When Propaganda Becomes Heroic

Author: Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
Source: Asharq Al-Awsat
Date: 2009-04-23

The Iranian regime rejoiced because of the withdrawal of European countries and the boycott by the United States and others of the address by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad at the World Conference against Racism [Durban II] in Switzerland, and the Israeli dispute with the host country that followed that address.

For decades, the Iranian regime has been engaged in propaganda skirmishes against Israel. Both sides benefit from the echoes of these skirmishes. In the verbal threat to erase it from existence, and in being targeted by the aspired for nuclear bomb and ballistic missiles Israel finds an excuse to gain sympathy and funds, and to evade the international demand to fulfill its commitments to the Palestinians. As for Iran, it is pleased with the applaud, proud of the admiration of the Arab and Muslim worlds that consider anyone who challenges Israel a hero, without thinking of the reality of heroism.

Iran imitates the steps of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who lived most years of his reign in a verbal conflict with Israel, and who had been pleased and proud of the heroism he was achieving in the Arab street, a heroism for which he ultimately paid everything he had including his life. Even during Saddam's dependence on the west in fighting Iran in the eighties, he deliberately made trouble for the west thinking that this was one of the necessary requirements of regional leadership. Saddam arrested a wretched British journalist who was visiting Baghdad, and executed him on the pretext that he was a spy. Saddam held press conferences to ridicule accusations that he was pursuing the manufacture of nuclear weapons; at the same time he threatened to burn half of Israel. About one year after that, indeed he burned half of Kuwait, and dispersed its people. However, from that day the bell rang for the end of his regime.

Ahmadinejad to a great extent imitates Saddam in his speeches, press conferences and interviews, and long-distance provocation of the west ranging from imprisoning a woman journalist to the burning of the flags at the rallies, and to threatening to burn Israel by nuclear weapons.

At the same time, most of the heroism of Ahmadinejad is verbal. He has never confronted Israel, and his Revolutionary Guard has never engaged with any Israeli in any place or on any occasion, except through others, such as the Lebanese Hezbollah. This is what Saddam did, as he used to employ Abu-al-Abbas and Abu-Nidal in confrontation operations against the Israelis, or against the Arabs hostile to him.

We are facing the same language, project, and promises that create a demagogic leadership, while if Iran were to confront Israel by itself, and not via the Lebanese or Palestinian Hamas, we would have been obliged to consider its leadership as true.

The question is: Where will President Ahmadinejad take his country, Iran, through his extremism? I see him follow the same way Saddam followed. It is a way that will force him tomorrow to engage in a confrontation for which he is not planning. This is despite the fact that we ought to say that the Iranian regime differs from Saddam's rule by the existence of real powers that might not allow Ahmadinejad to lead them too far toward a confrontation with the west or Israel. These powers are trying to utilize the verbal leadership in collecting negotiating points to be used at the right time for political gains.

Whatever the case may be, we lose as a result of the Iranian verbal confrontations, we lose as a result of real military confrontations, we lose as a result of an Iranian victory, and we lose as a result of an Iranian loss. Any confrontation is costly for the region. Such confrontations do not restore a right or establish a state. Here we are living in fictitious heroisms from Nasser to Saddam, and now to Ahmadinejad.

____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews

Lebanese Shiite Cleric: US and Iran can Cooperate

Author:
Source: AP

Date: 2009-04-15

BEIRUT, (AP) – Lebanon's top Shiite cleric said Tuesday he believes cooperation is possible between Iran and the United States under the Obama administration, although he discounted any hope of an alliance between the adversaries.
Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah said in an interview with The Associated Press that he believes President Barack Obama is sincere in trying to improve what the cleric called America's "ugly image" in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Fadlallah is a former spiritual guide to the Iran-backed Hezbollah and is still influential with many Shiite militants. In the interview, Fadlallah said his ties with Iran are good despite "divergent viewpoints" on some issues, which he did not explain. Iranian officials who come to Lebanon often visit the cleric.
Fadlallah, 73, is the top religious authority for Lebanon's estimated 1.2 million Shiites, the country's largest sect.
Since he took office in January, Obama has reached out to Iran publicly in speeches. His administration has also reversed the policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush, and said it is willing to negotiate directly with Iran over its nuclear program, which is one of the main areas of strain.
Obama also has reached out to Syria, which had been isolated by the Bush administration because of its support for militant groups.
During a visit to Turkey last week, Obama addressed the wider Muslim world, declaring that the U.S. "is not and never will be at war with Islam."
Fadlallah said there is "a chance for dialogue" between America and the European Union on the one hand, and Iran on the other, over Tehran's nuclear program and issues that concern the U.S., such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
"Iran's steadfastness and its ability to enter the stage of military and nuclear industry have forced Western countries to talk to it from a position different from before," he said.
Fadlallah ruled out the possibility of a U.S.-Iran alliance to end regional conflicts. "But it is very possible for the two countries to establish normal relations," he said.
U.S.-Iranian ties were cut in 1979 after hardline students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
Fadlallah discounted the possibility of a U.S.-backed Israeli airstrike against Tehran's nuclear facilities but said the new hardline government in Israel could wage war on the Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon.
Fadlallah, who was among those who lashed out at Bush's policies in the Middle East, acknowledged Obama's push to improve America's standing.
"We have heard beautiful words (from Obama). But the problem is what are the realistic means that could turn these words into a reality?" Fadlallah said, echoing similar statements by Iranian officials.
"He (Obama) is trying to improve the image," he said. "But the problem is that America is not a state based on individuals. It's a state based on institutions."
He said support for Israel from some members of the U.S. Congress and pro-Israel lobby groups could pose an obstacle to improving ties with the Arab world.
The black-turbaned, white-bearded cleric said the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking efforts presented the new U.S. administration with its first test as to whether Obama would be able to pressure Israel to compromise.
Fadlallah has had a turbulent relationship with the United States. He was spiritual mentor for Hezbollah during the 1980s, when pro-Iranian militants linked to the group were blamed for kidnapping Westerners and bombing the Marine base in Beirut, killing more than 260 Americans.
Fadlallah has denied links to the bombings and has in the last decade taken a conciliatory stand on Islam's relations with the West, condemning attacks that killed civilians.
In the interview, Fadlallah rejected Egyptian accusations that Hezbollah had recruited agents to carry out attacks in Egypt, saying they were meant to "tarnish the image" of the militant group which fought Israel in southern Lebanon.
On Sunday, Egyptian Attorney General Abdel-Meguid Mahmoud added espionage to the charges against 49 alleged Hezbollah agents, in addition to plotting to destabilize the country.
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah has rejected the accusations but confirmed that it had sent a member to Egypt to help militant Palestinian allies in Gaza.

Is Larijani Serious?

Author: Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
Source: Asharq Al-Awsat
Date: 2009-04-14

He must be kidding, or perhaps just confirming the fiction's reality. I am talking about the statement attributed to the moderate politician and Speaker of the Iranian parliament, Ali Larijani in which he said that the aim behind the arrest of a Hezbollah cell in Egypt is aimed at influencing the elections in Lebanon. How could the story of the arrest of a Lebanese national involved in establishing a clandestine and armed cell in Cairo affect Lebanese votes when voters have already decided how they will vote? The Shiites will vote for Shiite candidates, the Sunnis will vote for Sunnite candidates, the Christians living in Sunni areas, and their allies, will vote for Christian candidates, while the Christians living in Shiite areas will also vote for Christian candidates, the Druze will mostly vote for Druze candidates, and so on. How can the Egyptians influence the parliamentary elections [in Lebanon]? On the contrary, if this crisis has any impact – however improbable – it will be to ensure that each Lebanese voters votes according to his sect. Lebanon has settled upon being divided following the assassination of Rafik Al Hariri and other figures of his [political] trend. This division has deepened following Hezbollah's occupation of Western Beirut which sparked a Sunni – Shiite war.

Perhaps if uncovering a Hezbollah cell in Egypt has any public impact it would first be felt in Iran. If elections and expression in Iran are truly free then external entanglements will be an electoral issue. However the majority of Iranians do not listen to or read about what is being said abroad about their regime due to the strict censorship [in Iran]. What happened in Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Lebanon, and other places should have created an Iranian popular trend opposing the regime's extremist trend, but this did not and will not happen under the present circumstances [in Iran].

Indeed this did happen once before, and the Iranian people were sparked to anger to the point that the Lebanese ambassador was forced to retract his acceptance of financial aid from the Tehran municipality following the Hezbollah – Israel war. The Tehran residences flared up, and condemned the actions of their Mayor who had pledged municipality money [to Lebanon] that was supposed to go towards municipal services for the community, and which the Tehran residents had paid for themselves.

It is the right of every Iranian citizen to ask why they should pay for the activities that are taking place in the mountains of Yemen, the plains of Lebanon, and the neighborhoods of Cairo. If the citizens knew all this then their position would certainly be different, which is what happened with regards to the Mayor of Tehran. These citizens will no longer be satisfied to be cash-cows to finance Hezbollah's activities, or Ahmadinejad's government.

There is a lot of evidence pointing to the tripartite relationship between Hezbollah, the Tehran regime and the cell [in Egypt]. Apart from the admission of Hezbollah's Secretary-General himself [of this connection], there is also the fact that previously in public and in front of news agencies, youth were recruited in Iran to assassinate the Egyptian president. This was timed to coincide with the cell's activities.

The picture is now clear. Tehran would publicly call for the assassination of the Egyptian president, Hezbollah would officially urge that the Egyptian regime be overthrown and call for the [Egyptian] military to carry out a coup d'état. At the same time it would send a clandestine cell lead by a Hezbollah military officer to Cairo. How could all of this just be media speculation?

What is even stranger is this talk about influencing the Lebanese elections. Is it rational to uncover a dangerous military cell operating inside your country against you, and then be denounced when you speak of this so as not to affect the Lebanese elections?

____________________________

Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews