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 .

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 .

A Farsi version of this article appeared in the Iran’s state newspaper Jam-E-Jam, November 12, 2016.

Saudi Arabia has introduced a new phenomenon to the modern world; a kind of political hostage-taking, in which a tribal regime has availed itself of modern international legal instruments to advance its primitive policies. Mandatory residence and resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Al-Hariri in Saudi Arabia has put forth important questions regarding the reason, legal consequences, response of the countries and international organizations to it, and finally the issue of “breaking the law through legal instruments”- to which the United States has given rise-, and the essay makes an attempt to deal with them.

Why is Saudi Arabia removing its most important ally in Lebanon?
Regional developments have long been against Saudi’s desire; on the one hand, the victory of the Axis of Resistance in the war on terrorism in Syria and Iraq has increased Iran’s regional power and influence; on the other hand, the decrease of Saudi Arabia’s direct military intervention in Yemen, the disagreements between the countries of the Arabian Gulf region and also the unsuccessful efforts to remove Lebanon’s Hezbollah from the power structure have all turned Saudi Arabia into a potential loser in the transition period in the regional power system in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia has tried to introduce Hezbollah and Iran as the cause of the resignation of Saad Hariri and the emergence of a political void in the Lebanese sovereignty structure so that it could create tension and internal disagreements against the Axis of Resistance while increasing economic pressure on Lebanon as well as making the crisis so critical in such a manner that the only way to sustain the Axis of Resistance would be the retreat of Hezbollah and other political groups opposed to Saudi. In practice, however, the vigilance of Hezbollah and al-Mustaqbal led, unlike Saudi’s desire, to strengthening the unity of the Lebanese, and even the most important Saudi allies in the Lebanese sovereignty were forced to take a firm stand against Saudi Arabia.

An American trick for Breaking the Law through Legal Instruments
Pointing to Hariri’s Lebanese-Saudi citizenship, some analysts say that Saudi Arabia has tried to rescind Hariri’s political immunity following his resignation so that they can detain him as a Saudi citizen by plotting corruption charges. In accordance with Articles 29 and 31 of the Vienna Convention on political relations, officials, including heads of states, enjoy full political and judicial immunity and cannot be detained at any time. Another important point is that the cancellation of a political envoy’s immunity is feasible only through the written declaration of the sending country. Therefore, in this particular case, even if Hariri resigned willingly, the immunities will be enforced until the Lebanese government declares cancellation of his political immunity formally and through a written declaration, and Saudi Arabia cannot detain or rather arrest him under the pretext of Hariri’s Saudi citizenship.
Maybe that is the reason why Saudi Arabia refuses to announce Hariri’s arrest publicly. Saudi’s young leaders are now well versed in these American tricks on breaking the laws in an apparently legal manner. If we take a look at the structure of American sanctions against Iran, and in particular the post-JCPOA sanctions, we see a complex process of legislation that allow the United States to act contrary to the objectives of these laws and treaties without violating international treaties and laws. This is the trick that the new Saudi leaders have taken on the issue of Bahrain, Yemen and now Lebanon, in spite of the fact that their performance seems not as suitable as their American mentors.

Where is the Security Council?
But the third question to be answered is the role of international organizations and the Security Council in solving the Saudi crisis and the modern process of “hostage-taking of officials” by this country. Now even the US State Department, the most important Saudi ally, has implicitly confessed Hariri’s capture in Saudi Arabia. Hostage-taking of the head of government of a foreign country is unprecedented in the history of contemporary international relations and to ridicule all the values and principles that underpinned the creation of the United Nations, the Security Council and international law over the past few decades. If Saudi’s oil and financial strength is the reason why these international institutions are completely silent, then perhaps it would be better to talk about the end of the Western international system and the attempt to formulate a new and collective mechanism, which is what Iran is preparing for.

*Mojtaba Mousavi is the founder and editor of Iran’s View. 

The post Saudi Arabia and New World Disorder first appeared on .

Only one day after US President Donald Trump has called Saudi Arabia’s new crown prince to congratulate him, American hamburger and fast food restaurant chain McDonald’s in Saudi Arabia tweets allegiance to the new Saudi crown prince.

Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud has replaced Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud with his own son, Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, the deputy crown prince and defense minister.

According to a royal decree, Mohammed bin Salman, 31, was also named deputy prime minister, and shall maintain his post as defense minister, the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA) reported on Wednesday.

نبايع صاحب السمو الملكي الأمير #محمد_بن_سلمان على كتاب الله وسنة رسوله وعلى السمع والطاعة، سائلين الله تعالى الأمن والأمان لمملكتنا الحبيبة pic.twitter.com/t4Os2S9ghp

— ماكدونالدز السعودية (@McDonaldsKSA) June 21, 2017

Saudi media say King Salman has called for a public pledge of allegiance to the new crown prince in the holy city of Mecca on Wednesday night.

According to a White House statement released Wednesday, the president and Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman spoke on the phone “to advance our shared goals of security, stability, and prosperity across the Middle East and beyond.”

The Israeli regime also signaled that it welcomes the move with Communications Minister Ayoub Kara, asserting that it “means more economic cooperation in the Middle East, and not just regarding oil.”

The post McDonald’s in Saudi Tweets Allegiance to New Crown Prince 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 .

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 .

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 .

این مقاله را به فارسی بخوانید.

By: Sonia Mansour Robaey *

If I were a faithful and pious Muslim and if I were to take a look at the state of the religion of Islam and Muslims today, I would be extremely worried. And even though I am not a Muslim faithful but an Arab secular Christian woman, I can still worry for my Muslim sisters and brothers and the religion of Islam. This is not a selfless concern. The future of minorities in the Middle East depends largely on the state of the Muslim religion, which is the religion of the majority. Also, the Muslim religion and its people are part and parcel of my cultural background, of who I am as an Arab Christian, as much as Muslims of the Middle East are culturally shaped by their presence as pieces in a mosaic of religions and sects, which the region never ceased to be, until al Qaeda and its most notorious branch, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS, came to be.

Again, as an Arab Christian, I was educated not on the holy Qur’an, but on the religion of Islam and its History. I grew up seeing Islam as a religion of conquest and enlightenment in the Arts and Sciences. I grew up seeing Islam as a forward progressive religion. Of course, as in every religion, I could perceive some extremism here and there, some backwardness, but these seemed marginal, or so was my perception during the late seventies, early eighties, until al Qaeda and its most notorious branch, ISIS, came to be.

Since 911, I have been asking myself: what happened to Islam? More so since the emergence and mainstreaming of sectarian killings inside Iraq after the 2003 US invasion and the recent mass displacements of religious minorities by ISIS in the Middle East, the largest since the Ottoman Empire disintegrated.

To answer this question one must understand what happened between the late seventies and the early eighties and how the struggles born out of these years came to their conclusion as the iron curtain fell on the Soviet bloc ushering in a short era of revigorated and unchallenged American and western imperialism.

During these decisive years, we witnessed an Islamic revolution in Iran that rose against western imperialism while another Islamic movement in Afghanistan came to be subsumed, and consumed, by the goals of western imperialism. We also witnessed a war on Iran from the West, with Iraq as a proxy, meant to challenge to the nascent Islamic revolution of Iran. These events, which will lead to a profound misunderstanding inside Islam, took place after the strong anti-imperialist sentiment in the Middle East, in which Palestine was the main conduit, was sidelined through a partial peace between Israel and Egypt. The Palestine struggle was buried by partial peace and the Palestinian resistance lost the support of most Arab states. This was going to lead to the still-born Oslo peace process and the slow asphyxiation of the Palestinian struggle, while Israeli settlements flourished as they continue to do until today.

The eighties end with the triumph of western imperialism. But in the Middle East, the Islamic revolution of Iran stood in the way of this triumph, albeit weakened and its society profoundly wounded by the Iraq war. After the end of the Iraq-Iran war and Ayatollah’s Khomeini’s death, the Islamic revolution of Iran had survived but the country was going to spend the next decade rebuilding itself amid a climate of increasing hostility, unilateral and multilateral sanctions.

Iran’s Islamic revolution inspired many and in many ways in the region. Islamist groups and Islamist movements rose in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. Only few survived and those who did, like Hezbollah, did so because they understood the spirit of the Islamic revolution of Iran, as it stood, as an Islamist insurgency, first and foremost, against western imperialism. Hezbollah resonated with the populations of the Arab world because it revived the Palestinian struggle and the struggle against western imperialism. At the same time, Hamas was born to challenge the occupation of Palestine, based on a non-compromising attitude toward the occupation, but with a different spirit marked by the context of inter Palestinian rivalry heavily weighed by outside and competing regional influences.

This is why Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups moved by the same goal for many years, find themselves today at odds because the forces that have been pulling Muslims apart since the event of the Islamic revolution of Iran, not only are still at work today, but they are now aided by scores of terrorist Takfiri groups claiming to be working for Muslims and Islam.

The Islamic revolution of Iran had clearly designated the anti-imperialist struggle as the defining project of modern Islam. But the Islamic revolution of Iran was not the only Islamic movement renewing the search to redefine Islam in modern times. However, the Islamist groups who came before it and most of those who were inspired by it sought a return to an era of Islam before western imperialism to find the tools to challenge western imperialism. Thus, the nostalgic return to Islam resulted in ambiguity toward the West. I am thinking here specifically of the Muslim Brotherhood. The ambiguity is in confronting modern western imperialism with conceptual tools that existed before this imperialism. This is at best a flight strategy, at worst, a legitimization of Wahhabism, the gangrene that’s been eating at the heart of Islam. Ambiguity exists also in the fact that running away from modernity prevents these movements from ever understanding imperialism, replacing understanding with mystification, leaving modernity to exert a fascination on their entire ideological conceptual apparatus without ever being able to understand it.

This is a tragic misunderstanding, by the insurgent Sunni branch of Islam, of how to conduct the struggle for relevance against western imperialism and renew the search to redefine Islam in modern times. Western imperialism, in its essence, is about the superiority of science and technology. By choosing nostalgia and pre-imperialist conceptual tools, insurgent Sunni Islam could then only fight western technical superiority and the way of life it implies with increased barbarism. Hence, al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The Islamic revolution of Iran, on the other side, has sought to fight western imperialism with the elements of its alleged superiority; technology. But contrary to other Muslim countries that had sought nuclear technology as a way to achieve military superiority, like the West, Iran sought nuclear technology only for civilian purposes and as a right to achieve equal status, to oppose to western imperialism the right to dignity. Because western imperialism sees itself as superior in status, it refuses dignity to others, to subdued countries, and it does so mainly through technology.

The post Iran N.Deal, Future of Islam and A.Khamenei’s Letter to Western Youth first appeared on .