Iran’s firing missiles at Deash terrorists stationed in Syria drew many reactions, including from the US military which described the attack as ‘reckless and unsafe’. Why is it so? Because the missiles fell ‘within three miles’ of US troops!

Iran launched six ballistic missiles into the Albukamal district in Syria. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said the attack targeted terrorists involved in the September 22 attack on a military parade in the southwestern city of Ahvaz.

The missile attack killed a number of militant leaders and destroyed their supplies and infrastructure, with several sources reporting that a well-known Daesh commander called Abu Ali Al-Mashhadani being killed in the attack.

The Albukamal district, which lies east of the Euphrates River, is one of Daesh last remaining positions.

A US defense official told CNN Iranian missiles that targeted eastern Syria early Monday came within three miles of US troops in the country.

“Iranian forces did conduct no notice strikes last night and we see open source reports stating that they were targeting militants it blamed for the recent attack on an Iranian military parade in the Middle Euphrates River Valley,” said Ryan in a statement. “At this time, the Coalition is still assessing if any damage occurred and no Coalition forces were in danger.”

The CNN report, titled as Iran missiles in Syria land ‘within three miles’ of US troops, aims to portray the image that the attack could have endangered US troops in Syria and that such ‘no notice’ attacks are not common and potentially could be dangerous.

In a statement sent to VOA on Monday, Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Sean Robertson said “given the complex nature of the battle space, such strikes potentially jeopardize the forces who are actively fighting ISIS in Syria.”

While that is another issue subjected to a well debate. The question now is “what is it that the US do exactly ‘within three miles’ away from Daesh in Syria?

They themselves claim that they are fighting terrorists in the area that Iran targeted with missiles. There has been, however, no report of US forces or US-backed Kurdish forces indicating to any attack against the terrorists in Albukamal in at least the last month.

The only big news reported on the media regarding Albukamal comes from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which alleged that at least 400 Daesh members were transferred from Albukamal to the Idlib Province in northwest Syria last week.

If the US were indeed stationed in Albukamal to fight terrorists, couldn’t they attack such terrorists who were ‘within three miles’ of them?

Very strange… Iran fired missiles at ISIS in Syria. Killed several ISIS leaders – almost killed Al-Baghdadi. US complained (!!) saying Iran was reckless, cuz the strike was within 3 miles of US troops.

But why was ISIS leader Baghdadi feeling so safe so close to US troops????

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) October 5, 2018

The suspicious pattern of US behavior, however, is not restricted to Syria.

Last year, Russian presidential special envoy for Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov said that during a meeting in New York with his US counterpart Alice Wells, he expressed his distrust regarding the issue of ‘unidentified helicopters’ in the north of Afghanistan that were transferring Daesh and their ammunition.

“Among the problems that we have, I identified the distrust that we have in connection with these mysterious helicopters transferring ISIL [Daesh] militants, their weapons, ammunition,” Kabulov said.

The post What does the US exactly do ‘within three miles’ of Daesh in Syria? first appeared on .

A few hours after Yemeni fighters targeted Saudi oil tankers and Abu Dhabi Airport, a senior member of the Houthis’ Political Council, in an interview with Iran’s state TV, threatened that they would further expand their attacks hereafter, and if Saudi Arabia and its allies did not put a stop to their attacks on Yemen, the Yemeni fighters would target their key political, economic and military zones.

al- Deilami’s interview with Iran’s state TV is to be aired in Saturday night.

Saudi Arabia suspend all shipments of crude oil passing through the Straits of Bab El-Mandab after two giant oil tankers belonging to the Saudi National Shipping Company, each carrying two million barrels of crude oil, was attacked by the Houthi fighters in the Red Sea on Wednesday morning after crossing the Straits of Bab El-Mandeb.

On Thursday, Houthi fighters attacked Abu Dhabi’s international airport in the United Arab Emirates with a drone. In same day Saudi Arabia’s oil minister said that the country will suspend all shipments of crude oil passing through the Straits of Mandab until “navigation becomes safe”.

After Trump’s threatening Tweet against Iran and the response of President Hassan Rouhani, saying that his country will respond in the event of oil sanctions or US military attack not only in the Strait of Hormuz but also in other strategic areas of the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, Yemen’s Houthi fighters’ operations in targeting Saudi oil tankers and stopping the transit of oil exports from the Strait of Bab-el-Mandab in the Red Sea was seen as a warning from Iran’s allies to the West.

“Yemeni political and military leaders have decided to target all oil and strategic areas of Saudi Arabia and the UAE hereafter,” a member of Ansar Allah’s (Houthi) Political Council Ibrahim al-Deilami told Iran’s state TV.

Yemen’s Houthi to UN: Stop the War or It Becomes Global

“Our factories and our facilities have been razed to the ground, and our ports and airports have been destroyed, so our enemies should be assured that the status quo will not be tolerated, and no point in these two countries will be safe henceforth. From now onward, we will attack their key military, political and economic zones, and the military bases at Jeddah and Riyadh airports will not be safe from our missiles and UAVs,” al-Deilami threatened.

General Abdullah al-Jafri, a spokesman for the Houthis also said the drone attack on Abu Dhabi airport showed the movement was capable of launching attacks against vital civilian infrastructure of the Saudi-Emirati-led military coalition battling the rebels in Yemen.

“Our attack on Abu Dhabi airport shows our forces are no paper tiger like our enemies claim,” Jafri told Al-Masirah TV on the phone.

Regarding attacks on Saudi Arabia and UAE’s oil exports as a new Yemen’s strategy to counteract the invaders, Al- Deilami warned foreign companies helping Saudi Arabia and the UAE economy.

“Oil wells and foreign companies helping enemies will not be safe either, and hence the equations of war will enter a new phase”, he told Iran’s state TV.

Answering a question on possible solutions to the Yemen war he laid stress on the fact that Yemen crisis would be solved only by putting an end to the Saudi aggression against Yemen and removing the country’s siege.

Expressing disappointment with the UN intervention to end the Yemeni crisis, he warned, “For the expediency of the United Nations we say that the continuation of the Yemeni war is not in the interest of the international community. And the international community must be aware that the continuation of war endangers the interest of many countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.”

The post Yemen’s Houthi Fighters Threaten to Mount Further Attacks on Saudi, UAE first appeared on .

Iranians were surprised last week when they saw a familiar face in a historic meeting between US President Donald Trump and North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un, Persian rug, a symbol of the country’s rich history and culture on the world stage.

The photos taken during an informal meeting between the two leaders showed a red Heris rug laid in the room.
The summit has been widely regarded as a diplomatic coup for North Korea, which repeated its commitment towards denuclearisation in a joint statement.

The hand-woven Heris rugs native to Iran’s northwestern province of Azerbaijan Sharqi, a major carpet-weaving zone in Iran.

Azerbaijan Sharqi’s neighboring province of Ardabil, Isfahan in central Iran and Kerman in the country’s southeast are other major carpet-weaving zones, each having its own unique style.

Carpet weaving has a history of 2,500 years in Iran, ingrained in the country’s national identity. There are currently as many as 1 million weavers across the country, including 700,000 full-time artisans involved in the profession.  
Iranian carpets are currently exported to 80 countries, among whom the US holds a special place.

The US has long been a major market for Iran’s hand-woven carpets but unilateral US sanctions have hurt Iran’s export to the country in recent years.

The post Trump-Kim Meeting Saw an Iranian Representative first appeared on .

According to Al Sumaria TV  ISIS announced the death of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a very brief statement on Tuesday. The statement explains the new successor of Baghdadi would be declared “very soon” and urged its militants to continue “stability in the strongholds”.

Last month Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has confirmed that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the “Islamic State” (IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh) terrorist group, has been killed.

“The death of this terrorist [Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi] is certain,” said Ali Shirazi, a representative of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the IRGC’s elite Quds Force.

The Russian military also said in June that it may have killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in an airstrike in Syria in late May.

The Quds Force, which is an elite overseas operations arm of the IRGC, has reportedly been involved in the fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq since the terrorist group began war against Baghdad and Damascus. Recently Iraq could defeat ISIS in Mosul in close cooperation with Iranian IRGC. 

The post ISIS Confirms Death of Group Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi first appeared on .

Just two days after the US Senate advanced Iran Sanctions Bill, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said putting Qatar under blockade had led to “unintended” humanitarian consequences and called on Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt “to ease the blockade.”

“We’re seeing shortages of food. Families are being forcibly separated, and children pulled out of school…Our expectation is that these countries will immediately take steps to de-escalate the situation and put forth a good faith effort to resolve their grievances they have with each other,” the US top diplomat said.

The call for easing Qatar’s blockade comes as, despite the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries, the US Senate unanimously approved a bill to tighten Iran sanctions on Wednesday. The sanctions not only have significantly hampered Iran’s international trade, but also created serious obstacles in the way of importing medicines, endangering the Iranian patients’ lives over the past decades.

Meanwhile, the US senior officials have repeatedly accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism with no solid evidence. In the latest case, US President Donald Trump called the Tehran twin attacks the fruits of Iran’s support for terrorism. The attacks, which left 17 dead and dozens injured, were claimed by the ISIS terrorist group.

Trump’s statements which sparked international criticisms across the world stand in direct contradiction with his presidential campaign promises. During his campaign Trump repeatedly blamed his predecessor, President Barack Obama, for supporting Saudi Arabia. He also praised Iran and Russia for their fight against ISIS.

But Trump dramatically changed his positions since taking office and particularly after signing a $110b arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Now, he not only remains silent towards Saudi Arabia as the ideological hub of terrorism, but also accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism.

It seems that the US expresses concerns about terrorism and accuses certain states of sponsoring terror based on its trade ties with the regional states. With its significant trade relations with Saudi Arabia, the US has already closed its eyes to Riyadh’s dictatorship, violent acts and sponsoring terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda that was behind 9/11 attacks.

Interestingly enough, Washington is against Qatar blockade despite admitting its support for terrorists in Iraq and Syria. During his Friday statements, Tillerson said: “The nation of Qatar unfortunately has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level.”

He went on saying: “The emir of Qatar has made progress in halting financial support and expelling terrorist elements from his country, but he must do more and he must do it more quickly.”

The post Blockade, Bad for Qatar, Good for Iran: US first appeared on .

In an unprecedented move Persian Gulf states on Monday cut all diplomatic and economic ties with Qatar. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates as well as Egypt all announced they were severing ties with gas-rich Qatar. Libya and Maldives also followed the Saudi alliance against Qatar.

To “protect its national security from the dangers of terrorism and extremism” Riyadh decided to “sever diplomatic and consular ties with Qatar, and to close all land, sea and aviation” links, a Saudi official cited by the official Saudi Press Agency said. Qatar’s foreign ministry called the other nations’ decision “unjustified” and vowed that the move would not affect the “normal lives of citizens and residents,” according to a statement reported by Al Jazeera.

Earlier this week, Qatar’s state-run news agency released comments attributed to Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani on sensitive issues. The Qatari emir was quoted as describing Iran as an “Islamic power” and “big power in the stabilization of the region.” The Qatari government then said that the state agency had been hacked and that the remarks attributed to the emir and the foreign minister had never been made. But Saudi media continued attacking Qatar, accusing it of having “betrayed” the other Arab countries particularly at a time when they had attempted to stage a show of “unity” against Iran after Trump’s visit from Riyadh.

First Iranian reaction to the event came from the Political Deputy of Iran’s Presidential Office Hamid Aboutalebi calling the move by Saudi and its allies as the first outcome of Trump’s visit from Riyadh.

Some analysts do not rule out the possibility of a military action or a coup attempt against Qatar.

“I expect more radical moves against Qatar to come. A coup like the one Saudi planned against Egypt’s Mohammad Mursi and in the worst and least possible scenario a military attempt to occupy wealthy and strategic Qatar by Saudi alliance is possible,” Said Mojtaba Mousavi, Iranian political analyst.

“One could expect any radical move from new Saudi rulers who are bombing another neighbor, Yemen, for several years,” He added.

But the situation could also provide an opportunity for Tehran. “If Qatar and some other players can handle the situation to avoid a coup, this situation can be an extraordinary opportunity for Iran to have Doha in its front. Qatar now feels like being a blockade, people are queuing in front of shops and banks and Iran can be the closest and more plausible solution to bypass the blockade,” Mousavi said.

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qasemi also warned about possible Saudi military attempt against Qatar and asked both sides to solve their differences through dialogue and avoid confrontation.

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif asked Saudi to avoid coercion to reach its political aims. “Neighbors are permanent; geography can’t be changed. Coercion is never the solution. Dialog is imperative, especially during blessed Ramadan,” He tweeted.

In mean time, Iran expressed its readiness to supply Qatar with its food products. Saudi is Qatar’s main source of food supply and about 40% of Qatar’s food is believed to come via Saudi border which is closed now.

Head of the Iran’s Union of Agricultural Products Exporters said today that the country is ready to export its agricultural and food products to Qatar through the waterway and 3 Iranian ports. ” We have coordinated with Valfajr shipping company to export goods from Bushehr, Bandar Abbas and Bandar Lengeh ports,” he said.

In the other hand, some political observers believe the Saudi’s move is backed by the US. “It’s clearly an attempt to get the Qataris in line and not support Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood,” said Peter Sluglett, visiting research professor at the Middle East Institute at the National University of Singapore told CNBC.

In the case of Iran, he added, a key factor is the Trump administration’s threat to review a landmark deal that lifted most economic sanctions against Iran in return for curbing its nuclear and missile programs. “The Americans cannot unilaterally back out of the deal as it is the P5+1, so they are using the GCC and Egypt to put pressure on any countries supporting Iran,” Sluglett said.

– AFP, CNBC contributed to this report.

The post Severed Qatar-Saudi Alliance Ties; What’s there for Iran? first appeared on .

According to a 2012 Washington Post article, D’Andrea’s colleagues described him as a collection of contradictions. A chain-smoker who spends countless hours on a treadmill. Notoriously surly yet able to win over enough support from subordinates and bosses to hold on to his job. He presides over a campaign that has killed thousands of Islamist militants and angered millions of Muslims, but he is himself a convert to Islam.
Although US government and media has not released any official photo or biography of Ayatollah Mike who is in his early 60s, Iran’s View could gather some interesting information about him and his family.

His first overseas assignments were in east Africa, where he met his wife and converted to Islam in order to marry her. Faridah Currimjee D’Andrea, almost 10 years older than her husband is daughter of a wealthy family from the Mauritius with Gujarati origins.
Currimjees own a family business and are operating in different business sectors such as Telecoms, Media, Real Estate, Tourism, Financial Services and Energy. Faridah is one of the senior directors of Currimjee group and her family firms can be used as CIA covers.
D’Andrea has not an easy job in his new post. The U.S. has no embassy in Iran to provide diplomatic cover for CIA, and Iran’s intelligence services have more than three decades of experience in countering American espionage attempts.

The post CIA Agent Ayatollah Mike’s Face Revealed: Iran’s View first appeared on .

While History remains a subject of contention within the Islamic community as it often forces to look upon those actions, and those events which defined, shaped and at times divided us, History stands as well a guidance for those humble enough to see NOT blame but an injunction to do better.
From Mecca to the plain of Karbala: Walking with the Holy household of the Prophet, by Catherine Shakdam deals first and foremost with History as it recalls the tragedy of Karbala and the martyrdom of Imam Hussain by looking into those events which led to his rising against Tyranny.

Directed at Muslims and non-Muslims alike this body of work ambitions to shed light on a movement which to this day is anchored in Islam’s greatest principles: that of Justice, that of Jihad, which contrary to popular belief is not a call for war but justice – that in the face of oppression one must speak Truth.

A son of Islam, the progeny of the Prophet Muhammad, Imam Hussain has towered a revered figure of Islam – an example of courage, compassion, resilience, dignified piety, and grace. It is so that the world could learn of his deeds and speak the true name of Islam that this book was written.

We hope you will hear Hussain ibn Ali’s cries of freedom and remember what the grandson of the last Prophet of God sacrificed so that God’s religion would be restored.

From the cave of Hijra where Jibreel first spoke to Muhammad ibn Abdullah, to the plain of Karbala where Hussain ibn Ali drew his last breath, it is always liberation from falsehood Islam spoke of, and fought for.

The book is available on Amazon worldwide.

The book download version can be accessed here.

The post Who is Hussain? This Book Will Tell You! first appeared on .

By: Khalil Abdi*

Bahrain regime on June 20, 2016 stripped Sheikh Isa Qassim of his Bahraini citizenship. Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qassim is Bahrain’s leading Shia cleric as well as spiritual leader of the country’s revolution. An interior ministry statement accused Sheikh Isa of using his position to “serve foreign interests and promote sectarianism and violence.” It added that “he has been in continuous contact with the organizations and parties that are enemies of the kingdom.” The statement was followed by immediate reaction of Bahrainis. Demonstrations in the towns of Bilad al-Qadim, Buri and Sitra erupted into violence following clashes between protesters and security forces and Bahrain Forum for Human Rights has also censured the decision, calling the measure arbitrary and against international laws.

Bahrain regime cited article 10 of Bahraini Citizenship Act (1963) as a ground for deprivation of Sheikh’s nationality. But what is the basis for Bahrain’s claim in the international law?
Article 10 of the Bahraini Citizenship Act is about denationalization of nationality under certain circumstances. It set forth that “citizenship of Bahrain may be deprived from whoever enjoys such nationality on the following cases:
(a) If he enters in military service of a foreign country,
(b) If he helps or engages in service of an enemy country, or
(c) If he causes harm to the security of the State.
Bahrain regime has mostly relied upon section (c) of this article. Whereas Bahrain regime offers no evidence indicative of Sheikh Isa Qassim’s participation in acts which would harmful to the national security of Bahrain. We will examine the position of the international law considering the deprivation of nationality.
Article 8, section (1) of The UN Convention on Reduction of Statelessness 1961 expresses that “a contracting state shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless.” It is noteworthy that this convention is simply the most important international instrument concerning the nationality issue.
Article 13 of Universal Declaration on Human Rights states as following ” Everyone has the right to a nationality and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” Also article 7 of European Convention on Nationality 1997 states that “a state party may not provide for the loss of its nationality, if the person concerned would thereby become stateless.”
The text of the aforementioned provisions –each of them would be considered as the most important human rights texts- is quite clear, and straightforwardly put that stripping a person of its nationality without any conclusive evidences is fully contrary to the international law norms. Therefore, the act of Bahrain regime has violated both contractual as well as customary international law.
For the sake of justification of its illegal act, Bahrain regime has declared harm to its national security as a ground for stripping Sheikh Isa Qassim of his nationality. But what is the stance of such a claim in terms of legitimacy and admissibility in the international law.
Article 4 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 set forth that ” In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, color, sex, language, religion or social origin.” Also article 15 of European Court of Human Rights brings up exactly the same provision. This article clearly emphasizes that even if there is such a condition, instances as race, sex, language, and religion should not be involved in derogation of rights. Interior ministry of Bahrain said the cleric had “adopted theocracy and stressed the absolute allegiance to Shia clergy, as well as trying to establish Shia administration in Bahrain.”
Bahrain regime has obviously stressed its non-compliance to basic standards of human rights, in terms of prohibition of discrimination. On the other hand, almost all commentaries concerning the article 4 of ICCPR has had a very strict interpretation of this article as an instrument to derogate from some human rights obligations. For instance, General Comment 29 of Human Rights Committee, which is the commentary organ of The UN human rights conventions, mentions two necessary conditions for a derogation being permissible. It states that “measures derogating from the provisions of the Covenant must be of an exceptional and temporary nature. Before a State moves to invoke article 4, two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation, and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. The latter requirement is essential for the maintenance of the principles of legality and rule of law at times when they are most needed.”
It is obvious that, in the case Bahrain, none of these conditions has been met; there is no public emergency situation in Bahrain threatening the life of nation, and if so, there has not been any official proclamation about existence of such condition in Bahrain.
With regard to the aforesaid reasons, we come to believe that the act of Bahrain regime in stripping Sheikh Isa Qassim of his Bahraini citizenship, not only has violated the international law, but also relying of regime upon national security clause does not conform the conditions that the international law has set in this regard.

* Khalil Abdi is an alumnus of the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s School of International Relations and expert on International Law.

The post How Bahrain Broke Int’l Law by Revoking Top Shia Cleric’s Citizenship? first appeared on .

By: Sonia Mansour Robaey *

1. Values and the West’s double standards approach to ethical pluralism.

Ethical pluralism is focused on individual preferences in modern pluralistic societies.  It does not dictate what is ethical or what is not.  It only creates a space for rational dialogue on the diversity of values aimed at reaching a consensus within the limits of reason.  Ethical pluralism is practised in West for controversial moral issues like abortion, gay rights and Euthanasia.  Although laws are legislated on these issues in some western countries, in many cases they do not constrain those who oppose them to live by them.  It is believed that ethical pluralsim creates more tolerance and more freedoms for the individual.  The essence of ethical pluralism is that moral codes cannot be forced, they emerge by consensus through a rational discourse and dialogue on values.   Ethical pluralism represents the culmination of many centuries of western thinking in political Philosophy, moral Philosophy and Ethics.  Ethical pluralism in western democracies is assumed for example in Jürgen Habermas’ ‘Discourse ethics’ where, within western societies, ethical diversity and pluralism require a commitment to rational discourse and dialogue. 

However,  wide dialogue, based on rational discourse and leading to consensus on moral values in western societies, is denied by the West to others when advancing its own set of values in non-western societies,

As such, western moral values, having emerged by consensus, are forced on other cultures and societies who did not participate in the rational discourse leading to a consensus on these values.  Another difficulty in implementing western moral values in most non-western societies is related on the status of the self in society.  Most non-western moral values are anchored, not in individual preferences, but in community norms, elders’ wisdoms and local laws, which ancient Greeks used to call ‘nomos’.   In non-western societies, core values are transmitted between generations where intergenerational dialogue and closeness are strong, contrary to western societies.  They are not discussed in the public sphere where they play a cohesive role in which the individual self identifies more with the community than with the ego.

There is a tension in the West’s approach to values which allows the individual a greater space of liberty within western societies but denies this liberty to individuals in other societies attached to their traditions and the norms of their communities.  In fact, there is a faulty assumption in West that the individual Self in non-western societies is modeled on the western Self, despite historical and cultural differences.  This tension has become palpable with the advent of the globalization of markets, cultures and ideas.  The West stands as the promoter of one set of values, its own, over others, without regard to context, History, and culture.   The West’s hegemonic approach to values is being tackled differently in non-western cultures, either by total assimilation, peaceful but active resistance, distrust and retreat, or violent resentful extremism directed against the West in the case of Sunni Islam.  Colonialism was built on the assumption that the colonized were different in humanity while globalization is built on the assumption that ‘there is no such thing as society’, only individuals exist, as Margaret Thatcher famously said.  Both colonialism and globalism approach non-western cultures with models of the individual self-forged in West and imposed on non-westerners, incompatible with many cultural and religious identities.

Ethical pluralism then, although unequally practiced by West, is not part of the relations the West establishes with other societies, where it is assumed that only individuals exist and that they must consume the product of the ethical consensus built by other individuals in West.  Since 911, as the assumption grew for a ‘clash of civilisations’,  there was an upsurge in this approach and the forcing of western values through military campaigns, invasions and occupations preceded and followed by violent backlashes from extremist fundamentalists.  Post 911, international relations have become a domain of confrontations thought to be confrontations of civilisations and values.

2. A broken dialogue on values feeds terrorism and simulates for us a ‘clash of civilisations’

Many Muslims today live in communities, societies and countries which emphasize traditional values and the supremacy of the community over the individual.   Although Muslims are not the only ones who live in traditions which are antagonists to western values, they are currently the main culture and religion to react and to be targeted by this confrontation and it is mainly Sunni Muslims who are engaged in this confrontation which has claimed many lives and wrecked many countries and their social fabrics through terrorism and the war on terror.

This is the reason why a dialogue on values is urgently needed between the West and Muslims.  Some in the West as well as in Muslim countries do not believe in the dialogue on values, firmly standing on both sides of the values divide, committed to wars.  But others believe in this dialogue. President Obama articulated his desire for dialogue with Muslims in his Cairo’s discourse early during his first mandate.  But due to many factors, including America’s previous war commitments and voices of confrontation inside his own administration, Obama wasn’t able to act on his Cairo’s discourse. We will never know if Obama was sincere about this dialogue.  But what we know is that he did not blindly follow those who wanted a confrontation to the end with Iran. Recently, Ayatollah Khamenei wrote on his twitter account that Obama wrote him a second letter in 2009 full of affirmative accounts about Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei said he had the intention to reply to the letter but after Obama supported the protests against the government in Iran in 2009 he refrained from doing so.  Obama acted against the voices of confrontation with Iran, but not before the failure of the 2009 colour revolution for regime change.  He finally succeeded in reaching a deal with Iran that, if its implementation is unhindered by more confrontation, should naturally open a dialogue on values between Muslims and the West.

On the Iranian side, the deal reached between Iran and the West silenced the voices of confrontation and opened possibilities to initiate a dialogue between Muslims and the West.  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was first to open this dialogue on the values of Islam with his two letters to western youth (January 2015 letter and November 2015 letter).  Khamenei’s initiatives came in a context of a renewed wave of Sunni terrorism by ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), more barbaric and more sectarian than the terrorism witnessed since 911, and threatening this time the Near East, the Levant and Europe.

While the nuclear deal was being worked out between the West and Iran during the year 2015, many terrorist attacks by Sunni Muslim extremists hit Muslim countries, especially Iraq and Syria, as well as Europe.  Most notable were the two attacks in France in 2015, both claimed by ISIS, attracting wide and sustained attention in western media.  ISIS is virulently anti-Iran and anti-Shia.  It promotes a return to the  Sunni Caliphate.  Khamenei’s first letter spoke of a different kind of Islam in an attempt to educate western youth on the real sources of knowledge on Islam, away from the terrible and negative image that was being presented to the West by ISIS.  The letter was deliberately addressed to youth because, as Khamenei argued, dialogue with western leaders was futile since they were the ones promoting the kind of Muslim extremism embodied by ISIS through the stigmatisation of Muslims and the religion of Islam.  There is unwillingness in West, especially among those who fear and stigmatise Islam, to learn about the true religion of Islam and Muslims beyond the terrorists clichés.  Ayatollah Khamenei’s second letter to western youth was published two weeks after the attacks on the Bataclan concert venue in Paris that claimed many youthful lives.  In it, Ayatollah Khamenei chides the West for its double standards towards the victims of terrorism and for the imposition of western culture by force uniformly on Muslim societies.

Learning about the true religion of Islam, lifting the peaceful image of Islam and Muslims against the hateful image propagated by terrorists, finding common ground among differences in values, reaching out to youth, were also the main topics of Obama’s speech, and the first, in an American Mosque in Baltimore On February 3, 2016. Obama’s speech at the Mosque was in many ways a foreign policy speech too in which he condemned sectarian policies implicitly criticising Saudi regional policy. At some point he addressed his critics who say his policy against ISIS is not clear by stating that clarity against terrorists can be found only in countering their message of division, sectarianism and hate.  Obama quoted passages from the Qoran more than once during his speech.  Only two years ago, such a move by Obama, going to a Mosque, delivering directly to Muslims a message of peace and quoting the Qoran, was unthinkable.  What happened between the Cairo speech and the Baltimore Speech?  The hate didn’t stop, the terrorism didn’t stop, the divisions and the confrontations didn’t stop.  To be fair to Obama, the Cairo speech was meant to inaugurate an era of dialogue between the West and Islam, but Obama couldn’t act on this alone, he needed partners among Muslims leaders in the ME.  The Baltimore speech comes after the nuclear deal with Iran, Iran’s participation in the fight against ISIS, and the endless possibilities for finding common ground between the West and Islam these events may produce. Obama also realized that an American Mosque and the Muslim American community are the best place to start this dialogue, not Cairo.  

3. A clash of values is not a clash of civilisations.

Although the lives lost to terrorism in France and the West in general aren’t more precious than other lives taken by blind terrorism elsewhere, the attacks in France and the West create a greater wedge between European and Muslim populations at large, inside and outside, in neighbouring countries around the Meditterranean basin, and beyond in the Asian and African continents where the majority of Muslims live.  While American neocons, who so much wish for the clash of civilizations, rejoice of the increasing wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims far from their own shores separated and shielded from this clash by two oceans, Europe is increasingly becoming the theatre of the clash.   

What is the nature of this clash?  It is important to make a distinction here between the clash of civllizations and the clash of values.  While the clash of civilizations includes also a clash of values, it is about more than values.  The clash of civilisations leads to wars because civilizations aim for self preservation and fight against their annihilation.  The term ‘civilisation’ implies not only values but a geopolitical, economic and military space.  The clash of values can be approached differently and resolved through dialogue.  Even inside western societies there is a clash of values.  This is why western societies practise ethical pluralism.  Values can intersect between two civilizations and common ground can be found amid differences.   Many values evolve from the inside, but also from contacts with other civlizations.  In the ancient times, these contacts were mostly established through wars.  The citizens of ancient Greece considered non-Greeks as barbarians and non-humans because ancient Greece was a ‘closed’ civilisation, that is until the advent of Alexander’s conquests and the Hellenistic period that followed.

The term ‘clash of civilisations’ is greatly misleading.  It implies a geopolitical confrontation.  It is both a testimony to the neocons’ warring agenda as well as to their backward thinking.  Wars aren’t needed today to establish contacts between civilisations or resolve differences in values between civilisations.  Today’s means of communication are many, multi-level, fast and easy. The fall of the former communist bloc countries should have led us to a more cooperative, less confrontational world, militarily speaking.  Instead, the neocons created the clash of civilisations set-up to produce more wars and more confrontations to advance American hegemony in a unipolar world.  With 911 and its aftermath, Sunni Muslim terrorism, initially born out from the collaboration of America’s cold war ideology and Sunni Wahhabism against the former communist bloc, set the scene worldwide for a spectacular and threatening clash of values with humiliations, provocations and blasphemy of religious symbols.  A clash of values enacted amid wars, fear and mongering on the world scene, leading to greater divisions, erasing the common ground between civilisations, fulfilling the ‘clash of civilisations’ prophecy.   

It is Europe and Asia where most people on the planet, and most Muslims live, that are set to take the full impact of this clash being prepared for decades now by the neocons. The neocons’ game in Europe is to treat Europe’s woes resulting from a clash of values between east and west, between  north and south, with more confrontations and wars.  The neocons who are the promoters of the clash of civilisations are the new enemies of the Open Society.

This is the post 911 reality created by the neocons. A world that has every possible tool to make communication and dialogue on many issues, including values, easy and natural, yet is locked in confrontations and wars. As it takes two to dance, the neocons’ project to produce a clash of civilisations is greatly helped by Sunni Muslim resentful extremism and its state sponsors.

Fortunately for us, the majority of Muslims do not want this clash of civilisations which has been hurting Muslim countries and Muslims more than others.  Fortunately for us too, Iran refuses to engage in the clash of civilisations.  Amid the tensions created by 911, Iran has shown the world it can make peace without losing its dignity by not responding to the humiliations and provocations of those who want wars for the sake of wars.  I have argued before that both the nuclear deal and Khamenei’s letter to western youth form a coherent approach by Iran to treat the woes of Islam and show the West that there is an alternative to confrontation with Islam and Muslims through dialogue on values and the respect for the dignity of others.

Those in the West who want a dialogue on values with Muslims to peacefully resolve differences instead of a clash of civilisations and wars can now count on Iran’s leadership.   A dialogue on values can be much more enriching than the forcing of western values on Muslim societies.  A dialogue on values doesn’t and shouldn’t end by one set of values taking on another but by finding common ground amid differences.  That’s the essence of communication and diplomacy and the respect for the dingity of others and our common humanity. 

Russia, which has worked hard to end Iran’s isolation, has a diplomacy which instinctively understands the potential of resolving the issue of the clash of civilisations that feeds today’s devastating terrorism eating at the heart of all civilisations.  Because Russia’s neighbour, Europe, is by excellence the theatre for this clash.  And because a clash of civilisations that counts on terrorism for self-realization will undoubtedly lead to the end of civilisations. 

The US however, despite the nuclear deal and the recent détente with Iran, is still very much sitting on the fence, between war and peace.  Hesitations and mixed messages, as well as Obama’s end of mandate, risk annihilating the dialogue that the Iran deal is promising, putting the initiative back in the hands of the neocons.  Obama’s last year in office must prove decisive in its open approach to the ills born out from the confrontation with Islam and Muslims if we are to bend the arc of History definitively away from the neocons.

As I wrote in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, only a dialogue on values can silence the voices of confrontation. 

* Sonia Mansour Robaey, PhD, teaches Philosophy and Ethics, does counselling in Ethics. She is an observer and analyst of Middle Eastern and Levantine politics. Follow her on Twitter @les_politiques

The post Iran, US and Clash of Values’ Dilemma first appeared on .