Arab ‘Fear’ Of ‘Nuclear Iran’?

February 26, 2009

There is 'western' meme, which was pushed by the Bush administration, that Arab countries fear a 'nuclear Iran'. How real is that?

A few days ago Reuters cited one non-government Arab source and several anonymous 'western' diplomats when it wrote on how Gulf Arabs fear U.S.-Iran diplomacy at their expense:

Gulf Arab states are beginning to worry that any U.S. rapprochement with Iran could ultimately lead to their worst nightmare — a nuclear-armed, non-Arab, Shi'ite Muslim superpower in their neighborhood.

…
"We have no objection to Iranian-American negotiations. On the contrary, we encourage this kind of dialogue as a way of avoiding taking the region into military action," said Mustafa Alani, at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center.

"At the same time we have huge concerns that the Americans could give concessions to the Iranians which would undermine our security and be unacceptable to us," he said.

A few days later AP wrote with same theme also quoting Mustafa Alani. Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Research Center was born in Iraq and studied and worked extensively in the U.K. Der Spiegel talked with him too:

When asked about Iran's nuclear program, Arab politicians' official
answer is that Israel should also get rid of its nuclear weapons. But
that, says Alani, is not the real problem, because the region has had
experiences with both Iran and Israel. "The Arabs have waged wars
against Israel. Israel has never used its nuclear weapons. The Arabs
trust the Israelis, but they don't trust the Iranians."

Last July the Guardian also quoted Mustafa Alani in the 'Arabs fear Iran' context. It also quoted one Abdullah Alshayji, introduced as a "Kuwaiti analyst". Well – Alshayji is also a Foundation Council Member of the Gulf Research Center.

In December 2007 the LA Times headlined Arabs fear Iran may now up the ante in the Mideast. The first quoted 'expert' on such such 'fear' is "Christian Koch, research director for international studies at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, United Arab Emirates."

The Gulf Research Centers was founded and is financed by the Saudi businessman Abdulaziz Sager of the Sager Group:

When
and where an added value is deemed necessary the Sager Group
selectively represents some multinational corporations and assists them
in selling their products and services throughout the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia both in the government and private sectors.

Sager Group also provides security services. (And also prime London real estate?)

To me it seems that all the 'reporting' of Arab 'fear' uses exactly one Arab source – the foundation of the Saudi businessman Abdulaziz Sager and its 'experts'. Note that Sager also argued for military rule in Iraq.

But what is the realist Arab opinion? Marc Lynch reports:

This afternoon I attended a fascinating conversation with Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa hosted by the Carnegie Endowment and moderated by the Washington Post's David Ignatius.
…
Moussa didn't bite when Ignatius suggested that Arab leaders were urging the U.S. to be tougher on Iran and to hold off on the promised dialogue. On the contrary, he responded, for the last few years it has been the Americans coming to the Arabs and talking up the Iran threat and not the other way around. He acknowledged Arab concerns about Iran, but concluded that the Arabs and Iran would have to learn how to co-exist. As to the Iranian nuclear program, Moussa would only talk about the double-standard surrounding Israeli nuclear weapons.

Will 'official' media, Reuters, AP, LA Times, now report Amr Moussa's take or will the continue to promote the 'fear' theme a Saudi businessman with interest in security services is selling them?

Posted by b on February 26, 2009 at 08:40 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Mustafa Alani is a Sunni Iraqi. With his family name, he could not be anything else.
I don’t really understand why, but there is/was an irrational fear among Sunnis of the Iranians. They call them the ‘Safavids’ (referring to the Iranian dynasty, 1501-1722). Mainly found among Sunni Iraqis, but you can also whip up the Jordanian regime that way too, and maybe others, like the Saudis. It was strongest in around 2006, and has declined now. No doubt because of Israel’s pleasant activities in Gaza and Lebanon. You would often see Sunni Arab bloggers and commenters coming out with the most wild and irrational accusations against Iran.
It looks to me like someone is continuing to flog a dead horse. Amr Moussa’s take seems to me quite right. 2-3 years ago, you could have provoked Sunni Arab states that way. Now, no.

Posted by: Alex | Feb 26 2009 10:28 utc | 1

A superb thread, b, and I like your exposing the suspicious motives of those playing up the Iranian nuclear threat.
The fact is that an Iranian nuclear weapon would pricipally serve as a deterrent against Israel, and not as a first strike weapon against anyone, as Iran’s history has shown. The fate of Arabs and Persians are too interlinked to permit one to destroy the other. Sure, there is no love lost between the two, but after the failure of the entire Arab world and Western armament/intel to destroy Iran from 1980-8, and Iran’s forgiveness of the Arabs in spite of a million dead and crippled, exactly whom is the Saudi businessman trying to fool?
Let’s talk in more practical terms: Iran desperately needs, and is actively pursuing, a rapprochement with the U.S.A. (see the other thread) aimed at strengthening the Islamic regime in the face of a growing economic crisis and unprecedented corruption. (The U.S. needs Iran just as much, which is why it just might work this time round after 30 years of false starts).
If Iran dropped a bomb on “the Arabs”, which ones would it select? Harmless Oman and Kuwait? Hardly. Iraq, where Iran’s influence is growing daily by peaceful means? Impossible, not to mention that Westerly winds would contaminate Iran’s oil-rich Khuzestan Province.
Qatar? Well, yes, if Iran wanted to alienate Europe which is actively exploiting this alternative natural gas and LNG route to Russia, but the result would be a boycott of investment in Iran’s section of the joint Qatar/Iranian gas field and a probable carpet bombing of Assaluyeh in which $ 200 billion has so far been invested and on which Iran’s future depends.
Bomb Dubai out of spite? Sure, and kill the 80 % of foreigners working there, and close the Iranian re-export lifeline that has neutralized U.S. sanctions for decades. Iran’s Revolutionary elite own $ 300 billion of Dubai real estate, so this really isn’t an option.
Bomb Saudi Arabia? That would be the end of the Islamic regime which cares about nothing other than its own survival. There would be a joint Arab military reponse, fully supported by the West. The Mullahs would have nowhere to hide, not even from their own people, if the economic situation worsened dramatically as a result of such a stupid decision to launch an unprovoked attack on a neighbour.
And finally, an Iranian nuclear attack could invite a nuclear response from other quarters. Not very enticing.
I would love the Saudi businessman to explain, in simple terms, how Iran would benefit from bombing any Arab target and creating a united enemy for centuries as a result. The Saudi businessman shouldn’t just walk the walk but talk the talk.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 26 2009 11:05 utc | 2

U.S. Iran rapprochement would be a threat primarily to Israel as Iran is potentially much stronger than Israel if sanctions were to be lifted. It is also potentially a much more useful ally to the U.S. than Israel ever could be. You can see hints of that in yesterday’s Haaretz article where Ehud Barak insists U.S. Iran dialog has to be time limited. (can find it now) But you can’t expect that admission in the western press.
But the ‘Arabs fear Iran’ meme does have a grain of truth. The Gulf leadership probably is somewhat unconfortable with Iran taking the spotlight from them in a U.S. detent. For the same reason Israel is.
Lucky for them the U.S. tends to be pretty stubborn and the pro Israel lobby is influential.
Arab publics in Egypt and Jordan are very sympathetic to Iran. Indeed, this has been the case from the beginning of the Revolution. Egypt’s government sided with Iraq during the war, but the public was quite excited about an Islamic government and sympathized with Iran vs Saddam, who was hated at the time.

Posted by: Lysander | Feb 26 2009 12:35 utc | 3

Lysander, if we really want to summarize Arab opinion on Iran I think it would be fair to generalize as follows:
The Arab leadership severely mistrusts the Iranian leadership while the Arab peoples, many of whom are sick to death of their own U.S.-backed dictators’ lip service to Palestinian suffering and humiliating silence on Israeli atrocities, greatly admire Iran for having tweaked both Israel’s and America’s nose.
The leaders don’t fear an Iranian attack as much as they fear Iran’s political influence on their peoples and the disruption of their own very cosy and self-serving relationship with the U.S.A..
Iran’s disruptive ‘influence’, or soft power, is what the Arab leaders fear most, not Iranian bombs raining down on their heads.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 26 2009 13:10 utc | 4

“The leaders don’t fear an Iranian attack as much as they fear Iran’s political influence on their peoples and the disruption of their own very cosy and self-serving relationship with the U.S.A..
Iran’s disruptive ‘influence’, or soft power, is what the Arab leaders fear most, not Iranian bombs raining down on their heads.”
That’s exactly right. The state controlled Arab press (which few take seriously) tries a subtle anti-Iran line, alleging that Iran is really only pretending to be an enemy of the U.S. and Israel but in fact will betray the Palestinians at first opportunity. In essence they are saying the Iranians are stooges just like us.
But even if Iran does cut a deal, it will be respected (so long as its a good good) as it will show that standing up to the U.S. will get you more than simply accommodating its every whim.
Where we disagree is America’s willingness to offer a good deal. That will be harder than you think and the stubbornness has much more behind it than just the Israel lobby.
The U.S. refused to recognize Vietnam until the mid 1990’s. (but in the end, it did relent.)
Still, the U.S. put itself in quite a predicament and may have no choice. Oil prices seem to starting a bit of a rally, and if they head back up to the 70’s per barrel it will greatly enhance Iran’s position (and will suck for the west)

Posted by: Lysander | Feb 26 2009 14:38 utc | 5

If Israel were ever to be thrown into the mix, I suppose it’s possible that Israel would join Arab nations in battle against Iran. But it’s also possible that Iran would join Arab nations in battle against Israel. As to which one of these two scenarios is more likely to happen, I’d say the latter one, simply because Iran has more in common with Arab nations than Israel does.
Thinking back to ancient times, Athens and Sparta were more foes than friends to each other. But when Persia invaded Greece, they put aside their hatred for each other and joined as friends in battle against an even bigger foe, Persia. So in this sense, Israel can be viewed as latter-day Persia with Iran and Arab nations as latter-day Greece.
Now if Turkey and, to a lesser extent, Cyprus were ever to be thrown into the mix, all possibilities as to who will join whom in battle go out the window.

Posted by: Cynthia | Feb 26 2009 15:34 utc | 6

So Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons are more of a threat to “the Arabs” (all of them?) than Israel’s actual, existing nuclear weapons?
Man, those “Arabs” must be silly in the head.

Posted by: hass | Feb 26 2009 15:46 utc | 7

Great research b. I find two thing amazing about this episode that has been going on for years.
1) The ease with which supporters of Zionism presume to speak for Arabs. Tom Friedman feels no discomfort enlightening us about how much the Arabs secretly like Israel and hate Iran, with the expectation that his audience will really believe that he is an unbiased and knowledgeable source for this type of information.
2) The patheticness of the Arab political class for allowing this to happen. They have enough money that they can hire some PR people or find some advocates to inform educated Westerners on their perceptions. Instead they like wearing their gowns and making buffoonish caricatures of themselves. While b, on his blog is left to expose deceptions said in their names.
The day Saudi Arabia has leadership selected in a competitive process, like the processes in Turkey, Iran or China will be a dream.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Feb 26 2009 15:54 utc | 8

Arnold, I agree with 2 of the 3 countries you mentioned in your last line. Iran doesn’t belong in there, because it’s run by a President for Life (the Spiritual Leader whose power and authority emanate “directly from God”), and in the last presidential election half the candidates were disqualified in advance by the unelected Guardians Council whose name is most approriate as it merely ‘guards’ the status quo.
Iran is not a democracy but a theocracy, and any ‘elections’ that occur are as valuable as if you and I were ‘freely’ allowed to ‘elect’ our favourite from a ‘choice’ of candidates limited to Jack the Ripper and Frankenstein. Elections are a complete sham and often ‘fixed’ when it suits the regime, as occurred when Ahmadinejad was bumped up in 2005 from 4th to 2nd in the very last hour of voting, enabling him to win the run-off a week later against Iran’s most corrupt Mullah, Rafsanjani.
But I agree with the rest of what you write, particularly the suspicious musings of Friedman and the inexcusable apathy of the Arabs, which form a potent combination.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 26 2009 16:24 utc | 9

@9 Democracy is a contextual process, not an absolute process.
Put that way, Iran is way more democratic than most of the ME states. Yes, there is a council of guardians that can/will deny certain candidates the right to run. But you will have to keep in mind that Iran is an Islamic country and candidates that fall outside the realm of what is accepted by Islam will be denied the right to run for office. In that sense, Iran has a democratically elected theocracy. Iran’s current political system is way more democratic than what was present under the Shah and way more legitimate. A revolution tends to produce more legitimate regimes than that of its predecessor.
The arguement that you are making can be made about the US not being a democracy. Here, you have electoral laws at the state level that makes it almost impossible for 3rd party candidates to compete. There is a debate commission stuffed with Republicans and Democrats that excludes all other party candidates from participating in the debates. Other countries have similar laws that limit participation. Germany, for example, has a threshold law that prevents political parties from getting seats in parliament if they do not garner 5% of the vote.
I suspect that there are other examples like the above, but that does not exclude countries from being democracies.
Despite the COG, Iran still allowed a liberal cleric like Khatami to run for office and win twice. He will run again against Ahmadinjad and hopefully he will win. A victory by khatami will pave the way towards a detente between the US and Iran. That detente is something that you seem to desire.

Posted by: ndahi | Feb 26 2009 16:57 utc | 10

I tend to agree with the Lysander-Parviz dialogue here:
Lysander: But the ‘Arabs fear Iran’ meme does have a grain of truth.
Parviz: Iran’s disruptive ‘influence’, or soft power, is what the Arab leaders fear most, not Iranian bombs raining down on their heads.
Remember, the US is, in the end, a passing force in the Middle East. We will be gone from there. Israel, may or may not stay, but in terms of military dominance, that to is a passing state. Iran is there to stay. It will always be there, always be large, always have major religious and cultural influence. Arab-Persian (and Sunni-Shi’ite) history has its ups and downs. Remember, the Iranian Revolution and the attempts to export the revolution in the ’80s wasn’t that long ago. Arab monarchies take Iran very seriously. Not from the threat of nukes, but from the Iranian ability to project power and/or influence events in Arab countries.
So, despite the US pushing the “nuclear” issue, the Arab countries care a lot about Iranian power. It’s just that the nuke issue is only a very small facet of that power.

Posted by: Bill | Feb 26 2009 17:01 utc | 11

ndahi (10), I do indeed hope and expect Khataemi to win as I stated on another thread devoted to this topic.
But please, please don’t justify Iran’s lack of democracy based on inequities in the U.S. system. Let me answer your various points:
“Iran has a democratically elected theocracy”
Yes, it was democratically established by national Referendum in 1979 but since then has point-blankedly refused to condone a Referendum enabling the people to choose another system IF they wish. Even Chavez permitted a Referendum!
“Iran is an Islamic country and candidates that fall outside the realm of what is accepted by Islam will be denied the right to run for office.”
By ‘unsuitable candidates’ do you mean those Muslims opposed to the Velayat-e-Faghi (the Divine Right of the Religious Leader to make all laws), which is written nowhere in the Koran? Or maybe you mean that candidates who state the headscarf should be optional should also be banned? What happens to those candidates who want Iran to resemble ‘Muslim’ Turkey or ‘Muslim’ Malaysia? Are they also ‘unsuitable’? Which ‘Islam’ are you referring to when you indicate behaviour “outside the realm of what is accepted by Islam”?
What you state is that the Iranian ‘Islamic’ system is the only correct one, with all its corruption ($ 300 billion of oil revenues unaccounted for, Justice employee Palizdar imprisoned for exposing billion-dollar fraud among the leading Ayatollahs), hypocrisy and mismanagement.
Of course the Islamic Republic doesn’t allow candidates to stand for election who are opposed to this particular version of Islam, so I suppose you are absolutely right in this respect and I apologize for misunderstanding your message.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 26 2009 17:47 utc | 12

OMG, the guy from WP again (after World Economic Forum), and some murky NGO financed from Co. with British contracts.
This is faux dilemma or assertions, and it is manufactured on the Western politicians and intelligence services. Arab puppet regimes are in fear and tremor when you mention Hezbollah and it’s leader. There are scared primarily from it’s own masses and potential uprising.
Sorry, but this is not news. Divide et Impera is invented by Romans. Politicians (those are not already bribed) and intelligence community from domicile countries need and must be aware of this, and vigorously punish and annihilate collaborators.

Posted by: Balkanac | Feb 26 2009 18:26 utc | 13

The Soros financed EurasiaNet has a pretty good peace on the election in Iran today: ARE THE REFORMISTS USING ROPE-A-DOPE TACTICS ON HARDLINERS DURING PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN?
It fits to what Parviz explained in the Iran election thread.
—
@ndahi – Other countries have similar laws that limit participation. Germany, for example, has a threshold law that prevents political parties from getting seats in parliament if they do not garner 5% of the vote.
I quibble with that a bit.
It is correct with regards to party lists in the federal and state parliaments. But those parliaments are filled half through party lists and half with direct candidates. National/local minorities (mainly Danes in the north) are excepted from the 5% clause. A direct candidate who is not on a party list but gets a majority in her district will also not fall under that clause.
But the main issue why I quibble is financing.
German parties are largely financed by the state. (€133 million total per year on federal and state level). They get a certain amount per achieved vote. To be eligible for this financing a party only needs to reach 0.5% of the total votes. One can even get pre-financing for a campaign when it is plausible that one might reach that level.
So Germany has lots of small parties (about 10 parties on my last voting slip – only two of whom were big ones) and once a while a small party jumps over the 5% border (Green Party, The Left, National Democrats etc.) Some later fall back again, others stay in, others are famous for lots of in and outs.
The reason for the 5% system is that small parties during the Weimar Republic (1920s) had undue influence. One can see the problem now in Israel. Lots of small 1, 2, 3 seat parties that can make a government possible or drag it down over tiny side issues.
The 0.5% financing level makes it quit viable for small movements to grow up to over 5%. That happens quite a lot on the state level and once a while on the federal one.
I think its quite democratic – a lot more democratic than the largely private financed U.S. system.

Posted by: b | Feb 26 2009 18:35 utc | 14

“But please, please don’t justify Iran’s lack of democracy based on inequities in the U.S. system. Let me answer your various points:”
Why not. Every political system has inequities in it. The US has a very rigid two party system that denies anyone who is not a Republican or Democrat a legitimate chance to get elected. It is a duopoly on power, but still deemed democratic by most in the world. Why does not the same apply to Iran? Why is it that the US gets a pass for its restrictions on democracy, but Iran does not?
“Iran has a democratically elected theocracy”
“Yes, it was democratically established by national Referendum in 1979 but since then has point-blankedly refused to condone a Referendum enabling the people to choose another system IF they wish. Even Chavez permitted a Referendum!”
Iran created an Islamic Constitution that sets the guidelines for political participation. Article 1 through 5 specifically state what is acceptable and what is not in an Islamic republic. It specifically states that the leaders of the republic be qualified to lead as set out in the Koran and the Sunna (what muhammad did). Do you really expect Iran to allow someone to run for office who is let us say an athiest? Or someone who questions the Sunna/Hadith? It is not going to happen.
“By ‘unsuitable candidates’ do you mean those Muslims opposed to the Velayat-e-Faghi (the Divine Right of the Religious Leader to make all laws), which is written nowhere in the Koran?”
It is written in the constitution. If you oppose it, then yes you will be denied the right to run for office. Article 115 of the constitution lists the qualifications of someone who runs for president. One of them is “convinced belief in the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the official madhhab of the country.” Velayat el-faqih is listed in the Consititution as one of the principles of the republic. So yes, if you oppose it, then you should not run for office.
“Or maybe you mean that candidates who state the headscarf should be optional should also be banned?”
There are Suras in the Koran that support the wearing of the hijab. Example Sura 33 “O prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters, and the women of the believers, to wrap their veils [jalābīb] close round them. It is better that way, they can be recognized but not annoyed. God is forgiving and merciful.”
Since the IR is based on the Koran (Article 4 of const), then it is very permissable for the council of guardians to deny candidates who oppose the hijab to run for office. Again, thia is an Islamic republic and must conform to the rules of Islam as set out in the Koran Sunna and Hadith. These are the three source of Sharia law that I know of.
“What happens to those candidates who want Iran to resemble ‘Muslim’ Turkey or ‘Muslim’ Malaysia? Are they also ‘unsuitable’? Which ‘Islam’ are you referring to when you indicate behaviour “outside the realm of what is accepted by Islam”?”
Turkey is NOT an Islamic republic. I do not want to comment about Malaysia because I do not know. But Turkey is not Islamic in its laws. It does not enforce sharia law, nor does the constitution state that the Koran/Hadith/Sunna are the sources of the law.
What is accepted and not accepted in Islam is open to interpretation and this is the dilemma of country that bases its constitution on a book of worship that is filled with contradictions.
You seem to want Iran to become something that it is not. Iran is a democratic theocracy. The rules of the game are set in the Constitution and the latter is inspired by the Koran/Sunna Hadith.
“What you state is that the Iranian ‘Islamic’ system is the only correct one, with all its corruption ($ 300 billion of oil revenues unaccounted for, Justice employee Palizdar imprisoned for exposing billion-dollar fraud among the leading Ayatollahs), hypocrisy and mismanagement.”
Same applies here in the US. The DOD misplaced TRILLIONS of dollars. Halliburton made a killing out of its connection to Cheney. Tim Geithner did not pay his taxes, yet he is now the head of the Treasury. Now that is hypocrisy!!!
You seem to want Iran to be better that MDCs (more developed countries). that is NOT going to happen. Iran is a LDC that is muddling through and it is doing a damned good job considering the geostratigic and historic conditions that it finds itself in.

Posted by: Anonymous | Feb 26 2009 18:41 utc | 15

Sorry, but this is not news.
i’ll say, dr alani is quite the meme pusher!
If they capture Bin Laden or his deputy will al-Qa’ida fall? circa 3/04

“Only a select few have remained as ‘soldiers’ in Afghanistan,” said Dr Mustafa Alani, an Iraqi-born consultant to the Royal United Services Institute in London. “There is a new al-Qa’ida: the attacks in places such as Istanbul, Casablanca, Saudi Arabia and now Madrid were carried out by people recruited locally, using local resources.” The explosives for the Spanish bombings were obtained in Spain, and there was an ominous absence of the electronic “chatter” that has preceded previous attacks.
“These groups don’t need al-Qa’ida as a supplier of money or materials. Instead it supplies the ideology of jihad and identifies the enemy. The leadership now only gives guidelines, and these loose affiliates do the rest.”
Although the network is far more loosely structured, there is still some degree of co-ordination, according to experts, with regional “field commanders” visiting groups in their countries. “This emissary might tell the leadership that a group has the capacity to stage an attack,” said one source. “Later he will pass on the word that their proposal has been approved. He will be well out of the way, however, before any attack happens.
“Al-Qa’ida is prepared to expend local followers, either in suicide bombings or because they are caught by the security services after a strike, but it does its best to preserve the higher echelons.”
In this new phase of “franchise terrorism”, al-Qa’ida has been described as an idea rather than an organisation – “a global movement infected by al-Qa’ida’s radical agenda”, as Mr Tenet put it. Even if its structure has been disrupted by military action, arrests and increased security, it still acts as an inspiration to groups, from Chechnya to the Palestinian territories, that have minimal contact with the network.
But is there anything to al-Qa’ida’s ideology beyond a blind hatred of America and its allies, along with some misty notion of Islam conquering the world? According to some, the movement is seeking the rebirth of a medieval Caliphate stretching from Baghdad to the Iberian peninsula, with an antique form of Islam to match, but Dr Alani disagreed.
“They may be ruthless killers who live in cloud cuckoo land, but they are very clear on their political objectives,” he said. “When it came to Spain, they killed the Spanish military attaché in Iraq, then attacked Spanish forces there, killing seven officers. Last May there were the suicide bombings in Casablanca, which killed four Spaniards, and now the Madrid attacks, just before an election.
“They all put pressure on the US-Spanish alliance, and the latest one produced a government that wants to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Nobody should underestimate al-Qa’ida’s ability to calculate the diplomatic and political effect of its attacks. It has a long list of victories, including the United Nations pulling out of Iraq and the withdrawal of US forces from Saudi Arabia.”

here is a blogger who met w/him “A part of our study tour to Dubai with the Danish Press”

Another of the real threats to stability in the area of course is the future of Iraq. As Dr. Mustafa Alani pointed out, the current vacuum between the fighting minorities inside of Iraq – Sunnis, Shias, Kurds – and between the Arab world and the Shia-led Iranians – is in fact a Coalition Army of 100.000 top trained soldiers, mostly US. As US has failed to put an Iraqi army together that could be trusted by6 all parties and first and foremost trained, not even an army of 300.000 could prevent a bloodbath is the US troops withdraw too quickly. The various minorities are intermixed, and an ethical cleansing like in the former Yugoslavia could be terrible. The risk of the Iranian Shias teaming up with the Basra Shias could impact the stability of OPEC and indeed the region as such.
During the presidential campaign, Obama had been surprisingly silent about the Middle East, probably backed by Clinto experts and former staff. This also explained, why Obama suddenly this summer declared that Jerusalem in his opinion should be the undivided capital for Israel!…..
One of the scenarios we discussed was if the conflict between Israel and Iran could result in a situation where Israel actually tried to bomb the Iranian Nuclear plants in a preventive attack.
Ed O’Sullivan’s remark to this was that even if Netanyahu won the Israeli Election, both he and
Rafsanjani need each other as an external enemy picture to keep internal stability; the more pressure on Rafsanjani from the students, and the more instable political situation in Israel, the less likelihood of a real conflict, but the more the 2 leaders needed to expose each other verbally.

really!
hmmm. a few choice morsels circa 10/04.
good catch b. this guy is one to follow for a first shot at the new talking pts.

Posted by: annie | Feb 26 2009 18:52 utc | 16

Parviz, I am very hesitant to disagree with you about Iranian politics.
I just have two things about that
1) I don’t want to see a color revolution in Iran. Meaning I don’t want to see US foundations throw 10 billion or 20 billion dollars behind an Iranian candidate who will be more responsive to the US than to the Iranian people. (Who then will Abbas/Mubarak-like declare a state of emergency and cancel future elections.)
2) I don’t want to see a color revolution that fails at the last second. Western sources threw tons of money at Zimbabwe’s opposition leader who was poised to take power make land reform policy to England’s liking, with no regard for the wishes of Zimbabweans. This is a mess that I wish was cut off earlier.
Within those constraints I believe in reforms and removal of corruption in Iranian politics.
I used China though, because while China is clearly not democratic, it does have a competitive political system. The leader of China was not selected directly by the Chinese people. He is and must be a member of the Communist party. But he beat out other prospective leaders and the US had no influence in his rise to power. He won a competition for leadership of China by proving, in some sense that he was the best available exemplar of some Chinese values to at least a substantial group of Chinese people.
Even though China is not a democracy, it cannot be compared to either Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Egypt has a competition where the US is the judge. Saudi Arabia does not have a competition, so whatever clown had the right father is leader.
I’ll agree with you that China has a better leadership selection process than Iran. And that Turkey is better than either because Turkey is actually democratic. I also do not support autocracy in Iran and want freedom for the Iranian people.
There is actually a large degree to which changes in the US could relieve pressure on the Iranian government. As the US de-prioritizes its commitment to keeping Israel safe from all of its neighbors who do not believe it is legitimate, it has less reason to try to produce a new Shah. When the US can be counted on not to use its resources to do that, I will immediately support fully unfettered direct elections for all posts in Iran. I actually hate my current position of having some sympathy for anti-democratic measures.
But Iran still has a better process than Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia chose its leaders the way Iran does, it would have better leadership and b would not have to be the voice of Saudi sanity.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Feb 26 2009 18:59 utc | 17

The Danish guy and his title speak for itself:
[i]Senior eGovernment Advisor IBM Europe, Middle East & Africa.[/i]
http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/
Maybe he has been collecting data for another Armageddon.

Posted by: Balkanac | Feb 26 2009 19:17 utc | 18

@15 – Iran created an Islamic Constitution that sets the guidelines for political participation. Article 1 through 5 specifically state what is acceptable and what is not in an Islamic republic.
As you seem to know that constitution, what mechanism does it provide to change the constitution?
That is the point that I think is most important in writing up such fundamental legal papers.
The ways to change a constitution should be fundamentally democratic and very open but in need of kind of super-majority. At the same time it should be impossible to deny basic human rights through constitutional means. Difficult to achieve in wording but doable.
I don’t think that the current Iranian constitution allows for this.
—
China is some kind of meritocratic government. It has nothing to do with democracy. The philosophical basis is totally different. (Which doesn’t make it ‘wrong’ in any way. It only puts it outside the ‘western democracy’ concepts which are younger but maybe not any better than the ‘eastern’ form of governments.)

Posted by: b | Feb 26 2009 19:45 utc | 19

Arnold, well, if you compare the Iranian system with the Saudi system, then I suppose Iran is ‘democratic’ by default. But I’d like to answer some of post #17 (I assume also written by ndahi):
1. The Koran is full of contradictions: Sureh 5 “The Table Cloth”, verse 5 actually states verbatim: “All things consumed by the people of the Scriptures are permitted to Muslims”, which means that Muslims may eat and drink what Jews and Christians eat and drink, includng pork (Christians) and wine (Christians/Jews). The same applies to the “Hejab” which some Muslims like the Taleban interpret to mean the Burkah (= full covering from head to toe) and others interpret as requiring only “the covering of breasts”, meaning that all else (hair, arms, legs) can be revealed, as in Muslim Malaysia.
Since Muslim nations don’t accept each other’s interpretations of the Koran, why in Heaven’s name should Iranians not be permitted to stand for election if they are devout Muslims who simply wish to reduce the stifling religious interpretations of unelected coucils?
2. If the Islamic Republic were really ‘Islamic’ its biggest crooks wouldn’t be the nation’s leading religious figures, would they?
3. Ndahi, re your comment “You seem to want Iran to become something that it is not. Iran is a democratic theocracy.” Actually you’re wrong, Iran has a secular tradition and even had women rulers. Iran was never a “theocracy” till the Islamic Republic came along and devoured the Mujaheddin, Fadayeen and National Front who actually did the dirty work of ridding our nation of the Shah.
4. If the Islamic Republic is so confident of its popularity why has it never permitted a referendum? Are you telling me that, once a system is selected by referendum, as Iran did in 1979 in a wave of euphoria at the Shah’s dismissal, that the nation never ever has the right to hold a new referendum, even when it is clear to almost every Iranian (except those sucking off the regime) that the system is rotten to the core?
Ndahi, Arnold, annie, I don’t want Iran to fall prey to some U.S.-backed candidate. What I fervently wish for is for the country to be run by a Muslim who isn’t a crook. Is that really too much to ask for? The country is run like Chicago in the 1930s, all in the name of ‘Islam’ whose credibility as a religion has become a joke to ordinary Iranians. One Mullah (Ayatollah Rafsanjani) controls pistacchio revenues and Qeshm Island, another (Ayatollah Tabassi and his gangster sons) run the nation’s agriculture, another the mining industry, another the weapons industry, while the Revolutionary Guards have a monopoly on all civil engineering works.
And no candidate may run for office who isn’t a part of this corrupt system. That’s what ndahi really means when he says that “The rules of the game are set in the Constitution and the latter is inspired by the Koran/Sunna Hadith.:
Some ‘Inspiration’! Some Koran! Some Sunna Hadith! You must be joking!

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 26 2009 19:53 utc | 20

yes, b, the link you provided in #14 fits in with what I wrote earlier. It’s a very well written Op-Ed, by the way, and demonstrates how frustrated people are (even the regime’s insiders) with Ahmadinejad’s mismanagement and corruption.
And you’re absolutely correct, the Islamic Republic’s Constitution prohibits any change in the system, even if 90 % of the populace wants a change. As long as the 10 % possessing the weapons want it to stay that way, it will. Very similar to the USSR which changed only when the nation went bankrupt through corruption and mismanagement (same old story) and the regime’s insiders repelled the military coup that almost preserved the Communist system.
What the Mullahs don’t understand is that they’re slowly but steadily digging their own graves. Only U.S. hostility and stupidity have made them powerful. When rapprochement occurs they will face the wrath of the nation, as the regime’s corruption is the thême du jour throughout Iran.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 26 2009 20:08 utc | 21

P.S., This week the Central Bank (= no friend of Ahmadinejad) publicly revealed that the nation’s banks are owed the equivalent of $ 45 billion by Iranian corporations and private individuals, and that $ 25 billion of those outstanding loans are owed by just 84 (well-known) individuals.
Ordinary Iranians cannot get even a $ 1000 loan without collateral, so how are loans of (on average) $ 300 million each being ‘lent’ to private persons? And why haven’t the loans been repaid?
Many recent publicized scandals are due to the fact that the nation is in such dire economic straits (despite $ 100 billion forex revenues last year) that the regime’s leaders are now playing the blame game. The Islamic Republic is rotten to the core.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 26 2009 20:23 utc | 22

A lots of usage of certain word, lead to loss of real meaning and significance of that particular word. And that word is, the democracy.
Concept of democracy is nothing but concept. Empty and hollow one, even as historical fact where it came from (Greek states). Better yet, it is tribal-feudal concept, of the society where majority (of certain: race, religion, sex, belief) rule over minority. Better known as Nation-State. Further within ruling tribe of nation there are strata of rich, middle, poor class (or colloquially; classes broken by income ). Or caste system in India.
Comment from Arnold Evans sounds like comment from Netanyahu or Bush or any US or Israeli politicians, where top argument is “Where are the only democracy”. To accomplish “holly grail” called “free” elections everything is allowed, kill millions of Iraqis, destroy: infrastructure, health system etc. Not to mention: Iran, Chile, Nicaragua,et. In same time “free elected government” or result of social and economic engineering is nothing but hateful principality/failed states, run by chieftains.
Those who are swearing or serving democracy by theorizing about the same, can not see one totalitarian Nazi like system from they are coming from.
There is some exceptions like this guy: Aaron RUSSO

Posted by: Balkanac | Feb 26 2009 21:04 utc | 23

“Ordinary Iranians cannot get even a $ 1000 loan without collateral, so how are loans of (on average) $ 300 million each being ‘lent’ to private persons? And why haven’t the loans been repaid?”
Look this:
What a community could buy for the cost of a war

Posted by: Balkanac | Feb 26 2009 21:17 utc | 24

“1. The Koran is full of contradictions: Sureh 5 “The Table Cloth”, verse 5 actually states verbatim: “All things consumed by the people of the Scriptures are permitted to Muslims”, which means that Muslims may eat and drink what Jews and Christians eat and drink, includng pork (Christians) and wine (Christians/Jews). The same applies to the “Hejab” which some Muslims like the Taleban interpret to mean the Burkah (= full covering from head to toe) and others interpret as requiring only “the covering of breasts”, meaning that all else (hair, arms, legs) can be revealed, as in Muslim Malaysia.
Since Muslim nations don’t accept each other’s interpretations of the Koran, why in Heaven’s name should Iranians not be permitted to stand for election if they are devout Muslims who simply wish to reduce the stifling religious interpretations of unelected coucils?”
It is very simple. The most widely understood interpretation of the Koran/Hadith/Sunna is the most commonly applied one. The majority of Muslim women use the hijab either in part or in full. Do a few of them not use it, sure. But when it comes to Islamic laws, it MUST be used. Find me a country that applies SHARIA law and DOES NOT make women wear the Hijab? Go ahead find one. You will not be able to find one.
Iran TODAY is an Islamic republic that applies Sharia law. so it stands to reason that women must wear the hijab. There are multiple citations in the Koran telling women to wear the hijab. Here is another one:
“And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts, and display not their ornaments, except those which are outside; and let them pull their kerchiefs over their bosoms and not display their ornaments save to their husbands and fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or what their right hands possess, or their male attendants who are incapable, or to children who do not note women’s nakedness; and that they beat not with their feet that their hidden ornaments may be known. But all turn repentant to God, O believers! May you prosper.”
It is the most WIDELY accepted interpretation of the Koran that matters when it comes to the application of Sharia law and not the minority interpretation.
3. Ndahi, re your comment “You seem to want Iran to become something that it is not. Iran is a democratic theocracy.” Actually you’re wrong, Iran has a secular tradition and even had women rulers. Iran was never a “theocracy” till the Islamic Republic came along and devoured the Mujaheddin, Fadayeen and National Front who actually did the dirty work of ridding our nation of the Shah.
Iran is TODAY an Islamic democratic theocracy. Iran has been Islamic since Muslims defeated the Sassnid Empire under the leadership of Omar the 2nd caliph. Iran has been dominated by the Shiite faith since the Sunni-shiite schism after Hussein and his army was slaughtered by Yazid and his Army in Karbala in Iraq.
Iran became a Theocracy after the revolution, but Iran has been and will always be an Islamic country.
The Iranian revolution evolved in many phases typical of any other Urban revolution. The first phase was getting rid of the shah. This is when the students, bazzaris, tudeh party, shiite clerics, and liberal intellectuals (Bani Sadr etc…) joined togehter to get rid of the Shah.
The second phase was the rule of the liberal intellectuals. They wanted a political change at a time when the masses were demanding economic, social and total change. The masses where setting up worker’s council in the factories and were setting up revolutionary courts issuing street justice to the Shah’s men. These leberal intellectulas like Mehdi Bazargan did NOT want socio-economic change. They had no vision beyond political change. That is why they failed. The same happend in Russia in 1917 when the liberal’s failure lead to the take over by the bolsheviks.
The third phase of the revolution is the rule of the radical clerics. This happens after Bani Sadr is kicked out of office and flees to France. The Clerics take control and respond to the demands of the masses through massive govt subsidies or if that failed by crushing dissent. This is the height of the power of Khomeini. The Iraq invsion of Iran strengthened the power of the clerics and made them crush any dissent even further.
The final phase is Thermidore. This is a period of normalization. This happens when Khomeini dies and power devolves for the office of the Faqih and to parliamnet and the president. Iran has come a long way from the rule of the Faqih and it has democratized along the way. Is it 100% democratic? no. But it is way more democratic than most other states in the region.
4. If the Islamic Republic is so confident of its popularity why has it never permitted a referendum? Are you telling me that, once a system is selected by referendum, as Iran did in 1979 in a wave of euphoria at the Shah’s dismissal, that the nation never ever has the right to hold a new referendum, even when it is clear to almost every Iranian (except those sucking off the regime) that the system is rotten to the core?
Simple answer. They have not allowed one becuase of the hostility of the US. You know fully well that if that is allowed the US will meddle in it and create multi-colored revolutions like they did in the states bordering Russia. The US has been hostile to the IRI since inception. The US wants regime change, has placed Iran in the Axis of Evil, and has been grooming the Shah’s son to return to Iran. The US is conducting militay operations inside Iran as I type. The US has supported Baluch seperatists inside Iran. You really want Iran to hold a referendum under these conditions!!!

Posted by: ndahi | Feb 26 2009 22:53 utc | 25

ndahi, I noted your backtracking, which I partially accept. First you wrote in an earlier post that “You seem to want Iran to become something that it is not. Iran is a democratic theocracy,” then when I reminded you of Iran’s proud secular history you now state that Iran is “TODAY” (your capitals) an “Islamic theocratic democracy”. Even this re-definition is a misnomer as amusing as the phrase Israeli ‘DEFENCE’ Force!. Iran is an Islamic theocratic dictatorship, no more, no less, with stifling oppression, torture and extreme applications of religious edicts.
For example, the words ‘bath’ and ‘shower’ are officially banned in google. Would you kindly explain this ‘democracy’ of which you speak so highly, this needless and rather insane censorship of harmless words and phrases. Did a prophet die in the shower? Is this why the word is officially banned? Is hygiene forbidden? How can homes be built with ‘baths’ and ‘showers’ when the words themselves are considered ‘un-Islamic’?
Why are Blogs praising Khatemi banned? Is this your interpretation of an “Islamic theocratic DEMOCRACY”? Isn’t the 2-term ex-President a ‘good and true Muslim’?
As for Shahria Law, well, even the hejab text from the Koran you provided confirms my earlier statement that only “bosoms and private parts” must be hidden, not hair, legs, arms. Doesn’t Kuwait observe Shahria Law? Then why do women reveal their beautiful hair in public?
Your seemingly blind defence of the Islamic Republic in the face of unprecedented national corruption makes me question your motives. Sorry, but anyone with even one eye open can see that the government here is destroying Islam. If you care about Islam you should not be so quick to defend the horrors perpetrated every day in Islam’s name.
“Iran has come a long way from the rule of the Faqih and it has democratized along the way. Is it 100% democratic? no. But it is way more democratic than most other states in the region”.
Again, you are comparing Iran with our Arab neighbours, none of which existed as a country even 100 years ago. I believe we could, and should, do better than that.
Your final paragraph, dear ndahi, is not a reason but an excuse for all the corruption and misdeeds of the nation’s leaders. And it proves my statement in post # 21, namely, that only “U.S. hostility and stupidity have made them powerful. When rapprochement occurs they will face the wrath of the nation”. The regime will then decide whether it wishes to genuinely ‘democratize’ itself or kill anything that moves.
I rather fear that the latter will occur, as the ‘Islamic’ Republic will never, ever condone a Referendum, even after a rapprochement, because too many private fortunes are at risk. There will be bloodshed, possibly a civil war followed by yet another dictatorship.
The Mullahs missed the chance of strengthening democratic institutions, just as the Shah did before them. If we’re lucky an Ataturk will appear and set the nation on a proud democratic and independent course, so we don’t have to put up with farcical TV programmes where Mullahs pontificate over whether Sharia Law permits you to screw your 1st cousin or not. Have you read Khomeini’s ‘Resaaleha’ in which he writes (Missive 2405) that ‘The mother, sister or daughter of a man who was penetrated from behind may not marry the sodomizer, even if the sodomizer and sodomized were both below the age of maturity when the sodomy occurred’, and elsewhere (#2410): “If a man is engaged to a girl below the age of 9’, and if he has sexual intercourse with her before she reaches maturity in such a manner that his penis penetrates through her bottom, then he is not permitted to have sex with her ever again.”
Buy a copy, then you’ll understand how backward the country has become.
By the way, there are similarly grotesque passages in the Talmud, so any Jews reading this post should stop smirking.
ndahi, 2,500 years ago Cyrus the Great banned slavery (which the Koran re-introduced), granted equal rights and equal pay to men and women, granted 6 months paid maternity leave to women, etc.,. Islam destroyed our proud heritage with the sole aim of subverting the nation to the whims of a powerful theocracy whose culmination we have seen today. I find it implausible that you, who are obviously both highly educated and aware of our nation’s history, defend the current system so strongly. Yes, to Hell with the U.S.A. and Israel, but they don’t excuse our regime’s abominable excesses “in the name of national security”.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 27 2009 6:53 utc | 26

ndahi, I noted your backtracking, which I partially accept. First you wrote in an earlier post that “You seem to want Iran to become something that it is not. Iran is a democratic theocracy,” then when I reminded you of Iran’s proud secular history you now state that Iran is “TODAY” (your capitals) an “Islamic theocratic democracy”. Even this re-definition is a misnomer as amusing as the phrase Israeli ‘DEFENCE’ Force!. Iran is an Islamic theocratic dictatorship, no more, no less, with stifling oppression, torture and extreme applications of religious edicts
I am not back tracking at all. I am simply clarifying that Iran since the revolution has been a Theocracy. Since the death of Khomeini, and the begining of the Thermidore phase Iran has democratized significantly. It is way more democratic than most other states in the region. It is NOT a dictatorship like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Jordan etc…If you want to rank order democratic countries in the region you would list Israel, Turkey, Lebanon and Iran at the top of the list.
It seems to me that you confuse democracy with civil rights and liberties. I do not. I use Schumpeter’s definition of democracy. Simply put, it is a system that periodically selects leaders in competitive elections where all the adult population is eligible to vote. This is one of the most commonly used definitions of democracy in political science. Does Iran qualify under this definition. Yes it does. Elections are partially competitive (within the context of Islamic restrictions), all the adults are eligible to vote (the voting age is 15 or 16 in Iran IIRC), and the elections are held regularly. There are even term limits to boot.
Are Western Civil rights and liberties restricted in Iran. Yes, they are. But you should not judge an Islamic republic by Western standards of liberty and rights. Islam has different values and traditions than the West. And Iran’s theocrcy is the product of Islamic values. You might not like those values as enshrined in Sharia law, but they are what they are.
As for Shahria Law, well, even the hejab text from the Koran you provided confirms my earlier statement that only “bosoms and private parts” must be hidden, not hair, legs, arms. Doesn’t Kuwait observe Shahria Law? Then why do women reveal their beautiful hair in public?
Kuwait is NOT a theocracy it is a princedom. Kuwait does not fully implement Sharia law. Its law is a mixture of English law, Ottoman law and Sharia law. As I said before find one country that imlements Sharia law that does not force women to wear the hijab. SA implements it 100% and so does Iran and that is why the Hijab must be worn. It is a mentioned in the Koran and women must wear it in an Islamic fundamentalist society like SA or Iran.
Your seemingly blind defence of the Islamic Republic in the face of unprecedented national corruption makes me question your motives. Sorry, but anyone with even one eye open can see that the government here is destroying Islam. If you care about Islam you should not be so quick to defend the horrors perpetrated every day in Islam’s name.
So here you are questioning my motives without knowing who the hell I am. Let me enlighten you who I am. My name is Naji Dahi. I was born a Christian, but I do not practice and I am an athiest. If there is anyone who should dislike Iran it would be me. I have lived in the ME for 21 years of my 43 years on this earth. I have lived in Lebanon and Syria and I am fluent in Arabic, English, with some French. I have a BA from the American University of Beirut and an MA and PhD from USC. I am a college professor that teaches politics for a living. My PhD was a Marxist one on Lebanon’s political economy. I am well versed in the history of the ME and Marxist theory. ME is my area of expertise.
As You can see, I am the last one who can be accused of defending the IRI. I believe I am being far more objective than you are in assessing the presence/lack of democracy in Iran.
So now that I have introduced myslef, please introduce yourself and kindly list your credentials on the subject matter.
Again, you are comparing Iran with our Arab neighbours, none of which existed as a country even 100 years ago. I believe we could, and should, do better than that.
You seem to adopt an abstract version of democracy. Democracy is contextual and within the historical confines of Islam, a hostile imperial power (US), hostile regional powers (Israel, Iraq until recently, SA, Kuwait), Iran is doing and democratising quite well. Since the revolution Iran has been invaded, attacked, threatened, slapped with sanctions and has sruvived despite all of that. It has continued to evolove and democratize, it has continued its scientific achievements (nuclear enrichment, send a satellite to orbit) and has not invaded or threatened any country since the death of Khomieni. This tells me that the regime is a) legitimate and b) political developed (please do not confuse this with democracy). The regime is able to create, sustain and absorb change.
Your final paragraph, dear ndahi, is not a reason but an excuse for all the corruption and misdeeds of the nation’s leaders. And it proves my statement in post # 21, namely, that only “U.S. hostility and stupidity have made them powerful. When rapprochement occurs they will face the wrath of the nation”. The regime will then decide whether it wishes to genuinely ‘democratize’ itself or kill anything that moves.,
The only reason that the US might deal with Iran is because the US is in a historic jam. They need to supply their troops in Afstan and the shortest and safest route is through Iran. It remains to be seen, whether the Israel lobby will allow any of that. I doubt that they will given Obama’s chief of staff’s stellar zionist credentials.
I have heard this song and dance beffore about the impending fall of the IRI and the “wrath of the nation.” I heard it after the death of Khomeini and how Iran is going to fall apart after his death. It did not happen. If anything the regime became stronger after his death. It became more institutionalized and succession became more rountinized. Parliamentary debate became more lively with parties and blocks going at each other. Elections to parliament became more meaningful and competitive.
The IRI will survive and will evolve. It will stay Islamic, but probably with less restrictions on the mores of the people.
ndahi, 2,500 years ago Cyrus the Great banned slavery (which the Koran re-introduced), granted equal rights and equal pay to men and women, granted 6 months paid maternity leave to women, etc.,. Islam destroyed our proud heritage with the sole aim of subverting the nation to the whims of a powerful theocracy whose culmination we have seen today.
That passage tells me a lot. You do not like Islam and you believe that it is NOT part of Iran’s heritage. Unfortunately, you are worng. Shiite Islam is part and parcel of Iran’s heritage. You may not like that, but it is. You remind me of the few Lebanese or Egyptians who reject their Arab or Islamic identity wanting instead to claim that they are Phoenicians of Pharonic. They want to forget their modern Islamic identity in favor of some distant idyllic past.
I find it implausible that you, who are obviously both highly educated and aware of our nation’s history, defend the current system so strongly. Yes, to Hell with the U.S.A. and Israel, but they don’t excuse our regime’s abominable excesses “in the name of national security”.
Be careful what you wish for. Regime change in Iran under the current conditions will only produce a regime that will serve the interests of the US and Israel. The reason why Iran is independent is because of the Islamic revolution. The reason why Iran is able to strike an independent course in its affairs is a direct by product of the revolution. Regime change under the current historic conditions will make Iran a puppet state like it was under the Shah.

Posted by: ndahi | Feb 27 2009 8:16 utc | 27

ndahi, re
“your It seems to me that you confuse democracy with civil rights and liberties. I do not. I use Schumpeter’s definition of democracy. Simply put, it is a system that periodically selects leaders in competitive elections where all the adult population is eligible to vote.
a) Half the reformist candidates were prohibited from standing for election in 2005, to furious protests. Many of those protesting were imprisoned and tortured. In 1997 there were serial killings of artists, poets, writers and intellectuals: They weren’t ‘just’ killed but their bodies cut into hundreds of pieces by the security services as a warning to others.
b) The election was rigged in Ahmadinejad’s favour in the 2005 first round of balloting. He was in 4th place one hour before the booths closed and suddenly 2 million votes appeared out of nowhere while Karroubi was celebrating the prospect of a run-off aganst Rafsanjani. Every canidate protested and demanded an inquiry and new elections, but the Supreme Leader (who is “appointed directly by God”!?!) said the results should stand. Saddam Hussein also held ‘elections’ ……..
So much for your definition of ‘democracy’ in Iran, for whom you have lowered the bar to ground level. I’m not interested in comparing Iran with the region’s out-and-out dictatorships, only in measuring the Islamic system according to the very standards you yourself provided and to which the Mullahs apparently aspire.
As for Sharia Law, it means different things to different people: The Taleban also impose Sharia Law, preventing girls from even going to school or getting jobs. Who is to say what it means? And how do you rid a country of Sharia Law in the 21st century without massive bloodshed?
More importantly, ‘democracy’ is not just about ‘voting’ but about the existence of mechanisms and institutions to correct obvious injustices. From Wikipedia (which fills some with scorn but is nonetheless well referenced on this particular topic):
“Even though there is no universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’,[3] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.[4][5][6]”
You believe the ‘Islamic’, ‘Sharia-abiding’ regime, the most corrupt government on Earth, fits the above definition? ….. newspapers that aren’t free, Blogs in favour of ex-President and leading candidate Khatemi that are closed because the ‘authorities’ don’t like them? A Ministry of Justice that is declared a joke even by those bribing the courts? Environmentally protected land that is expropriated by the Revolutionary Guards at the point of a gun?
‘The People’ didn’t choose this. In fact, everyone except those sponging off the regime is fed up with the atrocious double standards and religious hypocrisy that you choose to defend by legitimizing a refrendum that took place 3 decades ago and has been banned from repetition. No Iranian is allowed even to hold a Poll, for Christ’s sake (excuse the language), for fear that it might reflect changed national attitudes to the un-Godly ‘Islamic’ regime.
I cannot introduce myself for obvious reasons as I live Iran, so I let my writing do the intoducing. If you had read my fierce defence of Iran’s independence and my hatred of U.S. foreign policy and even the Capitalkst model (evryone on this thread will attest to my views on all of these) then you will notice that I am as wary of regime change as the next nationalist. All I want is for the country to become more democratic, without half-baked (s)elections and with the meas to protest without risking torture and possibly death.
By your very narrow definition of democracy the Islamic regime has nothing to be ashamed of, which I find quite frankly shameful. What you’re saying is the following:
“Once a regime has been democratically selected it can do whatever it wants with the population, including torture, oppression, exclusion of candidates, vote-rigging, violent suppression of any protest and imposition of ‘the right to rule for life’ (which is what the Velayat-e-Faghih means even though no such concept exists in the Koran or in any other Islamic state)”.
Basically, your definition states: “You chose me 30 years ago, so now screw you, I can do whatever I want with you.” Hitler said the same thing, having been democratically elected and then deciding that he had a mandate from the people to rule the world.
Do you believe ‘the people’ read the small print (“Sharia Law is ireversible”) when they kicked out the Shah?

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 27 2009 11:56 utc | 28

Mr. Dahi, I appreciate your comments and expertise, I really do, but I believe your rather rosy view of an “Islamic Theocratic Democracy” is coloured by the fact that you don’t live in Iran and do not witness the rapid rotting of the state from within, and this has nothing to do with what the bloody Americans are trying to impose on us. These are self-inflicted wounds by the regime’s rulers who care for nothing other than attaining and maintaining unimaginable wealth, and the power needed to protect that personal (as opposed to national) wealth.
If the Americans ever again impose their will on my nation it will not be because someone triggered a ‘coloured’ revolution, but because the ‘Islamic’ apple became so rotten that it fell off the tree into America’s hands as the Soviet Union before it.
The principal danger lies within.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 27 2009 12:07 utc | 29

P.S., Blogs like these aren’t permitted in “Islamic theocratic democratic” Iran (your words, not mine). Any type of criticism of any government organ or individual is punishable by death under the conveniently flexible rules of apostasy.
I recommend you leave the books aside for a while, come down here and see for yourself what ‘the people’ truly think of a regime that secures blind obedience by means of the national police, the ubiquitous ‘religious police’, the Revolutionary Guards and the Baseej (the militia, mostly semi-literate goons bribed with monthly stipendiums to turn out in force and smash the heads of anyone peacefully protesting injustice).
If that’s your definition of ‘democracy’ you can keep it.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 27 2009 12:16 utc | 30

There is no point continuing this. You hate Islam…that is clear to me. I suspect that your class status is coloring your views of Iran. A lot of Shahists (not saying that you are) here in the US hold similar views to yours.
I know a lot of people like you. I lived among them for a long time. They seem to believe that the narrow views that they hold about Iran apply to all of Iran. You reject the Islamic identity of Iran opting instead for another identity that has not existed in a long time. Few Iranians would do that. Iranians are traditional Islamic people. The Iranian regime that you hate so much is a legitimate one. It does have support among the people. No regime in the world exists by repression alone.
Your class status has colored your thinking. Your probably an athiest, but that is a very rare view in Iran.
Democracy is relative, it is contextual. Iran, Israel, Turkey, Lebanon are more democratic than other countries in the region. All of them have repressed some of the people in one form or another. Turkey has repressed the Kurds, Israel has repressed the Palestinians. Do not confuse civil rights and liberties with democracy. That is exactly what you are doing with your screed about the lack of civil rights in Iran.
The fact of the matter is that Iran is much more democratic today than it was under the Shah, allbeit, not liberal as you would like it to be. Iran is more democratic today than it was under Khomeini. And Iran will be more democratic in the future than it is now. It will also retain its Islamic theocratic identity, much to your chagrin.
That is my last post on this subject.

Posted by: ndahi | Feb 27 2009 16:46 utc | 31

appreciate your contributions, ndahi. hope you stick around & share your insights elsewhere.

Posted by: b real | Feb 27 2009 16:56 utc | 32

“Iran, Israel, Turkey, Lebanon are more democratic than other countries in the region.”
That just about sums up your scholarship. For all their faults Israel, Turkey and Lebanon are infinitely more democratic than Iran. As a politics professor specialized in the Middle East I’m shocked that you can mention Iran in the same breath as the others when mentioning ‘democracy’.
I hope you are well rewarded for your boundless praise of the Islamic Republic’s alleged ‘democracy’ and your support of Sharia Law which most of my population abhors.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 27 2009 17:49 utc | 33

Well Parviz – For all their faults Israel, Turkey and Lebanon are infinitely more democratic than Iran.
I’d agree on Turkey – with some doubts though – I have been in the east and some repression there is undeniable. I do not agree on Lebanon at all – the voting system/constitution there is EXTREMELY racists and with quotas for this or that religion and obviously prone to be taken over by non-majority interests – certainly not a real democracy. When did those hundred thousands in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon ever voted even for municipal figures?
And Israel does allow a quorum only for half of the people, the most extreme Zionist half, who live within the real state secured borders. How is that democratic at all?
ndahi’s differentiation between democratic elections and human rights is not really clear, but it has some justification.
Germany has a law against “denying the holocaust” – free speech? Five years of prison because you doubt some doubtful historic numbers (which I personally have no reason to doubt much)?
Human rights? Well in some regard – democratic? Up to a point. Try to propagate real socialism in Germany and the “Verfassungsschutz”, i.e. “Constitution Security” secret service will be walking just behind you.
‘Die Linke’, a party with significant 10%+ votes in some German states and the appropriate parliament seats is “under observation” of the “Verfassungsschutz” in those and other states.
Democracy? Free speech? Hardly.
So I understand ndahi’s stand. I do understand your wishes too. But it is hard to achieve those even in the -so thought- free states at all.
Ahmahdinejad made a lot of late counted votes if the counts you doubt are correct. That may have been nefarious. But votes counted in rural districts are usually the last ones to be added in any vote projection – that’s simply a logistic problem – happens here all the time. But Ahmadinejad has more support (socila/religious-conservative) in rural areas than in the affluent Tehran. So the projections and the late swing towards him may have been real.

Posted by: b | Feb 27 2009 22:02 utc | 34

I think Mr. Nahdi wins the discussion hands down, sorry Parvis, you lose.

Posted by: mike | Feb 27 2009 23:06 utc | 35

Mike, it’s not a question of winning and losing but of having a sensible debate. What ndahi did was simply to state that “your people chose Sharia Law 30 years ago and you can stuff it!” Even this statement of his is highly disputable because nobody knows what Sharia Law is: Is it the Taleban version? Does it demand full body covering (Burkah) or just head scarves? Do women have any rights, the right to walk alone in the street unaccompanied by a male relative? The right to drive cars? The right to an education and jobs outside the house? What in Heavens is ‘Sharia Law’?
Also, since the Taleban ruled Afghanistan for 10 years and were removed only by foreign forces, does this mean that Afghanistan was run ‘democratically’? Remember, the rise of the Taleban was initially welcomed by the locals who were fed up with their warlords, and by the time they got round to objecting to the Taleban’s Islamic excesses (read ‘Sharia Law’) it was too late for the locals to do anything. This is only a slightly more extreme example of what has happened in Iran.
ndahi cannot have it both ways. If he praises the Islamic Republic he must also be fully in favout of the Taleban. After all, they also “stood up to America”, didn’t they?
What ndahi disingenuously refused to comment on were my very real and concrete examples of massive religious corruption, the use of Islam as a political weapon to enrich a few, the exclusion of candidates en masse, the imprisonment and even torture of journalists, etc.,.
Yes, Israel is ‘racist’, no doubt about it, but a publication like Haaretz that often fiercely criticizes the regime would not be permitted in Iran. Period.
I don’t believe such debates can be ‘won’ and ‘lost’, especially if one side refuses to comment on concrete examples of a distinct lack of democracy. If ndahi had said Iran is “an Islamic Theocracy” I would have agreed, but an “Islamic ‘Democratic’ Theocracy”? That’s a sick joke which will have the Ayatollahs laughing all the way to the bank.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 28 2009 2:59 utc | 36

b, I think sometimes ‘intellectuals’ go overboard in criticizing their own governmental systems that other nations can only dream about.
Please don’t compare Germany with Iran, “Verfassungsschutz” or no “Verfassungsschutz”.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 28 2009 3:04 utc | 37

ndahi@27
Shiite Islam is part and parcel of Iran’s heritage. You may not like that, but it is. You remind me of the few Lebanese or Egyptians who reject their Arab or Islamic identity wanting instead to claim that they are Phoenicians of Pharonic. They want to forget their modern Islamic identity in favor of some distant idyllic past.
I am not very familiar with Iran or the Middle-East and would like some anthropological clarification if you do’nt mind.
what is the extent to which tenets of Shiite Islam can be attributed to indigenous Persian contributions ?
Also, politics can have a huge influence on how people approach & adhere to their faith. Economics likewise but to a lesser degree. And next is the incumbent culture. Hence, is it within the bounds of plausibility that as a result of extraordinary political events (in the next 50 to 100 years) we could see a reversal where strict Sharia emerges in Indonesia or Malaysia whilst Iran or Saudi would have ceased to be theocratic or religious nations ?

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Feb 28 2009 6:11 utc | 38

jony_b_cool, you raised some very valid points, demonstrating that any nation’s values and politics and religion are multi-dimensional and can change over time.
Iran has a more secular history than any other Persian Gulf nation, all the way from 500 B.C. till 1978 A.D., and the current politicization of Islam is something maintained by force and force alone.
Moreover, my main beef with ndahi (I have quite a few) is his assertion that if any nation chooses Sharia Law (whatever that may be, since it’s interpreted differently everywhere, as is Islam itself) then the people obviously have to accept the imposition of that law forever.
He also claims to know my people better than I do, people whose greatest literary hero is Ferdowsi, a poet who locked himself away in his home for 30 years to write the Shahnameh (Book of Kings) and single-handedly saved the Persian language from extinction after the Arab invasion.
Persia and Iran ‘respected’ Islam after the Arabs invaded, but the Persian soul is imbued with a sense of its pre-Islamic history, poetry, music, song and laughter, the poetry of Omar Khayyam and the tolerant Sufi version of Islam, the very things repressed by this regime.
I don’t envisage a continuation of this religious dictatorship for very long.

Posted by: Parviz | Feb 28 2009 8:13 utc | 39

We , Arab citizens (sunnis )do not fear Iran we fear Israel ONLy , it is the dictators in the Arab world who fear iran . they fear a revolution that might topple their weak regimes, for these traitors A strong Israel means safety for their thrones ,Iran has been saying NO to America stick , unlike the Arab cowards . we do not trust them and we wish they had the same courage and bravery of iran . Most my friends , colleagues, and family wish more prosperity for Iran and do not fear iran . the Saudi and Khaleji Media is hysterical about Iran power and iran strength .

Posted by: Leyla from Moroccco | Feb 28 2009 12:19 utc | 40

Roger Cohen defending himself against the AIPAC crowd who accuse him over his series of positive commentary on Iran: Iran, the Jews and Germany

Totalitarian regimes require the complete subservience of the individual to the state and tolerate only one party to which all institutions are subordinated. Iran is an un-free society with a keen, intermittently brutal apparatus of repression, but it’s far from meeting these criteria. Significant margins of liberty, even democracy, exist. Anything but mad, the mullahs have proved malleable.
…
The June presidential election pitting the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, against Mohammad Khatami (a former president who once spoke in a synagogue) will be a genuine contest as compared with the charades that pass for elections in many Arab states. No fire has burned the Majlis, or parliament, down.
…
For all the morality police inspecting whether women are wearing boots outside their pants (the latest no-no on the dress front) and the regime zealots of the Basiji militia, the air you breathe in Iran is not suffocating. Its streets at dusk hum with life — not a monochrome male-only form of it, or one inhabited by fear — but the vibrancy of a changing, highly educated society.
This is the Iran of subtle shades that the country’s Jews inhabit. Life is more difficult for them than for Muslims, but to suggest they inhabit a totalitarian hell is self-serving nonsense.
…

Posted by: b | Mar 2 2009 8:12 utc | 41

This was one of the best Op-Eds Roger has ever written (and I’ve been following and criticizing him for years).

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 2 2009 8:58 utc | 42

Back to Main