Professor Joseph Samuel Nye Jr. is the former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He currently serves on the Harvard faculty as a University Distinguished Service Professor. Along with Robert Keohane, he founded the theory of “neo-liberalism” in international relations, and more recently coined the often-used phrases of “soft power” and “smart power”. He is one of the world’s foremost intellectuals in the fields of political science, diplomacy and international relations. A 2011 TRIP survey ranked him as the sixth most influential scholar in the field of international relations in the last twenty years, and in October 2014 he was appointed by the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to the Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

following is the Interview of Mojtaba Mousavi with Dr. Joseph Nye which first published in the October issue of the Age of Reflection monthly. 

A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall – November 1989. Many strategic analysts believe that the United States is still using the same pattern of collapse of communism in the East bloc to confront Iran. In the “Soft Power: The Means To Success In World Politics”, you have pointed to the American experience as well as the designation of the Marshall Plan as the means to undermine the Soviet soft power components. Do you believe that the same pattern can be adopted from the Cold War to undermine Iran’s soft power?

I do not think the situation of Iran today is like the Cold War. Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union collapsed from it own internal economic contradictions. The Marshall Plan was forty years earlier and designed to help West European economies recover from the devastation of World War II. The Soviet Union lost soft power after its invasions on Hungary and Czechoslovakia.  If there is a lesson in this for Iran, it is to free up its markets and society, and beware of interventions in neighboring countries.

This rationale has major drawbacks: essentially because Soviet Russia and Iran are profoundly different in not just their ideological makeup but the nature of their soft power. Iran’s Islamic Republic draws its narrative from Shia Islam, while Soviet Russia was born from atheist Marxism. Several critics of the US actually believe the country has ignored those fundamental and philosophical differences which exist in between Iran and Soviet Russia. How do you understand Washington’s position vis-à-vis Iran and are we seeing a repeat of the Cold War strategy here? In which case can this approach really serve the US?

 That is correct, but remember that Shia Islam is a minority and Iran should be wary of intervening in sectarian disputes. I do not see this as a repeat of a Cold War strategy. President Obama expressed an openness to dialogue right from the beginning of his presidency. Iran was initially reluctant to engage in that dialogue.

Although the Soviet Union collapsed and communism was to some degree defeated – Russia after all came to embrace capitalism, Moscow nevertheless preserved its political independence by remaining a non-aligned superpower. Is it not possible therefore to envisage that Iran will accomplish such feat – in that its goals might stray from the initial “revolutionary mindset” but still act an opposition to American imperialism? After all there are more than one way to resist and challenge.

 Capitalism in Russia is highly distorted by corruption. As I show in my book, “Is the American Century Over?” Russia is heavily dependent on one “crop” (energy) for two thirds of its exports. It also faces a demographic decline. This is not good, because declining powers often take greater risks such as Putin engages in now in his invasion of Ukraine and his intervention in Syria. I have no idea what the future of Iran will be, but it would be a mistake to model it on Russia.

President Richard Nixon called the US’ negotiations with Soviet Russia a “victory without war”. What President Nixon introduced and President Ronald Reagan followed into was a series of non-military actions which led to the ‘internal collapse’ of a country.President Barack Obama alluded a similar strategy, when,  in an interview  he argued that the path taken by both Nixon and Reagan vis-à-vis the Soviet Union and China inspired his own policies. Taking into account that his comments were made on the wake of the Iranian nuclear deal do you think the US is looking for “containment” instead of a real rapprochement? Is Obama replicating a Cold War scenario?

As I said above, I do not think Obama is following a Cold War strategy. My personal view is that the Middle East is involved in decades long series of revolutions, primarily in Sunni areas, which outsiders like the United States have little capacity to control.  In that sense, containing the spread of ISIS and its successors makes sense, but large scale intervention like the war in Iraq does not make sense. Where Iran will fit in all this will depend on Iran’s behavior.

Will this Iran nuclear deal lead to an increase of America’s footprint in the ME and therefore see Iran lose influence?

I do not think the Iran nuclear deal will increase the US footprint nor necessarily erode Iran’s influence.  Much will depend on how Iran chooses to behave.

Do you think US’ efforts to increase its soft power and smart power in Iran will lead to a change in narrative within the country, in that Iranians will no longer look on America with suspicion and animosity?

In general, increased contacts can reduce the stereotypes of hostility that can develop among countries. I hope with time this will be the case between the US and Iran.  Soft power can be a positive sum game from which both sides gain.

In a recent piece for National Interest, you wrote that the real challenge that the US is facing could be called “the rise of the rest”. Some authors such as Fareed Zakaria in his “Post-Americanism World”, are pointing to the same challenge. There are also philosophers who believe that America as “the” world superpower is coming to an end – For example American philosopher, Richard Rorty wrote in a piece for Decent magazine: “The American Century has ended (…) The spiritual life of secularist Westerners centered on hope for the realization of those ideals. As that hope diminishes, their life becomes smaller and meaner.” In view of such analysis, do you think the US can overcome those challenges stemming from its power and hegemony? Or is it the US has no clear awareness of such challenge? 

Americans have worried about their decline since the early days of the founding fathers centuries ago. In the last half century there have been several cycles of declinism. This tells you more about American psychology than it does about relative power positions of countries. In my book, I explain why I do not think the American century is over. At the same time, the rise of transnational challenges like climate change, cyber terrorism, and international financial stability will require cooperation among countries. In that sense, the rise of the rest as well as the new transnational challenges will require the US to work with others.  There will be no American imperialism or hegemony, but as the largest country, there will still be a need for leadership in organizing global collective goods.

In his September 16 address at a meeting with the IRGC commanders in Tehran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said:  “cultural and political penetration is more dangerous than military and security threats.” You also referred to the ‘culture’ as one of the key elements of soft power – you mentioned both the US educational and popular cultures of America as powerful media – maybe here we could use the term Trojan horses. Iran’s leadership has repeatedly warned against such “cultural invasion”. Iranians have themselves naturally organized into movements to counteract Western cultural intrusion, thus manifesting a national trend. Do you see a situation where Iran would disappear to the US; or could it be that Iran will walk a different path than that of the Soviet Union?

Countries evolve over time, and I have no idea what future choices Iran will make, but I suspect that most of its future evolution will be determined from inside Iran.

The post Interview: Joseph Nye on Iran and the End of American Exceptionalism first appeared on .

Protests in Istanbul, Turkey rage on after police reacted violently to an occupation Gezi Park, located in Istanbul’s central Taksim Square, initially because of government plans to develop a shopping mall over the park.

Violent crackdown of protesters transformed the protest into massive anti-government demonstrations around the country.

After the protests became world news, Western media got it wrong by characterizing the uproar as a revolt against Islamic influence in Turkish politics or simply an environmental protest.

But to be more accurate, these protests should be seen as a chain of demands of people from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government over recent years.

More than 1,700 people have been arrested and dozens are injured or dead. The anti-government demonstrations have flared up in 67 cities as well as important cities of Izmir, Ankara, Antalya and Konya.

These demonstrations had a negative influence on turkey’s economy leading to a fall in its stock exchange market and decrease in its tourism industry.

Iran has a great influence in its neighbor, Turkey. However Sayed Abbad Araghchi the spokesperson of Iran’s Foreign Ministry strictly denies any interventions in Turkey and described it as an internal issue of the country.

“The protests in Turkey are a domestic issue and Iran will never intervene there,” said Mansour Haghighat-Poor, The deputy of National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of Iran’s Majlis in an exclusive interview with Iran’sView.

He, however, invited the turkey to “peacefully dealing with the protesters and avoiding violence”, and emphasized “the need to respect the demands of the protesters.”

“These protests somehow roots in Turkey’s Foreign Policy. Iran had previously warned the Prime Minister Erdogan about opening borders to terrorists and helping subversion of Syrian legal government which will leads to the Turkish dissatisfaction and finally protests, besides ending in chaos in the region,” he said.

Haghighat-Poor suggested to Erdogan “try to solve the domestic issues and welfare problems” by ending “support for the Syrian armed opposition”.

“If the Turkish government doesn’t correct its mistakes and instead continues in its current policies, more opposition will emerge and Turkey will follow the pattern that Syria has,” he warned.

The post Iran MP Warns of Turkey Following Syria If It Does Not Change Path first appeared on .

Only one week to the Iran’s first presidential election since the 2009 election which president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won causing street unrest, currently all private polls by Iran’s intelligence ministry, Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting organization and some other governmental organizations show Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Ali Akbar Velayati and Saeed Jalili all Principalists respectively will have the most votes. So Hasan Rowhani and Mohammad Reza Aref two reformist candidates, cannot even enter the run off round if the reformists don’t agree on a single candidate to stay in the race.

Unofficial but reliable polls either by governmental institutes or private institutes show each of the two reformist candidates can gain almost 8% of ballots, while Ghalibaf would win about 30% of ballots and Velayati and Jalili each have about 11% of votes.

Mohammad Reza Aref Vice President under Mohammad Khatami’s administration said several times during the last two weeks that he will “stay till the end” and he does not recognize Rowhani who is an envoy of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei in Iran’s National Security Council as a reformist.

But Rowhani’s campaign manager Mohammad Reza Nematzadeh said on Thursday that both Aref and Rowhani welcome a coalition and they are working on that.

On the same day Sayed Hadi Khamenei a prominent reformist figure and a key member of the reformist Association of Combatant Clerics said Mohammad Reza Aref is the representative of all reformists.

“Hassan Rowhani is not a reformist. The Council for Coordinating the Reformist Front supports Aref,” he said during the inauguration of Aref’s campaign headquarters in the city of Chanaran.

Aref’s spokesman complains about Rowhani’s refrain from accepting the decision to unify behind Aref 

Although an interview with Hasan Rasooli (a deputy of Mohammad Reza Aref) with Iran’sView on Thursday shows some developments in the reformist’s front.

“Reformists will gain a better result if Dr. Aref and Dr. Rowhani agree on a mechanism initiated by Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami to determine a single candidate to remain in the race,” said Hasan Rasooli in an exclusive interview with Iran’sView.

Rasooli said Mohammad Khatami a key leader of the reformist front is trying to form a coalition.

The spokesman of Aref said the Reformist presidential candidate will welcome Khatami’s decision but he expects the decision to not be affected by “unreal inductions”.

“If Mr. Rowhani and his campaigners have more cooperation, we can reach a better result for the coalition,” this mild complaint from Rasooli can be a sign of Rowhani’s refrain from accepting the reformist leaders’ decision which seems to be a consensus on Aref as the candidate of the reformists.

Mohammad Khatami has a close relation with Aref, former vice president under Khatami’s administration. Aref also could gain a better result in polls compared to Rowhani.

On the other hand, Hashemi Rafsanjani a former two-term president of Iran and a powerful figure close to the reformists is closer to Hasan Rowhani. but Rowhani’s record as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator in talks with three European countries (Britain, France and Germany) which resulted in suspending all Iran’s nuclear activities is a weakness point of him that brings most attacks and critics of the Principalists.

This difference between the two most prominent reformist leaders maybe made the decision making more difficult. ”

“Anyways, Hashemi Rafsanjani and Khatami both will publicly support the final candidate of the reformists,” Aref’s deputy said in an exclusive interview with Iran’sView.

The post Khatami Trying To Unify Reformists Behind Aref first appeared on .

“Since Dr Jalili entered the election race his popularity rate has been on the rise. We think the rate would continue to rise until the election day,” said the spokesman of parliament’s National Security and foreign policy commission about Jalili’s popularity.

Responding to a question about the possibility of Jalili forming a coalition with other fundamentalist candidates (Ali Akbar Velayati, Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel, and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf), Naghavi said Jalili has entered the race as an independent fundamentalist candidate and doesn’t represent any party or political group, adding that he will continue his independent way.

He said Jalili doesn’t feel any threat from the reformist and independent candidates, believing that he would win the election at the first round. “We don’t think about the run off voting or even the possibility of the victory of a reformist candidate at all.”

According to Naghavi, Jalili is more devoted to the discourse of the Islamic Revolution, compared to his rivals, as he believes in resistance against the west rather than compromise or submission.

Jalili also believes that religious democracy should be propounded in the world as a political system and that Iran should reduce its dependence on hegemonic systems.

Foreign groups and the enemies of Iran do not have a positive view towards Jalili, Naghavi explained further. “The hegemonic powers and the groups that have been in war with our nation since the beginning of the Islamic Revolution are frightened by Jalili’s candidacy and thus continue the character assassination against him.”

They however had a similar negative view towards Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during the tenth presidential election in Iran. Until then, Mr. Ahmadinejad seemed to take positions in accordance to the preferences of the head of the country but after winning the election he did things that suggested he was at odds with the supreme leader Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei. This has made some political activist think that Saeed Jalili might follow Ahmadinejad in this regard.

But Naghavi rejects this possibility.”Dr. Jalili believes the final word is the Leader’s; not based on the status that the constitution regards for Wilayat al Faqih (the guardianship of the jurist), but because of his personal belief and faith.”

The head of Saeed Jalili’s presidential campaign in Tehran also rejected the claims about Jalili being “the government’s candidate”, arguing, “In the seventh presidential election similarly many claimed that Nategh Noori was the government’s candidate but people voted for Mohammad Khatami and he became the president for two terms. Today also the government considers all of the candidates approved by the Guardian Council suitable for presidency and it is the people who should vote and elect the best candidate as president.”

The post “World Powers Afraid of Jalili’s Candidacy”, Says Campaign Aide first appeared on .

In response to reports of Russia’s supply of the sophisticated s-300 anti aircraft missiles to Syria IransView asked an Iranian MP his opinions.

Mehdi Sanaei, a member of the Iranian Majlis’ National Security and Foreign Policy Commission and the Chairman of Iran-Russia Parliamentary Friendship Group said in an interview with Iran’sView: “Russia has employed a more clear and determined foreign policy in the Middle East due to several reasons including the reelection of president Putin, also the enduring American intervention in different countries especially in the Middle East and because of the Libyan scenario.”

According to Sanaei, the U.S. and its allies passed a resolution in the UN [on Libya] but they “operated as they wanted” and denied Russia’s concerns.

He recalled “having the authority to impose a No Fly Zone in Libya, and the violation of international laws by the U.S. in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, the misusing of the resolution of the U.N. Security Council and the loss of Russia’s interests in Iraq, Libya and now the most important and the most recent one; Syria” as the reasons for Russia’s full political and military support for Damascus.

Sanaei believes that evidence shows Russia is serious in defending against any military intervention in Syria and emphasizes the political solutions based on the Geneva agreement.

On the possibility of Iran’s direct intervention in Syria he said: “Iran, Hezbollah and the so-called “Axis of Resistance” in the Middle East consider Syria as a front for their resistance and they will never compromise on that.”

“Iran doesn’t think direct intervention in Syria is necessary but it supports this country and provides advice and suggestions to the Syrian government”, said the Iranian MP.

“Iran’s and Hezbollah’s support has definitely led to more Russian support and changed the game,” he said.

Recently, contradictory leaks are revealed about the technologically advanced Russian S-300 Missiles transferred to Syria and even some pro-Syria media claimed that soon these missiles are operated in Syria.

US Secretary of State John Kerry reacted to the news and said the sale of S-300 air defense systems by Russia to Syria would be “destabilizing” for the region.

The British weekly Sunday Times quoted an unnamed Russian official as saying Israel has managed to convince Moscow that if the missiles will fall into the wrong hands, they can be used to attack civilian aircraft at Ben Gurion Airport.

But Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Tuesday that the air defense system was a “stabilizing factor” that could dissuade “some hotheads” from entering the unrest in Syria.

“We consider these supplies a stabilizing factor and believe such steps will deter some hotheads from considering scenarios that would turn the conflict international with the involvement of outside forces,” Ryabkov said.

He added that Moscow would go ahead with the decision since the contract for the delivery of the system had been signed several years ago.

The post Iran And Hezbollah Never Compromise on Syria: MP first appeared on .

In an interview with Iran’sView, Dr. Mahdi Motaharnia, an Iranian Middle East Analyst said: the participants of Iranians in the upcoming election will provide Iran a better position, increasing the resistance of the country against “forming coalitions of 4+1 and 4+2 of Arab countries and Israel against Syria and Hezbollah”.

Coalition of 4+1 introduced first in Israeli Yedioth Aharonot newspaper where Alex Fishman, Military analyst reported a new coalition is coded in the U.S foreign ministry reporting as 4+1, which includes Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and Palestinian National Authority plus Israel and operates against Iran.

 “It will also improve Iran status in Iran nuclear talks”, he said.

Motaharnia pointed out to different opinion about Iran intervention in Syria and said: some in Iran and Lebanon emphasize the necessity of powerful intervention of Iran and Hezbollah if any other countries decide to intervene in Syria.”

 “Other analysts believe the present events in the region lead to a chaos  to paving the way for other countries to intervene in Syria”; he said, “while the direct presence of Iran and Hezbollah might leave negative effects on public opinion, legitimizing the NATO involvement, under the leadership of the U.S.”.

He concluded that all the analysis should be evaluated precisely and the moves of the U.S in the region should be wisely considered.

A new regional coalition against Iran: 4+1

Alex Fishman reported that according to his Israeli and American sources, the purpose of forming this coalition of 4+1 is confronting with Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.

“First, the U.S will not discuss the regional defense agreement like NATO”, he pointed out, “but rather, they insist on cooperation among these countries, especially on security information exchanging and bilateral visits.”

He added: the members of this informal coalition will exchange information and security warnings and will cooperation in order to defense against terrorist plots as the Islamic extremists have increased their activities in the region.

“The U.S faces challenges to make Israel and Saudi Arabia cooperate”, he reported, “but there are some agreements made behind the scene which will be revealed soon.”

“Last February, in the International meeting of Defense Ministers in Berlin, Ehud Barak and Salman bin Abdul-Aziz, First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense of Saudi Arabia shook hands warmly”, he wrote.

He pointed out to the shift of Jordan policies toward Syria and added: the increase of challenges in Syria- Jordan- Israel borders in recent months resulted in closer cooperation between Amman and Tel-Aviv.

“Regarding Turkey and Israel, their extended economic relation, and having Iran and Syria as the common threat have led to their common point of view to regional issues”, he reported.

Fishman concludes: the U.S doesn’t consider Egypt as a perfect government and they define it as a “half-government”; they don’t expect much of Cairo and that’s why they try to make Bahrain and Qatar join this coalition; which aims at confronting Iran. The members of this coalition are also worried about the arm export of Iran to Syria.”

The post Will Iran Finally Intervene In Syria? first appeared on .

“The US, Israel, Deviant Circle and the seditionists will challenge Iran’s election if they find a chance,” Deputy Chief of Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri said in an exclusive interview with Iran’sView on Tuesday.

“They will try to replace the [presidential] election with a crisis,” he said.

The Iranian leadership labeled those reformists who supported the allegations that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the 2009 election through fraud, as “seditionists”. The government critics also call the Ahmadinejad’s top adviser  Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei and his circle as the “Deviant Current” who are deviated from the real path of the Islamic Republic.

Jazayeri underlined the possibility of a new sedition would be created by the “leaders of sedition”, United States and Israel and asked political authorities to be cautious.

 “Some internal elements are seeking compromise with enemies led by US and want to appease to their excessive demands,” said Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri in an interview with Iran’sView adding, “But the majority of Iranians does not agree with those elements and will confront them.”

 “Superpowers and specially US were in confrontation with Iran,” Jazayeri said.

The post Senior Iranian Commander Warns About “Replacing Election With a Crisis” first appeared on .

Former Iranian ambassador to North Korea Saeed Mohammadi says Tehran has advised Pyongyang that increasing tension in the region is not in anyone’s interest.

In an exclusive interview with Iran’sView, Mohammadi said in reaction to increasing economic problems and provocations from the U.S., North Korea is pursuing a strategy of ‘walking on the edge’ to have the U.S ease its pressures against the country.

“Constant economic and military threats, especially the US.-South Korean annual military drills only help to provoke North Korea and create more anger.”

“There is always the risk that N.Korea goes out of control, even though China has done its best to prevent a possible regional war,” he said.

An ongoing escalation of tensions between North Korea, South Korea and the United States began following North Korea’s launch of its Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2 satellite on December 12, 2012, and latest round of US.-South Korean joint military drill in the peninsula. The crisis is marked by extreme escalation of rhetoric by the new North Korean administration under Kim Jong-un and its threats to attacks against South Korea and the United States with nuclear weapons.

In comparing the N.Korean situation to Iran’s, Mohammadi said N Korea’s case is completely different from Iran’s. “North Korea is not a signatory to the NPT and is armed with atomic bombs. The country is highly isolated while Iran, thanks to its geopolitical and cultural advantages, doesn’t need nuclear weapons as a deterrence tool.”

“Tehran and Pyongyang have had warm and constant relations during the last three decades and have cooperated on many scientific and economic fronts, but the policy of the two countries on the nuclear issue is different and Iran has never even wished for an atomic bomb,” Mohammadi said.

Mohammadi accused the U.S. of “pursuing provocative policies in the region and benefiting from tensions which seek to preserve its military presence in the region.”

“Hardening sanctions against N Korea despite promises that the US. made in the six party negotiations is a failure. The same story is true about talks with Iran,” he said. Adding Iran’s nuclear negotiations were close to a solution when a fuel-swap deal was signed by Iran, Turkey and Brazil.

“Although the deal could have been a solution for the US. the country rejected it and Iran had to continue its program, producing 20% enriched uranium to meet its medical needs.”

Iran–North Korea’s diplomatic relations picked up following the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the establishment of an Islamic Republic. Iran and North Korea pledge cooperation in educational, scientific, and cultural spheres.

After Iraq’s Saddam Hussein invasion of Iran, backed by the U.S, North Korea became one of Iran’s main weapons suppliers.

The post Iran advised N.Korea, ‘increasing tension is not in anyone’s interest’ first appeared on .

Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor of North American Studies and the dean of the Faculty of World Studies at the University of Tehran.

In an interview with Iran’sView, Marandi discussed several issues including Iran’s nuclear program, the sanctions, and America’s offer for direct talks with Iran.

On the nuclear issue, he argued that the real concern of the United States and its allies was not nuclear weapons but that it was “Iran’s independence and progress” which they saw as the real threat to their “global hegemony”. He pointed out that even before the nuclear standoff, the western powers and particularly the US, engaged in evil activities and plots against Iranian people and government, one being their support for Saddam Hussain during the Iran-Iraq war in 1980s.

Marandi called the sanctions “inhuman and concerted” attempts meant to “put pressure on the government” through targeting ordinary Iranians and banning even the export of medicine and food to Iran. He however pointed out that these foreign plots would fail as the Iranian nation knows that “independence and human dignity come at a price”.

When asked about America’s offer for direct talks with Iran, Marandi said there would be nothing to talk about unless the US ended its irrationality and the animosity against Iranian people and government. He stated that past experiences including Iran’s voluntary halt to its nuclear program showed that the western powers were not honest as they responded to Iran’s goodwill with more pressures and sanctions.

Here’s the full interview.

The US and its allies have for long been pushing Iran to end its peaceful nuclear activities, claiming that Iran is after nuclear weapons. After Iran earned a big success in its space program by sending a monkey to space and retrieving it alive, they condemned the act, saying it was of serious concern. This is while many experts like Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Johnathan McDowell believe the rocket was “useful only for doing astronaut stuff” and not military purposes. So what makes them so concerned?

 I believe the real concern for the United States and its European allies is not nuclear weapons. They know quite well that Iran’s nuclear program has always been peaceful. This is simply the current excuse used to justify their cruel policies against citizens of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Rarely in human history have we seen such an inhuman and concerted attempt to hurt and even kill ordinary citizens through so called “crippling sanctions”. The financial sanctions imposed by western powers have made it difficult for Iranians to import even medicine and foodstuff and the attempt to block Iranian oil exports is intended to ruin the economy and make ordinary people lose jobs, security, and dignity. The US and EU are also attempting to block all Iranian TV channels from satellite broadcasting; thus, blocking the free flow of information. What do such actions have to do with the nuclear program? In fact, these actions are consistent with western policy toward Iran well before the nuclear standoff. In the 1980s these countries supported Saddam Hussein and provided him with almost everything in their arsenal, including weapons of mass destruction. Western regimes helped Saddam obtain, develop, and use chemical weapons against Iranian combatants and civilians as well as Iraqi civilians killing many thousands of people and causing enormous suffering. Indeed, people are still suffering and dying today. The problem really lies with Iran’s independence and progress and western powers see this as a major threat to their regional as well as global hegemony and domination. Hence, any scientific or industrial breakthrough in Iran unsettles western powers and the western media and it encourages other peoples to pursue their own independence and to overthrow western backed dictatorships.

To what extent do the Iranian people support these achievements? Aren’t they affected by the pressures and influenced by the widespread propaganda against their country?

 Actually, I believe that western criminal behavior against ordinary Iranians and their attempt to impose misery on people hurts the west more than anyone else. The attempt is to make people suffer and to put pressure on the government and political leadership and ultimately to overthrow the Islamic Republic. However, even according to polls carried out by Gallup, a western polling organization, the overwhelming majority of Iranians blame the west for the pain inflicted upon them and it makes them more steadfast. Beyond Iran’s boarders people also see this vicious behavior of western countries as a continuation of western policy of oppression and domination across the globe. This has been the experience of peoples throughout the world for centuries and in recent years people have repeatedly seen so called “civilized” western countries invade and occupy Afghanistan and Mali, destroy Iraq, devastate Libyan infrastructure, create civil war in Syria with the support of Arab dictatorships and in alliance with extremist forces, help enforce the siege of Gaza, murder many thousands throughout the region through drone attacks, and carry out many other similar crimes. Hence, most people do not take western regimes seriously when they speak of human rights and speak of themselves as the “Free World”. Iranians recognize that independence and human dignity come at a price. However, at the same time they see that their scientific achievements come about as a result of their independence.

American officials have recently been claiming that the country is ready to hold direct talks with Iran. Iran’s leader, however, has so far rejected the offer, saying that it is not honest. Why this offer is considered as dishonest by Iran? Would it not be better for Iran to enter into direct talks with the US and thus be able to solve bilateral problems and improve its own economic conditions as well?

Unless, the United States government behaves in a more rational manner and halts its attempts to hurt ordinary Iranians, there really is not much to talk about. Negotiations can only succeed when both sides show goodwill and the US is unable or unwilling to behave in such a manner.

In the past, the Iranians have shown goodwill on numerous occasions, despite their many grievances which include the US backed 1953 coup, western support for the shah, the shameless downing of an Iranian civilian airliner, and many other crimes against humanity linked to western regimes. However, after the Iranians agreed to speak with American officials about Afghanistan, Iran was declared a part of an axis of evil.

When Iran halted nuclear enrichment for two years and implemented the Additional Protocol, it simply came under additional pressure and when it signed the Tehran Declaration additional sanctions were imposed upon the country. Therefore, Iran has concluded that whenever the United States government comes to its senses and relinquishes its current policy, negotiations can take place.

For now Iran simply has no option but to push back against western hegemony and erode its foothold in the region.

The post Marandi: Iran Has No Option But to Push Back Against Western Hegemony first appeared on .

In an interview with IransView, Peled said he supported the Palestinian resistance and argued that contrary to what the media tries to depict, “Palestinians were always willing to compromise” and “[their resistance] has been mostly non violent resistance, even they were always attacked with violence by Israel.”

When asked how he as an Israeli began to learn about the facts on the Palestinian issue and became a peace activist he said “It begins at home.” Peled explained that advocating for the rights of Palestinians and criticizing the Israeli regime has been rooted in the family. In 1948, his mother refused to live in a house that belonged to an exiled Palestinian family as it was “the house of another mother”. His father too, was a proponent of complete withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. “My father, after he retired from the Israeli army as a general in 1968 became an advocate for Palestinians. He said Israel must allow the Palestinians to establish a state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital,” Peled noted.

But he recalled that it was after the death of her niece in the 1997 Ben Yehuda Street suicide attack in Jerusalem that he decided to get involved in the issue. Peled said that sister held the Israeli regime responsible of the death of her daughter. “The two young men who did this terrible thing, took their own lives and the life of my daughter and other innocent people with them, because we, the Israelis brought them to such despair and hopelessness. When we take away people’s land and destroy their homes, and put their fathers in prison and kill their younger brothers and sisters in their schools, when we deny them a future and hope, this is what happens. I hold the Israeli government responsible for my daughter’s death,” he quoted her sister Nurit.

Excerpts from the interview follow:

– On the effectiveness of the peace initiatives during the last six decades and the role of the US and Britain

The US and Britain are complicit in the crimes against Palestine. The peace efforts failed because they were not peace efforts, they were efforts to bring the Palestinians to surrender, and they would not.

No peace efforts will succeed as long as Israel is part of the effort, because Israel and Zionism are opposed to peace. Zionism claims that Palestine is the Land of Israel, that it belongs to the Jewish people and no one else. So they cannot and will not compromise. Peace can only come without a Jewish state, but a democracy with equal rights that respects human rights and civil rights of all people who live in Palestine/Israel. I hope to see a transformation of the Zionist state to a democracy, without violence, like apartheid fell in South Africa.

– On Iran’s leader proposal for the Palestine – Israel issue that calls for a referendum in which all of current and former residents of Palestine including Jews, Muslims and Christians will take part and decide for their own fate and future

I agree, it is the idea that all must be equal and all must enjoy respect for human rights and civil rights and decide as a democracy. I think it actually means turning Israel into a democracy and I agree. This will only work when Zionism, like apartheid is removed from power.

– On the two-state solution

I don’t think it was a good idea and I don’t think it ever had a chance to succeed. You cannot have a Jewish state in an Arab country (Palestine), with half of the people not Jewish unless it is a brutal regime with racist laws, like Israel.

I think the two-state solution was possible for a short time and as expected, it was killed by Israel. Israel wants all the land with no Palestinians and Israel will never compromise. That is why it failed. You cannot have an agreement if one side will not agree.

-On the activities to raise awareness on the Palestinian issue and how they help the resistance

Hundreds of university campuses in the US hold events like “Palestine Week” etc., and thousands of students take part. This is very effective resistance and many Jewish Americans take part and support this as well.

Then, there is also the BDS movement that calls for boycott divestment and sanctions against Israel.

All of these are excellent forms of resistance and I support them completely. I think they will be successful in bringing justice and peace to Palestine.

– His message to the Iranian people

I know that Iranian people are suffering because of the sanctions and because of the threat of an Israeli attack. This is a terrible thing and I can only hope it will end soon. Israel and the US are wrong about Iran.

I don’t believe that Israel will never attack Iran, because Israeli the government wants to keep the threat alive. Israel is using the “Iranian threat” as a smoke screen so people will not talk about Israeli crimes in Palestine.

I wish Iranian people well. If I had the chance I would gladly visit Iran, I know it is a beautiful country with a rich history and culture and I would love to see it.

The post Son of an Israeli General: ‘Peace can only come without a Jewish state’ first appeared on .