try accessing the page from that link.
If you are still not able to view the requested page, try contacting your administrator or Helpdesk.
Technical Information (for support personnel)
Error Code 11002: Host not found
Background: This error indicates that the gateway could not find an authoritative DNS server for the website you are trying to access.
Date: 1/29/2011 4:50:56 PM
Server: bess-isa.daytonmetrolibrary.org
Source: DNS problem
Just read Emptywheel’s (Marcy Wheeler at Firedoglake) piece about Robert Gibbs/Whitehouse demanding Mubarak open up access to Internet and other communication networks. Too bad we did not hear this out of them when the Israeli government shut down all communication outlets to those on the Mavi Marmara and the other boats involved with the Palestinian humanitarian effort. Israel has shut down the communication outlets numerous times to Palestinian protest.
Amazing how much coverage the so called progressive media and other media outlets are giving these protest. For decades and until this day they will not give any coverage to Palestinian protest. Zip Zero Nada. Barely gave any coverage to the anti invasion protest before or after the invasion. Rachel Maddow will not even get close Palestinian protesters or any other issue having to do with the middle east. Real progressive. But of course she will hammer on Iran and cover the protesters there. Fair and balanced (choke)
This morning on Washington Journal callers were bringing up Israel and the host was really shutting them down. Something is up at CSpan
P.S. amazing that Rep Ros Lehtinen is calling for free speech, protesting etc in Egypt. She has done everything in her power to shut down any effort of the Palestinians. In fact did everything to undermine their free and fair elections and the results. What hypocrisy.
No Unknown Unknowns:
fitra + (nubuwwa + imama + wilaya / islam + iman + ihsan) = insanE
the sooner Iranians ditch the insanity that is Islam (or Christianity, Judaism, Hinduis etc), the sooner they get on the path of progress and celebrating their short lives with some joy. There is nowhere I have visited that is as miserable as Iran.
The masters of the alpha dog realize that he is not just a little long in the tooth, and so, because of his age and state of ill health, I don’t think there is any question that this uprising will be used as the occasion (rather than the cause) of his demise. This is why they are talking to the beta and gamma dogs-in-waiting of the army. (i.e., if alpha dog was a spring chicken, the same could not be said. I don’t know about you, but I *like* mixed metaphors).
So I think the question is not whether he will stay. He will not. Rather, it is a question of whether the master will be able to manage a smooth (slick) changing of the guards in order to maintain what BiBiJon rightly points out is an elemental asset. If Egypt escapes from the clutches of Uncle Sam, it will be a game changer almost as momentous as the Iranian Revolution. And so, if it is to happen, expect Uncle Obama to show his true colors (i.e., to show his [White]house-nigger subservience to the ZOG/ violence-addicted state).
Apologies in advance for being a tad old-fashioned in using the n-word. I do it not out of spite but for the good of the brother’s soul :o)
I’m not holding my breath.
Sorry, made a mistake during the post.
Unknown Unknowns:
I disagree, of course, with Mr. Khamenei.
One has the duty to defend Good if he can and certainly one’s self (in the service of God).
US-EU Axis, ultimately, care more about Los Angeles, Paris, and Berlin than Tel Aviv . And in the course of US-EU Axis nuclear meetings with Iran (really confrontations) their representatives stated numerous times that they did not want Iran to have the nuclear capability since that would make Iran too strong – I imagine that meant that too strong for US-EU Axis to go casually go to war with.
The original impetus for leaving NPT was the nuclear explosions of India and Pakistan in 1998. To that now must be added the prolonged and escalating confrontation with US-EU “We have 3400 warships.” Axis. The possession of deliverable nuclear weapons by Iran will make the cost of war with Iran very high indeed for these states and for other enemies of Iran.
I am metaphysically certain that had Iran possessed nuclear weapons, we would not have any public meetings anywhere by anyone causally discussion going to war with her. None. These are the wages of Iranian weakness that must be overcome forthwith.
Those who state that the possession of nuclear weapons makes Iran a target, are unaware, apparently, that Iran has been a target since 1950s; either by US or by USSR. In some of these war games that the super-powers indulge in, one side would be destroying Iran – or parts of her – to deny her to the other side the use of Iranian resources. And the side could be US or USSR (Russia), it does not make any difference.
Iran does not have to have a second strike capability – only the ability to destroy hundreds thousands of of human beings in a few minutes. It is like someone choosing to attack one’s much weaker neighbor; coming back a cripple after having successfully killed that neighbor.
On the positive side, please note that the nuclear weapons have kept peace between US-EU Axis on the one side and USSR (Russia) on the other side in Europe. Similarly, nuclear weapons have also kept the peace between USSR (Russia) and People’s Republic of China. And I imagine the same is holding between US and China. Likewise, on the Korean peninsula, peace is being kept due to the ability of DPRK to kill or cripple hundreds of thousands of people in Seoul (even without such weapons).
The critical ability is the power to destroy hundreds of thousands in a few minutes.
Now, if you do not like nuclear weapons, consider then building fuel-air explosive weapons with almost the same lethality. And those weapons – which US possesses – do not fall under any international arms control convention. In fact, in any full-scale war with Iran, US could be using fuel-air explosive weapons to kill 3 to 5 percent of Iranian population to bring about state collapse. The Americans will not need nuclear weapons.
All weapons are evil, just as all men are a mixture of Good and Evil, since God has endowed men with is own Essence, which is both Absolute Evil and Absolute Good. Now, since men are in a state of Fall, it follows that men cannot be dependent on the Good Will of other human beings to protect themselves from Evil men.
Those who aspire to Good have a duty both to God and to their progeny to also aspire to Strength to protect themselves and to keep the Word of God alive. Regrettably, the confrontation between US-EU Axis and Islamic Republic of Iran is more and more taking the characteristics of a Unbelief confronting Belief.
While I have trust in the Almighty, I also recall that his blessings fall on those who are active and pro-active and not just merely passive waiting for his aide.
Mr. Jack Straw, one of the few sane leaders among US-EU Axis leaders, upon stating that it was inconceivable to talk of war with Iran, was swiftly removed from his position as UK Foreign Minister. That was, in my opinion, “a sign to those who see”.
On the positive side, please note that the nuclear weapons have kept peace between US-EU Axis on the one side and USSR (Russia) on the other side in Europe. Similarly, nuclear weapons have also kept the peace between USSR (Russia) and People’s Republic of China. And I imagine the same is holding between US and China. Likewise, on the Korean peninsula, peace is being kept due to the ability of DPRK to kill or cripple hundreds of thousands of people in Seoul (even without such weapons).
The critical ability is the power to destroy hundreds of thousands in a few minutes.
Now, if you do not like nuclear weapons, consider then building fuel-air explosive weapons with almost the same lethality. And those weapons – which US possesses – do not fall under any international arms control convention. In fact, in any full-scale war with Iran, US could be using fuel-air explosive weapons to kill 3 to 5 percent of Iranian population to bring about state collapse. The Americans will not need nuclear weapons.
All weapons are evil, just as all men are a mixture of Good and Evil, since God has endowed men with is own Essence, which is both Absolute Evil and Absolute Good. Now, since men are in a state of Fall, it follows that men cannot be dependent on the Good Will of other human beings to protect themselves from Evil men.
Those who aspire to Good have a duty both to God and to their progeny to also aspire to Strength to protect themselves and to keep the Word of God alive. Regrettably, the confrontation between US-EU Axis and Islamic Republic of Iran is more and more taking the characteristics of a Unbelief confronting Belief.
While I have trust in the Almighty, I also recall that his blessings fall on those who are active and pro-active and not just merely passive waiting for his aide.
Mr. Jack Straw, one of the few sane leaders among US-EU Axis leaders, upon stating that it was inconceivable to talk of war with Iran, was swiftly removed from his position as UK Foreign Minister. That was, in my opinion, “a sign to those who see”.
{I would voluntarily observe the Additional Protocol to keep the US wolves at bay for a while — delaying or avoiding the less desirable alternatives of tougher sanctions or military attack).}
What is this nonsense? Iran should not observe additional protocol unless the war mongers recognize Iran nuclear program FULLY and remove all the illegal SANCTIONS.
If anyone has read the ’secret papers’ published by Algazeera, then would not give such a ill advice. Israel is directing the petty man, Obama, and the US middle east policy including North Africa. We have seen the jewish lobby is designing policy according to ODED YINON STRATEGY which is based on destabilization, partition and regime change to benefit the Judeofasits to erect ‘greater Israel’ in the region. War in Iraq, to divide the country into different part based on phony ‘federation’ to creat a puppet entity, “Kurdistan” and partion of southern Sudan, are all part of the strategy. As the ’secret papers’ showed “the peace process’ is NOTHING BUT HOAX. The judeofascists want to steal all of historical Palestine and beyond to be the power of the region. Therefore, there is no plan to improve the relations with Iran, only “regime change”. Iranians must be alret and destroy the enemy fully if they dare to attack Iran.
I found a story (1/28 NYT) that describes well what is meant by a “rope a dope” strategy — and reminds me where I first heard the term: the 1974 Muhammad Ali v. George Foreman title fight. As I’ve written before, if I were running Iran, “rope a dope” would be my essential strategy toward the US government (which is why, for example, I consider Stuxnet to have been a nearly invaluable gift-of-time from the war-mongers to Iran, and why, though my purpose is less obvious when I make this recommendation, I would voluntarily observe the Additional Protocol to keep the US wolves at bay for a while — delaying or avoiding the less desirable alternatives of tougher sanctions or military attack).
Here is the passage I’m referring to, though it happens to describe a different crisis (the current situation in Egypt):
“But the [Egyptian] government appears to be sticking to its version of the “rope-a-dope” strategy Muhammad Ali used to defeat George Foreman in 1974. Mr. Ali spent round after round against the ropes as Mr. Foreman pounded himself into exhaustion. And then Mr. Ali knocked him out.”
It worked for Ali. It probably will work for the Egyptian government, though it inevitably will have to bend a little bit (as much as it is instructed to bend by the US government). And it will probably work for Iran, though it too may need to bend a little.
Passerby’s comparison between Iran and Egypt is absurd. Bitter green feelings I suppose.
If the banned political parties are unbanned, political prisoners released and Mubarak is removed from power then that is pretty much enough that over the next year or two an Egyptian political process will develop with leaders we have not heard of yet.
I have to say that if the protesters stay out until Mubarak is gone, there is a decent chance we will see an independent Egypt starting to crystallize in 2011 – which is a nightmare scenario for Israel and an end to the enormous strategic benefits the Israel gets from the fact that Egypt is currently a US colonial puppet along with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and others.
Empty @ “Abel seems to be saying something like “that’s not how I was ‘brought up’ by the One Who ‘brought me up’” or something like that.”
That’s exactly right, i.e., amuzesh va parvaresh :: amuzegar va parvardegar
fitra + (nubuwwa + imama + wilaya / islam + iman + ihsan) = insan
That, in any event, is how we see it, and how we interpret and give significance to the hadith ath-thaqalayn, the ayat ut-taharat (33:33), the Event of Ghadir Khum, and so on down the line.
Jerusalem ‘Museum on the Seam’: We are all terrorists
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/%e2%80%98museum-on-the-seam%e2%80%99-we-are-all-terrorists/
Passerby:
So “direct talks” with Iran are no different than the “close ties” the US has with Egypt?
If you can’t find any difference between the US’ relationship with Egypt and direct talks then there is a lot you don’t understand about direct talks and especially about the US’ relationship with Egypt.
Unknown Unknowns,
I agree with the overall message of your post to fyi in terms of rejecting the use of nuclear weapon altogether to illustrate which “tools” are permissible and which are not by Quran’s standards. In fact, I initially began to write the following conversation between Cane and Abel (that included the word “Rabb”) in Al-Ma’edeh Chapter (5), Verse 28, when Abel’s sacrifice was accepted on account of being based on sincerity and Cane’s was rejected as it was insincere and based on arrogance and false pride. Cane threatens to kill Abel and Abel responds: “if you extend your hand (engage in transgression) to kill me, I shall not extend my hand (use transgression) to kill you for I fear God who is “Rabba-al-Alamin” the “Rabb” of the two world.” In other words, Abel seems to be saying something like “that’s not how I was ‘brought up’ by the One Who ‘brought me up’” or something like that.
Of course I have to note that I am not meaning to suggest that you’re Abel and fyi is Cane. Rather, I mean to suggest that two different worldviews are being advocated here: One closely resembles that of Abel (as I interpret it) and the other closely resembles that of Cane [Ethical principles based on either Formalism or Consequentialism, that is].
“Like her predecessor, Condoleeza Rice, and many contemporary commentators, Secretary Clinton seems to think that popular movements for political change in Arab countries are ultimately good news for the United States. The unspoken (and, we suspect, unexamined) assumption is that, by prompting “liberalization” or even “democratization”, such movements not only affirm values Americans hold dear, but also help to stabilize and ensure the longevity of America’s key strategic partnerships in the Middle East.”
do they really think this way or it’s just the Leveretts frustration with Clinton? Clinton looks wiser than this. well, it could simply be like her initial false impression of victory in the last U.S election.
“affirm values Americans hold dear”:
yes to a very small degree and with a different perspective. it’s like looking at a pic with lens. the image is distorted. Americans, unlike Arabs, do not need feel suppressed externally. Arabs see Israel/the U.S an impediment to exercise those values dear to Americans, if any!
and I didn’t talk about a very important factor: ISLAM
the core ideology is in sharp contrast to most of the values Americans hold dear! I have said this here before. one with a good grasp of Islam and the American values would know what it means.
When it comes to Iran, the Leveretts argue that the US should talk to Iran regardless of who is in power, how that person came into power and how much they have mistreated their own citizens or violated human rights. All they’re asking for essentially is DIRECT TALKS REGARDLESS of Iran’s domestic problems… That’s how they have time and again justified imprisonment of activists, students, artists, journalists, lawyers, etc. “Not our problem” they’ve argued.
Now when it comes to Egypt… The US does engage the government as in direct talks – regardless of Mubarak government’s domestic problems and human rights abuses. This is exactly what the Leveretts are arguing for Iran. But while in Egypt’s case such close ties just makes Mubarak a puppet of the United States – in Iran’s case it is meant to be sane foreign policy.
Furthermore, remember all the hell raised by the Leveretts and their supporters over the “evil Western media’s coverage of the 2009 Iranian elections?” Well, they seem to be enjoying the coverage on Egypt now that they are on the side of the oppressed (the people) and not the oppressor (IRI government). If the Western media was so evil Egypt’s uprising and questioning of US government’s close ties with a dictator would not have been front page news on every website, MSM news network and paper… But it is…
US Middle East policy summed-up in one hilarious Hillary moment.
Enjoy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12170071
http://www.livestation.com/channels/43-al_jazeera_arabic
إِن تَنصُرُوا اللَّهَ يَنصُرْكُمْ وَيُثَبِّتْ أَقْدَامَكُمْ
Empty says:
January 29, 2011 at 9:24 am
Correct me if I’m wrong but Plato (part of curriculum of Islamic scholars), with no reference to Moses (PBH), Jesus (PBH), or Mohammad (PBH), arrived at the same conclusions. Tyranny, arrogance, etc. are self-defeating because they are unjust.
I think the various narratives of resistance are rooted in individual identity-politics of nations. The common thread among these narratives is resistance to injustice, and oppression.
Bibijon,
RE: “I wonder at what point folks realize it is not Islamism that binds these events. The common denominator is hatred towards global powers and their tentacles in Greece, Italy, Egypt, Tunisia and wherever else there have been uprisings, demonstrations and revolts.”
It would be a fallacy (of false dichotomies) to think it’s an “either or” situation. People reject that which is unjust AND want to build on that which is just. “La elah” is always followed by “ellal-lah”. The ultimate meaning of arrogance (تکبر) is understood when a given power thinks of itself as so invincible that puts aside all pretense and does things because it can and it thinks (incorrectly of course) that it can get away with it.
Top Egyptian military brass were/are in the US discussing the situation with their “counterparts” (masters). The US will never let Egypt slip out of its hands into a genuine democracy.
Allowing a genuine democracy or even any legitimate semblance of a genuine democracy to flourish in Egypt is simply too consequential for the US/Israel/Saudi/Jordan… And not because any bogus fears of a takeover by the Islamic Brotherhood, any legitimate concerns about the Suez Canal, foreign investment by multinational corporations, the oil fields and the refineries, or that it would pose any real threat to Israel in the foreseeable future.
The US will not allow Egypt to slip out of its hands and into a real democracy because an Egyptian government, truly representative of its people, might force Israel to put a lid on its impunities and of course, we can’t have that.
Empty:
I agree with you that sheepishness is antithetical to Islam.
Islamic anthropology posits man as the vice-regent of God who is meant to live on Earth because he *chose* to take on that Trust (which was offered to the Heavens and the Mountains, who shrank [from accepting the responsibility] thereof), whereas in Christian dogma that august and noble status has degenerated into a gnostic world-as-crypt spirit wherein man is thrust down due to a massive Original Sin (thus necessitating the need for the alleged redemptive self-sacrifice of the Christ, et cetera ad nauseum).
I simply wanted to accentuate the nurturing and caring facets that shine in the name Rabb. You know, rabbi is actually the closest thing that I can think of. But again, this is only for the benefit of non-Persian speakers. In Persian, we have an eact equivalent, which of course is Parvardegar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63Bn6AfjCek
There are reports the rank and file in the army are refusing to confront the protests.
Once Mubarak knows his patriotic soldiers have given up on him, he must go.
http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/
bybye Mubarak! :-> go to hell :o)
I once came across a neat explanation for the sonic boom effect of a supersonic jet plane. “The boom is all the sound of the roaring engines which you sould have been hearing for some time, compressed and delivered to your ears in one loud sonic package.”
Are mid-eastern popular uprisings the delayed boom effect of the war on terror? Are 10 years’ worth of the roar of the twin engines (abu-Ghraib, Guantanamo) being delivered in a compressed package?
There have been some neocon commentaries about Iran, and the 1979 revolution being the inspiration for the Egyptian uprising. I wonder at what point folks realize it is not Islamism that binds these events. The common denominator is hatred towards global powers and their tentacles in Greece, Italy, Egypt, Tunisia and wherever else there have been uprisings, demonstrations and revolts.
Unknown Unknowns,
“there is no equivalent to the Arabic *rabb* in English or any other language that I am aware – the phrase in English that comes closest to expressing the precept is “The Good Shepherd”)”
1. The nearest interpretation of رب would be “Processor” (as in computer processor) in English. It is repeated in Quran as “Rabbon” 84 times and as “Rabba” 67 times. If you do a relational content analysis (i.e. extract the meaning of the word within, and in relation to, the surrounding texts in the “Ayaat” or verses), you’ll see how within its context, رب could be thought of as an advanced CPU in some sort of a giant computer. Other words of the same root would be: مربی (trainer) , تربیت (up bringing), and “robb” and “morabba” (processed tomatoes and processed fruits! :)
2. Of all God’s اسماء (Names) in Quran, none has a meaning equivalent to “the good shepherd” that has been promoted in modified Christianity. Such meaning, by design, would define, characterize, and train “the believers” to think of themselves as herds or sheep. This type of belief is rejected in Quran as it is mechanical and automated rather than being a consequence of deeply reflective and purposeful thinking.
Rehmat: I would hesitate to predict the outcome of a regime change in Egypt based on a popular revolution. I would agree that it’s unlikely El Baradei would oppose the US/Israel clique. However, at the very least he probably wouldn’t be in a hurry to let Egypt reflexively obey US and Israel orders which harm the Palestinians or support a war with Iran.
As Arnold has pointed out, a regime in these countries which is more compliant with the popular will is not going to be a US/Israel puppet to the same degree as Mubarak or the Shah of Iran. That said, of course they don’t have the sort of leader as a Nasrallah, so we shouldn’t expect too much.
Let’s wait and see what happens if Mubarak is overthrown before predisposing the results.
Richard Steven Hack – Israelis know Egypt better than you. According to JP, they don’t expect Egypt slipping away under the fingers of US-Israel influence no matter who else replaces Mubarak. The reason is neither El Baradei nor Muslim Brotherhood (in the present shape) are looking for an Iran-style Islamic state or Hizbullah-style resistance. El Baradei, is traditional pro-western scularist and will certainly prefer to stay in US-Israel-Saudi block.
Egyptians have no leadership of Ahmadinejad or of Nasrallah capability. What is going on in Egypt is similar to what is being desperately being salvaged in Tunisia – A REGIME CHANGE FOR ISRAEL.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/tunisia-regime-change-by-and-for-israel/
Here is some more from Time magazine from writer Abigail Hauslohner a Zionist in Cairo headlined, “After Tunisia: Why Egypt Isn’t Ready to Have Its Own Revolution:’
“A greater percentage of Egypt’s population than Tunisia’s lives below the poverty line, she writes. “The citizens of Egypt regularly complain of a neglectful regime that knows more about torture than it does about public service, and they’re furious with a regime that seems to swallow any domestic profits before they can reach the lower classes. And yet no one predicts a revolutionary reset anytime soon.”
“Two factors distinguish Egypt from Tunisia in this respect, Hauslohner writes: Tunisia’s government spent generously on education, creating a frustrated educated but unemployed population. And in Egypt, “the military stands with” Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.”
This poor Zionist reporter thinks that having MORE people living in great poverty=no revolution. HAHAHA. This is how bad the insanity is. Note also how she claims that not educating people means they can’t revolt. Interesting, considering how the Russian and Chinese peasants who could barely read actually managed major revolutions. Not to mention the French peasants. Or peasants in many other revolts in history. Typical Zionist trash in our Western mainstream media
fyi said:
“I hope those who read this will comprehend the absolute strategic necessity of Iran leaving NPT and deploying deliverable nuclear weapons.
There is, unfortunately, no other way.”
While I continue to be enthralled by your analyses and read every one of your posts, I must respectfully disagree.
To take the position that God in His Wisdom has left no alternative to the community of His final prophet, with whom be peace, is, I would venture, a form of kufr. When you consider the etymology of the term, whereby its tri-letteral root (jazr), ka-fa-ra, means “to cover up”, all forms of pessimism, when taken far enough in the negative direction, become nothing less than a covering up of God’s bounty, and the latitude that He provides us in the way we transact our lives.
When all the souls of the Sons and Daughters of Adam were gathered around His Presence on the Day of Alast in Pre-Eternity (azal ul-aazaal, which actually means in the pre-eternity of pre-eternities) and answered in the affirmative to the posed question, Alast-u bi rabbikum? (Am I not your Lord?), what was implicit in the sacred Covenant that we all entered in was that our Lord would keep up His side of the Bargain, which was to be our Rabb (= parvardegaar; Nourishing and Cherishing Lord; there is no equivalent to the Arabic *rabb* in English or any other language that I am aware – the phrase in English that comes closest to expressing the precept is “The Good Shepherd”). In other words, we agreed to obey Him and His commands, and in turn, He would guide us and provide honorable livelihoods for us. It is this percept of the Covenant of Alast (whereby Man – or humankind, if you prefer – took on the onus or Burden of the Viceregency of God on Earth – khalifatollah fil-ardh) that is the key to understanding the Shi’a religious texture that insists that there *must be* a dayerat ul-imama (Cycle of Imamate) following the Advent of Muhammad, who was the Seal of the Cycle of Prophecy (dayirat un-nubuwwa). (Similarly, it is this same impetus that gave rise to the twin phenomena central to the Shi’a pathos, namely the dayerat ul-wilaya (Cycle of Guardianship) and wilayat al-faqih (Guardianship of the Jurisconsult) following the ghaybat ul-kobra (Greater Occultation).
For all his shortcomings (he is, after all, only human and decidedly not inerrant), Seyyed Ali Khamenei’s fatwa regarding the haraam status of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons specifically is one of the very few triumphs of latter-day Shi’a jurisprudence.
Another equally important triumph is that when our Vali so opines, unlike our Christian and “post-Christian” brothers to our West, we do not have to wonder as to its veracity or worse, as to his sincerity – unlike “Guardians” of the Western tradition such as Billary and Barack, for whom the determination of whether or not they are lying is as simple an act as observing whether or not their lips are moving.
So in conclusion, dear fyi, I suggest that not only is your position on the nuclear issue, as good-intentioned as it is, proscribed religiously (wa’s-salaam), but that it is, alhamdullilah, impractical both because of the fact that there is a quantity and quality (2nd strike capability, for example) gap that we would not be able to breach, but also because, even if we did, this new vista would still not give us any added strategic advantage, as we would never be able to use these inherently evil weapons, or even threaten to use them. And rightly so.
So take comfort in the fact that our Parvardegar, in His wisdom, has and always will provide us with some alternatives for righteous living, no matter how ugly things get, up until the Resurrection. If, in your gheflat (heedlessness) you forgot God’s grace and bounty, rejoice in the good news that laa houl-u wa laa quwwatu illa bi’llah, wa maa shaa allah.
“There is, unfortunately, no other way.”
The other way is sabr, iman and rasti.
*Rasti* kon ke rastan resand…
Let us remember our pre-eternal Covenant
Let us remember ourselves
Let us be faithful to our Promise
Let us not join in the ghefla of our cousins who
in their forgetfullness
turned their backs to the Grace and Bounty of God
and seeing no alternative
to filling their acutely felt spiritual void
daily take steps against the Will of God
toward immanentizing the Escaton.
Let us spend this Period of Waiting (intizar) with saboori (patience and perseverence) and not wander from the Straight Path.
Ameen.
Oh, I think it’s just so HOPELESSLY naive to claim that Clinton actually thinks democratization will help the US in the Middle East. Come on, that’s hogwash. US political elites have been firmly committed to authoritarian regimes in the region for decades. All that Clinton is doing is performing a ritual, as you note yourselves, nearly the exact same ritual they performed over Honduras, not two years ago (remember? where they pretended to oppose a coup and to support democratic rule, but covertly did the exact opposite to opposing the coup and supporting democracy). It is a game that has been played over and over and over again, and I think only the US public ever falls for it these days.
Even the example of the 2006 Palestine election doesn’t wash. It was obvious that the US had a plan in place in case Hamas won, which they simply rolled out after Hamas DID win, effectively preventing Hamas from actually governing virtually right away. The whole thing was just theater, meant to support the Bush administration’s claim that its invasion of Iraq was really about democracy and not about oil. No matter what happened in the 2006 election, Fatah was going to be installed as a Vichy regime in Palestine. I’m sure the Bush administration hoped that Fatah might actually win the election, but clearly they didn’t have much confidence in that, as they had quite a robust Plan B.
Liz says: January 29, 2011 at 12:51 am
With Mubarak finsihed, Tunisia in flux, Yemen simmering, and Jordan percolating, the US-EU Axis and their vassals gather in Switzerland and publicly debate going to war with a sovereign state that has not attacked anyone in 150 years.
I hope those who read this will comprehend the absolute strategic necessity of Iran leaving NPT and deploying deliverable nuclear weapons.
There is, unfortunately, no other way.
January 28 – 30, 2011
A Very Fine Thing
The Egyptian Revolution
By GARY LEUPP
January 28, 2011, Day of Rage.
I’m watching live coverage of the Egyptian revolution on Al-Jazeera TV. Cairo is swarming with hundreds of thousands, defying the curfew, hurling stones at the police. The images recall the Palestinian youth waging their Intifadas. The National Democratic Party headquarters is in flames. Downtown Suez has been taken over by the people, two police stations torched. The security forces are out in strength and shooting into crowds. But the people have lost their fear.
Reporters and commentators on Al-Jazeera and other channels have no choice but to note that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is widely hated, and that those in the street are seeking freedom from a dictatorship. But they also keep saying “The situation is getting worse.”
Worse?
I think of Mao Zedong’s response to critics of peasant rebellion in China in 1927. He noted that “even progressive people” saw uprisings as “terrible.” “But it’s not terrible,” he declared. “It is anything but ‘terrible.’ It’s fine!”
Watching the live coverage, I see the people of Egypt, fed up with their oppression, and inspired by the revolution in Tunisia, doing something very, very fine. It is inspiring. It is profoundly hopeful.
The Obama administration line (as summarized by Joe Biden, interviewed by Jim Lehrer on PBS), can be summarized as follows: Egyptians have the right to protest. Many are middle class folks, with legitimate concerns. But we should not refer to Mubarak as a dictator. It’s not time for him to go. He has been a key ally of the U.S. and Israel, in the “Middle East peace process” and the War on Terror. Egypt is dissimilar to Tunisia, and it would be “a stretch” to suggest that a trend is underway. The U.S. should encourage those protesting and Mubarak to talk. Everyone should avoid violence.
The mainstream infotainment media spin can be summarized like this: The “unrest” in Egypt puts the U.S. in a difficult position. On the one hand Mubarak has abetted U.S. “national interests” and been Israel’s only Arab ally. (These two are always assumed to be closely linked; the notion that an Arab leader is a friend of the U.S. to the extend that he kisses Israel’s ass is never questioned.) On the other hand, U.S. officials have been saying for years that the Middle East needs “democratic reform.”
This puts in the U.S. in bind, we are told. The U.S. confronts a “dilemma.” The talking heads depict the U.S. as somehow a victim in this situation. (Isn’t it terrible, they’re implying, that the Egyptian people by their militancy in favor of supposed U.S. ideals are trying to topple the USA’s best friend in the Arab world? What a headache to have to deal with!)
Seems to me however that this is another of those instances of chickens coming home to roost.
The U.S. has supported Mubarak primarily in appreciation for his stance towards Israel. (The mainstream media is referring to him as an “ally” of Israel.) It’s not really because he’s been a “partner in the peace process”—because there is no real peace process. Relentless Israeli settlement activity on Palestinian land supported by the Lobby in the U.S. has insured that.
Wikileaks documents indicate that Mubarak has been content for the “process” to lag indefinitely so that he could represent himself as the vital Arab middleman while enjoying two billion in U.S. military aid per year. But Palestinians hate him for cooperating with the demonization of democratically elected Hamas and the embargo imposed on Gaza. And Egyptians hate him for, among many other things, betraying their Palestinian brothers and sisters.
Rather, the U.S. has supported Mubarak because he’s provided an Arab fig leaf for the unequivocal support for Israel that the U.S. has provided for decades. U.S. diplomats have, as Wikileaks reveal, at times expressed concern that the dictator might be causing some problems by his “heavy-handed” treatment of dissidents. But this is not a matter of moral indignation, or concern about the lives of Egyptians. It’s nothing more than an expression of concern that his fascistic rule might jeopardize his ability to help U.S.-Israeli policy in the region and keep the Suez Canal open.
And now that brutal rule has caused an explosion. The reaction from U.S. officials and political commentators is, “We never expected this.”
Well surprise, surprise! (These folks were dumbfounded by the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as well. Don’t they understand that people eventually fight back?)
I think of that old Langston Hughes poem:
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore–
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over–
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
Egypt is exploding. The deferred dreams of the Arab world are exploding. And even the corporate media acknowledges that the people are jubilant (while warning that none of this might be in “our interest”). But for people with some basic morals, concerned about the happiness of humanity in general, is this not totally fine?
Al-Jazeera shows viewers how U.S. officials are changing the tone of their comments, backing off more and more each day from support of Mubarak. They’re reiterating with increasing emphasis that the demonstrators indeed have legitimacy. (Did these people they just figure this out?) What sheer opportunism!
Obama, always the centrist opportunist wanting to be everybody’s friend, wants to be the Egyptian people’s friend. He showed that in Cairo in 2009. In his celebrated speech to the Muslim world he on the one hand spouted platitudes about U.S. acceptance of Islam and on the other insulted everyone’s intelligence by calling the invasion of Afghanistan a “war of necessity.” He (accurately) described the vicious assault on Iraq as a “war of choice,” but said anything about how those responsible for such a crime ought to be punished. He does not support any investigation that would show how neocon Zionists in his predecessor’s administration faked a case for war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs.
His real message is: the U.S. can lie and kill, and then posture as the moral exemplar (maybe even apologizing slightly when crimes are embarrassingly exposed). Even so, the people of the world are supposed to understand that alignment with the U.S. is the best hope of their best hope.
And now Obama wants the best of both worlds: an ongoing engagement with Mubarak (if he survives), and a hand outstretched to the people of Egypt, tainted by so many other handshakes with so many dictators so far.
Demonstrators in Cairo note that tear gas canisters on the street are marked “Made in USA.” What should they to make of that? Who’s really encouraging their dreams? Who’s caused them to defer them, decade upon decade? It’s the same foe that has caused the deferment of dreams here in this country and around the world.
I learned to say shukran in Cairo. To my friends there now, engaged in this fine, fine battle, I say that now.
Shukran, shukran for inspiring the world, showing that another world might be possible.
Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion.
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp01282011.html
The main thing right now is Mubarak imposed a nation wide curfew – and it’s being completely ignored.
Things don’t look good for him.
Or the other corrupt rulers. As someone commented, “The House of Saud are no doubt wetting their collective pants at the moment.” Notice that Jordan’s king is trying to defuse his situation – demonstrations for weeks – by claiming he’s in favor of new solutions to his country’s problems.
If Mubarak falls and the Muslim Brotherhood, or even El Baradei, takes power, Israel and the US are in deep excrement. And rightfully so.
Good for him:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110128/ap_on_re_us/us_gop_senator_israel
Reports I’m seeing are that the Egyptian protesters are not clashing with the Army. There have been unconfirmed reports that the Army has clashed with police in some places. Protesters are climbing around on tanks unhindered.
I should point out that tanks in an urban environment without significant infantry escort are highly vulnerable to being destroyed in various ways, even without anti-armor rockets and mines. I’m sure the Egyptian army is aware of that. Also, there’s not much a tank can do to a crowd except blow it apart or run over it – and when you have half a million people on the streets, that’s not a good idea. There’s no military in the world – including the US – who can control a half million people in an urban area who are pissed off.
CNN’s Ben Wederman has been tweeting some interesting things, such as criticizing the US supplying of tear gas to Egypt – especially from a company which, according to reports, is a US/Israeli company headquartered in the US which proudly flies the Israeli flag on its offices IN the US.
Wederman tweeted: “Saw ruling party HQ in flames, police huddling in barracks as protesters tried to pursue them. Hearing parliament burning.”
As a result, Egyptian police thugs are attacking CNN/other news media crews, breaking and seizing cameras, roughing up crews. It’s a concerted attack on the media.
Great video footage here: Graphic videos show protesters clashing with Egyptian police – :http://bit.ly/f50Td8
Does anyone have the transcripts?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110128/ap_on_re_eu/eu_davos_forum_iran
Eric A. Brill says: January 28, 2011 at 10:24 pm
I agree with you, it is a canard.
Kaier’s Germany was democratic and so was the Habsburg Austtria.
USA went to war against CSA.
USA against Great Britain (1812).
Great Britain against the Boers’ Republic.
Athens against Sparta.
Rome against Carthage
Fiorangela,
You quoted some official who repeated the familiar “democracies do not initiate wars.” Undoubtedly you and I are not the only ones who find that statement absurd, but what I find discouraging is that officials continue to repeat it. That can only mean that the speaker is quite ignorant or that he is insulting his listeners. Neither possibility is appealing;
Reza Esfandiari says: January 28, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Mubarak is finished.
It is a matter of time before he leaves.
Let us hope for new elections within the next 3 months.
EGYPTEN,SAUDIARABIEN OCH ALLA ANDRA VÄSTVÄNLIGA KAPITALISTER VET ATT DET ÄR FÖRSENT!
Iran är det land vi har följt i historien och detta är inte repris utan en revolution mot satan själv. En hjärtlös diktator som inte har stöd av folket utan från satan endast. Precis som alla gulf länder där det inte finns någon som helst demokrati. Men IRAN är hotet! Jag begrep inte riktigt om religion kultur eller politik förens jag skaffa mig dator och internet, så av lite intresse och nyfikenhet ville jag veta lite om min kultur och mitt hemland. All den infomation jag hade fått tidigare var bara en stor LÖGN! Om nu jag var så vilseledd och jag fick se andra sidan av myntet så tror jag att människorna i runt om i världen också har gjort det. Slutet är nära för imprealism,kapitalism
MIN STORA IDOL ÄR DR MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD.
Fyi,
Egypt does have some oil and a fair amount of gas.
It actually has a lot of wealth – but that wealth is unequally distributed.
I wonder if this protest movement can maintain momentum. It is a battle of wills.
Doost, not even I’d go that far. But I will say this, it did learn and adapt to the situation in ‘09, to a point where it has significantly improved since the election. This while successfully adhering to a policy of less-lethal force, which certainly deserves mentioning.
Fiorangela says: January 28, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Who will fill the power vacuum?
The Army.
doost says: January 28, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Egypt is 70% literate, like Tunisia.
Like all Arab polities, however, it is an inward looking polity.
It has no oil, and therefore grinding poverty.
Its distance from Iran is similar to the distance of Romania from France.
Quantum Formalist says: January 28, 2011 at 6:40 pm
It is the other way arund; Mr. Mubarak’s Government’s demise means diminiuition of US influence.
I think too many people are attributing too much power to US.
very helpful. thanks Castellio.
nahid
Re: your post of January 28, 2011 at 2:44 pm, cutting aids to Israel
Here is the video of what Rand Paul said on CNN.
Rand Paul: End Aid to Israel
http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/27/rand-paul-end-all-aid-to-israe
Dear doost,
Is this an example of “world class training”?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPeEz4lKd8s
Well, look whats happened in the last 10 years: With no evidence or investigation, the US claimed that Muslim terrorists had attacked the United States and killed almost 3,000 and then claimed a right to kill, torture and imprison any and as many Muslims as it wanted to, any where in the world. And the leaders of the Muslim world went along with it, hook, line and sinker. No speeches at the United Nations demanding proof before the United States bombed Muslims.
Not only went along with it but grabbed some people off the streets and tortured them to provide the US with “confessions” for the attacks.
No doubt, Mubarak would allow the US to come into Egypt and slaughter people on a whim. You can always claim they’re terrorists or there were terrorists in the neighborhood.
Comparing Egypt to Iran is an insult to Iranians. Iran is a stable functioning state with a first rate law enforcement capability. Iranian GDP (ppp nominal) is over $938 BILLION or closer to a TRILLION dollars. Egypt with 87 million largely uneducated Felayheen (Nile dealta farmers)lives off US aid as its corrupt military and Mobarek’s family and son siphon off 90% of the aid, hence the riots in the streets. Egypt’s GDP is barely $198 billion with per capita of around $1800 if not less.
Iranian police and anti-riot forces are educated, have world class training and resources and know how to marshall rioters into manageable groups without resort to lethal force. Even the foreign funded agent provocatuers who attacked the banks and other public institutions in Vali Asr could not provoke a harsh response as the motorcycle pillion riding riot police used batons, night sticks and CS (capsicum spray) to easily disperse the rioters. Most Iranians were not interested in any violence anyway. Even under the shah, the rank and file of Artesh refused to fire on fellow Iranians prompting the US to send General Huyser to put some repressive measures but its was TOO LATE. Iranian military is now the most professional battle tested nationalistic force in the region.
The situation is Egypt as any objective person would know, is that the US and its Zionist lapdog have kept a corrupt, repressive and kleptocratic charity case aid dependent regime in power to promote the regional Zionist agenda. Now the US and Zionists will further repress the freedom aspirations of Egyptians by mass murder using Pakistani and Zionist Blackwater/XE mercenaries. This will ensure a Islamic Revolution.
Eric A. Brill says:
January 28, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Pak,
“Your favored candidate, Mousavi, had no complaints at all about Iran’s electoral process – no complaints about excluded candidates, or restrictions on free speech or campaigning, or anything else – until he lost. Had he won, I’ll venture a guess that he’d not have raised any of the complaints he raised after the election.”
Very Good point.
The Islamic republic has had ten elections, Mousavi had no complaints about nine of them except the last one in which he participated.
You do not have to be genius to work out that something stinks badly about Mousavi’s vote-rigging claims.
Israel Lobby is demonizing and demanding that Professor Richard Falks should be fired from his UNHRC job for repeating Dr. Ahmadinejad’s call at the UN General Assembly last year: “9/11 official story is full of contraditions and assumptions and an international inquiry is needed to set the facts straight”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/911-falks-under-attack-for-questioning-official-story/
Dear Fiorangela,
I just saw your post addressed to me. Thank you, at least you are honest about being a hypocrite.
Castellio – According to former US President Jimmy Carter, Gamal Nasser had been on CIA payrol for years. And we all know who put back on the peacock thrown back and how the Israelis trained Shah’s intelligence and bodyguards.
Now, while the Zionist thugs are going wild against Ahmadinejad, they are supporting Hosni Mubarak.
Fiorangela: Remember that Nasser was brought to power by a military revolt, and both Sadat and Mubarak who followed were military. It is reasonable to assume that if there is someone to replace Mubarak, it will either be a military person or someone with clear military backing.
Note that there are security police (more than a million) in Egypt, and the army, and they are not the same. The police are hated. The police have been fighting the rioters, and now the army has been sent in and the rioters are “welcoming” the army… Which makes sense. It’s also what allowed the Tunisian rioters to “win”, they had the support of an organized force that also no longer supported the dictator. My feeling, however, is that in this case (and most likely in Tunisia as well) the army will betray the people.
The west presents the rioters as rabble, and stupid, and under-employed. They are under-employed: they are not stupid, and they have a political sophistication that is genuine. They understand the issues. These riots have put an end to the dreams of Mubarak’s son being the heir. At least that is gone.
The military will look for a way to defuse the situation and wait out public actions, essentially calm down before renegotiating their own pre-eminence, which is constant. Mubarak’s regime is over, not simply because he is so widely disrespected, but because he is 83. Human mortality speaks loudest of all.
America will support the Egyptian military and whoever the army proposes to lead “liberal reforms”, as long as he is malleable on policies affecting Israel. Will liberal reforms happen? Doubtful. El-Baradei will be side lined.
On-going and “strategic” support to the military in Tunisia and Egypt will be the US answer. As long as Egypt remains militarily inferior to Israel, and goes along with Israeli anti-Hamas and anti-Islamist policy the Americans don’t care what happens in Egypt itself. However, the closing of the border to Gaza is part of the humiliation of the Egyptian people. All the major leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood have been rounded up. However, they were not the prime movers of the street actions, but perhaps they had the most to gain from it.
I actually think that the mass of the Egyptian people are not looking for an Islamist solution at all. Many are simply looking for a new strong man (like Nasser, who outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood) who will open up new lines of reciprocity between themselves and the government, and start some overdue economic reforms. Can the army do that? Can it reduce the police repression?
If liberalization falters, then the emergence of a re-energized Islamist movement in Egypt is a possibility, but is weakened from the beginning due to the tiredness of its current structures. From my point of view, an Egypt looking politically like Turkey would not be a bad thing… A democratic government with Islamist leanings and an independent foreign and domestic policy. This would evolve if there were fair and open elections. At this point, that’s very unlikely. Unfortunately.
Others?
ah yes, Israel, the shining exemplar of democracy on a hill (or on every hill), has determined that Egypt is not yet ready for democracy:
Israel believes Egypt’s security forces will be able to suppress the protesters. “We believe that Egypt is going to overcome the current wave of demonstrations, but we have to look to the future,” he said. While it would be better if Egypt were a democracy, since “democracies do not initiate wars,” the minister said, “I’m not sure the time is right for the Arab region to go through the democratic process.”
maybe next year.
on your 16th birthday
when you consistently remember to put the cap on the toothpaste
when pigs fly
Interesting questions, Arnold Evans, but an even larger question is, Who will fill a power vacuum? After 30 years under a mon-arch, are there institutions, organizations, a knowledgeable political class, trained bureaucrats who can step in and run a country, particularly a country with as many challenges as Egypt has?
PS. I’m aware of how ‘orientalist’ that sounds; I’m trying to think pragmatically: who is prepared to step in and rule Egypt? Many Egyptians think El Baradei is an opportunist — is he the only option? Does Muslim Brotherhood have the same organization savvy that Hezbollah does, and could MB take the reins of government? Israel will undoubtedly do its best to fubar any Egyptian attempt at self rule; Iran has held Israel off for 30 years, only at great hardship, and Iran had stronger institutions going into the ordeal than Egypt does.
Prognostications?
I think it’s clear, and we have been told by the official White House spokesperson, that “levels of contact with the Egyptian government” have been maintained. There is no way Mubarak and someone representing the American interests haven’t discussed a strategy prior to Mubarak’s recent statements, and there is no way that strategy wasn’t informally vetted by Israel or Israeli spokespersons hired by the Secretary of State (Ross, etc.)
If the Muslim Brotherhood is legally allowed to run as a party, or mount a candidate for President this fall, then I will have been mistaken. But that won’t happen.
interesting comparison of Iran’s Revolution and Egypt’s Revolution, and why the two are not the same:
“ Why Iran 1979 Went to the Islamists and This One Won’t by bicycle Hussein paladin Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 06:59:26 PM PST
I’m writing this to address a question some people have been asking about the recent events, compared to Iran in 1979. People have asked whether islamists (groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) have played or could play a major role in the Egyptian protests. The Iranian Revolution of 1979, some say, started out fairly secular, and the Shi’i clergy took over and made it an Islamic Revolution. So, couldn’t that happen this time, too?
The short answer is No. Partly, this is because of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 itself, and how it changed people’s perceptions of Islam and islamists. Partly it’s because of very basic differences between religion in Iran and Egypt.
update: OpEd on Muslim Brotherhood
* bicycle Hussein paladin’s diary :: ::
*
So, here’s the deal, in a nutshell (with a longer version below):
The Iranian Shi’i ulama (ulama are religious scholars a.k.a. mullahs a.k.a clergy) already had an organizational structure in place that was independent of the state. They mobilized that organizational structure to take power in Iran once the government was destabilized. These religious scholars were the main spiritual and legal authorities for the vast majority of practicing Iranian Muslims. Remember, Khomeini was an Ayatollah–that is one of the highest titles given to Shi’i scholars, and this is something completely outside of politics.
The situation in Egypt is very different. Religious scholarly authorities in Sunni Islam are not organized hierarchically the way they are for Shi’is. The closest thing to such an organized hierarchy in Egypt is the religious schools, the most important being al-Azhar University in Cairo. Al-Azhar has always been close to the Egyptian government. The Muslim Brotherhood (MB for short) in Egypt does have a large network of charitable organizations like the Shi’i ulama did in Iran. Many poor people might take advantage of their services, like low-cost health-care and job training, but they are essentially a political movement. They don’t have spiritual authority in the eyes of the whole population of practicing believers the way the Iranian ulama did (and do).
Also, the revolution of 1979 was to be Islamic pretty much in name only for many people. Islam was a symbol of national identity that Iranian intellectuals appealed to. But they didn’t actually want rule by Shi’i clergy, and in fact they didn’t think that Shi’i clergy would actually want to rule, or be capable of ruling for more than a very short time. The outcome of Iran 1979 changed people’s perceptions of anything anybody tries to pass off as “islamic government”, and now Arab political dissidents are very wary to distance themselves from islamist movements like the MB.
Iranian ulama: spiritual authority + widespread independent organizational structure
Muslim Brotherhood: widespread independent organizational structure, no spiritual authority
Egyptian ulama: spiritual authority, but no independent organizational structure
Now, here’s a longer version with more explanation:
The way the islamists took over in Iran was that they had an entire shadow state made up of different religious charitable organizations waiting in the wings when the national government faltered. These religious organizations were basically charities that provided different services to the poor, and attracted lots of volunteer help from Iranian university students and others.
The other advantage that the Iranian ulama enjoyed was that they were the main spiritual authority for Iranian Muslims. Even if you had no interest in “islamic politics” (as most people didn’t–it was kind of a hare-brained, extremely untested idea at the time), if you were a practicing Shi’i Muslim, you, or whatever Shi’i scholar you consulted for spiritual advice, probably had tremendous respect for the scholarly authority of people like Ayatollah Khomeini. Ayatollah was one of the highest titles a Shi’i scholar could be given, and that scholarly/spiritual authority was something Khomeini had that was completely apart from politics–a bit like being a Roman Catholic Archbishop.
Also, unlike in Turkey and Egypt, the Iranian religious establishment had always been mostly independent of the state. It never (in 200+ years) relied on the state for funding or recognition. In Egypt, the most prominent religious institution is al-Azhar, which is a really massive university that teaches, in addition to Islamic religious sciences, standard university fare like medicine, economics, and engineering. Al-Azhar’s religious scholars have tremendous standing among Sunni Muslims worldwide, even though Sunni Muslims don’t have the sort of hierarchy of religious scholars that Shi’is have. But in any event, it has had close ties to the government for decades at least. In fact, throughout the history of the Ottoman Empire, Muslim clergy were (at least in theory) one of many paid government jobs, so for that reason they have always tended to toe the government line. al-Azhar’s religious scholars have spoken out against terrorism, and more recently against female genital cutting.
As for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB for short), the MB is a political organization, nobody there is a spiritual authority of the stature of Khomeini or the scholars at al-Azhar. They do have a very large network of charities, providing things like affordable health care (ha!) and job training to the poor in Egypt. They are probably quite capable of mobilizing people. But from what I understand (and I admit here that while my sources are very very good, they are not strictly speaking scientific), most Egyptians don’t really like them very much, and certainly wouldn’t want them in charge. Egyptians, in short, will not get behind them the way Iranians got behind Khomeini in the late 70s/early 80s.
This is where the other big difference with Iran comes in. Let’s go back in time to 1977. At that time, people who fancied themselves “educated” and “modern” generally believed that Islamic clergy were inherently “quietist”, meaning they respected authority too much and were too interested in non-worldly matters to ever be an effective political force. They were not “modern” and “dynamic” and all that mumbojumbo. To put it less politely, they were widely held to be medieval idiots whose main aspiration in life was to sit around in a seminary debating how many angels could stand on the head of a pin. Their backward, conservative ways made them incapable of adopting modern methods of bureaucratic and political organization. The talking heads and an earlier generation of academics (a.k.a. “Orientalists”) all had their explanations as to why Muslim religious scholars would never be a serious political force, but basically they all came down to some variant on religion is dumb and science is Western.
Anyway, people thought that Muslim religious scholars were basically harmless. Part of the reason the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was so memorable is that it overturned what a lot of people thought they knew about Islam, and religion and modernity in general. There were whole theories about modernization and development that scholars had built their careers around that Iran 1979 chewed up and shat out. I’m told some people even gave up scholarship and turned to the bottle. That’s why we’re still talking about Iran today.
So, was 1979 an Islamic revolution from the beginning? The reason so many Iranian intellectuals at the time talked about Islam, and why many Iranians were willing to get behind Khomeini as a revolutionary leader, was that he represented a kind of Iranian cultural authenticity. Marxism and other revolutionary ideologies were totally alien to most Iranians. The idea of a “great Iranian civilization” inaugurated by Cyrus and Darius was pretty much a modern contrivance. Not that there isn’t or wasn’t such a thing (and it does go back even before Cyrus), but this “great Iranian civilization” was something that only resonated with educated people. For most Iranians, their folk heroes were Shi’i martyrs like Hussein, who represented (to them–not to Sunnis) a painful memory of the early Muslim community’s collective failure to stand up for what was right. Their folk heroes were not warlords from ancient epic poetry who were famous for stuff like shooting an arrow that pinned a deer’s foreleg to its ear, in order to (…what else?) impress a woman. Shi’i Islam was a mythic heritage that all Iranians shared, no matter how uneducated or apolitical they were, so Iranian intellectuals tried to speak in religious language to connect with the people, even though they themselves might not have been religious at all, or had very little regard for religious leaders. A good example of this is two figures later lionized by the Islamic revolution–Ali Shariati and Jalal Al-e Ahmad. Al-e Ahmad wrote a memoir of his pilgrimage to Mecca, and it’s hardly pious–frankly, it’s pretty awful and insulting. But his motive was to connect to this experience of pilgrimage, which he felt alienated from, but that was meaningful to so many Iranians. So that’s where a lot of Iranians were at in the late 70s, and why they talked about Islam so much.
So the “Islamic revolution” many Iranians supported was almost more like an “Islam-flavored” revolution. That was the most they thought they would ever get, because everybody thought that Muslim clergy were “quietist” and would return to the seminaries as soon as they were faced with any actual responsibilities of governance.
Obviously, nobody believes that anymore–not only were the Iranian ulama ruthless enough to hold onto power (the Iran-Iraq War being a shameful display of how far they would go to do so), they were even prepared to make serious compromises, like encouraging birth control (although, note that in Islam, abortion was generally considered permissible, and birth control was widely used–a very different situation from, say, the Catholic Church; not as big a compromise as it might seem from a US PoV) and even if Egyptians are on the whole culturally more conservative than Iranians were back then, it would be a lot harder for the Iranian Revolution of 1979 to be repeated in Egypt today. There were even tweets going out on Jan 25 saying something like “Muslim Brotherhood, with all due respect, stay out of this.” (via Juan Cole, like, today or yesterday or something)
A quick and tardy disclaimer: I’m writing this in a hurry, for which reason I don’t have a whole lot of links on the MB and al-Azhar in Egypt–I’m mostly going by what’s in my head. I’m pretty confident on my Iranian history but less so on the contemporary Arab situation. There may be nuances or details I missed. I welcome suggestions, corrections, and clarifications in the comments.
further reading:
Street Politics: poor people’s movements in Iran by Asef Bayat
The Making of Iran’s Islamic Revolution: from monarchy to republic by Mohsen Milani
Castellio,
Is a member of Netanyahu’s government a spokesman for the US re: events in Egypt? Not such a far stretch, perhaps. . .
Well, now Mubarak has dismissed the government and will, himself, name another tomorrow. This is how it is done, isn’t it? He says, “Okay, I can do that. I’m listening. Why didn’t you tell me earlier? Tomorrow, I promise, you will like them. Honest.”
The Americans will have chosen some of the names on the “new government”, with (most likely) a Mossad agent (or at least very friendly) or two on the list. The military role will be expanded, the head of the police will be sacrificed.
Now its critical what the people do. Do they accept the same thing in a new box, chosen by the person they want to get rid of, or do they protest and fight against live ammunition in a spiral of rising violence, torture and repression?
Its a very grim choice for the Egyptian people.
The “Turkey” solution, ie, a true democracy, has been taken off the table by the US, Israel and Egypt. See the following:
“A minister in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government tells Vick that Israel believes Egypt’s security forces will be able to suppress the protesters. “We believe that Egypt is going to overcome the current wave of demonstrations, but we have to look to the future,” he said. While it would be better if Egypt were a democracy, since “democracies do not initiate wars,” the minister said, “I’m not sure the time is right for the Arab region to go through the democratic process.”
Arnold,
Thanks. I had understood at the time that the US pressed Mubarak to close the crossing. One would be surprised to read anything to the contrary.
If the protesters succeed in bringing down the puppet Mubarak regime, I think this will be another sign of a dramatic decline of America`s influence in the Middle East. Whatever comes next, I don`t think the next Egyptian system will be pro – America, or let alone pro – Israel.
http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/12/08CAIRO2572.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8289686/Egypt-protests-Americas-secret-backing-for-rebel-leaders-behind-uprising.html
James:
No. Crowley didn’t say that. His questioner said the US has tremendous leverage and asked why it doesn’t use that leverage.
About closing Rafah, I read, I believe at a blog called the Majlis, a US-based Middle East policy blog, that Mubarak was told that congress would suspend payments if he did not.
This is one of the topics that are very likely in the 250,000 cablegates documents that the NY Times has read through and decided not to release.
Have you seen the Crowley interview?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmEcQMwprIo
Less than 8 minutes.
Arnold,
Did Crowley say the US ordered Mubarak to close the Rafah crossing? Fatah clammored for it to be closed, as did Israel. The US too?
fyi,
Yes, many many Iranians go to Turkey, and Armenia, and Azerbaijan for that matter, to “breathe freely” (as you put it).
Leveretts:
We have previously pointed out that the United States and Israel have accrued enormous strategic benefits that from their alliance with Egypt—this is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment and, therefore, should not be characterized as “glowing” support.
The United States and Israel have accrued enormous strategic benefits from aspects of Egyptian policy that are certainly not accountable to the Egyptian people and quite possibly could not be sustained by a government run by politicians who need, to keep their jobs, the support of the Egyptian people.
The United States either gives up those benefits, or it opposes democracy.
The US does not have an option of “non-interference” the US is already interfering, and the interference the US is already doing has accrued enormous strategic benefits to Israel and the United States at the expense of the fact that Egypt’s government cannot, while they are sustained, be accountable to the Egyptian people.
So what is the moral judgment?
If one has to go, the enormous strategic benefit or the right of Egyptians to government accountable to them, which should it be? Because one probably has to go.
We see Joe Biden and PJ Crowley have spoken very clearly. Crowley said the US will not order Mubarak to stop any crackdown on the protesters the way it can order him to close the crossing at Rafah because Egypt pursues good relations with Israel. Biden said Egypt has good relations with Israel, Mubarak is not a dictator.
They’ve made their moral judgment. Benefits to Israel are more important the democracy for over 70 million Egyptians. Morally. Somehow, and indefensibly in terms of the US value system, Israel’s has become such a sacred moral issue to the US political class that it outweighs the US’ single founding value that people have a inborn right to government that is accountable to them.
A ethnically Jewish majority state for about 6 million Jews in Palestine is more important than democracy for, on the subject at hand now, over 70 million Egyptians, but the US has relations similar to that with Egypt for well over 100 million people in Israel’s region.
So we see the moral judgment Barack Obama has made. Democracy in Egypt is less important that strategic benefits to Israel. That is the consensus American moral judgment.
Given that clear moral judgment, we have no doubt that Barack Obama would restore the Shah to Iran if he could. Just like Egypt, the value to Israel would outweigh putting tens of millions of Iranians under a government that is not accountable to them.
Oh, so when US politicians apologize for the US role in emplacing the Shah, just like when Obama says “let’s be clear tonight, the United States supports democracy for all people” he and they are lying. The US is really apologizing for the fact that the Shah is not in power today.
But is the US government and political class’ moral judgment also the moral judgment of the Leveretts? If so, then given that moral judgment, the only reason not to restore the Shah is because it would be tactically difficult, for now.
Fiorangela,
V. interesting post. The Egyptians of course are very “Arab” culturally, but clearly not “Arab” by descent.
Like her predecessor, the Incredibly Incompetent Condi, the Incredibly Incompetent Clinton “seems to think that popular movements for political change in Arab countries are ultimately good news for the United States. The unspoken (and, we suspect, unexamined) assumption is that, by prompting ‘liberalization’ or even ‘democratization’, such movements not only affirm values Americans hold dear, but also help to stabilize and ensure the longevity of America’s key strategic partnerships in the Middle East.”
Disagree. Clinton and Condi love to throw around the noble language of freedom, democracy and human rights, but there is scant evidence that they practice what they preach. Rather, they seem to prefer to prioritize security, security, security, which ends up stifling any true reform.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” –JFK
Interesting that Mubarak criticized the violence on the part of some of the protesters. Indeed, the riotous aspect of some in Iran’s green movement was their ultimate undoing – it allowed the government to claim the moral high ground and portray the greens as fomenting sedition and chaos.
We also saw the British Government condemn student protests in London on the grounds that a few hooligans violently clashed with the police and vandalized property.
This is why any demonstrations must remain peaceful. Anything else just plays into the hands of the authorities.
Additional developments:
Egyptian Army (deployed with M60 battle tanks, BMP-2s, Fahd APCs, and M-113s) are being cheered by protesters in Cairo.
Protesters are attempting to storm the State TV station.
Ruling Party Headquarters has been firebombed.
National carrier has suspended flights out of Cairo for the next 12 hours and other international flights have been cancelled.
Similar reports in Alexandria of protesters greeting the army’s entry into the city.
Mubarak on TV now.
It is ironic that the Green movement ,and its revolutionary internet methods, inspired uprisings in Thailand, Kyrgyzstan, Tunisia and now in Egypt.
Of course, the regimes affected are all American-backed.
My, how it backfired!
“Egypt is burning and most western pundits have no idea why
by Parvez Sharma on January 28, 2011 ·
[photo of Egyptian forces attack praying protesters.]
Cairo is burning. So is Egypt. Twitter is exploding. Everyone seems to have an opinion—many who do have never even been to Egypt but feel a strong sense of solidarity with the most remarkable revolution in a generation, perhaps. A revolution which importantly is not really caused by Twitter or by Facebook—as much as the self congratulatory social networking types in the West would like to believe.
Full disclosure: Sleepless but still sitting in relative comfort in my Manhattan apartment I am one of those relentless tweeters. However my obsession stems from a long love and association with Egypt and the presence of way too many friends who have jumped into the chaos not really knowing what consequences their actions might have for themselves or their friends and families.
I must also be clear. At this point, on this the longest Egyptian night in a generation, perhaps longer—most Western self professed Islam/Middle East and other assorted pundits have no clue about the harsh reality of Egyptian life. Many have probably never taken a walk down Mashriet Nasser, the largest slum in Cairo. This is why the do not realize that this “revolution” is not about social networking and its success. The majority of the 80 million people of Egypt live in abject poverty. They do not even have cell-phones let alone smartphones like the iPhone or the Droid. They go to kiosks to make calls. A pretty substantial number of them have NEVER used the internet and do not have email accounts: the complicated mechanisms of self-promotion and information gathering and sharing on social networks is not a part of their lives—they have never had the money or the resources to get access to this other world which often lives in the relatively more affluent neighborhoods like Zamalek or Garden City or Mohandaseen—all within some walking distance of where the dissent started in Tahrir Square.
The majority of the protesters in Cairo, in Suez, in Alexandria, in Luxor, in Mahla, in Manoura and all over this ancient land which is the very heart of what it means to be Arab—are not “twittering” or “facebooking” or “emailing” or even watching the landmark live coverage that Al-Jazeera is providing. They are out on the streets—and yes, without phone access—risking their lives and giving vent to three decades and perhaps more, of anger.
They are fighting for very basic human rights. They are fighting for affordable food. They are fighting for dignity. They are fighting for accountability. They are fighting to somehow improve the non-existent financial opportunities in their lives.
They are not interested in Mohamed AlBaradei’s Nobel prize or his rather recent and opportunist political ambitions. Most of them have not really seen him and have no idea of what he has been up to for the last three decades as they have suffered. They are angry that he decided to show up just last night and started posturing immediately as the potential savior and the best person to lead them into their uncertain future. Many here in the West would be surprised to know that a lot of these simple folk would actually prefer the “Muslim Brotherhood” taking over. Atleast they recognize the “Islam Light” the Brotherhood has honed to perfection after a pretty radical and conservative beginning with an idealogue like Banna.
My friend Fouad Hani though has had access to all of the above including a very nice smartphone. That has not deterred him from stepping out every night and after about six hours of trying I get him on the phone.
As always here are his primary bullet points unfiltered in his voice from a brief phone conversation (and yes, he has been dodging very real bullets today)
* My beloved city is on fire. My country is on fire. But each one of us on the streets is also on fire
* I am exhausted. Mobinil is down. So is Vodaphone. I have no idea what is happening beyond what I have seen myself. Facebook and Twitter seem like a joke right now
* I live in Mohandaseen and decided not to go the big Mostafa Mahmood mosque near my house, because I know that “they” would be there.I went to pray at a smaller mosque. It was beautiful to pray. I had tears
* But as soon as we stepped out they pelted us with tear gas and with tear gas canisters. We threw them back. But my hand got burnt
* They tried to separate all of us as we walked towards Tahrir square
* Police were throwing rocks at us
* There are bruises and bumps all over my body
* I saw two bodies on the ground in Tahrir. Like an animal I just kept on walking past them
* We threw Molotov cocktails at the police
* Is there a curfew Parvez? Really? I had no idea—it certainly did not look like a curfew when I was just walking home
* Has Obama said anything? I don’t expect much from him anyway, this Mubarak is his “puppy”
* Mubarak should go and share a room with that asshole Ben Ali in his Jiddah hotel! We were chanting that in Tahrir.
* This is a joke. Btw can Obama find a working fucking phone in this country? I guess Mubarak’s phone is working rt?
* Pray for us.
Fouad is one of the smartest young Egyptians I know. He has a ready wit. And I have always had a crush on him. He doesn’t know. Maybe he will after this? (if he can get online again).
As has happened with every one of my phone conversations with my friends in Cairo, I get disconnected. Silence again.
One more friend, for me to pray for.
Mubarak meanwhile stays in hiding somewhere possibly in his presidential palace in Heliopolis. The army is rolling through Egypt’s battered and smoky streets. Al Jazeera continues to televise this “revolution” like no other network has ever done before. Perhaps the pro-Israel lobbies in the US will start to respect this amazing network and allow it to broadcast freely in this nation?
Last night I said—Will it be the scent of Jasmine or the smell of blood in Egypt today?
I now have my answer. We all do.
Parvez Sharma is an internationally renowned New York based Indian writer and filmmaker. He is best known for the multiple award winning and acclaimed film A Jihad for Love, on gay and lesbian Muslims. The UTNE Reader named him one of “50 Visionaries changing your world” in 2009. This post originally appeared on the Huffington Post. “
Pak, I agree with much of what you said — yes indeed I and much of the rest of the West ARE hypocrites. I’d have tossed in Cowards, if I were you: We are willing for other people to risk their lives to reform their countries after we deformed and destroyed them. We in the West are terribly eager to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.” The ultimate hypocrisy is that we elected legislators who passed laws that are intended to destroy Iran’s economy, cause high unemployment, and incite riots, while we demand of those same legislators that they fix the broken US economy and find jobs for our unemployed. It’s as if this most religious of all nations never heard, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”
I don’t see Iran in those same terms (that is, as hypocritical): I see Iran as a victim of US and the west’s hypocrisy. When you join Trita Parsi in focusing the world’s attention on Iran’s “human rights” abuses, you provide justification for Western hypocrites to keep on doing what they are doing; you allow hypocrites like me to sleep well at night, thinking that we are “liberating” weak and powerless Iranians from the odious clutches of their government. Obviously you hate your government, and if you do, you should do all in your power to change it. But you will not effect a change in Iran’s domestic situation by laying her bare to attacks from the West.
There are two major problem areas playing out in Iran; one is internal, the other is external. Iran’s internal problems are for Iranians to resolve; moreover, the fact that Iran HAS internal problems, conflicts, corruption, abuses, makes Iran not that much different than 99% of the nations in the world, and a lot better than many: I would prefer to have Iran’s sins — of abusing its own citizens — on my conscience, rather than the sins that my country bears, of having killed nearly a million people and destroyed three countries.
Iran’s external problems are largely imposed on Iran, unjustly, by western countries. Since my country is a leader of the group that seeks to harm Iran, it is my responsibility to do what I can to shake my country awake and make it change its behavior.
My understanding is that, to commemorate the war between Iraq and Iran, Iranians built a museum to PEACE. To my mind, that is a sign of a culture that is highly evolved, ethically, aesthetically, and spiritually. There’s a marvelous passage in a book called, “On Beauty and Being Just,” that supports my evaluation, but I’ve gone on too long already and I don’t want to bore you.
Unconfirmed chatter from an online military forum I frequent:
Al-Jazeera reports units of the Egyptian 2nd Army have deployed in Cairo.
Egyptian State TV is showing protests scenes from Cairo, breaking with most aspects of precedent.
Israeli Channel 10 announced Mubarak fled to Switzerland, and the Speaker of the Egyptian Parliament supposedly announced that there is going to be “an important announcement soon”.
MSNBC reports “three private jets left Cairo IAP under very tight security”.
US/Israel/Mubarak have determined to show the rest of ME who is the boss! They really think by force they can contain the situation? One word, amazing ignorance.
They really think by slaughtering the Egyptians, they can set examples for the rest of the Arab/ME world?
In all likely hoods, laud mouth Clinton, needs to brush up her Hotel California management skills, as there will be more guests checking-in shortly.
Curious, how obama is kept tempered in the back ground? The games of PR management.
Voice of Tehran
How do you say in Farsi “WE ARE THE WORLD…..”
Dear Fiorangela,
One word for you: hypocrite. The left in the West are seriously misguided, because you support the most right-winged of people in order to pursue your own agenda. As a result, you ignore what happens in Iran (even to the point where you talk down to an Iranian who experienced brutality and death first hand), and instead chant hollow slogans of support for young people putting their lives on the line to attain a better life, while in the process inadvertently pursuing your own agenda. How brave of you.
“Go build yourself a museum to your victimization, why don’t you, if you think that will make Iran a better place.”
One day we will build a museum in Iran to honour the victims of the IR’s brutality. We will turn Evin into a symbol of tyranny, which the revolution promised, and not expand its facilities, which the IR did. You will probably be long gone by then, but I am young, and have many years of whining ahead of me.
Liz says:
January 28, 2011 at 3:30 pm
After the subsidy cuts a fundamential economical development is taking place in Iran . Unlike in many countries of the world this historical plan is distributing the wealth from ‘ top ot the bottom ‘. Recently I read that 1 % of Ameriacans own over 95 % ( ???) of the wealth in the US . I am almost certain , that this figure , decades ago , would have been 3 % >> 95 , thus we see a distributio from ‘ bottom to top ‘ , meaning that the richer get more rich and the poorer more poor.
To my deep regret , this is the case in almost every country of the world , Germany , France , Italy , Grrece , Ireland etc. etc. make no exception , only the percantages might be different. The finace oligarchs , mainly in NY and London are dictating this to the world and there is no escaping.
Now imagiue a 10 memeber family in Iran in the deepest villages of the province of Sistan Baluchistan. After the subsidy cut plan , they are now getting around T 800.000,– ( around $800 ) in their account , a sum which I think they never had in one shot in their entire life. Now multiply this on millions of families across Iran and you will see , where the supporters of the government are coming from.
I agree however , that a lot more has to be done , but I have not the slightest doubt , that Iran will become the role model fo the entire region and throuout the islamic world and people like PAK can either join this movement or hang the picture of Reza or Massoud or Moussavi etc. etc. above their bed and keep on dreaming forever.
I’m not tired, Pak, I’m bored and I’m amazed.
These last few days, and today, we are seeing momentous and courageous events unfold, but you insist that everyone look at you and your distorted image in the pond, rather than the brave young people who are claiming autonomy and sovereignty for their communities.
It’s not about you. Nobody cares about your whining. Work out the personal grievances you have with your mother or your teachers or the kids in the schoolyard who called you names. Yes, yes, we know: bad things happened in Iran; very bad things. Go build yourself a museum to your victimization, why don’t you, if you think that will make Iran a better place.
Or, grow up and recognize that the world — even Iran, even holy mother United States — are imperfect places, and in the words of St. John of Lennon, We All Doin’ What We Can.
nighty night.
Mohammad,
Good points.
Pak,
I’m still looking for some free time to write what I promised you before, but I have been too busy in these weeks. I apologize for the too-much delay. I just wanted to add to the comparison debate here as some quick notes which was just in my head:
1. The main issue is whether the majority of the population supports the uprising. We have to look at opinion polls, but the Egyptian uprising seems to be supported by the majority of Egyptians, like the 1979 Iranian revolution. The Green movement was not, which was the main reason it failed.
2. After a few days, Egyptian officials have turned to widespread curfew and military help in suppressing the riots (which reminds us of what Shah did at 1978-1979). By contrast, in 2009 there was no visible military presence on Iranian streets and no curfew was neede.
3. The Green movement protests were largely confined to north and downtown Tehran, while the Egyptian uprising (as well as Tunisian and 1979 Iranian) seems to be even more serious in cities other than the capital (like Suez).
4. The Iranian government ultimately turned to its own mass demonstrations to defeat the Green movement (the most decisive one being Bahman 22nd (February 11th) last year). Mubarak, Shah and Ben Ali are/were not capable of that (which partly reflects their unpopularity).
5. ‘Social networking’ tools are used in all uprisings, but their specific nature depends on the technology of the time. Iranian Islamic revolutionaries used the then ‘offline’ social networks extensively, relying on tape cassettes, copying machines, written pronouncements and word-of-mouth to disseminate demonstration news and Ayatollah Khomeini’s directives in neighborhood, bazaar and mosque social networks.
You summed up other differences between Green movement and Egyptian uprising well, albeit I don’t agree with some of the similarities.
Pak,
“I am sure there are many more similarities and differences. This was just a quick brainstorm.”
Thank goodness for you that you added this disclaimer. I suggest you give it all some more thought and post your similarities and differences after you’ve done so. You’re capable of better than this.
Pak,
“The executive is determined by the Guardian Council.”
The “executive” is the President, of course. He’s directly elected by the people – provided, of course, he’s allowed by the Guardian Council to run in the first place.
Did the Guardian Council allow Mousavi to run for President?
Pak,
1) The Guardians council doesn’t decide who assumes office – the people do. They determine the qualification of the candidates subject to Article 115 of the constitution. If the people didn’t think they had a choice, they wouldn’t participate.
Just because you don’t like the screening process but that doesn’t mean it is illegitimate in the eyes of the people. Btw, disqualification of candidates does happen in every country – mostly for financial irregularities and criminal records.
The Islamic Republic does have a separation of powers. The Presidency, the Majlis and the judiciary are independent institutions that often compete for power.
2) Iran does have independent newspapers. There may be censorship,subject to a press law and watchdog,but there are many reformist publications as well as many conservative ones that are deeply critical of the government.
3) Iran does have the rule of law. It may not always be applied as it should, but we saw a clear example of justice in the prosecution of those responsible for abusing prisoners at the Kahrizak detention center.
4) People should, in principle, be free to assemble as they please. But I don’t know any country where people can riot on the streets with impunity. There is also such a thing as law & order and public security.
5) Iran may have a strategic alliance with China (it would be stupid not to have one) but its foreign policy is determined in Tehran and not elsewhere. If the U.S scored an own goal by invading Iraq, you can’t blame the Iranians for successfully taking advantage of this. The fact is that Iran is a leading regional power. Why would you be against this (as an Iranian nationalist)?
Watch PressTV now and be ashamed Pak.
Watch PressTV
Dear Fiorangela,
Having to defend the principles of democracy and human rights, while condemning torture, murder and rape, should in theory be a straightforward task. But given the audience here, it is not, which is why I have to repeat myself many times.
But if you are tired, go to sleep!
By the way, the article is quite good. There are a lot of happy people in Iran today. Let’s hope that Mubarak falls sooner rather than later.
Pak —
yawn.
Pak
Whether you like it or not the Islamic Republic is popular and the pro-western and western backed regimes in the region are not.
Dear Reza,
1) Independent? Really? The executive is determined by the Guardian Council. The legislature is also determined by the Guardian Council. The head of the judiciary is hand-picked by the Supreme Leader. To top it off, members of the Guardian Council are hand-picked by the Supreme Leader and the head of the Judiciary (who is coincidently hand-picked by the Supreme Leader).
2) The elections in Iran are competitive to the extent that we can choose between hand-picked candidates. There have been numerous claims of fraud regardless, even before the 2009 elections. Do not forget that there is a Supreme Leader.
This common Iranian saying is how I would sum up the independence of media in Iran: In Iran, you have freedom of speech, only no freedom after speech!
The constitution has great democratic values, but it is coupled with undemocratic, theocratic values. The constitution is useless anyway, because it is not adhered to. It states that people are free to assemble, but that did not work out too well in 2009.
3) Two of the IR’s greatest foreign policy achievements are directly related to the US: Iraq, and Afghanistan. Otherwise, the nuclear situation has only gotten worse, and China and Russia continue to vote against Iran in the UNSC. Powerful – no. Independent? Independence is an abstract value, because Iran is independent to the extent that it relies heavily on China now.
4)(5) Yes, Iran did not initiate war or sanctions, but they are a reality, and a direct result of the revolution. Yes, progress has still been good, especially considering war and sanctions.
4)(6) Agreed, but it does not change my point.
The White House press briefing is really funny. The spokesman is really faltering for words – not wishing to condemn the regime and trying to claim it supports the rights of the people. The press are asking why the U.S hasn’t cut off aid to Cairo, but the White House doesn’t know how to respond.
Pak, apparently you have no respect for the working class. Also, there seems to be quite a few people who submit comments here from the working class.
Pak,
You wrote that “the economic situation in Iran is relatively good” WOW!
From what I understand, you admit that most of the working class do not support the greens. WOW!
Pak says: January 28, 2011 at 3:23 pm
You live in dream world.
No regime change in Iran along the lines that you aspire is likely, ever.
The regime, as you call it, cannot be changed unless – symbolically – Tehran, Qum and Tabriz agree that it should change.
I think instead of pinning your hopes on that possibility, it would be a good idea for you and your colleagues who think like you to concentrate on the application (or mis-application, as some would say) of Law in Iran.
Oh I missed a big point.
The protests in Egypt have engulfed the working class, because the economic situation in Egypt is dire. On the other hand, the Green Movement failed to attract the working class, because the economic situation in Iran is relatively good. The tide is slowly changing, however, and the economy will eventually become a key player in Iran.
I think the Egyptian movement is largely incoherent like the Green movement in Iran was/is. El Baradei or Ayman Nour is more likely to fill that void as a leader, if they can form an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a force not to be overlooked in this current situation. (More so for its ability to mobilize a broad religious following against a repressive regime like Mubarak’s than to impose an Islamic government as Ayatollah Seyyed Khatami suggests). In terms of regional balance, it will decidedly shift away from the United States and it will be very interesting to see how the peace treaty with Israel is maintained…
Pak,
You did indeed try and deny the undeniable. You are very good at that.
1) How is the Islamic Republic not a republican government with the separation of powers and three independent branches of government?
2) How is the IRI a “despotic” regime when it permits competitive elections which draw *large* turnouts as well as independent media outlets in the press? Even if you dispute the extent to which this is true, do you at least admit that the constitution and law sanctions these features of democracy?
3) How is the IRI’s foreign policy not based on national interests? This site’s authors argue that Iran’s regional influence has grown significantly over the past decade. Is Iran more or less powerful and independent than before the Revolution?
5) Iran didn’t initiate war, neither did it impose sanctions on itself. Even so, the economic development in Iran has been marked, and right across the country.
6) There was progress made under the Shah but it clearly was not enough for the population.
Now deal with it.
If people want to draw parallels between the situation in Egypt and Iran, they should bear these points in mind:
1. The revolution in 1979 had a leader.
2. The revolution was designed to replace an entire political structure – the monarchy.
3. The revolution, although supported by the vast majority of the population, was still relatively class-based (working class).
4. The revolution was explicitly anti-imperialistic.
Drawing parallels between 1979 and Egypt today is flawed. The only similarity is that Mubarak is an American ally, as was the Shah, and this represented a critical strategic interest for the US.
Now, why are Egypt today and the Green Movement similar?
1. The protests were spontaneous, sparked by a specific event (elections in Iran; revolution in Tunisia).
2. The protests were led by the young, the middle-class, and the intellectuals.
3. The protesters demanded reform, and not radical structural changes.
4. The protesters used social media to organise.
5. The regimes shut down the internet and mobile phone services.
How are they different?
1. The security apparatus in Iran is far more sophisticated, and has infiltrated society through the Basij.
2. The regime in Iran is ideologically driven, to the point that murdering, executing, and raping protesters is fine, because it is in the name of God.
3. The regime in Iran learned from the mistakes of the Shah, and knows how to quell dissent far more efficiently. Having an Army of the Guardians of the Revolution is no coincidence.
4. The regime in Egypt can flee abroad; the regime in Iran has everything to lose.
5. The regime in Egypt is exposed to the West through business, tourism, and so on, so it cannot shut down the country. The regime in Iran is far less accountable to the international community, and has a lowly reputation to uphold regardless.
I am sure there are many more similarities and differences. This was just a quick brainstorm.
Liz says: January 28, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Pak is not completely wrong.
Iranian system is a restricted representative system; this is tainting them and they eventaully have to address it.
There is also the moral police and the state’s intervention in personal liberties of the population.
Recently, some of the fools in Iran have been arguing that if a Muslim does not pray at the prescriped times; that has to be considered a punishable (by the sate) offense.
Personal Liberty in Iran has diminished under the Islamic Republic that is why millions go to Turkey and Armenia to breathe freely.
I think if one looks at India, it is clear that representative governments make generalized poverty bearable.
Pak,
You know what you say is completely false. I understand your anger, though. The picture of praying Egyptians upsets you. Your problem is that you only accept the will of the majority, as long as it’s your ideology that is chosen (like the US/EU).
http://www.raceforiran.com/live-stream-at-1215pm-realigning-americas-relations-in-the-middle-east
at 8 minutes 15 seconds
Dear Reza,
When my compatriots – the mullahs – start imprisoning, torturing, murdering, executing, and raping my own people, then I have the right to hate the situation my country is in.
1) The revolution overthrew on despotic regime for another.
2) The IR is not republican.
3) The regime’s “independent” foreign policy is ideologically driven, and not based on the best interests of the nation.
4) Subjective – it has been 33 years since the revolution. Given the trajectory of economic progress under the Shah, one would assume that a non-revolution Iran would be no different – if not better – than today (no 8-year war, no sanctions, etc).
5) A lot of these achievements are based on the industrial, technological, and scientific foundations laid down by the previous regime.
It took me less than 5 minutes to challenge your “undeniable” claims. Yes – the revolution was supported by the vast majority of Iranians, because the Shah failed to satisfy the people’s political will. But the revolution has nothing to do with the situation today, other than it created the perfect political vacuum for mass-murderers to come to power.
The Americans have a long history of deterring freedom in the Middle East and I don’t think American elites have the wisdom to recognize that they have to rethink their policies completely and learn to live with their critics.
Reza,
“January 2011 looks a lot like October 1978 in Iran.”
It will be interesting to see how that election campaign shapes up. El Baradei, one or more Islamist party candidates (assuming they aren’t blocked from running), and some Mubarak surrogate.
If so, and you were the US government, being advised by Nicolo Macchiavelli, what would you do?
Hezbollah is being depicted this way partly because it has been standard internal Lebanese discourse among significant parts of the Christian population to depict them that way. These people dominate the cast of characters that is kept by US policy think-tanks as “resident Arabs”.
And thus said the Great White Father in Washington (oops): if my dogs call Hezbollah that, then surely I can call them that too…
Pak,
It really would be useful for all of us – including you, in the long run – if you would very clearly acknowledge a key difference between the current protests in Egypt and the post-election protests in Iran in 2009.
In Egypt, the people have not had an opportunity to elect their leaders in a democratic election.
In Iran, they did.
Your favored candidate, Mousavi, had no complaints at all about Iran’s electoral process – no complaints about excluded candidates, or restrictions on free speech or campaigning, or anything else – until he lost. Had he won, I’ll venture a guess that he’d not have raised any of the complaints he raised after the election.
But to raise complaints that amount to nothing more than slinging mud against the wall to see whether it sticks, without offering a shred of evidence to support those complaints, does not amount to a principled stand for democracy. It amounts to thumbing one’s nose at democracy.
That is what you do when you discuss the 2009 Iran election. If an election should be held in Egypt and one or more Islamist parties should prevail, I anticipate from you the very same nose-thumbing at democracy.
Pak,
Ease off on the self-hate for a moment.
The Iranian Revolution *succeeded* in the following respects:
1) It overthrew a despotic, puppet regime.
2) It ended a monarchical system and replaced it with a republican one.
3) It created a system with an independent foreign policy in a region dominated by outside interests.
4) It has raised living standards for the population.
5) It has achieved a large measure of economic, military, technological, scientific and cultural self-sufficiency.
These are some of the undeniable realities of the Iranian Revolution even if the Islamic Republic does have its flaws, failings and internal problems.
Pak
Sad. You ignore the vast majority of Iranians who support the Revolution in Iran and this shows that you have no respect for the majority, which includes the youth and women, who think differently from pro-westerners like you. I’m sure your attitude towards Egyptians is the same.
WASHINGTON – Tea party-backed Republican Sen. Rand Paul favors cutting U.S. aid to Israel as part of a deficit-driven effort to slash government spending by $500 billion this year, drawing criticism from Democrats and Republicans who argue the U.S. must be unwavering in its support for the longtime Mideast ally.
http://headlines.verizon.com/headlines/portals/headlines.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=headlines_portal_page__article&_article=3304672
By the way, a large proportion of the protesters across the Arab world are young. Like Iranian protesters in 2009, they know nothing about the 1979 revolution, other than it failed miserably.
The only ones who refer back to 1979 are the older generation, who unfortunately wield more political power. Let us all hope and pray that such zealots do not hijack these protests, and flush the Arab world down the toilet, much like what the mullahs did to Iran.
Ahmad Khatami? You guys are funny. Why not ask Terry Jones for his insight too.
I think the US would benefit if ElBaradei came to power in Cairo and pursued an intelligent policy toward Iran. US should be following Turkey’s lead, in relations with Iran. Idiotic US support of Israel, right or wrong, is catastrophe in the making.
The US has no alternative but to live with this new reality. Otherwise, it will only increase general hostility towards western countries.
I don’t think Mubarak’s regime can survive. There is too much anger on the streets and Mubarak has an election to face in September. Even if he suppresses the present protests and riots, the problem won’t go away.
January 2011 looks a look like October 1978 in Iran.