Hi everyone!
Not for the first time I'm trying to get my head around just what the heck is going on with Iran. The past two days have seen terrorist attacks--albeit relatively minor--that bear all the signs of Iranian backing. On Monday, members of Israel's diplomatic community were targeted in both Delhi and Tbilisi. The attack in India was on a car carrying Tal Yehoshua-Koren, the wife of an Israeli diplomat on her way to pick up her children from school. Eyewitnesses said that an unidentified man on a motorcycle pulled up alongside her car and attached an explosive device to it before speeding off. In Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, explosives were discovered near the Israeli Embassy and safely neutralized before detonation.
Yesterday bore witness to a series of explosions in a residential neighborhood in Bangkok that led Thai authorities to uncover a collection of bombs and capture two men--both of whom identified as Iranian--trying to shoot and grenade their way to safety. A third man--also Iranian--tossed two hand grenades at a taxi that refused his fare, thereby blowing off his legs and injuring several passersby. One of the men was detained at the international airport while the other still remains at large.
Iran denied responsibility for Monday's attacks and remained conspicuously silent when questioned about yesterday's rather bungled efforts in Bangkok. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said there was no ambiguity whatsoever as to who was responsible for these terrorist actions: "The attempted terrorist attack in Bangkok proves once again that Iran and its proxies continue to perpetuate terrorism," he said.
Yitzhak Aharonovitch, Israel's public security minister, went further in his statement: "We know who carried out the terror attacks, we know who sent them, and Israel will settle the score with them."
So again I ask the question, what the heck is Iran doing?
It would seem that Iran is deliberately provoking Israel to follow through on its threat to bomb Iran's nuclear processing facilities. The question is why. There's little doubt that an Israeli military strike on Iran would deal a serious (though probably temporary) setback to Iran's nuclear weapons aspirations. Surely, Iran is cognizant of this. But does Iran possibly have something more nefarious up the ayatollahs' deep sleeves? This is an election year for Iran, the first since the widely disputed presidential election in 2009 that saw thousands of Iranians take to the streets in an aborted precursor of 2011's Arab Spring. Protesters took the the streets of Tehran yesterday in limited numbers and were largely unhindered by police, though there were reports of arrests and tear gas.
Could Iran be deliberately goading Israel into an attack that Ahmedinajad and the Ayatollahs could then use as a rallying cry to unite the Iranian people under the banner of patriotism and thereby deflect attention away from corruption at the polling centers come March? It's an interesting theory and one that Israel (and its allies in the West) should consider when weighing the pros and cons of targeted military retaliation.
It's like a game of chess between two masterful opponents. Who can out-strategize or dupe the other into a checkmate scenario? Hopefully, it won't be Iran.
Ciao.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
In Defense of the Iranian People
Hi everyone!
With all this belligerent talk being hurled back and forth between the West and Iran and speculation about whether Iran has reached a "zone of immunity" as far as its nuclear aspirations are concerned, one is at risk of losing sight of the fact that Iran is a nation comprised of 74 million people who are all, for the most part, concerned with getting on with their daily lives--raising families, working to make sure they have money to put food on their tables, a roof over their heads, and clothes on their backs with perhaps a little saved over to splurge on the occasional vacation. In other words, the average Iranian is really not all that different from you or me. Yes, thirty-three years ago, the "people" violently overthrew a secular (and corrupt) dynasty in favor of an Islamic theocracy, but much of that fervor was derived from a collective--and perhaps naive--belief that the ayatollahs would strip the government of corruption and install a society that made up for the inequality and lack of morality that had been rife for decades under the Shah.
Thirty-three years later, those revolutionaries are now senior citizens. Two-thirds of the current Iranian population is under the age of 30, which is significant in that more than 50 percent of Iranians alive today were either not born during the Islamic Revolution, or were too young at the time to understand what it was all about and what it was in reaction against. All these young people know is that they live in a repressive and paranoid society that prevents them from enjoying personal freedom and has become the pariah of much of the civilized world.
As the U.S. and its allies assess the effectiveness of ever tightening sanctions and debate how best to destroy Iran's nuclear aspirations and cripple Iran's economy, let's pause for a moment to consider how all of this affects the average Iranian family mentioned above. A recent Gallup poll, quoted in today's New York Times, shows that "nearly two-thirds of Iranians though the sanctions would hurt their livelihoods. The poll also found that almost half of Iranians said there were times in the past year when they lacked enough money to buy food their families needed--triple the level from 2005."
I ask, how is this fair? Are these sanctions meant to incense the average Iranian to rise up against the government in the spirit of Tunisia or Egypt? They tried this in 2009--unfortunately, to little positive effect. Iran is essentially being held hostage between two rival political powers--Ayatollah Khamenei and the religious council versus President Ahmadinejad--each of whom is more concerned with preserving their grip on power than improving the lives of their citizenry. Put yourself in the shoes of our average Iranian. If your livelihood was indirectly being destroyed by a foreign power collective, would you be more likely to express anger at your own government or at the country/countries that were making your lives more difficult on a grass roots level? My guess is you'd choose the latter.
This column is not in defense of the ayatollahs. I am merely taking the humanitarian approach. Let's think about the Iranian people for once. Iran possesses a culturally diverse and rich history with a highly educated and sophisticated population. Until these people can effect positive change in their country on their own, we need to adapt a more compassionate and nuanced approach to how we deal with their government, otherwise we risk destroying an ancient civilization and inadvertently fostering an anti-U.S. mentality out of which nothing good will come.
Ciao.
With all this belligerent talk being hurled back and forth between the West and Iran and speculation about whether Iran has reached a "zone of immunity" as far as its nuclear aspirations are concerned, one is at risk of losing sight of the fact that Iran is a nation comprised of 74 million people who are all, for the most part, concerned with getting on with their daily lives--raising families, working to make sure they have money to put food on their tables, a roof over their heads, and clothes on their backs with perhaps a little saved over to splurge on the occasional vacation. In other words, the average Iranian is really not all that different from you or me. Yes, thirty-three years ago, the "people" violently overthrew a secular (and corrupt) dynasty in favor of an Islamic theocracy, but much of that fervor was derived from a collective--and perhaps naive--belief that the ayatollahs would strip the government of corruption and install a society that made up for the inequality and lack of morality that had been rife for decades under the Shah.
Thirty-three years later, those revolutionaries are now senior citizens. Two-thirds of the current Iranian population is under the age of 30, which is significant in that more than 50 percent of Iranians alive today were either not born during the Islamic Revolution, or were too young at the time to understand what it was all about and what it was in reaction against. All these young people know is that they live in a repressive and paranoid society that prevents them from enjoying personal freedom and has become the pariah of much of the civilized world.
As the U.S. and its allies assess the effectiveness of ever tightening sanctions and debate how best to destroy Iran's nuclear aspirations and cripple Iran's economy, let's pause for a moment to consider how all of this affects the average Iranian family mentioned above. A recent Gallup poll, quoted in today's New York Times, shows that "nearly two-thirds of Iranians though the sanctions would hurt their livelihoods. The poll also found that almost half of Iranians said there were times in the past year when they lacked enough money to buy food their families needed--triple the level from 2005."
I ask, how is this fair? Are these sanctions meant to incense the average Iranian to rise up against the government in the spirit of Tunisia or Egypt? They tried this in 2009--unfortunately, to little positive effect. Iran is essentially being held hostage between two rival political powers--Ayatollah Khamenei and the religious council versus President Ahmadinejad--each of whom is more concerned with preserving their grip on power than improving the lives of their citizenry. Put yourself in the shoes of our average Iranian. If your livelihood was indirectly being destroyed by a foreign power collective, would you be more likely to express anger at your own government or at the country/countries that were making your lives more difficult on a grass roots level? My guess is you'd choose the latter.
This column is not in defense of the ayatollahs. I am merely taking the humanitarian approach. Let's think about the Iranian people for once. Iran possesses a culturally diverse and rich history with a highly educated and sophisticated population. Until these people can effect positive change in their country on their own, we need to adapt a more compassionate and nuanced approach to how we deal with their government, otherwise we risk destroying an ancient civilization and inadvertently fostering an anti-U.S. mentality out of which nothing good will come.
Ciao.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Syria + Iran = A Whole Lot of Kicking and Screaming, But a Fall Nonetheless
Hi everyone!
Want to know the best way to thwart Iran's ambitions? Regime change in Syria. At least that's the theory posited by Rick Gladstone in today's New York Times. It's an interesting suggestion.
It turns out that Iran is more than a little dependent on its only true friend in the Middle East. It is through Syria that Iran channels its money and arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. But now that Hamas's prime minister Khaled Meshal has effectively closed up shop in Damascus with no plans to return there any time soon, Iran finds itself without one of its most trusted anchors. It also seems, at least from my perspective, that Hamas is seeking to distance itself from Iran. Mr. Meshal has been on an Arab World tour lately, hoping to gain support and legitimacy from governments in the region that up until now have preferred to keep Hamas at arms' length. Iran is currently undergoing its own financial problems, what with U.S.-backed sanctions slowly crippling its economy, legal action being threatened against any banks that deal with Iran's central bank, and a threatened oil embargo. In retaliation, Iran is flexing its muscles. It threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, but everyone knows this move would only be self-defeating and isn't likely to really occur. The source of much of the world's consternation with Iran is its continued pursuit of nuclear enrichment, regardless of nearly universal objections. Despite its continued threats, however, Iran now appears to be taking a slightly more diplomatic tact in allowing inspectors from the IAEA back into the country.
Word on the street is that Iran is supporting the Syrian army by providing it with weapons and tactical training against the protesters. No doubt it sees itself as supporting its best friend and neighbor. But one can almost guarantee that this is only going to bite Iran in the ass when the Assad regime eventually (and inevitably) falls and the new Syrian government is comprised of the heretofore opposition who aren't going to respond kindly to any Iranian meddling. Once this happens, Iran will only find itself even more isolated than it already does. And let's face it, as sanctions continue to squeeze the Iranian economy, the amount it gives to Syria is going to dwindle to nothing. It's kind of ironic really. By continuing to provoke international sanctions upon itself, Iran is hurting its buddy Syria more than it's actually helping. No more Iranian money means less that can go toward buttressing Assad and his cronies which means the inevitable downfall of yet another Middle Eastern dictator.
It won't happen overnight. Syria and Iran will go down kicking and screaming. But they will go down...
Ciao.
Want to know the best way to thwart Iran's ambitions? Regime change in Syria. At least that's the theory posited by Rick Gladstone in today's New York Times. It's an interesting suggestion.
It turns out that Iran is more than a little dependent on its only true friend in the Middle East. It is through Syria that Iran channels its money and arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. But now that Hamas's prime minister Khaled Meshal has effectively closed up shop in Damascus with no plans to return there any time soon, Iran finds itself without one of its most trusted anchors. It also seems, at least from my perspective, that Hamas is seeking to distance itself from Iran. Mr. Meshal has been on an Arab World tour lately, hoping to gain support and legitimacy from governments in the region that up until now have preferred to keep Hamas at arms' length. Iran is currently undergoing its own financial problems, what with U.S.-backed sanctions slowly crippling its economy, legal action being threatened against any banks that deal with Iran's central bank, and a threatened oil embargo. In retaliation, Iran is flexing its muscles. It threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, but everyone knows this move would only be self-defeating and isn't likely to really occur. The source of much of the world's consternation with Iran is its continued pursuit of nuclear enrichment, regardless of nearly universal objections. Despite its continued threats, however, Iran now appears to be taking a slightly more diplomatic tact in allowing inspectors from the IAEA back into the country.
Word on the street is that Iran is supporting the Syrian army by providing it with weapons and tactical training against the protesters. No doubt it sees itself as supporting its best friend and neighbor. But one can almost guarantee that this is only going to bite Iran in the ass when the Assad regime eventually (and inevitably) falls and the new Syrian government is comprised of the heretofore opposition who aren't going to respond kindly to any Iranian meddling. Once this happens, Iran will only find itself even more isolated than it already does. And let's face it, as sanctions continue to squeeze the Iranian economy, the amount it gives to Syria is going to dwindle to nothing. It's kind of ironic really. By continuing to provoke international sanctions upon itself, Iran is hurting its buddy Syria more than it's actually helping. No more Iranian money means less that can go toward buttressing Assad and his cronies which means the inevitable downfall of yet another Middle Eastern dictator.
It won't happen overnight. Syria and Iran will go down kicking and screaming. But they will go down...
Ciao.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Syria?
Hi everyone!
So the Arab League finally did it. Deciding that their observer mission to Syria was inadvertently doing more harm than good, it suspended the operation until further review. This means there are no observers on the ground and that the Assad government is now free to unleash its vengeance upon the opposition with impunity.
I suppose this shouldn't come as a surprise. I mean let's face it, the observers were never given the freedom of movement required to really get an accurate view of the situation. When you are under strict escort by troops loyal to the Assad government--the source of the problem to begin with--how much could they actually have expected to see? Not a lot.
Even though the League voted last week to extend the mission for another month, observers were dropping out right and left, thereby further eroding the credibility of the entire endeavor. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the Arab League does have a peace proposal on the table with the United Nations Security Council. In fact, most of the world--with the exception of course of Syria, Russia, China, and Iran--welcome the League's proposal as being the most proactive approach yet to taking the first steps toward ending the violence. The plan calls for Bashar to step down, temporarily ceding power to a vice president while a new government was formed. Of course, Bashar has stated ad nauseum that he has no intention of doing any such thing. He knows he has the support, in particular, of Russia from whom Syria imports tens of millions of dollars of arms each year. Russian Vice President (and soon-to-be President) Vladimir Putin has publicly expressed support for Bashar and has joined him in condemning Western (read U.S.) influence in inciting the Syrian insurgency. This is a similar accusation to that which Putin has made about the recent protests in his own country.
Although I have always been a skeptic of the Arab League observer mission, now that the mission has been suspended--albeit temporarily but I'm not hopeful of a renewal--where does that leave things? In a very bad way indeed. For however long it takes the League to decide whether to continue the mission or not, Assad has a perfect window of opportunity to inflict maximum damage upon the opposition movement. You'd be a fool to believe otherwise.
What gets me is that no one outside the Arab World really seems to care all that much. The Obama administration repeatedly claims to be "closely monitoring" events in Syria but what does that really mean? I don't advocate sending American troops to Syria. This would give Iran an opportunity to further decry American hegemony in the region and who's to say that Iran wouldn't use this as a catalyst to move the Republican Guard into Syria under the guise of protecting its Syrian ally? We don't want another Iraq. It's unlikely this would happen anyway given the fact that Obama is in the process of initiating a "reset" in its relations with Russia and is unlikely to do anything that would provoke further Russian consternation. It seems where the U.S. is concerned, democracy is great as long as it falls in line with our own political sensibilities, otherwise democracy just gets in the way of promoting our master agenda...though I'm not sure anyone--including our leaders in Washington--really knows what that is anymore.
There has been mention in the U.N. Security Council of enacting a no-fly zone over parts of Syria. It was an effective tool in bringing down Qaddafi in Libya and to a lesser extent Saddam in Iraq. But there are enough dissenting opinions in the Security Council about this that it's unlikely a no-fly zone is realistically within the equation.
So what to do? We need to give full support to the Arab League peace proposal and perhaps offer a sort of amnesty to Bashar and his allies in the Syrian government as an incentive for stepping down, not unlike that which was offered to President Saleh of Yemen--who, incidentally, is now in New York for medical treatment. Beyond this, our hands are tied. The situation on the ground is dire but, in Syria, military intervention could truly ignite a much greater regional conflagration than we've seen to this point, a conflagration that might include Iranian missile strikes on Israel, the threatened closing of the Strait of Hormuz...and much much worse.
Not good. Not good at all.
Ciao.
So the Arab League finally did it. Deciding that their observer mission to Syria was inadvertently doing more harm than good, it suspended the operation until further review. This means there are no observers on the ground and that the Assad government is now free to unleash its vengeance upon the opposition with impunity.
I suppose this shouldn't come as a surprise. I mean let's face it, the observers were never given the freedom of movement required to really get an accurate view of the situation. When you are under strict escort by troops loyal to the Assad government--the source of the problem to begin with--how much could they actually have expected to see? Not a lot.
Even though the League voted last week to extend the mission for another month, observers were dropping out right and left, thereby further eroding the credibility of the entire endeavor. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the Arab League does have a peace proposal on the table with the United Nations Security Council. In fact, most of the world--with the exception of course of Syria, Russia, China, and Iran--welcome the League's proposal as being the most proactive approach yet to taking the first steps toward ending the violence. The plan calls for Bashar to step down, temporarily ceding power to a vice president while a new government was formed. Of course, Bashar has stated ad nauseum that he has no intention of doing any such thing. He knows he has the support, in particular, of Russia from whom Syria imports tens of millions of dollars of arms each year. Russian Vice President (and soon-to-be President) Vladimir Putin has publicly expressed support for Bashar and has joined him in condemning Western (read U.S.) influence in inciting the Syrian insurgency. This is a similar accusation to that which Putin has made about the recent protests in his own country.
Although I have always been a skeptic of the Arab League observer mission, now that the mission has been suspended--albeit temporarily but I'm not hopeful of a renewal--where does that leave things? In a very bad way indeed. For however long it takes the League to decide whether to continue the mission or not, Assad has a perfect window of opportunity to inflict maximum damage upon the opposition movement. You'd be a fool to believe otherwise.
What gets me is that no one outside the Arab World really seems to care all that much. The Obama administration repeatedly claims to be "closely monitoring" events in Syria but what does that really mean? I don't advocate sending American troops to Syria. This would give Iran an opportunity to further decry American hegemony in the region and who's to say that Iran wouldn't use this as a catalyst to move the Republican Guard into Syria under the guise of protecting its Syrian ally? We don't want another Iraq. It's unlikely this would happen anyway given the fact that Obama is in the process of initiating a "reset" in its relations with Russia and is unlikely to do anything that would provoke further Russian consternation. It seems where the U.S. is concerned, democracy is great as long as it falls in line with our own political sensibilities, otherwise democracy just gets in the way of promoting our master agenda...though I'm not sure anyone--including our leaders in Washington--really knows what that is anymore.
There has been mention in the U.N. Security Council of enacting a no-fly zone over parts of Syria. It was an effective tool in bringing down Qaddafi in Libya and to a lesser extent Saddam in Iraq. But there are enough dissenting opinions in the Security Council about this that it's unlikely a no-fly zone is realistically within the equation.
So what to do? We need to give full support to the Arab League peace proposal and perhaps offer a sort of amnesty to Bashar and his allies in the Syrian government as an incentive for stepping down, not unlike that which was offered to President Saleh of Yemen--who, incidentally, is now in New York for medical treatment. Beyond this, our hands are tied. The situation on the ground is dire but, in Syria, military intervention could truly ignite a much greater regional conflagration than we've seen to this point, a conflagration that might include Iranian missile strikes on Israel, the threatened closing of the Strait of Hormuz...and much much worse.
Not good. Not good at all.
Ciao.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Friday Movie Review: A Separation
Hi everyone!
The Iranian film "A Separation" finally opened in Chicago today at the Music Box Theatre. I've been looking forward to seeing it ever since it opened in limited release last year so I schlepped up to see it this afternoon. Let me tell you, it was worth the wait.
"A Separation" has already won the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film and is a two-time Oscar nominee this year for both Best Foreign Film and Best Original Screenplay. It is rather ironic that this film is probably going to win at least one Oscar at a time when relations between the U.S. and Iran are at a thirty-year low.
In brief, the film tells the story of a married couple, Simin and her husband Nader, an average middle-class Iranian family living in Tehran. After fourteen years of marriage, Simin files for divorce so she and their teenage daughter Termeh can leave Iran for (assumably) a better life in the West. Nader refuses to leave because he is in the midst of caring for his elderly father who is suffering from Alzheimer's. The divorce petition is rejected and Simin moves in with her parents. Termeh, the daughter, chooses to stay with her father. At Simin's suggestion, Nader hires Razieh, a thirty-something pregnant woman with a strong religious conviction, to care for his father while he works during the day at a bank. The job proves too much for Razieh and when she tries to quit after a particularly bad (and at first unexplained) spell with Nader's father, things quickly spin out of control.
This film is riveting on a number of levels, not the least of which is that it illuminates a culture that is alien to so many of us in the West and a country that, because of its theocratic leadership and government-sanctioned extremist ideology, is as frightening and unpredictable in many ways as North Korea. Religion plays a key role in much of what unfolds onscreen even if it is less overt than many might expect. Simin and Nader are average workaday people who only want what's best for themselves and their child, although they do not agree on how to achieve this. For them, religion is not the issue. It has more to do with Nader's devotion to his ailing father than anything else. Razieh, however, who dresses in flowing chadors and calls religious hotlines to tell her whether a decision is morally acceptable, is forced to choose between doing what is right and what she believes God would want her to do. For someone with such a pious religious and moral conviction, she finds herself rendered powerless. Her hot-headed and unemployed husband, Houjat, doesn't help matters either.
While I was watching the film, I found myself asking all sorts of questions, particularly in regards to who was in the "right" and who was in the "wrong." Each of these characters suffers for stubbornly adhering to their own personal ethic. My own sympathies tended to side with Nader while my heart really went out to the daughter Termeh who is sadly caught in the middle and, at the end of the film, is forced to make an extremely difficult decision. As accusations mount and events devolve into a he said/she said situation with potentially strong ramifications, the film portrays the undercurrent of fear and paranoia that runs through Iranian society today. It never overtly condemns or criticizes the Iranian legal system but it is does show how it is based upon perceptions of religious morality and hearsay that from a legal perspective offers its citizens very little protection.
Asghar Farhadi--the writer, director, and producer--was banned from making the film in September 2010 after he was accused of making 'politically incorrect' statements in support of several banned or exiled Iranian filmmakers; however, the ban was lifted in October after it was determined Mr. Farhadi's statements had been misconstrued. The film received its premiere at the Fair International Film Festival in Tehran last February and has gone on to win great acclaim and several awards on the international film festival circuit.
For anyone interested in strong international film-making and receiving at least a glimpse of insight into a world closed to most of us here in the West, "A Separation" succeeds on both counts. It is one of the very best films of 2011.
Ciao.
The Iranian film "A Separation" finally opened in Chicago today at the Music Box Theatre. I've been looking forward to seeing it ever since it opened in limited release last year so I schlepped up to see it this afternoon. Let me tell you, it was worth the wait.
"A Separation" has already won the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film and is a two-time Oscar nominee this year for both Best Foreign Film and Best Original Screenplay. It is rather ironic that this film is probably going to win at least one Oscar at a time when relations between the U.S. and Iran are at a thirty-year low.
In brief, the film tells the story of a married couple, Simin and her husband Nader, an average middle-class Iranian family living in Tehran. After fourteen years of marriage, Simin files for divorce so she and their teenage daughter Termeh can leave Iran for (assumably) a better life in the West. Nader refuses to leave because he is in the midst of caring for his elderly father who is suffering from Alzheimer's. The divorce petition is rejected and Simin moves in with her parents. Termeh, the daughter, chooses to stay with her father. At Simin's suggestion, Nader hires Razieh, a thirty-something pregnant woman with a strong religious conviction, to care for his father while he works during the day at a bank. The job proves too much for Razieh and when she tries to quit after a particularly bad (and at first unexplained) spell with Nader's father, things quickly spin out of control.
This film is riveting on a number of levels, not the least of which is that it illuminates a culture that is alien to so many of us in the West and a country that, because of its theocratic leadership and government-sanctioned extremist ideology, is as frightening and unpredictable in many ways as North Korea. Religion plays a key role in much of what unfolds onscreen even if it is less overt than many might expect. Simin and Nader are average workaday people who only want what's best for themselves and their child, although they do not agree on how to achieve this. For them, religion is not the issue. It has more to do with Nader's devotion to his ailing father than anything else. Razieh, however, who dresses in flowing chadors and calls religious hotlines to tell her whether a decision is morally acceptable, is forced to choose between doing what is right and what she believes God would want her to do. For someone with such a pious religious and moral conviction, she finds herself rendered powerless. Her hot-headed and unemployed husband, Houjat, doesn't help matters either.
While I was watching the film, I found myself asking all sorts of questions, particularly in regards to who was in the "right" and who was in the "wrong." Each of these characters suffers for stubbornly adhering to their own personal ethic. My own sympathies tended to side with Nader while my heart really went out to the daughter Termeh who is sadly caught in the middle and, at the end of the film, is forced to make an extremely difficult decision. As accusations mount and events devolve into a he said/she said situation with potentially strong ramifications, the film portrays the undercurrent of fear and paranoia that runs through Iranian society today. It never overtly condemns or criticizes the Iranian legal system but it is does show how it is based upon perceptions of religious morality and hearsay that from a legal perspective offers its citizens very little protection.
Asghar Farhadi--the writer, director, and producer--was banned from making the film in September 2010 after he was accused of making 'politically incorrect' statements in support of several banned or exiled Iranian filmmakers; however, the ban was lifted in October after it was determined Mr. Farhadi's statements had been misconstrued. The film received its premiere at the Fair International Film Festival in Tehran last February and has gone on to win great acclaim and several awards on the international film festival circuit.
For anyone interested in strong international film-making and receiving at least a glimpse of insight into a world closed to most of us here in the West, "A Separation" succeeds on both counts. It is one of the very best films of 2011.
Ciao.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Love and Joy and Happiness: A Song to Make You Smile While Syria Burns and Sanctions Cripple
Hi everyone!
First of all, I hope you enjoyed the music video I posted last night. "Smile" is a new song and collaboration between two of world music's biggest stars: Tamer Hosny, the Egyptian pop singer who is about to embark on a tour of the U.S. and Canada next month, and Shaggy, the critically-acclaimed reggae singer. I got turned on to Mr. Hosny's music after reading Robin Wright's book "Rock the Casbah" about the origins of the protest movements that have resulted in the Arab Spring. Mr. Hosny's been criticized by some within the Arab world for not initially embracing the protest movement but then making a point of being in support of it, staging appearances in Tahrir Square, etc. Regardless, his music is poppy and infectious, and frequently alternates between Arabic and English-language lyrics. It's dance music with a slightly exotic Middle-Eastern flair that's right at home in any club from Cairo to London to New York to Chicago. "Smile" is one of my favorites. Although the song is not available on iTunes yet, Mr. Hosny's extensive discography is. I encourage you to check it out if you haven't already done so.
Unfortunately, though of no surprise, world leaders in the news today aren't subscribing to the song's upbeat and positive mantra: "We share love and joy, love and joy and happiness." Yesterday saw Bashar al-Assad making his first public appearance in months, addressing tens of thousands of his supporters in Damascus's Umayyad Square. In the ten minute address, he reiterated his "iron hand" stance against the protesters and the increasingly violent insurgency, telling them "I belong to this street...I came here to draw from your strength." This is rather rich coming from a leader who rarely appeared before "his people" before and, to many critics, seemed to prefer to hide behind advisors and sycophants (and perhaps other family members) than take center stage.
It was yet another day of tragedy in the beleaguered nation as word came of the death of respected French journalist Gilles Jacquier. Mr. Jacquier was reportedly killed by an exploding shell as he reported on a pro-government rally in Homs. It is unclear whether the shell was fired by government troops or the insurgency, such is the rather confusing situation on the ground. Meanwhile, Anwar Abdel Malik quit the the Arab League observer mission, claiming on Al Jazeera that "the mission was a farce and the observers have been fooled. The regime orchestrated it and fabricated most of what we saw to stop the Arab League from taking action against the regime." This is what I--and many others--have been saying all along. I'm starting to feel like a broken record where this whole issue is concerned. The Arab League observer report is due on January 19th. At this point, why bother? Assad is clearly unconcerned with anything the report might reveal, although the mission itself at least has a bit more credibility given the fact that Mr. Malik and others like him are finally coming out and saying they've seen atrocities first-hand. Syria is already under the crunch of sanctions as well as having lost its position on the League. Still Mr. Assad seems determined to keep his chin up and lead. Nothing short of direct foreign military intervention will stop him.
As for sanctions, I've always been kind of skeptical about their overall effectiveness. Look at Iran, for example. Recent reports say the economy has been severely affected by all the sanctions imposed upon it, yet Ahmedinejad and the ayatollahs seem just as determined--if not more than ever--to continue to subvert the West's desire that it end its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The only people who seem to suffer are everyday Iranians going about their lives. Sanctions only work if they incite the "street" to rise against their government in protest...that doesn't seem to be happening.
And I'm also skeptical of these targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, like the one that occurred yesterday. It is a well-known fact that Israel has been chomping at the bit to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities into the oblivion and that while the U.S. doesn't necessarily advocate military action, it probably doesn't disagree with it all too vociferously. Iran claims yesterday's assassination was the work of Israeli and American agents. Some Iran watchers have said it isn't completely out of the question that Tehran isn't responsible itself for these attacks given the fact that these scientists are pretty closely monitored and that it would be fairly difficult to successfully mount an operation against them. Who knows?
I agree that we don't want nuclear technology to fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue nations. There needs to be some semblance of checks and balances here. But I hold to the belief that nations should be allowed at least some level of self-determination. Were the roles reversed, I don't think the U.S. would react kindly to another country dictating how it defends itself. As people, if we feel like we're coming under attack, our natural reaction is to defend ourselves. Countries and governments are no different.
Iran should continue to be closely monitored, but I don't advocate murder. We look with horror at events unfolding in places like Syria, where the ruling autocrats kill dissenters with abandon. How is the West any different when it assassinates foreign citizens who flout Western ideals and norms?
Agree or disagree with me, it does give food for thought. But in the meantime, I'm putting on my ear buds and listening to Mr. Hosny and Shaggy sing about "love and joy and happiness." If only it could be. We'd all be much better off.
Ciao.
First of all, I hope you enjoyed the music video I posted last night. "Smile" is a new song and collaboration between two of world music's biggest stars: Tamer Hosny, the Egyptian pop singer who is about to embark on a tour of the U.S. and Canada next month, and Shaggy, the critically-acclaimed reggae singer. I got turned on to Mr. Hosny's music after reading Robin Wright's book "Rock the Casbah" about the origins of the protest movements that have resulted in the Arab Spring. Mr. Hosny's been criticized by some within the Arab world for not initially embracing the protest movement but then making a point of being in support of it, staging appearances in Tahrir Square, etc. Regardless, his music is poppy and infectious, and frequently alternates between Arabic and English-language lyrics. It's dance music with a slightly exotic Middle-Eastern flair that's right at home in any club from Cairo to London to New York to Chicago. "Smile" is one of my favorites. Although the song is not available on iTunes yet, Mr. Hosny's extensive discography is. I encourage you to check it out if you haven't already done so.
Unfortunately, though of no surprise, world leaders in the news today aren't subscribing to the song's upbeat and positive mantra: "We share love and joy, love and joy and happiness." Yesterday saw Bashar al-Assad making his first public appearance in months, addressing tens of thousands of his supporters in Damascus's Umayyad Square. In the ten minute address, he reiterated his "iron hand" stance against the protesters and the increasingly violent insurgency, telling them "I belong to this street...I came here to draw from your strength." This is rather rich coming from a leader who rarely appeared before "his people" before and, to many critics, seemed to prefer to hide behind advisors and sycophants (and perhaps other family members) than take center stage.
It was yet another day of tragedy in the beleaguered nation as word came of the death of respected French journalist Gilles Jacquier. Mr. Jacquier was reportedly killed by an exploding shell as he reported on a pro-government rally in Homs. It is unclear whether the shell was fired by government troops or the insurgency, such is the rather confusing situation on the ground. Meanwhile, Anwar Abdel Malik quit the the Arab League observer mission, claiming on Al Jazeera that "the mission was a farce and the observers have been fooled. The regime orchestrated it and fabricated most of what we saw to stop the Arab League from taking action against the regime." This is what I--and many others--have been saying all along. I'm starting to feel like a broken record where this whole issue is concerned. The Arab League observer report is due on January 19th. At this point, why bother? Assad is clearly unconcerned with anything the report might reveal, although the mission itself at least has a bit more credibility given the fact that Mr. Malik and others like him are finally coming out and saying they've seen atrocities first-hand. Syria is already under the crunch of sanctions as well as having lost its position on the League. Still Mr. Assad seems determined to keep his chin up and lead. Nothing short of direct foreign military intervention will stop him.
As for sanctions, I've always been kind of skeptical about their overall effectiveness. Look at Iran, for example. Recent reports say the economy has been severely affected by all the sanctions imposed upon it, yet Ahmedinejad and the ayatollahs seem just as determined--if not more than ever--to continue to subvert the West's desire that it end its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The only people who seem to suffer are everyday Iranians going about their lives. Sanctions only work if they incite the "street" to rise against their government in protest...that doesn't seem to be happening.
And I'm also skeptical of these targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, like the one that occurred yesterday. It is a well-known fact that Israel has been chomping at the bit to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities into the oblivion and that while the U.S. doesn't necessarily advocate military action, it probably doesn't disagree with it all too vociferously. Iran claims yesterday's assassination was the work of Israeli and American agents. Some Iran watchers have said it isn't completely out of the question that Tehran isn't responsible itself for these attacks given the fact that these scientists are pretty closely monitored and that it would be fairly difficult to successfully mount an operation against them. Who knows?
I agree that we don't want nuclear technology to fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue nations. There needs to be some semblance of checks and balances here. But I hold to the belief that nations should be allowed at least some level of self-determination. Were the roles reversed, I don't think the U.S. would react kindly to another country dictating how it defends itself. As people, if we feel like we're coming under attack, our natural reaction is to defend ourselves. Countries and governments are no different.
Iran should continue to be closely monitored, but I don't advocate murder. We look with horror at events unfolding in places like Syria, where the ruling autocrats kill dissenters with abandon. How is the West any different when it assassinates foreign citizens who flout Western ideals and norms?
Agree or disagree with me, it does give food for thought. But in the meantime, I'm putting on my ear buds and listening to Mr. Hosny and Shaggy sing about "love and joy and happiness." If only it could be. We'd all be much better off.
Ciao.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Amir Mirzaei Hekmati--a Pawn on the Chessboard of U.S.-Iranian Relations
Hi everyone!
Yesterday, Iran sentenced and condemned to death a 28 year-old American citizen for spying for the CIA and being an "enemy of Islam." Amir Mirzaei Hekmati was apparently visiting family in Iran last fall when he was arrested. News of his arrest only came to light in December when a videotaped "confession" was broadcast on Iranian television. According to Iran, Mr. Hekmati admitted to being sent to Iran by the CIA to spy on the Intelligence Ministry. He has twenty days to register an appeal against the ruling.
This latest bit of madness marks the nadir in 33 years of contentious U.S.-Iran relations. It is not, however, the first time in recent history that Iran has detained and accused American citizens of espionage. Just last September it finally released two American hikers who had been accused of illegally entering Iran with the negative intent. In 2009, an Iranian-American journalist was also arrested but later freed after an international diplomatic uproar. Given this history, it is highly likely that Mr. Hekmati's arrest and sentencing is little more than Iran playing its usual game of brinkmanship as a means of lessening scrutiny on its suspected nuclear weapons program. In this most recent case, however, there is a twist.
Prior to visiting Iran, Mr. Hekmati acquired an Iranian passport as a means of easing his ability to travel to the country. He is, therefore, a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen. The problem though is that Iran does not recognize dual citizenship. Therefore, in the eyes of Iran's judicial system, Mr. Hekmati is first and foremost a citizen of Iran and as such is to held accountable to Iranian law which would uphold the death sentence. Another possible strike against Mr. Hekmati is that from 2001 to 2005, he served in the U.S. Marine Corps and had active duty in Iraq as well as--though the Obama administration will not confirm this--in Afghanistan. From Iran's perspective then, this makes Mr. Hekmati somewhat of a jewel in their crown. They are less likely to suspend his sentence or to give in to international calls for his release.
Of course, it would serve absolutely no benefit to Iran were they to go ahead and execute him. Iran is increasingly a pariah state on the world stage, with very few allies outside of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and a small handful of Latin American autocrats propping it up. With sanctions crippling the Iranian economy and increasing threats of an embargo against Iranian oil exports, Iran has very few credible bargaining chips left to it. A threat to close the Strait of Hormuz to shipping last week failed to materialize because such an action would have done more damage to the Iranian people than the foreign economies it was meant to target. It would seem then that Iran is grasping for anything that they feel boosts their position at the negotiating table.
But while Iran claims a desire to reopen talks with the U.S. and the West regarding the true motives behind its development of nuclear capabilities, it contradicts itself by announcing this week that it had begun to enrich uranium at a second location. The new site is reported to be deeply entrenched beneath a military installation, thus protecting it from U.S. or (more likely) an Israeli missile strike. So it's not really clear what Iran is playing at...but then Iran has always been rather opaque.
I would like to believe Mr. Hekmati is merely being used as pawn on the ever-shifting but deeply entrenched chessboard of US-Iranian relations, and that when the West refuses to make any concessions for his release, Iran will cede defeat and release him. This is just going on past history. But there is always the possibility for surprise. If Iran truly feels it is being backed into a corner and that it has no other option other than to lash out, there is a chance that Mr. Hekmati may not be saved. How this would serve Iranian aims in the long run is anyone's guess. But then, that seems to be what Ahmedinajad does best--keeping the world guessing and holding it off at arms'-length while it continues to "secretly" enrich its uranium.
Ciao.
Yesterday, Iran sentenced and condemned to death a 28 year-old American citizen for spying for the CIA and being an "enemy of Islam." Amir Mirzaei Hekmati was apparently visiting family in Iran last fall when he was arrested. News of his arrest only came to light in December when a videotaped "confession" was broadcast on Iranian television. According to Iran, Mr. Hekmati admitted to being sent to Iran by the CIA to spy on the Intelligence Ministry. He has twenty days to register an appeal against the ruling.
This latest bit of madness marks the nadir in 33 years of contentious U.S.-Iran relations. It is not, however, the first time in recent history that Iran has detained and accused American citizens of espionage. Just last September it finally released two American hikers who had been accused of illegally entering Iran with the negative intent. In 2009, an Iranian-American journalist was also arrested but later freed after an international diplomatic uproar. Given this history, it is highly likely that Mr. Hekmati's arrest and sentencing is little more than Iran playing its usual game of brinkmanship as a means of lessening scrutiny on its suspected nuclear weapons program. In this most recent case, however, there is a twist.
Prior to visiting Iran, Mr. Hekmati acquired an Iranian passport as a means of easing his ability to travel to the country. He is, therefore, a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen. The problem though is that Iran does not recognize dual citizenship. Therefore, in the eyes of Iran's judicial system, Mr. Hekmati is first and foremost a citizen of Iran and as such is to held accountable to Iranian law which would uphold the death sentence. Another possible strike against Mr. Hekmati is that from 2001 to 2005, he served in the U.S. Marine Corps and had active duty in Iraq as well as--though the Obama administration will not confirm this--in Afghanistan. From Iran's perspective then, this makes Mr. Hekmati somewhat of a jewel in their crown. They are less likely to suspend his sentence or to give in to international calls for his release.
Of course, it would serve absolutely no benefit to Iran were they to go ahead and execute him. Iran is increasingly a pariah state on the world stage, with very few allies outside of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and a small handful of Latin American autocrats propping it up. With sanctions crippling the Iranian economy and increasing threats of an embargo against Iranian oil exports, Iran has very few credible bargaining chips left to it. A threat to close the Strait of Hormuz to shipping last week failed to materialize because such an action would have done more damage to the Iranian people than the foreign economies it was meant to target. It would seem then that Iran is grasping for anything that they feel boosts their position at the negotiating table.
But while Iran claims a desire to reopen talks with the U.S. and the West regarding the true motives behind its development of nuclear capabilities, it contradicts itself by announcing this week that it had begun to enrich uranium at a second location. The new site is reported to be deeply entrenched beneath a military installation, thus protecting it from U.S. or (more likely) an Israeli missile strike. So it's not really clear what Iran is playing at...but then Iran has always been rather opaque.
I would like to believe Mr. Hekmati is merely being used as pawn on the ever-shifting but deeply entrenched chessboard of US-Iranian relations, and that when the West refuses to make any concessions for his release, Iran will cede defeat and release him. This is just going on past history. But there is always the possibility for surprise. If Iran truly feels it is being backed into a corner and that it has no other option other than to lash out, there is a chance that Mr. Hekmati may not be saved. How this would serve Iranian aims in the long run is anyone's guess. But then, that seems to be what Ahmedinajad does best--keeping the world guessing and holding it off at arms'-length while it continues to "secretly" enrich its uranium.
Ciao.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Rescue at Sea: The U.S., Iran, and Basic Human Decency
Hi everybody!
I was going to keep it light today as it is Friday but I changed my mind after I started going through the afternoon's news. Earlier today, the U.S. aircraft carrier John C. Stennis rescued a crew of Iranian fishermen that had been detained since November by pirates somewhere in the North Arabian Sea. This is the same aircraft carrier that the Iranian government had indirectly warned on Tuesday not to dare enter the Persian Gulf on threat of a presumed military strike. The Stennis is on a return voyage from transporting aircraft for use in Afghanistan.
While initial reports are pretty vague, it seems the Iranian fishermen were rescued without incident and are on their way back to Iran, though how they are getting there is not publicly known. The pirates, whose nationality has not yet been released though we can probably assume they are Somalian or in the very least are backed by el-Shabab, are currently being detained on the aircraft carrier awaiting further action.
If nothing else, this is a good example of human decency on the high seas. It is common practice in sailing that when one encounters a sailing vessel in trouble one offers assistance if reasonably possible, regardless of nationality. I suppose it is more than a little ironic that in this particular case, the rescuer is American and the rescued is Iranian given the two countries' acrimonious history, especially recently. But there you have it.
I saw the initial report on CNN while I was in the gym this afternoon and then afterwards went to my trusty New York Times website to find out a little more. What set me off are the tone and content of many of the comments posted in response to the article by other readers. I know and appreciate the fact that relations with Iran aren't good and that there is still a lot of resentment toward Iran for the taking of hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979. I get that. But haven't we moved on just a little bit since then? Obviously, I can't speak for Iran but I will venture a guess that perhaps the majority of Iranian citizens don't necessarily harbor the government-perpetuated belief that America is "The Great Satan." They may chant "Death to America" in their government-sanctioned demonstrations and burn effigies of our presidents and secretaries of state but I'm inclined to think that most Iranians today don't hate the U.S. with the fervidity of the 1979 revolutionaries. I read that something close to 50% of the Iranian population is under the age of 30 which would mean that half of all Iranians weren't even born or were just out of their mothers' wombs when the Shah was overthrown and the country became the world's first true theocracy. (On a side note, for an insightful and revealing look at the lives of a group of pretty extraordinary Iranian women at the time of and just after the revolution, read Azar Nafisi's brilliant memoir "Reading Lolita in Tehran.")
Okay, it is dubious that President Ahmedinajad or Ayotallah Khamenei will issue a public outpouring of gratitude to the U.S. for the rescuing of the sailors. And if the roles had been reversed, it probably isn't too much of a stretch to imagine that Iran would detain the rescued sailors and parade them in front of the media for some sort of political purpose or use them as pawns in a ploy to alleviate or negotiate the easing of recent U.S. and European sanctions. But is it really necessary to use this as a platform for Stars and Stripes Forever posturing? One person even commented: "Take that, Iran!" Really? What purpose does that serve other than to make the average American look like a petty redneck, which pretty much confirms what most of the rest of the world already thinks.
I realize this may sound like I'm the one being petty, and that isn't my intention. I just think that many Americans have a tendency to jump on the opportunity to shove the patriotic thing down the world's throat and tell everyone how morally superior we are, which ultimately does nothing to help our standing on the international stage.
The crew of the John C. Stennis did a good and decent thing today. The Iranian sailors are appreciative even if their government is not. Let's not make this into something more than it is: an example of basic human kindness. Some things are what they are and aren't meant to be used as props for needless patriotic muscle-flexing.
Ciao.
I was going to keep it light today as it is Friday but I changed my mind after I started going through the afternoon's news. Earlier today, the U.S. aircraft carrier John C. Stennis rescued a crew of Iranian fishermen that had been detained since November by pirates somewhere in the North Arabian Sea. This is the same aircraft carrier that the Iranian government had indirectly warned on Tuesday not to dare enter the Persian Gulf on threat of a presumed military strike. The Stennis is on a return voyage from transporting aircraft for use in Afghanistan.
While initial reports are pretty vague, it seems the Iranian fishermen were rescued without incident and are on their way back to Iran, though how they are getting there is not publicly known. The pirates, whose nationality has not yet been released though we can probably assume they are Somalian or in the very least are backed by el-Shabab, are currently being detained on the aircraft carrier awaiting further action.
If nothing else, this is a good example of human decency on the high seas. It is common practice in sailing that when one encounters a sailing vessel in trouble one offers assistance if reasonably possible, regardless of nationality. I suppose it is more than a little ironic that in this particular case, the rescuer is American and the rescued is Iranian given the two countries' acrimonious history, especially recently. But there you have it.
I saw the initial report on CNN while I was in the gym this afternoon and then afterwards went to my trusty New York Times website to find out a little more. What set me off are the tone and content of many of the comments posted in response to the article by other readers. I know and appreciate the fact that relations with Iran aren't good and that there is still a lot of resentment toward Iran for the taking of hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979. I get that. But haven't we moved on just a little bit since then? Obviously, I can't speak for Iran but I will venture a guess that perhaps the majority of Iranian citizens don't necessarily harbor the government-perpetuated belief that America is "The Great Satan." They may chant "Death to America" in their government-sanctioned demonstrations and burn effigies of our presidents and secretaries of state but I'm inclined to think that most Iranians today don't hate the U.S. with the fervidity of the 1979 revolutionaries. I read that something close to 50% of the Iranian population is under the age of 30 which would mean that half of all Iranians weren't even born or were just out of their mothers' wombs when the Shah was overthrown and the country became the world's first true theocracy. (On a side note, for an insightful and revealing look at the lives of a group of pretty extraordinary Iranian women at the time of and just after the revolution, read Azar Nafisi's brilliant memoir "Reading Lolita in Tehran.")
Okay, it is dubious that President Ahmedinajad or Ayotallah Khamenei will issue a public outpouring of gratitude to the U.S. for the rescuing of the sailors. And if the roles had been reversed, it probably isn't too much of a stretch to imagine that Iran would detain the rescued sailors and parade them in front of the media for some sort of political purpose or use them as pawns in a ploy to alleviate or negotiate the easing of recent U.S. and European sanctions. But is it really necessary to use this as a platform for Stars and Stripes Forever posturing? One person even commented: "Take that, Iran!" Really? What purpose does that serve other than to make the average American look like a petty redneck, which pretty much confirms what most of the rest of the world already thinks.
I realize this may sound like I'm the one being petty, and that isn't my intention. I just think that many Americans have a tendency to jump on the opportunity to shove the patriotic thing down the world's throat and tell everyone how morally superior we are, which ultimately does nothing to help our standing on the international stage.
The crew of the John C. Stennis did a good and decent thing today. The Iranian sailors are appreciative even if their government is not. Let's not make this into something more than it is: an example of basic human kindness. Some things are what they are and aren't meant to be used as props for needless patriotic muscle-flexing.
Ciao.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)