Iran

I think he probably did see Iran through slightly rose tinted spectacles Zen, he did love the place and the people. You know I have never read one of his book's, I should really and will add the one you have to my list.
 
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
I was saddened to hear of Axworthy's passing (and was informed of this by Ali Ansari who I was fortunate enough to meet about 18 months ago), as his books and articles served as a corrective to some of the understandable but frequently misleading impressions that people may have formed about Iran, without necessarily taking into account the extent to which we have substantially meddled in the affairs of that country, as was the case with Operation Ajax and the overthrow of Mossadegh, and in relation to the tobacco protest of the 1890's.

I have Axworthy's Empire of the Mind: A History of Iran in front of me right now. The title itself wonderfully alludes to the philosophical and literary powerhouses that have been so much a part of the Persian cultural landscape, polymaths like, for example, Ibn Sina and Omar Khayyam.

Even the blurb on the back cover challenges our preconceptions: 'Iran is a land of contradictions. It is an Islamic republic, but only 1.4 percent of the population attends Friday prayers.'

I do wonder, though, if Axworthy's love of the country might have led him to perceive the theocracy that rules it through slightly rose-tinted spectacles.

This is because earlier this year, I read Simon Mabon's Saudi Arabia and Iran: Power and Rivalry in the Middle East. Just flicked through it again and there are plenty of references to Iran's apparent policy of exporting its revolutionary politics to other parts of the Middle East and to its support for Hezbollah, and the Shia populations of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia itself.

Whether this support is merely of a political or perhaps a financial nature or extends as far as supplying military kit is difficult to ascertain (which is frustrating - I thought it would be straightforward). Nevertheless, the targeted assassination of dissidents and other enemies abroad certainly seems to have taken place, and on page 191 Mabon quotes a commentator called Gary Sick, who notes that 'Iran was accused of sponsoring operations by other militant organisations, such as the Argentinian bombings of 1992 and 1994 and the 1996 bombing, attributed to Hizbollah organisations in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia.'

On page 192 there is also a reference to a Department of Justice report published in 2001 that identifies Hizballah al-Hijaz as having carried out the aforementioned 1996 attack, as well as stating that Iran had 'inspired, supported and directed Hizbollah organisations in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Kuwait, and Bahrain since the early 1980's.'

According to Mabon, these actions and those of Tehran in the aftermath of the Arab Spring seem incongruous with Mohammed Khatami's protestations that there is no Qur'anic basis for acts of terrorism. However, Khatami, who was President between 1997 and 2005 goes on to state that 'supporting peoples who fight for the liberation of their land is not, in my opinion, supporting terrorism. It is, in fact, supporting those who are engaged in supporting state terrorism.'

I suspect that there is more detail to be discovered about the links between Iran and Hezbollah to be found in Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation. However, it's been ages since I read it and I haven't had a look yet.

Having said all this, I still think that we are in need someone of Axworthy's calibre to step into his shoes right now, though, as there is so much to admire in his writing.
Click to expand...
Fisk died recently as well with little acknowledgement.
 
Rascal said:
I think he probably did see Iran through slightly rose tinted spectacles Zen, he did love the place and the people. You know I have never read one of his book's, I should really and will add the one you have to my list.
Click to expand...

Empire of the Mind is good. I have his book Revolutionary Iran as well but haven't read it yet. He has also written one called What Everyone Needs To Know About Iran that I have dipped into online. That breaks everything down into a series of questions about the country and is very clear and straightforward.

The book I am reading now is also excellent. It's by the historian Roy Mottahedeh and is called The Mantle of the Prophet: Religion and Politics in Iran. It was chosen by Foreign Affairs magazine as 'one of the top 75 books of the twentieth century.'

It's actually a work of 'faction' in which historical passages are interspersed with 'making of a mullah' sections on the life of someone who underwent seminarial training, which may sound dull but it isn't. I assumed that an education of this kind would consist mainly of rote-learning, but theological and philosophical disputation is very much encouraged, though its limits are obviously circumscribed. One Year 10 class was - to me at least - conducted at the level of an undergraduate seminar on the philosophy of language.

At one point, the protagonist becomes a student of Ayatollah Khomeini. What I hadn't that Khomeini's political activism was informed by a mystical outlook, in the sense that an experience of non-separation from an Allah-illuminated reality means that you should adopt a fearless attitude to that reality, one that entails speaking truth to power in this case the Shah. Having said that, it doesn't make Khomeini seem any more recognisably human, though Mabon reports that in the aftermath of the revolution, Khomeini issued a fatwa prohibiting the development, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons.

Iran always seems to have had and still possesses a vibrant intellectual, literary, and philosophical culture and it's a shame that this often gets overlooked. Instead, what we tend to hear about is Trump sounding out the possibility of going to war, or authors like Sam Harris suggesting that in extremis, nuclear bombs might be dropped on the country.

I'll finish with an extended quotation from Empire of the Mind:

'....there is good evidence that Iranians are today more sceptical of religious leadership and more inclined to secularism than most other nationalities in the Middle East. The failure of the West to take advantage of the opportunity offered by a reformist president in Iran already looks like a bad mistake. One such opportunity came after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States when members of the Iranian leadership (not just Khatami, but also Khamanei), condemned the terrorist action in forthright terms, and ordinary Iranians showed their sympathies with candlelit vigils in the streets of Tehran - more evidence of the marked difference of attitude between Iranians and other Middle Eastern peoples.

Another opportunity came after Iran gave significant help to the coalition forces against the Taliban later in 2001, helping to persuade the Northern Alliance to accept democratic arrangements for post-Taliban Afghanistan. In 2002, Iranians were rewarded with President George W. Bush's 'Axis of Evil' speech, which lumped Iran in with Iraq and North Korea. Finally, the Bush administration ignored an Iranian offer in the spring of 2003 (shortly after the fall of Baghdad), via the Swiss, for bilateral talks towards a Grand Bargain that appeared to promise a possible resolution of the nuclear issue and de facto Iranian recognition of the Israel.

The purpose of all this is not to reinforce the cringing sense of guilt that bedevils many Western observers who look at the Middle East. It is not All Our Fault, and no doubt if the Iranians had been in the position of strength that Britain was between 1815 and 1950, or that the United States has been in since then [both countries have interfered massively in Iranian affairs, culminating in a British SIS/US CIA inspired coup to displace Mossadeq, just as Iran was starting to embrace democracy - for details Google 'Operation Ajax'] they would have behaved as badly, and quite possibly worse. The Iranians also missed opportunities for rapprochement in the Khatami years But too often we have gotten things wrong, and that has had a cost. It is important to see events from an Iranian perspective, to see how we got things wrong, and to see what needs to be done in order to get them right. The most important thing is this: if we make commitments and assert certain principles, we must be more careful to say what we mean and uphold those principles.

The Iranian reaction after 9/11 shows in high relief the apparent paradox in Iranian attitudes to the West in general, and to the United States in particular. As we have seen, Iranians have real historical grounds for resentment that are unique to Iran and that go beyond the usual postures of of nationalism and anti-Americanism [earlier chapters of Axworthy's book explain why]. But among many ordinary Iranians there is also a liking and respect for Europeans and Americans that goes well beyond what one finds elsewhere in the Middle East. To some extent this is again a function of the Iranians' sense of their special status among other Middle Eastern nations. Plainly, different Iranians combine these attitudes in different ways, but the best way to explain this paradox is perhaps to say that many Iranians (irrespective of their attitude to their own government, which they may also partly blame for the situation), feel snubbed, abused, misunderstood and let down by the Westerners they think should have been their friends.'
 
Iran has every right to distance themselves from the most destructive government on the planet in the US whose exploits of warring & backing coups, not the least of which is the CIA backed coup of the democratically elected President Mossadegh in the 50s

Most Iranians have lived generations under Western oppression, warring, sanctions and outright assasinations. The fact they have survived and managed to mark their own path without much help is a marvel

And unlike Israel or the US they have not attacked or initiated wars in the Middle East

Don’t kid yourself, this is about geopolitical power and money/oil. I hope Iran indeed becomes Nuclear to balance decades of genocidal western influence in the region
 
David Patrikarakos on Twitter. Patrikarakos is the author of Nuclear Iran: the Birth of an Atomic State. A revised edition of this book has just been published.

First: Mohsen Fakhrizadeh is a serious figure, and genuinely at the heart of the program. Previous assassinations have sometimes turned out to hit peripheral figures. This is absolutely not the case here.

To note here: Fakhrizadeh's name was *specifically* mentioned by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu in a 2018 public presentation about Iran's nuclear programme. He was singled out by the Israelis and long known to the Americans.

And also from the Iranian side: this was a guy they valued. Witness immediate reactions from Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif: the killing is " an act of state terror". But more than this - look at Iranian media.

Fars News carrying headline saying "Iranian Nuclear Scientist Assassinated by Terrorists." Content carrying his image is already being pumped out by the regime.

Iranian media doing two things of note: 1. They are claiming that "Eyewitnesses" are reporting that also several "individuals, most likely all terrorists" also likely "killed in the attack." 2. They are clearly blaming Israeli Mossad for the assassination.

See: "Mossad had gained access to Fakhrizadeh's name via a UN list." Iranians also keen to point out they have caught the perpetrators of all previous hits (untrue): they mention scientists Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, Majid Shahriari and Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan & Reza Qashqaei.

The most noteworthy thing about this hit is not why but why now? Fakhrizadeh is a clear target, hitting him now seems to send a message. On the one hand, people are saying: administrations may change, security concerns do not. On the other, the Iranians are not downplaying this.

As above, it's across all Iranian media; Senior figures railing against it. Iran will likely point to the fact it wasn't it that abrogated nuclear deal. Expect it to point to "aggressive behaviour" against it when nuke negotiations begin under Biden. Which they most surely will.

On the other side. Israelis and Gulf states will point to an Iranian program, based around guys like Fakhrizadeh, being a continuing threat. Biden has his work cut out.

One of the comments below this series of tweets is also worth reproducing:

With President Trump about to leave office. One of Israel's biggest supporters and Iran's greatest threats. Being replaced by Biden who is looking to cut deals with Iran. It only makes sense for Israel to strike now before Trump is out of office.
 
Fode N The Hole said:
Please stop repeating false statements that were discredited 14 years ago.

www.google.com

Lost in translation

Jonathan Steele: Experts confirm that Iran's president did not call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. Reports that he did serve to strengthen western hawks.
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...

Ah yes. Jonathan Steele, who was described as follows: "The politics of veteran Guardian “journalist” Jonathan Steele are so off-the-charts that he’s accused Muslims who opposed Islamist rule in Tunisia of ‘Islamophobia’, written a spirited defense of the ‘tragically misunderstood’ Robert Mugabe and has even run interference for Kim Jong Un’s totalitarian cult in Pyongyang. And, not surprisingly considering the ideological package he shows fealty towards, he’s also warned darkly of the Zionist influence on the U.S. media.".

But let's put all that aside, along with The Gaurdian only allowing him to do book reviews and obituaries these days, and see what Steele's conclusion was, as to what Ahmedinejad had actually said. He didn't deny he'd said something, as you're seemingly trying to imply. He agreed he'd said something but that it was "mistranslated" (straight out the Jezza "what I actually meant" playbook, that one).

His conclusion was that the translation should have been as follows( he's quoting the BBC Farsi service here):
"The monitor has checked again. It's a difficult expression to translate. They're under time pressure to produce a translation quickly and they were searching for the right phrase. With more time to reflect they would say the translation should be "eliminated from the page of history".

So I'm sure they'll be sleeping easier in Tel Aviv knowing that he only meant they should be eliminated from the pages of history rather than wiped off the map.
 
FCBarca said:
Iran has every right to distance themselves from the most destructive government on the planet in the US whose exploits of warring & backing coups, not the least of which is the CIA backed coup of the democratically elected President Mossadegh in the 50s

Most Iranians have lived generations under Western oppression, warring, sanctions and outright assasinations. The fact they have survived and managed to mark their own path without much help is a marvel

And unlike Israel or the US they have not attacked or initiated wars in the Middle East

Don’t kid yourself, this is about geopolitical power and money/oil. I hope Iran indeed becomes Nuclear to balance decades of genocidal western influence in the region
Click to expand...
You're clinically insane. Your beloved club's troubles have obviously tipped you over the edge.

www.hrw.org

World Report 2020: Rights Trends in Iran

www.hrw.org www.hrw.org

"The US and Israel made us do it".
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
Ah yes. Jonathan Steele, who was described as follows: "The politics of veteran Guardian “journalist” Jonathan Steele are so off-the-charts that he’s accused Muslims who opposed Islamist rule in Tunisia of ‘Islamophobia’, written a spirited defense of the ‘tragically misunderstood’ Robert Mugabe and has even run interference for Kim Jong Un’s totalitarian cult in Pyongyang. And, not surprisingly considering the ideological package he shows fealty towards, he’s also warned darkly of the Zionist influence on the U.S. media.".

But let's put all that aside, along with The Gaurdian only allowing him to do book reviews and obituaries these days, and see what Steele's conclusion was, as to what Ahmedinejad had actually said. He didn't deny he'd said something, as you're seemingly trying to imply. He agreed he'd said something but that it was "mistranslated" (straight out the Jezza "what I actually meant" playbook, that one).

His conclusion was that the translation should have been as follows( he's quoting the BBC Farsi service here):
"The monitor has checked again. It's a difficult expression to translate. They're under time pressure to produce a translation quickly and they were searching for the right phrase. With more time to reflect they would say the translation should be "eliminated from the page of history".

So I'm sure they'll be sleeping easier in Tel Aviv knowing that he only meant they should be eliminated from the pages of history rather than wiped off the map.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to imply anything, the poster repeated a phrase that was mistranslated and had taken on a different meaning. Stating that a country's reprensentative has said they wish to wipe a country off the map has obvious connotations when paired with an intention to develop nuclear weapon capabilities.

You seem to be projecting your own posting habits on other people. I'm not trying to spin or imply anything, if I want to say something I will be explicit about it. Your paranoia betrays your own intentions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.