Islamic Republic of Iran’s Presidential Election 1400

Islamic Republic of Iran’s Presidential Election 1400

June 03, 2021

by Mansoureh Tajik for the Saker Blog

The list of candidates for the 1400 Islamic Republic of Iran Presidential Election has shocked and surprised only those analysts and reporters whose investigative skills have been rendered dull perhaps by covidus lifeosis (abnormal life caused by covid) or by sourcepenia crediblerrhexis (ruptured credibility due to an abnormal reduction in the number of informed sources) or by some other malady of unknown etiology. Had the baffled and the bewildered had their fingers on the right non-digitized social and political pulses inside Iran, especially those of the past twelve years, it is likely they would not have found the list shocking.

As a general personal rule, I do not get into peripheral details of political factions, personalities, and transient political lather, froth, and intrigues peculiar to election times and their aftermaths with audiences either inside or outside Iran. I often use the opportunity, however, to remind people of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, relevant bodies and laws with respect to a specific election, and the degree to which given organs, oversight bodies, hopefuls, and candidates follow or deviate from those laws based on proven and credible public sources and records. When the Saker kindly asked me to write about the rationale behind the most recent finalized list of presidential candidates, I thought I could do something similar for this blog.

I am going to briefly discuss with you what I would, more or less, present inside Iran when I am invited to talk and hope the discussion proves useful in making sense of what is happening right now and what to expect in the future. I will focus this essay on three key areas: 1) The role and conduct of the Guardian Council as a review & decision-making body with respect to elections and candidates based on the constitution of the Islamic Republic; 2) Overview of “Who is Who” in the Iranian political scene as various political groups, factions, and personalities emerge and how these personalities and groups treating the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran with their words and deeds; and 3) The importance of the outcome of this year’s election for the Iranians, the people of the region, and the Resistance using an important official document released by the Leader, Ayatullah Khamenei, on the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Republic in 1397 [2019], titled “Gaam_e Dovvom_e Enghlaab,” or The 2nd Phase of the Revolution.[1]

1. The Guardian Council and the Final List of Candidates for Presidential Election 1400

The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran entrusts the Guardian Council with three major responsibilities: a) Oversight of all laws, legislations, and rules to make sure they are in accordance with the constitution AND fiqh according to Shi’a Islam; b) Interpretation of the Constitution where and when such interpretation is needed; and c) Oversight over all elections and their components including the qualifications and records of the applicants and their approval as candidates.[2] In a nutshell, the Council is obligated to use the tools and the authority given to it by law to guard and protect the Constitution and when an interpretation is needed, to make sure that interpretation is in accordance with Shi’a Islam fiqh.

As far as the presidential candidates are concerned, if someone openly and publicly expresses his rejection of the Constitution or its key components, for example, and there is solid proof of that, or if he acts in violation of key components of the Constitution and there is solid proof of that, or if he breaks the law and has a file in the legal system, then he should not expect to be approved as a candidate to run for the position of the president, which is the 2nd most important position in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is regardless of how popular that person may imagine himself to be. Should the person of that caliber be approved, then the Guardian Council must be held accountable for breach of duties. This is not some revolutionary idea or practice. It is a wise and reasonable expectation of a body with responsibilities of that nature in any system of governance anywhere in the world.

Related to the approved list, a key question we must ask is this: Does the Guardian Council apply its evaluation and assessment of the applicants in a fair and unbiased manner, or does it appear that some applicants are being treated as more equal than others?

To answer the above question, I explain the structure of the Council and we could take a look at a few records of their past decisions.

The Guardian Council consists of 12 members. Six members must be “faqih adil wa jame’ushumul,” or well-rounded, just and pious religious jurist with proven records in fiqh and in justice. These members are selected and appointed by Wali Faqih, or the Supreme Leader, in consultation with Majlis Khobregan Rahbari, or the Assembly of the Experts in Leadership which is an 88- member assembly directly elected by the people. The other six members must be just, pious, and knowledgeable legal experts with proven records in their expertise. These members are nominated by the head of the judiciary and approved by a majority vote by the members of Majlis Shoraye Islami, or the Iranian Parliament. So, six legal experts and six religious experts are responsible for safeguarding the laws of the Constitution and the laws of the Religion (Shi’a Islam).

Perhaps the nearest similar body to the Guardian Council in terms of function is the United States Supreme Court. Of course, I am using the term “similar function” extremely loosely here since the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Guardian Council is in charge of guarding and protecting a constitution that has defense of the oppressed in the world as one of its important principles and the US Supreme Court is in charge of guarding and protecting whatever it is guarding and protecting to ensure the Global Arrogance can continue to arrogate, aggress, and wreak havoc upon the defenseless.

At least 7 out of 12 votes are required for an applicant to be approved as a presidential candidate. Once the list is submitted and published by the Ministry of Interior, it is considered final. According to the law, however, the Supreme Leader can use what is called “Hokm_e Rahbari,” or the Leader’s Decree, to make a change to that list. In the past 40+ years, only once did this happen. During the 1384 [2005] presidential election, when the list was published, Ayatullah Khamenei sent a letter the Council and asked them to add two additional names to the list of candidates for that year’s election. The text of that letter is as follows:

“Ayatullay Jannati, the Secretary General of the Guardian Council,

With salaam and greetings. Thank you for the great efforts of the esteemed Council and the important task of determining the competencies of the presidential candidates for the 9th presidential election. With due observance of the law in this order, it is desirable for people with diverse political preferences to have the occasion as well as the opportunity for their great test in the election. Therefore, you should consider the announcement of the gentlemen, Dr. Mostafa Mueen and Engineer Mehralizadeh as candidates.

Wasalaam Alaykum.

Sayyed Ali Khamenei,


The phrase “great test” in the Leader’s statement carries with it a significant message. From the perspective of our responsibilities before God, these positions of power, regardless of the position and level, are tests through which the strength of our characters and purity of our beliefs get authenticated.

The two candidates added to the list by the Leader belonged to the reformist camp. The augmented list now reflected a more representative list of the most notable political factions of that time. Some analysts later speculated that this addition led to a split in votes for Hashemi Rafsanjani and an ultimate victory for Mahmoud Ahamadinejad who was supported by the principlist camp during that election. Their speculation was based on an assumption that those who voted for Mueen and Mehralizadeh (the reformist camp) would have voted for Rafsanjani (the technocrat liberal economy camp).

Perhaps a parallel to this phenomenon could be drawn with the 1992 US presidential election when Ross Perot entered the race as an independent candidate and that led to a split in votes for Bush Sr. and handed a victory to Bill Clinton.

I find the claims regarding a split in Rafsanjani’s vote unsubstantiated though. I think a widespread sense of “anyone but Rafsanjani” at that time was much stronger than what some of those analysts are willing to admit.

At any rate, in subsequent elections and since then, every time the Guardian Council released the final list, given personalities sent letters to the Leader and asked him to add specific people to the list. However, the Leader never intervened again. Those who sent letters to the Leader, I think, do not really “get” why the Leader used his Hokm_e Rahbari authority that once and why he is unlikely to use it unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Despite what foreign media and their echo chambers inside Iran propagate, I think the Guardian Council’s decision-making calculus has been ameliorated in favor of a more diversified and less conservative list in reviewing applications by the Council. I also think that one-time mandate by the Leader had something to do with this change. There has been a few names in the 1388 (2009), 1392 (2013), and 1396 (2017) list of candidates that should not have been there had the Council’s vetting been more by the letter of the law.

2. “Who is Who” in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Current Political Scene

If we use the Pareto principle and apply the general 80-20 rule to the socio-political scene in Iran and assume that 80% of the general voting population is influenced by the 20% political elites, then we could divvy up the 20% so-called elites into six somewhat loose categories based on what we see of the present political currents. I constructed the table below to give an overall sense of various groups and notable personalities in three areas of social, economic, and foreign policy stance. I based this categorization on what each group’s actual records show and not what they theoretically claim. The candidacy of the names in green was approved by the Guardian Council. The names that are crossed are known personalities that did not make it to the final list.

Each member of the Guardian Council casts its vote in writing and it is “Gheyre Alani”. That means, the Council members discuss each candidate’s application among themselves but cast a secret vote. So, none of the members knows who exactly voted “yes” or who voted “no” for a given application. In cases when an applicant did not make it to the list and he wants to know why, the Council reveals the content of the discussion to him and him only. However, if the applicant wishes for the discussion to be made public, then he must submit a written request to the Council and the specific discussions will be revealed. So far, I could not find any records of any candidates having submitted any such written request.

Since we do not have any credible report from the Council’s discussions, I will briefly review some of the publicly available records on two of the notable personalities who did not make the list. We examine potential reasons for why these two candidates did not earn at least 7 out of 12 votes. I would like to reiterate that these are my assessments and I have absolutely no access nor am I privy to the records of undisclosed discussions by the Guardian Council. The two applicants are Ali Larijani and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ali Larijani. He is a well-known figure in the Principlist camp and most recently served as the head of the Majlis Shoraye Islami, or the Parliament. His brother, Ayatullah Amoli Larijani, who was the head of the Judiciary is also one of the 12 members of the Guardian Council. It appears Ayatullah Larijani was not able to persuade enough other members of the Council in favor of his brother. After the final list had been released, Ayatullah Larijani made the following public statement:

“Since the beginning of my participation in the Guardian Council in 1380 [2001] nearly 20 years has passed. In all this time, I have defended the Guardian Council even during the years I was in the Judiciary. But I had never found the decision of the Council so much indefensible whether in approval or in lack of approval for qualifications. This chaos is to a large degree related to the interference by security organs through false reports that exert undue influence on the decision of the members of the Guardian Council.”[4]

Ugh. I find the fact that Ayatullah Larijani participated in the discussion and did not recuse himself due to conflict of interest disturbing. But let us assume he has reached a level of Taqwa that he can keep his bias on a tight leash and explore if his displeasure with fellow council members is warranted.

One factual, publicly available, and verifiable information is this: Fatemeh Ardeshir Larijani is Ali Larijani’s daughter, (Ayatullah Amoli Larijani’s niece). In 2010, she relocated to the United States and has been living and working there for the past 10 years. Whether she is a citizen, permanent resident, or on an H1 visa or what not is not an issue. It is also a fact that Ali Larijani, her father, the rejected candidate, has served as a key member of the Supreme Council on National Security, the head of the parliament, and in many other important high profile positions for decades. The relation between Fatemeh Larijani and her family and relatives is intact, quite close, and ongoing.

Here is another fact: Many times, Iran’s nuclear programs, generals, and scientists have been openly, publicly, and shamelessly sabotaged, threatened, and assassinated respectively under direct order from top officials in the United States of America. The role the United States played in bringing the Iranian society to a brink of collapse in 2009 is quite public and azharu mina-Shams (more evident than the sun).

This is where things get even worse: In certain instances, security breaches led to significant damages to critical infrastructures as well as to the assassination of key scientists and top commanders in Iran. Disturbingly, some of the intelligence leaks (let us suppose inadvertently) were traced to close family members of top ranking officials with access to classified information as discovered by members of the Intelligence Ministry.

Here is one of the core concerns: should the Guardian Council wait until leaks linked to this particular person and this particular candidate actually occur and another disaster to happen in order to take a stance and say enough is enough? If Larijanies and the likes of them want to be free to do as they wish as private citizens, then so be it. They must relinquish their sensitive positions and do as they wish according to the law. But if they aim to occupy extremely critical positions of authority and responsibility in the country, then they must know there are constraints for themselves and their family members. It is not just about them. It has something to do with life, death, security, and the fate of a nation. Why should a whole nation pay the price for the self-indulgences of a few families?

In 2018, some families of Americans who had been detained in Iran on espionage charges, wrote letters to Trump administration to deny US visas to the children of top-ranking officials in the Iranian government. An excerpt from an NBC report at the time reads:

“The families have provided the administration and several lawmakers with a list of Iranian nationals living in the U.S. alleged to be the children or relatives of senior Iranian officials, including President Hassan Rouhani himself… The daughter of the powerful speaker of the Iranian parliament, Ali Larijani, is also on the list. She is a resident in internal medicine at an Ohio hospital, according to medical directories. The nephew of President Hassan Rouhani attended college in New York City and now works there, according to LinkedIn. The nephew’s father was the former top adviser to Rouhani, who stepped down after coming under fire from hardline opponents of the Iranian president.” [5]

Double ugh. It is not surprising that the Guardian Council did not place Ali Larijani on the final approved list for presidential candidates. It is surprising that the Council members grew a spine.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Among all post-war presidents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, from the construction era to present, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be viewed, without a doubt, as the most active and the most productive president in terms of construction, social justice programs, and public service during his 1st term of as the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. His excellent record of public service continued well into the 2nd year of his 2nd term. I do not believe any fair and unbiased person would deny this.

With respect to Iran’s foreign policy and anti-imperial and anti-Zionist stance as well, one can name very few politicians that demonstrated the same level of boldness and courage as him. For sure, he pulled no punches.

Half way through his second term and beyond his time as president, however, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s priorities, statements, and conduct changed. The areas in which he was the strongest dimmed and areas in which he had weaknesses became more prominent. I do not wish to go into details of the political games into which he was drawn and questionable conducts of some of his closest associates from whom he failed to distance himself and a combination of factors that resulted in his political fall. Whatever the condition of his environment and associates, ultimately, he was the one who made the choice and he was the one who presented his application for the position of president.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had an excellent team of hardworking and honest ministers working with him. Many of those excellent workers and ministers, however, have long distanced themselves from him and have expressed unwillingness to work with him again for various reasons. A domineering and overbearing quality to his relationship with those who worked with him seem to be among those reasons. An attitude of “either my way exactly as I say or highway,” with various ministers and organs in the executive branch, with members of Majlis, with the Judiciary, with the Leader, and with many others and of a clear disregard for the law is not exactly an appropriate attitude for a wise chief executive officer of a country, an Islamic Republic at that.

Muhammad Vahdati, the former head of the Center for Studies of the Ministry of Interior, has spoken at length about what may have happened. I would like to quote for you here excerpts from his statements that I found illuminating:

“Of course, those public service works were the product of a team work that was done by a system consisting of the administration, the ministers, the governors who themselves now, those very same hardworking ministers and governors, more than 90 percent of them have distanced themselves from Mr. Ahmadinejad’s current position. Now, here is the question, a person who was once an eyesore for the arrogant powers such as the US and Israel, why is he marked and regarded today as a prey and a beacon of hope for those very arrogant powers? And why do the enemies sense that they must invest in him and that he could deal such hard blows to the system that the US Americans themselves are incapable of doing?”[6]

What Dr. Vahdati is alluding to is a series of interviews with Ahmadinejad conducted by Western/Saudi-financed media outlets and aired by their lie factories regarding the war in Syria. About three months ago, in a televised interview with the Lebanese TV Channel, Al-Jadid[7], Ahmadinejad lumped together the Resistance fighters and Russia in Syria with the ISIS, Jubhatu-Nusrah, and other West-Zionist backed fighters. He said they must all leave Syria as none of them are helping the Syrian people. He also made other noteworthy remarks of similar nature that one could usually hear from Zionist-controlled media.

I seek refuge in God Himself when He seeks to test us.

Here, I would like to bring a bit more of Dr. Vahdati’s interview from the archive of the Ministry of Interior since it sheds some light not only regarding Ahmadinejad’s attitude and conduct but also on social and historical context that ushered him into the office of the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran about 15 years ago. He states:

“But the reasons for his [Ahmadinejad’s] fall: the first one is his pride. Pride knocks down a human being. It is one of those types of sins that God will punish in this very world. Even if he is a believer, even if he is a warrior of God fighting in the warfront. If one becomes afflicted with pride, God will very quickly pinch his ear. Who do you think Satan was? An angel very high up in God’s Presence. Who had worshiped God as much as Satan?! Several thousand years of worship. But its pride and arrogance caused it to be rejected and become Satan, the Outcast.”

“The 2nd reason, I think, is Mr. Ahmadinejad’s inaccurate analysis of the reasons for his victory during his first presidential term. This incorrect analysis of his own situation caused his pride to be further inflated. He had this thinking that he and he alone had made this wave. So, you do know that main Principlists and other conservative camps at that time sought after more famous people. Even the Isargaran camp that Mr. Ahmadinejad was part of its main council, that council, too, went after another candidate. Well, at that time, Mr. Ahmadinejad was not very well known. He had just recently become the Mayor of Tehran. Even that opportunity was provided to him by the Principlists. He claimed that the Principlist factions did not support him. He even claimed that the Leader’s office had suggested to him to remain in Tehran’s Mayoral Office since he had just become the Mayor of Tehran. He, therefore, claimed, “I myself created this wave therefore I do not need any support from the Priciplists.” But the truth is this: Mr. Ahmadinejad did not create that wave. He rode it. Even the Leader and the Revolutionary forces had done a lot to raise awareness in those years and unravel the enemy’s complex plot. In those days, there were even talks of silent dismantling of the government. Many people did a lot to reveal the true essence and aim of the so-called Reformist movement that was being superintended by the [US] Americans.”

“It was the efforts of all these people that once again brought to the fore the revolutionary dialogue and a need for skillful management of the society. In the very first achievement of that wave, you saw in the victory of Chamran’s Team in Tehran City Council elections. But before that, a very different dialogue had dominated the scene. The atmosphere at that time was such that whoever was the most extremist and the most bellicose against the system, he would get the most attention.”

“For example, someone would say the religion and power must be separated. Another would say we must run bullets through Imam’s thoughts. Another would say religion is not only the opium of the masses but it is also the opium of rulers. Yet another would say ‘are our people monkeys to emulate?’ Mr. Abbas Abdi, for instance, was saying, ‘we could do street demonstration against God.’ And things like this.”

“Okay then, it took a lot to change those sorts of dialogues. Mr. Ahmadinejad relied on this new wave of reviving the revolutionary dialogue and began riding that wave and claimed he was more revolutionary than others. It was because now that dialogue had gained currency. On the other side, the Principlists who had gained an opportunity, they provided that opportunity to Mr. Ahmadinejad in Tehran Mayoral Office. It was under these circumstances that Ahmadinejad was able to beat his rivals in that particular arena and use the opportunity as a springboard.”

“The third factor was his grab onto power and an emergence of a serious power-seeking spirit from within him. That means, Mr. Ahmadinejad was gradually afflicted with the very same problem against which he had gone to war. His main reason to oppose Mr. Hashemi [Rafsanjani] was Mr. Hashemi’s [Rafsanjani’s] affliction with power grab and exclusivism. For instance, those around Mr. Hashemi [Rafsanjani] during his second term had been saying they should do something so that Mr. Hashemi’s [Rafsanjani’s] presidency becomes a life-long position but the Leader vigorously opposed this and said it is against the constitution. Mr. Mohajerani who was at the time the president’s [Rafsanjani’s] legal advisor was saying, ‘We need to change the constitution, to reform it, so that he could become a president for at least one more term.’”

“So, what they did to remain in power was the establishment of the Kargozaran Sazandegi and the formation of a coalition with the Leftists who had by then become isolated. Eventually, we saw those with whom the public was dissatisfied because of hardships and widening of the gap between the rich and the poor. So, those people returned with a new slogan and kept their grip on power.”

“Mr. Khatami’s administration in fact revolved around the Kargozaran as its main axis. This was a left-over administration from Mr. Hashimi’s [Rafsanjani’s] presidency. Similarly, Mr. Ahmadinejad, in the final days of his first term and the beginning of his 2nd term, had reached the conclusion that in fact the only one who can save the country is him. He believed the reformers had no religion and the Principlists did not have what it takes. Consequently, his main preoccupation was what would happen after his 2nd term was up.”

“So, we remember that the first appointment he made in his second term, he made Mashaei as his first assistant secretary. The Leader privately wrote to him that that decision is neither a prudent decision for the country nor a wise decision for himself. But in order for him to push this decision on the system, he brought forth all he had. In doing so, he set fire on his entire political capital. From 11-day Sulking to abandoning his office to picking fights with Majlis.”

“It is not necessarily a bad thing for a political current to try to bring its most powerful people to the scene in order to remain in power but Mr. Ahamadinejad’s idea was not this. He had very capable ministers in his team like Mr. Lankarani, Mr. Nikzad, Mr. Babaee, and Mr. Fattah. However, he told them if they came forward for candidacy, he would publically announce that they were not with him and he would not support them. He viewed them as the ‘system’s people.’ He wanted to bring someone to power who was his person.”

“The other factor was that ideological deviation with which Mr. Ahmadinejad became afflicted. Or, we could say his presence in power caused that disease to manifest itself. And the role the ring around him played to worsen his situation cannot be denied. Gradually, this mentality was formed in Mr. Ahamadinejad that ‘following a Wali Faqih is for the time that we have no direct access to an Infallible Imam (AS). Today, we are directly connected to the Imam (AS) and we no longer need to accept the wilayat of this faqih.’”

“So, you see we are facing two Ahmadinejads: One is the Ahmadinejad belonging to the beginning of the 9th Administration and with those worldviews and the other is the Ahmadinejad in the 10th Administration fully deviating from the frame of mind he had started his first term and, in many places, he even became defiantly oppositional with the first one.”

If I were to summarize Ahmadinejad’s situation, I must say that had he been on the approved list of the 1400 presidential candidates released by the Guardian Council, it would have been quite shocking. It would have demonstrated the Council was not living up to the responsibility of guarding the Constitution.

Just to close the file on the 20% political elites and all their protests and grievances, I would like to re-post a segment of Imam Ali’s (AS) letter to Malik Ashtar about the elites in the society that I had quoted in one of my previous articles regarding Imamat and Wilayat:

“O, Malik! Your most favored tasks must consist of the ones that are the most balanced with the truth, the most encompassing in justice, and the most comprehensive in gaining the public’s gratitude. That is because the public’s anger makes the satisfaction of a few elites useless and the anger of a few elites become null and void when countered with the satisfaction of the public. At the time of great abundance and comfort, no one is more wasteful for a governor than the elites. At the time of hardship and challenges, no one is more useless than the elites. At the time of fairness, no one is less pleased than the elites. At the time of asking and wanting, no one is more persistent than the elites. At the time of generosity, no one is more ungrateful than the elites. At the time of refusing to cater, no one is more unforgiving than the elites. At the time of calamities, no one less patient than the elites. So, the pillar of religion, the crowd of Muslims, and the most ready to fight with the enemies are in fact the public. So, your attentions and your desires must be devoted to them.”[8]

3. Election 1400 and the 2nd Phase of the Revolution

As stated in the introduction, on the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1397 [2019], the Wali Faqih Ayatullah Khamenei released a declaration titled “Gaam_e Dovvom_e Enghlaab,” or The 2nd Phase of the Revolution directly addressing the Iranian Nation. The document is important in that it gives a concise and significant overview of the past 40 years and notable lessons, a general assessment of the present, and a clear map and direction for the future.

When the document was released two years ago, many people, organizations, and movements at all levels from local mosques to academic centers of higher education took it and said “Labbayk” (i.e. “we heard your call and we will do what we must”). Several of the candidates that submitted their application for the presidency actually stated they were doing so in order to have responded to the Leader’s call. Those interested could find the link to the entire document here. I would like to highlight segments that I think provide important cues to what is ahead in terms of the upcoming election, the qualities of the next president, and the areas where both the nation and the officials must focus.

The Ideals of the Revolution: In the introduction segment, the Leader states,

“From among all oppressed nations, very few nations undertake a revolution. And among those who rise up and have a revolution, even fewer are able to carry the work to its final phase. Except for changing the ruling system, few have been able to preserve their revolutionary ideals. With the great revolution of the Iranian nation, however, which is the most significant people-based revolution in modern era, it is the only revolution that went through a forty-year honorable period without betraying its ideals. It protected and preserved the authenticity and dignity of its slogans despite all sorts of seemingly irresistible temptations. Now, it has entered into the 2nd phase of building self, the society, and the civilization. Salutations from the bottom of my heart to this nation, to the generation that began the revolution, and to the generation that is ushering it into the grand global process of its 2nd Forty-Year.”

Therefore, the next president must not only believe in the Revolution’s ideals but help realize them for the nation inside and for the oppressed outside.

Balance and Justice in Foreign Policy: In another segment of the document, the Leader clarifies:

“The Islamic Revolution of the Iranian nation has been strong but kind and tolerant even when unjustly treated. It has never committed the excesses and deviations that brought dishonor to many other uprisings and movements in the world. In no challenge, not even with the [US] America and Sadam, did it ever fire the first shot but always and in all cases, after the enemy had attacked, it defended itself and of course executed the counter attack with force. This Revolution, from the start until today, has neither been ruthless and bloodthirsty nor cowardly and hesitant. It has stood up unambiguously and courageously against arrogant bullies and transgressors and has defended the unjustly treated and the oppressed. This revolutionary valor and affability, this truthfulness, transparency, and strength, and this global and regional domain of action on the side of the oppressed of the world, is an honor for Iran and the Iranians. May it always remain so.”

In addition, the next president must be wise and courageous at the same time. Neither should he be bellicose to pick fights nor fearful to face a challenge with strength. Being on the side of the oppressed of the world is given. Ayatullah Khamenei highlights 7 specific areas that require great attention and defines each area in a way they serve as a roadmap for those who are willing to take action. I will close the essay with a particularly uplifting segment for the region.

“Strong Iran of today, just like the beginning of the Revolution, is facing many challenges from the Arrogant Powers but with a meaningful difference. If the challenge [for Iran] in those days was to cut off the [US] America’s and foreign hands from the nation or to close the Zionist regime’s embassy in Tehran or to expose the Den of Spies [the term that refers to US embassy in Tehran], today, the challenge for the US with Iran’s presence at the borders surrounding the Zionist regime and dismantling the illegitimate influence and presence of the [US] America from West Asia, Islamic Republic’s defense of Palestinian fighters at the heart of the occupied territories, and defense of holy flag of Hizbullah and the Resistance in the entire region. If in those days, the West’s problem was preventing Iran from buying even the most primitive forms of arms for its defense, today, its challenge is to prevent the Iranian arms, military equipment, and drones reaching Hizbullah and the Resistance everywhere in the region. If in those days, the [US] America imagined it can overcome the Islamic System and the Iranian nation with the help of a few self-selling Iranian traitors, today, it is finding itself in need of a large coalition of tens of hostile yet impotent governments to fight Iran. Yet, it fails.”


[1] Sayyed Ali Khamenei, “Gaam_e Dovvom_e Enghlaab” [The 2nd Phase of the Revolution]. 1397/11/22 [Feb. 11, 2019]. Accessed online at:

[2] The Islamic Republic of Iran Guardian Council. “The Responsibilities and the Authority of the Council.” Accessed online at:

[3] IRI Guardian Council News Site. “The 9th Election: Participation and Competition in Two Rounds.” News Code: 3152; Published on line on Khordad 21, 1392 [June 11, 2013]. Accessed online at:

[4] Mehr News Agency, “Amoli Larijani’s Criticism of the results regarding approved candidates list.” Khordad 4th, 1400, @ 17:31. News Code: 5220521. Accessed online at:

[5] Dan De Luce, NBC News. “Families of Americans held in Iran ask Trump to pull visas for kids of top Iran officials.” Dec. 3, 2018, @1:22pm. Accessed online at:

[6] The reasons for Ahmadinejad’s fall: Sedaye Enghelab, Number 237; Muhammad Vahdati

[7] Al-Jadid TV Channel, Lebanon.

[8] Ahdnameh Malik Ashtar (Letter #53), Nahjul-Balaqhah. Edit Sayyed Razi. Trans. Hussain Ansarian. Page 292. Darul-Irfan Publishing.

Two similar claims, a whole world of different reactions

November 20, 2020 – 19:50

TEHRAN – As Democrats move forward with their efforts to remove Donald Trump from the White House, observers point to the similarities between the United States’ 2020 presidential election and that of Iran in 2009.

The U.S. November election has created fissures and divisions in the country that are rarely seen in recent American history. Former President Barack Obama has expressed concerns over these divisions, saying the election results, in which each candidate received more than 70 million votes, show the nation remains bitterly split.

“What it says is that we are still deeply divided. The power of that alternative worldview that’s presented in the media that those voters consume — it carries a lot of weight,” Obama said in an interview with CBS.

Obama has put the spotlight on what can be called “popular divides” or divides that split the American people into almost two equal groups, with each one “operating on just completely different sets of facts.”

But these divides are even more severe among politicians than ordinary people, a fact that Obama and his fellow Democrats try to sweep under the rug by highlighting the popular divides and favoring them over the political ones.

The Democrats are busy working to downplay Trump’s claims over what some Republicans call massive voter fraud in the living memory of the American people. And this stands in stark contrast to what Democrats did during the 2009 presidential election in Iran when they supported a losing candidate who raised eyebrows by declaring premature victory.

Declaring victory prematurely is only one of the similarities between the two Iranian and American presidential elections. On November 4, while the election results were not called in several key battleground states, Trump announced that he had won the election.

“You just look at all of these states that we’ve won tonight, and then you take a look at the kind of margins that we’ve won them by,” Trump told supporters at the White House. “This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election, frankly, we did win this election.”

The Democrats were quick to rail against Trump because of his remark. Joe Biden blasted the president’s remarks as “outrageous, unprecedented, and incorrect.”

“Donald Trump does not decide the outcome of this election. Joe Biden does not decide the outcome of this election. The American people decide the outcome of this election. And the democratic process must and will continue until its conclusion,” Biden campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon said in a statement.

While Democrats strongly criticized Trump for declaring victory prematurely, they strongly supported Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a presidential candidate in Iran’s 2009 presidential election who strongly protested the results of the election, accusing his rival then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of rigging the election to secure his reelection.

Mousavi had acted in a way quite similar to Trump, according to Hadi Seyed Afghahi, an expert on West Asia.

The expert said, “Mousavi declared victory even before the votes were counted, creating chaos in the country for nearly six months.”

At that time, Mousavi famously said that he “will not surrender to this dangerous posturing” in reference to what he called voter fraud.

Democrats, who were in power at the time, made efforts to exploit the voter fraud allegations made by Mousavi to impose their demands on Iran, according to Seyed Afghahi.

Mousavi was the first candidate in the Iranian election who did not believe his defeat. While the Iranian people were getting ready to celebrate the most glorious presidential election ever held in Iran, Mousavi declared victory prematurely in his first statement after the election. He said in this statement that he will not surrender to what he called voter fraud.

Mousavi declined to provide evidence to support his allegations. Instead, his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, used a jaw-dropping logic that laid bare the truth behind her husband’s allegations. Rahnavard is an ethnic Lur hailing from the Lur-populated province of Luristan and Mousavi is an ethnic Azeri Turk who has come from the Azeri Turkish-majority province of Azerbaijan.

In an interview with BBC Persian following the election, Rahnavard claimed that the Lurs and Turks were impossible to vote for Mousavi’s rival, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Because the Lurs would not let down “Luristan’s son-in-law” and the Azeri Turks would not let down “the son of Azerbaijan.” This kind of reasoning shocked many political analysts and prompted BBC Persian to delete the interview at a later time.

Rahnavrad’s logic of Luristan’s son-in-law seems to have resonated with some Americans who find it difficult to understand Trump’s logic in terms of refusing the result of the November election. Trump has shockingly asked why mail-in ballots came in favor of his rival Joe Biden while he spent months urging his supporters to vote in person and refrain from voting by mail.

“Last night I was leading, often solidly, in many key States, in almost all instances Democrat-run & controlled. Then, one by one, they started to magically disappear as surprise ballot dumps were counted. VERY STRANGE, and the “pollsters” got it completely & historically wrong!” Trump said in a tweet on November 4.

Apart from the voter fraud allegations surrounding the 2009 and 2020 elections in Iran and the U.S., the position of Twitter toward Iran and the U.S. was also strikingly different. Twitter has put on some of Trump’s tweets a warning label describing Trump claims as “unsubstantiated” or “disputed.” This is all while Twitter delayed a 90-minute maintenance operation to support unrest in Iran in the midst of the 2009 election mayhem.

Writing on the company’s blog on June 15, 2009, Biz Stone of Twitter said that the company will delay “a critical network upgrade” because of the “role Twitter is currently playing as an important communication tool in Iran.”

A day later, the Obama administration admitted that it asked Twitter to stay open to help unrest in Iran. According to The New York Times, a 27-year-old State Department official, Jared Cohen, e-mailed the social-networking site Twitter with an unusual request: delay scheduled maintenance of its global network, which would have cut off service while Iranians were using Twitter to swap information and inform the outside world about the mushrooming protests around Tehran. The request was made to Jack Dorsey, a Twitter co-founder.

In addition to Twitter, major American TV networks also cut short their broadcasts of President Trump’s speech from the White House briefing in which he claimed that Democrats were committing “fraud” and trying to “steal” the election. MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNBC, and NBC cut away from the president’s speech.

While these networks sought to muzzle Trump and prevent him from making his case for voter fraud, Iranian news media outlets stood in a queue to give a tribune to Mousavi to present his evidence.  But when the Judiciary moved to restrict Mousavi after he called for chaos, these very networks accused Iran of restricting freedom of expression.

These similarities and differences clearly show how the Westerners deal with abstract concepts such as freedom and democracy in other places. They suppress any allegations over voter fraud at home but they work their butts off to support such allegations in other countries. They abuse democracy to advance their interests at the expense of the stability and interests of other countries.


Towards a “New Cold War” in the Middle East: Geopolitics of the Persian Gulf and the Battle for Oil and Gas

By Germán Gorraiz López

Global Research, July 21, 2020

The foundations of the great Near East were established in the Pact of Quincey (1945) following the doctrine of the Franco-British Sykes-Picot agreements of 1916 that favored the regional division of power in areas of influence and sustained on the tripod US-Egypt- Saudi Arabia. This doctrine consisted in the endemic survival in Egypt of pro-western autocratic military governments, which ensured the survival of the State of Israel (1948) and provided the US Navy with privileged access to the Suez Canal, a crucial shortcut for access direct to the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and Afghanistan, remaining as a firm bastion of US geopolitical interests in the area, especially after the fall of the Shah of Persia in 1980.

The other pillar of the agreement consisted of the privileged access of the United States to Saudi Arabian oil in exchange for preserving its autocratic regime and favoring the spread of Wahhabism (doctrine founded by Mohamed Abdel Wahab in the mid-eighteenth century with the aim of becoming a vision attractive to Islam and exportable to the rest of the Arab countries), with which the Saudi theocracy became a regional power that provided the US with the key to energy dominance while serving as a retaining wall for socialist and pan-Arab currents. Finally, after the Six Day War (1967), the geostrategic puzzle of the Middle East and the Near East was completed with the establishment of autocratic and pro-Western regimes in the countries surrounding Israel (Libya, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran), leaving the Palestinians confined in the ghettos of the West Bank and Gaza.

Iraq and the Biden Plan

The Biden-Gelb Plan, approved by the US Senate in 2007 and rejected by Condolezza Rice, Secretary of State with George W. Bush, provided for the establishment in Iraq of a federal system in order to prevent the collapse in the country after the withdrawal of US troops and proposed separating Iraq into Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni entities, under a federal government in Baghdad charged with the care of the borders and the administration of oil revenues.

Thus, we will attend the appearance of Free Kurdistan presided over by Masoud Barzani with capital in Kirkust and that would include annexed areas taking advantage of the power vacuum left by the Iraqi Army such as Sinkar or Rabia in the province of Ninive, Kirkuk and Diyala as well as all the cities of Syrian Kurdish ethnicity (except Hasaka and Qamishli) occupied by the Kurdish insurgency of the BDP.

The new Kurdistan will have the blessings of the United States and will have financial autonomy by owning 20% of the farms of all Iraqi crude oil with the “sine qua non condition” to supply Turkey, Israel and Eastern Europe with Kurdish oil through the Kirkust pipeline that empties into the Turkish port of Ceyhan. On the other hand, the Sunistan with capital in Mosul and that would cover the Sunni cities of Ramadi, Falluja, Mosul, Tal Afar and Baquba (Sunni triangle), with strong connections with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and that would later lead to a radical pan-Islamist movement that it will use the oil weapon to strangle the western economies in the horizon of the next five-year period.

Finally, as the third leg of the tripod, we would have Iraqi Chi with capital in Baghdad that will counterbalance Saudi Wahhabism and that will gravitate in the orbit of influence of Iran, which will make Iran a great regional power in clear conflict with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Iran, guardian of the Gulf and energy power

Iran acquired a regional power dimension thanks to the erratic policy of the United States in Iraq, (fruit of the political administration myopia obsessed with the Axis of Evil) by eliminating its ideological rivals, the Sunni Taliban radicals and Saddam Hussein with the subsequent power vacuum in the area. He also proposed a global negotiation with the contact group to deal with all the aspects that have confronted Western countries for thirty years, both the suffocating embargo that has plagued the Islamic Republic and the Iranian assets blocked in the United States, the role Iran regional cooperation and security cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan.The Middle East: A Review of Geopolitical Structures, Vectors of Power Dynamic

President Mahmoud Ajmadinejad stretched the rope to the limit in the security that the United States would not attack and would limit any individual action by Israel (a discarded project of bombarding the Natanz plant with commercial jets), as a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz through which it passes A third of the world’s energy traffic could exacerbate the global economic recession and profoundly weaken the entire international political system. Thus, in an interview with Brzezinski conducted by Gerald Posner in The Daily Beast (September 18, 2009), he stated that “an American-Iranian collision would have disastrous effects for the United States and China, while Russia would emerge as the great winner, as the foreseeable closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf where oil transportation destined for Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea), Europe and the United States passes, would raise the price of black gold to stratospheric levels and would have severe repercussions on the economy global, becoming the totally crude EU dependent on Russia.

According to experts, Iran would possess the world’s third largest proven reserves of oil and gas, but it would not have enough technology to extract the gas from the deepest fields and would require an urgent multimillion-dollar investment to avoid irreversible deterioration of its facilities, which in practice it translates into a huge pie for Russian, Chinese and Western multinationals and an increase in the supply of Iranian crude oil to 1.5 million barrels / day within a year, with the consequent drop in prices. of the Brent and Texas reference crudes.

Furthermore, the revitalization of the 2010 energy cooperation agreement between Iraq, Iran and Syria for the construction of the South Pars-Homms gas pipeline that would connect the Persian Gulf with the Mediterranean Sea would relativize the strategic importance of the Trans-Adriatic Gas Pipeline Project (TAP) , (a substitute for the failed Nabucco gas pipeline designed by the US to transport Azerbaijani gas to Europe through Turkey), as well as the relevant role of the United Arab Emirates as suppliers of crude oil to the West, which would explain the eagerness of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey for torpedoing him.

America’s “Project of the New Middle East”

Ralph Peters Map: The Project for the New Middle East. Used for teaching purposes at the military academies. (“Unofficial”)  

Are Iraq and Iran the bait for the US to involve Russia and China in a new war?

Former President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in a speech to the Iranian-American National Council (NIAC) stated that “I believe that the US has the right to decide its own national security policy and not follow like a stupid mule what the Israelis do. ” In addition, Brzezinski, would be faced with the neocon republican and Jewish lobbies of the USA and with his habitual biting he would have discredited the geostrategic myopia of both pressure groups when affirming that “they are so obsessed with Israel, the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Iran that they have lost from the global picture: the true power in the world is Russia and China, the only countries with a true capacity to resist the United States and England and on which they would have to focus their attention ”.

We would thus be at a crucial moment to define the mediate future of the Middle East and Middle East (PROME East), since after the arrival of Donald Trump from the White House the pressure of the pro-Israeli lobby of the USA (AIPAC) would be increasing to proceed the destabilization of Iran by expeditious methods, a moment that will be used by the United States, Great Britain and Israel to proceed to redesign the cartography of the unrelated puzzle formed by these countries and thus achieve strategically advantageous borders for Israel, following the plan orchestrated 60 years ago. jointly by the governments of Great Britain, the United States and Israel and which would have the backing of the main western allies. Thus, after the approval by the Congress and the US Senate of a declaration prepared by the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and the Democrat Robert Menéndez, who clearly states that “if Israel is forced to defend itself and take action (against Iran), the US will be at your side to support it militarily and diplomatically”, with the Trump Administration we will assist the increase in pressure from the pro-Israeli lobby of the USA (AIPAC) to proceed with the destabilization of Iran by expeditious methods.

In a first phase of said plan, the US Senate unanimously renewed the Sanctions Against Iran Act (ISA) until 2026 and after the launch of a new ballistic missile by Iran, Trump expanded the sanctions against several Iranian companies related to ballistic missiles without violating the Nuclear Agreement signed between the G + 5 and Iran in 2015, known as the Comprehensive Joint Action Plan (JCPOA) and which would only be fireworks to distract attention from the Machiavellian Plan outlined by the Anglo-Jewish Alliance in 1960 that would include the Balkanization of Iran and whose turning point would be the recent assassination of the charismatic General Qasem Soleimani.

This war could lead to a new local episode that would be involve a return to a “recurrent endemism” of the US-Russia Cold War involving both superpowers having as necessary collaborations the major regional powers namely Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

This Cold War scenario would cover the geographic space that extends from the Mediterranean arc (Libya, Syria and Lebanon) to Yemen and Somalia and having Iraq as its epicenter (recalling the Vietnam War with Lindon B. Johnson (1963-1.969).

Thus, Syria, Iraq and Iran would be the bait to attract both Russia and China and after triggering a concatenation of local conflicts (Syria, Iraq and Lebanon), this potentially could evolve towards a major regional conflict that could mark the future of the area in the coming years.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Silent Crow NewsThe original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Germán Gorraiz López, Global Research, 2020

سنقترب من دمشق اكثر ونحطم قيصر على قحف أصحابه

محمد صادق الحسيني

‏في شهر 2 من العام 2010 طلبت وزيرة خارجية اميركا من سورية الأسد الابتعاد عن إيران.

‏وقتها كانت واشنطن تحاول عزل إيران عن محيطها ‏ومحاصرتها سياسياً بسبب حدة المواجهة بين واشنطن وطهران حول الملف النووي..

‏الرئيس بشار الأسد دعا الرئيس أحمدي نجاد الى دمشق بمناسبة عيد المولد النبوي الشريف

وقرر الاحتفال بهذا العيد الإسلاميّ الوحدويّ مع نظيره الإيرانيّ في دمشق.

وفي مؤتمر صحافي مشترك مع الرئيس الإيراني رد على هيلاري كلينتون ساخراً منها بالقول:

لقد قرّرنا توقيع اتفاقية «تباعد مع طهران».. (كما طلبتم) لذلك قرّرنا رفع التأشيرات بيننا وبينها..

وهكذا سنقترب من بعضنا أكثر فأكثر، فكان هذا بمثابة الرد المناسب لسورية المقاومة والممانعة…

واليوم ومع دخول قانون قيصر الأميركي الجائر حيز التنفيذ، ثمة وفد رفيع المستوى موجود في دمشق، يتحاور بكل المجالات مع القيادة السورية لرفع كل القيود بين البلدين ليقتربا من بعضهما أكثر فأكثر.

الوفد برئاسة السيد دانائي فر المسؤول الأول عن دور إيران في المساهمة في إعادة الإعمار والبناء في كل من سورية والعراق ولبنان..

وهو رجل من جنس الحاج قاسم سليماني وسفير سابق في العراق، وثائر من ثوار إيران العاملين من أجل تحرير فلسطين…

في الساعات القادمة، وفي خطوة وفاء من الشقيق لشقيقه، سيتم الإعلان في دمشق قريباً جداً عن توافقات مهمة بين إيران وسورية لكسر كل أشكال الحصار على سورية وكسر قانون قيصر على قحف أصحابه…

والله غالب على أمره.

بعدنا طيبين؛ قولوا الله.

فيديوات متعلقة

Ahmadinejad’s letter to Obama


نامه مهم دکتر احمدی نژاد به اوباما منتشر شد + تصاویر نامهOn August 8, 2016, former Iranian president Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a letter to Swiss embassy in Tehran addressed to the US ‘duck’ president Barack Obama. In the letter Ahmadinejad has accused Barack Obama for not living up to his 2008 campaign promise of CHANGE when it comes to the US-Iran relations during his 8-year presidency ending in December 2016.

Swiss embassy in Tehran is responsible for the interests section of the United States in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Ahmadinejad said in the letter that he was writing to Obama not as politician but as an Iranian citizen who is concerned about the victimization of his nation since the removal of American puppet King Reza Shah in 1979 by people’s revolution.

Ahmadinejad mentioned the seizer of Iranian assets worth $2 billions as compensation to the victims of 9/11 terrorist attacks ordered by US Supreme Court on April 20, 2016. It’s a common knowledge now that 9/11 terrorist attacks were carried out by Israel with the help of American Zionist leaders.

Washington seized Iranian assets worth $16 billions in 1980. Since then, as result of the US and UN sanctions, Iranian assets worth $150 billions are laying frozen in Western banks.

I don’t know what made Ahmadinejad to waste his time writing this letter after facing vicious character assassination at the hands of US-Israeli leaders and the Jewish-controlled mainstream press during his 8-year presidency.

In 2009, Washington spent $400 millions to stop Ahmadinejad’s re-election.

I wonder when Iranian leadership is going to listen to US Vice-president Joe Biden who admitted in September 2015 that Israel was behind America’s anti-Iran policy.

“The only thing that would satisfy (US-Iran nuclear) deal opponents including Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is ‘a regime change’ that could only come with US power,” Biden said while addressing Ahavath Achim synagoguein Atlanta.

I agree with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei statement that Muslims are victims of US-Israel-UK terrorism.

Although Iran is a solid Multipolar state, it still faces daunting challenges from a hostile Unipolar US, and its regional proxies particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia; the Saudis have positioned themselves as the ”attack dog” against Iran in the region, however their actual capability apart from using terrorist proxy forces is limited and Iran could easily defeat any direct Saudi aggression against its homeland. With the possibility of an Israeli sneak attack on Iran’s key nuclear facilities and other military targets, Iran has been relying on its growing ballistic missiles capability and Hizbullah’s missile arsenal, its staunch ally in Lebanon. In fact , it can argued that Hizbullah’s military capability has been ‘strategic stabilizer” in the region because it seemingly deterred Israel from engaging in a major destructive war with Iran, Syria or Hizbullah itself, not to mention its huge contribution to the fight against terrorism in Syria and Iraq,” Daahireeto Mohamud wrote on July 6, 2016.

I Was Born in Israel Many Years before I Realized Israel Was Palestine

February 14, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Whatsupic with 7sabah

I was born in Israel and it was many years before I realized that Israel was Palestine. I was relatively patriotic. I was looking forward to serving in the army and then I grasped that there was little truth in the Jewish historical narrative. I then gathered that I was living on someone else’s land. At the same time I discovered the saxophone.  By the age of 30, I left Israel and never went back.

Q: There is some kind of rebellion in your music; how do you explain this?

A:  My music can be very soft and reflective. Sometimes it is very funny and occasionally it is furious. There are too many reasons to be angry. I’m far from happy when I see Israel flattening Gaza. I’m furious when I find out 80 percent of British conservative MPs are ‘friends of Israel.’ I’m angry when I find out the Jewish lobby is pushing America into another World War and instead of becoming violent, sometimes I use music as a channel to express my anger.

Q: What type of music is close to your music in the world?

A: It’s very simple. I’m a jazz artist, a Bebop player. But I’m inspired by near east music whether it is Arabic, Turkish or Greek. I find my own way to fuse the Arabic Mawwal with John Coltrane…

Q: What do you think of the social and political state of Turkey?

A: Listen, I’m really against any forms of interventionism, so I’m definitely not the right person to judge the situation here. I can only talk about my impression, and it’s not an academic observation. I’m touring all over the world and I see a lot of sadness. I see impoverished countries, people with no work, with no prospect of production. I see youngsters who are third generation poor and in their deserted main street they don’t eat their own food anymore, they instead eat McDonalds, Burger King, Coca Cola, Starbucks. And I’m here in Turkey and see a lot of people on the streets, and I see fish from your sea, and tomatoes from your fields, and I see a lot of people working in the restaurants that have Turkish names and don’t even offer a menu in English, and it makes me happy for you. You have managed to maintain your authenticity and culture. This is a great victory. You are so lucky that Islamophobic Europeans didn’t accept you in the EU. Your country is now a superpower.

Q: You were born in Israel but you are against Israeli occupation and its politics. You are living in the West, how do you cope?

A: Let me tell you something and it is crucial. In my entire career, I have never been subject to abuse by the British government, never been subject to abuse by the American government. Although the infamous Alan Dershowitz, who is now implicated in a huge sex scandal with minors, labelled me ‘as the number one enemy of the Jewish people,’ I’ve never been subject to direct abuse by the Israeli government. Even the NSA doesn’t harass me. The only people who stalk me continuously are the Jewish left and the Guardian newspaper. I can say that it’s not a problem but I came to the realization that the biggest enemy of our elementary freedoms are the progressives and I’ll explain why.

In the West and maybe in Turkey as well, we have issues with political correctness. What is political correctness? Political correctness is politics that doesn’t allow political opposition. But this is clearly the definition we associate with dictatorship. But political correctness is far worse than dictatorship. Why? Because in the case of dictatorship you experience an opposition to a regime that is distinct from you, but in the case of political correctness it is you who silence yourself. Political Correctness is a form of self-censorship. The Jewish left and the progressives made us into a collective of impotents. Our task is to move on and to erect our resistance against this cancerous ideology.

Q: Can we separate Judaism from Zionism?

A: No. Israel isn’t called the ‘Zionist State,’ it defines itself as the ‘Jewish State.’ The parties in the government are called “Israel Our Home” and the “Jewish Home” not the “Zionist Home”*. Now the Israeli cabinet has approved the National Bill that defines Israel as the Jewish state not the Zionist state. Zionism from an Israeli perspective died in 1948. Zionism was a promise to erect a Jewish state in Zion (Palestine). Once, Israel was established, Zionism was finished with its role. The only people who maintain the Zionist nonsense are the Jewish left because they want to differentiate between Jewishness and Zionism.  This is why they call Israel colonialism. But Israel is not colonialism. Colonialism is a clear exchange between a mother state and a settler state. Israel is a settler state, yet there is no Jewish mother state. This is why they call it apartheid. Israel in not apartheid: Apartheid is a racist system of exploitation. But Israel doesn’t want to exploit the Palestinians, it wants them gone. Israel is a Hitlerian ethnic cleansing model. The Left uses the terms ‘Colonialism’, ‘Zionism’, and ‘Apartheid’ in an attempt to divert attention from the ‘J’ word. For solidarity with Palestine to be meaningful, we have to de-Judify our terminology. Not to kick out the Jews, but to prevent Jewish interests from defining the boundaries of the discussion.

Q: Can we see Israel and Palestine as two states?

A: No.

Q: Will the Palestinians be able to return to their county?

A: This is what they are fighting for. And any person who doesn’t accept the right of return is not a genuine supporter.

Q: What do you think about what Ahmadinejad said about the Holocaust?

A: I agree 100 percent with everything Ahmadinejad said about the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad basically said that Holocaust must be treated as a historical chapter. At the moment it is treated as a religion. And if it is a religion I want to maintain my right to be an atheist. In contemporary Judified reality it is OK not to believe in God but if you don’t believe in Auschwitz you will be penalised and severely. I don’t accept it.

Q: What does the US gain from supporting Israel?

A: We cannot think of America as an independent entity anymore. America’s political system is a Jewish occupied zone. America, Britain, France, [and generally] the West woke up one morning to realize that there was a loop hole in their legal system that facilitated the ability of invasive foreign lobbies such as AIPAC, CFI, CRIF to interfere with their foreign affairs. America has sacrificed its foreign interests on the Jewish alter. It is a disaster. But history teaches us that this Jewish political impunity always comes to an end in a totally tragic circumstance.

Q: Do you agree that a Holocaust is happening in Gaza?

A: I don’t know what the Holocaust is anymore. I’m like Ahmadinejad in that regard. When I was a kid they taught me that the Nazis made soap out of Jews. And then I grew up and realized it was all a fantasy. They taught me that the Arabs were going to throw us into the sea. And when I was mature enough to learn the history on my own I realized that it was actually the Jews who threw Palestinians into the sea. Then I realized that Jews (like everyone else) tend to project their cultural symptoms on others. The Jews are fearful of the Palestinians because the Jews witness their army engaged in murderous activity. They must believe the Palestinians are as murderous as the IDF happens to be.

I don’t want to talk in terms of the Holocaust because it is too Jewish. I don’t want to compare Israel with Nazism because Israel is bad enough.  From some perspectives Israel is worse than Nazism (Israel is a Jewish democracy it implies a collective responsibility). When I compare Israel with Nazism I reaffirm the Holocaust religion and sustain the primacy of Jewish suffering. We have to establish a new discourse where Israelis are the worst enemy of humanity and the Palestinians are the ultimate sufferers. Auschwitz was indeed bad, but not as bad as Gaza.

 Q: Iran is not after nuclear arms the whole world knows that. How do you explain the fuss around the Iranian nuclear project?

A: I have no problem with Iranian nuclear arms. I want Iran to have a bomb. Just One Iranian bomb will bring peace to the region. Because all this mess in the Middle Ease caused by Israel and America is because they know they can kill with impunity and endlessly. And my problem with the Shias is that they are too nice. They really don’t want to bomb anyone. An atomic bomb is Haram they say.

Q: What is your opinion about Iran’s role in the Middle East?

A: Iran is the most beautiful political power. It supports the Palestinians. It supports the resistance. Iran has developed very strong industry. This country that was a client state of America 34 years ago now produces submarines, airplanes, drones, very strong computers. It is beautiful.

Q: Obama is the first black president of America but statistics show scores of black people are shot dead every year. How do you analyze this contradiction?

A: We like to think in terms of racial division because this is the heritage of the left, but it is wrong. In the west and in the last 50 years there has been a collapse of manufacturing partially because of automation, machinery, and computerization but also because Milton Friedman taught us that is better to be a service economy. The meaning of it in America, Britain, France, etc. is that we don’t need working people. The people who used to be working class are now workless class, 8and they are doomed to poverty with no hope, they are called under-class. As things stand, existing jobs demand very high cognitive ability (very high I.Q.) such as engineers, financiers, bankers, PRs. This group of privileged people is what I call the ‘cognitive elite,’ and they are few in number. We live in a society where we witness the under-class growing rapidly and a small cognitive elite maintaining its power. Obama is well within the cognitive elite and not because he is black, but because he is clever and he clearly found his way to the top. When it comes to the under-class we realize that there are a lot of immigrants including many Hispanics and Blacks. They are the primary sufferers of the new cruel, merciless division not between the rich and the poor but between the able and the less able. It is very devastating.  This is why Turkey is so important. You manage your economy and currency in a manner that facilitates manufacturing.

(Reporting by Mehmet Gurhan).

Read the interview in Turkish on 7sabah.

*The Zionist Home party was formed a month after this interview was conducted.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Using the Holocaust to justify war on Assad

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images/AFP

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images/AFP


Since its creation after WWII, Israel and friends have been masters at manipulating emotions, endlessly invoking the memory of Hitler’s Germany as a pretext for starting further wars as in the recent Holocaust-themed propaganda against Syria’s government.

“The irony is that the Nazi holocaust has now become the main ideological weapon for launching wars of aggression,” Norman Finkelstein tells Yoav Shamir in“Defamation”, the Israeli filmmaker’s award-winning 2009 documentary on how perceptions of anti-Semitism affect Israeli and US politics. “Every time you want to launch a war of aggression, drag in the Nazi holocaust.”

If you’re looking for evidence in support of Finkelstein’s thesis today, you need look no further than the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s exhibit of images of emaciated and mutilated bodies from contemporary Syria.

The small exhibit, entitled “Genocide: The Threat Continues,” features a dozen images said to be from an archive of 55,000 pictures allegedly smuggled out of the country by “Caesar”, a mysterious source who claims to have defected from his job as a Syrian military photographer after being ordered to take photos of more than 10,000 corpses.

Emphasizing the threat of an impending genocide, the reportedly conscience-stricken defector warns that a similar fate awaits the 150,000 people he says remain incarcerated by President Bashar Assad’s government.

“They’re powerful images, and viewers are immediately reminded of the Holocaust,”Cameron Hudson, the director of the museum’s Center for the Prevention of Genocide, was cited as saying in an October 15 Associated Press report. Hudson’s intriguing career in genocide prevention includes a stint as intelligence analyst in the CIA’s Africa Directorate.

The museum’s promotion of these Holocaust-recalling images dates from a few months earlier, however. In his July visit to Washington that included a series of meetings with US government and congressional officials, Caesar’s first stop was at the Holocaust Museum.

On July 28, Michael Chertoff, the former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and a member of the museum’s governing board of trustees, presented the purported defector to a small group of reporters and researchers. According to the Washington Post’s Greg Miller, this event was the first time that Caesar had appeared publicly to answer questions about the photos deemed bysome human rights organizations as evidence of war crimes committed by Assad.

Among the other members of the Holocaust Memorial Council noted for their staunch support of Israel and American interventionism are the pardoned Iran-Contra neocon intriguer Elliott Abrams and Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel.

Writing in Foreign Policy’s The Cable on April 23, 2012, Josh Rogin drew attention to Wiesel’s pointed introduction of President Barack Obama at a ceremony in the Holocaust Museum. Comparing the Syrian president and then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the perpetrators of the Nazi holocaust, Wiesel implicitly criticized Obama’s supposedly obtuse inaction, “So in this place we may ask: Have we learned anything from it? If so, how is it that Assad is still in power?”

As Rogin, a regular media conduit for anti-Assad interventionism, pointedly observed, the speech was reminiscent of another one Wiesel gave at the opening of the museum in 1993, when he urged President Bill Clinton to take military action in Bosnia:“Similarly, that speech came at a time when the Clinton administration was resisting getting entangled in a foreign civil war, but was under growing pressure to intervene.”

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images/AFP

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images/AFP

The Israel lobby’s Syrian Interpreter

In a revealing interview published on August 11, 2013, by the Turkish newspaper Today’s Zaman, Caesar’s interpreter at the museum echoed Wiesel’s criticism of President Obama’s resistance to doing the bidding of the neocons and “liberal interventionists”seeking greater American intervention in Syria.

Asked by the Gülen movement-aligned daily if America had forgotten the Syrian war, Mouaz Moustafa replied, “It is the president who is against action in Syria not the whole of the US government. President Barack Obama has been very insular and cautious about Syria.”

It is hardly a coincidence that Moustafa’s rhetoric bears a striking resemblance to that of Israel’s friends like Wiesel. One of best known media-promoted faces of the Syrian opposition in Washington, the executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force has undeniable links to one of the Israel lobby’s leading think tanks.

After it emerged that Moustafa’s non-profit had coordinated Senator John McCain’s May 2013 trip to meet with the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels, an examination of the SETF executive director’s background revealed that he was one of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s “experts”; a contributor toWINEP’s Fikra Forum,“an online community that aims to generate ideas to support Arab democrats in their struggle with authoritarians and extremists”; and had addressed the AIPAC-created think tank’s annual Soref symposium entitled“Inside Syria: The Battle Against Assad’s Regime.”

Even more damningly, it was discovered that one of SETF’s web addresses was“” The url belongs to the Torah Academy of Boca Raton, Florida whose key values notably include promoting “a love for and commitment to Eretz Yisroel.”

When confronted with these embarrassing revelations, Moustafa responded viaTwitter, “call me terrorist/Qaeda/nazi as others have but not Zionist Im [sic] denied ever entering palestine but it lives in me..” Dismissing the intriguing connection to a pro-Israel yeshiva in Florida, he claimed that the“url registration was due to dumb error by web designer.”

The WINEP-linked Moustafa also interpreted for Caesar, who was wearing dark glasses and a blue rain jacket with the hood pulled over his head, when hetestified before a closed-door session of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs this July. At least some of its members would no doubt have recognized the interpreter, however.

As Foreign Policy’s The Cable reported on June 6, 2013, two leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Reps. Ed Royce (R-CA) and Eliot Engel (D-NY), dispatched aides to Turkey to meet leading members of the Syrian Free Army between May 27 and June 3. As The Cable had learned, the meeting had been coordinated by Moustafa’s Syrian Emergency Task Force.

Interestingly, the FP article noted that “the two lawmakers don’t exactly see eye-to-eye on the question of whether the United States should intervene more aggressively in the protracted civil war,” with the stridently pro-Israel Democratic congressman from New York having “carved out one of the most hawkish positions in Congress on Syria, being the first to introduce legislation authorizing lethal assistance for the rebels.”

While Caesar and his American-based Palestinian-Syrian interpreter clearly have the enthusiastic support of Israel’s friends in Washington, the photos presented as evidence of an alleged Syrian “holocaust” by Assad’s forces received their initial boost from one of Tel Aviv’s closest, albeit covert, Arab allies in their mutual war against the Syrian government.

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images/AFP

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images/AFP

The Israeli-Qatari Nexus

As part of a review of the photos commissioned by the government of Qatar, David Crane, a former war-crimes prosecutor for Sierra Leone, reportedly spent hours interviewing Caesar. An October 13 Yahoo News report by Michael Isikoff quotes Crane as saying that they document “an industrial killing machine not seen since the Holocaust.”

Like the director of the Holocaust Museum’s Center for the Prevention of Genocide, Crane has also worked for the US government in the intelligence field. His former posts include Director of the Office of Intelligence Review, assistant general counsel of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Waldemar A. Solf Professor of International Law at the United States Army Judge Advocate Generals School.

Having ostensibly left the intelligence world behind him, Crane founded and directs the Syrian Accountability Project (SAP) at Syracuse University’s College of Law, which describes itself as “a cooperative effort between activists, non-governmental organizations, students, and other interested parties to document war crimes and crimes against humanity in the context of the Syrian Crisis.”According to its website, SAP has “worked closely with the Syrian National Coalition” which is listed as one of its clients.

Founded in Doha, Qatar in November 2012, the Syrian National Coalition represents the Free Syrian Army, which has reportedly collaborated with the Al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamist Ahrar al-Sham in massacres of Syrian civilians such as the one this March in the village of Kassab, an ancestral home of Syria’s minority ethnic Armenians, on the Turkish border.

Professor Crane is also vice-president of I Am Syria, whose mission statement describes it as “a non-profit media based campaign that seeks to educate the world of the Syrian Conflict.” I Am Syria’s president, Ammar Abdulhamid, has been a fellow at two of the most prominent Washington-based pro-Israel think tanks, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy and the neocon Foundation for the Defense of Democracies; while one of its education directors, Andrew Beitar, is a regional education coordinator for the Holocaust Museum.

As the case of the mysterious Caesar and his trove of photos clearly shows, those who want to launch a war of aggression on Syria (as they have succeeded in doing in Iraq and Libya) have at every opportunity sought, as Finkelstein put it, to drag in the Nazi holocaust.

As more and more people become wise to this ruse, they should keep in mind the two words espoused by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum: “Never Again.”

Maidhc Ó Cathail

Maidhc Ó Cathail is a widely published writer and political analyst

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

New Horizon Conference: Meeting of minds in Tehran

Written by Eric Walberg Эрик Вальберг/ Уолберг إيريك ولبر    Tuesday, 07 October 2014 10:08


The 2nd conference “New Horizon: the International Conference of Independent Thinkers” was held in Tehran, September 29–October 1 2014, including over 30 journalists, writers and academics from around the world presenting papers and arguing issues of world geopolitics, with a focus on the Middle East.


I represented Canada, along with University of Lethbridge Globalization Studies Professor Anthony Hall, author of Earth into Property: Colonization, Decolonization, and Capitalism (2010). It was greeted in western media by hysterical denunciations, in the first place by the American Jewish Committee which accused it of “promoting hatred of Jews and Israel” and the Anti-Defamation League which accused it of “promoting anti-Semitic propaganda”.The conference almost didn’t take place at all, having been officially cancelled, supposedly as a gesture to the West, after the new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was elected last year. But after a flood of criticism at Iranian websites sympathetic to the organizers, the Iranian Foreign Ministry reversed itself. Nader Talebzadeh, the principle organizer, had had to lobby hard to reinstate the conference, calling the cancellation of the conference “a major mistake on the part of our government”. “Have our leaders given in so much to the world that they are even afraid of a conference that might hurt Mr Obama’s feelings?” asked one blogger sarcastically.

The 1st New Horizon Conference in September 2012 was denounced in the West when it was addressed by the previous president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, probably best remembered in the West for his 2005 soundbyte that Israel should be “wiped off the map”, referring to Ayatollah Khomeini’s prediction that “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” The translation of the Persian text was later corrected but this was ignored in the West, where Ahmedinejad was further accused of “holocaust denial” for suggesting the figure of six million as the number of Jews who died in the holocaust was exaggerated, and mocked for suggesting that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

Indeed, most Iranians see 9/11 as involving some degree of conspiracy by the US and/or Israel, but then so do, for instance, 55% of Egyptians. So, not surprisingly, prominent at the New Horizon Conference this year was the world’s leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist, France’s Theirry Meyssan, who in 2002 published what is still considered the classic work on the topic, 9/11: The Big Lie (L’Effroyable imposture), translated into 28 languages, arguing that the attacks were organized by a faction of “the US military industrial complex in order to impose a military regime.” Meyssan also argues that the attack against the Pentagon was not carried out by a commercial airliner but by a missile. Also present was American filmmaker Art Olivier, who produced the feature film “Operation Terror” (2012), whose scenario followed Meyssan’s.

In a YouGov poll last year, 60% of Americans rejected the official explanation as published in the 9/11 Commission Report(2004), so Meyssan’s call for a UN investigation of 9/11 and the recent petition signed by 100,000 New Yorkers for an investigation of the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 are surely legitimate, though they have been blocked by politicians as “absolutely ridiculous” and “wild fantasies”.

Iran’s current President Rouhani was not associated directly with this year’s conference, instead embroiled in a controversy with UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who both extended his hand in friendship to Rouhani at the UN General Assembly in a “historic meeting”, and then slapped him in the face from the UN General Assembly podium, attacking Iran for its “support for terrorist organizations, its nuclear program, its treatment of its people”, called it “part of the problem in the Middle East”.

“On the contrary,” said a peeved Rouhani in his address to the UN, blaming the West and Saudi Arabia for sowing the seeds of extremism in the Middle East with “strategic blunders” that have given rise to the Islamic State and other violent jihadist groups. He also criticized the West’s sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program and reiterated his government’s desire to resolve the dispute, stating that no cooperation with the West against ISIS is possible until the sanctions are lifted. He called Cameron’s comments at the UN “wrong and unacceptable.”

Appropriately, the New Horizon Conference opened with the book launch of the Persian edition of US journalist Gareth Porter’s Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare (2014). Porter told me, “Through painstaking checking with experts and an IAEA official, I discovered that the documents submitted to the IAEA, which supposed showed Iranian plans to put nuclear warheads on their missiles, were fabricated by Mossad and passed on to the IAEA by the terrorist group People’s Mojahedin of Iran. Mossad was sloppy. They were contradictory—clearly doctored blueprints for an obsolete missile system.” Porter was awarded the UK Gellhorn Prize for investigative journalism in 2012 for exposing official lies concerning US policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. With this latest expose, Porter did for the Iranian nuclear dossier what he and others did after 2003 in exposing the lies that prompted the US invasion of Iraq.

The sessions were varied. “The Gaza War and the BDS Movement Strategies” was addressed by Code Pink activist Medea Benjamin, who


has been arrested dozens of time for her plucky protests at Congressional hearings against the war in Iraq, and who famously interrupted a speech by President Barack Obama in May 2013 protesting his continued use of drones against civilians. (She is barred from entering Canada.) Benjamin suggested a new project to highlight illegal Israeli settlements: activists hope to target one of the largest US-based real estate firms, RE/MAX, which “operates in over 90 countries, including Israel, where it sells homes complete with swimming pools in the West Bank to Israeli settlers in defiance of international law.”

Every Sunday tens of thousands of “open houses” are held by RE/MAX around the world. Benjamin hopes activists will picket these open houses to embarrass RE/MAX into ceasing their West Bank activities.A session on Islam and the West, “Postsecularism and its Discontents”, emphasized the importance of ethics in Islamic civilization which makes subservience to market diktat unacceptable, and is a major stumbling block to understanding between the West and the Muslim world. “There is no teleology in western society, no guiding morality, only an obsession with materialism, with logos,” argued organizer Arash Darya-Bandari. “We believe it is necessary to control the negative tendencies in culture, such as pornography, alcohol, drugs, prostitution, to strive towards a more moral and justice society.”

“The ‘Islamic’ State Meme, its Precursors, and the US-Israel-Saudi Triangle” heard frontline reports from Meyssan and others about the intentional destruction of the Iraqi and Syrian states by the invasion of Iraq and ongoing western and Israeli support for insurgents in Syria, directly resulting in ISIS’s phenomenal success. “The West has abetted Sunni-Shia differences in the process to keep Muslims divided and allow continued western penetration and control of the growing chaos there,” charged Meyssan. Rouhani’s comment at the UN—“Certain intelligence agencies [who] have put blades in the hands of madmen, who now spare no one,”—is hard to argue with.

In the session “The Israeli Lobby in England”, Stephen Sizer, Anglican vicar and author of Christian Zionism—Road Map to Armageddon? (2004), explained that the vast majority of Zionists are not Jewish, but Christian. This prompted him in 2006 to draft what became known as the Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism signed by four of the Heads of Churches declaring Christian Zionism a heretical belief, both immoral and a contradiction of faith. The rector of the University of Middlesex was pressured to rescind Sizer’s PhD but the examination committee wouldn’t budge. Nor has Sizer been cowed by constant harassment, including a break-in and the theft of his computer. At the same time, on his visits to Tehran, Sizer lobbies on behalf of Iranian religious minorities and always brings Persian-language New Testaments as “gifts”. “My intent is to show the Iranians that genuine Christians are not a threat to anyone, but bring the message of peace and love.”

Contrary to the shrill cries in the western media that the conference was anti-Semitic, it was unique in my experience in addressing Zionism and US imperialism forthrightly and intelligently, without a hint of racism. The issue of anti-Semitism was addressed and dismissed, as “There is no issue with Jewish people or the Jewish religion,” explained Darya-Bandari, “but rather with Zionism, that secular distortion of Judaism that itself is racist, and has been used as a pretext to dispossess  and kill Palestinians.”

The American Defense League loudly attacked the conference for focusing on Zionist control of western media and the outsize influence of the Zionist Lobby in the US and around the world. So what’s wrong with that? There is more than enough documented proof of this, as I discover when I researched Postmodern Imperialism. The ADL labelled several of the delegates as anti-Semitic, including ex-US Marine Ken O’Keefe, who has led several relief convoys to Gaza, has appeared several times on BBC’s Hardtalk in support of Gaza, and famously renounced his US citizenship in view of US crimes around the world. It should be remembered that the ADL was successfully sued in the 1990s for false accusations of anti-Semitism.

The conference issued a resolution condemning ISIS, Zionism, US unconditional support of Israel, Islamophobia, and calling for activism locally to boycott Israeli goods and to promote understanding between the West and the Muslim world, and to fight sectarianism. “This was a great opportunity to meet anti-imperialist activists from around the world, to bring Russians, Poles, western Europeans, North Americans together with Iranians and other Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, in a forum without sectarianism, truly supporting peace and understanding,” said delegate Mateusz Piskorski, director of the European Centre of Geopolitical Analysis in Warsaw and former MP in the Polish Sejm.

Crescent Online



‘Connect with Eric on Facebook or Twitter

Canadian Eric Walberg is known worldwide as a journalist specializing in the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia. A graduate of University of Toronto and Cambridge in economics, he has been writing on East-West relations since the 1980s.


He has lived in both the Soviet Union and Russia, and then Uzbekistan, as a UN adviser, writer, translator and lecturer. Presently a writer for the foremost Cairo newspaper, Al Ahram, he is also a regular contributor to Counterpunch, Dissident Voice, Global Research, Al-Jazeerah and Turkish Weekly, and is a commentator on Voice of the Cape radio.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Rabbi Wolpe: King David committed ‘genocide’


Rabbi David Wolpe of LA Sinai Temple, was declared America’s most influential “religious authority” by Jewish Newsweek magazine a few years ago. Wolpe in his latest book, ‘David the Divided Heart’, has claimed that “David’s achievements in helping unite the Jews did not come without cost – he had innocent people killed, looked away violence among his children and bedded married women.”

Hold it, before any Muslim call Wolpe an “anti-Semite Zionist Jew” – let me explain Wolpe’s Zionist agenda to demonize a biblical prophet in order to legalize the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people in occupied Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and the around the world by the Israeli army, Mossad and the armed Jewish settlers.

In an article published at the Jewish Journal (September 10, 2014), Wolpe compared state of Israel with David and Gaza with Goliath.

Wolpe happened to be among the 400 America’s Jewish leaders who signed a statement in August 2014, denouncing charges against Israel for committing genocide in Gaza. The racist Zionist Jews claimed that Israeli army had to kill over 2,500 civilians in retaliation for Hamas’ killing seven Israeli civilians and 69 Jew soldiers.

In October 2007, Wolpe slammed a prominent Orthodox Rabbi Josef Kanefsky for writing an OP-Ed at Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, suggesting that Israel should return Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem to PA to have peaceful co-existence with its Arab neighbors.

Rabbi Wolpe had a long history of suffering from “Ahmadinejadphobia”. Like a typical professional Zionist propagandist, Rabbi Wolfe never felt ashamed for accusing former Iranian president Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for equating Israeli state with “cancer”; threatening to “nuke Israel off world map”, and commit new “holocaust” against Jews – all of which have been proven to be nothing but Israeli lies.

Holy Qur’an describes Dawud (David) as one of Allah’s great messengers (prophets) and a powerful king of Israelite tribes. Allah bestowed upon him with several miracles. Though, it’s narrated that King David practiced polygamy – Holy Qur’an refutes Biblical lies about him that David practiced adultery or committed genocide of innocent people.

Born in Egypt, prophet Dawud must have been of dark colored. Read more on Islamic story of King David here. Also listen to David Sheen (Jewish) study on King David’s Zionist admirers and Israel’s ‘War on Africans’ below.


Iran: Is Bread Connected to the Nuclear Agreement?

A few days ago a passenger climbed into a taxi in Tehran. He asked the driver about his opinion of rapprochement with the United States. The man’s answer was simple: “I do not understand politics and cannot elaborate on the issue. But I know one thing, whenever the United States gets close to us, a disaster occurs, and when it is far we feel better.”
Published Thursday, January 16, 2014
In Iran, an organic connection exists between internal mobilization and the country’s performance on the regional and international levels. Tehran is showing extraordinary vitality. The past two decades were spent in political tumult, but today is an exceptional moment as the United States changes its approach toward the region, Iran in particular.
Iran has been sending out conflicting signals for a while, unleashing the imagination of some. They spoke about a “crisis” and “a sheikh who changed the face of Iran,” meaning President Hassan Rouhani. He was even described as the “Sadat of Iran.” This was all linked to the position of the United States and the unprecedented conversation between the two countries. But fundamentalist leaders are skeptical and want to confront these developments.
The situation cannot be understood without addressing the tactics used by Rouhani during elections. At the time, he announced his first endeavor: to improve the situation of Iranian citizens by stimulating the economy, maintaining that such a task could not be achieved without lifting the international sanctions against Iran. Lifting the sanctions would, of course, entail reaching a solution on the nuclear file, which could not happen without Iran opening up to the world and starting a dialogue with the United States. Thus, the new administration mixed daily bread with yellowcake, inflation with enrichment levels, and unemployment rates with its inventory of uranium. A family wanting to heat its home in the Iranian countryside would have to wait for negotiations with the 5+1 group (read: the United States).
Rouhani won, and his team, an odd mix of Reformists and state-builders, took power. The Geneva nuclear agreement, to which the new administration linked its fate, was achieved. Moreover, as soon as the nuclear file was moved from the Supreme National Security Council to the Iranian Foreign Ministry, the administration put all its eggs in Mohammed Javad Zarif’s basket, who became the star. Isn’t it remarkable that no one knows the names of the Iranian cabinet, except that of its foreign minister?
On the other hand, there is another faction in Iran, which takes care of essential files and uses a different logic. In Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and other places, Iran is locked in fierce political and security battles. It is moving forward in some and achieving victories in others. However, none of those achievements are exploited politically on the regional and international levels. Such harmony existed during the days of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, where any achievement on the field was used diplomatically. Today it is different. The administration, supposedly the political and diplomatic wing of the other faction, lives in a different world. This could explain media statements by someone like Revolutionary Guard Commander Mohammed Ali Jafari or head of al-Quds Force Qassem Soleimani.
This does not mean that Rouhani’s tasks are different from Ahmadinejad’s. The same files undertaken by Ahmadinejad in 2005 were transferred to Rouhani in 2013: the economy, the nuclear program, and the relationship with the United States. Until now, Rouhani has been completing what his predecessor began, especially in the last two files. He is merely reaping what Ahmadinejad sowed.
On the level of dialogue with the United States, Ahmadinejad opened the lines of communication in the first months of his first term. He carried out a prolonged dialogue with the George W. Bush administration, represented by his brother-in-law Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, through the chairman of the American-Iranian Council, Hooshang Amirahmadi.
The dialogue reached an advanced stage and almost succeeded in achieving two breakthroughs: direct flights between Iran and the United States, and Iranian consular representation in the United States. However, several factors thwarted the dialogue, primarily Ahmadinejad’s holocaust denial. But Washington was not ready either, at the time, for outcomes of this kind, since it was still betting on its ability to overthrow the Islamic regime in Tehran.
Even at the level of the nuclear program, some might be surprised to know that the Geneva accord, celebrated by the world today, was reached (in content) by the Ahmadinejad administration two years before the end of his second term. What prevented it at the time was Barack Obama’s administration backtracking and refusal to sign it. The Obama administration knew that such an agreement would effectively lead to lifting the sanctions against Iran, and it would then lose the stick used against the Islamic Republic.
The divergences between the two factions in Iranian politics do not extend to the content of the Geneva agreement, which could not have happened without the support of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. This is evident in the content of the agreement reached at the height of fundamentalist rule. Ultimately, Iran does not need this amount of uranium enriched by 20 percent. It only started enriching, because the West refused to give it the nuclear fuel needed by Tehran’s medical reactor. The only item that could be explained negatively in Iran is the one dictating that future enrichment should be agreed upon by the two sides, Iran and the 5+1 group. But even this item would not be a problem, according to concerned officials; Iran will not ask to enrich more uranium than it needs.
Terms of Dispute: Prospects, Approaches, and Utilization
Rouhani’s team seems more optimistic than the other team with regard to US negotiations reaching a happy ending. Rouhani’s team built its whole negotiation strategy on this optimism, basing it on the idea that Uncle Sam did not have a fundamental problem with Iran, but Iran was the one who had the problem with the United States. Thus, merely opening up and sitting at one table would remove all doubts between the two parties and solve outstanding issues.
The Rouhani administration is betting everything on the Geneva agreement, making it more flexible and more susceptible to blackmail. It cannot allow the agreement to collapse, and it is ready, of course, to do all it can to prevent this from happening. This is why Zarif was being friendly with the Saudis in his recent tour of the Gulf.
Yet some in Iran want to use the disagreement about Geneva to wage a fierce internal battle. The decisive battle is still early and needs time to mature. It is a necessary period to test which side is right and who is wrong, although Khamenei has expressed his pessimism regarding the dialogue several times. In the meantime, the hardliners, led by former presidential candidates Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf, and Saeed Jalili, are preparing to form a new front against the current administration’s approach.
A few days ago a passenger climbed into a taxi in Tehran. He asked the driver about his opinion of rapprochement with the United States. The man’s answer was simple: “I do not understand politics and cannot elaborate on the issue. But I know one thing, whenever the United States gets close to us, a disaster occurs, and when it is far we feel better.”
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.


By Dr. Kevin BarrettThey’ve done it again.

The mainstream US media has once again mistranslated an Iranian president’s words.

Last time, they were lying to make the former President of Iran sound anti-West and anti-Israel. Now they are lying to make the new President of Iran sound pro-West and pro-Israel.

I suppose that is an improvement. Lying for peace is at least marginally better than lying for war.

But for those who care about truth, the Western mainstream media’s non-stop lies are nothing short of an ongoing holocaust.

Let’s take a closer look at the latest example of Western media duplicity.

CNN mistranslated President Rouhani’s recent interview to make it sound like Rouhani “condemned the Holocaust.”

In fact, both former President Ahmadinejad and current President Rouhani share a common outlook on Israel and the Nazi holocaust – an outlook that is also shared by the vast majority of the people of the Middle East, perhaps even the whole non-European world.

First and most importantly, they agree that whatever the Germans did to the Jews during World War II does not excuse the Zionist theft of even one acre of Palestinian land – much less the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the creation and maintenance of an apartheid “Jewish state.” Second, they believe that the use of the Nazi holocaust story to create a new holocaust in Palestine is an ongoing crime against humanity. Third, they believe that revisionist historians who argue that certain aspects of the Nazi crimes against Jews have been exaggerated deserve a fair hearing – and that the West’s persecution of these historians, by imprisoning them and/or destroying their reputations and livelihoods, makes a mockery of Western pretensions to support human rights, free speech, and free inquiry.

But the Western media is dominated by Zionists, as former New York Times journalist Phillip Weiss so beautifully explained in his essay: “Do Jews Dominate in American Media? And So What If We Do?” And to most of the pro-Zionist ethnic Jews who dominate the Western media, it is an article of religious faith that the sacred Holocaust somehow justifies the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel. These people are actually devotees of a new religious cult that has been termed “Holocaustianity.”

Israeli professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz first developed the idea that the Holocaust is a new religion. His analysis has been taken up by Israeli-born British philosopher Gilad Atzmon.

The Western media elite therefore reacts to all discussion of “the Holocaust” in the same way that a medieval inquisitor might react to discussion of “the Trinity.” The whole discussion gets reduced to: “Are you a believer or a heretic?”

The mainstream media lied by condemning former President Ahmadinejad as a Holocaust-denying heretic. Now it is lying again by falsely claiming that current President Rouhani is a Holocaust-worshipping true believer like themselves.

The truth is that both presidents view World War II as history, not sacred mythology. And neither accepts the inevitability of an apartheid “Jewish state” in Palestine.

The truth is that outside of Europe and the US, hardly anyone “believes in” the Holocaust the way Americans and Europeans do. For those not under the influence of the Holocaustianity-dominated Western mainstream media and academia, the Germans’ World War II-era crimes against Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, dissidents, and others are no more sacred than dozens or even hundreds of other examples of man’s inhumanity to man.

The American slave-trade holocaust, according to various estimates, killed tens of millions, as did the Native American holocaust. Even if the sacred “six million” number of Jews killed by the Nazis is correct, both the Native American holocaust and the African slave trade holocaust were vastly larger in scope. Yet in the US, where these holocausts of tens of millions happened, “Holocaust museums” serve as sacred temples that enshrine the holy story of “six million Jews” while downplaying the vastly larger holocausts perpetrated by the ancestors of the museum visitors themselves.

Jesus is reported to have said: “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

Apparently it is more comforting to deplore other people’s holocausts than to think about the ones you yourself have committed… or are still committing.

And if we are taking the word “holocaust” to mean “a epic-scale horrific destruction of something precious or sacred,” then perhaps the biggest holocaust of all is the ongoing immolation of truth in the mainstream media. Instead of fretting about the Nazi holocaust of seventy years ago, we should be horrified by the “holocaust of lies” that is happening today.

The latest atrocity against truth: The mainstream media’s account of the chemical weapons incident in al-Ghouta. The media liars claim that Syrian President Assad perpetrated this atrocity. But available evidence strongly suggests that the al-Ghouta attack was a Western intelligence operation designed to create a pretext for a US attack on Syria.

According to credible accounts, Alawi Syrian children from Latakia were kidnapped by Western-supported forces and murdered so they could be displayed to the world as alleged victims of Assad. This was a holocaust of innocent children – and part of the ongoing Western holocaust of lies.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh recently revealed that the whole official Western story of the “war on terror” is a holocaust of lies. Hersh, the dean of American investigative reporters, says that the official account of the alleged killing of Osama Bin Laden is “one big lie… not one word of it is true.”

The torrent of lies about Bin Laden, who died in December, 2001, issues from a contaminated source: The biggest lie ever told by human beings. That, of course, is the official story of 9/11.

The American people are beginning to realize that their country is being murdered in an accelerating holocaust of lies. They did not buy the rationale for attacking Syria. They noticed the surging wave of doubters using the term “false flag” to describe such events as al-Ghouta, the Boston bombings, Sandy Hook, the Sikh temple shooting, the Aurora Colorado shooting, the underwear bomber, and virtually all other attention-grabbing “terror” events going back to 9/11… and before that, Oklahoma City, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Operation Gladio, Operation Northwoods, and the wave of political assassinations that has decimated American leadership since 1963.

And then there is the “holocaust of lies” about what historian William Blum calls the “American Holocaust”: US military and CIA interventions that have killed millions, and destroyed the lives of tens of millions, since World War II.

Today, the holocaust of lies that passes for contemporary American life is threatened by a surge of resistance led by genuinely independent, internet-based media. As a result, “Americans’ trust in US political institutions… is near historic lows, a new poll has revealed,” according to Gallup.

No wonder Americans refused to be stampeded into an attack on Syria.

Will the “holocaust of lies” ever end? Will Americans one day build museums to enshrine the memory of how the Big Liars took over their country… and how Americans rose up and overthrew them?

Uri Avnery: ‘Ahmadinejad was Mossad agent!’

ahmadinejad-1-sized[1]Today, I read the most repulsive and bigoted article written by Uri Avnery. He is the founder of the so-called “Israeli Peace Block (Gush Sholam)”, and a darling of “Israeli Left”. American Jewish writer and blogger, Roger Tucker, on the other hand, has called Avnery a Closet Zionist along with Noam Chomsky and Jimmy Carter.

Avnery’s article inquestion is titled, The Real Bomb.

Years ago, I disclosed one of the biggest secrets about Iran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an agent of Mossad,” Avnery begins his article with this Revelation. maybe from his Holy Talmud, which according to Israeli historian, professor Israel Shahak, is the most hateful religious book in the world.

Avnery supports his accusations against Ahmadinejad by claiming that Ahmadinejad’s denial of Holocaust, his rhetoric about the disappearance of Israel, his support for Iran’s nuclear program, etc. – greatly helped Israeli government to turned the world against Iran.

His public fantasies about the disappearance of Israel. His denial of the Holocaust, which until then had been typical only of a lunatic fringe. His boasting about Iran’s nuclear capabilities,” wrote Avnery.

Based on his stupid logic, I bet Avnery also believe that Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Basrallah, Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya and Turkish prime minister Erdogan, must be Mossad agents as they’re all hated by Israeli leaders and Mossad has tried to assassinate all of them.

Avnery is just repeating Israeli hasbara lies. It has long been proven that Ahmadinejad was misquoted by the Jewish Memeri. What Ahmadinejad actually said was a “call for the removal of the oppressive regimes in Tel Aviv and Washington“. Ahmadinejad never denied Jewish Holocaust. He just called for an open debate to prove the Zionists’ estimate of 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis. He also said that since Holocaust occured in Europe, why Palestinians are being punished for the crimes of the Europeans?

If Anvery had read Rouhani’s lips without his Zionist prism, he would have found out the Rouhani’s views about Zionist entity are not different than Anvery’s fictious “Mossad Agent”. While Ahmadinejad was not scared to use the world “Holocaust” aka, new Jewish religion, Rouhani is so disgusted with the word that ignored to mention it during his speech at the UNGA. Last month, Rouhani called Israel a cancer which should be removed from Muslim Middle East.

Anvery, like any con Zionist crook, claims that since he is an “atheist”, he has no moral to say the truth. I wonder, if he knows that over 80% of Zionists-Jewish communist and Zionist mass murderers and antisemites also claimed to be “atheists”

In the end, Anvery, as a paranoid Zionist cat, do come out of the Zionist liter box. He claims that a peace between the US and Iran would be good for Israel too. Because, it would isolate Iran from anti-Israel Resistance groups (Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.).

If we could restore some of our former relationship with Tehran, or even just take the sting out of the present one, that would be a huge gain for Israel. Combining this with a real peace initiative vis-a-vis the Palestinians would be even better,” claims Avnery.

Avnery, I must say, is living in Israeli self-denial. Can he explain why the “peace initiative” never materialized before the 1979 Islamic Revolution? King Reza Shah, certainly, was in bed with the Zionist regime since 1949. The Iranian support for Hamas (moral and financial) first came from Imam Khomeini followed by Ayatullah Khamenie – and not from Iran’s successive governments.

Iran: Who Is Responsible for Rohani’s Diplomatic Offensive?

An Iranian woman walks past a mural showing a gun painted with an interpretation of the American flag on the wall of the former US embassy in Tehran on 25 September 2013. (Photo: AFP – Atta Kenare)
Published Monday, September 30, 2013
Many attribute Iran’s recent “charm offensive” toward the West to the election of President Hassan Rohani. Upon closer look, it appears that the intransigent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the uncompromising Ali Khamenei were in fact the ones who opened the way for the current breakthrough.

Perhaps the most superficial analysis of the positive turn that US-Iranian relations have taken says that the “oppressed” Iranian people threw off the yoke of the conservatives and voted a moderate, reformist into office who is willing to deal with Washington.In fact, well before President Hassan Rohani decided to run for elections, in a 21 March 2013 speech, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei began to draw the outlines of a more flexible stance on his country’s nuclear program. Khamenei called this new approach “revolutionary flexibility” or “heroic flexibility,” saying that “flexibility is useful – and sometimes necessary.”

In the course of his speech, the supreme leader expressed the Islamic Republic’s willingness to place the country’s nuclear activities under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in return for recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium and carry on with its peaceful nuclear program.

Such a turn would not have been possible during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s term – not as a result of the former president’s uncompromising disposition toward the West, but circumstances at the time simply did not allow any kind of rapprochement between the two sides.

George W. Bush and the neocons still had the upper hand in Washington when Ahmadinejad came into office, with no option before the incoming president than to stand strong in the face of Western pressure or submit as his predecessor Mohammad Khatami had done without extracting any concessions in return.

With the blessings of Khamenei, Tehran at the time decided to take a harder line, forging ahead with its nuclear program in the face of mounting threats from Israel and the West. When Ahmadinejad came into office, for example, Iran possessed but a few hundred centrifuges of the first generation. At the end of his term, the country was operating around 17,000, with another thousand, second-generation centrifuges about to be put into service.

Ahmadinejad’s offensive succeeded, particularly in light of Washington’s growing difficulties in the region and the onset of a debilitating financial crisis in 2008. As the 2013 elections approached, Khamenei determined that it was time for a more flexible approach that would nevertheless remain firm on the core principles, specifically Iran’s right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
There is no doubt that Ahmadinejad’s personality was amenable to the task at hand, just as Rohani’s is also suitable for the course Tehran has decided to take today. But at the end of the day, what determines the policies adopted on a matter as important as Iran’s nuclear program are the given circumstances, the outlook of state institutions, and the predisposition of the supreme leader.

The question remains: Has Iran pushed forth with its nuclear achievements in order to take a step back in return for international recognition of its right to develop nuclear energy? That is, did it reach 20 percent enrichment only to concede in return for 5 percent enrichment? Or does it seek full recognition of all its nuclear activities in return for concessions in other files, like Syria? The coming weeks and months will tell.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

Iran’s Lesson to Washington’s Arabs

Iranian president-elect Hassan Rowhani waves as he attends a press conference in Tehran on 17 June 2013. (Photo: AFP – Behrouz Mehri)
Published Monday, June 17, 2013
Iran’s presidential election poses some important and uncomfortable questions to its Arab neighbors across the Gulf: How has the Islamic Republic’s theocratic political system succeeded in maintaining its religious and ethnic diversity and developing its economic and technological abilities in the face of modern history’s most restrictive financial sanctions?
The election surprised many with its 70 percent turnout and the overwhelming victory of Hassan Rouhani in the first round, the reasons for which will have to be carefully considered over the coming days. It’s clear that Rouhani was the candidate most different from current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.One has to ask why is it that none of the conservatives candidates were willing to pull out in order to put forward a united front, knowing full well that the other side was gaining in the polls. One theory may be that the conservatives, who are more influential in state affairs, had decided that a change of course was necessary.

The conservatives’ miscalculation may also be due to an underestimation of their rivals, even though the reformists were clearly gaining momentum during the campaign period. By all appearances, the Iranian public had grown weary of Ahmadinejad’s leadership, particularly his economic policies and his tense relations with the West and the Gulf Arab countries. The question remains, however, can Rouhani remain true to the Islamic revolution’s principles while at the same time satisfying the needs of the people?

Even with all the difficulties the country is facing, it is clear that Iran’s democratic experiment has been successful to a large degree. Despite the Arab Spring and the recent protests in Turkey, Tehran did not hesitate to go forward with the presidential election, which could easily have been exploited by one side or another to undermine the regime as a whole.

And, of course, everyone is waiting to see what the new president plans to do on the Syrian front. For those who are betting on an Iranian retreat from the region’s burning issues, I advise them to take advantage of the opening that a Rouhani presidency may provide to find a political settlement that would stem the relentless bloodshed.

Ibrahim al-Amin is editor-in-chief of Al-Akhbar.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

A Farewell To The Best President Ever…

by         on     June 13, 2013


We are about to miss a dear friend – on the political scene- before the Iranian presidential elections take place – where surprises are expected and the winner-  according to polls- will be : Mohammad Bagher  Qalibaf , the mayor of Teheran of the conservatives or the principled,  like Dr. Ahmadinejad was the mayor of Teheran.  Iran- to day- is under vow of silence where the candidate s will refrain from issuing any statement one day before the elections start .

The candidates-  who were hosted by the Iranian TV-  criticized much the rule of the  actual president instead of expanding their own views and projects, and the Murshid has something to say about this matter after the elections take place.  Dr. Ahmadinejad is not supporting anyone-  in particular-  and he said that he represents one single vote and not more . As usual , the USA – who pretends  to be a democracy – is interfering by way of providing what it calls the Iranian opposition,  with communication devices that will enable it to communicate with one  another , which shows that US has not given up its schemes of manipulation and conspiracy.

It is not expected- tomorrow- that the green events of year 2009 be repeated – where upheavals were witnessed-  in what was found out to be a false flag revolution arranged by Liberal Zionist- George Soros- and set up in the dark rooms of foreign embassies . The Murshed – as usual- has summoned all to share and vote for the suitable candidate which will turn down all schemes designed for Iran on the ground that it is a theocracy in want of democracy , as certain ill intentioned intellectuals describe it. The progress of the Syrian army on the ground, against the sectarian thugs of the opposition, will certainly represent a positive asset and will have a good repercussion on the whole operation .

No doubt Iran is a real democracy and represents true Islam and true religion and deserves to be ruled by the best of presidents, someone of the caliber of Dr Ahmadinejad , a wholly committed person to his duty. Definitely, Dr. Ahmadinejad has set rules and standards for those who will ascend to presidency, in the true spirit of the Islamic Revolution and- for this- he should be thanked .

The actual president  who works 21 hours – who never cashed his salary , who sat and ate and slept on the floor and had- for presidential lunch- the regular cheese sandwich prepared by his wife , who used to help cleaning the streets and would travel like any average citizen – cannot be forgotten . We hope for the Iranians to be ruled by the best of men , but Dr.  Ahmadinejad has a special place in our hearts and -probably – in the hearts of so many Iranians whom he served with full dedication and commitment .

Thank you Dr. Ahmadinejad, in the way you carried yourself and carried your duties and defended the rights and kept high the values of the revolution, no one can beat  you . We hope to see you soon and we will never forget the best President ever… We wish you the best and the greatest reward here and in the hereafter. Thank you for being there.

Another 7 Days of Mourning in Venezuela, State Funeral Held Friday

Local Editor
A state funeral is to be held Friday for late Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez, as the Vice President announced that another seven days of mourning were decided.

VP Nicolas Maduro, who is the country’s acting President, declared seven additional days of mourning on Thursday.
Chavez funeral
The South American nation has already been in a seven-day mourning in the wake of the death of Chavez, who passed away on Tuesday after a long battle with cancer.
Maduro said that the body of the former president would be embalmed “like Lenin”, the Russian revolutionary leader, and would be displayed in a glass coffin for an extra week at a military museum in Caracas after a state funeral, Agence France Presse reported.

The VP said the decision to have the president lie in state for another seven days was taken to allow Venezuelans who are waiting in long lines to be able to pay their respects to the late president.

More than two million mourners have already filed past Chavez’s body at the military academy in Caracas, where he is lying in state.

Venezuelan officials said that up to 55 world leaders will attend the state funeral of President Hugo Chavez on Friday, including US bugbears Cuba, Iran and Belarus.

Maduro said heads of state or government from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean have confirmed their attendance for the Caracas military academy ceremony at 15:30 GMT.

Chavez’ closest ally, Cuban President Raul Castro, was the latest leader to arrive in Caracas on Thursday to pay tribute to the socialist leader.

He will be followed later in the evening by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Belarussian strongman Alexander Lukashenko.

Source: Agencies
08-03-2013 – 10:59 Last updated 08-03-2013 – 12:38

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

How to unite muslims?? Two ways to stop the "Shiite tsunami"??

[WilI Muslims wake up to the ugly truth; for “Israel” to survive it needs and wants Sunni-Shia war…

It wants Sunni Muslims to see Shia Muslims as their enemy. It wants Muslim to kill his brother.

It wants Muslims to DESTROY EACH OTHER for the sake of the satanic entity “Israel”.] – nahida the Exiled Palestinian



Listen to the Amy Ayalon taking about the future of ME.

It (ME) should be based, the concept of security, stability, statehood, should be based on several paramters, first of all we have to accept that it is very important to creat coalition a Sunni coalition led by Turkey. Why turkey?

We can’t live with Iran heavy nuclear millitary power, we should not accept it, the question is how much time we do have in correlation to what should we can do because if, if we are going to act unilaterally without any American or international support, without creating the atmosphere in the ME, it is not only we have to face the reaction, propably its too late, all we can we achieve with our military power, propably is to delay the program for either 12, 16 or 6 months, but if the assumptions is that we are a part of a coalition, based on a kind of a Sunni coalition, and America…

What do you mean by Sunni coalition?

Sunni coalition, it means that Turkey with Egypt with Jordan with Saudi Arabia, understand that the major conflict is with shea led by Iran and they create this coaltion, as I mentioned before…in order to create this coalition that will face Iran, and the Paletinians is very com?…. this is the coalition.

Now let us move to Al-azhar, and meet the Rabbe

So the Sunni concern is not Jerusalem nor the muslims unity. It is stopping the so-called Shiite tsunami.


Finally, here is a Syrian history lesson for rhe Azhar Rabbe, and a road map towards stopping the Shiit’s tsunami, and a Sunni counter tsunami.

It is very difficult to translate the below long article of Naram Sargon written in elegant arabic language. So, I will only aknowledge the non Arab readers that according to the Author, the shortest way to stop the socalled Shiite expansion, and to sweep the Shiite strongholds down to the capitals of shiism in Najaf and Qom is embrasing the resistance.

Rats desert a sinking ship, fools ride

BTW, Hamas as resistant movement has washed with the blood of its martyrs all the historical sins of the Brotherhood since the founding of their movement in the twenties of the last century.

So when the Muslim Brotherhood’s leader, Rashad Bayoumy asked “Is it a pre-condition to recognize Israel in order to govern?” I wrote:

The answer is clear, Mr. Bayoumy, and its up to you and your party. The shortest way govern is Pleasing the USA, Via pleasing its Tool Israel, and its Zionist Lobby. Ask your brother Ghanushi. But it’s also the shortest way to lose power, morals, and political future….

Thirty years ago, Khomeini, faced a similar situation, without storming his brain and thinking about the “spasmodic and uncalculated statements (ACTIONS) may do more harm than good…that could invite uncalculated reactions from the United States and its western allies, and its tool the Zionist entity, he turned the Zionist embassy into a Palestinian Embassy….

He did it because, the vision was clear, the enemy was clear, and because he was after power to put Iran on the right track, and he did.


Iran now, despite the 8 years war launched by Arabs (almost all Arabs except Syria, Islamists, and nationalists except Syrian) and 30 years of sanction, is super power who dared to say to US: get out of Gulf.”……

“You could have done the same thirty years before Khomeini, I mean with Nasser in early fifties, instead you tried to kill Nasser. You could have done it last year (2011), but you didn’t, because:

  • you are looking for power, just power, and would deal with the devil for power.
  • You dealt with Sadat, with Mubarak for 30% of the Parlament seats, with Tantawi, and with the USA,
  • Like Sadat (No 20 years before Sadat), believed and still believe that the USA holds 99% of the cards, that the shortest way to govern is to please the USA,
  • You believed and still believe that you may please the USA, without pleasing its “Chosen” tool.”

Because of your wrong calculations, and for short term political benifets, you missed a great chance to lead the revolution to the end, putting your history (Your best offspring), your future at risk.

Hamas, as a resisrance movement washed all you historical mistakes/sins.

Hamas is entiltled to be your “Hezbollah”, you crane, all it needs is a MB Assad in Cairo, to destroy all walls with Gaza Hashim, Gaza Al-izza.

Don’t kill your best offsping.”

And they did it, killed Hamas, and revealed their sectarian ugly face.  The sectarian thug Khalid Hamayreh claimed that the so – called Arab spring is good for Palestine, he meant for Hamas, now, I would ask that thug what Hamas have achieved by siding thier brothers in Syria, Egypy Tunis and Jordan, nothing, but they lost the support of the rest of the people.
As far I see now, the real Arab spring in both Tunis and Egypt has just started.

Read the full comment here.

Ahmad Jibril, in a famous Brotherhood dinner in Cairo gave a similar advise. Jibril appears in the following two pictures taken in the house of brotherhood’s murshid.
نقره لتكبير أو تصغير الصورة ونقرتين لعرض الصورة في صفحة مستقلة بحجمها الطبيعي
Ahmad Jibril (L), Khalid Mishaal (R), Brothers Murshid (M)

نقره لتكبير أو تصغير الصورة ونقرتين لعرض الصورة في صفحة مستقلة بحجمها الطبيعي
Standing from Left: Abu-Ahmad Foad -PFLP, Jibril-PFLP GC, Ramadan Shallah -Hihad, MB Mushid, Mishaal-Hamas. Sitting from right Anwar Raja-PFLP GC…
In case you missed it: Rats desert a sinking ship, fools ride

Part 2



كيف نوقف التشيع؟؟

درس في التاريخ لشيخ الأزهر / نارام سرجون
الثلاثاء‏، 12‏ شباط‏، 2013
أوقات الشام

هل دحر ايران وهزيمة حسن نصر الله سيحمي المذهب السني؟؟

ليس في فن الكتابة أخطر على الكاتب من أن يتناول الشأن الديني ان كان بخير أو بسوء .. فحسبه أن ينجو من اللوم والتعنيف من الطرفين .. فاللامتدينون العاتبون لايرون ماكتبه كافيا .. وأما المتدينون من الهائجين والغاضبين فيرون دم الله مسفوكا على أوراقه .. لكن أخطر أنواع الكتابة في الشأن الديني هي ما يتناول الطوائف والأديان في زمن السعار الديني والهياج اللاهوتي حيث يوضع رب العالمين (الله) في دائرة الطباشير وتشد الكنائس والمساجد والكنس ذراعيه .. والكل يدعي ملكيته وحده لله وحده حتى كدنا نسمع أنين الله في سمائه من شد المؤمنين لذراعيه .. الكل يريد اجتياح السماء والجلوس الى جانب عرش الله .. والبعض يريد الجلوس على عرش الله ذاته .. فمن يحكم السماء يحكم الأرض ..وكي تحكم السماء عليك أن تحكم الأرض ..
لكن كم يثير الشجن هذا التراشق بالكلام بين الطوائف الاسلامية في زمن الربيع الاسلامي .. زمن يوسف القرضاوي وأحمد الطيب وعدنان العرعور .. انه زمن النهش في الاسلام .. وزمن الطوائف المسمومة .. زمن يقف فيه الاسلام عاجزا بلا حول ولاقوة في نفس دائرة الطباشير التي وقف فيها الله نفسه .. ولانسمع فيها الا تأوّه الاسلام من شد ذراعيه الكبيرين ولحيته الطويلة حتى بدأنا نسمع طقطقة عظامه وهي تنفصل في مفاصلها ممزوجة بصوت انفتاق اللحم عن اللحم وتمزقه من أثر الشد والتجاذب ..
أعرف أنني سأكتب اليوم مقالا ربما كان الأخطر على الاطلاق لأنه يعرج على شأن ديني .. سأرصف فيه الكلمات بعناية فائقة وأضعها كلمة كلمة على السطر بهدوء شديد كمن يضع عبوة ناسفة ولغما نزقا ينفجر حتى من مرور نسمة هواء على صواعقه .. أو كمن يمسك مشعلا بيد في غرفة ضيقة مكتظة ببراميل البارود وباليد الأخرى ينقل براميل البارود .. كل غفلة قد تقرب اللهب من شفاه البارود المنفعل .. بل يخالجني شعور أحيانا أنني باقترابي من الشأن الديني أنني كمن ينقل قنبلة ذرية بسيارته .. انه اقتراب من منطقة مسورة بالمذابح عبر التاريخ والحرائق.. وبينها وبين العقل خندق مليء بالدم القاني .. وهي مسيجة بتابوات ولعنات وأساطير ومطوقة بملايين الكتب والحجج والذرائع والجدال والمنافحات التي لم تصل الى قرار..ولن تصل..
ومع هذا فانني سأكتب غير عابئ لأن الصمت هو دين الشياطين ..وأن كنت سأفعل شيئا فهو أنني سأحاول أن أمحو دائرة الطباشير كيلا يقف فيها دين أو اله .. وكي تحار الطوائف بعد ذلك أين تضع مذاهبها في غياب رسوم الطباشير.. الساحة العربية امتلأت بدوائر الطباشير ..وكل المذاهب والنحل تقف على حدود الدوائر تبحث عن أذرع لتشدها .. ولكن سأمرّ على الساحة وسأمسك قطعة قماش وأمحو كل الدوائر لأن الحقيقة هي أن الله لايقف في أية دائرة وكل الدوائر ترسمها يد جاهلة..
هذه الأيام سمعنا خطابين دينيين في الشرق .. واحد مسيحي صدر في دمشق في تنصيب البطريرك يوحنا العاشر .. والآخر اسلامي صدر من القاهرة من شيخ الأزهر أحمد الطيب بمناسبة زيارة نجاد للأزهر .. ولم يكن هناك أي فرق بين الخطابين سوى مايقارب 48 ساعة لكن الفارق حضاريا وفكريا بينهما كان قرابة عشرة قرون .. فخطاب البطريرك يوحنا العاشر وكل البطاركة المشاركين في حفل تنصيبه كان بردا وسلاما ويؤسس لمستقبل كنيسة للانسانية .. وكان مثقلا بالهم الانساني والوطني وبالرقي الحضاري وفلسفة التسامح والانفتاح والتلاقح .. أما الثاني فكان خطابا مخجلا ويؤسس لثقافة الحارات الشعبية والمقاهي المعزولة .. وأجزم أنه يؤسس لمقولة من الفرات الى النيل حدودك يااسرائيل .. لأن حدود اسرائيل تنتهي عند الفرات كما تدعي وما بعد الفرات يراد للدولة الشيعية أن تقوم .. وقام شيخ الأزهر بوضع حدود اسرائيل الدينية باقامة الحاجز النفسي والبشري بالحدود السنية الشيعية .. وهو يريد حبس الشيعة خلف الفرات .. فتنفرد اسرائيل بما قبل الفرات ..
ومن يستمع لشيخ الأزهر في وعظيته الغاضبة للرئيس الايراني أحمدي نجاد ونصحه بعدم تدخله في شؤون السنة يشفق على نفسه ويصله احساس غريب أن الاسلام في محنة مابعدها محنة في فقر الفقه وفقر التفكير .. ويحس أن الجامع الأزهر دخل كهف دقلديانوس وسينام لثلاثمئة سنة يترك فيها المسلمين بقيادة عتاولة جبهة النصرة والقاعدة .. والحقيقة أن من يتولى قيادة الاسلام في هذه المرحلة لم يعد الازهر ولا الحرم المكي وبالطبع ليس الأقصى الذي باعته حماس لقطر والقرضاوي وليست جبهة النصرة ولا القاعدة .. بل من يقود الاسلام هم مجموعة من الخبراء والمستشرقين الغربيين والباحثين الخطرين في شؤون تفكيك الأنظمة الاجتماعية والنسج الثقافية الموروثة بحقنها بالسم الطائفي بنكهة (الحرية والديمقراطية الثورية) ..

وهؤلاء القادة الخفيون من عيار برنار ليفي يعرفون أن الفرات هو حدود اسرائيل التوراتية ويجب فصل الأرض والشعب العربي والاسلامي قبل الفرات وبعده بالنار الطائفية .. فينكفئ شرق الفرات الشيعي عن غربه السني ويترك غربه لقدره .. لتتولى اسرائيل أمر غرب الفرات بعد أن كادت تنتهي من معركة نهر النيل وقد تركته منهكا ونهبا للصراع الاسلامي العلماني والاسلامي القبطي..

جهابذة التدمير الثقافي يعرفون أن اللغة والدين من أقوى النسج الثقافية على الاطلاق ومن أصعب المهام تفكيكهما .. وهما مترابطان جدا .. كما أن عملية تحطيم أحدهما ستسبب انهيار الآخر أو انهيار الأمة .. فتفكيك الدين مثلا سبب في هزيمة الأمم كما حدث في سقوط القسطنطينية بيد محمد الفاتح لأن بابا روما رفض نصرة بابا القسطنطينية ضد العثمانيين ما لم يعلن ولاءه الكهنوتي للبابوية في روما .. ويمكن أحيانا تدمير الدين بتدمير أساسه اللغوي ..ومن هنا تم مثلا الغاء رابطة اللغة مع الدين الاسلامي في تركيا أتاتورك بتغيير الحرف العربي الى اللاتيني فغابت اللغة عن الوعي التركي الحديث لقرن كامل .. وعندما استيقظت تركيا وجدت أنه لايوجد لديها لغة لتتعرف على دينها فنشأ من ذلك حزب العدالة والتنمية الاسلامي وهو حزب أقل مايقال فيه أنه نهج ديني جديد مبتور مهجن وبلا جذور وأقرب الى النسخة الأطلسية المسموح بها للاسلام العثماني الذي افاق في مزرعة العلمانية الأتاتوركية ولايعرف شيئا عن جذوره .. فاسلام حزب العدالة والتنمية يقاتل مع الغرب في كل معاركه في كل البلاد الاسلامية ولا يخوض معركة واحدة على أية أرض غير اسلامية .. من أفغانستان الى العراق وليبيا ومصر .. وسورية أخيرا ..
لاشيء يستفز أعصابي الا الخوف على المذهب السني من اجتياح المذهب الشيعي له لأن في هذا اهانة لمذاهب أهل السنة التي يعتقد من يسمع هذا الزعيق أنها ضعيفة وهزيلة وبلا عمق فقهي صلب .. ومن يستمع لشيوخ الاسلام هذه الأيام وزعيقهم من تمدد التشيع يعرف أن الاسلام يقترب من مرحلة الهلوسة الدينية والضعف الشديد والجهل الشديد والتقاط الاسرائيليات .. وأنه بدأ في تأسيس حدود اسرائيل التوراتية .. بشطر الشرق الى ماشرق الفرات وغرب الفرات عمليا .. حيث بالضبط حدود الشيعة والسنة .. أو بدقة حدود اسرائيل الشرقية توراتيا..
المذهب السني يا شيوخ الأزهر ويا شيوخ قطر لايحميه الوقوف في وجه نجاد ولا بناء الأسوار حول ايران ولا تحطيم حسن نصر الله رمزيا ومعنويا وتشويهه ولا بتبديل نظام الحكم في سورية ..

المذهب السني لن يحميه الا التصدي لحسن نصر الله ونجاد والخامنئي في قلب اسرائيل .. أي التسابق مع نصر الله ونجاد والأسد في الحاق الاهانة باسرائيل وتهديدها .. نجاد ونصر الله والخامنئي والأسد لم تصل شهرتهم وسطوتهم بين شعوب المنطقة بسبب الحوزات الشيعية ولابسبب كتاب (الرياء والعجب) أو (زبدة الأحكام الاسلامية) للخميني بل بسبب التصدي للغرب العاتي ومشروع اسرائيل وتحدي جيشها وقهره وتمريغ أنفه في بنت جبيل ومارون الراس ووادي الحجير..

بكل بساطة ماعلى الأزهر وشيخ الأزهر أن يفعله لتفعيل وتقوية المذهب السني ونشره حتى في ايران نفسها هو عدم السماح لنجاد ونصر الله والأسد بالانفراد بمواقفهم ضد اسرائيل والغرب .. العالم الاسلامي يرى أن هذا الثلاثي قد قهر الغرب مرتين في العراق ولبنان وهذا مارفع من شأن المذهب الشيعي لأن من ينجح في الصمود قد يعني للناس أن مشروعه قوي وأن عقيدته صافية ..
شيخ الأزهر لايريد أن يفعل شيئا لبعث الحياة في المذهب السني الذي يتآكل في الروتين وبيروقراطية المؤسسة وطحن الفتاوى والانشغال بالرضاعة وطبخ الدين في مطابخ الصمت والمعاهدات وتركه لوعاظ الفضائيات وسماسرة الفتاوى .. المذهب السني لايكون الحفاظ عليه بالتقوقع وزيادة جرعة الخوف والتنفير من التشيع كمنافس رئيسي والتصرف بعصبية ونزق أمام العمائم السود .. هذا السلوك بحد ذاته سيدفع الناس للتفكير في مدى قوة المذهب الشيعي الذي يخيف كل مؤسسات السنة العريقة من المحيط الى الخليج ويجعل الأزهر مصابا بالهياج .. ويلقي المؤسسات الدينية الراعية للمذهب السني في الشك وهي ثرية للغاية بالمال والنفوذ عبر النفط ..والموقع الجيوسياسي .. ومع هذا تتقصف ركب الفضائيات رعبا من التشيع وكأنه اسطورة لايقف في وجهها شيء ..
لو وقف الأزهر كما يقف نجاد وحسن نصر الله لكان له في قلب (قم) أتباع ومحبون ومعجبون ..

غباء الأزهر لم يعد يصدق .. وللاستدلال على ذلك يكفي تذكر بعض تصرفاته المثيرة للحرج والجدل والخجل .. ففي أيام الراحل محمد سيد طنطاوي شيخ الأزهر السابق ظهر الشيخ طنطاوي وهو يصافح بيريز بيديه مصافحة شهيرة .. ثم ينكر ويكذب ويدعي أنه لايعرف من هو بيريز ..

وفي مناسبة أخرى عندما سئل عن حصار غزة قالها بالفم الملآن وبعصبية (الله .. واحنا مالنا؟؟) ..

وعندما كانت الجرافات الاسرائيلية تهدم بيت المغاربة ببث حي ومباشر سأل المذيع شيخ الأزهر عن موقفه فقال : ليس لي علم بأي اعتداء .. هو فيه ايه وبيحصل ايه؟؟ وقد سكت المذيع من حرجه وغيظه ..(التسجيلات متاحة لمن أراد)..

وبالمقابل كان نجاد يرعى مؤتمرا لهدم اسطورة الهولوكوست دون تهيب لأحد .. وكان نصر الله يلقي صواريخه على اسرائيل .. بعد كل هذا يريد هؤلاء ألا يتقدم المذهب الشيعي وينال الاحترام والشعبية .. فيدفعون ببعض المراهقين والصبية للتصدي للفكر الشيعي عبر الفضائيات وأعمال العنف الدموية المغطاة بصمت المؤسسة الدينية ..وغطاء التكفير..
كم فيها من الاهانة هذه الصرخات والرعب من اقتراب المذهب الشيعي الى عرين السنة .. وكأن المذهب السني لايملك أسلحته وفكره ومفكريه وعلماءه الذين يحاجون ويقارعون .. وليس لديه تراث راسخ في عقول أتباعه ليهتز في أية ريح .. انني لو كنت في موقع ديني في الأزهر لدعوت الحوزات الشيعية الى مصر لنعيدها سنية الى مواطنها .. تماما كما يحصل للمهاجرين العرب الى الغرب .. يذهبون شرقيين ويعود معظمهم متفقها في أصول الحرية والانتخابات وتحرر المرأة ..وحقوق الانسان ..
هل يريد الأزهر والثوار والباكون على المذهب السني انهاء اسطورة حسن نصر الله وايقاف الدعوة الشيعية؟؟ .. بل هل يريد الأزهر أن يرد على المذهب الشيعي من قلب النجف؟؟

اذا عليه ان يدخل في المنافسة ويعلن فتوى جهادية ضد اسرائيل لانقاش فيها واعلان موقف صريح رافض لمعاهدة كامب ديفيد .. وأن يطلب من أردوغان عند زيارة مصر والأزهر علنا الانسحاب من الناتو والعودة لقيادة المسلمين من غير ناتو واعادة اللغة العربية كلغة ثانية رسمية في تركيا كما هي في ايران الشيعية .. وتطهير الشرق من أذيال الغرب ومن تورط تركيا في الدروع الصاروخية الاسرائيلية والامريكية ..

انه ثمن بسيط لايريد الازهر فعله .. بل يفضل خوض حرب دينية تافهة من مقاس داحس والغبراء لعقود .. وبلا نهاية..ولانتيجة ..
لاأدري ان كان شيخ الأزهر يعرف أن كل حوزات العالم الشيعية لاتستطيع أن تمس جوهر المذهب السني بعمليات التبشير لأن هذا المذهب ببساطة مذهب قوي وعريق كما أن الدول الراعية له ثرية للغاية وهي أثرى مافي العالم الاسلامي .. وقد صمدت مذاهب أهل السنة مئات السنين وتماسكت رغم أن الدعوة الشيعية هي طعن فلسفي ومنهجي بالفكر السني وأسسه منذ قيامها منذ مئات السنين..
ان من سيحطم المذهب السني أيها السادة العلماء الأزهريون هو تركه رهينة بيد شخصيات ودعاة هزيلين أخلاقيا مثل القرضاوي وعمرو خالد والعرعور و(أبو اسلام) وحازم ووو … وتركهم يحولونه الى مذهب بدائي متوحش لايرحم ويصور جرائمه دون أن يخشى ادانة من الأزهر وغيره .. أولئك المجانين الذين يباهون بعنف المذهب السني وسكاكينه هم من يضعفون مذاهب أهل السنة .. لأن مشهد ذبح واحد لانسان، أو احراق الناس أحياء كما تنشر الثورة السورية في استعراضاتها الثأرية التي تتشفى من خصومها ستهز المذهب السني برمته .. وتخيفه من نفسه عندما ينظر في المرآة ويرى الدم على وجهه .. وستطلق الشك في صدقيته وصحته العقائدية..
ومما يدهش له أنه في ستينات القرن الماضي قاد الأزهريون محاولة جريئة لتوحيد المذهبين الشيعي والسني في جو كتب فيه اسماعيل مظهر كتابا بعنوان (لماذا أنا ملحد) فرد عليه محمد جمال فندي بكتاب (لماذا أنا مؤمن) وليس بذبحه امام الكاميرات ورفع التكبير.. لكن سكوت شيخ الأزهر والقرضاوي والعلماء المسلمين على السلوك العنيف للتنظيمات الاسلامية سيتسبب في نفور نفسي من الاسلام من قلب الطائفة السنية (كما تسبب سكوت مرجعية النجف عن اعدام الرئيس صدام حسين يوم العيد لأن ذلك الصمت أخجل الشيعة الوطنيين قبل السنة وهز من مكانة المرجعية الشيعية بينهم) .. وسيضرب هذا الشك في الشرعية الاخلاقية للسنة أهم أسس لأي مذهب .. لأن الناس لاتغير عقائدها بسهولة لكنها تغير من علاقتها بعقائدها وقوة شكيمتها في الدفاع عنها .. ان العنف الذي تصوره الثورة لارهاب غيرها وللمباهاة به وسكوت الأزهر والرموز السنية عليه سيكون أهم سبب لانهدام المذهب السني في نفوس متبعيه لأن هذا المذهب لم يتعرض لمثل مايتعرض له من تدمير ممنهج على يد أئمة السنة ووعاظ الفكر المتطرف .. بل ان عملية توثيق القتل وممارسة العنف واستخدام الاطفال في قطع الرؤوس تحتفظ بها القوى الغربية في ملفات تنتظر اخراجها على الرأي العام الغربي عندما يحين استعمال العنف المتناهي في السيطرة على بعض القوى الاسلامية السنية التي سينتهي دورها .. تماما كما ظهرت أشرطة عنيفة عن تعذيب السجناء العراقيين ونسفهم أحياء والقائهم من الشواهق بعد أن بقيت لدى وكالة المخابرات الأمريكية عقدين كاملين وتم اطلاقها الى العلن عندما تقرر الاجهاز على العراق ونظام حكمه ..
وربما سيفاجأ الجميع ان قلت ان المذهب الشيعي لن ينتشر في بلاد الشام لأن علماء الشام من السنة قد دخلوا في منافسة قوية مع السيد حسن نصر الله والرئيس نجاد في عملية التحدي لاسرائيل .. ولايستطيع السيد حسن نصر الله الا الاعتراف بأنه يتلقى الدعم من سورية ومن قصر لايبعد كثيرا عن ساحة اسمها (ساحة الأمويين) .. ولولا دعم علماء سورية السنة للرئيس الأسد في هذا النهج لما كان حزب الله بهذه السمعة والهيبة والمكانة ..

ولعل اغرب حقيقة تفاجئنا هي أن حزب الله مدين لعلماء الشام السنة بقوته .. ولولا دعمهم له لكانت القيادة السورية واحتراما لرأي علمائها السنة مترددة في دعم حزب الله .. ولذلك استحق هؤلاء العلماء منزلة لايضاهيها منزلة .. وهي أنهم حماة أهل السنة وحماة المذهب السني .. وهم من أعطى للمذهب السني هيبته في زمن ترهل الأزهر والحرم المكي وغياب الأقصى .. وهم من يحميه بوقوفهم أندادا لحسن نصر الله في مواجهة الغرب ..

ومن يعرف مثلا الشيخ العلامة محمد سعيد رمضان البوطي أو مفتي الجمهورية السورية الشيخ أحمد بدر الدين حسون وجسارته في قبول التحدي الاسرائيلي لعرف أن مثل هؤلاء هم من يوقفون أي تمدد للتشيع .. فقد تمكن الشيخ حسون من فرض احترامه بقوة بخطابه الواثق وعلمه وفقهه الجهادي الرفيع وقدرة خارقة على خلق التسامح .. وعكس في موقفه الصابر والجهادي مدى تبحره في الفقه السني وعلوم الدين والمذاهب وتحول الى أيقونة سنية .. بل وبتقديم ولده سارية شهيدا ارتقى ليكون بمثابة حسن نصر الله “السني” .. فكلاهما فقد ولده في معركة من أجل موقف وطني ولم يغير طريقه ..

ومن لديه قوة الشيخ البوطي وحسون لايحس أن الانتقال الى منصة مذهب آخر سيضيف على يقينه شيئا آخر .. لأن التفاصيل الفقهية في الخلاف لن تغير العمق الايماني للمسلم.. سنيا كان أم شيعيا..

يريد شيخ الأزهر والقرضاوي وكل ثوار الناتو أن يوقفوا انتشار المذهب الشيعي .. وقام الربيع العربي لهذه الغاية كما يبدو ولا يبدو أن الربيع قام لايقاف المد الاسرائيلي .. وبالفعل فان أول ثمن تعهد به هؤلاء هو اسقاط رمزية المقاومة وطهارتها واسقاط معاقلها في سورية وبدء الحرب المذهبية الشعواء .. ومن يريد الدليل فليفتح أية صفحة سورية للثورة منذ اليوم الأول وبمجرد فتحه الصفحة ستفوح الروائح الطائفية الكريهة وسينهض الموتى من القبور ليقصوا له حكايات الجنون .. والهوس بالشيعة والنصيرية ..
ماردده كالببغاء شيخ الأزهر يدل على أن عملية وضع حدود اسرئيل التوراتية يسهم فيها شيوخ المسلمين الكبار ومؤسساتهم الكبيرة .. فمنذ أن وضع مشروع قتل الخرائط القديمة للشرق الأوسط نشأت عملية التهويل من التمدد الشيعي لتحدث مبارزة سنية شيعية كبرى تبدأ رسم خطوط شعار اسرائيل التوراتية بشطر الجغرافيا السياسية الى شيعة وراء الفرات وسنة قبل الفرات بعد أن تم فصل الشام عن مصر في كامب ديفيد ..
وكان أول استهلال لهذه الخريطة هو تحذير ملك الأردن (الانكليزي) من الهلال الشيعي عام 2004 عقب سقوط العراق عام 2003 الذي آذن سقوطه بنجاح انطلاقة المشروع التقسيمي التوراتي على أرضية العراق .. ومنذ ذلك التاريخ انطلقت بكائيات ونواح الخائفين على أهل السنة ومذاهب أهل السنة وكان ذلك الانفجار العاطفي المبالغ فيه على المذهب السني مريبا للغاية .. ومنذ ذلك الوقت ظهرت الفضائيات التي أيقظت كل الجثث والمومياءات الاسلامية ونبشت القبور والجحور..

وجيء بالجمل من موقعته وتولى الجميع أمر العناية بعلفه ورغائه .. وسيق الناس من منصات التنوير واليقظة والرؤوس التي تشرئب لرؤية الفجر الاسلامي الى سقيفة بني ساعدة وجدل صفين وكربلاء لينبلج الفجر التوراتي .. ومن يسمع النواح يتخيل أن طوفانا من الجيوش وذوي العمامات السوداء يستعدون لغزو العالم العربي وأن مؤامرة نهاوند قد خرجت من أستارها الليلة بعد تخفيها بضعة قرون..

كان أول سؤال يخطر على البال هو سؤال بسيط للغاية؟ هل المذهب السني ضعيف وهزيل وهش حتى يخشى مبارزة مع الفكر الشيعي فيترك أمر التصدي للمؤامرة للفضائيات ولشيوخ من سوية عدنان العرعور؟؟

كيف يمكن لفقه اهل السنة العريق والهائل والمتمدد بكلكله على طول ألف وخمسمئة سنة وعلى امتداد 80% من العالم الاسلامي أن يخشى من مذهب ومن حوزات هنا وهناك؟؟ هل في التاريخ سابقة تبرر هذا الخوف؟؟

هل يخشى الاسلام السني بكل تركته وثقله ووزنه وفقهه من اسلام آخر يهزمه ببعض الدعاة والدراويش أو المتصوفين الباحثين عن لقاء المهدي المنتظر؟؟ الاسلام السني فقه راسخ وعمره مئات السنين لم يحدث في التاريخ أن هزم الاسلام السني أو أن تمدد التشيع خارج خرائطه بالتبشير أو بالغزو .. وهناك مثالان لايمكن انكارهما .. وهم مصر الشيعية أيام الفاطميين وايران السنية قبل التشيع .. بل ان عملية التخويف تلجأ الى الاستشهاد بتاريخي مصر وايران دون دراية بالتاريخ وتفاصيله .. وهذا التخويف يعتمد على جهل مطبق بعملية التحول الاجتماعي والتاريخي ..بل جهل أكثر في تفاصيل تاريخ مصر أو ايران ..

ففي مصر حكم الفاطميون لمئتي عام لكن المصريين عموما لم يتشيعوا تماما بل ان المصريين حولوا المناسبات الشيعية الحزينة ولطمياتها الى احتفالات بهيجة حتى في عز الدولة الفاطمية واستمر هذا حتى اليوم بالاحتفال بعاشوراء بطقوس احتفالية بهيجة ..بل ان المدارس الفقهية السنية في الاسكندرية كانت موجودة قبل عهد العاضد آخر الخلفاء الفاطميين .. وليس دقيقا أن صلاح الدين الأيوبي قضى على الدولة الفاطمية أوعلى التشيع بالعنف رغم بعض الحوادث .. بل لأن الدولة الفاطمية كانت قد وصلت الى سن الشيخوخة بعد مئتي سنة ووصلت الى التحلل الداخلي وفق منطق التاريخ ومنطق ابن خلدون في عمر الدولة .. حيث تصارع وزراؤها في سنواتها الأخيرة عندما نخرت الدولة حتى أن بعضهم استنجد بالصليبيين ضد بعضهم (كما يستنجد اليوم الثوار الاسلاميون العرب بالناتو وعلى رأسهم معاذ الخطيب والشقفة وطيفور والقرضاوي وعبد الجليل) فيما كان بعضهم يستنجد بنور الدين محمود زنكي حاكم حلب والشام الذي أرسل لهم جيشا كان من بينه ضابط شاب اسمه صلاح الدين تمكن من أن يسلب العاضد (آخر الخلفاء الفاطميين) سلطته سلميا دون قتال .. ولذلك كانت عملية انهاء الحكم الفاطمي في مصر سهلة للغاية ..

الفاطميون انتهوا في مصر لأنهم تآكلوا سياسيا في سياق صراعات الدولة الداخلية الهرمة وبسبب تحالف بعضهم مع الصليبيين كحليف ضد الحكم العباسي المنافس .. تحالف كان ممجوجا وتسبب في سقوط هيبتهم وشرعيتهم الدينية وقوتهم .. والدولة الفاطمية كانت قد وصلت الى نهاياتها كدولة منخورة..

مصر التي خضعت للفاطميين نقلها الأيوبيون الى الصف السني بسهولة من دون فضائيات الثرثرة واللطم على أهل السنة .. والسبب هو صلاح الدين الأيوبي الذي كان قائدا اسلاميا معتدا بسنيته .. اذ حولته هزيمته للصليبيين الى بطل وجعلت مذهبه ينتصر .. ومنحه تحدي الصليبيين الغزاة شرعية هائلة في نقل مصر الى حظيرة أخرى بسرعة..
أما ايران التي كانت سنية فيقال ان انقلابها على الأغلب الى التشيع كان بسبب السلطان غياث الدين محمد بن أرغون الملقب بشاه بنده بسبب قضية زوجته التي طلقها ثلاثا ولم يسمح له الفقه السني باستعادة زوجته لكن الفقه الشيعي اعتبر طلاقه باطلا .. فقرر غياث الدين اعتناق المذهب الشيعي وتشجيع نشره في دولته .. أما التهويل بقصة الشاه اسماعيل الصفوي ونشره التشيع فربما كانت غايتها تبرير الصراع بين السلطان سليم العثماني واسماعيل الصفوي والتنافس بينهما على التمدد في الشرق .. وقصة التشيع الايراني تشبه الى حد كبير قصة انقلاب ملك انكلترة هنري الثامن على الكنيسة الكاثوليكية بسبب زيجاته الست ورغبته في تطليق زوجته كاثرين فاعترض عليه توماس مور وزير عدله ومستشاره .. فسجنه الملك في برج لندن بتهمة الخيانة العظمى .. وقطع رأسه .. ثم قرر انشاء كنيسة جديدة لاتخضع للبابا فكانت الكنيسة الانغليكانية التي لاتزال حتى اليوم ..بسبب زيجات الملك هنري الثامن ومزاجيته..
ان شيخ الأزهر والقرضاوي وكل ثوار الناتو لن يوقفوا انتشار المذهب الشيعي بل يوقفون الاسلام الجهادي الحقيقي حيث يتلاقح جناحا الاسلام الشيعي والسني ..

هؤلاء الفقهاء الجهلاء يمهدون لاقامة حدود اسرائيل التوراتية على ضفاف الفرات.. لتقوم اسرائيل بين الفرات والنيل .. حيث الشيعة محبوسون خلف الفرات ويدافع السنة غرب الفرات عن اسرائيل التي ستبقيهم دوما يحسون أن العدو قادم من الشرق .. شرق الفرات ..

How to Unite Muslims??
Listen to Shaikh Ahmad Badridin Hassoun
Part 1

Part 2

Part 3


Will Washington grasp the hand being offered by the Iranian people?

Will Washington grasp the hand being offered by the Iranian people?

Franklin Lamb


Truth be told, this American observer has attended his share of international conferences and has traveled in more than 70 countries. But never has he visited such a complex, evolving, striving and energized society, populated by idealistic people of great warmth, sense of humor and caring for those in need as he has experienced in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Except when traveling in his own country.

Being in Iran during these tense times is to experience an epiphany. Which is that Iranians and Americans have so very many needs and interests in common — yes even in our religious beliefs — that both peoples should immediately repair our countries relations and return to the days when 60,000 Iranian students studied in the US and thousands of Americans lived and worked in Iran — all in singular harmony and with myriad mutual benefits.

The deep connection among Muslims and Christians from the seventh century sacrifice at Karbala by Hussein bin Ali and the first century sacrifice at Calvary by Jesus Christ, established forever a claimed divine principle of sacrifice of one’s self to resist injustice for the greater good of the community.

This bond underpins and connects the two religions and their followers inextricably.There is probably no country more misunderstood in America than Iran. And it’s due almost entirely to politically motivated demonizations and misrepresentations, including what President Ahmadinejad really said in his speeches, especially those relating to the US and Israel, the historical imperative to liberate occupied Palestine, and every country’s right to develop peaceful nuclear energy and to live independently and free of US-led western hegemony. Most Americans’ perceptions of Iran are limited to propagandistic images of President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad delivering anti-American and anti-Israel speeches.

One example, reporting on last Saturday’s celebration of the 34th anniversary of the Iranian revolution, the BBC and most other western media reported that the crowds were “frenzied and chanting death to America.” I was there and this report is for the most part rubbish. I did hear from time to time a few chants but these were mixed in with revolutionary songs, religious exhortations, and people just plain having fun. Offering water and helping older citizens or kids was the motif of the day. People were happy, not angry, and they could not have been more friendly or curious about the few Americans they came upon.

One does not have to look further than the morning newspapers for examples to find the likes of Zionist apologist, Iranophobe and Islamophobe Jennifer Rubin. In her Washington Post screed on Valentine’s Day, Ms. Rubin had only poisonous invective for any American who would dare express any remotely objective idea about Iran. Rubin, a former AIPAC volunteer, lambasted Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, former US Senator Chuck Hagel, as did nearly all 52 Zionist organizations in America this past month, because he advocates mutual respect and friendship with Iran. Hagel’s unforgivable sins include his words on the subject of US-led sanctions against Iran and Syria and the need to build trust and normalize relations through dialogue.

Said Hagel about U.S.-Iran relations: “

We shouldn’t be putting conditions on talks or putting all other issues to the side except one issue that we will ‘dictate’ to Iran.” As far back as 2007, Hagel stated that “In the Middle East of the 21st century, Iran will be a key center of gravity… a significant regional power. The United States cannot change that reality. America’s strategic 21st-century regional policy for the Middle East must acknowledge the role of Iran today and over the next 25 years.” Hagel continued: “On Afghanistan, the United States and Iran found common interests — defeating the Taliban and Islamic radicals, stabilizing Afghanistan, stopping the opium production and the flow of opium coming into Iran. From these common interests emerged common actions working toward a common purpose. It was in the interests of Iran to work with the U.S. in Afghanistan. It was not a matter of helping America or strengthening America’s presence in Central Asia. It was a clear-eyed and self-serving action for Iran.”


Hagel may have erred a bit on Afghanistan and the Taliban, but Rubin found Hagel’s point of view treasonous and joined in the Israel Lobby’s call for a witch-hunt when she asks her readers: “Why would the president select someone so deferential toward the Islamic revolutionary government? …

During the Congressional recess, the Senate should think about that. And it might be interesting to find out who was helping him with these intensely pro-Tehran speeches.” [emphasis added]

In Iran today one does not hear Rubinesque hate speech or lectures about the 1953 US-UK overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammad Mossedeg, or the shooting down on July 3, 1988 of the commercial passenger Iran Air Flight 655, or the US giving chemical weapons to Iraq during its US-backed aggression against Iran, or even the recent assassination of Iranian scientists.

Much more often, conversations are likely to turn to the need to improve relations between the US and Iran, or friendly questions about what this foreigner is experiencing in Iran, and if they need assistance or information about their country. Iranians are as open as Americans are by their very nature and unlike many other countries no subject for discussion is taboo.

For this observer it included topics such as the “morality police” execution of drug dealers and homosexuals, the “stoning” of women, attacks on the Bahá’i Faith, the country’s second-largest religion after Islam, the 2009 “Green Revolution” and any other subject that came to mine, including drinking alcohol and public dating.

One hilarious conversation this observer had with four early-20s female students during a Conference last week was about the number of Chador-wearing women who openly wear makeup these days (more than 60%), how Iranian society is changing rapidly, and the amount of hair some women expose in public.

 Iran Abyana villiger selling honey- by Alex 2010

Tourist guide – Tehran
By Alex 2010

I wondered if this was not prohibited by Fatwa and how they deal with it. Their responses were immediate and nearly all at once. No one had even seen one of the Western-hyped “morality police” for a long time. Apparently they are few and far between.
One young lady explained that it’s true she wears her hijab two-thirds the way back on her head and “if one of those guys dares to say something I will either tell him to mind his own business or if I am in a good mood I will act really, really surprised, shrug my shoulders, wink at him and say something like, “Oh so very sorry, really I am!. It was a big gust of wind that must have blown it back on my head without me noticing! Even if there had not even been so much as a soft breeze in days.”

Tourist guide – Sheraz
-near Quran Gate
 By Alex 2010

Iranian women are smart, strong willed-even a bit pushy at times and naturally alluring. Who would want to join some “morality police” unit?

The ladies explained that if one comes up to you on the street and if you are really rude to him and tell him to get lost, or worse, you might get a ticket and your parents would have to come to the police station and sign a pledge that you would try to do better about trying to observe some modesty in public. Again rather different from what the MSM tells us in the West.

And it’s clear whether attending an international conference on Hollywoodism at the Azadi (freedom) Hotel, formerly the pre-Revolution Hyatt, traveling on the Tehran subway (far cleaner than New Yorks!), exploring street souks, visiting the Holy Defense Museum (explaining the 8-year Iran-Iraq war) or visiting the home of Imam Ruhollah Khomeini who led the 1979 Revolution and was Iran’s leader until his death on June 3rd, 1989, or walking for miles among the nearly two million people marching to Azadi Square to commemorate the anniversary of the overthrow of the American agent, Shah Reza Palavi, that the Iranian people are as kind as they are gifted.

Masjid Sheykh Lotfollah – Asfahan
By Alex 2010

When I got on the crowded Tehran subway, two young men immediately stood up to offer this observer their seats. We engaged in a very interesting, animated conversation. One of them, Hamzeh, remarked, “You know, we feel like we understand America and we should be friends. Both of our countries are culturally unique somehow. Your country evolved from European culture but moved in very distinct direction. In our history Islam arrived via the Arabs but as you have been seeing I am sure, our identity is completely different from Arab countries.”

Mahmoud joined in: “Our society is also made up of many minorities, but we have a single Iranian identity and are very proud of our culture. We’re also familiar with Western ways. For the last 200 years, we were open to the Western world and influenced by European culture, even if some of the ideas, like democracy, have never had a chance to really develop properly, but we will continue trying. But we also know what it’s like to be a superpower. For us it was a long time ago, but we played an important role in this part of the world for many centuries so we can never see ourselves as subject to western or eastern hegemony.”

No experience impressed a group of Americans visiting Iran, including this one, more than the home of Imam Kohmeini and learning from his neighbors and students about the man, scholar and revolutionary.

Visiting his home and Hassineyeh which have been kept just as they were the day he died, one neighbor recounted how Khomeini’s wife Khadije Saghafi, who passed away in 2009, told her friends that she had only one wish her whole life that the Imam never granted to her. And that was that she wished for him to ask her for a glass of water at least once. He did not want even the wind to visit his family’s faces too harshly or for himself to impose on them.
Another neighbor told us, “When we visited his home we often found the Imam washing the dishes, sweeping the floor, and helping in other household chores.

According to others who knew him well, the Imam led a life of utmost piety and spirituality. In the severe winters of Qom, the he would wake up each night, perform ablution (the act of washing oneself for ritual purification) with ice water, and offer his night prayers. His Mafatih (prayer almanac) had to be rebound every few weeks because of how much he used it. Before he began lecturing his students on political activism, he emphasized to them the importance of spirituality and attaining the nearness of Allah. The simplicity of life style and the modesty of Iran’s revolutionary leader, Imam Khomeini, has universal appeal, including to Americans.

There is every reason for Washington’s new administration to reach out to Iran, not just with words but with actions. The Iranian people, and many Americans, fervently want this and it will inestimably benefit both societies.

The solution to the current straightened Iran-US relations includes contact, visitations, and open discussions. From this both peoples can pressure their governments to leave the past behind and develop bonds of friendship.

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Syria and can be reached c/o

He is the author of The Price We Pay: A Quarter-Century of Israel’s Use of American Weapons Against Civilians in Lebanon.
He contribute to Uprooted Palestinians Blog
Please Sign
Beirut Mobile: +961-70-497-804
Office: +961-01-352-127

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Egypt’s Iran Policy Linked To Brotherhood


The new Brotherhood regime is in orbit around America’s regional clients, be they big or small!

Mustafa al Labbad

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Egypt has uncovered the shortcomings of Egyptian foreign policy, which is designed to serve the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood, writes Mustafa al-Labbad.

This article was first published in Arabic on 11/2/2013. Read original article.

Egypt’s Iran Policy Linked To Brotherhood


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks during a news conference at the end of his visit to Cairo, Feb. 7, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Asmaa Waguih)
اقرا المقال الأصلي باللغة العربية
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not expect that series of prohibitive demands from al-Azhar: the rights of Sunnis in Iran, the rights of the Arabs in Khuzestan, non-interference in Bahrain’s affairs, stopping the bloodshed in Syria and ceasing the spread of Shiism in Sunni countries.

Ahmadinejad’s visit to Cairo to attend the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) summit took the spotlight away from the summit itself. The visit was the first by a sitting Iranian president. It signaled that the troubled relationship between the two major eastern poles has improved. That relationship has been troubled for more than three decades.

The grandiose airport reception that Ahmadinejad received from his Egyptian counterpart triggered speculation that relations between the two countries was about to resume and that a new regional axis that would break the existing regional balance is about to be born. But the Iranian president’s meeting with Al-Azhar Mosque’s Grand Sheikh poured cold water on Iranian dreams. What are the future Egyptian-Iranian relations after Ahmadinejad’s visit to Cairo? What are the shortcomings in Egypt’s new regional policy as revealed by the Iranian president’s visit? We will try to answer those questions below.

The future of Egyptian-Iranian relations

The Iranian president chose to stop by al-Azhar immediately after meeting with Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi because Tehran wants to build on al-Azhar’s illustrious history, bring closer the followers of different Islamic sects and ease the sectarian tension in the region between Sunnis and Shiites.

Religion plays a role in Iranian politics because religion is in the Iranian constitution and part of the country’s practice for more than three decades. So it was thought that Egypt becoming more religious would form common ground between Tehran and Cairo. Yet the sectarian tension plaguing the region for years, and for which all parties are to blame, has unfortunately become the main conflict in the Middle East.

The Iranian president sat next to al-Azhar Mosque’s Grand Imam Ahmed al-Tayeb and raised the victory sign with his hand in front of the cameras, but then the mood quickly changed.

Ahmadinejad was surprised that the joint press conference was attended not by Tayeb, but by his advisor Sheikh Hassan al-Shafei, who then listed a series of demands from Iran: the rights of the Sunnis in Iran, the rights of the Arabs in Khuzestan, non-interference in Bahrain’s affairs, stopping the bloodshed in Syria and ceasing the spread Shiism in Sunni countries. Those demands are in effect a list of accusations toward Iran’s policies in the region. However, to be fair, no Iranian politician, including Ahmadinejad, could agree to discuss such issues, especially those involving Iranian internal affairs (Arabs in Khuzestan and Sunnis in Iran).

Al-Azhar’s positions were different than those of the Muslim Brotherhood. Some al-Azhar scholars believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is seeking to dominate the institution and impose the Brotherhood’s ideology on it.

Then Ahmadinejad’s visit got worse. A Salafist group verbally assaulted the Iranian president outside of al-Azhar. It seems those protesters are not aware that Egypt’s guests should never be insulted in any way shape or form. Respecting the guest is a fundamental Arab value that goes back to even before Islam.

Ahmadinejad’s disappointment with the al-Azhar meeting and the protest aside, Iran was still able to score a goal against its opponents. It showed the region and the world that economic sanctions are not preventing regional doors that have for decades been shut in Iran’s face from opening up. Egypt was and will remain the biggest Arab country. Egypt scored a goal against its opponents in the Gulf by brandishing its relations with Iran. But the Egyptian government is using its relations with Iran to score short-term goals in a way that does not befit Iran’s regional importance.

The shortcomings of Egypt’s regional policy

So it seems that President Morsi’s administration does not really wish to upgrade its relations with Iran but only use them against the Gulf states. In addition, it will be difficult for the Egyptian administration to go further in its relations with Iran because of the price Egypt would have to pay.

To expand its relations with Egypt, Iran is only paying an internal price: the various Iranian political wings must agree with each other on the nature of these relations. But Egypt’s price would be much higher. The Muslim Brotherhood would have to pay both an internal and an external price. One, their Salafist ally will hinder any rapprochement with Iran. Two, the alliance between Turkey and Qatar will also hinder a rapprochement. So Egyptian-Iranian relations will show limited improvement in the next phase. There will be neither estrangement nor a regional partnership. The latter is not realistic in light of the current balance of forces nor with the way Morsi is managing the Iranian file.

Ahmadinejad’s visit to Cairo revealed three shortcomings: the first is about transparency. Who is setting Egyptian foreign policy? In Mubarak’s days, the president and the security agencies used to set the relations with Iran. But who is doing that now? That is a valid question given that the president’s foreign affairs advisor is a former foreign relations official for the Muslim Brotherhood’s international wing.

The second shortcoming is about Egypt’s agenda. How does the current administration define Egyptian national interests? And what are Egypt’s regional and national priorities?

The third shortcoming is about context because the improvement in relations with Iran is coinciding with deteriorating relations between the UAE and the Muslim Brotherhood. It seems that rapprochement with Iran is Egypt’s substitute for its relations with Gulf countries, especially after relations between the UAE and the Muslim Brotherhood worsened after the UAE arrested a Brotherhood cell. A visit from Morsi’s adviser Essam al-Haddad failed to resolve the crisis.
That was directly followed by a visit to Egypt from Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi then from Ahmadinejad. It is clear the current Egyptian administration lacks political imagination. Egypt needs no one’s permission to upgrade its relations with Iran, but upgraded relations with Iran should complement Egypt’s influence in the region, not compensate for lost influence elsewhere.

Iran, Turkey and a twist of fate

Replacing the Arab facade of the region with a purely religious one will open the way for regional non-Arab powers to play more than political roles and start interfering in Arab internal affairs. The Arab countries will be weaker relative to other countries in the region. It would be unfortunate to fail to achieve Egyptian-Iranian and Egyptian-Turkish convergence that would serve Egyptian and Arab interests. The former Egyptian regime closed the doors to any attempt for rapprochement with Iran or Turkey. It tried to avoid potential dangers and thus could not seize opportunities. It is unfortunate to see Egypt after the revolution open those doors only for tactical purposes, without a specific agenda that defines Egyptian national interests.

Relations with Iran are important and necessary to diversify Egypt’s regional relations. Yet the purpose of Egypt’s relations with any country, including Iran, is not for its own sake but only to serve Egypt’s national interest, which does not necessarily match the interests of a political current, even the Muslim Brotherhood.

What a weird twist of fate: The great Egyptian people rose up against their government because their country’s regional and international status declined under its rule and because it was a mere satellite of the U.S. administration, and now they are being asked to rise up, again, because their country’s foreign policy is being tailored to the interests of a particular political group. The new Brotherhood regime is in orbit around America’s regional clients, be they big or small!

Read more:


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!



Posted on February 9, 2013 by

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) summit at Cairo indicates that the 57-member Islamic body has endeavored to evolve a dialogue format to resolve the crisis in Syria. Despite differences among members on sectarian lines, the summit, held on 6th and 7th of February 2013, posed a common front in urging the Syrian government and opposition to engage in ‘serious dialogue’ for the resolution of the conflict. The summit urged for «a serious dialogue between the opposition (National) Coalition and government officials who believe in political change and are not directly involved in the repression». Estimates put the death toll at 60 thousand in the two-year old conflict in Syria, with casualties taking place almost everyday. The OIC summit upheld the principle that the conflict will be addressed not through extremist propaganda or killing of innocent civilians, but through dialogue and deliberation and through regional and international cooperation.

The meeting of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Egyptian counterpart Mohamed Morsi, the first ever meet between the highest officials of the two countries after a gap of 34 years, was one of the major focus of national and international media. Morsi gave a red carpet welcome to Ahmadinejad, and as the two leaders deliberated on various issues, the prospects of an emerging Islamic cordiality between Egypt and Iran appeared in sight. Morsi agreed with his Iranian counterpart that Syrian crisis can not continue unabated, and a peaceful solution must be sought at the right earnest. It may not appear a surprise if Morsi and Ahmadinejad jointly develop a solution format, commonly agreeable to Syrian government and the opposition. The leaders of Egypt, Iran and Turkey met on the sidelines of the summit and deliberated on the Syrian issue. While the states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey may not hesitate to adopt military means to topple the Assad regime, and states like Iran, Iraq and Lebanon may prefer a solution tilting in favour of the current regime, the OIC emerged as a balancer, advocating for peaceful engagement between the parties to the conflict.

Another positive development worth noting is the appeal of the OIC to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to expedite the resolution process of the conflict. The summit urged the powerful international body to «assume its responsibilities to end the violence and bloodshed». The UNSC has so far failed to evolve a consensus on Syria. Russia and China have opposed any sanctions or military intervention in the country. They have vetoed three such proposals in this international body. The positive development is that Russian and the US diplomats and political leaders have met on many occasions at Geneva, Dublin and other places to evolve a common position. The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has expressed keen interest for an expeditious resolution of the crisis. The UN and Arab envoys like Kofi Annan and Lakhdar Brahimi too played key roles in defusing tensions in Syria. Ban observed, «The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and United Nations have an important responsibility to address people’s aspirations, particularly by promoting democratization, good governance, the rule of law, and human rights, as well as socio-economic progress». He further stated, «I am encouraged that cooperation between our two organizations has significantly increased in the socio-economic and political fields, particularly in the area of conflict prevention and resolution».

The offer of the Syrian National Council (SNC) leader, Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib to Syrian Vice President, Faruq al-Sharaa may not be ruled out as a sham. Any proposal for dialogue needs to be welcomed in the present context. Reportedly, few days back the meeting of SNC with representatives of Russia and Iran in Germany led to the change of course of the opposition. Though the offer is with condition that the Syrian government must release prisoners, it can be considered as a move, howsoever fragile, by the opposition to talk to the Assad regime. Such a prospect was infeasible few months back. The Syrian government has not responded to this offer so far, but it can explore this opportunity or other avenues to engage the opposition by various peaceful means. The conflict is propitious for neither of the parties; hence an indigenous people-centric solution is an urgent task both for the Syrian government and the opposition.

The call for dialogue and negotiation by the OIC summit will have also another positive byproduct. This call will discourage the extremist groups in Syria, supported by Al Qaeda, and strengthen the constituency of peace. The extremist groups camouflage as the indigenous people and foment religious extremism and terrorism in Syria. The OIC distancing itself from violence may weaken their ideological sustenance. As reports suggest, religious extremists from various parts of the world have gathered in Syria and join the rebel ranks to fight the Assad regime by exploiting sectarian fault lines. It is not to argue here that there is no popular frustration against the Assad regime, but the joining of these extremist elements in the ranks of rebels have not only changed the character of the movement but also contributed to violence and consequent loss of lives. The killing of Tunisian opposition leader, Shokri Belaid considered to be secularist, supposedly by the extremists on the eve of the summit indicates that the Arab Spring might have empowered people, but it has also contributed to extremism at least in some parts of the Arab world.

The OIC has sent a clear message that the conflict in Syria can not continue for long. Now the question arises: how to deal with this conflict, which has been made complicated with passing months. The OIC may play an active role to distance the conflict from any ethnic or sectarian tangle, and mediate between the conflicting parties as an honest broker for peace, stability and development in the Arab world.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

%d bloggers like this: