by William Skink
Within these here United States, the chatter surrounding the Iran deal is reaching fever-pitch. The collective freak-out of the GOP is the most useful instrument to keep the conversation corralled to the two party binary, where the GOP play the role reactionary warmongers frothing for military confrontation (to appease their racist base and even more racist allegiance to Israel) and Democrats play the role of reasonable diplomats, the adults in the room, so to speak.
The hubris and arrogance from both sides of this American conversation mask the extreme limitations of our national perspective. A few months ago, Ayatollah Khamenei made a fiery speech days after the Iran deal was signed, vowing to maintain Iranian opposition to US foreign policy in the region. Kerry was disturbed:
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran’s nuclear program was “very disturbing”.
“I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday.
“But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling,” he added.
Ayatollah Khamenei told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were “180 degrees” opposed to Iran’s, at a speech in a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.
(emphasis added)
At The Saker, Sayed Hasan has a piece (translated from French) titled Iran Deal: the Islamic Republic sticks to its guns. Here is how Hasan interprets Iran’s resolve to be a presence of opposition to the violent oppression of US foreign policy:
Sayed Khamenei also wished to reaffirm the inviolable principles of the Islamic Republic and its foreign policy, for which no compromise, no negotiations are even considered. The Iran/US dialogue stops at the nuclear issue and is not intended to extend to other issues. The hostility of Iran to the US government, considered “the heart of global Arrogance” is unconditional, as well as its hostility to the State of Israel: “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” will remain the fundamental slogans, constituting the very identity of the Islamic Republic and the Iranian people – and John Kerry should know that it is much more than mere rhetoric . In this way and predictably , Sayed Khamenei reaffirmed the unwavering support of the Islamic Republic to the oppressed peoples of the region, be it humanitarian, diplomatic and moral support for Bahrain and Yemen, or total support (economic, financial , military, etc.) for the countries and movements of the growing Resistance Axis – Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other factions of the Palestinian resistance. Moreover, Sayed Khamenei did not even make this distinction, simply speaking of ongoing – and obviously increasing – support to all.
Finally, Sayed Khamenei referred to the march of History by emphasizing the many mistakes and setbacks of the United States since the end of World War II, sure to be repeated. The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, which is also the ultimate authority to which refer tens of millions of Shiite Muslims around the world, both in the East and the West – including Hezbollah, who consider him nothing less than the politic and religious leader of the Islamic Community as a whole – confirms that far from being an arch-conservative , as claimed by Western propaganda, he remains at the forefront of international political and social struggles, following the example of a country such as Cuba. This can be difficult to conceive of in the West, historically used to seeing “traditional” religious authorities, such as the Pope for the Catholic Church, have conservative and even reactionary positions on many international political and social issues and be committed to maintaining the established order and teaching resignation to the peoples. Yet, it truly is on Islam and in its name that the Islamic Republic bases its internationalist policy of fighting against oppression and helping the destitute, and Iran is without any doubt destined to play a leading role in the world of tomorrow.
Americans must be prevented from being exposed to this perspective. ISIS is the great evil, a new evolution of enemy sprouting from the violence and chaos we have unleashed, not some tool of US allies in the region.
Luckily, the fascist security state continues to move toward criminalizing dissent, making it less and less likely that journalists and academic scholars will risk their own freedom to inform the public:
When the U.S. Department of Defense published a new Law of War Manual (LOW) this past summer, editorialists at the New York Times sat up and took notice. Their concern was that the manual stated that journalists could be deemed “unprivileged belligerents.” The editorial explained that as a legal term “that applies to fighters that are afforded fewer protections than the declared combatants in a war.” In fact, it is far more insidious than that innocuous description.
Here is the manual’s definition: “‘Unlawful combatants’ or ‘unprivileged belligerents’ are persons who, by engaging in hostilities, have incurred one or more of the corresponding liabilities of combatant status (e.g., being made the object of attack and subject to detention), but who are not entitled to any of the distinct privileges of combatant status (e.g., combatant immunity and POW status).”
The key phrase here is “being made the object of attack.” For slow-witted New York Times editorialists, that means journalists can be killed as can any enemy soldier in wartime. “Subject to detention” means a journalist deemed an unprivileged belligerent will be put into military detention if captured. As with any enemy belligerent, however, if “capture is not feasible,” they would be killed if possible, by drone perhaps if in a foreign country.
These trends, pushed in earnest under Bush after 9/11, have continued, and in some instances, even accelerated under Obama. But that can’t be fathomed within the two party binary, especially by lesser evil Democrat cheerleaders promoting electing Democrats as the first step to righting the wrongs of imperial US intervention.
Sometimes one can find an honest statement about how the US operates abroad. At The Intercept, a short, two paragraph excerpt from a 2013 Washington Post article makes this surprisingly direct statement about what side of the security/Democracy divide Obama has chose to conduct US foreign policy. For context, the Post article is describing the Obama administration’s growing alliances with regimes in Africa known to be blatant violators of human-rights:
Human-rights groups have also accused the U.S. government of holding its tongue about political repression in Ethiopia, another key security partner in East Africa.
“The countries that cooperate with us get at least a free pass,” acknowledged a senior U.S. official who specializes in Africa but spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution. “Whereas other countries that don’t cooperate, we ream them as best we can.”
When you leave the bubble of American media you can see a bit clearer why America has no credibility when it comes to its criticisms of non-cooperating countries violations of human rights, because if you’re a cooperating country, you can go ahead and imprison, kill or torture whoever the state wants without repercussion.
When those who argue for an American led unipolar world, I hope they take into consideration the total absence of morals and values involved in conducting foreign policy. This is what those who wield power really think: fuck democracy and fuck human rights. Despite a more articulate Democrat in the White House, you’re either with us or against us is still the operating principle.
And we’ll get more of the same with Hillary or Bernie.
JC
The question of ISIS is open, in my mind, until I know where it gets its weapons, funding, and how serious the U.S. Is in fighting it rather than assisting it.
It is true that the rank and file of such a collection are the natural product of US bombs falling on the region since 1991. But young Muslim men are highly susceptible to manipulation, just as young American men are. The leadership they follow might have different objectives.
Democrats playing the role of reasonable diplomats? How ’bout playing the roles of fools?
This reversion to Democrats vs Republicans as the antidote to political problems is endemic, I think. It cannot be stamped out. People are thought to think that way as children, and do so the rest of their lives. It’s a herd management technique, very effective in the cattle and sheep business.
I think the sheep are revolting Mark. The current leaders in the R field are political outsiders and the established D leader is sucking wind.
Cannot help you there Swede. If you think it is all for real, I have a bridge for sale.
Can I assume from your comment that Hill and Bush will meet in the final contest?
Choose your flavor of bread, choose your circus, have fun!
Yeah, it’s media and/or America’s fault. How ’bout this for a different perspective?
Instead of calling them refugees or Syrians or immigrants this guy should just call them subhumans. That’s his underlying message.
The real story is this: the refugees are trying to escape untold misery. Why else would they cross the Mediterranean in elbow-room only inflatable rafts? They’re not coming to Western Europe to exploit its liberal social policies, they just want to stay alive.
With somewhere between 500,000 and a million Middle Eastern immigrants moving into Germany, a country with over 80 million people, he’s concerned that Germany is going to be transformed into a Islamic caliphate. Not likely.
It’s a pretty slick speech he gives, but deep down, you know the guy’s a white supremacist. He’s articulate and passionate, but wrong. Although secular now, Western Europe has deep roots in the Christian religion. Many aspects of Christianity have been exploited over the centuries by those in positions of power, but there are fundamentals (at least in the New Testament) that remain important: generosity, charity, benevolence, helping your fellow man. In these, the speaker is totally lacking.
Although I have to say, if the tribes in North America had adopted this guy’s stance, you wouldn’t have all those Irish, Norwegians, Italians, Poles, you name it, running around here.
He’s not a fan of Christianity or any religion. He’s states several times the importance of a divided church and state.
But rather than defending him I’d like you to ponder exactly how middle easterners have assimilated so far in Europe and why our forefathers have embraced the American culture?
I saw that, Swede, and I, too, believe in the separation of church and state. There are tenets of Christianity, though, that Western Cultures should hold dear, as I mention above. Otherwise, we don’t have a leg to stand on.
As to assimilation, how, in a short amount of time, is it successful anywhere in the world. Chinese in the U.S.? Pakistanis and Indians in the U.K.? Takes awhile, doesn’t it? A lot of it is based on a country’s willingness to help immigrants assimilate.
The Brookings Institute had an informational piece on Middle Eastern immigrants’ assimilation in Europe:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/08/18-muslim-europe-hamid
The Brookings institute is lacking factual information which to me seems to under state the problems that have existed before this mass migration.
I’m happy to share crime stats, % on assistance, resistance to learn the hosts languages, lack of education, stress and strain of the HC systems, etc. But somehow I’m thinking I’m wasting my time.
Share away, Swede.
I was thinking I’d type some of these stats out, but what the hell.
https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com
That’s a helluva site, Swede. I’d like to know who’s behind it.
I wonder why there is no coordinated condemnation of Russia for their anti-refugee “white-supremacist” stance on Syrian refugees. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11856922/Russia-refuses-to-help-Syrian-refugees.html
Two wrongs make a right?
Subtitle to your linked article, Craig: “Russia refuses to join any scheme.” I’d put emphasis on the word “scheme” (meaning U.S. attempts to form a coalition to take down Assad — a better word would be “coup”). After all, who is it that is prodding middle east and european countries to deny overflights to Russian aircraft carrying humanitarian relief supplies to Syrian refugee camps? Yeah, that would be us, as in U.S.
And what do you expect from Russia re: taking in refugees? The article clearly states that Russia believes that refugees would be infiltrated by ISIS terrorists. Times of Israel reports 2% of refugees are ISIS terrorists (the regional refugee camps are a recruiting hotbed for ISIS) — coming soon to a refugee/terrorist camp near you! And only the naive refuse to believe or understand that ISIS is a contrivance to 1) take down Assad, and 2) destabilize southern parts of Russia.
And how many refugees has the U.S. taken in? Around 1,500 (out of nearly 5 million possible), and how about our chief allies in the area? Saudi Arabia: 0, Israel: 0, Qatar: 0.
So why beat up on Russia, that has a legitimate reason to keep ISIS infiltrators out? Oh, yeah… propaganda rulez! And the Telegraph is a main megaphone.
I agree with just about everything you wrote, JC, except Russia’s excuse that immigrants would be full of ISIS terrorists. Not one of the EU nations, that are taking in tens of thousands, has used that as an excuse because it’s a lame one.
My want to rethink the “scheme” theory.
“Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time.
Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Since it was made, in 2012, tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions uprooted, causing the world’s gravest refugee crisis since the second world war.”-Guardian
I enjoy stories like this from the Western media, always falling back on passive voice to distance Wester agents for the “gravest refugees crisis since Workd War II.” Must have been caused by God, no?
Of course, there are two other far worse refugee crisis since WWII that do not bear mention, as each was caused by Western agents: The Kurds, and Palestinians. But those are unmentionable.
Two wrongs have nothing to do with the lack of condemning Russia for their anti-refugee policy.
I just saw that the top turd polisher in Obama’s Pentagon had a rough day. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/16/obama-s-general-just-set-his-isis-war-plan-on-fire.html
Perhaps Russia will take the refugees from Burkina Faso.
Maybe the U.S. will take refugees from Yemen…