[Hoje Macau, Macau]



Die Welt, Germany

Iran and the West: On a Political Collision Course


Iranian politicians and media blame the United States for the mass protests of recent weeks. The Iranian media doesn't give much of a chance to dialog with Washington. All signs point toward confrontational politics.


By Dr. Wahied Wahdat-Hagh*



Translated By Ulf Behncke


August 7, 2009


Germany - Die Welt - Original Article (German)

Hojatoleslam Hasan Taeb: commander of the much-maligned paramilitary Basij, he says the United States and its allies are responsible for his nation's post-election unrest.


BBC VIDEO NEWS: A defiant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is sworn in for a second term, Aug. 5, 00:02:12RealVideo

The cleric Hojatoleslam Hasan Taeb [photo, right] is commander of the paramilitary Basij, which call themselves the "Basij Resistance Force." Taeb says that in the wake of the so-called presidential elections, the U.S. played a major role in the protests.


According to the Fars News Agency on August 2, Taeb assumes that for the first decade of the Islamic Revolution, the U.S. unsuccessfully pursued a "coup strategy."




During the second decade, i.e. the 1990's, U.S. foreign policy focused on a strategy of "cultural invasion." In doing so, the Americans learned that Iran was very much different from Iraq, emphasizes Taeb. Only during the third decade did U.S. foreign policy concentrate on Israel's security. But even that strategy has failed, Taeb says.


In the current fourth decade, Taeb declares with certainty, U.S. foreign policy, "attempted to deal a blow to the Islamic Republic with a new discourse." The U.S. had officially entered into a dialogue with Iran. The U.S. government, however, was apparently intent on "deliberately derailing this dialogue." In any case, the U.S. government realized that, "Iran's national interests were beyond reach." Meanwhile, U.S. politicians were willing, "to play with the psyche of the Iranian people," believes Taeb.


The Basij-officer says that the Persian-language service of the BBC and other foreign-based Persian channels were founded in order to, "disrupt the Iranian electoral system." Western governments allegedly contacted presidential candidate Moussavi in order to control the protests. What's most surprising is that Taeb declares the millions of protesting Iranians as being seduced by the United States.




Iranian analyst Mehdi Mohammadi makes a different case. On July 27 he wrote in Kayhan that the U.S. never actually had a political strategy with regard to Iran.


After lengthy deliberations, U.S. politicians merely came to the conclusion that, "one should talk to Iran." The U.S. government had long since reached an agreement with Israel on the question of dialogue with Iran. But since no dialogue had actually taken place, no U.S. strategy was formulated. At the same time, however, Iran was to be put under pressure economically as well as with threats of war to get it to give in, Mohammadi writes in Kayhan.


Mohammadi claims to know the Israeli perspective: Israel assumes that the U.S. government won't be able to prevent the Iranian nuclear bomb, so therefore it will protect its allies with a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. From this, Mohammadi concludes that the United States has a "strategic need for a dialogue with Iran."


In addition, Mohammadi is certain that the U.S. assumes that, "the objective threats to its national security come from Pakistan and Afghanistan," and not from Iran. For Mohammadi, neither Israeli threats of war nor U.S. Congressional plans for sanctions are relevant because the U.S. government is aligning itself with the dialogue being conducted by the G8. The U.S. government's only concern is that Iran might not take up the offer of dialogue with the United States. And if the U.S. were to contemplate punitive measures, the goal would simply be to draw Iran back to the negotiating table.


Iran has until September 2009 to give up its nuclear program before the G8 addresses the issue again - a demand categorically dismissed by Iranian leaders.





Iranian commentators and politicians know full well that on the agenda during talks with Iran would be not only the Iranian nuclear program, but also its support for Islamist terrorism against Israel. That is why Hussam al-Din Boroumand, in his article from August 1, also in Kayhan, refers to the differences between the U.S. and Israel in regard to Israeli settlements. He discovered that in regard to the impasse in the peace process, there is a substantial discrepancy between the Islamist concept of peace and the ideas of the West.


Member of Iranian Majlis, Ghodratollah Alikhani: 'The people's

trust in this country's regime and leaders has been fractured.'



He writes in Kayhan that the peace process championed by the U.S. and Israel is a "Zionist-American path to peace" and that President Obama has even attempted to "inject" into Arab governments a "Zionist" understanding of the peace process.




Kayhan, the mouthpiece of Iranian revolutionary leader Ali Khamenei, wrote that over the past 60 years, peace has been rendered impossible due to the, "false identity of the Zionist regime." Furthermore, the paper suggests that, "the only way forward is to eliminate the artificial and illegitimate Zionist regime from the geography of the region." And the only way to "neutralize American tricks" is "confrontation."



Actually, it isn't the Americans or Zionists that "threaten the Islamic resistance, but conciliatory Arabs who would give the Americans a green light to make the "Zionist-American peace" possible. The author repeats the so-called Islamic Republic's state ideology, which states that, "peace will only come to the Middle East with certainty once this artificial regime has been completely wiped off the political geography of the region."




There are also direct attacks on former President Khatami and former Prime Minister Mousavi. Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Akbar Qureshi, member of the Assembly of Experts, which appoints the revolutionary leader, accused Khatami and Moussavi of having fomented the protests on behalf of Israel, the U.S. and the U.K. He explicitly stated that "Khatami and Moussavi wanted to block the development of the revolution and overthrow the government."


Bookmark and Share


None other than Ali Larijani, chairman of the Iranian Majlis, an Islamist Assembly wrongly described as a parliament, said at the inauguration of Ahmadinejad that the Iranian people would, "in due course give the West the appropriate answer."


*Dr. Wahied Wahdat-Hagh was born on October 20, 1957 in Ludwigsburg, in southern Germany. He's a senior research fellow at the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels. He received his PhD at the Freie Universitšt Berlin. His dissertation, 'The Islamic Republic of Iran: The Rule of Political Islam as a Form of Totalitarianism,' was published in 2003.







































[Posted by WORLDMEETS.US August 11, 2:45am]



Bookmark and Share