Eye On Iran

[Rasputin]

The word déjà vu is on everybody’s mind and lips these days as an attack on Iran seems imminent. Washington’s uncanny creation of Iran as the WMD ogre du jour is all too reminiscent of the Iraq invasion; while the Administration’s latest deceptions remind some of Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia claiming it would reduce the Vietnam casualties. What escapes peoples’ memory is that the real déjà vu is the case of Iran herself. For the second time in little over 50 years, Iranians are about to witness yet another assault on their country by the United States.

Iranians have a vivid memory of 1953, whether they witnessed it or it was passed down to them. It was the year when they fell victim to the first CIA-backed coup which destroyed their democracy. A coup which emboldened America to embark on many more such operations leaving behind it a trail of blood, tears and destruction while making a full circle – back to Iran.

True that there is only a quasi democracy in Iran at best, but the prize that brought the savagery of the ’53 coup is the same – oil. Today, while Mr. Bush asks Americans to ‘make sacrifices’ and die for their country to fight the ‘war on terror’, our tax dollars are ‘keeping’ the terrorist group MEK in Iraq and there are those in Washington who are contemplating using them in order to cause chaos in Iran and topple the regime in Tehran. Using terrorists to topple a regime came to power as a result of a revolution brought about by the oppressions of the man put in power by an American coup to get rid of democracy – how audacious!

In April 1951, the Iranian parliament under the leadership of Mossadeqh who thought that nationalization was the only way to preserve the sovereignty of Iran, unanimously passed a bill to nationalize the oil industry. He was elected Prime Minister. Not content with having to deal with Iranian sovereignty, the British navy enforced a blockade around Iran closing its export markets. Iran, a developing nation, took its case to the International Court of Justice at The Hague and lost against the mighty British Empire. Today, in an eerie resemblance of the past, Executive Order 12957 given by Mr. Clinton specifically banned any "contract for the financing of the development of petroleum resources located in Iran." [1]

This order has been extended and further restricted by Mr. Bush, and many countries such as Japan have been forced to back out of deals with Iran under pressure from the US.[2] Furthermore, Iran, wanting to develop its civilian nuclear technology to compensate for its finite resources and under the watchful eyes of the IAEA, and in accordance to the NPT, has once again lost its case in the UNSC against the mighty American Empire. Truly a case of Déjà vu.

Similar to the oil industry which belonged to the people, Iran is refusing to give up its inalienable right, giving the perfect excuse to the United States to attack Iran. But the nuclear program is not the reason – the regime is the real thorn in their side.

Mossadeqh was replaced with the Shah and Iran lost a chance to be a democracy. The invasion of Iran was not obvious to the naked eye, but to the people it was. Today, America’s partner in crime is Israel. The second assault, a far bloodier one than the first, has long been planned. The same planners that are responsible for the death and destruction in Iraq - AIPAC and AEI, Israel’s representatives in Washington are now pushing for an attack on Iran. The planners, in their zest to destroy Iran, are supporting our enemies – the perpetrators of 9/11.

According to a CNN late Edition interview with Wolf Blitzer aired on 2/25/07, the renowned Sy Hersh shared his concerns with the audience: "I am quite concerned that my government is aware that money is being funneled to Al-Qaeda operatives to attack Shiites and they are being silent and are allowing this to take place. This is the same group that has been accused of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and my government knows about this". Simply put, the Administration is sporting a bloody policy that not only will engulf the region, but will spill over to unimaginable boundaries. Arms are being sold to boost the bloodshed.

In 2006, the US sold $11 billion arms to Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the UAE which control some 45 percent of world oil reserves, with the Pentagon notifying Congress of possible arms sales to Saudi Arabia -- the biggest spender of the six -- totaling well over nine billion dollars. [3] According to The New York Times (2/23/07), Kuwait has reportedly bought 24 Apache Longbow helicopters, while the United Arab Emirates has continued to take delivery of 80 F-16 Block 60 fighters, with plans to buy air tankers, missile defense batteries and airborne early warning systems. Bahrain has ordered nine UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters in an estimated $252 million deal, while Oman has reportedly bought 30 antitank rocket launchers in a $48 million purchase and is planning a naval overhaul.

Perhaps it is to deliver these to Al-Qaeda to destroy the ‘Shiites’? Is it any wonder that so many helicopters are being shot sown in Iraq? After all, the enemy does benefit from the best technology the world has to offer!

So while the Gulf States go on a shopping spree, the Bush Administration, bowing to AIPAC and taking advice from the AEI and other neo-cons is setting the stage to attack Iran by planning and sending more carriers to the Persian Gulf in preparation for war. Dick Cheney wasted no time in announcing the inevitable with a nudge and a wink to the arms dealers that they can make a killing out of this one - the oil-rich, Al-Qaeda supporters are in a spending mood. Iran’s history is going to be repeated and without knowing it, the Arabs will be doing the fighting. That is what the Sunni-Shiite divide was about.

What is incomprehensible to this writer is that in a recent poll which surveyed six Arab nations and was commissioned by the Washington-based Arab American Institute (AAI), the overall approval ratings of the US ranged between an unprecedented low of two per cent in Egypt and a high of 20 per cent in Lebanon. Those holding a favorable view of the US in Saudi Arabia were four per cent, 11 per cent in Morocco, 14 per cent in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and 15 per cent in Jordan. [4] These figures are particularly alarming because they are ‘allies’ and recipient of arms! It seems peculiar that that so many American presidents insist on arming the very people who hate them. If indeed 9/11 was the work of al-Qaeda, we are on a suicide path - unless ‘they’ know something the public does not.

So, again, Iran is to become the victim of America’s greed -- with Israel pushing the ‘DESTRUCT’ button. If we stop Iran’s history from being repeated, perhaps we can stop the next tragedy that may follow.

[Rasputin]

Studing tyranny, its causes or consequences, is not easy, but perceiving tyranny and why God bestowed us with such a beast is another matter. Social sciences have long reached some important conclusions about the reasons behind tyranny and I am not very much of an academic expert on this. But I can express my own opinion about how I have recently thought about this subject. And I'd like to put on a very simple example to show how we probably deserve tyranny when we have it and what can be done about it.

Let's assume you belong to a small tribe (a few hundred members, so that we can understand the community better and more easily) where there is a brutal tribal leader. He is the ruler of the tribe. That is a fact that cannot be disputed, either as a reality in general or as a fact within the tribe. Disputing, challenging or probaby disrespecting the tribal leader may lead to explusion, execution, imprisonment or torture, depending on the gravity or the circumstances of your action.

However one thing is clear, the tribal leader is a brutal man. But why is he a brutal man while another tribal leader from the vecinity is said to be a kind and just man whose fame has gone beyound all the surrounding tribes? There are always circumstances by which one man or another becomes a tribal leader. He can create his own tribe, he can inherit his father's or another relative's tribe, he can take over a tribe from the previous leader, or he can be chosen as the tribal leader, either by the tribal wise or by the whole adult population of the tribe. These are at least the main choices I can think about regarding possible tribal customs.

So, it is extremely important how one becomes the tribal leader. We are all individuals, different individuals and the most important thing for a tribe is to have a decent, clean and wise leader. How can one expect a tribal leader who has killed the previous leader and all his family and relatives to be a good and decent tribal leader? He will most likely be a brutal and ruthless tribal leader. So, our example of the tribe is one of the unlucky ones that has got a brutal leader. We don't know the exact reasons why he has turned out so brutal. What we know is that he is brutal.

What can you, who belong to the tribe, do? You are yourself either a brutal and ruthless man yourself, or you are a kind and decent man. In case you are a brutal and ruthless man (and a smart and ambitious one) then you will try to take over the tribe one way or another, or at least go as high within the corrupt ranks of the tribe as you possibly can. And in case you assassinate the tribal leader and become the tribal leader yourself then you will most likely be no different than the previous leader.

However if you are a decent and kind man (again, assuming that you are an ambitous and smart man too) then you will most likely have the choices of either leaving the tribe and finding a new tribe where the conditions are more acceptable according to your values, or trying to awaken the people of the tribe to the wrongs and brutalities of the tribal leader, or possibly the clique. In case you choose the second option then you take the risk of trying to re-create a tribe according to your values, which is much riskier than leaving the tribe and finding another tribe which has relatively similar values to yours.

However, depending on your level of education, intelligence and personal values (and many other factors) it is possible for you to leave the tribe and never find any tribe that would fit your high standards. So, you may actually have no choice but to take on the system (the tribal leader or possibly the corrupt clique) and to do so you will need to find adherents and fight and overthrow, or at least change, the system. This is about risking your freedom, your life, your dignity, your sanity and so forth. It is nevertheless a huge risk. And let's not forget that you may have charm, courage, intelligence, merit and also decency and humanity aplenty but be unable to find enough followers in order to be able to take on the system.

And this is actually the real problem many societies, tribes and countries have faced throughout history. Decent leaders have often not been able to find enough following to make changes possible. So they have either perished, or left. We cannot argue that decent leaders have been extremely rare. How many decent leaders for instance have Iran had throughout history? If any, they have been short-lived and accidental. Why? Are Iranians undeserving of decent leadership? I don't necessarily believe so. It would a harsh and undeserving condemnation of a whole nation to say so. There are many implications within and many of them are related to the historical circumstances that have often turned out differently than what the people of Iran (r any hypothetical country or tribe) had hoped for. These historical circumstances have left wounds within the psychy of the people.

The issue is that any country, like any tribe, needs to wake up to reality. When the waking up happens the leaders, or the leader, will be there to drive the awakened. This awakening may again lead to another dissapointment, as have many others in the past, especially in a country like Iran. Nonetheless the modern-day means of transmition and communication have facilitated the awakening process of individuals. The Internet has probably been the most important of these modern means. And changes will apear sooner or later (but hopefully and very probably not very late). Whether the awakened will choose the right, or the wrong leader, is another matter.

Let's hope that extremism, nationalism, racism or other forms of agressive behaviour will give way to tolerance and the desire for freedom. And the fact of the matter is that very often it is much easier, and more practical, to leave rather than fight, at least on an individual basis. America is the clear example of the unhappy leaving tyranny and injustice behind in order to find what they hoped for. The countries that have been built by migrants tend to be much more liberal and prosperous than the countries built by peoples who have tended not to move at all for thousands of years (these are often countried, not necessarily peoples, who boast of very old history and traditions in the land).

[Rasputin]

Everywhere you turn these days there is talk of war with Iran. Ever since the Islamic Revolution of ’79 there has never been a time when a military strike, by the U.S or Israel, seemed more probable. I have very mixed feelings about this possibility stemming from a mixture of vengefulness, self-interest and common sense.

There are very few people who would stand to directly benefit from a regime change in Iran as much as yours truly. It would mean the revival of my chance to recuperate my rather significant confiscated patrimony which at this time in my life I need more than I do a country or a sense of identity.

Also, I simply hate Islamist ideology because of its unbalanced and outdated view of women. I don’t have any nationalistic feelings for Iran beyond supporting the football team. I am a feminist of the old school--a freedom loving hippie of sorts who believes that ‘nationalism’ is a 19th century Western concept with no place in a world that is this technologically advanced.

Nationalism is as archaic and outmoded as the notion that women should stay at home. So I really have no love for Iran per say. For her culture yes, for chelo-kabob yes, but for the actual cat shaped entity some one decided to call something: no. I firmly believe in Virginia Woolf’s claim that, “a woman’s country is her body.”

In Iran where my blood price is half of a man’s that statement written decades before gay marriages where common in the West makes a lot of sense today. As far as I am concerned let us be a colony but make my blood price equal. I will give my allegiance to anyone who will make my blood price whole even if he or she doesn’t speak my beautifully poetic mother tongue. So no gooey sentimental feelings here for Iran rather a real desire and even need to see a regime change.

I ask myself once again as I have so many times since 9/11 would I welcome an American or Israeli attack on Iran? My mother lives there as do my bothers not to mention many dear friends. But that alone is not enough for me to push aside my yearning to see these Mullahs out of power before I die! No, what stops me from wanting an out right attack on Iran is pragmatism.

It just won’t work. It will simply not bring about a regime change. No, on the contrary it will strengthen the regime. Just like the war with Iraq did shortly after the Revolution. A strike against Iran will give the regime moral stature just when it is facing financial difficulties.

Only if there is an outright invasion would the regime change. But after Iraq even this regime of Mullahs seems a better prospect than American occupation. We all now know that American occupation instantly renders Islamists of all colors more popular and powerful. As much as I would love to get back my property in Iran I cannot wish her a predicament like that of Iraq’s!

It was obvious from the start that Ahmadinejad was out to pick a fight with the West. To give him that is simply stupid. The best thing to do with the decisions makers of this regime is to treat them like the fight-picking adolescents that they are: ignore them! Sanction them to hurt the pocket of the bazaaris who will in turn put pressure on the regime. But don’t give them what they want. They want a war. If you give it to them it will legitimize their stubborn bellicosity. Leave them alone and they will have to answer the socio-economic needs of Iranians and sooner or later, when they repeatedly fail to deliver, the people will get rid of them or make them change. It may take a while but so what? Surely Iran is far from being a global military threat.

Anyone who has bought an Iranian made car can tell you that those supposed medium and long range missiles will sooner fall on Tabriz than Tel-Aviv mostly due to a blessed lack of perfectionism that permeates the culture. I say ‘blessed’ because what keeps this regime from being true fascists is that they don’t have the work ethic of the Germans! No one on that Qods force they make such a big deal about is as scary to behold as a California State Police trooper in the rear mirror walking up to your car. Iran is simply not a threat to Israel or the U.S despite the relative success of Hezbollah against Israel.

What the West fails to understand is that Iranians are much talk and little else. They are carpet dealers not warriors. If you take all the suicide bombers that have taken their own lives to kill others since 9/11 you will find almost no Iranians amongst them. They are not like their proud Arab neighbors who will fight to their last drop of blood. No, Iranians are for the most part businessmen and most of them can be bought. Threaten their pockets and they will talk. Walk out that carpet store and they will come running after you with a lower price!

[Rasputin]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faces new domestic criticism from both reformists and conservatives after he called Iran's nuclear program a train that "has no brake and no reverse gear" in a speech Sunday.

The Guardian reports that "critics from across the Iranian political spectrum" have taken Mr. Ahmadinejad to task for his uncompromising speech on the development of Iran's nuclear program.

Mohammad Atrianfar, a respected political commentator, accused the president of using "the language of the bazaar" and said his comments had made it harder for Ali Larijani, the country's top nuclear negotiator, to reach a compromise with European diplomats. ...

"This rhetoric is not suitable for a president and has no place in diplomatic circles," said Mr Atrianfar, a confidant of Hashemi Rafsanjani, an influential regime insider and rival of Mr Ahmadinejad. "It is the language people in the bazaar and alleyways use to address the simplest issues of life."

The Guardian also cites Fayaz Zahed, leader of the pro-reform Islamic Iran Solidarity party, who criticized Ahmadinejad for choosing to imitate the leadership style of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, rather than that of more internationally respected leaders like South Africa's Nelson Mandela or the Czech Republic's Vaclav Havel.

"The brake exists to get the train safely to its destination," Mr Zahed wrote in the newspaper Etemad-e Melli. "Perhaps on the journey, we might find the track broken and are obliged to move our passengers by using the reverse gear to get to a safer track. Iran is a nation of earthquakes, flood and national disasters! You are our head. We should be able to trust you."

The UK-based Web portal IranMania reports that the conservative newspaper Resalat took issue with Ahmadinejad's tone as well, writing that "neither weakness nor unnecessarily offensive language is acceptable in foreign policy."

"Our foreign policy must reflect the ancient Iranian civilization and rich Islamic culture of the Iranian nation. Therefore, delicacy ... rich diplomatic language and non-primitive policies must be part of a calculated combination to work," [the newspaper] said.

The Associated Press writes that this latest round of criticism comes on the heels of indications that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader who has the final say on all Iranian policy, may be unhappy with Ahmadinejad's performance as president.

Last week, Khamenei voiced rare criticism of the domestic performance of Ahmadinejad's government, and the president was notably absent when a group of Cabinet members and vice presidents met with Khamenei, who has the final word in all political affairs in Iran, including the nuclear issue.

The increasing criticism reflects public worries about the course of the country's confrontation with the United States and the West. Washington has taken a more aggressive stance toward Iran, building up the U.S. military presence in the Gulf and accusing Tehran of backing militants in Iraq. That has heightened fears among Iranians of possible U.S. military action.

However, Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, writes in a commentary for the Inter Press Service that the United States needs to recognize that UN sanctions against Iran are not the cause of the current spate of criticism of Ahmadinejad.

Over the past few months, Iran's hard-line president has suffered several political defeats at home. The most important of these were the Dec. 15 municipal elections last year where candidates allied with the president fared miserably, while centrist conservatives close to former President Hashemi Rafsanjani – a key rival of Ahmadinejad – made significant gains.

Ahmadinejad's defeat, coupled with increased criticism against him at home over his economic policies and his failure to evade UN Security Council Sanctions, have left Washington with the impression that its efforts to squeeze Iran's access to international finance has borne fruit at a surprising rate. ...

The George W. Bush administration seems to be confusing its sanctions policies with Ahmadinejad's incompetent economic policies. The push-back against Ahmadinejad has, according to observers of Iran's domestic political scene, far more to do with his failed economic policies and his populist promises, which have created exaggerated expectations among the Iranian populace, than with Tehran's nuclear posturing or Washington's financial sanctions.

Nonetheless, "thanks to Ahmadinejad," writes Iranian author Amir Taheri in a commentary for the Gulf News of the United Arab Emirates, "the nuclear issue has become a regime change issue" in Iran, and its outcome will radically change the course of the country.

If [Ahmadinejad's] Khomeinist regime emerges victorious from the current confrontation, it would move to a higher degree of radicalism, thus, in effect, becoming a new regime.

The radical faction would be able to purge the rich and corrupt mullahs by promoting a new generation of zealots linked with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and the security services. It would also move onto the offensive in the region, seeking to reshape it after the Khomeinist revolution's geo-strategic interests.

If, on the other hand, the Khomeinist regime is forced to back down on this issue, the radical moment would fade, while the many enemies of the regime regroup to either topple it or change it beyond recognition as Deng Xiao-ping did with the Maoist regime in China.

[Rasputin]

A review of “Reading Legitimation Crisis in Tehran”
by Danny Postel
Prickly Paradigm Press, Chicago.

How do you explain the silence of the US progressives on the human rights violations in Iran? Why doesn’t the struggle for liberation in Iran resonate with those who are otherwise concerned with justice and freedom in the world?

Danny Postel sets out to answer this difficult question in his latest insightful book, Reading Legitimation Crisis in Tehran.

Postel’s daring analysis carries significant political risk, as we live with increasing threat of a new war; arguments against the regime in Tehran are not taken lightly by our liberal colleagues. Every political analysis of this kind is suspect of aiding George Bush until proven otherwise. This is precisely why I care about the questions Danny Postel attempts to answer. I spent most of my youth activism protesting alongside of my liberal colleagues, supporting people’s movements in South Africa, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. There was much to protest when I arrived in the United States as a young student in 1982. I still remember much of the deplorable policies of the Regan administration, of constructive engagement with Apartheid in South Africa, an illegal, undeclared and covert war against Nicaragua and support for the death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala. There may have been a few other causes for which we protested, went on strike, gave speeches or did sit-ins. But these few certainly stand out in my memory. Late in the Regan years, came the Iran-Contra scandal and with it the bankruptcy of the united front of the bad guys, from right-wing conservatives (the word Neo-con was not part of our progressive vocabulary yet) in US to Contras in Central America and Mullahs in Iran and the thrill of watching Ollie North sweat during the hearings that tattooed the phrase “I have no recall” in the collective memory of Americans.

But what about my own recall? As I was reading Postel about the progressive American attitude toward Iran, I tried to remember my liberal colleagues in the 80’s and think hard about their objections to the Regan policies. Were they opposed to the constructive engagement with a regime that practiced Apartheid or did they oppose Ronald Regan as the embodiment of anti-communist and imperialist values? Why did they object to the hidden negotiations with Mullahs and the arms for hostage deal? Did they find dealing with a terrorist regime in Tehran objectionable? Or was it the hidden nature of the transaction? Did they hate it because the proceedings were spent on battling Sandinistas or would they condemn any such deals with a terrorist state regardless of how the profit is squandered? Did they find the regime in Tehran objectionable after all?

I ask these questions because in retrospect and as I read again the writings of those days, I find disturbing facts that establishes patterns for what Postel is writing about. I find these patterns useful because they undermine the first-line defense of our left-liberal colleagues who argue, in responding to Postel, that their attitude toward Iran is a product of the particularities of history. Let me quote a simple but common argument I have picked up on the net:

"And yet, I know perfectly well that criticism of Iran is not just criticism of Iran. Whether I want it to or not, it also provides support for the Bush administration's determined and deliberate effort to whip up enthusiasm for a military strike. Only a naive would view criticism of Iran in a vacuum, without also seeing the way it will be used by an administration that has demonstrated time and again that it can't be trusted to act wisely. So what to do? For the most part, I end up saying very little." (Kevin Drum)

I find it useful to look back and see no outspoken criticism of massacre of Iranian left in prison in Tehran in 1987 or widespread atrocities that were committed during years of Clinton administration. Worse yet, I look back and try to remember if we cared at all, in those years of student activism, about the Solidarity movement in Poland. My recall is disappointing. I even vaguely remember Regan’s popularity with my Polish friends. It was the right wing anti-labor Ronald Regan and not us the progressives, who championed the cause in Poland. Why didn’t we care about the atrocities against the Solidarity activists? Were my leftist friends worried about a US military invasion of Poland? I think not.

Once the excuse of the historical necessity is rejected and a repeated pattern emerges, one must look for structural defects in the progressive vision to explain this dilemma. Here, Postel considers some of the following:

-Lack of knowledge about a complex society like Iran prevents the left from criticizing the clerical regime.

This argument was first expressed by Jeremy Brecher, who writes:

“Normally, the global peace movement and political left would respond to repression by an authoritarian, theocratic regime with outrage and protest. But so far there has been a deafening silence. The reason is probably not that peace activists don't care about democracy and human rights when they are trampled by opponents of America. More likely there is wariness about intervening in a complex, multiplayer drama in which the left could have an impact contrary to what it intends.”

Postel agrees with the complexity of Iranian situation but dismisses it as a sole reason for the silence of the left. He points to Bosnia as another example of a complex situation where the complexity was not an obstacle for solidarity with the victims. But those who advocated for Bosnian human rights violations for nearly six years and watched with frustration the massacre of Bosnian people may disagree with him.

Bosnian example aside, the notion of complexity as an excuse for lack of solidarity needs to be challenged. It is difficult to believe that societies such as Iran, Syria, Libya, and Poland –to name a few-are in some mysterious ways more complicated, multilayered, and tricky to understand than Chili, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. I can take the example of Chili, its vibrant multilayered civil society and massive economic development under Pinochet regime and compare it with semi-nomadic traditional societies of Syria and Libya. But even a comparison of complexities between Chili and Iran will not yield very clear results. It seems that the American progressives never got confused in the case of Pinochet but had significant problems coming to term with atrocities committed by Ayatollah Khomeini. There is a sense of “moral clarity” –to use the conservative vocabulary-about Pinochet but not Khomeini, given that both had complex multilayered societies to which our progressive activists had imperfect access to. This unsatisfactory justification drives Postel’s second point:

- The centrality of anti-imperialism in the left-liberal worldview prevents them from criticizing the anti-US tyrants.

Here Brecher’s article provides the first evidence for such centrality when he poses the dilemma:

For the global peace movement and the left, this situation presents several interlocking dilemmas. How is it possible to promote human rights and democracy in Iran without strengthening Washington's drive to dominate the world in general and the Middle East in particular?

And the answer is expressed clearly in terms that establish the anti-imperialism centrality:

The problem is in some ways parallel to that faced by the international peace movement in the 1980s, when repression of nonviolent antiauthoritarian revolts in Poland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe coincided with aggressive U.S. military expansionism.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

The control and manipulation of foreign press goes on today and is a very familiar story for those who have lived in former Soviet dominated regimes. Little has been reported on the regime’s systematic manipulation of press but to the “trained eyes” the stories that reach American media often carry the mark of the Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence. The foreign reporters who get to hear the confessions of a prisoner who can not meet with his lawyer or his family but freely speaks to the foreign reporters to tell them how much he hates George Bush for trying to help his cause, the people who gather in front of voting booths to tell reporters how free the election was, the crowd who gathers in front of reporters hotel to voice their support for nuclear energy, all appear too often on the pages of some of the most prestigious newspapers in this country.

Not all foreign reporters have remained complacent. On many occasions reporters were expelled from Iran for reporting forbidden stories. At least on two occasions, Geneive Abdo and Dan De Luce, both Guardian correspondence, exposed regime’s control measures after their deportation.

Iran’s oil money at work in US
Iran has constructed one of the most credible lobby groups in Washington since the 1979 revolution. The Iran lobby is sophisticated and credible. They seek their constituencies primarily among the left and liberals but spend money on the conservatives as well.

They are a heterogeneous but well coordinated group. They have recruited young Iranian- American professionals who have never lived in Iran, feel disconnected from their roots and believe their motherland has been unjustly demonized, the entrepreneurs who want lifting of the sanctions to get back in before their European competitors, the Middle East academics and Iran researchers who are worthless without access to Iran, and medical & agricultural exporters, importers and oil and gas companies who seek business as usual. This lobby group has the combination of wealth, savvy and political influence to build the illusive image of an Islamic Democracy for one of the most oppressive and corrupt dictatorships in the world.

The Iran lobby will be exploiting the antiwar sentiment, the Iraq failure, and Bush administration’s lies and inconsistencies to hide crimes committed by the regime in Tehran. The seemingly progressive protests of the war will not voice any support for democracy and human rights in Iran. The idea of regime change will be presented as a neo-conservatives design on Iran.

Reading Potel’s book in these days when the danger of another war looms is most important because the left has remained complacent about the atrocities of the Iranian regime. Even the Iran petition signed by Noam Chomsky and other prominent leftist intellectual recently is void of any actions against the Iranian regime. It states:

We too would like to see a regime change in Tehran, but one brought about by the Iranian people themselves, not by Washington. For 26 years Iran has been ruled by a repressive theocracy. Behind the formal trappings of democracy, real power is held by an un-elected oligarchy of clerics; all electoral candidates must receive their approval, and their authority is enforced by gangs of religious thugs….etc

At the end, the Iranian people are left alone to face their repressive regime because the left feels uncomfortable about siding with Washington. Reading Postel’s book is timely since war or not, unless there is a strong show of solidarity with Iranian people and against the regime in Tehran, the repression will go on. In the absence of a global progressive coalition for a regime change in Iran, the left continues to focus on what is most comfortable, opposing the Empire and once again betraying the Iranian people in their struggle against tyranny.

[Rasputin]

ایران

به رغم رکود خبری این روزها

هفته پر خبر در پیش است



محافل خبری، درانتظار آغاز هفته آینده اند. هفته ای که در طول آن علاوه بر تشکیل جلسه شورای حکام اتمی برای بررسی نکات جدید پرونده اتمی ایران، اعضای دائم شورای امنیت نیز طرح قطعنامه جدید خود علیه ایران را با اعضای غیر ثابت این شورا در میان خواهند گذاشت و زمینه سنجی آراء کل شورا به قطعنامه شروع می شود. به این ترتیب، تا پیش از تشکیل کنفرانس بغداد، نوع برخورد جدید با فعالیت های اتمی ایران شکل قطعی به خود می گیرد و آنچه که در کنفرانس بغداد روی میز قرار خواهد گرفت، می تواند نقش هیزم زیر تنور شورای امنیت را بازی کند. یعنی فشار پرونده پهلوئی و دوم جمهوری اسلامی "تروریسم" به رای دهندگان شورای امنیت برای گرفتن رای قطعی به قطعنامه جدید و حتی زمینه سازی برای تصویب قطعنامه ای علیه عملیات تروریستی جمهوری اسلامی. از هم اکنون، علاوه بر آنچه که در کنفرانس بغداد امریکائی ها مستند به اعترافات فرماندهان دستگیر شده سپاه در عراق روی میز خواهند گذاشت، در آرژانتین نیز بار دیگر مسئله اجرای رای دادگاه مبنی بر بازداشت مقامات جمهوری اسلامی در دستور کار قرار گرفته است. در گرماگرم این چرخه سیاسی، در تهران چندگروه که سرو ته آنها معلوم نیست به کجا بند است، علیه دولت یمن دست به تظاهرات زدند و مقابل سفارت این کشور جمع شدند. آنها از شعیان یمن و شخص "الحوثی" حمایت کردند که در جریان یورش نظامی اخیر دولت یمن به شبه نظامیان شیعه این کشور کشته شده است. روزنامه های دست راستی و متمایل به دولت احمدی نژاد و سیمای جمهوری اسلامی به این تظاهرات پوشش کامل دادند، به همان اندازه که تحصن معلمان ایران در مقابل مجلس را

[Rasputin]

براساس یک نظرسنجی که توسط سرویس جهانی بی بی سی انجام شده است اکثر مردم بر اين باورند که اسرائيل و ايران عمدتا نفوذی منفی در جهان دارند. آمريکا و کره شمالی نيز از نزديک اين دو کشور را دنبال می کنند.
در مقابل مثبت ترين نگاه ها به کانادا، ژاپن، اتحاديه اروپا و فرانسه مربوط می شود.

نزدیک به 28 هزار نفر از 27 کشور جهان در این نظر سنجی شرکت داشته اند. از شرکت کنندگان در نظر سنجی خواسته شده که نقش 11 کشور - بریتانیا، کانادا، چین، فرانسه، هند، ایران، اسرائیل، ژاپن، کره شمالی، آمریکا و ونزوئلا - به همراه اتحادیه اروپا را از نظر داشتن نقشی مثبت یا منفی در جهان ارزیابی کنند.

به گفته سازمان دهندگان این نظرسنجی ملاک افرادی که در این نظرسنجی جایگاه کشورها را منفی ارزیابی کرده اند، بیشتر تحت تاثیر اهداف آن کشور در زمینه توسعه قدرت نظامی خود بوده است. همچنین کشورهایی که جایگاه آنها مثبت ارزیابی شده، اکثرا در سیاست خارجی خود به استفاده از "نرم رفتاری" (در مقابل شیوه های نظامی و یا اقتصادی) پایبندند.

این سومین سال متوالی است که سرویس جهانی بی بی سی اقدام به برگزاری اين نوع نظرسنجی می کند و در برگزاری آن شرکت "گلوب اسکن" و گروهی تحقیقاتی از دانشگاه مریلند آمریکا نیز همکاری داشته اند.


نتایج نظرسنجی

همچنین به ترتیب کانادا، ژاپن، اتحادیه اروپا و فرانسه در رده کشورهایی بودند که نقش آنها مثبت تر از سایر کشورها ارزیابی شده است.

کشور هند ارتقا چشمگیری در نظرسنجی امسال نسبت به نظرسنجیهای گذشته داشته است و هم اکنون در رده کشورهایی مانند چین و بریتانیا قرار دارد. در نظرسنجی امسال جایگاه بریتانیا نیز نسبت به نظرسنجی سالهای گذشته افت کرده است.

ارزیابی متفاوت از نقش ایران

از میان 27 کشوری که این نظرسنجی در آنها انجام شده، مردم 21 کشور جایگاه ایران را منفی ارزیابی کرده اند. کشورهای اروپای غربی و آمریکای شمالی در میان کشورهایی بوده اند که بیشترین نگرانیها را درباره نقش منفی ایران ابراز کرده اند.

ارزیابی منفی از نقش ایران در میان شرکت کنندگان در این نظر سنجی در آمریکا از 81 درصد به 63 درصد نسبت به نظرسنجی سال گذشته کاهش پیدا کرده است و در عوض در فرانسه، نیجیریه، کنیا و شیلی، ارزیابی منفی از نقش ایران با افزایش همراه بوده است.

اما جايگاه ايران از نظر شرکت کنندگان کشورهای مسلمان در این نظرسنجی مانند مصر، اندونزی و امارات متحده عربی، بهبود چشمگیری داشته است.

مويد نظرسنجی قبلی

در ماه ژانویه امسال، سرویس جهانی بی بی سی نتایج یک نظر سنجی را منتشر کرد که از نگاه منفی اکثر مردم جهان نسبت به نقش ایالات متحده آمریکا درعرصه بین المللی حکایت می کرد.

بر اساس آن نظر سنجی، شمار منتقدان آمریکا نسبت به دو سال پیش از آن به نحو قابل ملاحظه ای افزایش یافته بود.

به گفته نيک چايلدز خبرنگار بی بی سی، نتایج نظرسنجی جدید نیز که تقریبا ً بر روی همان جامعه آماری اجرا شده، یافته های قبلی را تائید می کند.

نگرش منفی نسبت به کره شمالی نیز کمی از آمریکا کمتر است. اسرائیل البته از دیرباز واکنشهای تندی را در جامعه جهانی برانگیخته است و سال گذشته در یک جنگ جنجالی در لبنان درگیر شد. ایران و کره شمالی هر دو به خاطر برنامه های هسته ای شان در کانون اختلافات بین المللی بوده اند.

به گفته خبرنگار ما نگرش مثبت به کانادا، ژاپن و اتحادیه اروپا در این نظر سنجی می تواند ناشی از نقش نه چندان فعال این کشورها در منازعات اخیر بین المللی باشد.

نيک چايلدز می گويد افکار عمومی در مجموع بر همان خطوط گسل متعارف سیاست جهانی تقسیم شده است. منفی ترین نگاه ها نسبت به اسرائیل به منطقه خاور میانه و همچنین اروپا مربوط می شود.

طرز نگرش ها نسبت به ژاپن بجز در چین و کره شمالی عموما ً مثبت است. به نحو مشابهی اتحادیه اروپا نیز در مجموع امتیاز مثبت گرفته بجز در ترکیه و همچنین بخشهايی از خاور میانه.

[Rasputin]

majority of people believe that Israel and Iran have a mainly negative influence in the world, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests.

It shows that the two countries are closely followed by the United States and North Korea.

The poll asked 28,000 people in 27 countries to rate a dozen countries plus the EU in terms of whether they have a positive or negative influence.

Canada, Japan and the EU are viewed most positively in the survey.

'Traditional divides'

In January, the BBC World Service revealed polling results that suggested most people think the US has a mainly negative influence in the world - and that the numbers had increased significantly in the last couple of years.


This latest GlobeScan survey, mostly of the same people, confirms those findings.

But it also suggests that two countries are viewed even more negatively - first Israel, and then Iran.

North Korea is just behind the US.

BBC WORLD SERVICE POLL
Most negative image:
1. Israel - 56%
2. Iran - 56%
3. US - 51%
4. North Korea - 48%
Israel, of course, has long provoked sharp international reactions, and last year was involved in a controversial war in Lebanon.

Iran and North Korea have both been at the centre of international disputes over their nuclear programmes.

Canada, Japan, and the EU are viewed most positively, perhaps because they have all taken less high-profile roles in the world's recent confrontations.

India is one country in the survey that seems to have improved its standing in the last year.

SEE THE FULL SURVEY
BBC World Service poll [3.25MB]
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Download the reader here

In general, opinion seems to divide along the traditional fault lines of international politics.

Israel is viewed most negatively in the Muslim countries of the Middle East, although also in Europe.

Iran is viewed most positively in the Muslim world.

Japan is generally viewed positively, except in China and South Korea.

The EU similarly gets good marks, except most notably in Turkey, and also in parts of the Middle East.

[Rasputin]

The feet of the figures he paints rarely touch the ground. They are suspended in air, rootless, homeless, like the artist who creates them. They evoke sadness and hope, loss and possibility.

Ario Mashayekhi paints them to exorcise the frustration and pain he feels as an emigre in Edgewater as he follows events in his native Iran. He is stateless. They are weightless, floating above the landscape. But they offer a shimmer of hope.
"I'm trying to be positive," said Ario, who uses only his first name and signs his art that way. "I know this shall pass, this [era] in Iran."

Just how this era might melt into the next is anyone's guess, he said, though he's increasingly afraid it might happen through war. Like other Iranians in America, he follows the development of Iran's nuclear program, the diplomatic efforts to halt it and the rhetorical dance between President Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's outspoken leader. It is worrying, he said. But after a quarter-century of watching from afar, Ario has learned patience.

In the meantime, he paints. The figures are splashes of color, tiny figurines that dance on the page, faceless. They are bright, more hopeful than the ones he drew as a student in the U.S. during the heat of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution and the tumultuous years afterward, and then again a few years ago when several critics of the ruling mullahs disappeared or were murdered.

These portraits hang their heads. They stare into the distance, forlorn and broken. Their names reverberate among Iran's disenfranchised diaspora, even if they remain unknown to most Americans: Mokhtari, Sirjani, Sarkuhi, to name a few. Most of them are dead, in exile or in prison.

"There are so many of them now," Ario said. "It's so sad. Iran is in a very dangerous time."

A diminutive man with long graying curls that he often pulls back in a ponytail, Ario, 48, appears to be the antithesis to the mullahs who rule Iran. He lives a spartan existence in a basement apartment cluttered with canvasses and easels. He is a poet, penning metaphorical odes critical of Iran's human-rights condition; an actor in Chicago playing a Buddhist priest in the play "Rashomon"; a freethinker who scorns theocracy.

He began painting before arriving in Chicago in 1978 to study engineering, a few months before the revolution. He was fond of landscapes but soon found himself sketching victims of the revolution instead. His first portrait was of Shahpour Bakhtiar, the last prime minister under the Shah of Iran who fled to France and was later gunned down in Paris.

The portraits, it turned out, were in demand. He sold them to dissident magazines, publications of human-rights organizations and Iranian-language newspapers. They appeared, often in black-and-white, on covers and in articles detailing allegations of abuses committed by Iran's religious government.

"My work was very political then," Ario said. "It was a tool for my ideas."

Over the years, his painting slowly changed, infused first with more universal themes of suffering, then with the metaphorical ideas of statelessness. Some of his lighter works are featured on the walls of Persian restaurants in Chicago. He also sells to private collectors and has a Web site, www.ario.cc.

But the political sketches were never completely pushed aside. He drew them throughout the 1990s whenever Iranian intellectuals mysteriously disappeared and especially in 1998 when a campaign of intimidation culminated in the murders of dissidents by rogue elements in Iran's security service.

"I don't consider myself political," he said. "I'm not a political artist. I hate politicians. I'm just doing this because we are all responsible to do what we can. Somebody has to do it."

In 1995, Ario said, he went to Iran for the first time in nearly two decades. He was excited to see family but found life in Iran stifling and the people caught between hope and despair.

"The first thing I saw was yellow, low light, lack of power," he said, referring to Tehran's poorly lighted streets.

"I saw a very sad soldier," he continued. "His soul was sad. There was a general unhappiness everywhere. Every individual was in his own cell in his mind."

When Ario returned to Chicago, he let his hair grow past his shoulders--an unconscious act, he says now, of breaking with his past--and began painting what he experienced in Iran. The result was a canvas filled with dark figures caged separately, symmetrically, with one figure above the rest holding a yellow ball, a symbol of the sun.

"My country is in a prison right now," he said. "It is not free. But even with all these things, I still see hope."

Ario views Ahmadinejad as a populist pandering to voters' fear of war and pride in their right to develop nuclear technology. But there is enough internal debate to be optimistic, as long as war is averted, Ario said. Above all, he doesn't want outsiders to topple the regime, he said, and fears Bush may attempt an Iraq-style war to remove Iran's rulers by force.

But there is little he can do from his basement apartment. So he paints. He draws Iranian women barefoot and wrapped tightly, like duct tape, in black. He draws a mother looking for her son on the battlefield, and the jailed eyes of a 9-year-old girl he met in Iran who stopped painting after she was told she couldn't draw a woman's hair.

He loves the freedom in America, though he hopes one day to return to Iran. In the meantime, he likes to draw paintings that inspire hope. But like him, his figures long for solid ground.

"They don't have a root because I don't have a root. They are rootless, like me."

[Rasputin]

In the period following the downfall of the Soviet Union, this is the first time that favorable conditions have emerged on the side of the peoples around the world to challenge U.S. hegemony and control. Over the past four years, the forces of resistance in Iraq have exhausted a quarter of a million U.S. forces directly and indirectly involved in the war of occupation and weakened the will power of its conservative ruling class. Concurrently, in Lebanon the liberation forces of Hezbollah have effectively humbled the aggressive military forces of Israel, and at the same time the people of Palestine have brought the revolutionary and the real fighting force, Hamas, to power.

It is at this juncture that the peoples of Latin America in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Peru, Uruguay, Argentina, etc., along with the people of Cuba in the Caribbean have been challenging the neo-liberal socio-economic order and bringing popular governments into power. China has become a formidable economic, diplomatic and military world power that has to be reckoned with. The real purchasing power of the people of China or India has surpassed that of the U.S. Russia has effectively recovered from its economic dislocation and has made tremendous gains in the realm of foreign trade with stunning improvements in its balance of payments. The rate of economic growth of Cuba, 12% in 2006, was more than twice that of the average among the Caribbean countries.

In the Middle East, U.S. interests go far beyond Iran’s nuclear issue and the U.S. desire to limit nuclear weapons proliferation. The real question to be asked is what right does the U.S. have to go eight thousand miles from its shores wanting to undermine a sovereign nation? The objective of the containment is to prevent Iran from influencing the development of the national liberation movements in the region, while Britain and the U.S. have, for longer than a century, dominated the economic and political affairs of the countries in the region to serve the interests of their corporations and military dominance.

History of the last 27 years has shown that Iran has been capable of dodging the sanctions and breaking the chain of containment. The fact is proven that containment has never worked and is ineffective as an instrument of foreign policy. The U.S. is trying to treat Iran and the countries in the region the same way that the colonial powers did in the past centuries. In that era, the Arab sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf purchased their securities from the British Empire and later on from a new superpower, the United States.

The current U.S. invasion of Iraq and its inability to suppress the national resistance of the Iraqis has led to a lack of confidence even among the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, in U.S. capabilities of providing security for those regimes. On the differences between the U.S. and Iran, the masses of people in the countries of the Middle East and even in Turkey and Pakistan admire Iran’s courageous opposition to the presence of U.S. military forces in Iraq and the surrounding countries. The dominance of such a political atmosphere forces the semi-colonial rulers to deny the U.S. demands to establish or expand its military bases.

According to all indications, the peoples and even some governments of the Persian Gulf states regard Iran as a stabilizing force more than the U.S. scheme of democratization which has given rise to destruction, chaos and more resentment towards the U.S. and the West in general. The age of U.S. invincibility is by-gone. Furthermore, the U.S. watered-down victory in obtaining a resolution from the United Nations Security Council does not automatically translate into China or Russia’s support for the U.S. position that Iran poses a major and urgent threat to international security or even the settler regime of Israel. In its extension, the international community and not just the members of the security council, assembled in the 118-member of Non-Aligned Nations (NAM), supports Iran’s right of developing nuclear energy for the production of electrical power.

The fact has to be recognized that in the Middle East, Iran is a rising power and the U.S. is a falling giant. This picture was drawn by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin when he said that the U.S. and its western allies have to change their behavior, which is not only reckless but also does not reflect the new world balance of forces. It is a well-known fact that the use of tactical nuclear weapons or what is dubbed as “bunker busters” by the U.S. against Iran is strictly unacceptable to Russia and China. Short of being able to use nuclear weapons, the U.S. is now bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, and cannot afford entering into another war with a country three times the size of Iraq and impose a much greater burden on the already depleted human and financial resources of the American taxpayers. Given the current situation, the U.S. instead of counting on its war option, would do better if it expresses a plea for détente with Iran.

At this point in time, it is in the interest of the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and the United States, if Washington acknowledges Iran’s emergence as the most powerful country in the Persian Gulf and initiates a process of rapprochement with it before it is too late. Along this direction, no one can claim that Tehran has been non-cooperative. In its latest response to the joint proposal of the U.S. and major European countries, Iran expressed its desires for “long-term cooperation in security, economic and political and energy areas in order to achieve sustainable security in the region and long-term energy security.” It continued that “to resolve the issue at hand in a sustainable manner, there would be no alternative except to recognize and remove the underlying roots and causes that have led the two sides to the current complicated position.”

For the leadership and the peoples of Iran, a legitimate question is whether Iran’s interests are best served by appeasing the U.S. or they can do better by continuing to defend its legitimate rights. The eight-year war by Saddam Hossein which was supported by the U.S. militarily, financially and intelligence-wise, with no serious objections from the so-called international community taught the Iranian people and the veterans of the war an important lesson and that is self-reliance. According to the lesson learned, Iran’s interests can best be safeguarded by relying on the energy, creativity and hard work of the Iranian people.

The present leadership headed by Ayatollah Khamenie, and President Mahmood Ahmadinejad are strongly disdainful of empire and its real intent for any call for negotiations with conditions. To many Iranians, the leadership of the U.S. government is corrupt and the system governed by greed and global arrogance. The masses of people in the Middle East are aware that without the U.S. military and financial support for Israel, the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Zionist state would have come to an end a long time ago, because the American citizens who have occupied the Palestinian territories are more reactionary and more blood-thirsty than the Jews who lived in Palestine before WWII. The people of Lebanon are fully aware that the U.S. ruling class and its western allies are the root causes of sharp class division between the Christians in the north and the masses of poor Shi’ites in the south of that country.

There is practically no one on the planet earth who does not understand the architects of the carnage in Iraq, who are none other than the high-ranking officials in the corporate world and the U.S. government. The mass murder of 665,000 Iraqis and millions of injured and displaced speak clearly for themselves. These crimes are all done in the names of “human rights” “democracy” and “capitalist enterprise”. Last, but not least, are the U.S. protection for the reactionary, primitive and despotic puppet governments in the region, including the House of Saud, the King of Jordan and the undemocratic government of Egypt. For this reason the Arab masses not only despise their rulers but also Washington and London that keep them in power.

For those and many more reasons, the majority of the Iranians do not approve of the workings of the U.S. system, in which 2 million 300 thousand persons are in jails run by corporations, 45 million people are denied social healthcare, as many as 3.5 million people experience homelessness in a given year, out of which 5% are minors unaccompanied by adults and millions of American women are dealt like commodities to be bought and sold in the markets. To many the U.S. is a technologically advanced form of the Roman Empire. To them a country whose military budget exceeds the total budgets of the rest of the world is not a model of social justice or peace.

[Rasputin]

Former Iranian Defense Official Talks to Western Intelligence

A former Iranian deputy defense minister who once commanded the Revolutionary Guard has left his country and is cooperating with Western intelligence agencies, providing information on Hezbollah and Iran's ties to the organization, according to a senior U.S. official.

Ali Rez Asgari disappeared last month during a visit to Turkey. Iranian officials suggested yesterday that he may have been kidnapped by Israel or the United States. The U.S. official said Asgari is willingly cooperating. He did not divulge Asgari's whereabouts or specify who is questioning him, but made clear that the information Asgari is offering is fully available to U.S. intelligence.

Asgari served in the Iranian government until early 2005 under then-President Mohammad Khatami. Asgari's background suggests that he would have deep knowledge of Iran's national security infrastructure, conventional weapons arsenal and ties to Hezbollah in south Lebanon. Iranian officials said he was not involved in the country's nuclear program, and the senior U.S. official said Asgari is not being questioned about it. Former officers with Israel's Mossad spy agency said yesterday that Asgari had been instrumental in the founding of Hezbollah in the 1980s, around the time of the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

Iran's official news agency, IRNA, quoted the country's top police chief, Brig. Gen. Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqaddam, as saying that Asgari was probably kidnapped by agents working for Western intelligence agencies. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Asgari was in the United States. Another U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, denied that report and suggested that Asgari's disappearance was voluntary and orchestrated by the Israelis. A spokesman for President Bush's National Security Council did not return a call for comment.

The Israeli government denied any connection to Asgari. "To my knowledge, Israel is not involved in any way in this disappearance," said Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israel's foreign ministry.

An Iranian official, who agreed to discuss Asgari on the condition of anonymity, said that Iranian intelligence is unsure of Asgari's whereabouts but that he may have been offered money, probably by Israel, to leave the country. The Iranian official said Asgari was thought to be in Europe. "He has been out of the loop for four or five years now," the official said.

Israeli and Turkish newspapers reported yesterday that Asgari disappeared in Istanbul shortly after he arrived there on Feb. 7. Iran sent a delegation to Turkey to investigate his disappearance and requested help from Interpol in locating him.

Former Mossad director Danny Yatom, who is now a member of Israel's parliament, said he believes Asgari defected to the West. "He is very high-caliber," Yatom said. "He held a very, very senior position for many long years in Lebanon. He was in effect commander of the Revolutionary Guards" there.

Ram Igra, a former Mossad officer, said Asgari spent much of the 1980s and 1990s overseeing Iran's efforts to support, finance, arm and train Hezbollah. The State Department lists the Shiite Lebanese group as a terrorist organization.

"He lived in Lebanon and, in effect, was the man who built, promoted and founded Hezbollah in those years," Igra told Israeli state radio. "If he has something to give the West, it is in this context of terrorism and Hezbollah's network in Lebanon."

The organization, led by Hasan Nasrallah, is believed to have been behind several attacks against U.S., Jewish and Israeli interests worldwide, including the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans, and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed more than 80 people.

Israel fought a bloody, month-long war with Hezbollah last summer in south Lebanon after the group seized two Israeli soldiers. The soldiers have not been returned and their fate is unknown. Other Israeli soldiers have vanished in Lebanon during decades of conflict along the countries' shared border, most notably an Israeli airman named Ron Arad. Yatom said it is possible Asgari "knows quite a lot about Ron Arad."

In a January briefing to Congress, then-Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte described Hezbollah as a growing threat to U.S. interests. "As a result of last summer's hostilities, Hezbollah's self-confidence and hostility toward the United States as a supporter of Israel could cause the group to increase its contingency planning against United States interests," Negroponte said.

U.S. intelligence officials said they had no evidence that Hezbollah was actively planning attacks but noted that the organization has the capacity to do so if it feels threatened.

[Rasputin]

روزنامه آمريكايى لس آنجلس تايمز در گزارشى مدعى شده*كه "تهران و واشنگتن باوجودى كه به صورت علنى با يكديگر مذاكره نمي*كنند ولى از منافع مشتركى كه در صلح و منابع خاورميانه وجود دارد، برخوردارند و همين مساله باعث شده تا آنها به صورت پنهانى در حال مذاكره باشند."
لس آنجلس تايمز روز جمعه نوشت: كاخ سفيد تاكيد مي*كند آمريكا تا زمانى كه ايران برنامه هسته*اى خود را به حالت تعليق در نياورد با تهران مذاكره نخواهد كرد اين درحالى است كه مقامات آمريكايى گاهى تحت نقاب سازمان ملل بيش از يك دهه است كه با همتايان ايرانى خود به صورت مستقيم مذاكره كرده*اند.

به نوشته اين روزنامه ، تاريخ اندكى از تماس*هاى بين ايران و آمريكا كه روابط خود را پس از پايان بحران گروگان*گيرى در سال ۱۹۸۰قطع كرده اند وجود دارد كه نشان*دهنده وجود سوء تفاهم و از دست دادن فرصت*ها است.

اين روزنامه نوشت:همكارى ميان دو طرف در مورد افغانستان، عراق و القاعده بجاى گرم تر شدن روابط باعث افزايش بي*اعتمادى و نگرانى در ميان آنها شده و اين درحالى است كه مقامات و نمايندگان دو طرف هم اكنون آماده شده*اند تا در كنفرانس منطقه*اى همسايگان عراق شركت كنند.

لس آنجلس تايمز مي*نويسد:ديويد ساترفيلد مشاور ويژه وزير امور خارجه آمريكا در امور عراق نيز اعلام كرد در اين كنفرانس بار ديگر اتهامات واشنگتن عليه تهران، مبنى بر حمايت ايران از شبه نظاميان شيعى عراق را تكرار خواهد كرد. وى در عين حال با اشاره به اينكه در اين كنفرانس به دنبال نمايندگان ايران نخواهد بود اظهار داشت در صورت مواجه شدن با آنها نيز از آنها دورى نخواهد كرد.

""ايران و آمريكا برغم چند دهه تنش داراى منافع مشتركى در امنيت و منابع خاورميانه هستند.

تونى اسنو سخنگوى كاخ سفيد نيز هفته گذشته گفته بود "مساله اين است كه از نظر ما ايرانيان مي*توانند نقش مثبتى را براى ايجاد صلح در منطقه ايفا كنند و كارهاى خوبى را نيز براى خود و مردم خود انجام دهند. ما هم به تلاش*هاى خود ادامه خواهيم داد تا آنها را تشويق به انجام اين كار نماييم لذا اگر آنها به دنبال روابط دو جانبه باشند اين به آنها بستگى دارد."
توافقاتى كه پيش از اين به صورت مخفيانه ميان دو طرف صورت گرفته نتايج بدى به همراه داشته است. در دهه ۱۹۸۰دولت ريگان تصميم گرفت براى جلب حمايت ايران از آزادى گروگان*هاى آمريكايى در لبنان به تهران سلاح بفروشد كه در نهايت به رسوايى ايران كنترا منجر شد.

در ۱۹۹۴نيز كه آمريكا قول داده بود به تحريم*هاى تسليحاتى سازمان ملل عمل كند، بيل كلينتون رييس جمهورى اسبق آمريكا به صورت مخفيانه از ارسال تسليحات تهران به مسلمانان بوسنى چشم پوشى كرد. با افشاى اين طرح در سال ۱۹۹۶انتقادات زيادى از دولت كلينتون صورت گرفت و باعث شد آمريكا و ايران به رهبرى محمد خاتمى رييس جمهورى وقت ايران نتوانند روابط خود را گسترده*تر سازند.

در سال ۱۹۹۹نيز كلينتون پيشنهاد مذاكره*اى "موثق و بدون شرط" با تهران را مطرح كرد ولى ايران تاكيد كرد آمريكا بايد نخست به تحريم*هاى خود عليه آن پايان دهد.

در پايان نيز اين سازمان ملل بود كه پناهگاه ديپلماتيك محتاطانه*اى را براى مذاكره دو كشور فراهم نمود. در سال ،۱۹۹۸اخضر ابراهيمى از ديپلمات*هاى سازمان ملل گروهى تحت عنوان " "۲+۶را تشكيل داد كه وظيفه آن تشكيل جلسه در سازمان ملل براى درگيري*هاى افغانستان بود. اين گروه شامل شش كشور همسايه افغانستان يعنى چين، پاكستان، ايران، تركمنستان، ازبكستان، تاجيكستان، و همچنين روسيه و آمريكا بود.

ابراهيمى در مصاحبه خود با روزنامه لس آنجلس تايمز گفت:به ياد مي*آورم ديپلمات*هاى ايرانى و آمريكايى مي*گفتند اين نخستين بار است كه در كنار هم در يك اتاق كوچك هستند.

در سال ۲۰۰۱نيز سازمان ملل براى تسهيل تماس*ها بين ايران و آمريكا گروه ديگرى را موسوم به "ابتكار ژنو" تشكيل داد كه علاوه بر ايران و آمريكا شامل ايتاليا و آلمان نيز بود.

به گفته ابراهيمي، "اين گروه واقعا تنها پوششى بود كه به ايرانيان و آمريكايي*ها اجازه دهيم با يكديگر ملاقات كنند. پس از اندكى من به آنها گفتم نيازى نيست كه در هر زمان كه شما مذاكره مي*كنيد ايتاليايي*ها و آلماني*ها نيز حضور داشته باشند پس از آن نيز وقتى فقط ما بوديم و آنها، من از سر ميز بلند مي*شدم و به آنها مي*گفتم شما را تنها مي*گذارم." پس از حملات ۱۱سپتامبر نيز آمريكا و ايران از دشمن مشتركى به نام طالبان برخوردار بودند. در روزهاى پيش از آغاز حمله به افغانستان در اكتبر ، ۲۰۰۱مقامات آمريكايى و ايرانى نشست*هاى فشرده*اى را براى هماهنگ كردن همكاري*ها بين نيروهاى آمريكايى و نيروهاى ضد طالبان كه مورد حمايت ايران بودند برگزار كردند.

اين همكاري*ها به صورت ديپلماتيك نيز ادامه يافت و در كنفرانس دسامبر ۲۰۰۱بن كه به تشكيل دولت موقت افغانستان منجر شد ديپلمات*هاى ايرانى نقش بسيار مهمى را ايفا كردند و در حقيقت جواد ظريف نماينده كنونى ايران در سازمان ملل متحد بود كه "يونس قانونى" از حزب جبهه شمال را به پذيرفتن ساختار دولت موقت افغانستان متقاعد كرد.

در اين زمان ايران كاملا نشان داده بود كه به برگزارى مذاكرات استراتژيك گسترده تر با آمريكا علاقمند است ولى به گفته جيمز دوبينز James Dobbinsكه در آن زمان نماينده وزارت امور خارجه آمريكا در اين كنفرانس بود، آمريكا در آن زمان فكر مي*كرد از دست برتر برخوردار است و به همين علت پيشنهادات ايران را رد كرد.

كالين پاول وزير امور خارجه وقت آمريكا نيز بجز براى ايران، طى نامه اى از همه وزراى امور خارجه*اى كه در اين كنفرانس شركت كرده بود تشكر كرد.

شش*هفته پس از آن نيز جرج بوش رييس جمهورى آمريكا در سخنرانى ساليانه سال ۲۰۰۲خود ايران را يكى از اعضاى محور شرارت خواند ايرانيان كه انتظار داشتند بخاطر كمك*هاى خود در افغانستان نوعى پاداش ديپلماتيك دريافت كنند اين اقدام آمريكا را سيلى بر صورت خود تلقى كردند.

باوجود اين مساله ديپلمات*هاى ايرانى تا يك سال بعد در كابل با زلمى خليلزاد سفير آمريكا در افغانستان ديدار كردند كه غالبا در ويلاى سازمان ملل صورت مي*گرفت. در آن زمان نيز خليلزاد در كنفرانس بن حضور داشت و اين بار نيز او به عنوان سفير آمريكا در عراق در كنفرانس بغداد حضور خواهد داشت.

مذاكرات در مورد افغانستان بسيار گسترده تر و شامل ديگر مسائل استراتژيك نيز شد. به گفته ابراهيمي، "آنها قطعا در مورد القاعده و عراق صحبت كردند ولى نمي*دانم تا چه اندازه در مورد مسائل ديگرى همچون از سرگيرى روابط ديپلماتيك بحث كردند زيرا تا زمانى كه ما حضور داشتيم در اين مورد حرف نمي*زدند."
در عين حال ايران جسورتر شده بود. در ماه مه ۲۰۰۳دو صفحه نمابر به وزارت امور خارجه آمريكا رسيد كه "نقشه راه" براى عادي*سازى روابط ميان ايران و آمريكا بود. اين طرح كه مورد حمايت رهبران ارشد سياسى و مذهبى ايران قرار گرفته بود شامل تمامى اختلافات ميان دو كشور و همچنين نگرانى ها در مورد برنامه هسته*اى ايران بود.

رايس كه در آن زمان مديريت شوراى امنيت ملى آمريكا را برعهده داشت گفته هرگز چنين يادداشتى را مشاهده نكرده و بوش نيز دريافت چنين نامه*اى را تصديق نكرده است.

به گفته "تريتا پارسى" Trita Parsiرييس شوراى ملى ايرانيان آمريكا كه سعى كرده بود نسخه ديگرى از اين پيام را به كاخ سفيد برساند اظهار داشت در عوض دولت آمريكا سفير سوئيس در تهران را بخاطر اينكه پاى خود را بيش از گليم خود دراز كرده بود مورد سرزنش قرار داد.

در آن زمان آمريكا در منطقه خاورميانه در اوج قدرت قرار داشت. ارتش آن در عراق بود، ايران هنوز غني*سازى اورانيوم را آغاز نكرده بود و محمد خاتمى كه يك اصلاح طلب بود هنوز رييس جمهور ايران بود ولى پس از آن دارايي*هاى دو كشور تغيير كرد.

ايرانيان محمود احمدى نژاد را به عنوان رييس جمهور خود انتخاب كردند و تهران برغم قطعنامه*هاى شوراى امنيت برنامه غني*سازى اورانيوم خود را پيش برد. نفوذ ايران در عراق، افغانستان و لبنان نيز باعث ارتقاى موضع منطقه*اى ايران گرديده و در نتيجه هزينه جلب همكاري*هاى آن بسيار بيشتر شده است.

به گفته ظريف سفير ايران در سازمان ملل ، در ژانويه ۲۰۰۶نيز آمريكا از ايران خواست در مورد عراق با يكديگر مذاكره كنند و خليلزاد نيز اجازه داشت برگزارى ديدارهايى بين مقامات ايرانى و آمريكايى را هماهنگ كند ولى وقتى تهران با اين پيشنهاد موافقت كرد كاخ سفيد تغيير عقيده داد و برگزارى مذاكره ميان دو طرف را لغو نمود.

برخى از تحليل گران نيز معتقدند كاخ سفيد همچنان پيام*هاى مختلطى به تهران ارسال مي*كند. "فلينت لورت" Flynt Leverettاز تحليلگران سابق سازمان سيا و از كارشناسان مسائل خاورميانه در وزارت امور خارجه آمريكا كه هم اكنون در بنياد آمريكاى جديد فعاليت مي*كند نيز مي*گويد: "ما در همان زمانى كه سعى مي*كنيم آنها را در شوراى امنيت مورد تحريم قرار دهيم سعى مي*كنيم كمك آنها در عراق را نيز جلب كنيم چرا آنها بايد كمك كنند؟" جان بولتون سفير سابق آمريكا در سازمان ملل متحد و از حاميان اصلى تغيير حكومت ايران نيز در مصاحبه*اى با لس آنجلس تايمز گفته است منافع ايران و آمريكا در عراق به اندازه منافع آنها در افغانستان مشترك و منظم نيست.

به گفته وى مشخص نيست كه آيا ايرانيان همچون افغانستان نقش "مثبتى" را در عراق ايفا خواهند كرد يا خير و البته من اينگونه فكر نمي*كنم زيرا اينگونه نيست كه اگر آنها به مداخلات خود در عراق پايان دهند ما اجازه دهيم برنامه هسته*اى آنها ادامه يابد.

دوبينز نيز خاطر نشان كرده است از درس*هايى كه آمريكا از افغانستان گرفته، اين است كه ايران حرف اول و آخر را در وضعيت كنونى مي*زند. به گفته وي، "اگر ما نتوانيم كمك ايرانيان براى با ثبات كردن وضعيت را جلب كنيم، منطقه با ثبات نخواهد شد. در پايان، تنها كشورى كه از نفوذ كافى و توانايى لازم براى ايفاى نقش خوب و بد برخوردار است ايران است.

[Rasputin]