December 11, 2007
Column: The myth of a bargain with Iran
A week ago, the Americans were mad bombers. Now they are naive dupes. The Bush administration’s flip-flop over Iran’s nuclear programme has caused a somersault in the way America’s allies talk about US foreign policy in the Gulf.
The release of the latest US National Intelligence Assessment on Iran, with its jaw-dropping first sentence – “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme” – has come as a huge shock. It is now widely assumed that the Bush administration will not bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. It is also clear that it will become much harder to push through further UN sanctions against Iran. The Iranians, it seems, are off the hook.
This turn of events has inverted the usual stereotypes. The British and French – often typecast as appeasers of Iran – are furious with the Americans. They are convinced that the Iranians are still working on the bomb, even if they are not actively trying to “weaponise” their nuclear programme. Officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency – routinely accused by the Americans of being softies – now say that the US intelligence assessment is “generous”. The Gulf Arabs – who often complain about US belligerence – now worry aloud that America is planning to cut a deal with Iran. And the Iranian government is deeply grateful to America’s Central Intelligence Agency.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Comments can be made below.
Interesting piece Gideon however, there is a glaring contradiction at the heart of your analysis. Iran can’t be both afraid for its future and an aspiring regional hegemon. Either it is one, or it is the other. My money is on the aspiring regional hegemon. Let’s have a look at the countries which could realistically threaten the Iranians in its neighbourhood: Turkey or Pakistan, neither of which it seems to me is in any way interested in invading Iran. In fact until quite recently Pakistan was apparently quite happy, with at least some state complicity, to funnel nuclear know how to Iran. And Turkey is happy to work with Tehran to crush the aspirations of the Kurds.
On the other hand, a quick list of the countries in the immediate vicinity which have something to fear from Iran is far more revealing: the six GCC states, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, not to mention non-state actors (the Kurds) and the religious minorities within Iran itself - the Baha’i and the Zoroastrians. Needless to say, if Iran gains significant leverage over the major oil producing states, it will have us all by the short and curlies, to coin a phrase.
One final point - the other reason a grand bargain would be so hard to achieve is the messianism of those with their hands on the levers of power in Tehran. And given their stated views about arrival of the hidden Imam, the NIE report might have suited them even less than it suited hawks in the west.
Posted by: AYC | December 11th, 2007 at 9:13 am | Report this comment.
I have no problem with simultaneously holding aspiration to regional influence and some dread of the U.S. Armed forces striking power ,
In fact since the death of ayatollah Khomeini the Iranians seems to me to have been quite logical and reasonable , in a radical sort of way .
It is rather the U.S. policy who strike me as lurching blindly in the region ,
Everybody talk of controlling the oil but if this is the grand plan ,it seems to be a fizzer !
I would rather subscribe to the Intel old boys and army brass endeavoring to limit the damage .
It’s the job of congress but the American Republic seems to have some sort of electoral blockage
.
Posted by: jeannick Guerin | December 11th, 2007 at 9:45 am | Report this commentThis column will no doubt be well received and will mark a turning point. It enters us into the new paradigm that has been emerging in recent weeks and been discussed in this blog. Mr Rachman’s outlook is considerably more cautious–and perhaps reluctant–than my own, however. A major step forward, nonetheless.
Firstly, I would note that much of this new paradigm began to gel during the week before and of the Annapolis conference. King Abdullah delivered a message to Washington. It was the same that Dubai’s Sheikh Mohammed delivered to last year’s Arab Conference: “Change or be changed”. The timing was right.
Secondly, Dubai has played a much under-reported role in opening discussions of a viable Persian Gulf regional framework. As I have often noted, Rafsanjani, an investor as well as a former president, has been the key interlocutor. Quieter shifts in the region have gone unremarked and are key. Oman, for example, has quietly rebuked Washington’s advances to discuss belligerent action against Iran. Kuwaitis are of two minds these days on the US, as well as on the dollar. India has begun to speak up on the matter. Etc.
Thirdly, Mr Rachman notes the concern around a US “bargain with Iran” and all the possible hegemonic compromises such may entail. I suggest a question that deserves much thought: To what extent should the Quartet, the EU, China and OPEC permit the US to do their own bargaining?
Lastly, this is a Financial Times blog, and I think more insights as to the strategies of Roayl Dutch/Shell, Total, Siemens, Renault-Nissan and the banks are perhaps even more relevant than the admonitions of sheikhs or presidents.
Posted by: WCM | December 11th, 2007 at 10:02 am | Report this commentAYC,
In Baharein 70% of the population is Shia, not Sunni.
In Iraq, 65% of the population is Shia, not Sunni.
In Lebanon, 55% of the population is Shia.
In these countries a majority of the population feels closer to Iran than to Saudi Arabia and links (just look at the Sadr family or at Hezbollah) with Iran are broad.
Kurds fear more Turkey (the only NATO state in the are) than Iran, who supported them for decades against Saddam Hussein.
In Afghanistan Western Warlords received in the past Iranian support.
And about minorities, perhaps Saudi Arabia has more to fear as the Shia minority rests on the biggest oilfields….
So in the Mideast Iran as a “soft power” is much, much more appreciated than the U.S. which is hated even by both Shias and Sunnies (remember that ALL the islamists who destroyed the WTC and the Pentagon on 911 were Sunnies; remember that the Resistence in Iraq is mainly Sunni, even Hamas and the Muslim Brothers of Egypt are Sunnies)
Without doubt Iran is much more appreciated in the Mideast than the U.S. which is seen by most Arabs as an Israeli pawn.
Posted by: Enrique | December 11th, 2007 at 10:03 am | Report this comment(AYC) “Iran can’t be both afraid for its future and an aspiring regional hegemon.”
Iran represents dramatic pent-up potential, which bids the question of why one should insist upon containing it at all costs. Nonetheless, regional hegemony is unlikely. The reasons are many and include: infrastructure, finance, commerce, and oil/gas. Iran’s Gulf neighbours, with the exception of a US-directed Iraq, are well advanced global players in each of these areas. Constructive synergies outweigh risks.
Iran is not China. It cannot make this next journey alone.
As for leerning to live with Iran as a nuclear power, I would agree that that is likely. If economics can still transform, then I think this concern will diminish quite quickly.
Posted by: WCM | December 11th, 2007 at 10:15 am | Report this commentThe problem is that Nuclear Technology has becomen a bargain itself.
The process has been the same as in any other product. The initial costs of Research and Development of Nuclear Energy were so high that only the US had the capacity to undertake it by 1945. Then came the USSR, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea…
Spain, South Africa and Brazil had Military Nuclear Programmes which were halted.
Everybody knows that the NPT or Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a short term solution. Once Nuk Tek is in the Market and access to it is relatively cheap there is no way to stop it. It is a bargain, every year easier to develop, carry, steal, sell and copy. Of course, cheap copies doesn´t have the same quality as the original and nobody can guarantee an absolute control of the product.
It is difficult stopping the trend as all nations have the same needs of security and pride. Once China got the bomb, India needed it. Once India got the bomb, Pakistan needed it. Once Israel got the bomb Iran needed it….
There are legitimate fears from any nation to defend their sovereignty and dignity. Nuk Tek is there, it is and increasingly accessible tech and becoming a relative bargain.
We can now say that Nuk Tek is becoming conventional technology (not something special) and Nuclear Weapons are becoming just CONVENTIONAL Weapons ready to be used as any other…
Posted by: Enrique Costas Mira | December 11th, 2007 at 10:23 am | Report this commentEnrique,
You have demarcated the strategic demographics well enough, but fail to follow through with your conclusions:
The Gulf basin, which holds the vast majority of the world’s oil and gas reserves, is mostly Shia populated: Iran (Khuzestan), southern Iraq, eastern Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain. This is the great prize that beckons for the Iranians. Any country that could control — directly or indirectly — the whole of the Gulf basin, would become much more than a regional hegemon: such a country would be a global power on a par with the US, Europe and the rising China.
That is one reason why the Iranians play the religious card. On the other hand, from an ethnic point-of-view none of these territories is Farsi: Khuzestan, the oil-producing province of Iran, is mainly populated by Arabic speakers. So the Iranians have everything to gain — as well as everything to lose.
Posted by: RCS | December 11th, 2007 at 11:13 am | Report this commentFully agree that nuclear technology is a core problem, so to speak. The debate on nuclear sovereignty, however, has not been a clear one so long as Israel and the US remain out of oversight. I think the mandate for IAE management/oversight needs to be revisited now in the wake of the NIE fiasco.
I have not believed that Iran’s priority has been to build a bomb with the intent of using it, which has been the fear driving a potential crisis. Iran, the US and Israel have been wreckless with their words and accusations, tying them to tiresome polemics and unclosed wounds (1979). That said, the IAE was not clear in delineating where and when Iran was out of compliance. They were bureaucratic and parsimonious in sharing clear, decisive judgments. To their defence, they have too many political bosses.
It is now imperative for the IAE to rethink its objectives for developing, sharing, implementing and monitoring civilian nuclear energy technology. They need the resources to work closely with a wider range of countries that ned to advance nuclear power. In focusing on co-operation and guidance, they will be better able to monitor non-civil facilities and identify/capture violations. Looking first for criminals and offering only a modicum of oversight of vast energy/civil installations has undermined the value and security they could bring.
As has been long stated by many here, the Middle East, in particular, does not need added risks from more nuclear-armed states. (It is time to clarify the record on the status of developments in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.) Many parts of the region need and deserve nuclear energy. Subsequent economic deveopment and integration would seem a welcome deterrent, and the best way to achieve Israel’s regional citizenship.
Gideon’s piece moved us onto the economic paradigm and I would suggest that rehasing nuclear facts and arguments will not advance today’s discussions.
Posted by: WCM | December 11th, 2007 at 11:23 am | Report this commentGideon,
You meant the International Institute for Strategic Studies not the ‘International Institute of Security Studies’.
Posted by: RCS | December 11th, 2007 at 11:28 am | Report this commentMr. Rachman berates the Arabs for their strong preference for conspiracy theories and declares himself as being of the (presumably superior) Western cast of mind.
Funny then that he should go on and spin a conspiratorial narrative with scant regard to facts or critical analysis..
He says: “Most of the evidence suggests that the determination to get a nuclear bomb is a national project in Iran – uniting different political factions.”
Where is this “evidence” that he talks about? The only competent international authority, the IAEA, has repeatedly denied that Iran has a programme for nuclear weaponisation. The US intelligence agencies which, logically, would have a bigger axe to grind against Iran than against their own Washington opponents, have said that Iran has not pursued weaponisation for 4 years but have not offered any evidence of any attempts to build a bomb before 2003. Clearly, that implication has been a sop to Cheney and Co and a transparent example of “when did you stop beating your wife?” syndrome”.
It appears the “evidence” is only in the hands of the same American NeoCons and rightwing Israelis who have been saying Iran is x years away from the bomb since 1990’s with x being a variable that expands and contracts according to the needs of the Zionists to fleece the US. Here is an example of what I mean:
Quote
[….] since 1992, the Jewish state has employed a bellicose rhetoric against Tehran (echoing the Islamic Republic’s venomous verbal attacks on Israel) and maintained that Iran is just a few years away from the bomb.
“Remember, the Iranians are always five to seven years from the bomb,” Shlomo Brom, deputy national security adviser under former prime minister Ehud Barak, told this analyst sarcastically during an interview for a book on Israeli-Iranian relations. “Time passes, but they’re always five to seven years from the bomb.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IL08Ak01.html
Unquote
Now Mr. Rachman, we are told, is not a field journalist and should be excused the travails of stepping out of the air conditioned hotel lobby to see the actual condition of the working people, but is it too much to ask that he should be more careful with the use of the word “evidence”?
Then he talks about the fear of the Arabs leaders from Iran. I am sorry but this is also another ill-considered stereotype. Iran has never invaded an Arab country (although she was invaded by Iraq) and espouses causes like Palestine that are universally popular with the Arab masses. On the other hand, Israel (and now the US) have repeatedly invaded, dispossessed and humiliated Arabs for 60+years (Britain and France, as colonial powers having subjugated and exploited the Arabs for a couple of centuries) and we are blithely invited to believe that the Arabs consider Iran their true enemy and USrael, Britain and France their friends!
In order to restore some sanity to the analysis, we need to make a distinction here between Arabs and their leaders. The Arabs leaders’ primary fear is of their own people. I am not just talking about those Sunni Arab potentates that are ruling countries where the majority of the population is Shia, or places like Saudi Arabia where one fifth of the population consists of the Shia that occupy the oil-producing Eastern side of the country but where the Shia are de facto barred from even getting jobs with the national oil company or otherwise benefiting from the oil.
I am talking of virtually every Arab leader who has no legitimacy and no mandate from his own people. They all run the country for profit as family businesses and have no regard for the wishes of the ruled. Corrupt, oppressive and in hoc to the despised former colonialists and Neo-colonialists, their sole concern is to protect their own privileges and prolong their own rules. These so-called leaders claim to be Pan Arabs, friends of Palestinians and enemies of Israel but, in fact, they are frightened by anybody who wants to help Palestinians or other Arabs because they know any kind of freedom and liberation for Arabs is tantamount to their own downfall and demise.
These tyrants, thieves and criminals, increasingly clean-shaven and dressed in smart Western suits are the kind that say they fear Iran but really only fear that their own people may slip their yokes and rise up against them to demand their rights.
Finally, Mr. Rachman employs the meaningless cliché of Iran’s desire for regional hegemony. What is exactly meant by hegemony? Does it mean that Iran expects the Arab leaders to come and prostrate themselves in front of the Iranian president?!
No. Hegemony is simply Western spin to denigrate the fact that as the most populous state (by far) and the only truly self-governing one (as opposed to the colonial divide-and-rule creations of micro states that are nothing more oil-wells with a flag atop and a means of squandering the oil money to the benefit of colonial masters), Iran’s leadership in the region can lead to it being ruled by the natives and for their benefit, and not as a garrison-gas station-whorehouse for the foreigners.
Only if the people wrest control from their quisling leaders will they be able to demand an area free of nuclear weapons, free of foreign armies and free of imposed oil contracts of the kind the Americans are ramming down Iraqis; throats.
Of course such “hegemony” is benign for the Arabs but malicious for those who want to fleece them.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 11th, 2007 at 12:14 pm | Report this commentEnrique, “And about minorities, perhaps Saudi Arabia has more to fear as the Shia minority rests on the biggest oilfields”. This is a telling observation on your part. I simply meant that the Iranian minorities have something to fear from state persecution, rather than the other way round, which is clearly what you meant. As someone once said, you can tell the character of a state from the way it treats its minorities. On that basis alone, I would not trust an Iran armed with nuclear weapons.
As to your point about religious minorities feeling closer to Iran, I would beg to differ, citing the ethnic question. In the final analysis, would an Arab government support an expansionist Persian government against another Arab state?
BTW, who do you think supports Hamas and AQI? You guessed it, Iran.
“Pacifist”, I love your sentence “Iran’s leadership in the region can lead to it being ruled by the natives and for their benefit”. Is that using Iran itself as a model? With that sentence you fatally undermine your whole argument. The fact is that the cultists at the top table in Iran govern for themselves just as much as any other despotic regime in the region. Have the masses benefitted from the president in the way he promised? Of course not - they are as downtrodden, destitute and ignored as all the other disenfranchised peoples in the region.
Posted by: AYC | December 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pm | Report this commentA brilliant article by the Israeli pacifist, Uri Avnery:
Its title “How they Stole the bomb from us?”
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1197157608
Its conclusion
Quote
EITHER WAY, one thing is certain: that son of a bitch, Ahmadinejad, has screwed us again.
He has stolen our most precious possession: the Iranian Atomic Threat.
Unquote
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 11th, 2007 at 12:46 pm | Report this commentThis is a very mature article by Sir Max hastings (how the former editor of the Daily Telegraph has ended up writing for the Guardian is anybody’s guess!).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2225391,00.html
Quote
Let us stick to the fundamentals, which have not changed much. Any tolerable outcome in Iraq demands dialogue between Washington and Tehran, and if possible also Damascus. Conditions for this look more favourable, thanks to the intelligence report, than at any time so far this century. The odds against anything Bush - or Brown - can plausibly call “success”, remain great. But there is a window of opportunity, promising much to the Iraqi people, if all the parties can narrow their objectives sufficiently to use it.
Unquote
Best,
Posted by: Pacifist | December 11th, 2007 at 1:37 pm | Report this commentP
P,
Not pursuing weaponisation is not the same as not pursuing weapons. There are three basic strands to the development of nuclear weapons, as David Miliband pointed out in a recent article published in the Financial Times: 1) enrichment, 2) delivery systems (missile technology), 3) weaponisation (developing nuclear warheads). They can either be developed in parallel or, if a need arises (such as ducking sanctions), in sequence. Furthermore, weaponisation is technologically the least demanding of the three. By far the most important ingredient in a nuclear-weapons programme is the ability to enrich enough weapons-grade material.
In a previous post you rightly pointed out that enrichment is a ‘dual’ technology, with civillian as well as military uses. You made an analogy to kitchen cutlery, which could be used for murder, but which no one would ban because of such a possible use. The analogy is not apt. Nuclear technology could be used not for a single murder, but for Armageddon. That is why it is morally right to ban such ‘dual-use’ technology from state actors for whom a)international law does not take precedence over their own religious law, b) are not constrained by any dependence on outside powers, supranational entities or international organisations and c) whose national ideology calls for the destruction of a fellow member of the United Nations. Iran fits that bill.
As for evidence: it was foolish enough to publicise the summary of the National Intelligence Estimate, do you expect even the Americans to give away the evidence? As for journalistic evidence: when have you last seen a newspaper article with references? These are meant to be short and informative, not research papers in refereed journals, but based on them and on verbal sources. Anyway, the whole point of the ‘Iran and the bomb’ issue is the supposed lack of positive evidence of weaponisation, and how such lacunae should be interpreted.
Posted by: RCS | December 11th, 2007 at 2:13 pm | Report this commentAYC,
Then you could fear more Israel which treats Palestinians minorities like second class citizens, not to mention Palestinians in Gaza, Judea and Samaria who cannot even vote in Israel´s Elections.
Or Kurds in Turkey who are also second class citizens.
Or Christians in Saudi Arabia who are restricted and without full rights.
Or Koptic Christians in Egypt (7 million people)
A great part of the Iranian elite is azeri (turk) and the family links with Iraqi Shias are deep.
Even if Anglo-Americans always are ready to promote hate and ethnic division there is always a place for common understanding. Not everything is “ethnic homogeneity”. That would lead to endless divisions in India, China, Afghanistan, South Africa, Spain….of course what Anglo-Americans wish: divide and rule.
Posted by: Enrique | December 11th, 2007 at 2:41 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
On point number 1, you need HIGHLY enriched uranium. Iran has not tried to enrich uranium highly. The difference is huge and Miliband is as honest as his mentor, Tony B Liar. I wouldn’t buy a second hand car from either of them.
The low enriched uranium is as good for making bombs as using a brick (I guess you could throw it as your enemies and it might break their bones but uranium that is enriched below 5% is not of use for making bombs which needs enrichment of something like 99 percent).
Re point number 2, Iran has a missile programme but so does everyone else. In fact, ownership of sunburn missiles is Iran’s first line of defence against the aggressive intents of the US navy and possible one of the reasons that they think an attack is costly.
http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=375
If you constantly threaten someone, you should not be surprised if they arm themselves. Iran has a right and a duty to take the bellicosity by USrael at face value.
The arguments about Armageddon are frankly a joke. Iranians know that if they hit the US or America with a nuke, they will be paid back many many times over. The idea that Iranians are irrational has no basis in fact and is disputed by all, including the latest NIE report It is the typical Western demonisation that has been used against any Third World leader they have had troubles with from Mossadeq to Nasser to Chavez.
The bit you included about international law not taking precedence over own laws is, in fact, a fair reference to the current US administration’s behaviour and indeed Israel’s flouting of over 60 UN resolutions. Perhaps one can include in the same category the Zionist state’s claims to other people’s lands, based on bible (a document that also claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth).
Therefore,by your argument, we should immediately de-nuclearise both the US and Israel.
You support the right to make claims that are not supported by evidence and taking serious actions (like wars and sanctions) based on those claims. It simply means that countries and groups of people can be targeted by innuendo and propaganda. Isn’t this what Hitler did to the Jews?!
Also you may like to read this article by Charlie Brooker. It deals light-heartedly with your position of “bomb anyway”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2225028,00.html
Finally, I did not request a referenced article from Mr. Rachman. However, repeating one-sided propaganda, the way he has done here, is not informative and does not reflect well on his ability to consider information critically and inform his readers in an intelligent and balanced way. Frankly, he scores very low with this article. I reckon an E at best.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 11th, 2007 at 3:19 pm | Report this commentDear Pacifist,
Congratulations, you have stung me into a response.
Actually, it is a tribute to the malign influence you are having on my thinking that it did occur to me - as I was writing - Pacifist is going to hate this piece. Not that I was deterred, since you are a non-nuclear power.
Anyway, I claim no special knowledge either of nuclear physics or of Iran. All I would say is that I didn’t meet a single person among the hundreds at the IISS conference, who was in any doubt that Iran wants nuclear weapons. And before you dismiss them with the familiar “neo-con, Likudnik, Gulf dictator” tags, I should add that they were a mix of people. They included ardent Democrats and liberals, who have no desire to bomb Iran and hold no special brief for Israel - but who are non-proliferation experts, and who see no other explanation for what Iran is upto. Similarly, I know the EU foreign policy people reasonably well - they cant stand Bush - but they definitely think Iran is after nuclear weapons.
Maybe all the experts are wrong. They were wrong about Iraq, after all. But the difference is that there was no evidence of any continuing nuclear programme in Iraq - no enrichment facilities etc..I agree that there are plenty of people with malign reasons for hyping the Iranian “threat”. But that doesnt mean there is no Iranian nuclear-weapons programme.
Posted by: Gideon Rachman | December 11th, 2007 at 3:42 pm | Report this commentEnrique, tell me, when was the last time the Baha’i sent a suicide bomber to downtown Tehran? Iran’s minorities are the victims of state sponsored persecution, which in some cases aims to drive them out of existence. I repeat, the nature of a state can be seen in the way it treats its minorities.
I for one do not believe in the coming of the hidden imam so would rather the revolution wasn’t exported on the tip of a nuclear missile.
Posted by: AYC | December 11th, 2007 at 4:01 pm | Report this commentDear Mr. Rachman,
I hope I have not been impolite to you on your own blog.
I have to say that the FT is probably one of the few remaining sane voices in the British media on Iran and the Middle East so, for what it’s worth (which, is not much), please accept this note as as my appreciation of you and your colleagues.
I don’t know if all the experts are wrong. After all, the IAEA are demonstrably the relevant experts and El Baradei keeps protesting that there is no evidence of Iran’s weaponisation.
I wonder what qualifications these other experts at your conference had compared to those concentrated in the IAEA and what inspections they had carried out compared to the 200 man-days that the IAEA spent there.
Also, I have to say again that enrichment itself is not a step to weaponisation. It is high enrichment that is suspect and nobody has said that Iran has done that or is about to do it. If and when they try to take that step (which itself is not sufficient for getting a bomb), it will become very apparent.
Even then, Weaponisation (basically, packing the stuff into warheads and making them go bang) is not as trivial as Mr. Miliband has suggested. The Manhattan project stalled over that for ages.
So we have a situation that:
- Iran has no highly enriched uranium and is not producing any.
- Iran has not got the technology to weaponise any highly enriched uranium
- Iran does not have any warheads suitable for delivery of the non existent highly uranium that she has not wesaponised!
- THE IAEA who were right over Iraq and even the US government say that Iran does not have a weapons programme (at least for the past 4 years).
- Iran knows that if she hits USrael, it will be hit back to an extent that she will cease to exist.
YET, the assembled “experts” in Bahrain think that the “ragheads” cannot be trusted. That Iran should be sanctioned and that Iranian children should die like the Iraqi children did and it will be probably be worth it as Madeleine Albright (a Democratic Secretary of State) said about the death of 1/2 million Iraqi children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8
On the above basis, I like to add racism and cultural arrogance of the “experts” to my list of anti-Iranian attitudes, alongside Likudnik-NeoCons and Gulf dictators. It is more malign, as it probably visceral and not rational, hence it is done in an unrestrained way.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 11th, 2007 at 4:37 pm | Report this comment“P”, what’s the line from the Iranian embassy’s press office on the plutonium I’m sure you’re going to say you’re not producing, but which is equally effective in achieving a bang once you haven’t produced it?
Posted by: AYC | December 11th, 2007 at 5:15 pm | Report this commentI agree with Gideon that most professionals conclude that Iran wants and will have a bomb. I’m not sure that we disagree as to their will and intent to deploy one in an act of aggression. Clearly, there is a risk given Iran’s heightened poltical risk. My view–and it is not yet clear to what extent Gideon shares in it–is to focus on the political risks by accepting, as stated in his article, the reality of a bomb, and then working to bring Iran back into the international economy with respect as is due and, hopefully, earned. Only then can realities be effectively managed. A strategic attack or war will not let any of us sleep better.
Today’s article from Gideon–one whom they likely have counted as supportive, if independent–even suggesting a “bargain” certainly must have hit the neocons between the eyes.
Posted by: WCM | December 11th, 2007 at 5:25 pm | Report this commentPlease forgive me and please do not delete this correction: I wrote “I’m not sure that we disagree as to their will and intent to deploy one in an act of aggression.” Please insert the words “extent of” ahead of “…their will”. Clearly, I think their overriding priority is to join the global economy. Regional hegemony may excite Ahamdinezad, but it is unrealistic for a very long time.
Posted by: WCM | December 11th, 2007 at 5:30 pm | Report this commentHi AYC,
The non-existent Plutonium makes a non-existent bang. This must imply that we should have non-existent sanctions and non-existent military threats against Iranians.
By the way, here is a good article from a Saudi Newspaper on the NIE report. It gives the finger to the Israeli claims that the Arabs are disappointed at the contents of the report:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=104500&d=11&m=12&y=2007
Now, as you probably know, things like this just don’t appear in Saudi newspapers to reflect a diversity of opinion. There ain’t no diversity allowed in that polity. Only the offcial line will do.
Therefore, this simply means that even the Saudi puppets are fed up at the antics of NeoCons and have found the courage to say so.
If that doesn’t make Bush’s foreign policy a lameduck, I don’t know what does.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 11th, 2007 at 5:51 pm | Report this commentWCM”Firstly, I would note that much of this new paradigm began to gel during the week before and of the Annapolis conference. King Abdullah delivered a message to Washington. It was the same that Dubai’s Sheikh Mohammed delivered to last year’s Arab Conference: “Change or be changed”. The timing was right.
Secondly, Dubai has played a much under-reported role in opening discussions of a viable Persian Gulf regional framework. As I have often noted, Rafsanjani, an investor as well as a former president, has been the key interlocutor. Quieter shifts in the region have gone unremarked and are key. Oman, for example, has quietly rebuked Washington’s advances to discuss belligerent action against Iran. Kuwaitis are of two minds these days on the US, as well as on the dollar. India has begun to speak up on the matter. Etc.”
Exactly!!! actually after considering the chaos that the US has created with the invasion into Iraq…the Saudis have been reaching out to Iran for over a year…there are many positive developments in the region ….mostly having to do with Arabs FINALLY showing real leadership. . The Iranians probably do want to go nuclear….they do have real security issues which no one ever really ever seriously discusses, and unfortunately, going nuclear does appear to be a criterior for being considered a seriously taken world player, which they are hell bent on being… I am not a fan of Chirac, but I remember he said a year ago …it will happen and we will all need to live with it…it was considered at the time a great gaffe when he said it…in any event, Rafsanjani will make a wonderful “Ayatollah” and the Mayor of Teheran would make a great future President for Iran! …we are about to see reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah …i.e., Mecca Agreement redux…only this time the West will support the Saudis effort not sabotage it …now if Israel will only stop building settlements…and some compromise between Iran and US found in Iraq…then we can move on to debating & discussing Central Asia where everyone (US, Russia, China, Iran) will be bumping heads again next year at this time!…
I am off to spend Holidays in London, actually more than happy to get away from US political campaign season for a bit…Happy Holidays to all that regularly post here…it is always intersting!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | December 11th, 2007 at 7:41 pm | Report this commentInterestingly, the last US National Intelligence Estimate (August 2005) re Iran stated that the minimum amount of time required for Iran to obtain fissile material sufficient for a bomb (assuming Iran was moving full speed ahead with its program and did not run into any technical obstacles) would have been about ten years (around 2015 as a minimum).
see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html
kc
Posted by: kc | December 11th, 2007 at 7:42 pm | Report this commentThe coference Mr. Rachman attended in Bahrain must have had at least one moment of high farce as reported by the Democracynow web site:
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/10/headlines#8
Here is the relevant extract:
Quote
The United States was accused this weekend of being hypocritical for supporting Israel’s right to have nuclear weapons while trying to force Iran to stop uranium enrichment. During a conference in the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain, the Bahraini Labor Minister Majeed al-Alawi questioned Defense Secretary Robert Gates about Israel.
Majeed al-Alawi: “Secretary of Defense thank you very much for the excellent speech. I was wondering whether you think the Israeli nuclear weapon is a threat to regional security or not?”
Robert Gates: “No, I do not.”
The statement by Gates was greeted by laughter from a room filled with government officials from Middle Eastern countries. Gates said there are significant differences in terms of both the
history and the behavior of the Iranian and Israeli governments.
Robert Gates: “I think that Israel is not training terrorists to subvert its neighbors. It has not shipped weapons into a place like Iraq to kill thousands of innocent civilians covertly. It has not threatened to destroy any of its neighbors. It is not trying to destabilize the government of Lebanon.”
Unquote
yeah, yeah…Israel never tried to “destabilise” Lebanon. She just set out to bomb Lebanon back to the stone age…but hey they were using American planes, bombs and missiles so it was a “democratic” kind of action and both Jesus and Moses would have approved
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 12th, 2007 at 10:22 am | Report this comment“Pacifist”, once again the embassy’s press office line seems to deviate from the facts. Just remind me, who was it who crossed into Israel unprovoked and kidnapped Israeli soldiers? Who was it who fired thousands of rockets directly and deliberately at civilian population centres? Would it possibly be the Iranian sponsored terrorist milita, Hizbollah? Or like the highly enriched uranium and plutonium that don’t exist in Iran, I suppose the supplies and training supplied to Nasrallah’s crew by your lot don’t exist either?
Posted by: AYC | December 12th, 2007 at 12:10 pm | Report this commentDear P
May I remind you that the 2006 war in the Lebanon was instigated by Hezbollah’s gratuitous attack on an Israeli border patrol, and that during the war Hezbollah did not restrain from firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets.
Hezbollah is an Iranian client and therefore Gates is doubly right: Iran bears ultimate responsiblity both through its sponsorship of Hezbollah and through its unholy alliance with Syria. In fact, one explanation for the summer 2006 events is that Iran was trying to distract attention from ongoing discussions on sanctions which were being held at the time.
P, your Shia brethren cannot wash their hands of their own responsibility. Please do not pass judgement from faraway London.
Posted by: RCS | December 12th, 2007 at 12:32 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
I am as much sitting in the Iranian embassy as you are in the Israeli one
It is well-known that Israel and the US were looking for an excuse to take out the Hezbollah and if they hadn’t alighted on that excuse, they would have found something else (or invented one, like the US did when they chose to invade Iraq). Anyway, Israel is above the law, isn’t it? Why would they need an excuse? They just go ahead and bomb anyway. After all, America always stands ready to veto any condemnations against Israel and if anyone disagrees, they are anti-semites, right?
What USrael, itching for attacking Hezbollah, had forgotten was that the Israeli army, despite its high-tech murder weapons, is no longer an efficient fighting force. Having spent the past 25 years shooting schoolgirls, they were ill-prepared for fighting some actual men, albeit those men had inferior weapons.
They therefore had to resort to the kind of sadism that only racial supremacists are capable of, including dropping a million cluster bombs at the very end of the conflict which could only be considered an act of vengeance against the Lebanese civilians and whivh was condemned by the UN:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19670&Cr=Leban&Cr1
The UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland said:
Quote
“What’s shocking and I would say to me, completely immoral, is that 90 per cent of the cluster bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict when we knew there would be a resolution, when we really knew there would be an end of this,” he told reporters in New York.
Unquote
I guess if Robert Gates was out to prove that the Americans do have a sense of humour! I often laugh at what they say.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 12th, 2007 at 12:52 pm | Report this comment“P”, go on say what you really think - you missed out the N word. You know, the name for those who your lot believe didn’t commit the holocaust. Why not come out and say it up front? As for racial supremacy, which government suppresses the Arabs and Kurds, not to mention Jews, to maintain a Shia / Persian grip on power? “Sadism that only racial supremacists are capable of”? How about hanging children from cranes in public? Cutting out the tongues of dissenters? Brainwashing young boys to blow themselves up? The Iranian regime is vicious, insidious and rotten to the core - it shouldn’t be trusted with a popgun, let alone nuclear weapons. None of your propaganda will change the facts.
Incidentally, you should have written “Sadism of which only racial supremacists are capable”, rather than the elementary grammatical error you made.
Pip pip.
Posted by: AYC | December 12th, 2007 at 1:29 pm | Report this commentJust to back up the contention that Israel was looking for war, here’s an article from Christian sSience Monitor, (that bastion of Shia Islam!!), quoting a report in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0814/dailyUpdate.html
“The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits,” a US government consultant with close ties to Israel said. “Why oppose it? We’ll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.”
Here’s the Guardian reporting the same thing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1844021,00.html
And this is an interview with Hersh:
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/14/seymour_hersh_u_s_helped_plan
And let’s not forget how US-K were dragging their feet on any UN intervention with Condie Rice bragging about the “birth pangs of a new Middle East” and the US sending bunker busting bombs, via UK airports, to Israel. It was clear that the evil axis of Washington-Tel Aviv that passed through B Liar in London definitely wanted this war.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 12th, 2007 at 1:36 pm | Report this commentHezbollah, the self-professed protector of the Shia population in south Lebanon, sacrificed these villagers for the sake of some foreign interests — those of its sinister Aryan mentor and prop Iran.
Posted by: RCS | December 12th, 2007 at 3:43 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
I reckon Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of telling the “big lie” as well as you have done. You have also chosen to blame the victim for aggression from your side, another favourite tactics of those nasty Germans of yore.
After all, most of the Hezbollah leaders and virtually all their fighters are from the self-same villages that were being razed with gay abandon. Why would they want to sacrifice their own families for those “sinister Aryans” far away?
And why did Tel Aviv, Washington and B Liar (who was like a pig spit roasted on the evil axis of Tel Aviv-Washington) co-operate in this fiendish Hezbollah plan of destroying their own kinsmen?! Didn’t everybody else repeatedly call for a stop to violence and proportionate responses?
Wasn’t the blood lust almost total within Tel Aviv and Washington? Wasn’t it another demonstration of the kind of ethos of a society w
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 12th, 2007 at 4:39 pm | Report this commentGoing back to the subject of the thread, it seems that Washington’s efforts to divide and rule have taken another blow:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071212/wl_nm/iran_ahmadinejad_haj_dc_1;_ylt=AgF0z5xPoPTqC1KkgnJqmrcE1vAI
The king of Saudi Arabia has invited the Iranian president for the Hajj ceremony in Mecca. So much for Annapolis!!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 12th, 2007 at 5:04 pm | Report this comment“P”, what happened? computer give up under the strain? The fact is Nasrallah miscalculated - he messed up. He goaded the Israelis just once too often. If the Hizbollah terrorists use women and children (not to mention the UN) as human shields, then it is on their heads when “their” villages are destroyed. The fact that the Iranians supplied them with their arsenal, trained them, provided intelligence and then paid for the clean up goes to show that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. No point dressing it up any other way. Only difference is the Iranians (and their Shia client) are amoral (at best) and fascistic in nature - just review their tactics and imagery for easy comparisons which I won’t go into here. Again, good reasons why they shouldn’t be allowed the bomb.
btw, I see you’re getting ever closer to the N word - and now you’ve brought in the blood libel. Wow - two slurs in one post. How do you think them up?
Posted by: AYC | December 12th, 2007 at 5:06 pm | Report this commentDear P
Hezbollah isn’t the victim, the poor villagers are. The local Hezbollah leaders have been brainwashed into supporting the movement and its self-aggrandising leader Nassrallah. Hezbollah’s policies are definitely not in the interests of the local Shias; they can only be comprehended within the matrix of the wider regional rivalry centring on Tehran’s aspirations for strategic dominance in the Middle East.
Of course Jerusalem didn’t co-operate in any of this: they were sucked into the conflict by Hezbollah’s (meaning Iran’s) repeated provocations. Deterrence had to be restored and, incidentally, has been: despite Hezbollah’s claim to victory, we didn’t see a repeat of its aggression this summer.
Posted by: RCS | December 12th, 2007 at 5:19 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
I think I will keep this last post of yours to embarrass the more intelligent Zionists. It is a great parody!- Thanks for the ammunition.
Going back to the topic at hand,
Iran is not after the bomb so saying that Iran should not be allowed it is rather a waste of bandwidth / breath.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 12th, 2007 at 5:21 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
Let’s leave aside the arrogance that you know what’s good for the Lebanese Shia (the same ones whose area of s Lebanon received on average only 1% of the government expenditure between independence and 1979 and were entirely downtrodden until they received some leadership from Hezbollah.)
That you imply “Israel did not co-operate in any of this” is bizarre: -
Firstly, I have provided links in my previous posts that Israel actively sought the confrontation. It was also entirely apparent during the 5 weeks that the conflicts lasted when Israel and its supporters in Washington and London were entirely against any peaceful resolution because they thought they will win.
Secondly, you do not explain why it was necessary to use cluster bombs against civilians or bomb roads, bridges, power stations and schools so deliberately.
Thirdly, you don’t give a rational reason for why Iran would want to dominate the Middle East by force. As you see, even the nearby Saudis are hugging Iran close.
Of course, Iran has an interest in the well-being of the Lebanese Shia,in the same way that the world Jewry campaigned against the supposed mistreatment of the Jews in the Soviet Union but that is hardly the same as wanting to dominate the Middle East.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 12th, 2007 at 5:42 pm | Report this commentDear P
The Lebanese Shia would have done much better for themselves if — following the end of the civil war — they had re-integrated into Lebanese society as the Sunnis have done. But the Shia were manipulated by Syria’s divide-and-rule tactics, and Syria in its turn was prodded and manipulated by Iran (though Syria deserves this).
Israel sought to reassert its deterrence, the conflict lasting as long as suited this objective. Although there were glitches in the implementation, overall the objective had been achieved (Nasrallah has not tried a repeat of his summer 2006 folly).
Cluster bombs were a mistake. Bridges and power stations were bombed for obvious tactical reasons. War brings devastation and this war was brought upon the poor villagers (who incidentally greeted the Israeli liberators in 1982 with rice showers) by their scheming politicians, aligned to Iran through self-interest. If schools were targeted, then that is only because they were used as rocket bases by Hezbollah — and remember the civilian population had fled, so this was fair hunting ground for the IAF.
The regime in Iran is indifferent to the well-being of individuals, be they Lebanese Shia or its own citizens (which Iran had sent wave after wave as gun fodder for Saddam’s forces). This is something inherent to totalitarian and dictatorial regimes. In previous threads you have sounded a note of alert for a repeat in Pakistan of the events of 1979 in Iran. So why now this blind toeing of the line for the regime? (Probably because it suits your anti-Israel rhetoric.)
Posted by: RCS | December 12th, 2007 at 7:11 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
I think you are teasing me. I hope you don’t seriously believe what you say. In any case, it seems that we have said our piece and there isn’t much to add that is new.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 12th, 2007 at 10:23 pm | Report this commentIf Iranians contained Saddam Hussein it is because Saddam invaded Iran with American support.
In the same way Hezbollah was the main defender of Lebanon against the Isaraeli invasion.
Even if it is evident Americans try to promote “ethnic homogeneity” and racial hate between Arabs and Persians…that´s not happening. Syrians are Arabs and support Iran. Hezbollah are Arabs and support Iran. And most Shia Arabs in Iraq support Iran too…
But, of course, Anglo-American support of “ethnic homoegeneity” and racial hate has its limits:
If the result is several countries with similar ethnic majorities trying to get united they do everything possible to halt it:
Arabs from different countries…the US, the UK and Israel will never support an Arab unification similar to those which led to the creation of Italy and Germany during the XIX Century. NO
Latinamericans from different countries…the US and the UK will never support a Latin unification.
Germany and Austria…the US, the UK and Israel will never support that unification.
Russian Federation, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and Northern Kazahstan…the US and the UK will not support that unification.
So support “ethnic homogeneity” and Divide nations when it fits Anglo-American intersts (like support of segregation in Iran, Russia and China) but don´t support “ethnic homogeneity” when it fits Anglo-American interests (Arabs, Russians, Latinamericans)
It is easy to understand.
Posted by: Enrique | December 13th, 2007 at 3:33 am | Report this commentDear P
Teasing? Not at all.
Posted by: RCS | December 13th, 2007 at 6:01 am | Report this commentDear Enrique,
The NeoCon-Israeli position in the Middle East is that the Sykes-Picot pact that delineated much of the borders in the Middle East is not to their advantage. That is why they support the breaking up of most Middle Eastern countries by claiming to support the minority rights (e.g. Kurds or Egyptian Copts) while at the same time treat the Palestinians in the most despicable way and run Israel itself as an apartheid state to the extent of building Jew-only roads.
As an example, read this article written by a former education minister of Israel:
http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html
Here is an extract:
Quote
By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing “Jewish only” roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night–all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.
On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. “Why?” I asked the soldier. “It’s an order–this is a Jews-only road”, he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. “It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?”
Unquote
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 13th, 2007 at 10:08 am | Report this comment“Pacifist”,
speaking of repression, if not outright fascism, the latest from Tehran is the banning of the wearing of boots by women. This from an Italian newswire:
quote
Women have been banned from wearing boots and hats on the streets of Tehran.
Police chief, General Ahmad Radan, announced the ban on Wednesday.
unquote
available here:
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=1.0.1662888444
Did you say Iran was a democracy, or a thugocracy? Any more public hangings today?
Posted by: AYC | December 13th, 2007 at 12:38 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
I support the right of the Iranian people to choose (or overthrow) their government by their own hands. I do not support the obscurantist instincts and actions of those in power.
Your ilk, on the other hand, want to “export” democracy and freedom (ha ha ha!) on the back of shock and awe tactics similar to what was done to the Iraqis and do to Iranians what has been done to the Iraqis.
I would respect you more as an oponent if you admit that your attitude is nothing to do with democracy and freedom but a mere pitch to ensure that Israel keeps the lands (and waters) that it has stolen and steals some more.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 13th, 2007 at 1:05 pm | Report this commentThanks “Pacifist”. So what sort of regime would you like to see in Tehran, if not the one we have now? I do believe that people should have the right to choose their own government, although I don’t agree with force - democracy is about choice, therefore people should choose to adopt it. On the other hand to be brutalised by a regime in turn leads to brutalisation. You should read Natan Sharansky’s book, The Case for Democracy. Might help raise your eyes from the gutter.
Issues of who owns the land are best left to the people doing the negotiating - but I would just point out that the Jordanians and Egyptians, before they lost the ‘67 war, maintained an even tighter grip on the west bank and Gaza. Don’t think there were any cries then about the so-called second class citizens. Nor do I hear any calls from the Arab world to allow the Palestinians out of the camps. To do so would destroy the Arab League’s most effective stick with which they beat Israel. On the other hand, the million Jews driven out of Arab lands (btw I haven’t seen any state sponsored pogroms in Israel recently) since Israel came into existence have contributed meaningfully to that state. They haven’t been kept in camps. Nor do I hear any offers from any of the Arab states, except perhaps Libya in exceptional circumstances, to recompense them for the loss of their property. If you’re so sincere about returning lost lands, why not add that to your list? Or is your sympathy for the Palestinians merely a screen from behind which you can attack Israel to suit another agenda?
Posted by: AYC | December 13th, 2007 at 1:38 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
Happy Chanukah (before I forget!).
Iranians kicked out a big bully, the Shah. When they are good and ready, thy will kick out the current lot too. They do not need interference from greedy foreigners.
The Iranian Jews (the biggest Jewish community in the Middle East, outside Israel) were not expelled. I know quite a few who left (as did an enormous number of Muslim Iranians) and they seem to have taken their money with them. I know many who regularly go back and many who still trade with Iran.
Also see this interesting report by the BBC about Iranian Jews:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm
Note this extract:
Quote
In between chopping up meat, butcher Hersel Gabriel tells me how he expected problems when he came back from Israel, but in fact the immigration officer didn’t say anything to him.
“Whatever they say abroad is lies - we are comfortable in Iran - if you’re not political and don’t bother them then they won’t bother you,” he explains.
His customer, middle-aged housewife Giti agrees, saying she can easily talk to her two sons in Tel Aviv on the telephone and visit them.
“It’s not a problem coming and going; I went to Israel once through Turkey and once through Cyprus and it was not problem at all,” she says.
Gone are the early days of the Iranian revolution when Jews - and many Muslims - found it hard to get passports to travel abroad.
“In the last five years the government has allowed Iranian Jews to go to Israel freely, meet their families and when they come back they face no problems,” says Mr Mohtamed.
Unquote
As you see, the Iranian Jews are happy to be there. Nobody is chasing them out and nobody is forcing them to stay. That they don’t go to live in Israel (like so many diaspora Jews, across the globe) is quite a slap in the face of the Zionists
See this for example (from a Jewish web site):
http://www.forward.com/articles/iranian-jews-reject-outside-calls-to-leave-1/
Moreover, it gives the lie to those who says Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler.
If Iran wanted to wipe out the Jews, why didn’t she start with the Jews at home?!
Read this brilliant article by Jonathan Cooke, entitled “Israel’s Jewish problem in Tehran”
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=11394
best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 13th, 2007 at 2:27 pm | Report this comment————————————-
PS:- By the way, I also have heard that Israelis, at that time of the revolution, were waiting for Iranian Jews to arrive (laden with valuable stocks of jewels and carpets) only to swindle them at the Tel Aviv airport. What beasts!!
Dear P
Firstly, isn’t there a quaint possibility that the interviewees didn’t feel secure enough to air their real opinions? They pretty much answered what they were expected to answer.
Secondly, surely you know that Iran is governed by Islamic law, which accords monotheistic minorities protected — albeit inferior — status. However, that only goes for quiescent minorities. The Jews in Israel are an altogether different proposition from the point of view of the Iranian regime. Here are some of what Ayatollah Khomeini had said:
QUOTE
Israel must be eradicated from the page of history.
It is incumbent on every Muslim to arm himself against Israel.
Those who support Israel must realize they are nurturing a pit viper up their sleeves.
Do not support Israel, this enemy of Islam and Arabs for this listless viper will have no mercy on you, young or old if it gets within your reach.
Iran has been and is the diehard enemy of Israel.
We shall reject Israel and shall have no relations with it for it is a usurper state and is our enemy.
I announce to all Islamic states and Muslims of the world, wherever they are, that the dear Shiite nation hates Israel and its agents and is disgusted with and hates the states that compromise with Israel.
Israel is a usurper and must leave Palestine soon and the way to it is that Palestinian brothers uproot this core of corruption and colonialization from the region so that peace may return to the area.
This degenerative tumour that has, with backing of major powers, been planted in the heart of Islamic states and whose roots daily threaten the Islamic lands must be removed with help and effort of Islamic states and the great nations of Islam.
UNQUOTE
Posted by: RCS | December 13th, 2007 at 3:52 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
The interviews were all done by foreign organisations like the BBC who would have noted if the interviewees were being pressured (or ought to have done).
As for Khomeini:
- firstly you will note that he is not attacking Jews but the state of Israel. I know you Zionists like to say that attacking Israel is equivalent to hating Jews but we both know that it is a lie. Personally, I am against the atrocities committed by Israel but I have no dislike of Jews in general, many of whom are my friends.
-secondly, in Shia tradition of emulation, emulating a dead Ayatollah is frowned upon (the Arabic word is “Makrooh” which means something that is disapproved but not absolutely unlawful).
The idea is that the religion should be dynamic and each generation should interpret things in the light of its own circumstances.
Therefore your contention that Khomeini’s words constitute “national ideology” is inaccurate.
Iran and Israel don’t have to be enemies, neither do Muslims and israel.
At the same time, where there is injustice, there shall be strife.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 13th, 2007 at 4:20 pm | Report this commentYou surprise me - wasn’t there any bloodlust in the Jews’ eyes?
Anyway, if you want to bother reading source material:
Quote
Linda Menuchum was born in Iraq in 1950. Her father, a prominent Jewish lawyer, was abducted and executed by the Iraqi government in 1972.
“It was in 1968 when the radio reports started to be very harsh on Jews. They were really inciting people against us,” said Menuchum, whose father stayed in Iraq after she fled with her mother, brother and sister to Iran in 1970, wherefrom the family eventually made its way to Israel.
“At that time, Jews who were living in houses were given one month to leave.”
unquote
Available here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/935409/posts
quote
In a key address before the Political Committee of the U.N. General Assembly on November 14, 1947, just five days before that body voted on the partition plan for Palestine, Heykal Pasha, an Egyptian delegate, made the following key statement in connection with that plan:
The United Nations . . . should not lose sight of the fact that the proposed solution might endanger a million Jews living in the Moslem countries. Partition of Palestine might create in those countries an anti-Semitism even more difficult to root out than the anti-Semitism which the Allies were trying to eradicate in Germany. . . If the United Nations decides to partition Palestine, it might be responsible for the massacre of a large number of Jews.
unquote
Available here: http://www.meforum.org/article/263
Quote
Jews fled Arab countries after Israel’s founding in 1948, leaving behind assets valued today at more than $300 billion, said Heskel M. Haddad.
He added that the New York-based organization has decades-old property deeds of Jews from Arab countries on a total area of 100,000 sq.km. - which is five times the size of the State of Israel.
Unquote
Available here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195127517604&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
happy ramadan!
Posted by: AYC | December 13th, 2007 at 4:42 pm | Report this commentsome more re: the Iranian attitude to the Jews:
Quote
Hashemi Rafsanjani, former Iranian president and current Chairman of the Assembly of Experts, said Friday that Hitler’s treatment of Jewish people in Europe was due in part to their being “a pain in the neck.”
Unquote
Available here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301296,00.html
Not to mention other muslims
Posted by: AYC | December 13th, 2007 at 4:43 pm | Report this commentQuote
Activists Tell of Iranian Authorities’ Persecution of Arab Population in Iran’s Al-Ahwaz Province
Unquote
Available here: http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=SP172807
P,
Is it the Shia principle that “religion should be dynamic and each generation should interpret things in the light of its own circumstance”?
If so, how does this evidence itself these days (re women’s rights, separation of religion and state, tolerance, etc.)? Ayaan Hirsi Ali seems to present a strong counter case.
kc
Posted by: kc | December 13th, 2007 at 4:43 pm | Report this commentDear P
Of course they couldn’t have noted such a thing, since outwardly the interviewee would have behaved normally. It is the fact that his family and his livelihood depend on “saying the right thing” which is important.
I didn’t say he was attacking Jews in general, I explicitly pointed to the tolerated minority status accorded to Jews in Iran, which however is in itself soft persecution. As for attacking Israel: this is of course the same as attacking Jews in Israel, since Israel is a Jewish state. I harbour no doubts as to the atrocities the regime in Iran is capable of perpetrating — after all, witness the atrocities they’ve commited against their own people!
Furthermore, theory and practice do not always converge, whenever it suits the regime to suspend theoretical niceties. For example, the deadly bombing of the Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires was a murderous racist attack against Jews — not against Israel, not even against Israeli civillians.
Iran and Israel do not have to be enemies, neither do Muslims and Israel.
Posted by: RCS | December 13th, 2007 at 4:55 pm | Report this commentAt the same time, where there is injustice, there shall be strife.
Hi KC,
There is a big difference between Shi’ism and Sunnism over this. The Sunnis believe that the “baab ul tafsir” (doors to interpretation of Koran and Hadith) were closed a few centuries after the death of the prophet whereas the Shia believe that they always remain open as I described before.
The difference is evidenced in the generally passive, government-sponsored religion in Sunni societies and the generally politicised Shia clergy who had traditionally been financed entirely separately from the state and stood outside it (until in Iran they actually took over the government!).
What is not understood in the West is the tremendous debate inside Shi’ism about issues such as the rights if women and religious minorities.
Currently, in Iran, the obscurantists are in charge: there are Ayatollahs who are under house arrest, including one Grand Ayatollah(Montazeri) and many medium ranking ones and other Islamic thinkers who are in prison or internal exile or, if lucky, are simply banned from publishing articles and making speeches. This balance of power need not continue indefinitely.
Hirsi Ali,like Salman Rushdie and others, is simply in the business of denigrating her roots for fame and money. Westerners love to lap up the tales of uncivilised ragheads told by adopted “Uncle Toms” and pay good money for it!. It’s such a no-brainer, I sometime wonder if I should do it myself
In any case, she is not from a Shia background.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 13th, 2007 at 5:23 pm | Report this commentLook, if we keep cross-referencing some of the atrocities said and done from each side, then clearly they cannot be any way forward.
Had the French and Germans thought along those lines, they would never have been a Company of Steel and coal nor a EU today. (at the time in the 50’s the whole project created much resentment in France, with many French distrusting the Germans, and it took enlightened, bold and strong politicians like Jean Monnet to get the project through)
People in the middle east have no choice but soon or later (I’m afraid it’ll be later & later & later) to realise that the only way forward is both to start forgiving (or ignoring/putting aside) and start imposing on one self’s tough concessions.
It’s probably not going to happen for a while as I can’t see any politicians with the calibre needed. I think that any leader of the PLO and Israel who gets heavily critised by his own side is probably one trying to move in the right direction and should be strongly supported. Using the “ennemy” to sustain oneself to power has been to often the name of the game.
As for the ongoing, never ending discussions between what I’ll roughly and imperfectly drescribe as the pro-israel and the anti-neocon sides, it is getting a bit tiresome by the constant rehearsal of the same points and arguments.
By the way, just because one of you is quoting something from the media (or the web, TV etc) doesn’t make the view/comment valid and accurate. Plenty of prominent, clever, powerful people have been utterly wrong before. Moreover, in today’s information world pretty much any possible view has been expressed somewhere by someone, again regardless of its wisdom.
I also deplore the sort of tribal arguments made in this blog. Why can’t an Israeli critise Israel and its policies? Why can’t an Iranian be disgusted by its political system?
Also please stop trying to justify actions by pointing at similar actions undertaken by others. (AYC - your point on pre-67 is just the latest example) Not only it doesn’t make an action right, but moreover it totally ignores time. Because in my view, human kind is evolving and should strife to evolve in positive ways, to better itself, to become more civilised, more tolerant etc… meaning that behaviour that were judged acceptable 20 or 50yrs ago are totally unacceptable today. This to me is why the prison of Abu Graim was so hurtful and damaging - it basically opened a straight link between the US soldiers of the 21th century and the awful behaviour of the 20th century armies.
Anyway, I’m just hoping this audience tries to stay focused on Mr Rachman’s posts and doesn’t stray too far off.
Posted by: A | December 13th, 2007 at 5:25 pm | Report this commentHi P,
Is any of the debate taking place in public (published) forums (accessible to outsiders like myself)? I would be very interested in how different members of the Shia clergy are thinking about these issues.
Thanks,kc
Posted by: kc | December 13th, 2007 at 5:35 pm | Report this commentHi AYC,
You are simply playing the victim when you are clearly te aggressor. The history of the past 60 years has shown that.
Moreover, why don’t you post us some choice quotes from various Zionist leaders about what they said about Arabs. You know gems like:
“One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.”
And it isn’t just Arabs whom you hate is it? This is another aspect of the sick untra-religious, racist fundamentalism that afflicts the Israeli society. Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9W3UsdRyM
Hi RCS,
As I said, it is the standard trick that protesting the Israeli atrocities should be treated as anti-semitism.
Many Jews are against the Israeli atrocities, are they anti-semites too?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 13th, 2007 at 5:46 pm | Report this commentDear P
Is bombing the Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires protesting Israeli atrocities? is it anti-semitic? Or is it just anti-Israeli?
Posted by: RCS | December 13th, 2007 at 5:54 pm | Report this commentDear KC,
Unfortunately, most of these debates take place in the Farsi language but to get a flavour of what I was talking about look at this article. Soroush is not a clergyman but an islamic philosopher and was very close to Khomeini.
This is an article on Tafsir (interpretation) and as you see from the conculding part, he is calling for separation of the spiritual from the temporal and the application of reason in “this world”:
Quote
The new reformers also sought to secularise Islam, but in a very different sense: that is, they tried to show that no social, political or economic laws and theories are found in Quran. It was not the Prophet’s main mission to resolve people’s economic, social and political problems in this world, but to introduce and explain God and the next world. That is, God wants to change people’s orientation, He wants people to know that the universe is expanded not limited. Of course, in the new reformers’ view, this attitude to the universe will also affect people’s life in this world. The most important effect is serenity and peace of mind. In their opinion, religion does not aim to replace reason, so people must use reason in order to improve their lives in this world, which means understanding and interpreting the Quran in such a way as to discover how to know God and the next life and to ensure happiness in the next world.
http://www.drsoroush.com/English/On_DrSoroush/E-CMO-20050718-The%20Development%20of%20Tafsir.html
Unquote
His main web site is:
http://www.drsoroush.com/English.htm
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 13th, 2007 at 5:58 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
Why do you ask me about a bombing in Buenos Aires?
Don’t forget that it is a Pavlovian reaction to blame Iran for everything. I remember when the Oklahoma bombing happened, for days they blamed Iran until they caught the all-American boy, McVeigh. Same with the first bombing of the WTC in NY. Same with the bomb that went off during the Olympics in the US and then again with the Lockerbie bombing.
In any case, bombing and murdering civilians has to regretted anywhere, regardless of race, religion, colour etc.
For mass murder of civilians in cold blood, look at this example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm
As you may recall, the Iranian Airbus was shot down by the Vincennes, although
it was on schedule, on course, and flying completely normally in Iranian airspace.
The captain of the Vencenes was decorted later! I saw American senators on TV saying the action was justified (later they changed their story and said it was a mistake).
best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 13th, 2007 at 6:12 pm | Report this comment“Pacifist”, never mind what the Israelis are or are not. You should explain your comments accusing RCS of behaviour akin to Goebbels (when you are under the assumption he is Israeli) and subsequent references to Jewish bloodlust and Jewish greed (swindling of Iranian brethren). Both of the latter being slurs used by anti-semites in western and Muslim propaganda. The evidence is pointing to just one racial supremicist posting to this blog. But this is not surprising I suppose, given that you seem to have imbibed the stereotypes with your mother’s milk.
Posted by: AYC | December 13th, 2007 at 8:57 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
May I suggest that you are lowering the tone of this blog by projecting your own attitudes on to others?
Shalom,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 13th, 2007 at 9:28 pm | Report this commentP “The king of Saudi Arabia has invited the Iranian president for the Hajj ceremony in Mecca. So much for Annapolis!!”
exactly! the neo-cons last swan song was Annapolis! …they tried to sell Annapolis as an anti-Iran conference much more than a solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict…in any event, remember when President Ahmadinejad said ” we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation.” The US presented this satement of his as a threat …but one could argue that he was not making a threat, but instead conveying a realistic assessment and solution to an ongoing regional crisis. Since last November, there have been diplomatic meetings and a plethora of statements between the two countries centering on reaching out to each other and on attempts of finding cooperation on the government crisis’s in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq….joint pursuit of nuclear programs …etc Saudi Arabia and Iran know they cannot ignore the other’s significant role and position in the Islamic world with their respective leadership roles among the Sunni and Shia populations, as well as their energy rich geographically strategically placed positions in the region, As such, both Iran and Saudi Arabia could potentially find more to agree on than disagree on. It is quite feasible that the two Islamic powerhouses could work together and stabilize the entire region; figuratively drawing a political line in the sand that if either crossed would be viewed as an act of aggression with serious consequences….In regard to Gates making a speech that continues to present Iran as the boogey man, when he knows better…it was a bit disappointing but then unfortunately, his boss his Cheney…it’s a pity Iran did not send a delegation to IISS? at least that is what I read…perhaps much of what is going on publically between US - Iran is all theatre …I mean Gates could hardly make the speech he did if Iran was sitting in the room…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | December 13th, 2007 at 9:34 pm | Report this commentgr”First, America’s intelligence re-assessment will probably be a boon to hardliners in Tehran. President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad will be able to say that Iran has stood firm and faced down the world. In such a climate, why should the Iranians make concessions”
No…Arab-Iranian diplomatic engagement is leading to US-Iranian deals on IRAQ …it is in both US and Arab interests to deal with Iraq ….Arabs finally got the message across to US! …. in a post- Ahmadinejad era there will be normalization of U.S.-Iranian bilateral relations for sure..and there will be a post Ahmadinejad era,… sooner probably than later…we have another year and half of his huffing and puffing …although maybe the recent setback of his friend Hugo Chavez who now has an emboldened and effective opposition to deal with, will wise him up a bit, and if not, … at least shut him up a bit…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | December 14th, 2007 at 1:03 am | Report this commentDear Lisa-Helene,
This is an informative article in the Washington Post entitled “Meet ‘The Decider’ of Tehran. It’s Not the Hothead You Expect”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?sb=-1&st=khamenei&
It needs subscription which you may have as an American. (I was sent the text as I don’t pay American companies if at all possible).
Anyhow, the “decider” in question is not president Ahmadinejad but the Supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei.
The following 3 paragraphs are about the relationship between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. My own guess is that Ahmadinejad will be allowed to run for presidency again but will be a very diminished figure because the parliament will be in the hands of his opponents. This kind of stalemate is not good for the country but allows the Supreme Leader to remain in control by a divide and rule policy.
(The real change will come when Khamenei who is 70, and reputedly suffers multiple ailments, goes to meet his maker.)
Quote
So how does Khamenei get along with Ahmadinejad? For now, at least, the supreme leader is standing behind his demagogic president. Khamenei decidedly prefers the populist, hard-line Ahmadinejad to his relatively moderate predecessor, Mohammad Khatami. The supreme leader frustrated Khatami’s attempts at reform and ensured that Ahmadinejad (then Tehran’s mayor) would win the 2005 presidential elections. Khamenei has praised Ahmadinejad’s administration as the best yet, partly because the two men share a soft spot for militant types and dream of rekindling the revolutionary fervor of the Islamic Republic’s early days. The supreme leader even seems to find Ahmadinejad’s theatrics useful for keeping up revolutionary appearances and endearing Iran to the Arab world.
Still, the two men’s agendas differ. Ahmadinejad, for example, aspires to be more than a mere administrator. Khamenei, however, already holds all the power he wants and merely needs to keep it away from ambitious presidents, whether hard-line or reformist. Moreover, Ahmadinejad’s brand of rabble-rousing may be a useful strategy for a newcomer trying to elbow his way toward greater influence within the tangles of the Iranian political system, but it has deepened Iran’s isolation abroad in ways Khamenei resents. For instance, he bristled during Ahmadinejad’s December 2005 visit to Mecca, when the president embarrassed his welcoming host, Saudi King Abdullah, with a Holocaust-denying, anti-Israel harangue. Closer to home, when Ahmadinejad recently had the country’s former top nuclear negotiator, Hossein Mousavian, arrested on espionage charges, an irked Khamenei made sure that the judiciary dismissed the charges.
So Khamenei is keeping his options open. He has helped boost Ahmadinejad’s rivals in the 2005 race, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, by giving the former’s Expediency Council (a key clerical panel) more powers and by backing the latter’s bid to become Tehran’s mayor. Both men remain serious contenders for power and take every opportunity to snipe at Ahmadinejad. So do a growing number of Iran’s elite, who abhor Ahmadinejad’s mismanagement of the economy and fear that his bluster has increased the chances of war with the United States. The president’s foes hope to drub him in the parliamentary elections coming up in March.
Unquote
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 14th, 2007 at 10:07 am | Report this commentWhat you’ve make sense, and I understand exactly how the Arab of Gulf’ mindset works when it come to conspiracy theories.
But, as you mentioned it, they (Arab Gulf) afraid of what you have called it “natural role” of Iran in the region, and I do not think that any western wants to see Iran dominating this significant region.
I believe that USA unintentionally created the current ‘bubble’ of Iran by eliminating Iran’s fierce adversaries: Taliban and Sadam.
Now do not take me as supported of these two, I believe that Taliban and Sadam were evils, no question about that, but creating weak regimes after them is what made Iran ‘Iran’.
Stabilizing Iraq first, finishing up Israeli –Palestine peace second, and pursuing tighter UN sanctions on Iran (and neutralizing China) Within Iran, there are already many existing ethic and minorities problems. Triggering and supporting these inside opposing movements would do what the West and Arab Gulf both want.
Posted by: alajmi | December 14th, 2007 at 10:45 am | Report this commentHi Al Ajmi (btw, this is the name that Arabs gave Iranians after they conquered Iran. It means “mute” because Arabs considered anybody who could not speak Arabic as being mute…a bit like Greeks calling non-Greeks “barbarians” as to them what they said sounded like ba ba…)
I am with you when you call for stabilisation of Iraq and peace in Palestine. However, you lost me when you decided that these happy events should be followed by causing civil wars in Iran and starving Iranians with sanctions. Surely, that means more war, more instability and more grief in the region.
What exactly is it that you consider that the Arabs who live in the Persian Gulf have to fear about Iran?
It seems to me that a democratic Iraq (which would be Shia-led because 2/3rd of the population are Shia) would be a brother nation to Iran and their joint interests (as major oil exporters) with Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE etc. must make for a solid reason for friendship and co-operation across the region. If there is peace in Palestine and the Palestinians are given a reasonable settlement, I think even Israel can join the rest of the Middle East and bring in its undoubted scientific and technical abilities to the table. Why shouldn’t we, the people of the Middle East, be good neighbours and co-operate rather than tearing at each other like wild animals? This disunity is grist to the mill of the colonialists to our disadvantage.
best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 14th, 2007 at 11:54 am | Report this commentI thought Sarkozy was paid to be the French president. Who appointed him the spokesman for Israel?!
See these two quotes from the Reuters:
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-30954920071212?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
Quote
Sarkozy said there was a real risk of war, and Israel rather than the United States was the country most likely to launch a military attack
Unquote
and
Quote
“I have the trust of the Israelis and the Americans on this issue. The Americans are not warmongers here,” he said.
Unquote
As least the despicable Tony B Liar was America’s little valet. Sarkozy has sunk further to become Israel’s.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 14th, 2007 at 1:33 pm | Report this commentRecall that I noted his state visit with Olmert, who arrived at the Elysée here at the same hour that Sarkozy’s wife made a very dramatic filing for her divorce in Nanterre (7 km west of Paris). In his speech that morning (22 October), delivered without hint of personal stress, he broke from EU policy and declared France’s unbending support for Israel and its policies vis-à-vis governing its Palestinian population. There is even a waffling on the EU policies on settlements. He also spoke (only official occasion) of his personal pride in his Jewish heritage (maternal).
Only one newspaper was invited to attend: Haaretz. Le Monde, Figaro and Liberation were not represented. Nor was Le Point or l’Express. Not even Hola!.
Jeune AFrique reported it first in detail a week later.
I was told on the occasion that Javier Solana was “pissed” about the policy statements.
Posted by: WCM | December 14th, 2007 at 2:41 pm | Report this commentP: “Anyhow, the “decider” in question is not president Ahmadinejad but the Supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei.”
Thank you P, Oh yes I know …however, Prez A is a disaster on the world stage and his econ policies at home are falling flat…good riddance to him! I like what I am hearing about the Mayor of Teheran….and I hope Rafsanjani stays healthy!…The only hope for the region is that Saudis and Iran have an understanding of some sort…and it looks like there will be another serious attempt at a Hamas/Fatah unity government (brokered by Saudis again with some assistance from Syria)and it is in US, EU, and Israel’s interest to support it this time around…not sabatoge it…why is it so hard to understand that not only does Hamas have to be part of the political process …it is actually better for all to have them apart of it instead on the outside left to their own devices…
On the French …Sarkozy seems highly erratic, very unsure footed in foreign policy…he perhaps needs a better staff and a more astute experienced Foreign Minister …and he should probably shut up too for awhile …get his act together before July 1, 2008….
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | December 14th, 2007 at 3:59 pm | Report this commentStratfor “Reports that Hezbollah’s Iranian sponsors have demoted leader Hassan Nasrallah to spokesman are true, sources said Dec. 14. Nasrallah reportedly will remain a symbolic figurehead.”
This is good and meaningful. It is also another sign that Iran and the Saudi’s are working in concert. There has been evidence of a split in Hezbollah, a pro-Syrian faction that wants to bring down Lebanon’s government led by Nasrallah, and a faction pursuant to Iran’s wishes that said leave the Sunni-led government in Lebanon alone…this again some believe was due to promises made by Iran to Saudis during the past year…I think this is very telling and good news for Lebanon…which could use some! it also means Syria and Israel may be working out an agreement on Golan … if Hamas and Fatah have a unity government that the world will finally recognize …then all the Horsetrading to create a Palestinian state gets serious
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | December 14th, 2007 at 4:26 pm | Report this commentDear Ms. Lawson,
I think in due time that report will prove to be unfounded. It is already denied by Hezbollah.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | December 14th, 2007 at 4:34 pm | Report this commentDear Lisa-Helene,
That all sounds very rosy and I’m sure makes for good policy discussion in certain sections of Washington, however
“why is it so hard to understand that not only does