Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eye On Iran

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The United Nation's High Level Group for the Alliance of Civilizations recently issued its final report, which included ambitious and important recommendations to bridge the divide between Western nations and the Muslim world. The Group's 20 eminent members were brought together by Secretary General Kofi Annan, and include former President of Iran, Seyed Mohamed Khatami, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and André Azoulay, Advisor to King Mohammed VI of Morocco.

    The report's recommendations form a holistic approach to alleviating global inequalities and bridging the Western-Islamic rift. Recommendations include: education that expands a sense of a common humanity, media literacy skills, and empowering initiatives directed towards youth and other groups; international exchanges with diverse participation; measures that address the challenges of migration; achieving the Millennium Development Goals ("the urgency of which can hardly be overstated"); and other initiatives.

    I suggest that fully incorporating local community participation in the identification and management of development projects throughout the Muslim world, an approach strongly consistent with the Millennium Development Goals and the recommendations of the Alliance Group, will significantly decrease the divide with the West.

    Before I explain how, I will begin by stating, just as the Alliance report does (as well as the 2003 Report of the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World), that without a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the horrible violence in Iraq and the intensifying violence in Afghanistan, efforts to bridge the divide "are likely to meet with only limited success."

    Participation in community development involves men and women of villages, neighborhoods and regions together defining their priorities for projects (in education, health, economic development, environment, etc.) and a plan of action to achieve them. Participatory activities are often utilized to help local people analyze and discuss their social conditions from a range of perspectives as part of the decision-making process for projects.

    Here in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for example, a group of citizens working towards social change in their community went through a series of development planning activities that incorporated the use of visuals, charts and mapping. They determined that a community center for their youth was most important, and are currently taking important steps towards achieving that. In the High Atlas Mountains of Morocco, local communities most often rank potable water, irrigation and projects for women and youth to be among the top development priorities, and villages that have experienced participatory planning received real benefits from projects they subsequently established.

    Participation in community development shares the same 'guiding principles' expressed in the Alliance report: First, "Poverty leads to despair, a sense of injustice, and alienation that, when combined with political grievances, can foster extremism. Eradication of poverty would diminish those factors linked to economic marginalization and alienation and must therefore be aggressively pursued." Communities planning local development in a participatory way base projects on the self-described interests of the local people, which work against alienation. The fact that communities determine and have ownership of the projects provide the basis for their success in generating a vast range of new socio-economic and environmental benefits in extremely diverse contexts.

    Second, the participatory approach takes the form of democratic governance that the Alliance encourages: "To be successful, democratic systems must emerge organically from within each society's culture, reflecting its shared values and adapted to the needs and interests of its citizens. This is only possible when people are free and feel in control of their destiny." The participatory process is democracy that emerges from within because it grows from dialogue and interaction among local community members and is driven by their own needs and interests.

    Participatory community development also relates to observations in the report of the impact of the international system on diverse nations and cultures, as well as internal factors in Muslim societies that inhibit development. Many feel, the report states, that the "international system... offers... greater conformity and homogenization of cultures, complete with the dislocation of families and communities brought about by urbanization, the negation or appropriation of traditional lifestyles, and environmental degradation."

    We have learned from experiences around the world that a preventive against dislocation and the brutal and uneven effects of globalization is diversification of production and income. Diversification requires new development projects and building decision-making skills of people and communities to better enable them to adapt to changing conditions. Participatory activities help people base their decisions on a range of perspectives and information, leading to development projects that are thoughtfully designed and expand the ways human needs are satisfied.

    Participatory planning helps communities not only deal with globalization and other international challenges that impact their development, but also assists people in analyzing and responding to conditions within their own country. The Alliance report says that "all Muslim societies would benefit from increased dialogue and debate to identify those factors internal to their own societies which have inhibited their development and full integration into global political, economic, and intellectual communities, and to generate ideas on how to overcome these barriers."

    Participatory development can help in this regard because in the process as community members determining priority projects, they analyze social, economic, environmental, historical, technical and institutional factors that affect their lives and prospective projects. Not only does this analysis and dialogue further public understanding of internal barriers, but is in itself an indigenous democratic reform process that helps to overcome those barriers.

    The participatory approach to community development helps to achieve an Alliance of Civilizations through shared means - empowering education and development. The Alliance stresses civic and human rights education, service learning and movement away from thinking in exclusive terms.

    Participation in community development advances this kind of education for communities as they together plan and implement development projects that meet their needs. Participatory development is simply a practical methodology to help communities create and pursue a common agenda for social development and change. But if it were facilitated throughout the Muslim world, its effect can be a true Alliance of Civilizations.

    Comment


    • The Iranian community's outrage at the mistreatment of Mostafa Tabatabainejad by UCLA police has led us into doing a bit of soul-searching. Would we have felt just as indignant if the victim of this assault had been Chinese or African American? The honest answer for some of us is "no." We are humbler than to assume we are saintly beings whose empathy embraces all of humanity with equal zeal. Yet this is no reason for moral despair. The fact that our reach of compassion strengthens with emotional nearness is actually very useful in promoting justice in the world.

      As long as everyone defends what is within his or her natural emotional reach, all of humanity is covered. In this "zone defense" scenario, if we do not look after other Iranians, we are not doing our job protecting the little patch of justice with which we have been entrusted. Lamenting that we feel less for a Chinese or an African-American and concluding that we are hypocrites who have no moral right to outrage is not pendareh neek . In fact, it is only after we have shown our willingness to protect our own that we earn the credentials to cast our activism further out to other races and nationalities. Even Gandhi had to free India before he was taken seriously as a promoter of world peace.

      Just as parents are morally responsible for the safety of their own children, so are we morally accountable for protecting those nearer to us. There is no guilt in this but in its breach. Our special compassion for Mostafa Tabatabainejad is not because Iranians are racists, it is because Iranians have an identity.

      Comment


      • UC Abu Ghraib in Los Angeles like its sister facility in Iraq is home to Middle Easterners of different shades some of whom resemble Mostafa Tabatabainejad, but there are of course notable differences in management policies at the two facilities.

        Eventhough at UC Abu Ghraib the men and women in uniform still prefer applying high voltage electric shock as the principle tool of their security work, the torture dungeons have been done away with altogether. This new openness has advanced the cause of Democracy to no end and will no doubt be emulated in future Democracy projects.

        Another notable difference is that at UC Abu Ghraib the work of the highly professional security personnel is carried out in plain sight of anyone who can watch a torture and humiliation session without getting dizzy. This is an entirely new concept in security work stemming from the terrific support that the men and women in uniform enjoy in carrying out the important work of securing America. In no law enforcement agency or military organization anywhere in the world can this level of transparency be observed except for in the highly advanced states of the Congo and Bosnia under Serbian control.

        Perhaps the most important difference between the two facilities is that at UC Abu Ghraib one need not be an enemy combatant, a criminal, or have any secrets to reveal about threats to US national security in order to be subjected to an electrifying lesson in Western values.

        At UC Abu Ghraib looking like a Middle Easterner and failing to carry an identification card is adequate proof that one can always learn more about America. Once frowned upon as an ineffective tool of advancing Democracy, even members of the newly elected Democratic Congress have now conceded that torture can be highly beneficial so long as it is done in a transparent and humane fashion.

        Comment


        • دكتر على لاريجانى تاكيد كرد كه اگر رژيم صهيونيستى با حمايت آمريكا اشتباه حمله به ايران را مرتكب شود پاسخ محكمى دريافت خواهد كرد.

          به گزارش خبرگزارى دانشجويان ايران (ايسنا)، دبير شوراى عالى امنيت ملى ايران در ديدار گروهى از مديران رسانه*هاى پاكستانى در تهران كه خبر مشروح آن از سوى روزنامه*ى ,پاك تريبون, منتشر شده است به سوالات آنها پاسخ داد و مواضع كشورمان را تشريح كرد.


          تهديدات رژيم صهيونيستى و آمريكا عليه برنامه*ى هسته*يى كشور

          لاريجانى گفت:, ما آگاهيم كه اسراييل با گرفتن درس از ماجراجويى اخيرش در لبنان به رغم در اختيار داشتن بيش از 200 كلاهك هسته*يى در موقعيت حمله به ما قرار ندارد. آنچه كه آنها مي*گويند شعار محض است.,

          وى افزود:, آمريكا نيز در منطقه*ى خاورميانه نقاط ضعفى دارد و هرگز جرات دست زدن به ماجراجويى نظامى ديگرى را ندارد.,

          لاريجانى ادامه داد:, جنگ اخير لبنان چهره اسطوره*ى توان نظامى صهيونيستى را نشان داد و نتيجه آن درگيرى ايهود المرت، نخست وزير اسراييل را همچون پيكرى بي*جان بر جاى گذاشت.,

          وى قاطعانه اعلام كرد كه ايران به دنبال كردن برنامه*ى هسته*يى صلح آميز ادامه خواهد داد و هرگز در خصوص اصول مصالحه نخواهد كرد.

          لاريجانى گفت:, ما مضطرب و مجبور به رها كردن منافع ملي*مان نمي*شويم. كشور من امضا كننده*ى پيمان منع گسترش سلاح*هاى هسته*يى ان*.پى.تى است و برنامه ما تحت پادمان*هاى كامل آژانس بين*المللى انرژى اتمى قرار دارد.,

          لاريجانى در خصوص احتمال حمله*ى آمريكا و رژيم صهيونيستى به ايران و اينكه تهران تا چه اندازه آن را جدى مي*گيرد و براى آن آمادگى دارد يا خير گفت:, ما چنين شعارهايى را جدى نمي*گيريم، در يكى از سفرهايم به كشورهاى اروپايى يك مقام عالي*رتبه به من گفت كه المرت به يك جسد سياسى تبديل شده است؛ بنابراين آنها در موقعيتى نيستند كه چنين كارهايى انجام دهند؛ زيرا پاسخ قاطعى دريافت خواهند كرد. آمريكايي*ها در منطقه ضعف*هايى دارند كه به آنها اجازه نمي*دهد چنين كارى را انجام دهند.,


          فعاليت* هسته*يى كشور همسو با قوانين بين*المللى

          دبير شوراى عالى امنيت ملى ايران اين سوال را مطرح كرد كه آژانس بين*المللى انرژى اتمى و غرب چطور مي*تواند ايران را براى هرگونه فعاليت غيرقانونى سرزنش كند؛ درحالى كه دوربين*هاى آژانس هر فعاليتى را پوشش مي*دهند و بازرسان آژانس از هر يك از تاسيسات هسته*يى ايران بازرسى مي*كنند؟

          وى با اشاره به اينكه 1+5 پس از ماراتن مذاكرات با ايران، بسته*اى را به اين كشور پيشنهاد كرد و بلافاصله اعمال فشار بر ايران مبنى بر رها كردن غنى سازى اورانيوم را آغاز كرد گفت:, اين براى ما قابل پذيرش نبود.,

          لاريجانى اظهار كرد:, درحالى كه ايران مخالف با توليد سلاح هسته*يى است، اما اعتقاد دارد كه هيچ كس نمي*تواند ديگر كشورها را در توليد فناورى هسته*يى با اهداف صلح*آميز متوقف كند.,

          وى افزود:, در واقع آمريكا و غرب نمي*خواهند به هيچ كشور اسلامى اجازه دهند در زمينه*ى اقتصادى و فناورى هسته*يى خودكفا شود.,


          آخرين دستاوردهاى فنى ايران

          دبير شوراى عالى امنيت ملى ايران در پاسخ به اين سوال كه آخرين مرحله*ى دستاوردهاى فنى ايران چيست گفت:, ايران موفقيت*هاى بزرگى را نه تنها در حوزه*ى فناورى موشكى بلكه در حوزه*ى نانو تكنولوژى و بيوتكنولوژى به دست آورده است كه در هيچ يك از سوى كشور ديگرى كمك شده است.,

          وى افزود:, اگر آنها عليه ما به اعمال تحريم دست بزنند به معناى آن است كه قصد دارند براى ما دردسر ايجاد كنند و تحت چنين شرايطى ما نيز براى آنها دردسر ايجاد خواهيم كرد.,


          مواضع كشور درقبال مردم فلسطين

          لاريجانى در پاسخ به اين سوال كه دكتر محمود احمدى نژاد مساله*ى محو شدن اسراييل از روى نقشه را زمانى مطرح كرده است كه ايران تحت فشار بر سر برنامه*ى هسته*يى است و اينكه آيا اين مساله اوضاع را خطرناك*تر نمي*كند؟ گفت:, اين بخشى از يك مبارزه تبليغاتى است، موضع ما در برابر مساله فلسطين روشن است ما به يك راه*حل دموكراتيك و اينكه مردم فلسطين بايد براى انتخاب سيستم حاكمشان راى دهند، معتقديم. منظور رييس جمهور تغييرى دموكراتيك است كه همه فلسطيني*ها از جمله آنهايى كه درون و بيرون از فلسطين هستند را شامل شود.,


          پيشنهاد خريد فن*آورى هسته*يى اسلام بيگ به ايران !؟

          دبير شوراى عالى امنيت ملى در پاسخ به اين سوال كه بي*نظير بوتو، نخست وزير سابق پاكستان گفته است در دوران عهده دار بودن اين مقام، اسلام بيگ، رييس ستاد مشترك پاكستان به ايران پيشنهاد خريد فناورى هسته*يى از اسلام آباد به ارزش چندين ميليارد دلار را داده بود گفت:, من چنين چيرى را تاييد نمي*كنم. من بر گفتگوهاى مختلف سياسى و اقتصادى با پاكستان نظارت داشتم و با ژنرال بيگ ديدار كرده*ام. اما اين اولين بار است كه چنين چيزى را مي*شنوم.,


          فن*آورى هسته*يى ايران بومى است

          وى درباره نقش پاكستان و اينكه آيا عبدالقدير خان، دانشمند هسته*يى اين كشور به ايران كمك كرده است يا خير گفت:, حرف*هاى زيادى در اين باره زده شده است و فكر مي*كنم آمريكا قصد دارد پاكستان را تحت فشار گذارد و از اين مساله سوءاستفاده كند. فناورى هسته*يى ما بومى است و چنين كمك*هايى در سطح دانشگاهى بوده است.,

          دبير شوراى عالى امنيت ملى در پاسخ به اين سوال كه آيا ايران به آژانس گفته است كه از پاكستان كمك دريافت كرده يا خير؟ گفت:,* من گفته*ام كه كمك پاكستان چيزى كه آنها گفته*اند نبوده است، اين*ها فقط داستان است.,

          لاريجانى در خصوص اينكه آيا پاكستان در خصوص سانتريفيوژها كمكى كرده يا خير؟ گفت:, اين*ها با هدف اعمال فشار بر پاكستان انجام مي*گيرد؛ زيرا آژانس بين*المللى انرژى اتمى مي*داند كه ما خودمان سانتريفيوژ*ها را ساخته*ايم.,


          تحريم، واكنش ايران را در پى دارد

          وى درباره احتمال تحريم ايران نيز گفت:, اين تحريم*ها در فعاليت*هاى موشكى و هسته*يى اعمال خواهد شد. كلى نيست اگر آنها تحريم*هايى را عليه ما اعمال كنند با واكنش ما روبرو خواهند شد.,


          مرورى بر تحولات هسته*يى

          دبير شوراى عالى امنيت ملى ايران درباره ارزيابي*اش از تحولات هسته*يى اخير و اينكه پاكستان مي*تواند چه كمكى به ايران كند؟ گفت:, پاكستان يكى از اولين كشورهايى است كه من از آن ديدن كرده*ام و با آن مشاوره*اى مستمر داريم؛ زيرا معتقديم كشورى با نفوذ است.,

          وى افزود:, برنامه*ى هسته*يى ما در چهار دوره دنبال شده است كه يك دوره*ى آن پيش از انقلاب و زمانى صورت گرفت كه شاه مخلوع ايران روابطى نزديك با آمريكا داشت. راكتور تهران از آمريكا و زمانى به ايران وارد شد كه آمريكا چهار قرارداد مهم هسته*يى را با تهران امضا كرد. فرانسه، آلمان و كانادا نيز توافقاتى هسته*يى را با ايران منعقد كردند. نيروگاه بوشهر قرار بود به وسيله آلمان*ها ساخته شود و فرانسوي*ها قرار بود كه دو نيروگاه ديگر را بسازند. آنها مبالغ هنگفتى بودجه دريافت كردند، اما به محض اينكه انقلاب اسلامى آن ديكتاتور را بركنار كرد از اين كار كناره*گيرى كردند. آمريكايي*ها به ما سوخت هسته*يى دادند حتى بودجه*ى ما را بازنگرداندند. فرانسه و آلمان نيز آن نيروگاه*ها را نساختند و اين ما را مجبور كرد خودمان بر روى برنامه*ى اتمى كار كنيم.,

          لاريجانى گفت:, 10 درصد از سهام يك شركت فرانسوى را خريديم تا به ما سوخت هسته*يى بدهد، اما حتى يك گرم سوخت نيز در 30 سال گذشته دريافت نكرديم. پس از انقلاب متوجه شديم كه سوخت را دريافت نخواهيم كرد و به فناورى هسته*يى و نيروگاه* دسترسى نخواهيم داشت. اين دومين مرحله بود كه ما سعى كرديم به فناورى هسته*يى دست يابيم و واكنش*هاى آمريكا و آژانس را در پى داشت. آژانس از فعاليت*هاى ما كاملا آگاه بود. ادعاى خلاف آن دروغ محض است. مرحله سوم زمانى شروع شد كه آمريكا ماجراجويي*اش را آغاز كرد و سه وزير اروپايى با ارسال نامه*اى مذاكره براى حل بن بست هسته*يى را خواستار شدند. آنها از ما خواستند براى حل مساله چند هفته*اى صبر كنيم. دو سه هفته به دو سه سال كشيده شد و در طول آن ما فعاليت*هاى مان را تعليق كرديم. پس از آن متوجه شديم كه آنها تكه*اى شكلات و نه فناورى هسته*يى را در اختيارمان قرار مي*دهند.,

          لاريجانى گفت:, دو سال قبل آنها ما را مجبور كردند كار بر روى برنامه*ى هسته*يى صلح آميز را از سر بگيريم. اما بي*نظمي*هاى آنهادر يك سال و نيم گذشته نيز ادامه داشت. تحت شرايط كنونى ما تحت نظارت آژانس بين*المللى انرژى اتمى كار مي*كنيم به ان پى تى متعهديم و بازرسان آژانس از ايران ديدن مي*كنند. چيزى براى پنهان كردن وجود ندارد.,


          صدور فن*آورى هسته*يى به كشورهاى اسلامي؟

          دبير شوراى عالى امنيت ملى در پاسخ به اين سوال كه تبليغات غربى مدعي*اند ايران فناورى هسته*يى را به كشورهاى اسلامى صادر خواهد كرد گفت:, ما از همان ابتدا ان.پى.تى را امضا كرديم و در دكترين امنيت ملي*مان جايى براى سلاح اتمى وجود ندارد. ما معتقديم كه رقابت تسليحات هسته*يى به نفع منطقه* نيست و تاثير پيشگيرانه*اش را از دست داده است.,

          لاريجانى ادامه داد:, بنابراين به دنبال فناورى هسته*يى صلح آميز هستيم؛ مشكل غرب با برنامه هسته*يى ايران در چيزهايى ديگر ريشه دارد؛ منظورم از غرب تعدادى كشورهاست نه كل بلوك غرب. اين ها كشورهايى هستند كه بمب اتمى دارند، در منطقه*ى ما بحران درست كرده*اند و مردم عراق و افغانستان را كشته*اند.,

          وى افزود:, آنها چنين فضاحتى را در عراق به راه انداخته*اند. فرمانده*ى نظامي*شان روزى كه آمريكايي*ها عراق را اشغال كردند گفت در آنجا برج دموكراسى برپا مي*كنند و اين آن برج دموكراسى است كه ساخته*اند. آنها نتيجه*ى رفتارهايشان را در انتخابات اخيرشان ديدند. آنها مي*خواهند يك سيستم فئودالى را در سطح بين*المللى به راه اندازند و نمي*خواهند مسلمانان آزاد باشند و پيشرفت حاصل كنند و مشكلاتشان را حل كنند.,


          تكيه*ى ايران بر قابليت*هاى ملى است

          دبير شوراى عالى امنيت ملى ايران در خصوص اينكه تهران تا چه اندازه به كمك روسيه و چين در برابر فشارهاى آمريكا در خصوص قطعنامه شوراى امنيت عليه ايران تكيه مي*كند گفت:, ما بر قابليت*هاى ملي*مان تكيه مي*كنيم. البته از ديپلماسى استفاده مي*كنيم. همه كشورها از شاه مخلوع ايران حمايت مي*كردند. مساله اعمال فشار بر ايران مساله*ى امروز نيست. ما در برابر آن فشارها عقب نشينى نكرديم و در آينده نيز اين كار را نخواهيم كرد آمريكايي*ها از موقعيت مطلوبى در منطقه برخوردار نيستند و اگر عاقلانه فكر كنند بايد رفتارشان را تغيير دهند.,

          Comment


          • رهبران آمريکا و اسرائيل همزمان، زبان مسالمت جويانه ای در رابطه با بحران های عراق و فلسطين در پيش گرفته اند، اين در حاليکه است در مضمون سياست های خود هيچ گونه تحولی را به نمايش نمی گذارند. همين امر باعث شده که بسياری اين تغيير همزمان در لحن گفتارها را مانور سياسی بخوانند.

            دو خبر از راديو فردا

            دور جديد ديپلماسی آمريکا برای کاهش خشونت در عراق
            رييس جمهوری آمريکا تلاش های ديپلماتيک خود را برای کاهش موج فزاينده خشونت در عراق، اقزايش داده است.

            جورج بوش که واشنگتن را برای شرکت در اجلاس سران پيمان آتلانتيک شمالی ناتو ترک کرد، قرار است در ديدار با متحدان آمريکا در ناتو، موضوع وضعيت عراق و افغانستان را در صدر گفت و گوهای خود قرار دهد.

            استفان هدلي، مشاور امنيت ملی کاخ سفيد روز دوشنبه بيست و هفتم ماه نوامبر در جمع خبرنگاران حاضر در هواپيمای اختصاصی رييس جمهوری آمريکا ، معروف به ,ايرفورس وان, گفت: ,ما با دور جديدی از خشونت هايفرقه ای درعراق مواجه هستيم و اين شرايط مستلزم در پيش گرفتن سياست تازه ای است,.

            آقای هدلی ضمن اشاره به وضعيت ناپايدار عراق گفت پرزيدنت بوش و نخست وزير عراق هم برای يافتن راه حل جديد و برداشتن گام های موثرتری در زمنيه کاهش خشونت ها گفت و گو خواهند کرد.

            تلاش آمريکا برای بهبود روابط با اروپا

            نيکلاس برنز معاون سياسی وزارت امور خارجه آمريکا درباره نشست سالانه ناتو گفت آمريکا طی چند سال گذشته، برای محکم تر کردن روابط خود با دولت های اروپائی بسيار کوشيده است.

            در تلاش برای بهبود روابط ميان آمريکا و کشورهای اروپايي، رييس جمهوری آمريکا در سال ۲۰۰۵ ميلادی نيز با رهبران اتحاديه اروپا در نشست ناتو در بروکسل ملاقات کرد.

            ديدار آقای بوش با ژاک شيراک رئيس جمهوری فرانسه و گرهارد شرودر صدراعظم وقت آلمان در شهر مينسک نيز در همين رابطه انجام شد

            ***
            ,اسراييل دست صلح به سوی فلسطينی ها دراز می کند,
            اهود اولمرت نخست وزير اسراييل روز دوشنبه گفت اسراييل به سوی فلسطينی ها دست صلح دراز می کند.

            آقای اولمرت برای نخستين بار از تبادل زندانيان برای آزادی سرجوخه اسراييلی که در گروگان فلسطينی هاست، سخن گفت.

            نخست وزير اسراييل گفت دولت اسراييل حاضر است شماری از زندانيان فلسطينی را آزاد کند و به مسدود کردن منابع مالی فلسطينی پايان دهد. شرط اين کار به گفته وی اين است که آدم ربايان فلسطيني، سرباز اسراييلی را آزاد کنند.

            عمليات سربازان اسراييلی در ماه ژوييه که هدف از آن آزاد سازی سرجوخه گيلاد بود، پنج ماه به طول انجاميد.

            سربازان اسراييلی روز يک شنبه، به دنبال برقراری آتش بس، از نوار غزه خارج شدند و اهود اولمرت ابراز خوشبينی کرد که اين آتش بس به سراسر کرانه باختری رود اردن گسترش يابد.

            مقام های حماس، با اظهارات آقای اولمرت با ترديد برخورد کرده اند. گروه های فلسطينی از اسراييل خواسته اند به عمليات نظامی خود در سراسر مناطق فلسطينی پايان دهد.

            Comment


            • Comment


              • Having the hatred of the Islamic regime at heart the Iranian diaspora (including myself) often misjudges the regime. Subjectivity overcomes rationality. Let's analyse the Islamic republic a little bit, so that we can see things a bit more objectively. This is also good for the US administration who is an enemy of the Iranian regime, to try to be more objective, and less stupid, when approaching foreign countries.

                First of all Iran is not a dictatorship. It is not a true democracy, but it is not a dictatorship either. This is one of the main reasons of its survival. Iranians are dissatisfied with their rulers but they cannot really find anyone to pour their anger toward. This is beside the fact that Iranians have lived with dictators for almost (being kind putting the word almost) all their history. So, Iranians are not fundamentally opposed to dictatorships, though this may miss one important point. Previous to the Pahlavi, Iranian kings did not rule Iran as dictators do nowadays. Not that they did not wish to do it, but because they were unable to do it.

                Iranian kings had the capital and its surrounding areas under their tight control, but beyond that, their sole intervention would take place only if the local ruler did not pay respect, and taxes, duly. Previous to Reza khan's reforms Iran's provinces did not have much of a central control except for tax collection, which were not burdensome. So, dictatorships were more symbolic than anything. People usually knew about one king who ruled over Iran, but that king didn't have much importance to their daily affairs. So, Iran's true dictators, in the modern sense, have only been Reza Khan and his son.

                One thing that took place with the revolution in 1979 was that the Iranian people decided to get rid of the corrupt system of monarchy they had been struggling with ever since 1906, or before. But what they got was not democracy. They could have probably got some sort of a democracy, but history hasn't been that kind.

                What Iranians have now is not a system of one or two individuals, or more, who rule for their selfish interests. If we would think that the Iranian regime is as just explained then we must be in deep error. Who are those individuals? Khamenei? Ahmadinejad? Rafsanjani? Counting, we will notice that there are too many, which would create an atmosphere of impossibility for a dictatorship. Who knew Ahmadinjead a couple of years ago? Almost nobody. The definition of a dictatorship, according to Webster is "a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique." Islamists in Iran are not a small clique. They are simply too many.

                Therefore the Iranian regime is indeed a system based on an ideology. It is truly based on the ideology of Shia Islam, or some modern shape of it. It is probably like Communism. The problem with these types of regimes (what I mean as "the problem" would refer to those who are opposed to the ideology) is that they outlast dictatorships and they do not need a majority support. We should not under-estimate the Islamic republic. It is, like a modern democracy, capable of re-inventing itself, its personalities and its behaviour. It is capable of rejecting defectors without causing huge damage.

                And it would be naive also to under-estimate the popular support that the Islamic regime enjoys. Would the majority of Iranians vote for a non-Islamic, secular, republic if they had the choice? I'm not so sure they would. But maybe even the majority of Americans would vote for a Christian republic if they had the choice, which they don't, for the joy of the liberals, and the Iranians who live in the US. America is far ahead in democracy and it seems absurd to imagine a religious system in the US. But Iran is not like that. Let's not forget that modern Iran, as we now know it, was built on the basis of religion, and that religion was Shia Islam. Modern Iran is not, and was not, the pre-Islamic Iran. Modern Iran was a religious state from the start. Iranians have been bound on Shia religion for about 500 years.

                What will happen then to the Islamic regime? The Islamic regime of Iran is corrupt, but it's not as corrupt as many imagine. It is not as corrupt as a dictatorship where the elite compete with each other on how much each owns, can steal, or exert power. The Islamic regime is not as unpopular as many outside, and inside, Iran think it is. Islamists have a solid support base.

                Many pundits miss a very important point when evaluating the popularity of the Islamic republic, that Iranians are not so much against the Islamic republic as such but more against one individual or the other, and as long as individuals change, the Islamic republic as a system moves on. Iranians probably dislike Khamenei, but he has very very little executive power at his hands (or his one hand). Khamenei doesn't really do anything. When laws are not passed in the parliament of the Islamic republic it is not because Khamenei orders, but it is because there are so many other Islamists (the Khobregan for example) who are powerful enough to take measures so that Islam is upheld.

                When candidates are rejected because they are not fit to run in a Islamic regime, it is not because Khamenei, or some other individual chooses so, but because there are assemblies of Islamists who decide. And at the same time Iranians are quite capable of dumping a president if they do not like his actions. Although the president, or the government as a whole, is not that strong in Iran, they do have some powers and people can see the results of those powers. So, Iran is not a country ruled by one man or a small group of men. It is a country truly based on Islam, where there is no single person to blame. And this makes the whole system a formidable one.

                The Islamic regime, thanks to its ideological backgrounds, is not a week regime and it may last for a very long time. It's true that oil is quite handy, but we can never be sure that if oil becomes really cheap or runs out the regime is destined to disappear. The regime can then take necessary measures, probably make economic reforms, and put the economy back on track.

                The Iranian Islamic regime may one day fall when there would be an internal ideological weakness. It is extremely unlikely to see a revolution in Iran because any serious revolution needs to be pointed at some person and there is no such figure in Iran. Foreign occupation or intervention is also extremely unlikely for the foreseeable future, not just because Iran is a large, populated and quite powerful country, but also because Iran's only truly powerful enemy has had such a nasty lesson in Iraq it will be unlikely to get involved in similar affairs (taking on a regime that does not threaten it directly) for at least a generation from now.

                Comment


                • Having looked on helplessly, or unhelpfully, during Israel's destabilising summer bombardment of Lebanon, Britain and other European countries are now scrabbling to shore up Fouad Siniora's shaky pro-western government. The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, and her German counterpart were in Beirut at the weekend. Messages of solidarity have come from France and Italy. Even Israel is warning of dire consequences should Mr Siniora fall.
                  All agree that this week's Hizbullah-organised, largely Shia Muslim demonstrations, although broadly peaceful and "democratic" so far, must not be allowed to topple the government. Their attitude contrasts awkwardly with the approving western view of last year's anti-Syrian street protests by Sunni Muslims, Christians and Druze, whimsically dubbed the "cedar revolution", which ousted Lebanon's then prime minister, Omar Karami.

                  A Hizbullah political success would plainly complement the group's self-proclaimed military successes of August. And like Israel, the US and Britain see the potential "loss" of Lebanon as a direct gain not only for Syria and its favourite militia, but more worryingly, for Iran. This places the battle for Beirut squarely in the wider context of a regional power struggle with an increasingly confident Tehran.
                  "I have no doubt that if this [Lebanese] government loses power and there is a shift there, the northern front might heat up again and there could be even more escalation than there was this year," Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, a former head of military intelligence, told Israel Army Radio. "If the Siniora government falls, it means Lebanon will be controlled by the long arm of Iran," said an Israeli cabinet minister, Meir Sheetrit.

                  No less nervous about Shia Iran's supposedly malign spreading influence are Sunni-led regimes in Cairo, Amman and Riyadh. Saudi Arabia's particular worries were highlighted recently by a one-stop visit by Dick Cheney. The US vice-president has to watch his health. He rarely travels. But he went all the way to Riyadh to hear Saudi concerns about Iran's activities in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and the Gulf.

                  For all his trouble, Mr Cheney seems to have come away with a polite flea in his ear. A Saudi statement said US policies should be "in accord with the region's actual condition and its historical equilibrium". Translated from diplomat-speak, that was a call for greater White House responsibility. And that in turn meant, for instance, that any post-Baker review attempt to cut and run in Iraq, or "cut and walk" as Washington wags are now terming the proposed withdrawal strategy, should be firmly resisted.

                  Riyadh is indirectly confronting Tehran in Palestine, where it supports President Mahmoud Abbas against the Iranian-backed Hamas, and in Lebanon, where it is bankrolling the Siniora government.

                  But the key battleground is Iraq. The Saudis fear that a failure of the US there would confirm the country's domination by Iran, jeopardise the survival of Iraq's Sunni minority and upset political and religious power balances along the entire western Gulf littoral. "Since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave uninvited," a Saudi government adviser, Nawaf Obaid, told the Washington Post, quoting Prince Turki al-Faisal. "If it does, one of the first consequences will be a massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shia militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis."

                  Saudi Arabia was ready, if need be, to provide weapons and financial support to Sunnis, as Iran did to the Shias, he added. It could even massively expand oil production to deflate world prices and ruin Iran's oil-based economy.

                  Iran says Saudi concerns are misplaced. Tehran has no grand regional imperialist design, a government official said. "The Saudis have nothing to fear from Iran. We should work together with them. What we want is an end to western interference in Iraq, in Lebanon, in all these places. The west must accept that regional problems should be solved by regional players."

                  Comment


                  • The Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has long been recognized as the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It has funded, trained and armed several terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The discovery of Iran's extensive and clandestine uranium enrichment has only added to the international apprehension.

                    The US has had economic sanctions against Iran for 26 years. It has been a failure. Only Israel and Uzbekistan joined the US in the sanction. But even if other countries were to join, there is little evidence that would change Iran's direction. The suffering that sanctions bring is almost entirely imposed on the Iranian people. The regime will continue to function and will even use the sanctions to oppress the people. It will tighten its economic control even more and the rewards that it bestows on its followers become irresistible. That is what Saddam did that during the years that Iraq was under economic sanctions.

                    The EU has had a policy of "Constructive Dialogue" with Iran for many years. That too has been a total failure. The EU has made several offers for more advanced nuclear reactors and expanded trade packages. They also guaranteed nuclear fuel delivery at the market rate, which would be 1/3 of what it would cost Iran to make. All these offers have met with Iran's steadfast refusal to halt its uranium enrichment. This leaves little doubt about its real intentions for uranium enrichment.

                    Using the current methods of carrot by the EU and stick by the US, the West will never be successful in getting the IRI to be less of a menace internationally. These policies have failed because in both cases the unspoken assumption has been that IRI has the best interest of Iranians in mind. The US and the EU are democracies and the democratically elected governments need to be sensitive to the needs and wants of the governed or they won't stay in power. They have instinctively, but erroneously attributed similar motives to IRI. But the IRI is a totalitarian system and such a regime would collapse as soon as it starts caring about its citizens. This simple fact is the key to success in dealing with the IRI.

                    The West needs allies in dealing with the mullahs' regime. The natural allies are the Iranian people themselves. Iranians have been the biggest victims of the regime. Most Iranians do not support the Islamic regime and want to have good relations with the West. This is the Achilles' heel of the regime. The mullahs know it too. In 2002 when the government's own pollsters asked Iranians if they wanted to have normal relations restored with the US, 74% said yes. But instead of a policy change it got the pollsters arrested. They were sentenced to eight years in prison for "propagating against the Islamic Republic" and "selling intelligence to foreigners". This is a frightened regime that is desperate to hide the depths of its unpopularity.

                    You might wonder then why do Iranians put up with their government and not elect better leaders. As reported in the Western media, Iran has the usual organs of democracies such as an elected president and congress.

                    But what is almost never mentioned in the media is that the Iranian people are not allowed to freely elect their presidents or congressmen. Only candidates that are from the ruling circle and proven to be loyal to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can run in Iranian elections. They have even codified the pre-vetting process. A committee selected by the Supreme Leader has to approve every candidate for every national election. In the last presidential election over 1000 candidates were rejected and only allowed 4 to run.
                    Furthermore, the president has no actual powers and can be dismissed by the Supreme Leader at anytime. The same is true for members of congress. Iran has a Potemkin government. It is entirely for show. The power legally and practically belongs to the Supreme Leader and no change to the system is allowed without his approval. So people cannot vote their leaders in or out of office. The actual leaders are the unelected Supreme Leader and his appointees and even the for-show government is pre-selected by the Supreme Leader.

                    A government that knows it has majority support does not act the way the IRI has been acting from its very inception. IRI treats Iranians as the enemy, not citizens. They have executed over 150,000 political prisoners. They try their opponents in Revolutionary Courts where the accused have no rights. The judge and the prosecutor are often the same and the prisoners are tortured until they confess. They are executed for charges such as "Fighting the Will of God" or "Spreading Corruption on Earth". The regime's assassins have killed hundreds of Iranian dissidents including many exiles in Europe.

                    The rulers of Iran have closed most information outlets from the citizens. Access to the Internet is limited and thousands of political websites are blocked by the government. Ownership of satellite dishes is illegal. Hundreds of newspapers and magazines have been shut down. Journalists and bloggers are imprisoned, tortured and killed.

                    Canadian Journalist Zahra Kazemi was photographing a demonstration by the families of political prisoners outside Tehran's Evin prison. She was arrested, brutally raped and tortured. She died from her injuries 19 days later. IRI refused to return her body to her son who lives in Canada. A former staff physician in Iran's Defense Ministry who escaped Iran recently stated that he examined Kazemi in the hospital, four days after her arrest. He said Kazemi showed obvious signs of brutal torture and rape. This is the fate of many dissidents in Iran. Her case was reported in the Western media because she was a journalist and a Canadian citizen.

                    During the cold war, Soviet bloc dissidents such as Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn received a lot of attention and support from the West. Lech Walesa was a well-known name in the West. He received the Noble Peace Prize and addressed a joint session of the United States Congress. Walesa was a shipyard worker whose first demand was an independent union.

                    Mansour Ossanlou is a bus driver in Iran. He wants an independent union for the bus drivers. In May he was imprisoned and savagely beaten (They tried to cut his tongue off.). The bus workers had a strike in protest, but over 3000 government-paid thugs attacked the demonstrators and over 500 of the workers were imprisoned. Unlike Walesa's, Ossanlou's detention has received minimal media attention in the West.

                    Nelson Mandela, the imprisoned leader of the African National Congress (ANC), was a highly respected figure in the West for his opposition to Apartheid. But you have probably not heard about Manouchehr Mohammadi, the secretary general of the National Association of Iranian Students. He is still in prison for his role in student protests of 1999. He was tortured and held in solitary confinement in a 3.5'x6' cell after he went on a hunger strike. He is dedicated to non-violent resistance. His sister and father went to the Ministry of Information, but instead of getting help, they were arrested. On July 31, his brother, Akbar Mohammadi, a student leader, died in prison after his hunger strike. Unlike Mandela, Mohammadi's cause is not celebrated in the world media.

                    Comment


                    • The diplomatic efforts over the past few years to get IRI to limit its nuclear ambition has had the negative effect of giving them a world stage instead of isolating them. For many years the human rights record of Iran was intentionally ignored so as to not detract from Europe's so- called "Constructive Dialogue" which has proven to be a total failure. US and Europe should vigorously and relentlessly ask for an end to human rights violations. That is the soft underbelly of the regime - not the nuclear enrichment.

                      Many times, the Iranian people have shown their courage in opposing the Islamic regime, but they lack an important element for their success. Hope. It is hard enough to risk one's life and liberty as well as risking the family's well-being, but without hope it is almost too much to ask. People need hope in order to continue risking their lives. Iranians have seen over and over again when a person speaks or writes contrary to the regime's wishes, he is imprisoned and tortured or killed. There have been no consequences to Iranian regime's abuses. The Iranian dissidents feel totally ignored, isolated and forgotten by the world. The regime does not feel isolated. It is time to reverse the situation.

                      The following are a few suggestions on how to bring attention to IRI's treatment of its own people.

                      Iran's regime is an outlaw government. It has openly and continually broken multiple international laws by supporting international terrorism. It should be ostracized and isolated internationally. European governments should recall their ambassadors from Tehran and reduce the status of their embassies to interest sections. They should demand the same from the Islamic Republic. There is also a good case for expelling Iran out of the UN. It has broken several of its rules; the most recent one was to call for the destruction of Israel, a UN member country.

                      Many high-ranking officials of the Islamic Republic cannot travel to European countries because of their roles in the assassinations of dissidents. But the ban should be universal and also apply to people they kill inside Iran. Saeed Mortazavi, Tehran's notorious prosecutor, has been implicated in torture and death of several dissident prisoners. This June he led the Iranian delegation to the opening session of UN's Human Rights Council in Geneva. (Ponder for a moment the sick irony of that.) Canada's request for his arrest and extradition for the murder of Zahra Kazemi was unsuccessful.

                      The Iranian regime is an organized criminal entity and should be treated as such. All members of an organized crime entity should be prosecuted for the group's crimes. Iran's leaders should not be allowed to travel freely around the world. There should be a legal framework created to arrest and prosecute them if they ever leave Iran.

                      Under Apartheid, South Africa was not allowed to participate in the Olympics and the World Cup for 28 years. Iran is under a gender and religious apartheid regime that is far more vicious. At the very least Iranian sports teams should be banned from the international competitions.

                      Iran imports many of its tools for censorship and repression from abroad. Iran now uses SmartFilter, US-made software, to censor websites. Iran has also been using imported jamming equipment to prevent people from hearing and seeing radio and television broadcasts from abroad. Every effort should be made to prevent the Iranian regime from receiving such technologies and equipment for censorship.

                      Finally, there should be more attention paid to Iran's courageous and suffering dissidents. Unfortunately there are many faux reformers who want to tinker with the Islamic Republic system without fundamentally changing it. We do not pay enough attention to dissidents who are genuine believers in a liberal democracy.

                      Totalitarian systems are more robust than most people realize. They have only collapsed in one of two ways. The first method is what happened to German Nazis and Cambodian Khmer Rouge, military defeat by foreign countries. The other time collapse is when they attempt reforms like the Soviet Union and its bloc. All totalitarian systems are terrorist states. They only stay in power by terrorizing their people. Without terror their collapse is certain.

                      But such systems only attempt reforms when they experience a crisis of confidence in the leadership. We need to seriously undermine the confidence of the Iranian regime. These measures will help make it harder for them to continue their reign of terror. In the end we want the Iranians to rid themselves of the dictators but we should be willing to give them a helping hand. By allying ourselves with the Iranian dissident democrats we can avoid the costly and perilous military action that might result from the inevitable failure of our current policies. So forget about carrots and sticks.

                      Comment


                      • AS anticipated, the Iraq Study Group has recommended that the United States begin talks with Iran to solicit its assistance in stabilizing Iraq. This recommendation seems so sensible that the Bush administration’s past reluctance to follow it is hard to fathom. Still, administration officials are right to counter that talking to Iran is not a policy, let alone a solution to our problems in Iraq.

                        The real questions are these: What do we say to the Iranians if we can get them to the table? What can they do in Iraq? What would they be willing to do in Iraq? And what will they want in return?

                        We should have engaged Iran in Iraq years ago. Before and during the war in Afghanistan, the Iranians were quite helpful to the United States. They shared our hatred of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and they provided us with extensive assistance on intelligence, logistics, diplomacy and Afghan internal politics. After we turned our sights on Saddam Hussein, the Iranians suggested that they would be willing to cooperate on that too. Unfortunately, the Bush administration declined the offer, preferring to lump Tehran with Baghdad and Pyongyang in the “axis of evil.”

                        None of this should suggest that Iran was helping us for reasons other than blatant self-interest, or that it had suddenly given up its antipathy toward us. But it was demonstrating real pragmatism and being very helpful on issues of mutual concern, which should have been good enough.

                        Today, large numbers of Iranian intelligence agents have infiltrated Iraq, where they seem to be providing money, weapons and other supplies to virtually all of Iraq’s Shiite militias. There are reports that Hezbollah is training Iraqi Shiite militiamen in Lebanon at Iran’s behest. And the Shiite warlords all know that in an all-out civil war, Iran would be their only backer.

                        All of that gives the Iranians influence over the Shiite militias — influence that could be helpful to the United States as it tries to forge a new strategy toward Iraq.

                        We should be careful, however, not to exaggerate Iran’s influence. The problems in Iraq were not caused by the Iranians, nor can Iran solve them all.

                        Most Iraqis dislike the Iranians. In fact, “dislike” is too mild a term. In 2004 and early 2005, when it still seemed as if the United States-led reconstruction of Iraq might succeed, Shiite politicians were bending over backward to demonstrate that they were independent of Iran for fear their constituents would not support them otherwise.

                        Furthermore, while Iranian support is no doubt gratefully received, the evidence suggests that it is now more a supplement than a necessity for the major militias. At this point, the main Shiite groups — the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, and the Fadhila Party among others — have considerable support among the population and are accused of making enormous amounts of money off oil smuggling and organized crime. Plus, there is no shortage of weapons in Iraq, with additional supplies readily available on the regional black market.

                        So Tehran can influence the behavior of the Shiite groups, but it probably would have a hard time forcing them to do things they do not want to do — like disbanding their militias, accepting a national reconciliation agreement, participating in an equitable oil-sharing scheme or accepting any of the other major changes that the Bush administration is seeking. If Iran were to threaten to end its support for these groups, they would most likely tell Tehran to get lost. What’s more, the Iranians seem to understand this, having so far proven reluctant to try to force any of the Shiite groups to radically change course.

                        The limits on Iranian influence are a double-edged sword. They mean that we cannot count on Iran to solve Iraq’s problems, but they also mean that we need not offer the Iranians the world in return for their assistance. Right now, Tehran and its bombastic president are riding high in the Middle East, and they will doubtless want something in return for helping us deal with Iraq. For instance, they may demand that the United States drop its objections to their nuclear program or cave in to Hezbollah’s demands for a greater say in Lebanon.

                        Comment


                        • Especially given the likely limits on what Iran can deliver in Iraq, these would not be prices worth paying. Instead, the United States should emphasize a shared interest in preventing Iraq’s further implosion, as chaos there could easily spread to Iran — a danger most of Tehran’s leaders seem to appreciate.

                          In exchange for Iran’s assistance, Washington should recognize Iran’s legitimate interests in Iraq, keep it (generally) apprised of military operations, and possibly even develop a liaison relationship with the Iranian military and intelligence services by which the two sides could exchange limited information, thereby dampening Iranian fears of malign American intentions.

                          Much of this could be accomplished by forming a standing contact group made up of Iraq’s neighbors — similar to the international support group proposed by Baker-Hamilton. The Iraqi government and the coalition forces would regularly brief this group and seek its advice, which should be ignored only with good reason. In return, the members of the contact group would commit to providing specific kinds of economic, political, diplomatic and even military support.

                          There are at least three good reasons to try this approach. First, no neighboring state is likely to significantly alter strategy unless they all do. Second, our efforts to work with Iran in Iraq cannot come at the expense of our traditional allies among the Sunni states of the region: Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Finally, the problems in Iraq have become so daunting and so intertwined that we need every ounce of help we can get from every source available.

                          We can’t simply expect Iran to save Iraq for us. Even all of Iraq’s neighbors working in concert would play just a supporting role. Only the United States, working with those forces in Iraq still fighting the good fight, can possibly alter Iraq’s catastrophic course.

                          We need a new, feasible plan of our own. Only then will we know how best Iran can help, and what we are willing to pay for that help. Talking to Iran without such a plan would be fruitless, if not folly.

                          Comment


                          • TEHRAN, Iran -Iran's justice minister was killed in a car accident in central Iran Thursday, according to state-run television.


                            Jamal Karimirad, 50, was traveling with his family from Tehran to the central city of Isfahan when the crash occurred about 100 miles south of the capital, the report said.

                            The broadcast said that members of his family had been hospitalized, but did not elaborate further and gave no details of the crash.

                            Comment


                            • طرح اخراج ایران ازشورای امنیت

                              همزمان با اعدام صدام حسین درعراق



                              صدام حسین سحرگاه امروز در یکی از پادگان های نظامی بغداد که در اشغال ارتش امریکاست به دار آویخته شد و تمام مطبوعات امروز صبح کشورهای خلیج و منطقه خاورمیانه خبر آن را منتشر کردند. مطبوعات خلیج فارس جزئیات جلب کننده ای را در باره مراسم به دار آویخته شدن صدام حسین و تاکید روی انتشار فیلم و عکس های این مراسم در اولین منتشر کرده اند و ظاهرا باید اعدام صدام حسین مهم ترین خبر امروز جهان عرب باشد، اما به ظاهر اینگونه نیست. یا اگر برای اعراب اینگونه است برای ایرانیان نیست، زیرا درکنار این خبر، مطبوعات امروز صبح دوبی خبر غافلگیر کننده ای را درباره ایران منتشر کردند. بموجب این خبر حذف کرسی ایران در شورای امنیت سازمان ملل و در واقع اخراج ایران از این شورا مطرح است، که اگر تمام ادعاهای مطبوعات دوبی دراین باره واقعیت داشته باشد، نخستین نتایج عملی واکنش های غیرعاقلانه مقامات ایرانی و بویژه احمدی نژاد نسبت به تصویب قطعنامه شورای امنیت و اعلام آن بعنوان یک ورق پاره و عدم صدور نفت به کشورهای عضو شورای امنیت سازمان ملل بروز کرده است. این درحالی است که از هم اکنون بیم و هراس از مختل سازی صدور نفت از ایران - با چند ضربه نظامی- و یا تصرف مناطق مهم نفتی ایران و سپس ادامه استخراج و صادرات آن به سبک امریکائی وجود دارد.

                              Comment


                              • آمريكا و متحدانش استراتژى جديدى براى افزايش فشارهاى مالى و روانى عليه ايران مانند دستگيرى اخير چهار ديپلمات ايرانى در عراق، اتخاذ كرده*‏اند.
                                روزنامه "نيويورك*‏تايمز" نوشت: "آمريكا و متحدانش در اروپا با اشاره ضمنى به اينكه تحريم*‏هاى شوراى امنيت سازمان*‏ملل*‏متحد در اواخر دسامبر بسيار ضعيف *‏تر از آن است كه ايران را به توقف برنامه*‏هاى هسته*‏اى متقاعد كند، استراتژى جديدى براى افزايش فشارهاى مالى و روانى اتخاذ كرده*‏اند."
                                اين روزنامه آمريكايى به نقل از "استوارت لوى"، معاون وزيرخزانه*‏دارى آمريكا در امور اطلاعات مالى و تروريسم، نوشت: "طرح ما استفاده از زبان قطعنامه براى متقاعد كردن دولت*‏هاى خارجى و نهادهاى مالى براى قطع پيوند با افراد و تاجران ايرانى در برنامه*‏هاى موشكى و هسته*‏اى و سپاه پاسداران است."
                                مقامات دولت بوش كه خواستند نامشان فاش نشود، گفتند: "براى تحت فشار قرار دادن مقامات دولت*‏هاى خارجى و بانك*‏ها براى عمل به قطعنامه شوراى امنيت، نمايندگان آمريكا به زودى عازم كشورهاى خارجى مي*‏شوند."
                                در گزارش اين روزنامه امده است: "استراتژى جديد، وزارت خزانه*‏دارى آمريكا را در چند ماه گذشته ملزم كرد تا بانك*‏هاى غربى را به قطع تجارت با ايران وادار كند و از خطر گرفتارى در قوانين آمريكا آگاه كند، بنابراين بانك*‏هاى اروپايى از جمله "UBS" اعلام كردند كه هيچ تجارت جديدى با ايران انجام نمي*‏دهند. ارزيابى ميزان قطع اقدامات مالى دشوار است، زيرا مشتاق*‏ترين گروه*‏ها يعنى آمريكا و اروپا معامله تجارى كمى با ايران دارند. در ضمن آمريكا قوانينى دارد كه اعمال محدوديت هاى مالى بر بانك*‏ها و شركت*‏هايى كه با ايران تجارت مي*‏كنند، را امكان*‏پذير مي*‏كند در حالى كه چنين قوانينى در اروپا وجود ندارد."
                                به نوشته اين روزنامه، انگليس و فرانسه از اين استراتژى جديد تا اندازه*‏اى حمايت مي*‏كنند، اما آلمان به دليل منافع تجارى بيشتر در ايران چندان به اين امر مايل نيست. ژاپن عضو شوراى امنيت نيست و به نفت خليج *‏فارس بسيار وابسته است با اين حال مقامات ژاپنى براى محدود كردن تعاملات تجارى با ايران اعلام آمادگى كرده*‏اند. در اين راستا، ماه گذشته "بانك ژاپن در همكارى بين*‏المللى" اعلام*‏كرد تا زمانى كه ايران بن*‏بست هسته*‏اى خود با غرب را حل*‏وفصل نكند، اين بانك وام جديدى براى پروژه*‏هاى ايران اختصاص نمي*‏دهد.
                                معاون وزيرخزانه*‏دارى آمريكا نيز گفت: "قطعنامه معاملات تجارى با سه تن از مقامات ايران يا معامله با آژانس*‏هايى كه مالكيت يا نظارتشان بر عهده آنهاست، تحريم كرده است؛ بنابراين، تلاش براى ممانعت از تجارت خارجى از جمله معاملات بانكي، برنامه موشكى ايران را تحت تأثير قرار مي*‏دهد."
                                همچنين مقامات اروپايى و آمريكايى گفتند:"تلاش*‏هايى را آغاز كرده*‏ايم كه هدفش آسيب رساندن به اعتماد به نفس مقامات ايرانى است. دستگيرى اخير چهار ديپلمات ايرانى از سوى نيروهاى نظامى آمريكا در عراق، بخشى از اين استراتژى بود."
                                به نوشته اين روزنامه، مقامات پنتاگون گفتند كه ديپلمات*‏هاى ايرانى مظنون به انتقال تجهيزات از ايران به عراق بودند اما يك مقام اروپايى گفت: "دستگيرى ايراني*‏ها به تضعيف اعتماد به نفس آنها منجر مي*‏شود."
                                "گال لوفت" مدير اجرايى مؤسسه "تحليل امنيت جهانى" گفت: "اقتصاد ايران قطعاً از تنبيه*‏هاى اقتصادى آسيب مي*‏بيند اما ,محمود احمدي*‏نژاد,، رئيس*‏جمهور ايران نيز دست روى دست نمي*‏گذارد و منتظر نمي*‏ماند."
                                بنابراين گزارش، مقامات اروپايى و آمريكايى گفتند كه در تلاشند در ماه*‏هاى آينده تحريم*‏هاى شديدترى از طريق سازمان*‏ملل*‏متحد بر ايران اعمال كنند به ويژه آمريكا، فرانسه, آلمان، ايتاليا و ساير كشورهاى اروپايى را تحت فشار قرار داده است تا اعتبار خود براى تجارت در ايران را معلق كنند.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X