Tag Archives: kourosh

Posted on by

The turbulent 2011 at a glance

Kourosh Ziabari
Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari

2011 was a turbulent year for the world. With chained revolutions in the Arab world, mounting financial crisis in Europe and the unprecedented wave of protests and mass demonstrations in the U.S. against the corporate system of the government which has long swallowed the rights of the defenseless majority of the people voraciously, one can call 2011 the year of global unrest and tumult.

For Iran, 2011 was also a challenging year. Benefiting from the all-out backing of the Western mainstream media, the apartheid regime of Israel for several times renewed its hawkish war threats against the Islamic Republic and repeatedly used an aggressive rhetoric against the people of Iran, threatening them with various military options which the United States and certain European governments embraced willingly and enthusiastically. Continue reading →

Posted on by

An Iranian rival for the Guinness Book of World Records

Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari

The Guinness Book of World Records is being challenged with the efforts of a determined Iranian journalist. A new rival is slated to take the place of Guinness World Records in the near future. Sayyed Mortaza Mirseradji, Iranian researcher, journalist and essayist has registered a plan in the Islamic Republic of Iran Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance to publish a book containing cultural, spiritual and moral records called “Al-Khayrat.”
According to Mirseradji, Al-Khayrat which means “good and decent deeds” in Arabic will be an all-encompassing enterprise including encyclopedic books, movies and cultural organizations which are aimed at spreading cultural and moral records in the world. Some examples of cultural and moral records include the highest number of books written by an author, the longest duration of professorship in the university, the oldest library servant etc.
Mirseradji has written several books about Imam Mahdi, the religious leader whom the Shiite Muslims believe that will appear on the Earth one day alongside Jesus the Christ and spread justice, peace and tranquility all around the world.
He believes that in order to have their names registered in the Guinness Book of World Records, people do foolish and useless actions and Guinness motivates them to even endanger their life for setting unbreakable records; however, Al-Khayrat will include records which are aimed at serving the humankind and are beneficial for the people from all religions, ethnic groups and genders.

What follows is the complete text of my interview Sayyed Mortaza Mirseradji, Iranian religious and scientific journalist and the founder of Al-Khayrat cultural and moral records.

Kourosh Ziabari: What made you think of publishing a book for registering moral records? What’s your main objection to the Guinness Book of World Records? After all, it is an internationally acclaimed source of records.

Sayyed Mortaza Mirseradji: I had read the news related to the Guinness World Records and also bought three copies of the book a few years ago and read them. I found many interesting and educative points in it; however, some of the records made me think more deeply. When I realized that someone had not cut his fingernails for many years and this was set as a record in the Guinness Book of World Records, I felt extremely sorry because such a practice is nonsensical and meaningless from every aspect, preventing one from many important affairs and showing the thoughtlessness and stupidity of that person to everyone. On that time, I asked myself that what will the results of such actions and registering them be for the crisis-hit humanity? Unquestionably, registering such records is worse than doing the work itself. I strongly believe that supporting and promoting an unbecoming action is far worse than that action as our religious leaders have made this subtle remark that the doer of a suitable action is many times better and more favorable than the action itself while the doer of an inappropriate and obscene action is worse than the very action.

Therefore, it came to my mind that propose the idea of a new idea about the world records to the international community and am motivated and feel that it’s very useful to register positive and helpful records in an international effort for promoting and enshrining the decent deeds and bring into existence a feeling of healthy and principled competition.

In principle, what inspired me to propose and implement the project of Al-Khayrat Records were two identical verses in the Holy Quran where the Almighty God says that “so race to all that is good.” In addition, many verses and religious anecdotes prevent the believers from whatever is useless, worthless and irrational. For this purpose and in order to realize my idea, I registered my plan in the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance of Islamic Republic of Iran and also sent letters to the officials at UNESCO to register this plan and implement it internationally.

My main objection to the Guinness World Records is the registration of records which are in contrary to religion, logic and moral standards. All the divine religions have been emerged with the order of the Almighty God to help the humankind find positive approaches and suitable ways for achieving progress and perfection and consider them as his ultimate goal so as to realize his sublime objectives. In your view, and from the perspective of every rational and open-minded person, is it useful if one sleeps in a glass coffin and a few thousands cockroaches parade on his body? Is it a good deed if someone creeps 100 meters on the ground and register a record of speedy creeping? The prophets have been selected for prophethood to help the humankind get out of ignorance and confusion and make him understand that they should derive benefit from conscience in all aspects of his life. Isn’t it a collapse and downfall in contrary to the intellect if we move on the ground like animals? Isn’t it that we all claim that we’re living in the 21st century? Should the incarnations of civilizations be confined to constructing skyscrapers, paying attention to nanotechnology, space stations, biotechnology and the like? Aren’t we bound to develop and improve ethics alongside the other manifestations of civilizations according to our divine and humane responsibility?

KZ: Please explain for us the features of your plan. Is the collection of moral records slated to be published in the format of a book or do you have other plans for it? What records are supposed to be registered in this book? Would you please give us some examples of these records?

SMM: At the outset, I started from a simple blog. Great efforts start from little steps. In my long-run perspective, I have foreseen a multilingual website, the publication of a book, producing films and establishing a cultural institute with the participation of professional experts and scholars. The collection of Al-Khayrat cultural and moral records can encompass a variety of records in different fields such as charitable donations, compilation of books, inventions and discoveries, humanitarian efforts and the like. For example, Dr. Sheikholeslami is the title-holder of blood donation in the world as he has donated his blood 190 times. Or the late Ayatollah Shirazi who was a source of emulation (a religious authority) with a heavy workload and many children which the Almighty God had bestowed upon him had written more than 1200 books one of which was a 150-volume book. There are thousands of similar instances and I wish the Almighty God helps me to register these records and review and classify them with the assistance of professional and dexterous experts.

KZ: Don’t you believe that the Guinness Book of World Records has the potentiality to register cultural and moral records?

SMM: It does have to some extent, and has been successful in some cases. However, when the people of the world are motivated to radical attraction-seeking which is a despicable human characteristic, there will emerge a contradiction between this and the registration of moral and useful actions. It is said that in the ancient times, there was a king who destroyed the grape fields which were used to produce wine while at the same time producing wine in his own palace.

It is impossible for us to be thirsty and quenched at the same time. Guinness makes profit and gains fame by registering unwise performances and a number of imprudent people even endanger their own lives for becoming famous and well-off. It’s impossible to bring together moral and immoral records because it will be detrimental to morality and spirituality and makes it difficult to figure out what is good and what is bad. One important point which I want to raise here is that I’m not an enemy of Guinness World Records. If it was not important to me and was not an international effort, perhaps it would never dawn on me to think of such an enterprise. If the Guinness opens a section for registering the moral records of the world one day, I’ll find my objective realized which is to have a positive influence on people and sociocultural institutions.

However, as I noted earlier, mixing cultural records and foolish records is obnoxious to spirituality. Guinness has performed well in the scientific field such as recording the intuitive or exceptional characteristics of animals or the physiological records of people or records in geology etc, because such information are pretty useful and valuable for enthusiastic people, researchers and scientists. Nonetheless, I think that mixing spiritual and material records with each other is not a right decision and it’s better to register spiritual and moral records in the framework of Al-Khayrat records.

KZ: What’s your schedule for carrying out the Al-Khayrat project? To put it more succinctly, when will the first manifestation of your project, whether in the form of a book, film or multimedia CD be released? Do you think that this project can receive widespread international attention?

SMM: There’s no doubt that spirituality has always had the lower hand and the diabolical forces have been perpetually unrivaled. Just imagine that how many books were written and how many movies were produced about the useless personalities and evildoers of the world. Has the international community praised and paid tribute to the spiritual symbols and personalities in the same way? Imam Ali (PBUH) has a golden statement which says: “don’t be afraid of your fewness in the path of guidance.” I think that the Al-Khayrat spiritual – cultural records are actually leading the mankind toward decency and what is good. In the first days, you find yourself lonely; however, as long as you are connected with the Almighty God, you should not be concerned. Moreover, a true believer should always pay attention to conferring the affairs to the Almighty God and not be neglectful of divine assistance and patronage. I think that one should not be always concerned with the results and someone who is always looking for the results is not a true lover, spiritualist and servant. We should work like a soldier and attend to our service.

If we, the human beings, come to the conclusion that a certain job is decent and righteous, we should do it as correctly and powerfully as possible and leave the results to the Creator. Having said this, I rely on God in this enterprise and leave the results to Him. The establishment or non-establishment, popularity or unpopularity of an enterprise such as the Al-Khayrat records in the national and international level is dependent upon different conditions and circumstances. For example, in the case of driving, if you are a good driver, it does not guarantee that you’ll never have a car crash because the other side of the story which is the driver opposing to you is also effective in your destiny. I want to say that your effort alone does not make everything; rather your readers and audiences should also take steps and be receptive to your idea and thought. We should add the Providence to this statement. At any rate, I’m optimistic that these records will be well-received internationally and I can succeed in contributing to a change in the approaches of the humankind and encouraging them to decency and spreading what is righteous.

KZ: In order to operate your plan, you certainly need remarkable financial resources. Publishing a glorious book with an attractive appearance and in wide circulation needs a powerful sponsor. Have you made any decision in this regard?

SMM: Yes, certainly we need remarkable financial assistance. We should pay the price for an impressive and effective enterprise. We live in a world which is fueled by money. I hope that with popular donations, governmental and international sponsorship, we may succeed in operating this important plan.

KZ: Does this book simply include Iranian spiritual records or do you want to develop it internationally? If so, then do you have any plans for internationalizing the Al-Khayrat collection of records such as translating it into other live languages and publishing it in the foreign countries?

SMM: The man who devised the crosswords for the first time hadn’t ever thought of his plan and idea becoming international and turning into a permanent section in all of the newspapers and magazines. As I’ve noted in my letter to UNESCO, this plan should be first carried out in each and every country so that the people can get acquainted with the objective and mission of this collection of records and those whose name must be registered in Al-Khayrat don’t be discriminated against or don’t get neglected. Then registering the records should be carried out. I hope that God willing, the people interested in spirituality in every corner of the world support this plan and contribute to the translation, propagation and publication of books and establishment of centers related to this plan. I think that I’ve only sowed the seed of this sapling and until the time when this sapling turn into a robust and sturdy tree, it’s expected that different experts and devoted investors and international cultural and social organizations support it financially and morally. I think that we’d better start from a multilingual website so that the world may know it more and more.

KZ: In your view, what will be the impact of such an innovation on the people’s viewpoint regarding setting new records and perpetuating their name? If your project goes on stream, will the people around the world try to do decent, charitable deeds to have their name eternalized instead of, for example, baking the longest kebab of the world?

SMM: A group of records involve the contemporary people, who have passed away, and another group implicates the deceased people, who passed away many times ago, and their records should be studied by the skillful experts and scholars. However, what’s more important is that there are living people today and registering their spiritual and positive records is tantamount to eulogizing their eminent position and introducing their concealed and unknown personality to the public. For example, it was on the news that someone had constructed 110 schools in the Azerbaijan province of Iran and this spiritual record can be glorious and honorable for every Iranian citizen and every freeman in the world, because we figure out that great personalities and celestial stars are not that much far-fetched and inaccessible and in our demoralized world which is devoid of spirituality, people with sublime souls still live with us. I can cite another example for you. I go to the library of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Parliament) of Iran for library researches and there’s a prominent scholar and mentor in the manuscripts section named Abdolhossein Haeri who has been confined to bed and suffers from decrepitude. I always ask him specialized questions in various fields including the anthology of manuscripts and enjoy the enormous and vast knowledge of this noble man. However, I had never thought about the fact that this great man has been serving the seekers of knowledge for more than 6 decades in this library and this very section (the manuscripts section) even when he was the head of this section. I think that this is an unrivaled and valuable record which should be put in Al-Khayrat and narrates an unseen and unsaid perspective of the zeal and enthusiasm of this contemporary scientist. Doesn’t knowing about such records appear to be more pleasant and blissful than finding a man wearing 245 T-shirts in two hours or the other man standing up on a Swiss ball for a few hours? Why don’t we, in the position of a theoretician, writer or the manager of an international cultural organization encourage the people to do virtuous cultural and spiritual deeds to have their name registered in the Al-Khayrat collection of records? For example, a person or a group can set out to rescue the children of a certain region by giving them the infantile paralysis medicine and help them stay away from this refractory disease which may afflict them in the future and set an interesting moral record. What’s wrong with such a record? Which one is better? Helping rescue children from a difficult illness or making the world’s largest shoe which is the same size as an automobile? What will be the application of this useless shoe? Or what’s the usage of a T-shirt in the size of a football pitch? Instead of such useless efforts, we can encourage the people to donate a certain amount of money and cover the orphan children with “life and investment insurance.” Maybe someone can set a record in covering several orphan and impoverished children with life insurance. We propose these suggestions and the people of the world will welcome it, inshaAllah. Certainly there are thousands of novel ideas in this regard which may not strike my mind or yours, but will be set forth with the efforts and sponsorship of enthusiastic people and the supporters of Al-Khayrat records all around the world with the patronage of the Almighty God.

KZ: As my final question, what’s your message to the non-Iranian readers of this interview who have become familiarized with your idea? What do you have to tell them?

SMM: The world is thirsty and crisis-stricken. Spiritualism has been replaced with materialism and the name of God has been consigned to oblivion. What doesn’t have the one who has spirituality? And what does have the one who doesn’t have spirituality, even if he is the most famous, wealthiest and most powerful person in the world?

 

 

Kourosh ZiabariKourosh Ziabari 

 

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist, and regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com. More articles by Kourosh Ziabari can be found here.

Posted on by

Palestine: arduous odyssey of statehood

Palestine: arduous odyssey of statehood
Palestine: arduous odyssey of statehood

Palestine: arduous odyssey of statehood

By Dr. Ismail Salami and Kourosh Ziabari

The plight of the Palestinian people is no closed book to anyone in the world;  a subjugated nation which has been unjustifiably subjected to discrimination and violence for the past 6 decades.

Even the close allies of Israel and those who support the continued occupation of Palestine admit in their privacy that the actions and policies of the Israeli regime are beyond the pale and run counter to the very principles of humanity and morality.

Everyday, the mass media run reports of several Palestinians being killed or injured by the Israeli forces. Hundreds of Palestinian children and women are incarcerated in Israeli jails and their dignity is flagrantly violated. The homes of the Palestinian citizens are demolished by huge bulldozers every day and Zionist settlements are constructed in their place.

In its nature as a colonizing regime, Israel has never spared any efforts to suppress the Palestinian nation. The 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead which claimed the lives of 1,417 Palestinians and destroyed a great deal of the infrastructure of Gaza coastal enclave including schools, mosques, hospitals and even the UN headquarters was only a simple example of Israel’s unrelenting atrocities against the people of Palestine.

Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has committed every type of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It constantly violated the international laws and regulations such as The Hague Regulations of 1907, Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the customary laws of belligerent occupation; however, the United States and its European allies endowed Israel with immunity to the law and protected it from accountability before the international community. Since 1982 up to now, the United States vetoed 27 United Nations Security Council resolutions critical of Israel and hindered the investigation of Israel’s criminal actions including building illegal settlements on the Palestinian lands, deporting the Palestinian citizens from their hometown, incarcerating children and women without charges or holding tribunals for them and more importantly, building and accumulating nuclear weapons.

However, the Palestinians have realized that it is now time for their sufferings to come to an end and start a new era in the life of their browbeaten country. Actually, they are getting prepared for putting forward a proposal to the United Nations General Assembly to officially become the 194th member of the United Nations.

On November 15, 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s National Council unilaterally adopted the Palestinian Declaration of Independence and claimed territories which still remained under the Israeli occupation. Since 1974 when the Arab League summit recognized PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people “and reaffirmed their right to establish an independent state of urgency”, Palestine has been accepted as an observer member of the United Nations without a right to participate in the General Assembly’s voting. After the declaration of independence, the UN General Assembly officially acknowledged the proclamation and voted to use the designation “Palestine” instead of “Palestine Liberation Organization” when referring to the Palestinian permanent observer.

Now after spending two decades as an observer state, Palestine is seeking full membership in the United Nations. When the General Assembly convenes on September 13, it will also decide on whether to accept Palestine as an official and sovereign state or not. However, the Palestinians have a long way to go to realize statehood and it’s almost a far-fetched and complicated journey for them.

According to an article recently published on New York Times and quoted by Stephen Lendman, “last March, Israel told UN Security Council members and other prominent EU countries it will act unilaterally if the General Assembly grants Palestine de jure membership in September inside 1967 borders, 22% of historic Palestine.”

As said by American author and political writer Stephen Lendman, if Palestine is granted full membership, Israel will likely deny recognition, continuing its illegal occupation, this time against a sovereign country; however, even if Israel keeps up with its hostility, the “automatic majority” of the UN General Assembly will take the side of Palestine.

The U.S. President who was recently snubbed by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he said that Israel should recognize the state of Palestine within the pre-1967 borders has rhetorically accepted with Palestine’s plans for submitting a bid for membership in the UN; however, he has implied that its terms, size, locations and timetable should be checked with and verified by Israel. In other words, “he supports Israeli veto power of Palestinian rights, including sovereignty, an unacceptable or illegal condition under international law,” wrote Lendman.

From a legal viewpoint, it’s said that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories should end if Palestine succeeds in gaining a vote of statehood from two-third of the General Assembly members.

Lendman says that Washington has already provisionally recognized Palestine as an independent state and according to the UN Charter Article 80 (1), it cannot reverse its position by vetoing a Security Council resolution calling for Palestine’s UN admission.

Albeit, it should be kept in mind that even though Mahmoud Abbas, the acting chief of Palestinian Authority has made numerous concessions to Israel and tried to please the U.S. and its European allies, he has several enemies in the public sphere, especially among the U.S. congressmen, media personalities and pundits.

An article published by the American conservative FrontPage Magazine says that Palestine cannot meet the requirements of proposing full membership in the UN. “The first problem is that the PA cannot yet demonstrate all of the four characteristics required for statehood by international law.  A sovereign state is a political entity with a defined territory, a permanent population, a functioning government with the ability to exercise sovereignty over that territory (i.e., to command habitual obedience from that population by means of that state’s monopoly on the use of force), and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states,” the article says.

A recent poll conducted on 10,787 people by Press TV shows that 47 percent of the respondents believe the PA’s bid will gain the majority of the votes at the UN but will be vetoed by the US and a total of 24 percent say the US and Israel would prevent the bid from being presented at the UN General Assembly in September. Roughly 13 percent said the bid would fail to garner enough votes on account of the pressure exerted by Washington and Tel Aviv.

Indeed there are repercussions for the Zionist regime if Palestine succeeds in gaining recognition. A source in the Israeli government cites three repercussions in this regard:  1. International perception of Israel as an occupying state will shift to a colonizing one. 2.  The countries voting in favor of recognizing Palestine might impose economic sanctions on Israel and sever all their trade ties. 3. Israel might be forced to depart from international trade organizations. 4. The world may force Israel to approve the construction of the first Palestinian international airport in the West Bank.

These are all the possibilities that may take place but as to the first one that Israel will shift from an occupying state to a colonizing one, one should say that Israel has already been a colonizing state for decades.

Interestingly, the same source predicts that from 192 member states in the UN’s General Assembly, around 180 would vote for the recognition of Palestine, six would abstain and six others would oppose.

This sounds a very optimistic viewpoint and is surely what the Palestinians and the rest of the Muslim world aspires. However, truth is sour and anyone with some degree of political savvy is aware of the amount of influence the Zionists exercise on the US.

Some pundits rightly see the recognition of Palestine as a political tsunami for the Zionist regime.

If the recognition of Palestine is not a nightmare for Israel and its cronies, what is?

Dr. Ismail Salami is an Iranian journalist and author. He has written numerous books and articles on Middle East and is the website manger of Press TV. Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian journalist and media correspondent. He regularly writes for Press TV, Tehran Times, Media Monitors, Salem News, Opinion Maker, Intifada Palestine, RamallahOnline and Strategic Culture Foundation.

Posted on by

Criticize Israel and lose your career: Interview with Alison Weir

Israeli Pirate Flag Silwan - (June 26 2010, Rebecca Fudala)

Kourosh Ziabari, 5 July 2011

If you’ve ever tried to search for reliable information and analyses which expose the concealed and obscured side of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict, you’ve surely come across to the website “If Americans Knew.” This website belongs to a non-profit organization which focuses on the Israeli – Palestinian conflict and the foreign policy of the United States toward the Middle East. “If Americans Knew” publishes commentaries and articles that the American mainstream media pusillanimously shun and reject because of their fear of the influential Zionist lobby which predominantly rules the U.S. administration and Congress. “If Americans Knew” releases statistical reports on the history of Israeli – Palestinian conflict including the number of Palestinian casualties, the number of children murdered by the Israel Defense Forces, the number of Palestinians detained in the Israel jails and the number of Israel’s illegal settlements on the Palestinian lands.

American freelance journalist and researcher Alison Weir is the founder and executive director of “If Americans Knew.” She has written several articles and compiled investigative reports on the Israeli Palestinian conflict and provoked the furious and frantic criticism of Zionist organizations such as Anti Defamation League. Her articles have appeared on a number of media outlets and news websites including Counter Punch, Antiwar.com, The Link, Znet, Los Angeles Times, Greenwich Post, Poynter.org and Washington Report for Middle East Affairs.

Alison Weir is at the forefront of combating the biased coverage of Israeli – Palestinian conflict in the mainstream media and through her sincere efforts has revealed the plight of the Palestinian nation under the occupation of Zionist regime. She believes that criticizing Israel in public will cost a journalist his career. She says that it’s far less damaging for an American journalist to write critically of the United State government than of Israel.

What follows is the complete text of my interview with Alison Weir in which we discussed a variety of topics including the dominance of Israeli lobby over the U.S. administration and Congress and also the biased coverage of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict by the western mainstream media.

Kourosh Ziabari: Ms. Weir; Let me start with the question that, what would really happen if Americans knew? What would happen if they knew that their taxes go to empower an occupying regime which kills women and children ruthlessly, massacres innocent civilians relentlessly and destroys their homes unjustifiably?

Alison Weir: They would be outraged and would demand that this stop. I have found that when I speak to groups around the country the most common question I receive is, “What can we do about this?!”

KZ: What made you think of establishing “If Americans Knew?” Actually, what were your motives for taking such a sensitive step?

AW: When I returned from my first trip to Gaza and the West Bank, I was determined to tell Americans what was going on. I felt that while I could probably occasionally get articles into the mainstream media, the context would remain so distorted that they would make little difference. Therefore, I felt it was essential to begin an organization that would work to get the information straight to the public in as many ways as possible and that would also study and expose media malfeasance on this issue.

KZ: What difficulties did you face while working on this project?

AW: One of the most difficult aspects is raising enough money to sustain the organization. The good news is that we have been able to keep going for almost ten years. The unfortunate reality is that there’s never been enough money to go beyond a paid staff of about 2-3 people. Zionist organizations of all sorts have extremely large staffs, extensive offices, etc. They also have a great many people of sufficient wealth that they can work on this issue without compensation. We’re in a far different situation.

KZ: Have you ever been pressured by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media or the Israeli lobby in the United States not to talk of Israeli regime critically?

AW: I don’t recall being pressured by the Israeli Lobby directly. Instead, they frequently try to pressure local organizations not to have me speak.

Mainstream media organizations also don’t pressure me directly. Rather, they simply don’t report about my information or inform their audiences about the existence of If Americans Knew. Democracy Now is among this group.

One book editor commissioned an article by me and then attempted to censor what I wrote.

KZ: Have you ever been threatened or seriously intimidated for the content which you publish?

AW: Yes. I received a death threat in 2003. You can read the details here. We periodically receive obscene or harassing emails and phone calls from Zionists. There are websites that misconstrue my work and that defame me, including the very powerful Jewish “Anti-defamation League.”

There are infiltrators in the pro-Palestinian movement who initiate whispering campaigns against me and work to prevent groups from inviting me to speak and from using our written materials. This often fails; sometimes it succeeds.

Recently a man knocked my phone from my hands. You can see this here.

Once when I tried to go to Palestine I was stopped at Ben Gurion Airport, held in a detention cell for 28 hours, and deported. Twice I have been briefly detained by Israeli soldiers while trying to film incidents in the Occupied Territories.

KZ: Several renowned politicians, academicians, activists and writers have likened Israel’s treatment of the subjugated Palestinians to the deplorable situation of the blacks under the South African Apartheid regime. From the former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to the Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan and from the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu to former Israeli Knesset member Uri Avnery, many people believe that Israel undeniably resembles aspects of the South African Apartheid regime. What’s your viewpoint in this regard? Does the Israeli regime have the features of an apartheid state?

AW: While no two situations are ever identical, it is clear that Israeli actions are a form of apartheid. As you note, South African experts who have visited Palestine have stated this and they are clearly in a position to know.

The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa  commissioned a legal study of the Israel-Palestine situation to “scrutinize the situation from the nonpartisan perspective of international law, rather than engage in political discourse and rhetoric.” Their 15-month investigation found that “Israel, since 1967, is the belligerent Occupying Power in occupied Palestinian territory, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid.”

In addition, inside Israel itself there is systemic discrimination against non-Jews.

KZ: In your recent article, you referred to statistical studies which reveal that primetime network news shows report on Israeli children’s deaths at rates up to 14 times greater than they report on Palestinian children’s deaths. The same is applicable to the other aspects of mainstream media’s portrayal of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. For example, we clearly witnessed the exercise of double standards by the Western media during the Gaza War of 2008 – 2009. Why do the American media treat the Israeli – Palestinian conflict so unfairly?

AW: I feel there are most multiple causes. Below are some of the main ones:

1. Advertising and consumer pressure by Israel partisans against media that begin to provide more accurate coverage on this issue. These are often orchestrated and cause considerable financial damage to news organizations.

2. Reporters and editors who are biased towards Israel. I recently was astounded to learn how many of the allegedly “objective” journalists in the region reporting for American media have close ties to the Israeli military. Ethan Bronner, New York Times bureau chief, has a son in the Israeli army. Others have themselves served in the Israeli military. “Pundit” Jeffrey Goldberg, who is often interviewed for commentary on U.S. mainstream news broadcasts, served in the Israeli military.

I’ve written several articles and made a video on this topic:
1, 2, 3 and 4

The Associated Press is probably the primary source of international news for media all over the U.S. and is probably an extremely significant cause of the problem. Its control bureau, through which virtually all reports on the region must pass, is located in Israel and is staffed largely by Jewish and Israeli journalists, many with close family ties to the Israeli military. Their reporting invariably contains pro-Israel spin and context. Quite often, they don’t even send out reports on newsworthy items that reveal negative facts about Israel.

3. Media owners, publishers, CEOs, etc. who are biased toward Israel, for example, Mortimer Zuckerman, Leslie Moonves, Sumner Redstone, etc. Journalist Jeffrey Blankfort has reported on this.

4. Editors who know nothing about this issue and would not necessarily be Israel partisans but are taken in by AP, the New York Times, etc. Journalists who have never been to the region, never read a book on it, or studied it independently, often think they are experts on the subject because they’ve been reading AP et al reports for years. They have no idea how filtered and slanted these are.

5. Journalists quickly learn that reporting honestly on Israel-Palestine is not a good career move and often self-censor. It is much safer not to touch the “third rail” of American journalism; they are aware that the people who pay them won’t like it. It is far less damaging to one’s career to write critically of the American government than of Israel.

6. Fear of being called “anti-Semitic” and of being black-balled.  The ADL, similar organizations, and Israel partisans are quite powerful in the U.S. People don’t wish to come under their attack; they’ve seen what happened to Helen Thomas and others.

KZ: Many American citizens who voted for President Obama in the 2008 presidential elections had hoped that he would be a different, sincere and trustworthy politician and a real man of change who would detach himself from the hawkish policies of George W. Bush. However, no essential change of policy was observed during President Obama’s administration. What’s your analysis of the performance of President Obama? Why did he fail to fulfill his promise of change?

AW: Because he is aware that pro-Israel groups and individuals determine who has the chance to be a major contender for the Presidency of the United States. If he tried to do something substantial, there would be a powerful – and successful – campaign to prevent him from winning a second term. This campaign would consist of funneling donations away from him to his opponents and of defaming him on a variety of issues in the media. Plus, even if he tried to do something, Congress would over-rule him, out of the same fears. Long before Mearsheimer and Walt wrote their exposé on this, Paul Findley described this situation in his powerful book, “They Dare to Speak Out.”  Richard Curtiss, Janet McMahon, and Delinda Hanley, from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, have been exposing this for many years.

KZ: Following the 9/11 attacks, a wave of Islamophobic sentiments began to encompass the public sphere in the United States and the European society. The U.S. administration portrayed a horrific and appalling image of Islam and sowed the seeds of hatred against Muslims in the hearts of the Western citizens. However, we already know that they were not Muslims who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. Even if we admit that it was Osama Bin Laden who masterminded the 9/11 attacks, I as a Muslim should promulgate that he was not a devout Muslim, but rather a CIA asset since the Afghan-Soviet war in 1980s. What’s your viewpoint in this regard? Why is the American society’s stance toward the Muslim so repulsive?

AW: Islamophobia in the U.S. has been largely promulgated by media, individuals, and organizations working on behalf of Israel. This is one of their most despicable and dangerous campaigns and has been going on for decades. Among those whose work, statements, and or funding have resulted in making Americans fear and hate Muslims are Pamela Geller, Steve Emerson, Aubrey and Joyce Chernick, Martin Kramer, Charles Jacobs, David Horowitz, David and Meyrav Wurmser, Frank Gaffney, Caroline Glick, Daniel Pipes, etc. John Sugg has written on this topic for years; more recently Max Blumenthal, Maidhc O Cathail, and several others have exposed it.

See 1, 2, 3 and 4

KZ: The Zionist lobby and organizations such as Anti Defamation League, as you have pointed out in your articles, denounce as anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish every single criticism of the actions and policies of the Israeli regime, thus demoralizing and discrediting the critics of Israel who dare to call into question the illegal and immoral actions of this regime. What’s your take on this? How should the critics of Israel find podiums to voice their opposition to the actions and policies of the Israeli regime without being demonized?

AW: This is one of their most widely used tactics. Their intention is two-fold: to undermine the credibility of people speaking and writing accurately on Israel, and to intimidate people from doing this.

I feel that people should simply ignore these attacks and continue to write and speak as honestly and accurately as possible. Such smears have become so widespread that they are beginning to be a bit like crying wolf too often. An increasing number of Americans are rolling their eyes when they hear that yet another person with no record of bigotry is allegedly “anti-Semitic.” In fact, such an attack often helps to raise interest in the person being so maligned, many people assuming – often correctly – that this is a person giving the true facts on Israel and/or the Israel Lobby.

KZ: You may admit that as long as the United States gives its unconditional support to the Israeli regime, vetoes any UNSC resolution critical of Tel Aviv and prevents the international community from investigating its crimes and illegal activities, including its underground military nuclear program, no progress may be made in the course of holding Israel accountable for its actions and policies and therefore no change will be resulted and the suffering of the Palestinian nation will continue. Do you foresee a future in which Israel is eventually held responsible for its criminal actions before the international community? Is such a thing practically possible at all?

AW: Yes, I believe strongly that this will change when Americans learn the facts and demand a change in U.S. policies. The reality often forgotten in analyses on this issue is that Israel’s power comes from the U.S. When the sleeping giant in this relationship, i.e. the American public, wakes up, everything will change.  The fact that this is already starting is reflected by the creation of entities such as J Street trying to co-opt this growing movement.

 

 

Kourosh ZiabariKourosh Ziabari 

 

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist, and regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com. More articles by Kourosh Ziabari can be found here.

Posted on by

What does the Israel-backed UAE say?

Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari, 8 Dec 2010

Speaking or writing as an Iranian citizen makes it difficult to weigh in on the latest remarks made by the UAE Foreign Minister, Abdallah Bin Zayid Al Nahyan, who likened Iran’s legal sovereignty of its Persian Gulf islands to the Zionist regime’s occupation of Syria’s Golan heights. Investigating the whole story from a broad view, some focal points should be considered regarding what the novice FM has grumbled in his latest statements before the Federal Council of Emirates.

To one’s utmost surprise, Mr. Nahyan is interestingly 38 years old, and it means that he is one year younger than the country he represents internationally since the official establishment of the state of United Arabic Emirates dates back to 1971, and Nahyan is born on April 30, 1972. So, from a basic comparison with his Iranian counterpart who is a veteran, 57-year-old diplomat, one can simply figure out that Nahyan is too inexperienced and green to make verbal attacks against a country which has existed on the face of earth for the past 7500 years, and mathematically, 7500 is more than a little bit bigger than 37! Mr. Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian counterpart of Mr. Nahyan, has been a senior diplomat and politician for the past 30 years, serving in various departments and sections of Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so even if Mr. Nahyan has started his diplomatic career since he was 10, he would still lag 3 years behind Mr. Mottaki in terms of political experience.

The unconventional rhetoric of UAE Foreign Minister is being widely circulated by the British and American mainstream media outlets, and one may doubt for a moment whether the plots designed to threaten Iran’s territorial integrity are being directed from the White House, Tel Aviv or Abu Dhabi. (Fascinatingly, they’re only the American, British and Israeli media outlets – such as the Associated Press, the Daily Telegraph and Haaretz – which refer to the Persian Gulf as “Arabian Gulf”, a fabricated term which violates the UN’s Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names’ 2003 decision to initialize “Persian Gulf” as the only valid name for the body of water separating Iran from the Arabian Peninsula. Such hostile actions are nothing more than a set of concerted plans to undermine Iran’s territorial integrity and bring down its national cohesion after the plots of post-election’s artificial unrest failed deplorably).

I’ve seen some pictures of the building of UAE’s Federal Council, namely parliament, and I don’t put the blame on Mr. Nahyan’s shoulders for making such ludicrous remarks that even his Iranian counterpart refused to issue a response to. The building is a gloriously-ornamented magnificence edifice and a 36-year-old young man would be unquestionably affected by the supreme environment of such a building to express that “the occupied islands of Abu Mousa, Greater and Lesser Tunbs will sooner or later return to the UAE”.

Those who sit behind the seats of this building are supposedly the representatives of a nation, and Mr. Nahyan has categorically promised them to bring back what he considers to be his paternal inheritance, albeit this is not exceedingly unusual in the Israel-allied Arab nation to calculate the global equations on the basis of familial and paternal skirmishes; the ruling family of Al Nahyan has been struggling and clashing with a well-off neighboring tribe, namely Al Qassimis, who signed the 1971 British-brokered deal with Iran which designated to Tehran the full sovereignty of Abu Mousa, Greater and Lesser Tunbs (three small islands in the Southern Persian Gulf) in lieu of the sovereignty of Ras-Al Khaimeh Protectorate as a British-owned land.

Anyway, Mr. Nahyan courageously promised the representatives of his nation to bring back, sooner or later, “its islands” which Iran has “occupied” unlawfully.

There are some possibilities, and one may think of some caustic motives which has drawn the young man to make such “uncalculated” comments, as Iran’s FM Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told the media.

Firstly, the bitter, nightmarish outfall of Dubai which was once the sugary, lovable dream of Emirs in Abu Dhabi can be recalled as the basis for UAE’s projection towards Iran, the adjoining neighbor which can be attacked on a regular or irregular basis for some sort of entertainment. Dubai was slated to become the heaven of Middle East with multi-billion-dollar investments of the American and Zionist-owned companies who would search their Middle Eastern ideal in the seashores of Persian Gulf, but with the continued “miscalculation” of young people such as Mr. Nahyan who rule the young country of UAE, Dubai’s sweet dreams now do not exceed a frightening depression.

In order to distract the public opinions from the dissolving slump in Dubai, one should take action, and who can be a better subject than Iran that is busy confronting the spates of black propaganda by the American, British, French and German media outlets from one hand and the continued threats of military strike and a permanent “table” which is home to “all the options” on the other?

The other option might by a lack of geographical knowledge. As a friend, who is almost a few years younger than Mr. Nahyan, I would cordially invite him to spend a few hours reading some scientific and geographical materials regarding what he is drumming for.

If he does not have enough time, I’ll be more than glad to summarize for him the whole story along with a digest of historical evidences.

In 1888, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, the British Plenipotentiary Minister to Tehran, presented a War Office map to the Iranian King Nasser al-Din Shah Qajar, in which the islands were presented as Iranian territory.

In his 1892 book Persia and the Persian Question, George Nathaniel Curzon, the Viceroy and Governor-General of India recognized the islands as belonging to Iran, but a decade later in 1902 the British occupied the islands as a buffer against the growing Soviet influence in Southern Iran.

Being afraid of the growing Soviet influence in the Southern regions of Iran, the British forces occupied three Iranian islands, named Abu Mousa, Lesser Tunb and Greater Tunb in the year 1902.

Iran and Britain fought over the islands for decades until 1968, when the Britons pulled their troops out from the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf as a reconciliatory stance.

Then, in 1971, as the colonial protectorate of Ras al-Khaimeh and Sharjah, Iran signed an agreement with Sharjah with the arbitration of British government to take responsibility for the islands’ security while recognizing the sovereignty of Bahrain and the UAE.

Now everything is clear. If Mr. Nahyan, who should be supposedly aware of the modality of international regulations and agreements, insists to return “his” islands “sooner or later” back to his paternal homeland, UAE and Bahrain should be reattached to Iran as they were the provinces of Iran until the 1971 Iran-Briton-Sharjah agreement was signed.

Mr. Nahyan and his family members can take sovereignty of three islands they claim to be the owner of, and the United Arabic Emirates will be returned to Iran. That’s a fair swap!

Anyway, Mr. Nahyan should be referred to the demographical data of his country which indicate that there’re 400,000 Iranian citizens living there. If these 400,000 people pull their enormous capitals and skyscraping investments out from the economy of UAE, I doubt whether Israel and the U.S. would suffice to lend a hand to UAE to keep up with the barest rudiments of its flimsy life.

Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist, and regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com. More articles by Kourosh Ziabari can be found here.

Posted on by

It was very sad that Quran was burnt: Craig Blomberg

Craig L. Blomberg

Kourosh Ziabari, 2 Oct 2010

Craig L. Blomberg

Craig L. Blomberg

Craig L. Blomberg is the Distinguished Professor of the New Testament, and has been a New Testament scholar since 1986 at the Denver Seminary in Colorado. Denver Seminary where Prof. Blomberg teaches is an evangelical graduate-level institution that was founded in 1950. Blomberg delivers speeches and writes on a number of Christianity, religion-related issues regularly. He has published several books on the New Testament of which we can name “From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts Through Revelation” and “The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues and Commentary”. He specializes in the parables and the writings of Luke-Acts.

Prof. Blomberg joined me in an interview to answer my questions on the recent incident of Quran burning in the United States, the inter-faith dialogue of the followers of Islam and Christianity, the contribution of religion to the global peace and stability, the role of religion in solving the problems of contemporary man and the dissolution of the basis of traditional family in the 21st century.

Kourosh Ziabari: Over the past weeks, an intense controversy over the burning of Holy Quran was sparked all around the world. Several copies of the Holy Quran were burnt on the anniversary of 9/11 attacks. What’s your viewpoint about this action? Is it compatible with the teachings of Christianity to insult the holy books sacrilegiously?

Craig Blomberg: No, it is not compatible, not in any way, shape or form. It is very sad that even a few copies of the Quran were burnt. But we can all thank God that something much more inflammatory, literally and figuratively, did not occur.  One of the most distinctive and important teachings of Jesus was love for one’s enemies.  Muslims as a whole are not Christians’ enemies, but even if a few Christians think so, that gives them no reason to violate their Lord’s teaching on loving the people they think are their enemies.  Burning another person’s or group’s holy book or books can in no way be construed as love.

KZ: We’re witness to a growing wave of Islamophobia in the West, fueled and intensified by the Western governments. Muslims are being deprived of their civil rights in the European countries and their sacraments are being challenged by the Western governments in a blasphemous way. What’s your take on that?

CB: Tragically, throughout the history of the world, members of minority cultures and religions in countries whose prevailing worldviews are quite different have seldom received good treatment.  More Christians were martyred for their faith worldwide in the twentieth century than in all previous nineteen centuries of church history put together, with the atheist regimes of the Stalin era in the former Soviet Union and the Maoist era in China being the perpetrators of the largest numbers of atrocities.  Six million Jews were killed in Nazi Germany, which is a documented historical fact.  Although claiming a veneer of Christianity, Hitler was more influenced by the radically atheist philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche and the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin than by any truly Christian beliefs.  In Africa more recently we have seen one tribe attempting genocide over another in Rwanda, Congo, and elsewhere, often appealing to a facade of the Christian religion to hide what are truly political and tribal conflicts.  In the many long years of the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s it was politics that exploited alignment with Shi’ite and Sunni Islam for their own ends.  The patterns of behavior seem to repeat in almost every generation, only the parts of the world and the given “players” may vary.  The more secularized Western Europe becomes, the more overt persecution of Muslims seems to appear and the more covert persecution of Christians seems to appear, even if more selectively and subtly.  Once again, any appeals to Christianity to justify any of this are completely misguided and misrepresent the spirit and teachings of Jesus and all his first followers.

KZ: There are people who advocate the existence of a division between Islam and Christianity. Are they right in their stance that Islam and Christianity have nothing in common? What’s the straightforward say of Christianity in this regard? Should there be any separation between these two monotheistic religions?

CB: I’m not entirely sure how the word “division” is being used in this question.  I do not believe that all religions teach exactly the same thing.  That is simply factually untrue.  So, of course, it makes sense to say that Islam is not Christianity and vice-versa.  I doubt many Muslims would say that Christians would be welcome to participate in every aspect of their worship without converting to Islam; indeed, non-Muslims can’t even go to the Kaaba in Mecca.  So there should be no surprise that there are portions of Christian worship, such as its sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist, which are reserved for Christians.  But it is equally untrue that the two religions have nothing in common.  Your first question has already mentioned the common biblical ancestors that both religions share, and textbooks on comparative religions can compile long lists of similarities as well as differences, both in beliefs and in practices.

KZ: How can a sustainable integrity and solidarity between the followers of divine religions contribute to international peace? Is it possible to establish a coalition on the basis of commonalities of Islam and Christianity to serve the interests of international community?

This is probably your hardest question for me to answer.  Over the centuries, and even in our day, only a fairly small minority of any of the world’s religions have ever shown much of an interest in inter-religious dialogue and cooperation.  I have no doubt that it is possible to establish the coalition you describe; the more significant question is how many people would participate in it and would they be numerous enough and influential enough to truly make a difference.  Sadly, it is often only after atrocities far worse than 9/11 that people across major religious boundaries are motivated to work with each other.  It happened between Christians and Muslims in a remarkable way in Sierra Leone, West Africa, after the Civil War decimated that country in the 1990s. And it happened because there was already a history of some cooperation among the leaders of the two religions–pastors and imams–and because people recognized that the war had been about tribal conflict that cut across religious lines. But now, a scant ten years later, as rebuilding after the war continues and has met the most desperate needs of the people, many construction, educational and medical projects are being funded by Saudis who are offering the services in the context of an aggressive campaign to convert non-Muslims into Muslims.  Something similar is occurring in Liberia, whose recent history has been very similar to that of Sierra Leone.  More well known are the recent slaughters of Christians who were not even involved in proselytizing but solely humanitarian work in Afghanistan at the hands of the Taliban.  So, as much as I personally would be thrilled to see such efforts come about as you have described, it is hard to be too optimistic about their chances of success.

KZ: What’s your viewpoint regarding the peaceful coexistence of the followers of divine religions? How should we come to a point at which there would be no conflict and divergence between the Muslims, Christians and Jews?

CB: Conflict and divergence are two quite different concepts.  As I said above, in replying to question 4, there are many topics on which each of the world’s major religions diverges considerably.  The only way to avoid divergence, disagreement and differing views on important topics, would be to dramatically rewrite all of the religions’ holy books and then get all the people of the world to follow them perfectly!  This, obviously, will never happen.  But peaceful coexistence is very much the ideal of Jesus’ teachings.  It is also part of the genius behind the original goals of the American constitution and democracy as it came to exist in the U.S.  Unfortunately, in some Americans’ minds today, freedom “of” religion should be replaced by freedom “from” religion.  Usually it is atheists who lobby for this.  Short of that, many argue that people should just not talk about or practice religion in the public.  Here both Islam and Judaism, I think, have done a better job than Christianity at resisting such notions.  Peaceful co-existence, whether from a Christian perspective or just from a politically democratic perspective, should allow and even encourage all people to be free and to feel free to share their deepest religious convictions with any who will listen, but they must always do so in a non-coercive way and respect the rights of others to say “No, thank you.”

KZ: The secular world which advocates the separation of state and church/mosque claims that religion does cannot provide sustainable and effective solutions for the world’s current problems and predicaments. They believe that religion should be limited to personal practices and disallowed to enter the public sphere. What’s your viewpoint in this regard?

CB: At least in the U.S., that was not the idea of the framers of the Constitution at all.  They did not want one particular religion or one particular branch of a particular religion to be able to impose itself as the only legal religion or denomination in the country.  They always assumed that religious people would take part in the public arena, voting, proposing legislation, and so on, according to their own religiously informed consciences.  Even as recently as my childhood years in the 1960s, this was widely recognized.  It’s only been in about the last forty years when the opposite viewpoint has become widespread, and it goes directly against the spirit and intention of the founders of the American democracy.

KZ: How is it possible to employ religion to draw an end the world’s conflicts? We’re witness to several painful, agonizing wars around the globe in which innocent civilians lose their lives unjustifiably. What’s the prescription of religion for these wars and bloody conflicts?

CB: I think it is important for the religions involved to go out of their way to dissociate themselves from the warfare.  Of course, a given Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc., may voluntarily choose to enlist in the military of his or her country, or may live in a nation where all people of a certain age must take their turn serving in the military. But the church, mosque, synagogue, temple, etc., as a religious institution must find ways repeatedly to stress that they are not endorsing any particular war, battle or terrorist activity and model peacemaking, humanitarian aid, rebuilding after warfare, and the like.

KZ: Morality is gradually losing its influence in the tumultuous era which we’re living in. The foundation of family is becoming shaky and unstable as the codes of ethics are being faded away in oblivion and negligence. Doesn’t the dissolution of morality propel our world toward social, political and economic meltdown?

CB: I suppose you want a longer answer than just “yes.”  But that is the straightforward answer.  No other period of world history has seen so many separate societies around the globe abandoning traditional family values and promoting personal “self-realization” and independence above working for the common good or demonstrating loyalty to biological and spiritual families.  But none of the world’s great religions promotes such individualism, and the track record so far of what it has been doing to the planet is an abysmal one.

KZ: Let me pose my final question. There are thinkers and scholars who predominantly emphasize the differences of divine religions and amplify the divergences between them. How is it possible to derive benefit from the commonalities of divine, monotheistic religions to serve the interests of the international community and contribute to global peace, stability?

CB: Most religions make some kind of distinction between theology and ethics.  Theology has to do with what people or religious groups believe about God, about the human condition, and about how God relates to humans and how we are to relate to God.  Ethics has to do with how we treat each other, indeed, how we treat all of creation.  While the major world religions at times differ considerably on some of their answers to the first set of questions (the theological ones), there is often greater agreement on the second set (the ethical ones), especially when it comes to the centrality of loving one another.  I do not have to agree with everything in Jewish, Islamic, Shinto, or Sikh theology to co-operate with them in the ethical undertakings we all agree will help make the planet more caring, compassionate and just.  Indeed, I should want to cooperate with anyone who will help in such endeavors against those who, for whatever reason, are bent on destroying people, places, and planets!

  • Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist, and  regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com

Posted on by

Pakistanis have great deal of emotional attachment with the Iranian people: Shahid R. Siddiqi

Shahid R. Siddiqi

Kourosh Ziabari, 29 Sept 2010

The 2010 Pakistan flood was one of the most unpleasant and painful incidents of the year which attracted widespread international attention due to its extensiveness and destructive impacts. The floods started in July following heavy monsoon rains and overflow of the Indus River in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh, Punjab and Balochistan regions of Pakistan. It is estimated that more than two thousand people lost their lives and over a million homes were destroyed since the flooding began. According to the United Nations estimates, over 21 million people have been injured or displaced as a result of the devastative flood.

Pakistani journalist and former Air Force employee Shahid R. Siddiqi joined me in an interview to discuss the aftermaths of the unprecedented flood which

Shahid R. Siddiqi

Shahid R. Siddiqi

encompassed the whole Pakistan in a matter of days and caused serious damages to the country’s agriculture, industry, energy sector, infrastructures and even politics. Mr. Siddiqi answered my questions about the government’s management of the flood and the distribution of humanitarian aid sent by different countries to the flood-hit regions. He explained that how the unanticipated disaster paralyzed Pakistan in an astonishing way and surprised the unprepared government which failed to manage the crisis appropriately. In this interview, I also seized the opportunity to ask Mr. Siddiqi some questions about the prospect of Iran – Pakistan relations and Pakistan’s stance on Iran’s nuclear program.

Shahid R. Siddiqi has been a broadcaster with the Radio Pakistan and the Islamabad bureau chief of the “Pakistan and Gulf Economist”. His articles and political commentaries appear in the Pakistani newspapers such as Dawan, The Nation and Pakistan Herald. He is also the founder of Asian American Republican Club. Siddiqi is a frequent contributor to Foreign Policy Journal, Middle East Times and Axis of Logic.

Kourosh Ziabari: How did the government of Pakistan manage the aftermaths of the recent devastative flood? Has it succeeded in preventing a humanitarian disaster from taking place in the flood-hit regions?

Shahid R. Siddiqi: The floods caught the Government of Pakistan totally unawares. Unfortunately, civilian governments in Pakistan have historically failed to comprehend the importance of preparedness for disaster and relief management. This is exactly what happened with the present government. This happened in spite the fact that an organization, Disaster Management Cell, was in place with very adequate experience of handling the massive earthquake that hit the Northern Areas of Pakistan in 2005. This lack of preparedness was a direct consequence of general mismanagement at the top levels of the government.

These were the most widespread and disastrous floods, the like of which had never before been witnessed in this region. The scale of destruction did not dawn upon the government until much later, until after the waters had inundated Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and hit Punjab. And by the time the government began to respond, millions had been uprooted and tremendous losses had occurred. According to one estimate these floods have caused a disaster bigger than Haiti and Tsunami combined.

The losses were colossal. Twenty million people were affected. 20% of the country, mostly the farmland, went under water. Millions of cattle heads died, standing crops of rice, cereals and vegetables were destroyed, enormous quantities of stored wheat grain was lost to flood waters and the agricultural infrastructure crumbled. Breakdown in transportation caused food shortages all over the country resulting in prohibitively high prices.

The humanitarian disaster was humongous and beyond the capacity of the civil administration to handle. The military did a commendable job of rescue and relief. It quietly moved in to fill the void due to the absence of the civil administration and worked tirelessly round the clock with heads down. Had it not been for it, the humanitarian disaster would have been much greater.

The flood waters originated in the mountainous catchment areas in the north and flowed south overflowing the banks of several smaller rivers to eventually join the River Indus, overflowing it and causing all adjoining areas to come under water. The flood has now subsided in the north – in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, and the water is now passing through the southern province of Sindh to drain into the Arabian Sea. Hopefully by the middle of October the waters would recede in the South too.

As life in the north returns to normal and people return to their devastated towns, villages and homes, the more difficult and capital intensive phase of rehabilitation begins. The government is short of funds. Aid is coming in but is not enough. The UN is trying to raise funds for rehabilitation but the response is slow. The economic situation in the country is bad. People struggle to keep their body and soul together and raise a shelter over their heads to resume their lives.

KZ: Many countries have dispatched convoys of humanitarian aid containing foodstuff, medicine, clothing and other basic necessities to be distributed among the flood-hit families. Has the process of distribution been satisfactory?

SS: The distribution of relief goods was undertaken mainly by the military and the NGOs. The civil administration joined in later. Although the distribution was handled quite efficiently, the aid supplies were found inadequate at times. The very scale of disaster, very large areas involved, difficulties of transportation and distribution issues due to inaccessibility of marooned populations, complicated the relief work. There was acute shortage of helicopters, which were eventually diverted by the Americans from Afghanistan and which came very handy in search, rescue and supply droppings.

KZ: Which countries provided the most help to Pakistan? Has the extent of international aid been sufficiently helpful to the families grappled with the flood?

SS: The largest chunk of aid in dollar terms came form the U.S. The UN has also launched a big effort at raising funds to help out in the rehabilitation phase but the response of the international community is slow. It is gratifying to see that India also contributed to the UN fund. The European Union has also made a sizable donation.

Given the scale of destruction, it is beyond the capacity of Pakistan to help rehabilitate the affected people in their homes and enable them to make a new beginning. International assistance is critically important.

KZ: So far, Iran has dispatched 13 convoys of humanitarian aid to Pakistan. How do you estimate Iran’s assistance to Pakistan? What’s the general viewpoint of the people with regards to Iran’s helps?

SS: Iranian aid convoys were much appreciated at the government level as well as by the people. They came very handy in meeting the needs of the affectees. The consignment was handed over to the military for distribution.

Pakistanis have great deal of emotional attachment with the Iranian people and they also hold the Ummah in very high regard. From the days of former King Reza Shah, although not for the love of the Shah himself, Pakistan had very close bilateral relations both at the government and the people’s level. Even a small gesture from Iran, whether by the government or the people, is therefore much appreciated.

A point to note is the close historical ties that existed between Iran and the India much before the British colonized India. Substantial migration took place from Iran into India and even today such old migratees keep their ancestral identities alive by using surnames such as Mashhadi, Isfahani, Tabrezi, etc. Persian remained the official language in India at one time and every Urdu poet or scholar worth his name thought his work to be incomplete unless he had a book or two in Persian language to his credit. There was a tremendous influence of Persian culture in the Moghul court. This brought Pakistanis very close to the Iranians.

KZ: What’s your prediction for the prospect of Iran – Pakistan relations? How can these two neighboring countries contribute to the empowerment of Islamic solidarity? How can the bilateral relations between Iran and Pakistan serve the interests of the regional countries?

SS: Neither Pakistan nor Iran can change the geography of the region. Both of these people have been neighbors always and will always be, till the end of times. Over centuries they have been influenced by each other’s culture, language and life style. They share the same religion and about 15% population of Pakistan is of Shia denomination, which is the official religion of Iran and which therefore looks up to Iranian Shia leadership for guidance. This explains the cultural, social and religious affinity between the two people.

On the political front, the two countries have enjoyed very close relations in the past. They were part of the SEATO and CENTO, the two U.S. sponsored military pacts, along with Iraq and Turkey back in the 1960s. The Shah was very supportive of Pakistan and when in 1965 war broke out between Pakistan and India, he opened his armory gates to Pakistan. Pakistan was able to purchase some tanks and F-86 aircraft from Iran during that period when it could not get these from other sources.

Unfortunately, relations between President General Zia and the Khomeini regime became sour. The Iranian revolutionary leadership went to the extent of refusing to receive President Zia at the head of a Muslim delegation that wanted to help negotiate a ceasefire and reconciliation between Iran and Iraq when they were at war. Although the official relations have gradually improved ever since, they could not be restored to the same level of cordiality as during the Shah and a certain distance remains. I think this is not in the interest of any of the two countries.

One reason for this lack of warmth on the part of Iran towards Pakistan is Pakistan’s vey close relations with Saudi Arabia, which is obviously not to the liking of the Iranian regime. Then Pakistan has been closely allied to the U.S. on account of political, economic and strategic compulsions of its various regimes. Another factor that contributed to this state of relations is Pakistan’s support to the Sunni Mujahedeen groups during their war against Soviet Union and later to the Saudi backed Taliban, the followers of Salafi sect.

But all said and done, it is in the interest of the two neighbors to forge a very close alliance by showing an understanding and tolerance for each other’s national interests and policies. In practical terms it not possible for either country to make an about turn and reconcile and realign its policies with the other. In an environment where the West is forging its own alliances with a view to strategically dominate this region and control and harness energy resources of the Caspian Sea Basin and Central Asia, it is imperative for Iran and Pakistan, and other Islamic countries of the Middle East, to see through the game plan, shun their differences, show tolerance and forge a broader alliance in their own good.

At a time when the world is moving towards regional unions and trading blocs, why should Muslim governments of the region display a myopic approach towards safeguarding and promoting long term Muslim interests and fritter away their energies and resources in squabbling with each other and trying to pull each other down.

For the moment this seems to be a tall order. This cannot be done unless the Shia-Sunni divide among Muslim states of the region is not bridged, unless the rulers give up their petty differences, overcome their suspicions of each other, stop playing in the hands of big powers and show statesmanship. But, unfortunately, this element is entirely missing from the present crop of Muslim rulers of this region.

In the present scenario the Islamic countries of the Middle East and South West Asia are drifting apart along the Shia-Sunni divide. The Sunni Arab States do not want to see a nuclear armed Shia Iran, particularly after the fall of the Sunni government in Iraq, which could potentially lead to the creation of a pro-Iran Shia regime in Iraq right in their midst, which they fear will create a strong and aggressive bloc that could destabilize them. This fear among Arab states will not serve the interests of Iran at all. The Arabs are bound to join hands with Iran’s enemies to weaken it. That explains the news report that Saudi Arabia agreed to allow Israel to use its air space to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

This acrimony between Iran and Arab states places Pakistan in a difficult situation. Pakistan does not want to see Iran attacked or be engulfed in war. It cannot also afford to give up its relations with Arab states due to the economic and political support it gets from them, which Iran will not provide.

But Pakistan is in a unique position to play an important role in bridging the gulf between Iran and the Arab world. It can help reconcile differences and allay each others’ fears. Before this can happen, Pak-Iran relations will have to be brought on solid footing and Iran will need to soften its rhetoric and aggressive posture to create an environment of reassurance in the Arab world.

KZ: Over the past years, Iran has been constantly exposed to the threat of a military strike on its nuclear facilities by the United States and Israel. What’s the stance of Pakistani people and government in this regard?

SS: The Western threat of military strike against Iran has been a matter of great concern for an average Pakistani. He believes that not only would this cause death and destruction in a neighboring Islamic country, but it would engulf the whole region in a cycle of violence. There is also a likelihood of serious environmental disaster due to release of radioactive materials over the skies of Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Pakistanis believe that Iran has the right to pursue development of nuclear energy for legitimate and peaceful purposes and that any doubt or dispute in the matter should be resolved through dialogue rather than arm twisting.

The general impression in Pakistan is that the aggressive American posture towards Iran arises out of Israeli pressure that has been brought upon the US and European allies. Israel has always been paranoid with those Muslim states that either have developed or are developing military capability to challenge Israel’s might and domination, even if it is in conventional terms. It attacked and destroyed the Iraqi reactor as a preemptive action. In subsequent years it planned similar attacks against Pakistan’s nuclear facilities in collusion with India, which were thwarted by Pakistan’s military. And now it targets Iran because of Iran’s ability to defeat Israeli aggression in the region directly and indirectly, e.g. through Shia groups in Lebanon.

The Pakistan government clearly favors dialogue and not armed confrontation as means of resolving this dispute.

KZ: United States and its allies around the world have imposed several rounds of unilateral sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. What’s your idea about this? While Israel possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads, it’s Iran which is under international pressure to halt its nuclear program. What do you think about the international pressures imposed on Iran over its nuclear program?

SS: Pakistanis know very well that the U.S. does not act evenhandedly when it comes to favoring Israel. The world knows about Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal. But neither the U.S. and nor Europe are willing to acknowledge this fact. Israel happens to be a major nuclear threat to its neighbors, yet the U.S. behaves as if neither Israel has any nuclear weapons nor does the U.S. know anything about them. When it suits the US it does not shy away from practicing double standards.

The U.S. did not act the same way with Pakistan. Pakistan was subjected to all kinds of sanctions after it exploded its bomb in response to the Indian explosion. It was only when the U.S. desperately needed Pakistan’s support to fight the Taliban after 9/11 that the sanctions simply evaporated overnight.

I believe, and so do the Pakistanis generally, that the U.S. has shown indecent haste in imposing sanctions against Iran. Quite clearly diplomacy has not been given a chance. China did resist the U.S. pressure but Russia readily capitulated and voted with the U.S., which came as a surprise. Russia was supplying nuclear reactor to Iran and as an emerging power it was expected to show some spine. The others have been forced to fall in line.

With the U.S. having donned the mantle of the sole super power, it is in a position to twist the tail of most countries which either fall in its sphere of influence or need its support in one form or the other. It utilizes this advantage to the hilt and forces its will down everyone’s throat. Turkey and Mexico played a positive role and America should have given their effort a chance.

However, the U.S. involvement in Afghan imbroglio and the economic melt down it faces at home makes it difficult for it to open a new front against Iran as of now. It has been holding Israel back for this reason. But once US withdrawal from Afghanistan begins and the economy shows signs of improvement, the threat could revive.

It goes to the credit of Iran to have withstood these sanctions and is resisting the American, European and Israeli pressure with determination.

  • Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist, and  regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com
  • He has interviewed political commentator and linguist Noam Chomsky, member of New Zealand parliament Keith Locke, Australian politician Ian Cohen, member of German Parliament Ruprecht Polenz, former Mexican President Vicente Fox, former U.S. National Security Council advisor Peter D. Feaver, Nobel Prize laureate in Physics Wolfgang Ketterle, Nobel Prize laureate in Chemistry Kurt Wüthrich, Nobel Prize laureate in biology Robin Warren, famous German political prisoner Ernst Zündel, Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff, American author Stephen Kinzer, syndicated journalist Eric Margolis, former assistant of the U.S. Department of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, American-Palestinian journalist Ramzy Baroud, former President of the American Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Sid Ganis, American international relations scholar Stephen Zunes, American singer and songwriter David Rovics, American political scientist and anthropologist William Beeman, British journalist Andy Worthington, Australian author and blogger Antony Loewenstein, Iranian geopolitics expert Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, American historian and author Michael A. Hoffman II and Israeli musician Gilad Atzmon.
  • More articles by Kourosh Ziabari can be found here.

Posted on by

A united Iran against a collapsing Israel

Tehran_skyline_may_2007 (Wiki Commons)

Kourosh Ziabari, 22 August 2010

As the racist regime of Israel moves toward greater international isolation due to its aggressive, belligerent policies, Iran receives wider support from the world’s nations for its uncompromising resistance against the bullying superpowers and annulling their mischievous plots. The world is witness to the growth of Iran’s popularity while hatred and disgust against Israel builds up progressively. Iran is reaching out to the hearts and souls around the world while Israel ignites denunciation and deprecation in the four corners of the globe.

Since Israel raided the Gaza Freedom Flotilla on May 31, the flimsy existence of Tel Aviv began to splinter as the world nations collectively and categorically reacted to the atrocious mass killing of 9 peace activists in the international waters by the Israel Defense Forces.

Israel’s unlawful, brutal killing of the unarmed civilians aboard the Freedom Flotilla sparked such a remarkable international condemnation that even the most stalwart allies of Tel Aviv in the EU zone recalled their ambassadors from Israel and called for a thorough, detailed investigation of the incident which they described as offensive and violent. The international condemnations were so extensive and intensive that even the most pessimistic Israeli politicians couldn’t envisage. Four countries downgraded their diplomatic relations with Israel – in addition to the four countries that had cut their diplomatic ties with Israel during the 22-day Gaza war of 2008-2009, Twelve Latin American countries condemned the Israeli actions, Twenty-one European countries protested Israel and Twelve non-Arab Asian countries officially disapproved Tel Aviv.

The precursor of global protests to Israel was Turkey which had lost 9 of its citizens in the raid. In an insightful, thought-provoking and appreciable statement before his country’s parliament, the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan strongly questioned Israel’s impunity from the international laws and called for a decisive end to the illegal actions of this regime: “It is no longer possible to cover up or ignore Israel’s lawlessness. The international community must from now on say ‘enough is enough’. Dry statements of condemnation are not enough … There should be results.”

At the beginning and when the first news was released, the extent of Israel’s violence had not become clear to the public opinion; however, as the international peace activists began retelling the stories of their ordeal upon being deported by Tel Aviv to their respective countries, the world realized that a great calamity had taken place.

Upon his extradition to Istanbul, the Irish historian and activist Dr. Fintan Lane told the media about his terrible experience on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla which was unjustifiably attacked by the Israeli commandos on May 31: “when they boarded our boat, we resisted entirely peacefully. I sat on the floor and tried to reason with them, but the Israeli commandos physically attacked us. Fiachra (one of the Irish passengers aboard the flotilla) was dragged around the ground and I had a gun pointed in my face by a screaming commando. His mania was so intense that I genuinely feared for my life. Others received beatings.”

The American peace activist and anti-imperialist speaker Kenneth O’Keefe was another passenger on board the Gaza aid convoy. He witnessed the death of two of his Turkish colleagues in person and was brutally harassed, tortured by the Israeli forces: “while in Israeli custody I, along with everyone else was subjected to endless abuse and flagrant acts of disrespect.  Women and elderly were physically and mentally assaulted… in stress positions while hand cuffed to the point of losing circulation of blood in our hands. We were lied to incessantly, in fact I am awed at the routineness and comfort in their ability to lie, it is remarkable really. We were abused in just about every way imaginable and I myself was beaten and choked to the point of blacking out… and I was beaten again while in my cell.”

Hassan Ghani, the 25-year-old Scottish journalist and media correspondent of the Press TV was also among the flotilla travelers. He was ruthlessly punished by the Israeli commandos in what he described as the “brutal Israeli assault” on the flotilla: “we didn’t expect a ship with 32 different nationalities on board, with aid from 50 different countries on board, would be attacked in such a brutal manner… They began by throwing stun grenades on to the deck of the ship when people were in the middle of morning prayers. Then they began using rubber bullets, they tried to come aboard the ship from the side. People repelled the commandos with water cannons they had set up on the side of the ship. Then the Israelis used helicopters to drop people onto roof and there was scuffles on the roof. The Israeli solders had already opened fire on the ship, so people were grabbing anything they could to stop the attack in international waters.”

Another painful account of the flotilla raid was retold by the prominent Swedish author Henning Mankell who described the Israeli actions as “committing murder”: “they got very aggressive and ordered us to come down. There was one older man who was a little slow, so the Israelis attacked him with an electric stun gun. He was in a lot of pain. So was another passenger who was covered in paint after being hit with a paint ball missile. The commandos searched the ship thoroughly and emerged waving a razor and a metal-box cutting tool, which they claimed were “weapons” intended to be used against them. All the passengers were then herded into a group, with armed guards standing watch as the ship was taken to Israel When we got off… we were made to walk down a corridor of armed commandos who filmed all of us with cameras. They stole my mobile phone, my money, my clothes and my credit cards.” Mankell said that he was held in a cell for 24 hours along with a Swedish Member of Parliament and then deported even “without his socks”.

All of these accounts attest to the fact that Israel is being reprimanded by people from the four corners of the world who object to the inhuman policies and actions of Tel Aviv regardless of the nationality they belong to and the political stance they champion.

Today, it’s known to everyone that Israel is a political entity which the United States supports in order to maintain its interests in the Middle East and subject the region’s nations. In the other words, Israel plays the role of America’s permanent representative in the Middle East and is entitled to resort to every possible mean to intimidate and bring under control the independent nations in the region. The fact is that Israel is a fragile and unstable political regime and every day of its shaky survival is hinged on the exertion of force and violating the rights of other nations. As the Iranian journalist Mohieddin Sajedi once noted, Israel cannot live without creating troubles. From mass killing to occupation, from assassination to the construction of illegal settlements, Israel continues to exist with illegal actions and this is what keeps them alive.

The main adversary of Israel is Iran. Israel has repeatedly warned Iran against the use of force and launch of a military strike on its nuclear facilities. The reason is clear. Iran is turning into an inspiring model for the independent nations around the world. Iran’s 30-year-long resistance against imperialism and its courageous confrontation with the bullying superpowers has made it an example of victorious struggle with political arrogance and many independent nations on the face of world see Iran on the frontline of battle with the United States and its colonies such as Israel.

Iran is winning international popularity because it has demonstrated the effectiveness of self-sufficiency in nationalizing the nuclear energy. While Israel possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads in flagrant violation of the international law and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has made striking advancements in taking over the nuclear power and excelling in using it for peaceful purposes. The fact that Iran has succeeded in nationalizing the nuclear energy without the assistance of Western superpowers is indigestible for Israel which is the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East; that’s why it has warned Iran against a preemptive military strike; however, the reality is that a 70-million-strong army stands by the resistance movement of Iran and a coalition of powerful troops consisted of the independent nations around the world, stand by Iran against the collapsing Israel forever.

Posted on by

Israel will attack Iran: Will Israel attack Iran?!

Tehran_skyline_may_2007 (Wiki Commons)

Kourosh Ziabari, 19 August 2010

Those who mastermind the U.S.-directed psychological operation against Iran have obliviously forgotten that we’re now accustomed to seeing the uninteresting, exhausting charade of “will attack Iran”; you put the subject for it, either the United States or Israel.

Over the past five years, Iran has been recurrently under the threat of an imminent war which the mainstream media have overwhelmingly talked of; a war against Tehran to overthrow the Islamic Republic and bring to power a “democratic” regime which the “international community” favors.

Since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assumed office in 2005 as the Iranian head of state, he made attempts to reverse the passive, submissive stance of Iran towards the Eastern and Western superpowers and proposed new theories for an innovative international order. He accelerated Iran’s nuclear program and made remarkable advancements in nationalizing the peaceful use of nuclear energy in Iran. He put forward insightful and astute questions: “why should Israel possess nuclear weapons in violation of the international law”, “why should Israel occupy the lands which don’t belong to it”, “why should Israel repeatedly threaten its neighbors and wage wars against them”, “why should Holocaust be used as a pretext to suppress the Palestinian nation?”, “why should Iran be deprived of the peaceful uses of nuclear power while the United States, Russia, France, United Kingdom and China have thousands of nuclear weapons?”

These questions were not digestible for the United States and its stalwart allies around the world; therefore, some measures should be adopted to suffocate this man and the people he represents internationally. The reason was simple. Ahmadinejad and Iran would not make concessions and thus should be silenced at any cost. So, who is going to pay the price for silencing Iran? Are the military options plausible?

The answer is simply “no”. Iran is different from Iraq, Afghanistan and all of the countries which Israel attacked during its period of existence in the Middle East. The people of Iran have demonstrated that they react to the aggressive powers categorically. So, the best option would be to stage an all-out psychological operation in which the means of coercion, falsification, distortion, fabrication and intimidation might be used.

The project was set off almost five years ago, when the U.S. and European mainstream media gradually began trumpeting for an imaginative war against Iran. The first man to set in motion the project was Scott Ritter, the former chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. He told the media on February 19, 2005 that George Bush is laying the groundwork for an all-out attack against Iran: “President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons.” With what was described as Ritter’s “greatest skepticism”, he also talked of the possibility of a regime change in Iran, pushed by the neoconservatives who were trying to persuade the ex-President Bush to broaden the extents of war to topple the Islamic Republic.

The primary threats looked so realistic and actual that even deceived the veteran investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, who wrote in a January 24, 2005 article in the New Yorker that U.S. is getting prepared to launch a military strike against Iran. He quoted a high-ranking intelligence official as telling him: Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

In 2006, the gossips were strongly suggesting that there’ll be an attack against Iran, either by Israel or the United States. In August 2006, the former chief of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Major General Hamid Gul emphatically proclaimed that Iran will be attacked by the United States. Interestingly, he also specified the exact time of the attack. Talking to the Pakistani Parliament, he predicted that “America would definitely attack Iran and Syria simultaneously in October.”

Along with the previous predictions, however, General Gul’s prediction about an imminent assault on Iran transpired to be futile.

The same events continued to happen in 2007; futile predictions and empty threats, either by those who were involved in the conflict with Iran or those who did not have a role.

On January 24, 2007, the Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa told Reuters on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum that there’s a possibility of U.S. attacking Iran: “It’s a 50/50 proposition, and we hope that it won’t happen. Attacking Iran would be counterproductive.”

The atmosphere created by the United States and its allies was so imposing and impressive that had influenced everyone, from the most pragmatic, down-to-earth journalists to the most adventurous, overconfident politicians. Quoting the Kuwaiti paper Arab Times, John Pilger wrote in a “New Statesman” article dated February 5, 2007 that Bush will attack Iran, and also gave the military details of the attack according to the statements of a Russian military official: “The well-informed Arab Times in Kuwait says that Bush will attack Iran before the end of April. One of Russia’s most senior military strategists, General Leonid Ivashov, says the U.S. will use nuclear munitions delivered by cruise missiles launched from the Mediterranean.”

Untruthfulness and falsehood had pervaded the mainstream media and they had simply failed to take seriously the possibility of losing their reputation as a result of proposing unrealistic, improbable and pointless predictions. They were only after serving the interests of their governmental owners and trumpeting for a non-existing war which was about to be waged against Iran.

On March 5, 2007, the Reuters AlterNet quoted analysts that there could be a chance for a possible military strike against Iran. This time, the attacker was destined to remain unspecified: “Risk analysts say there could be an up to one-in-three chance that the United States or Israel will attack Iran by the end of this year, and markets may not be doing enough to hedge against the impact.” This employment of the “United States or Israel” was the newest psychological operation tactic; spreading uncertainty and ambiguity to overawe and subdue Iran.

In 2008, the most entertaining charade of the game was initiated by John Bolton, a politician who seemed to be enormously interested in playing the role of a new Nostradamus. His prophecy was that Israel would attack Iran before the new U.S. President swears in. The magnificent foretelling by Mr. Bolton was grandiloquently featured by the Daily Telegraph in a report titled: “Israel ‘will attack Iran’ before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts”.

Anyway, the new U.S. President swore in and nobody attacked Iran.

The war threats against Iran have been renewed several times since John Bolton publicized his prediction. The famous “proverb” of “all options are on the table” was uttered by the successor of George W. Bush; the same man whom we trusted in once for good and deceived all of us with his promise of change. Mr. Bolton’s newest forecast has been released recently: Israel has until week’s end to strike Iran’s nuclear facility. The psychological warfare machinery is being activated again as each newspaper and website represents one arsenal. Jeffrey Goldberg is taking steps to become the Judith Miller of war against Iran and the world once again watches the funny advertisement of human rights by those who are terrifically massacring “humans” in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, getting prepared for a new bloodshed in Iran. The thing is not that Israel will attack Iran. The thing is that Israel won’t dare attack Iran, but its unremitting propaganda won’t cease. The thing is that we should hear these sentences incessantly: “Israel will attack Iran… will Israel attack Iran?”