Islamophobia, a Retrospective

Racism and Religious Desecration as US Policy
By TRISH SCHUH
CounterPunch
May 6 / 7, 2006

It was the potshot heard round the world that touched off a counter-crusade. Packaged in western free speech cliches, and marketed as innocent satire, the newspaper Jylland-Posten's depiction of the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist/suicide bomber with a ticking bomb for a turban was "provocation-entrapment" propaganda. Dual-use entertainment, in this case frivolous caricature, is an unexamined aspect of "full spectrum information dominance." The US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's "Information Operations Roadmap" mandates that 'information warfare' utilize all cultural venues to further its agenda- news, posters, books, movies, art, internet, and music etc.

Can comedy be far behind? At recent CIA training sessions in Dubai, Iranian opposition agent provocateurs were taught the importance of mockery and ridicule when used to discredit and 'demythologize' an enemy or incite against it. Even populist actions like grafitti "could embolden the student movement and provoke a general government crackdown, which could then be used as a pretext to 'spark' a mass uprising that appeared to be spontaneous." (Asia Times, Mar 14, 06). Such provocation tactics operated in the cartoon intifada, as well as in US Embassy-coordinated "color revolutions".

As a free speech crusader, Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's editor behind the Muhammad cartoons (and ally/author of a Daniel Pipes profile "The Threat from Islam"), had earlier refused to publish denigrating cartoons of Jesus, fearing it would "offend readers." Jylland-Posten also rescinded sponsorship of a Holocaust cartoon contest for the same reason. Kurt Westergaard, Jylland-Posten's 'Muhammad bomb' illustrator even transcribed a Koranic verse onto Muhammad's turban to reinforce his message. Westergaard later admitted to The Herald of Glasgow, Scotland that "terrorism" which he said got "spiritual ammunition" from Islam was the inspiration for that message.

If propaganda is a weapon of war, Islam is under carpet bombing. Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels described the methods, which define those used today: "Concentrating the fire of all the media on one particular point- a single theme, a single enemy, a single idea- the campaign uses this concentration of all media, but progressively..."

Theme: "War on Terror" Enemy: Muslims. Addressing the 2006 AIPAC "Now is the Time to Stop Iran" Conference, Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Daniel Gillerman summarized the Idea: "While it may be true- and probably is- that not all Muslims are terrorists, it also happens to be true that nearly all terrorists are Muslim." Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami put it another way: "the West needs an enemy, and this time it is Islam. And Islamophobia becomes part of all policies of the great powers, of hegemonic powers."

Is Islamophobia de facto state policy? Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi declared in 2001 that Western civilization is superior to the Islamic World: "We should be confident of the superiority of our civilization, which consists of a value system that has given people widespread prosperity in those countries that embrace it, and guarantees respect for human rights." He added that this superiority entitled the West to "occidentalize and conquer new people." Another Italian official MP Roberto Calderoni flaunted his Muhammad cartoon T-shirt on TV, warning of a an "Islamic attack on the West." French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy pronounced Muslim immigrants "gangrene" and "scum," and one Danish MP labeled Muslims "a cancer in Denmark."

In America, Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk commented: "I'm okay with discrimination against young Arab males from terrorist-producing states." Texas Congressman Sam Johnson bragged to a crowd of veterans that he had advised Bush to nuke Syria, and Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo advocated wiping out Mecca to get even with Muslims for terrorist attacks. Recently the Bush administration itself revealed its plans to "nuke Iran" with bunker buster bombs.

Zionist Daniel Pipes, a representative at the Congress-sponsored think tank US Institute for Peace, (who was appointed by Bush despite heavy public protest against Pipe's racism) recently diagnosed Muslims as carriers of a sinister, latent psychopathic contagion: "Individuals may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers... This is what I have dubbed the Sudden Jihad Syndrome, whereby normal-appearing Muslims abruptly become violent. It has the awful but legitimate consequence of casting suspicion on all Muslims. Who knows whence the next jihadi? How can one be confident a law-abiding Muslim will not suddenly erupt in a homocidal rage?"

Muslims' angry reactions to the cartoon provocation unwittingly served a goal of Pipe's Anti-Islamist Institute: "the delegitimation of the Islamists. We seek to have them shunned by the government, the media, the churches, the academy and the corporate world." For once, Israel, America and Europe were united to protect civilization's free speech virtues against "crazed, rampaging", "dirty arabs" or, as Pipes himself once remarked, "brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene."

I asked Pipes about the systemic racism and Muslim/Arab 'terrorist' stereotypes in the US media. Pipes said: "I would strongly, strongly disagree. There is an enormous amount of media that is very, very positive about Muslims, an enormous amount. I see it everyday. There is a steady stream of media that is very positive about Muslims- steady, steady, steady. I see it everyday- all the time..." When persistently pressed to name five positive stories or Muslim role models among this plethora of good news- authors, academics, lawyers, celebrities etc. Pipes could not give a single example. But he easily supplied numerous names of prominent Arab Americans allegedly 'linked' to terrorism.

Despite disclaimers, bigoted, hideous and contemptuous anti-Muslim content continues unabated: hooded corpses in Abu Ghraib displayed by jovial "thumbs up" troops, force-fed hunger strikers at Guantanamo (who Donald Rumsfeld wisecracked were "on a diet"), refugee camps flattened, Palestinians starving, taunts of "Taliban lady boys" after US troops had set fire to Afghan bodies, ubiquitous car bombings, wedding parties crushed, mosques massacred, civilians attacked with cluster bombs and daisy cutters. Depleted uranium mutating future generations, and a thousand Iraqi pilgrims stampeded to death in an hour... In the midst of which President Bush pantomimed & joked about missing WMD's to an applauding, jeering Radio & Television Correspondents Association that call themselves a press corp. Antics befitting a noncombatant President who greeted the initial bombing of Iraq with pumped fists: "I feel good!" (BBC) "See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." (George W Bush, 5/24/05)

This state-sponsored smirking has trickled down to spawn a climate of recreational cruelty in the US military. Reflecting anti-Muslim propaganda while perpetuating it, is the "Rumsfeld Contingent" of the armed forces. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, Lt. Gen. William Jerry Boykin propagated hate at the grassroots level in dozens of speeches to church groups, saying that the war on terror was actually spiritual warfare, with the enemy 'Satan' being embodied by Islam. Speaking of God versus Allah he said: "Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol." Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld defended Boykin, so it was unsurprising that after Abu Ghraib crimes erupted Boykin found "no pattern of misconduct."

Dropping down the chain of command, Marine Corp Lt. Gen. James Mattis's comments were caught by AP. "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling." Drawing on the 'Muslim misogynist' stereotype, Mattis added that Muslim men were wife-beaters and continued: "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of alot of fun to shoot them." Some troops on the ground echoed this "raghead" ethos as they shot Iraqis.

Or shot down their sacred symbols. In May, 2005, worldwide Muslim reaction compelled Newsweek to retract a story about US interrogators flushing the Koran down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld maintained that the revelation was not true, and demanded that Newsweek explain to the Muslim world "the care that the US military takes" to respect Islamic beliefs.

But such behavior had been documented independently elsewhere. The Denver Post: prisoners were "forced to watch copies of the Koran being flushed down toilets" (January, 2005), Financial Times: "they were beaten and had their Korans thrown into toilets" (Oct 28, 2004), NY Daily News: "They would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it." (Aug. 5, 2004), The Independent UK: "Guards allegedly threw prisoners' Korans into toilets" (Aug 5, 2004), The Observer UK: "copies of the Koran would be trampled on by soldiers and, on one occasion, thrown into a toilet bucket." (March 14, 2004), Washington Post: "American soldiers insulted Islam by sitting on the Koran or dumping their sacred text into a toilet to taunt them" (March 26, 2003). These were but a few of similar media reports over a period of years.

Other instances of Islamic desecration were also recorded. One online fundraiser sold printed toilet paper with the words "Koran, the Holy Quran" which was then distributed to mosques and the media with a letter claiming the Koran was a "cookbook for terrorists" and incited violence. The Mercury News revealed that flyers posted on a Sacramento National Guard military base extolled World War 1 General John Pershing as a hero for executing "Muslim terrorists" with bullets dipped in pigs blood, thus excluding them from Paradise. WorldNetDaily reported on a US Army Reserve recruit's contest that used pages from the Koran to make porcine figures. His website pabaah.com showed a paper mache' pig with a US flag on its back, and included paper mache instructions and links to get free Korans.

Some troop contests were flippant in a physical way. At Camp Nama adjacent to Baghdad Airport, The New York Times reported that detainees were bruised after being used for target practice by soldiers playing in the High Five Paintball Club. Human Rights Watch later assessed that prisoners were sometimes tortured as a form of stress relief for soldiers to help while away the hours. "Some days we would just get bored so we would have everyone sit in a corner and then make them get in a pyramid. We did that for amusement." One soldier added "...it was like a game ...for sport.." This R & R earned the 82nd Airborne at FOB Mercury a prized nickname from terrified Iraqis: "Murderous Maniacs". Departing military personnel who did a 'good job' were later awarded by commanders with trophies- a detainee's black hood, and a piece of tile from the medical office that had once held Saddam Hussein. (After the 1990 Iraq War, one soldier tried to smuggle an Iraqi's limb home in his duffel bag as a trophy under the first Bush/Cheney administration.)

At Abu Ghraib, Sgt Michael J. Smith laughed and partied with rival dog handlers as they competed to see who could outscare and humiliate Iraqi prisoners (dogs are considered unclean and human contact is forbidden by Islam) by siccing ferocious, violent killer dogs on them. Smith said: "My buddy and I are having a contest to see if we can get them to defecate on themselves because we've already had some urinate on themselves." Then in a show of good canine conscience (or just good sportsmanship), one trainer's Belgian shepherd turned its back on the detainee and instead attacked the interrogator.

Michael Blake, an Iraq veteran explained that the military indoctinated troops with the idea "Islam is Evil" and "they hate us." This attitude facilitated the abuse and killing of civilians, and was not just 'a few bad apples'. (There are around 2000 unreleased torture images). "Most of the guys I was with believed it", he added. Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, a former 82nd Airborne commander insisted that responsibility for such abuses ultimately lead "directly back to Secretary Rumsfeld," as an architect of the torture policy.

Lower level troops prosecuted to deflect responsibility from Rumsfeld have also testified that they were following orders from above. An official report in 2005 by the Army Inspector General confirms that authorities at the highest level sanctioned the crimes. The report documented Rumsfeld's direct, personal briefings by Army Major interrogator Geoffrey Miller.

British Brigadier Alan Sharp (American Bronze Star winner for writing the "coalition campaign plan") disapproved of the gung ho, swaggering "streak of Hollywood" displayed by US troops. Acknowledging that such "heroics" made for good television back in the States, he warned that heavily armed Americans boasting "how many Iraqis have been killed by US forces today" was no 'hearts and minds' winning tool.

But the example had been set after 911 by the "gunslingin', nuke-totin'" swagger of Cowboy-in-Chief Dubya Bush. His blustering wisecrack "Osama- Wanted: Dead or Alive" mimicked posters of old Hollywood westerns. The New York Times reported that major Tinsel Town executives were working with top Bush advisor Karl Rove to revive the former propaganda partnership between the entertainment industry and the Department of Defense. "Hollywood Now Plays Cowboys and Arabs", ran one headline. (Ironically, Bush's grandfather Prescott claimed to have stolen the skull of legendary American Indian warrior Geronimo for his college secret society. It was proudly kept on display as a trophy).

In 2004, the Pentagon previewed its own "coming attractions." Marines staged a desert "gladiators' Ben Hur" drill in full historic costume- togas, trojan helmuts, and shields while swinging spiked truncheons to "psych up for a planned invasion" against Fallujah. "Friends, Romans, countryman, fend off their spears. When in Fallujah, do as the Romans do" the New York Post quipped. White phosphorus 'burning at the stake' was strictly offscreen. As Lt. Col. Gary Brandl said in the film Fallujah: "The enemy has got a face. He's called Satan. He's in Fallujah. And we're going to destroy him."

Internet audiences could catch candids of Iraqi dead "just for fun". At undermars.com, troops posted photos of bloody faces ground to a pulp. Others showed a birthday candle stuffed into a smashed skull, and various decapitated heads. Evoking Bush's cowboy spirit, one caption read: "i'm an indian outlaw... look my first scalp."

NowThatsFuckedUp.com accepted photos of Iraqi war crimes and atrocities as currency to buy pornography when credit card companies refused to ok payment in dollars.

After a brief outcry from Iraqi expatriates, the site was closed and diverted to an address called barbecuestoppers.com. There troops laughed and gloated over 'baked', charred and hideously disfigured Iraqi cadavers, with captions like "Die, Haji die." One picture showed a 'barbecued' corpse steeped in its own blood and entrails labeled "what every Iraqi should look like." The US Department of Defense is aware of the site, but it is still accessible to voyeurs despite being in violation of Geneva Conventions.

Unfortunately, this avalanche of damaging associations have increased Americans' prejudice against Islam. A March 2006 ABC News poll found 46 percent view Islam negatively, up from 39 percent in the months after September 11, 2001. Americans who believe that Islam promotes violence has risen from 14 percent in 2002 to 33 percent today. Former US president Bill Clinton warned: "So now what are we going to do? Replace anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?"

It seems so. In 2005, for the first time since the atomic devastation of Japan, an Associated Press poll found that half of all Americans would approve the use of atomic bombs, especially against terrorist targets. A mushroom cloud of anti-Muslim hate, with a sickly "humorous" spin, has been winning American 'hearts and minds' into acceptance of the Bush administration's nuclear attack against the "axis of evil" terror sponsor- Islamic Republic of Iran.

Meanwhile, another cheap shot has recently been fired at Islam. A provocative 'Muhammad cartoon' depicts the Prophet Muhammad cut in half, and burning in Hell, next to a woman among burning coals. Its editor says the cartoon represents policy towards Islam and that any angry reaction to it could serve to further alienate Muslims: "if the cartoon provoked an attack, it would only 'confirm the idiotic positions' of Muslim extremists." Don't forget to laugh.

Trish Schuh was a co-founder of Military Families Support Network and is a member of Military Reporters & Editors covering the middle east.

Bush says fight against terror is 'World War III'

AFP
May 05

US President George W. Bush said the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93 had struck the first blow of "World War III."

In an interview with the financial news network CNBC, Bush said he had yet to see the recently released film of the uprising, a dramatic portrayal of events on the United Airlines plane before it crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

But he said he agreed with the description of David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, who in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month called it "our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war -- World War III".

Bush said: "I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.

"It was, it was unbelievably heroic of those folks on the airplane to recognize the danger and save lives," he said.

Flight 93 crashed on the morning of September 11, 2001, killing the 33 passengers, seven crew members and four hijackers, after passengers stormed the cockpit and battled the hijackers for control of the aircraft.

The president has repeatedly praised the heroism of the passengers in fighting back and so launching the first blow of what he usually calls the "war on terror".

In 2002, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer explicitly declined to call the hunt for Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda group and its followers "World War III."

Palestinian pain, one kid at a time

By Fareed Taamallah
Los Angeles Times
May 6, 2006

EVERY DAY, world leaders think of new ways to punish the Palestinians for electing Hamas. But the people who suffer most are children like my daughter, Lina.

Lina was less than 1 year old when she caught a virus that gave her a high fever and caused diarrhea and vomiting. We live in a small West Bank village in the occupied territories. In the winter of 2003, when Lina got sick, Qira was under curfew, and we couldn't reach a doctor. We tried to take her to the hospital in the nearby city of Nablus. But Nablus was also under curfew. The Israeli soldiers manning the checkpoint on the outskirts of Nablus refused to let us in.

Eventually, on a rainy, cold day, my wife, Amina, carried Lina three miles on mountainous roads into Nablus to reach a doctor. One year later, we learned that the infection had caused renal failure and that Lina would eventually need a kidney transplant to survive.

For 16 months, Lina underwent dialysis every four hours. She spent many days in hospitals because of the kidney failure's side effects, including hypertension and hernia. Her limbs became as thin as toothpicks.

Tests showed that neither her mother nor I was a compatible kidney donor for Lina. In the spring of 2005, a South African friend named Anna offered to donate a kidney to save Lina's life. I had met Anna in 2003 during a peaceful protest campaign against the wall Israel is building in the West Bank

Anna was a compatible donor. We raised $40,000 for the surgery. Hadassah Hospital in West Jerusalem agreed to perform the operation at a discount.

But the next obstacle was obtaining a visa for Anna, who was blacklisted from entering Israel because of her activities — all completely nonviolent — protesting the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Anna fought for a visa — and only received one after the Israeli hospital administrator called the Israeli Interior minister.

For the transplant, the hospital helped me and my wife get permits to enter Israel for a full month — an exceptional feat. We considered ourselves lucky. But is anyone really lucky who needs special permission to be with one's child at a hospital? Imagine that, if you needed to be at your child's hospital bedside, you had to wait in line at a military base for hours or even days to plead for an entry permit.

Despite the difficulties, the transplant was successfully performed in October 2005 in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, this was not the end of Lina's difficulties. After Hamas won the elections in Palestine, the Israeli government tightened restrictions on Palestinians entering Israel. For a while it looked as if we would not get permission to enter for further treatments, but with difficulty we finally got approval to go to Lina's appointment scheduled for next week. We fear we will not get future permits.

Additionally, the U.S. and Europe have decided not to continue aid to the Palestinian government, which offered Palestinians free healthcare. As the Palestinian Authority grows poorer and poorer, our benefits will almost certainly disappear, and Lina may not be able to get her very expensive medications. Her life might be in serious danger.

Israel claims it needs to restrict Palestinian movement in response to the new Hamas-led government. But the reality is that Israel first established its system of permits and closures in 1991, and we have been living under these difficult conditions ever since.

My wife, daughter and I are active in a nonviolent movement that includes many Israelis, Palestinians and foreigners. Although we received our permits this time, others who need them have not. Denying permits to innocent men, women and children does not make Israelis safer. It destroys the hopes of Palestinians.

FAREED TAAMALLAH is coordinator of the Palestinian Elections Commission for the Salfit region. He lives in the West Bank village of Qira.

Peace in Darfur?

The test is whether more peacekeepers are allowed in.
The Washington Post
Saturday, May 6, 2006; A16

YESTERDAY'S PEACE agreement between Sudan's government and Darfur's leading rebel commander creates a chance to end this century's first genocide. The agreement requires the demobilization of the government-backed Janjaweed death squads by October. It calls for protective buffer zones around camps for displaced people and corridors through which humanitarian aid can be delivered. And it promises the integration of 4,000 rebel fighters into the Sudanese army, while a further 4,000 will be helped to find peaceful occupations or given police jobs. If all these provisions are implemented, a conflict that has killed as many as 450,000 people could end. The African Union, which hosted the peace talks, deserves credit for this progress, as do the Bush administration and its European counterparts who helped to push the talks across the finish line.

The agreement has been signed by the largest and most vicious faction of the Sudan Liberation Army, which has attacked aid convoys and fellow rebels as well as government targets. But the smaller SLA faction needs to be brought into the deal, and it would be good to have the signature of the Justice and Equality Movement, another rebel group, though it has few fighters on the ground. The rebels know that their uprising has visited appalling suffering on their own people and that their attacks on humanitarian workers have harmed their legitimacy. Continuing the war is good neither for them nor for their followers.

Sudan's government also has more to do. It has signed a previous Darfur cease-fire and felt free to ignore it; it has concluded a peace deal with the southern rebels but is now reneging on commitments to draw down southern garrisons, share power meaningfully with rebel leaders, and settle disputes over provincial borders and the sharing of revenue from oil. There seems little chance that Sudan's government will implement this new deal faithfully unless it is forced to pay a price for failure. That means maintaining the threat of further sanctions. It should also include the possibility of punitive air strikes on government helicopters that attack civilians in violation of the peace deal.

The challenge for the African Union and the Bush administration is to get both sides to take the next step. The holdout rebel factions must come into the agreement; the government must drop its opposition to the deployment of an expanded foreign peacekeeping deployment organized under the umbrella of the United Nations. There is no way that the envisaged return of civilians to their villages can happen if there's no guarantee of protection from further violence, and that guarantee can't come from Sudan's own security forces, as these have backed the genocide. Sudan's government has protested that a U.N. deployment would violate its sovereignty, but it has accepted U.N. troops in its south. If it wants the world to take its peace promises seriously, Sudan must declare Darfur open to a U.N. peacekeeping force.

US Media

Why is it that the newspapers call warriors against the Sudanese government "rebels," while warriors against the Iraqi government are labeled "insurgents"?

Iraq's Shiites Now Chafe at American Presence

Perceived U.S. missteps, a torrent of angry propaganda and the sect's new political sway have fused to turn welcomers into foes.
By Borzou Daragahi
Los Angeles Times
May 6, 2006

KARBALA, Iraq — A visitor need not go far or search hard to hear and see the anti-American venom that bubbles through this ancient shrine city, which once welcomed U.S. forces as liberators.

"The American ambassador is the gate through which terrorism enters Iraq," says a banner hanging from the fence surrounding the tombs of Imam Hussein and Imam Abbas, among the most revered martyrs of the Shiite Muslim faith.

A song screeches from a boombox at a nearby CD shop: "If the occupiers come at us, we will plant a bomb underneath them."

For three years, most of Iraq's Shiites welcomed — or at least tolerated — the U.S. presence here. In the weeks immediately after the American-led invasion, the mothers and sisters of Saddam Hussein's Shiite victims clutched clumps of dried earth as they wept over mass graves and thanked God for ending their oppression.

The Shiite acceptance of an American presence allowed troops to concentrate on putting down the insurgency in western Iraq, which is led by Sunni Muslim Arabs. With the exception of an uprising in mid-2004 by followers of radical cleric Muqtada Sadr, the south has been relatively quiet and peaceful under the sway of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani.

But now the mood has shifted. Perceived American missteps, a torrent of anti-U.S. propaganda and a recently emboldened Shiite sense of political prowess have coalesced to make the south a fertile breeding ground for antagonism toward America's presence.

The change has weakened the Bush administration's position and dimmed its hopes that Iraq's Shiites would counter the vehement anti-Americanism of their coreligionists across the border in Iran.

"There is an anger," said Jaffar Mohammed Asadi, spokesman for Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi Modaressi, a moderate and well-regarded cleric known more for his attempts to boost business in Karbala than for fiery anti-American speeches.

"You can hear it in the slogans at Friday prayers: 'Death to America,' " he said. "They're burning American flags. They're saying, 'The Americans won't leave except by the funerals of their sons.' "

Several factors have combined to produce that Shiite fury.

Many Shiites think the U.S. betrayed them in 1991 when then-President George H.W. Bush called on Iraqis to rise up against Hussein but then took no action as the dictator mowed down an uprising in the south.

Moreover, nationalism is a strong current among Iraqi Shiites, and analysts say their anti-Western attitudes were sure to surface some day.

"We had a lot of grace period," said Graham E. Fuller, a former Mideast-based CIA operative now writing books about the region. "But essentially, no group in Iraq that aspires to rule with legitimacy can act in a way perceived as being pro-American."

Above all, however, the new Shiite attitude reflects the changed political reality of Iraq's south: Once the Shiites were weak; now they have power. Many say they no longer need the Americans.

In and around Karbala and Najaf — the southern Iraqi cities that house the holiest shrines of Shiite Islam — dozens of checkpoints are staffed by Shiite police officers and soldiers. The security has made the south much safer than Baghdad or heavily Sunni provinces. As U.S. forces struggle to recruit police officers and soldiers in Sunni areas, police in the southern Iraqi province of Muthanna on Wednesday proudly announced that they had busted a ring of drug dealers after a two-hour shootout.

"We agreed with Americans only at the point of removing Saddam Hussein," said Sheik Abu Mohammed Baghdadi, a cleric in Najaf who is close to Sistani. "The relationship ended at that point."

U.S. officials point to yet another factor in the souring of relations: what they describe as an intense propaganda campaign, some of which emanates from Iran, that seeks to paint American policy in the ugliest terms.

In interview after interview in Najaf and Karbala, Shiites adhered to a version of current events that magnified corruption and torture cases into pervasive abuses by the Americans and depicted U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, a Sunni born in Afghanistan, as anti-Shiite.

"We need to do a better job of explaining what we're doing, and some people are intentionally trying to mislead," Khalilzad said in a recent interview.

Beyond the propaganda war, however, there is a clash between the culture of the American military and the pious, rural values of Iraqi Shiites.

Akeel Mahmoud Qazali, the governor of Karbala province, said he had lambasted his American counterparts after U.S. soldiers brought explosives-sniffing dogs into the provincial headquarters before the arrival of a visiting American delegation in February. Dogs are considered unclean by observant Muslims.

In Najaf last month, Iraqi officials looked on with shock as bored American soldiers flung pieces of bread at one another.

"They're playing with food," one police officer said with disgust. "That's a sin."

And Shiites bridle at what they see as American and British interference in matters of state — especially security.

"Beside every Cabinet minister there is an American advisor," said Mohammed Bashar Najafi, son of, and spokesman for, one of Iraq's four grand ayatollahs. "Each province has an American advisor. Each city council has an American advisor. The country is occupied, and this occupation is a weight on the chest of Iraq."

Provincial officials in Basra and Amarah, as well as here in Karbala, have had recent run-ins with American and British military counterparts. Basra's government for a time completely suspended contacts and cooperation with British troops.

In Karbala, "the American soldiers are wandering the streets asking people provocative questions about whether they belong to this militia or that," said Qazali, the governor. "They've been doing airborne raids without the knowledge of security forces in ways that are terrifying local residents."

Shiites bristle at the Americans' refusal to let them take on insurgents the way they'd like to. They say their hands are bound by U.S. forces and Khalilzad, who has made a priority of reforming Iraq's internal-security forces, which are dominated by sectarian militias.

Sunnis, who feel they have been targeted by the security police, have applauded those American initiatives; Shiites are outraged. The latter see the move against the militias as a ploy to disarm Shiites in the face of insurgent attacks.

One banner hanging from a government building in Karbala said the blood of Iraqi Shiites "stained the hands of Khalilzad" along with those of his Sunni Arab "deputies."

"Americans are interfering and not allowing us to control security," said Fallah Aliyawi, a publisher in Najaf. "Iraqis know better how to enforce security."

Despite the tensions, few believe southern Iraq is on the verge of an explosion. Deadly attacks against U.S., British and allied troops in the region appear to have increased in recent weeks, but the U.S. military says assaults there on allied forces still average less than one a day except in Basra, which has about two a day.

Any call to violent jihad, or holy war, Shiites say, would come only from the senior level of the clergy, the marjaiyah, as it did in the 1920s, when Shiites here rose up against Iraq's British occupiers. For now, the clergy is watching and waiting, perhaps convinced that it will get what it wants without having to sacrifice more Iraqi blood.

"The marjaiyah is calculating things and counting things according to the benefit of the Iraqi street," said Najafi, a mid-ranking cleric. "It wants independence with a minimum of losses and a maximum of profit. The marjaiyah has not ruled out the option of calling for jihad, and the Americans and their allies best not forget that."

The Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq

The American public is being prepared. If the attack on Iran does come, there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no truth.
By John Pilger
New Statesman (UK)
05/04/06

The lifts in the New York Hilton played CNN on a small screen you could not avoid watching. Iraq was top of the news; pronouncements about a "civil war" and "sectarian violence" were repeated incessantly. It was as if the US invasion had never happened and the killing of tens of thousands of civilians by the Americans was a surreal fiction. The Iraqis were mindless Arabs, haunted by religion, ethnic strife and the need to blow themselves up. Unctuous puppet politicians were paraded with no hint that their exercise yard was inside an American fortress.

And when you left the lift, this followed you to your room, to the hotel gym, the airport, the next airport and the next country. Such is the power of America's corporate propaganda, which, as Edward Said pointed out in Culture and Imperialism , "penetrates electronically" with its equivalent of a party line.

The party line changed the other day. For almost three years it was that al-Qaeda was the driving force behind the "insurgency", led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a bloodthirsty Jordanian who was clearly being groomed for the kind of infamy Saddam Hussein enjoys. It mattered not that al-Zarqawi had never been seen alive and that only a fraction of the "insurgents" followed al-Qaeda. For the Americans, Zarqawi's role was to distract attention from the thing that almost all Iraqis oppose: the brutal Anglo-American occupation of their country.

Now that al-Zarqawi has been replaced by "sectarian violence" and "civil war", the big news is the attacks by Sunnis on Shia mosques and bazaars. The real news, which is not reported in the CNN "mainstream", is that the Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq. This is the campaign of terror by death squads armed and trained by the US, which attack Sunnis and Shias alike. The goal is the incitement of a real civil war and the break-up of Iraq, the original war aim of Bush's administration. The ministry of the interior in Baghdad, which is run by the CIA, directs the principal death squads. Their members are not exclusively Shia, as the myth goes. The most brutal are the Sunni-led Special Police Commandos, headed by former senior officers in Saddam's Ba'ath Party. This unit was formed and trained by CIA "counter-insurgency" experts, including veterans of the CIA's terror operations in central America in the 1980s, notably El Salvador. In his new book, Empire's Workshop (Metropolitan Books), the American historian Greg Grandin describes the Salvador Option thus: "Once in office, [President] Reagan came down hard on central America, in effect letting his administration's most committed militarists set and execute policy. In El Salvador, they provided more than a million dollars a day to fund a lethal counter-insurgency campaign . . . All told, US allies in central America during Reagan's two terms killed over 300,000 people, tortured hundreds of thousands and drove millions into exile."

Although the Reagan administration spawned the current Bushites, or "neo-cons", the pattern was set earlier. In Vietnam, death squads trained, armed and directed by the CIA murdered up to 50,000 people in Operation Phoenix. In the mid-1960s in Indonesia CIA officers compiled "death lists" for General Suharto's killing spree during his seizure of power. After the 2003 invasion, it was only a matter of time before this venerable "policy" was applied in Iraq.

According to the investigative writer Max Fuller (National Review Online), the key CIA manager of the interior ministry death squads "cut his teeth in Vietnam before moving on to direct the US military mission in El Salvador". Professor Grandin names another central America veteran whose job now is to "train a ruthless counter-insurgent force made up of ex-Ba'athist thugs". Another, says Fuller, is well-known for his "production of death lists". A secret militia run by the Americans is the Facilities Protection Service, which has been responsible for bombings. "The British and US Special Forces," concludes Fuller, "in conjunction with the [US-created] intelligence services at the Iraqi defence ministry, are fabricating insurgent bombings of Shias."

On 16 March, Reuters reported the arrest of an American "security contractor" who was found with weapons and explosives in his car. Last year, two Britons disguised as Arabs were caught with a car full of weapons and explosives; British forces bulldozed the Basra prison to rescue them. The Boston Globe recently reported: "The FBI's counter-terrorism unit has launched a broad investigation of US-based theft rings after discovering that some of the vehicles used in deadly car bombings in Iraq, including attacks that killed US troops and Iraqi civilians, were probably stolen in the United States, according to senior government officials."

As I say, all this has been tried before - just as the preparation of the American public for an atrocious attack on Iran is similar to the WMD fabrications in Iraq. If that attack comes, there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no truth. Imprisoned in the Hilton lift, staring at CNN, my fellow passengers could be excused for not making sense of the Middle East, or Latin America, or anywhere. They are isolated. Nothing is explained. Congress is silent. The Democrats are moribund. And the freest media on earth insult the public every day. As Voltaire put it: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Bush: US must ensure Israel's security

Haviv Rettig
THE JERUSALEM POST
May 5, 2006

US President George W. Bush said Thursday at the American Jewish Committee conference in Washington that the United States had a strong and inalienable obligation to ensure the security of Israel, referring to the threats Iran had made against the Jewish state.

Bush repeated his pledge that the United States would not deal with the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority so long as Hamas refuses to disavow terrorism and to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

The US president also said that he would keep pushing for a strong resolution at the United Nations to curb Iran's nuclear programs. "America will continue to rally the world to face these threats," Bush said.

The audience applauded repeatedly his rhetoric against Hamas, a group the United States considers a terrorist organization.

"As you know, I'm a strong believer of democracy and free elections, but that does not mean that we have to support elected officials who are not committed to peace," Bush said.

"Hamas has made it clear that they do not acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, and I've made it clear that so long as that's their policy, we'll have no contact with the leaders of Hamas," Bush said.

"Democratically elected leaders cannot have one foot in the camp of democracy and one foot in the camp of terror," Bush said, repeating a theme of his administration since Hamas' victory in the Palestinian Authority elections in January. "Hamas must accept the demands of the international community, to recognize Israel, disarm and reject terrorism and stop blocking the path to peace," he added.

Bush was followed at the podium by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the first chancellor to address the American Jewish Committee's annual meeting.

Merkel backed Bush's stances against Hamas and Iran. "Iran must not be permitted possession of creation of a Palestinian state, Merkel said Hamas would have to answer to the Palestinian people for the consequences of its policies.

Bush spoke fondly about Ariel Sharon. "Ariel Sharon is a friend who remains in our thoughts and prayers. He is a man of courage and a man of peace," Bush said. "And so tonight we pray for his recovery and we rededicate ourselves to the cause to which he devoted his life - the peace and the security of Israel."

Earlier in the day, the White House congratulated Israel on the inauguration of its new government, and a Bush spokesman said that the US President expected to work with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his ministers.

The spokesman said that the raod map was the proper way to advance the peace process and stressed that Hamas was not a partner in this endeavor.

The Israeli media voiced concern Thursday night that no Israeli politician would be in attendance at the AJC.

When asked for the AJC's reaction to this fact, Col. (res.) Eran Lerman, head of the American Jewish Committee's Israel/Middle East office told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday night that everyone in attendance "understood completely" the critical importance of the new Israeli government's swearing-in in Jerusalem late that night.

"Shimon Peres was on our schedule, but he couldn't possible miss the ceremony in which he, as speaker of the Knesset, was handing over the reigns to the next speaker," he added.

He said that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sent a recorded video message to play at the conference. Many other world leaders did the same, including Jordan's King Abdullah II and Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

How Not to Fight Terrorism

By David Cole
The Washington Post
Friday, May 5, 2006; A19

After four years, numerous appeals, millions of dollars, and a massive investment of government personnel and resources, the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui concluded Wednesday with a life sentence. Many have cited the case as an example of how difficult it is to try terrorists in civilian courts. In fact, it is an object lesson in how the government's overreaching has undermined our security.

Four years ago Moussaoui was on the verge of pleading guilty to offenses that would have resulted in a life sentence. But he was unwilling to accept the government's insistence that he admit to being the 20th hijacker of Sept. 11, 2001 -- an allegation the government has long since dropped.

For almost two years, the case was stalled as the government sought Moussaoui's execution while denying him access to witnesses in its control who had testimony establishing that he was not involved in the Sept. 11 plot at all. Due process has long required the government to turn over such "exculpatory" evidence, but the government, citing national security, refused to afford Moussaoui access to this evidence. In October 2003 the trial court offered a reasonable solution: Allow the trial to proceed but eliminate the death penalty, because that's what the government's exculpatory evidence related to. The government refused that solution and spent several more years trying Moussaoui. The case ended where it began -- with Moussaoui facing life in prison.

Meanwhile, at a secret CIA "black site" prison, the United States is holding the alleged mastermind of Sept. 11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. And at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it has Mohamed al-Qahtani, who the government now claims is the real would-be 20th hijacker. But the administration can't try either of these men, because any such proceeding would turn into a trial of the United States' own tactics in the war on terrorism. The CIA has reportedly water-boarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- a practice in which the suspect is made to fear that he is drowning in order to encourage him to talk. And Army logs report that interrogators threatened Qahtani with dogs, made him strip naked and wear women's underwear, put him on a leash and made him bark like a dog, injected him with intravenous fluids and barred him from the bathroom so that he urinated on himself. With these shortsighted and inhumane tactics, the administration essentially immunized the real culprits, so it was left seeking the execution of a man who was not involved in Sept. 11.

The Moussaoui case is emblematic of the administration's approach to fighting terrorism. It has repeatedly overreached and sought symbolic victories, adopting tactics that have undermined its ability to achieve real security while disregarding less flashy but more effective means of protecting us. In the early days after Sept. 11, Attorney General John Ashcroft sought to reassure us with repeated announcements of the detention of large numbers of "terror suspects" -- ultimately the government admitted to detaining 5,000 foreign nationals in the first two years after Sept. 11. Yet to this day not one of them stands convicted of a terrorist offense. Similarly, the administration launched a nationwide ethnic profiling campaign, calling in 8,000 young men for FBI interviews and 80,000 more for registration, fingerprinting and photographing by immigration authorities, simply because they came from Arab and Muslim countries. Not one of those 88,000 has been convicted of terrorism.

Early on, the administration labeled the Guantanamo detainees "the worst of the worst." Yet we now know that more than 250 have been released, that they included boys as young as 13 and that of those who remain, only 8 percent are even accused of being fighters for al-Qaeda. The majority are not accused of engaging in any hostile acts against the United States.

Jose Padilla, the American arrested at Chicago's O'Hare Airport and whisked into military custody amid the attorney general's claims that he was planning to detonate a radiological "dirty bomb," has been released from military custody and is now charged only with being a marginal player in a hazy conspiracy to support terrorism. His indictment cites no terrorist acts or terrorist groups that were actually supported.

While the government rounded up Arabs and Muslims with no ties to terrorism and authorized torture and disappearances, several of its highest-profile cases fell short, and it failed to carry out the more mundane work that might actually make us safer. In December the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission gave the administration a disastrous report card on its progress in implementing a series of practical security recommendations -- such as better screening of cargo on airlines and containers coming into ports, securing of nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union to keep them out of terrorists' hands, and protection of vulnerable targets such as chemical plants.

Tough talk in news conferences, overheated charges that evaporate under scrutiny and executions for symbolic purposes will not make us safer. The administration needs to turn away from symbolism and toward substance if it is to have any hope of protecting us from the next attack.

The writer is a law professor at Georgetown University and author of "Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism."

Striking the right balance in Iraq

By Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis
Boston Globe
May 4, 2006

THREE YEARS ago this week, President Bush declared the end of major hostilities in Iraq in front of a ''mission accomplished" banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln.

But as events have demonstrated, the mission is far from accomplished. Since May 1, 2003, Iraq has suffered from daily terrorist attacks, and it teeters on the brink of civil war. The oil-rich Gulf region has become less stable, contributing to a run-up in gas prices at home and an increase in terrorist attacks around the world.

The administration's many mistakes in Iraq -- invading for the wrong reasons and without enough troops, as well as not having a clear strategy for Iraq's political transition and reconstruction -- have undermined US power and reputation and left us with no good options.

The key question now is: What should the United States do to minimize the damage to US interests?

Bush's ''stay-the-course" strategy in Iraq is unsustainable. Iraq's costs -- about 2,400 US military personnel killed and nearly 18,000 wounded, more than $300 billion spent, and US ground forces stretched to the breaking point -- are not worth the results. Being bogged down in Iraq also hampers our ability to deal with threats in Iran and Afghanistan.

And while we are sympathetic with the aims of those recommending immediate withdrawal, we believe that too hasty a withdrawal increases chances of permanently destabilizing Iraq and the region.

Expectations must change to fit today's grim realities. The administration must recognize that Iraq is not yet a real democracy, nor will it be anytime soon, and a new government in Iraq is not going to trigger a wave of democracy in the Middle East. Americans need and deserve a clear exit strategy for Iraq that spells out how much longer US troops will be involved and what it will cost. Iraq's leaders need to understand that the United States is not going to serve as a crutch indefinitely.

In a report released last fall and updated this week, we make the case for a responsible exit strategy in Iraq.

Our five-part strategy addresses the challenges the United States faces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the broader threat by terrorist networks and extreme regimes.

The United States should announce that it will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq and that it will withdraw all its forces by the end of 2007, by gradually reducing its troop presence in Iraq to 60,000 by the end of 2006, and to zero by the end of 2007.

Troops remaining in Iraq through 2007 would train Iraqi forces, eradicate terrorist cells, provide logistical support to Iraqi forces, and provide border security. The United States should also leave an Army division in Kuwait, place a Marine expeditionary force and a carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf, and double the number of troops in Afghanistan.

The United States must recognize that Iraq has become a failed state with major internal problems, and it should take appropriate diplomatic action to bring peace and stability to Iraq. President Bush should appoint an envoy, with the stature of a former secretary of state, to organize a Geneva peace conference under UN auspices. The conference would aim to broker a deal on the division of power, security, militias, and the allocation of oil resources.

The Bush administration should launch a Gulf Stability Initiative, a multilateral diplomatic effort to develop a regional security framework for confidence building measures and regional security cooperation among countries in the region. This framework would be helpful in dealing also with the growing nuclear capabilities of Iran.

The Bush administration should correct the mistakes it made to date in its reconstruction efforts by creating an international fund to provide emergency humanitarian and economic assistance. These development projects should give priority to hiring Iraqis.

The United States should develop a more realistic strategy to confront falsehoods promoted by its extremist adversaries. The United States should make key policy shifts -- including trying to stabilize the situation between Israel and Palestine.

The end goals of this strategic shift are clear: to protect the American people at home and abroad; to get Iraq to the most stable position as quickly as possible; to make sure Iraq's tensions do not spill over into a regional conflict; and to turn the tide against extremist Islamists who continue to threaten the United States nearly five years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Lawrence Korb is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. He was assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan. Brian Katulis is director of democracy and public diplomacy at the Center for American Progress.

Three Myths About Islam

BY EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
The New York Sun
May 3, 2006

Many people know many things about Islam and its history. Unfortunately, much of what they know happens to be untrue. The great Jewish Orientalists of the 19th century, such as Gustav Weil and Ignaz Goldziher, can be blamed for myth no. 1: that Islam is especially tolerant of other religions. Their scholarship was immense but they were too eager to praise Islam to remain objective.

Christians and Jews ("Peoples of the Book") are exempted from the death-or-conversion choice imposed on pagans (the Zoroastrians of Iran were later added to the list), but under all known schools of Muslim law, Christians and Jews are only allowed to survive as dhimmis, of protected subjects, under a long list of deliberately humiliating restrictions, obligations, and prohibitions. Some are obsolete - they had to pay a head tax, they were not allowed to ride horses as opposed to humble donkeys, and many more - but others remain in force.

In Egypt, for example, there are at least 10 million Christians, but under the constitution, only a Muslim can be president - and there are similar provisions in other Muslim republics. In Saudi Arabia - where no one can be elected president, since the entire state and all its oil are claimed as private property by the ruling family - there are millions of Christians, but they are not allowed to have a single church, and it is a criminal offense to hold a prayer service, however informal, anywhere else. In all Muslim lands, the penalty for assisting a Muslim to convert was and is death for all concerned - no small matter for believing Christians whose highest duty is to save other souls by conversion.

Nevertheless, sections on Islam in American college texts are full of fantasies about Islamic tolerance, often featuring a mythic Andalusia where all was wonderfully multicultural until the wicked Christians arrived. Absurdly, some of those same texts celebrate, as yet another example of tolerance, the welcome that the fleeing Maimonides received in Fatimid Egypt: He had fled from Andalusia, of course, then the scene of one of Islam's recurrent outbursts of murderous fanaticism; we are living through another.

It is perfectly true that until quite recently, Christians were even more intolerant than Muslims, exempting only Jews from the prohibition of all other religions, and persecuting even the Jews at times. But Muslims are only slightly less culpable when compared to the greater part of humanity: serenely indifferent Hindus and Jains, agnostic Confucians, aesthetic Shinto devotees, cheerfully pluralist Buddhists, and more.

Myth no. 2 is that Muslim extremists are not attacking us, but only counterattacking, so that if non-Muslims would only stop provoking them, all would be well. It is perfectly true that in recent decades Muslims of one kind or another have suffered decisive defeats in the Indian subcontinent, in Iraq, Israel, and Timor-Leste, among other places. Westerners easily empathize with people under attack, so many in the West readily accept the claim that Muslim violence is just a defensive reaction. That is Osama bin Laden's version, too, when addressing non-Muslims: He talks about the sufferings of the Muslims of Chechnya, Palestine (a Muslim land for him, whose Christians and Jews are irrelevant), Kashmir, Andalusia, and Timor-Leste.

But when Mr. bin Laden talks to his fellow Muslims, he says something else entirely: "I was ordered to fight [non-Muslims] until they say that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his prophet." That is a trifle pretentious in echoing the exact words that Muhammad himself supposedly declaimed, but it is certainly orthodox Islam: Muslims must convert non-Muslims by force, if necessary, or otherwise kill them, unless they are exempted Christians or Jews. That is why Islam has been on the attack from its birth in the seventh century. Muhammad started fighting to force conversions and his followers continued fighting in all directions, successfully spreading Islam by force from Arabia to the wider Middle East, and across Asia.

The only reason the continuity of Muslim aggression is news to some is because until recently almost all Muslim countries were under European colonial rule or subjected to European protectorates. Under Christian rule, Muslims could hardly continue to attack. With de-colonialization, the violence resumed. It has now reached virtually all places where Muslims are in contact with non-Muslims, so that there are almost daily reports of outrages from Nigeria, Sudan, and Egypt in Africa; from Iraq (Christians are fleeing the country), Israel, and Lebanon in the Middle East; from India, Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia.

Timor-Leste, by the way, happens to be mostly Christian, but because it was liberated from the domination of Muslim-ruled Indonesia, it is now on the list of Islamic grievances under the Muslim doctrine that any land once ruled by Muslims belongs to Islam forever, even if the population is mostly non-Muslim. That is the doctrine cited by Hamas to claim the whole of Israel, and which other fundamentalists do not hesitate to apply to southern Spain, southeast Europe, and much of southern Ukraine and southeast Russia, among other places.

But Muslims certainly cannot be faulted for Myth no. 3: that Islam is a religion of peace. That myth is strictly the creation of Western liberals and especially American educational administrators, librarians, and academics determined to invent their own peaceful Islam, in which even Jihad is always or at least mostly an entirely nonviolent spiritual struggle.

That reflects the very American belief that all religions are equally good, when in the harsh reality of history they are not even equally bad. How many Buddhist attacks upon Muslims were recorded around the world in retaliation for the destruction of the colossal Buddhist rock carvings at Bamyan in Afghanistan? Zero, in spite of the fact that the destruction was not the spontaneous misdeed of a few hotheads but rather an organized attack with artillery, formally authorized by Muslim clerics of the vast Deobandi movement (headquartered in secular India, where it enjoys tax-exempt status). What would happen to Buddhists in Muslim lands if a comparable mosque - if any such exists - were deliberately destroyed by the formal order of assembled Buddhist priests? One could go down the list of other religions to construct an infinity of examples showing that they are not all the same when it comes to violence, but it is hardly necessary to expose the fraud perpetrated in many texts on Islam now being taught in American schools and universities.

None of the three myths can survive the light of competent scholarship, and the author of "Islamic Imperialism: A History" (Yale University Press, 288 pages, $30), Efraim Karsh, of King's College, London, is much more than merely competent. He starts at the beginning, with the missionary preaching of Muhammad in the seventh century, and almost reaches the present. In just 234 pages of text, Mr. Karsh recounts and analyzes the different forms of Islamic imperialism, starting with the first Muslim conquests of the Arabs, which were astonishingly successful because of an extraordinary coincidence: They attacked out of the desert just when the Byzantine and Sassanid Persian empires had fought each other to exhaustion in the last, longest, and by far most destructive of their many wars. Muhammad's promise of victory was thus validated in a way that evidently seemed miraculous to his followers.

The Arab ascendancy lasted more than two centuries, but then it was the Turkic converts to Islam who became the warriors, and then inevitably the rulers. This process started with the appearance of Turkic raiders on the Christian borderlands of the Byzan tine Empire, and with the Turkic palace guards of Arab potentates, and culminated in the Ottoman Empire, which conquered Constantinople in 1453 and survived largely intact for more than 400 years.

Mr. Karsh does not explore all the many and varied Muslim polities of Asia, Africa, and Europe (Spain, Sicily, the Crimea): some brilliantly successful and tolerant also (up to a point), such as the Mughal empire at its best; some murderously intolerant, such as the Mughal empire at its worst, but all of them necessarily imperialist. Mr. Karsh is not a Leninist who falls for the canard that imperialism is merely aggravated capitalism, and he is not a political primitive for whom the word is a species of wickedness, so his account is far from hostile. Yes, there was loot to be had when attacking the infidel successfully, but down the centuries the motivation was primarily, or largely, or at least significantly idealistic.

Believing Muslims, like Christians, believe that only their faith (or rather their own version of it) can provide salvation from an eternity of suffering after death. It follows that it is wicked for a Muslim (or Christian) not to do his best to convert as many as possible, which can best be done under a Muslim rule, as the Muslims rightly believe (there are very few converts in non-Muslim lands). Muslim imperialism is therefore a religious duty, motivated by an altruistic love of humanity.

Even a suicide bomber who kills only innocent babies can rightly claim that insofar as he contributes to the ultimate victory of Islam, he will ultimately save many more babies from eternal suffering, giving them paradise instead, complete with virginal black-eyed beauties, if they are males. It is enough to make one nostalgic for the imperialist freebooters of the West, down to King Leopold I of Belgium: They only wanted loot, not to force salvation on their victims.

Mr. Luttwak is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Spare the Rod, Spoil the Peace

By J. Peter Pham & Michael I. Krauss
28 Apr 2006

The Bush administration announced earlier this month that the United States was ending direct financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA), now that the terrorist group Hamas is installed at its helm.

According to State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, "Because the new Hamas-led Palestinian government has failed to accept the Quartet principles of non-violence, recognition of Israel, and respect for previous agreements between the parties, the United States is suspending assistance to the Palestinian government's cabinet and ministries."

Despite the fact that McCormack simultaneously announced that the U.S would actually increase aid to the Palestinians via United Nations and other agencies by 57 percent, howls of anguish and rage were not slow in coming from the PA and its friends. Taking talking points from a February 20 Washington Post op-ed by former President Carter, PA officials argued that the suspension of aid would bankrupt the government and equated this to punishing "innocent people" for engaging in a democratic process. PA President Abbas (a.k.a. Abu Mazen) complained that the Palestinians "should not be punished for their democratic choice." Calling Washington's and the European Commission's cut-off of aid "blackmail," PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniya complained that the West's move "will increase the suffering of the Palestinian people."

Unfortunately, Washington and its partners appear to be at least partially seduced by this faulty logic, as they are upping the ante for so-called "humanitarian" agencies (including the notorious corrupt and anti-Semitic UN Relief and Works Administration (UNRWA), profiled in "Humanitarians for Hamas").

One can appreciate the administration's dilemma: having made "democracy" the cornerstone of its Middle East policy, it was caught off-guard when Palestinians used their franchise to bring Hamas to power. Since then, apologists have argued that voters did not support Hamas because of its commitment to destroy Israel, but as an alternative to Yasir Arafat's corrupt Fatah. Alas, this explanation is as delusional as the Hamas Covenant. Numerous liberal-minded candidates ran and were roundly rejected by the Palestinian electorate. For example, the reformist Third Way movement, led by Salam Fayad (a well-respected former PA finance minister and World Bank official) and Hanan Ashrawi (a former PA spokeswoman and well-known human rights advocate) came in sixth in the popular vote, eking out enough votes to secure 2 seats in the legislature. By contrast, Hamas won 74 of the 132 seats. Even the fringe "Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa List" of the ultra-violent Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine won 3 seats.

Prime Minister Haniya has said, "the world should respect the choice of the Palestinian people." We fully agree. That's why we advocate going further than the U.S. government and the European Union have. We should cut off both direct assistance to the terrorist-led PA, and any indirect assistance that would make life "normal" under Hamas. Yes, this might harm Palestinian civilians. Had Hamas seized power through illegitimate violence, it would be ethically complicated whether harsh sanctions are appropriate. But these terrorists came to power through the "choice of the Palestinian people." The world would best show its respect for that sovereign choice by demonstrating that free choices have consequences.

Israel's decision to boycott the Hamas-led PA government was termed a "declaration of war" by Hamas itself. But of course just the opposite is true: it is Hamas's election that constitutes a declaration of (continued) war against Israel -- witness the sickening justifications delivered by PA government spokesmen for ongoing "martyrdom" operations against innocent Israeli civilians like the recent attack on a Tel Aviv sandwich stand, as well as the less-than-wholehearted "condemnation by PA President Abbas.

An entrenched Hamas regime runs counter to the precondition for success in our project of transforming the region, i.e., the renunciation of violence followed by the adoption of democratic processes. Ever-increasing sanctions might anger the Palestinian populace, but would also lead them to see that their vicious choice was a costly one. Maybe upon reflection they will realize that a terrorist leadership, rather than bringing them any closer to their dream of a viable state, will turn back the clock. Only when both the voters and leaders are willing to face the reality that any Palestinian state must recognize and live in peace alongside Israel can peace be possible.

Legally and morally, neither the U.S. nor Europe owes the Palestinians any assistance -- much less hundreds of millions of dollars worth on a continuing basis. There are plenty of needy causes to which to devote the scarce humanitarian resources of our overburden governments: Darfurians subject to genocidal campaign by an Islamist government, Congolese trying to recover from "Africa's World War," Tibetans sitting in exile in India, etc. The only justification for our governments' paying good money to the PA is our national interest in a stable Middle East -- and we are hardly getting our money's worth if the dividend is a casus belli against Israel.

At the moment, the Palestinians see no incentive to modify their hard line positions. By sparing the rod, we spoil any prospects for peace over the long run.

Michael I. Krauss is professor of law at George Mason University School of Law. J. Peter Pham is director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University. Both are academic fellows of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

BBC news 'favours Israel' at expense of Palestinian view

By Dan Sabbagh, Media Editor
The Times
May 03, 2006

THE BBC’S coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict implicitly favours the Israeli side, a study for the BBC Governors has concluded.

Deaths of Israelis received greater coverage than Palestinian fatalities, while Israelis received more airtime on news and current affairs programmes. The references to “identifiable shortcomings” surprised BBC News executives, who are more used to accusations that their coverage is routinely anti-Israel.

Only “a small percentage of Palestinian fatalities were reported by BBC News”, the analysis, published yesterday, noted, while “the killing of more than one Israeli by Palestinians either by gun or bomb was reported on national broadcast programmes”.

At the same time, there was “little reporting of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians in their daily lives” and a “failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other side lives under occupation”.

Led by Sir Quentin Thomas, the president of the British Board of Film Classification, the Governors’ study group analysed a period between August 2005 and January this year in which 98 Palestinians were killed and there were up to 23 Israeli fatalities.

The findings were seized upon by pro-Palestinian groups. Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, said: “When research consistently shows that fatalities from one side of a conflict — the party that has by far the least number — are more frequently covered, then this must raise alarm bells.”

However, the Thomas inquiry also argued that the BBC should be less cautious over its use of the the word “terrorism” because “that is the most accurate expression for actions which involve violence against randomly selected civilians”.

The panel relied on research by Loughborough University for its conclusions about the coverage of deaths in the conflict, as well as the calculation that more “talk time” was given to non-party political Israelis, thereby tipping the balance away from Palestinians.

The report focuses on news and current affairs output during the period when Orla Guerin was the BBC’s Middle East Correspondent and concluded that there was “little to suggest deliberate or systematic bias” in the coverage of the conflict. “On the contrary, there was evidence of a commitment to be fair, accurate and impartial,” it said.

Instead, to rectify the problems, journalists were advised not to always highlight events accompanied by dramatic pictures, but concentrate on in-depth items that would reflect “shifts in Palestinian society and politics”.

The Thomas panel also suggested that a senior editor be appointed to oversee coverage of the conflict as a whole.

Michael Grade, the Chairman of the Governors, said that he would ask news bosses to come back with their response to the report next month.

Sir Quentin said: “What the BBC does now is good for the most part; some of it very good. But it could and should do better to meet the gold standard which it sets itself.”

Backpedaling in Egypt

That was a short season of reform.
The Washington Post
Thursday, May 4, 2006; A24

WHY DOES the administration continue to give nearly $2 billion each year to a government that mocks President Bush's democracy initiative? That's an obvious question in the wake of President Hosni Mubarak's reneging this week on his earlier promise to end emergency rule in Egypt.

Mr. Mubarak, who turns 78 today, has been a friendly-to-America dictator since 1981, with emergency rule one of his chief internal weapons all that time. The law allows him to imprison political opponents without charge for six months; when the six months are up, his security forces often rearrest their hapless prey. The Egyptian president, who is hoping to accomplish a pharaonic succession to his son Gamal, tries to eradicate any sprouts of liberal, secular opposition. Then he can confront Mr. Bush with an unappetizing choice between autocracy and Islamist fundamentalism.

Not so long ago Mr. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were rejecting such tactics as detrimental to global security as well as to Egypt's peace and prosperity. Under pressure, Mr. Mubarak promised reforms, including multi-candidate elections and an end to emergency rule.

Now, though, he apparently feels less pressure. He undermined political progress in Iraq with inflammatory criticism of Shiite Muslims (Egypt is mostly Sunni). He has imprisoned his chief liberal challenger on sham charges. Recently he went after two judges who dared point out irregularities in Mr. Mubarak's reelection last year with 88 percent of the vote. A protest in defense of the judges was broken up by more security forces than showed up in response to recent terrorist bombings in Sinai.

Those bombings provide Mr. Mubarak with a pretext for more repression. But he was readying the extension of emergency rule before the bombings took place. So why the $2 billion? It's true that a Mubarak-ruled Egypt is better than some imaginable alternatives. But the administration and Congress shouldn't limit themselves to Mr. Mubarak's no-win options. If they want to help Egypt, aid should go to that nation's civic society and democratic reformers, not the corrupt regime that persecutes those who favor a freedom agenda.

Shah of Iran's Heir Plans Overthrow of Regime

Human Events
05/03/2006

Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah of Iran, told the editors of HUMAN EVENTS last week that in the next two to three months he hopes to finalize the organization of a movement aimed at overthrowing the Islamic regime in Tehran and replacing it with a democratic government.

He believes the cause is urgent because of the prospect that Iran may soon develop a nuclear weapon or the U.S. may use military force to preempt that. He hopes to offer a way out of this dilemma: a revolution sparked by massive civil disobedience in which the masses in the streets are backed by elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Pahlavi, who lives in exile in the United States, said he has been in contact with elements of the Revolutionary Guard that would be willing to play such a role, and activists who could help spark the civil disobedience.

He also said that the U.S. and other governments can help by imposing “smart sanctions” on the leaders of Iranian regime, but he categorically opposes U.S. military intervention.

After the revolution he envisions, Pahlavi said, he would be willing to become a constitutional monarch in Iran if an Iranian constitutional convention offered him that role. “I’m ready to serve in that capacity,” he said. “If the people so choose, it would be my greatest honor.”

The following are excerpts from the interview with the editors of HUMAN EVENTS in which Pahlavi explained why and how he thinks his country can be transformed from an Islamist dictatorship into a free democracy.

Under any circumstances, would you support U.S. military action against Iran?

As a matter of principle there’s no way that I can support any kind of military intervention regardless of the crisis because as a matter of principle, and as a nationalist, I cannot even imagine the fact that my country could be attacked, and today it’s a very different scenario from, let’s say, the Second World War where you are occupied by Nazi forces and there’s a liberating force coming in. This is a strike against Iranian installations that are part of our national assets. That it’s used wrongly by the wrong people is beside the point. So there’s no justification as far as I’m concerned.

Even if we had absolutely certain knowledge the regime in Iran was on the threshold of actually building a nuclear weapon, you would oppose U.S. military intervention to stop that from happening?

First of all, whether the U.S. does it or not is its affair. I would still be critical of it only because I think that if we come back to a position in which we are today, there’s time to remedy the situation and I will get to other options later. But I can tell you one thing: The best gift that you can give the current regime is, in fact, to attack it. Why? Because, one, it will immediately consolidate the nation, two, it will neutralize all elements of the military and paramilitary forces who have a role to play in the options that I will present later and they will be forced into a position of defense. So they are out of the equation.

Three, it will stir this entire regional emotion, once again, against the West, while we are trying to get help from the very same West to promote a democratic ideal.

Fourth, if it’s a race against time, as in the sense, “Will this regime become nuclear first or will the Iranian people achieve democracy?” there’s no way you’re going to win the race by doing so. You may prolong the inevitable armament of Iran, but you will certainly push back the democratic cause for many years, if not for good.

And, ultimately, I don’t know if it’s going to be effective. We’re not talking about Iraq. We’re talking about a country with a multitude of installations, some of which you happen to know about and many of which we still don’t know about. Many of these entities are hidden under civilian areas, the actual stockpiling.

You would be willing to renounce that idea that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon?

I’m against developing any weapons of mass destruction. I work to see the world develop a process of disarmament because otherwise it will be madness. If we build it, tomorrow the Turks will build it, then the Saudis want to build it, then the Egyptians want to build it. Believe me, in that part of the world, there’s some track record how stable the world will feel having a whole bunch of nuclear warheads in the hands of all these people. Forget it. I’d be the first one proposing a plan to reverse the cycle of proliferation.

You don’t believe Iran needs a nuclear weapon to balance Israel’s nuclear weapon?

No.

You would not demand that Israel disarm?

Since when has Israel been a threat to anyone? Israel just wants to be left alone and live in peace side by side with its neighbors. As far as I’m concerned, Israel never had any ambition to territorially go and invade, I don’t know, Spain or Morocco or anywhere else. And let me tell something else about Iran: Unlike the rest of the Islamic or Arab world, the relationship between Persia and the Jews goes back to the days of Cyrus the Great. We take pride as Iranians of having a history where Cyrus was the most quoted figure in the Torah, as a liberator of Jewish slaves, who went to Babylon and gave them true freedom for them to worship and in fact helped them build a temple. We have a biblical relation with Jews, and we have no problem with modern day Israel. As far as regional politics, I believe, I think many Iranians believe so, that as much as Israel has a right to exist, so should the Palestinians. They have to work the problem between each other. And we have no business interfering, and we need to help get as much stability in the region.

A democratic regime in Iran would be doing that, but a clerical regime in Tehran that sends money to Hamas and to Hizballah and to all the terrorists around the globe obviously is not promoting stability and peace, it is doing the reverse.

In your argument for why you could not see supporting, under any circumstances, the United States’ using military action against Iran, you said this would turn the Iranian people against Americans.

Yes, they’re your best natural allies. What they see, rather than helping us—because we are your best weapon against this regime. Why do you want to bypass us? And you’re attacking our resources.

Last year, Iran elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a viciously anti-American president. He’s threatening the destruction of Israel. He’s threatening the United States. Why is it that the same country that can elect this guy has a pro-American population?

Because that’s what the Iranian people are like. Iran is the only country that has the most pro-Western people with the most anti-Western government—unlike the rest of the countries in the region.

Why did that develop? In 2000 you had the reformer, President Khatami, everyone said the parliament is for reform. Then suddenly, five years later, you have someone else elected by an overwhelming margin who is supposedly anti-West. And, of course, he defeated Rafsanjani.

Again, you see the tree but you don’t see the forest.

Explain it.

The whole regime, in its entirety, is hostile and antagonistic to what we understand in the free world as being our definition of human rights and individual freedoms. This regime is dedicated to implement a viewpoint which is the most extreme interpretation of religion and God’s law on Earth, anywhere around the globe, starting with itself, the region and beyond. If tomorrow they can do it in Washington, they will do it. Or anywhere else. They don’t see eye to eye with you. This is a regime that is dedicated to that.

But you’re not explaining the change from 2000, when they had reformers in there, and people thought they had a chance—
Reformers to reform what? To sustain the regime or to change it? The reformers were not committed to end the regime. They were committed to preserving it. And so was Khatami. Don’t get me wrong. That’s part of the typical mistake the West has been making, including the U.S. government.

It still would have been a more moderate regime than the present one.

Come on, who are we kidding? You said the same thing about Andropov. You said he drinks whiskey and listens to jazz, therefore he’s more moderate. He was Communist for God’s sake.

How would you change it now?

The reason the regime was using Khatami as the smiling face talking about a dialogue of civilizations was just to buy time. The same way that in the nuclear race they played the game of buying time by saying we’re going to negotiate with Russians or we’re not going to talk to them—buying time. Three years of endless negotiations has produced nothing. Why? The regime gained an extra three years. All I’m saying is that now, when you look at the future, we have a delicate time frame within which we can bring about change.

How long?

I cannot give you an expert, scientific opinion about how close Iran is to actual fissile material. . .

Newt Ginrich told us in our interview with him that we had two to three years to change the regime in Iran, or else he wanted to go to war.

That I think is realistic. Plus or minus six months or so.

Gingrich says if we can’t get the regime changed in two to three years we have to invade Iran. What’s your answer to that?

My answer is that I think that while the analysis that the options are running out as time goes by is true, the most important option that has been the least talked about has yet to be even considered, let alone tried.

Which is?

Which is, where I’m coming from. What I’m coming from is that, short of military strikes, which I don’t think is going to help at all with the ultimate solution, the much better way is to find the best way of enforcing the hand of the people of Iran. I need to explain that because it’s a complex issue.

Assume you’re directly advising Condoleezza Rice and George Bush. Bush is going to be in office for two more years. How can they help you and your people get rid of this regime in the next two years?

We have to find a combination of internal elements working with exterior elements within the Iranian opposition and a coordination of such a movement with a number of key countries who in concert will act on this plan to make it happen.

You want to see a systematically organized general strike, people going into the streets against the government in Tehran?

Well look, civil disobedience, we can find examples of it from Argentina to India.

That’s what you want. That’s your tool.

That’s one of the tools. The other thing is the military and paramilitary power. Understand one thing: The basic powerbase of this regime is the Revolutionary Guards, at the end of the day.

They report to [Ayatollah] Khamenei, not to Ahmadinejad?

It’s a mixed bag. Ultimately, Khamenei is the supreme leader. But let’s face it, Khamenei doesn’t have single-handed control. In fact, Khamenei went all the way to take the risk of alienating some of the Revolutionary Guards by publicly referring to the talks between [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq] Zalmay Khalilzad and Iranians over the Iraqi issue. What was he trying to do there? He was much more concerned about the rising disenchantment inside Iran. He wanted to just pour ice water on their head, by saying, “Oh, we’re talking to the Americans”—at the risk of alienating his own militia.

That explains the psychology of the regime. It also explains that the whole militia is not under one core unit. It’s a whole mafia. There are various families of Revolutionary Guards. Each has its own portfolio and agenda. Some are behind Al Qaeda. Some are involved in Syria. Some are involved in Bekaa Valley. Some are involved in Iraq, etc. And they have their own independent means of finances. They don’t have to report back to the government. They have their own bases of income, free ports, what have you.

You think you can exploit this to turn some elements of the Revolutionary Guards against the regime?

Yes, for a number of reasons. Because like in any totalitarian system, they know that at the end they’ll fall. The question is, how do they negotiate their exit strategy? No. 2 is because a lot of their families are not as wealthy as we think. There are some preferred ones, but many are still having to make ends meet. We have ranked officers who have to drive taxicabs at three o’clock in the morning, as a major or colonel returning from base, because they don’t have enough money to pay the rent. The disenchantment is there.

So what you see happening is a general strike, people going into the streets, refusing to work, calling for the overthrow of the regime, and then their being backed—

Sustained. Sustained.

And then being sustained by significant elements of the Revolutionary Guards who say, “You’re gone”?

And I’m talking about a blitzkrieg of media supporting, like the BBC did before the revolution, which was practically announcing the night before where there would be a demonstration the next day. This is not myth, it is fact.

Are you in contact with some of the commanders of these [elements]?

Absolutely. Absolutely. And in fact, they keep on saying that we are being under-utilized, we have a role to play, we know the time for it, but we cannot just take the initiative. They are in No Man’s Land. You have to understand.

Are you the person who puts together the master plan? Are you the commander-in-chief of this counteraction?

Look, I think I can be effective, and the reason I have stayed behind until now was because I wanted to exhaust every avenue of possibility so that the opposition can gather itself and collectively work on a common agenda. Within the next two or three months, we’ll know if the result of two or three years of intense effort is going to pay off.

Two or three months?

Two or three months. This summer.

Are you going to have a unity council of sorts?

Yes, the goal was to have some kind of congress, or, we call it a forum, where all these [exiled Iranian opposition] groups, albeit under their own umbrellas and structure, could agree on a common agenda of action under common points that we all agree, and act like that. That’s the best we can hope to make something out of the fabric of the known opposition. But what I have told them, and what I am telling them right now, as much as there’s a deadline on anything, there should be a deadline for that, too. And I’ve exhausted every avenue to act as a catalyst to bring as many people together so they can work together. But if, for any reason, this strategy does not work, then I would be ready to step in and take any initiative that is necessary. But I would do that only if the other option does not work.

Specifically, what you’d like to do, if you can get this umbrella of these outside groups together, is use their collective ability to communicate back with all these atomized groups inside Iran to call for things like a general strike.

Then orchestrate a massive campaign of resistance and civil disobedience to bring as much pressure within domestically. Meanwhile, the international community can play a much bigger role as well in pressuring the regime even further. That’s where I get to the smart sanction part. For instance, why penalize the people that are already bleeding and hungry? Why don’t you, for instance, in terms of the UN sanctions, demand a complete obstruction of travel for Iranian officials? Or denying them visas or from entering other countries, things of that nature? Why don’t you talk to all these countries that have intelligence and data on all those dummy corporations and bank accounts that the regime has in different countries and freeze those accounts?

You basically send a very strong message to the regime, you penalize their officials, you don’t necessarily declare war on Iran or economically put more pressure.

Then it’s also a challenge to Russia and China. You know Russia and China might be able to legitimately argue why they would veto any Security Council resolutions on sanctions. China, obviously, because it’s dependent on Iranian oil, and Russia because I think Putin and Peter the Great are not that far apart, in terms of their being the big boys in the region. But they will be hard pressed to object to any smart sanction, because failure to do so basically means they are in cahoots with the Islamic regime. I don’t know if they want to take that public position in the court of public opinion.

While you’re doing this, how concerned are you about your own security here in the United States?

Look it’s beyond concern. I put faith in the Almighty and I said whatever it takes. You know, what can you do? You cannot live in a shell.

In your Iran, Mahmoud Abdullah, the Afghan who converted to Christianity, would have every right to do that and the state would protect him from retaliation by radical clerics?

God, I hope so. I hope so. Because if we are basing our constitution on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that’s one of the most fundamental rights that any human being should have. I’m sick and tired of hypocrisy and all this dubious attitude that is so typical of our region. If you believe in something you say it, you don’t fool around. I mean, that’s where I’m coming from. I haven’t lived 45 years of my life to fool around with these things. If I’m willing to lose my life for it, hell I’m going to fight for these rights, otherwise it’s not worth it. Frankly it’s not worth it! I might as well forget about Iran and become a citizen and live my life in this country. No. I want to have the same rights you have over here over there. That’s what I’m fighting for! Otherwise why bother?

Do you think the Iranian population as a whole agrees with you today or do you feel you have to convert them to your point of view?

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to find out that the minute you criticize any aspect of this regime you are going to be at the very least incarcerated, possibly tortured, and at the very worst, executed. Last week, there were six bodies of women found in South of Tehran, because of the new edict by Ahmadinejad—and I’m not saying “edict” as a cleric because he’s not, but the new law—to further strengthen the strict code of how you dress! People can be fined if they happen to have a dog on a leash because dogs are supposed to be bad in Islam. You cannot even walk your dog on the street and not be fined. Imagine if you were to criticize the regime! Don’t you think people get that? They do.

Would you rather participate in a democratic parliamentary election like Iraq or simply come back as a constitutional monarch?

I appreciate the question. I know what my function is today, and my function today is to be a catalyst that promotes unity as opposed to being an element that brings polarity. My role today is not institutional, it’s political. My role today is not someone who will be a symbolic leader under that institution, but a national leader that is fighting for freedom. ... My job today is to be a liberator, as opposed to representing an institution. However, as an option, certainly the Iranian people should consider that beyond the content of the future, which I described to you—secular, democratic, based on human rights—what should the ultimate form be? Do we want to have a parliamentary monarchy like we do Sweden, or Japan, or Holland, or Belgium? Or do we want to have a republican system like you have in this United States or France or elsewhere? That debate is not today’s debate. That is the debate that will be the responsibility of the next constitutional assembly that will have to bring in a new constitution and draft a new one.

At that time, there probably will be a lot of debates between those who are advocates of a monarchic system and those who are advocates of a republican system.

But you don’t rule it out?

I think it is, in my personal opinion, I think that that institution will better serve the purpose of the institutionalization of the democracy in Iran rather than the republican form. I can, case in point, use the example, of a post-Franco [Spain] with King Juan Carlos.

You’re not renouncing the throne, in other words? You’ll take it, if—

Look, it’s not a matter what I choose to do. I think that if monarchy has to be decided it should be based on people wanting it, not me arguing it. I have faith that this is an appropriate institution. It’s not a coincidence it survived more than 25 centuries. It is very much imbedded in Iranian culture and tradition and identity. In modern days, it can play just as effective a role. And I think that one of the things that I often find, thinking of the way Americans look at monarchy, which is immediately George III in your mind, is that you should at least liberate yourself from that aspect and see that the name “republic” doesn’t mean anything. Most of your enemies are republics. Saddam Hussein is one. Syria is one. “Republic” doesn’t automatically mean democratic. The Soviet Union was a republic. Most of your allies in Europe and NATO, half of them were monarchies. ... I think it’s not the form of the regime, it’s the content that matters. I think a monarchy is just as compatible to be committed to be democratic as a republic is. In some countries, a monarchy works better than a republic. Usually, history has shown us, in countries that are heterogeneous, in other words that have a lot of different groups, ethnicities and religion, the gelling factor, the unifying factor, has been the institutional mind, with the difference that this institution has to remain above the fray and not be engaged in the politics. That’s the big difference. Because the only time it can maintain neutrality and be for all is by not being engaged. Because the minute you become political then you have to take sides and that defeats the purpose, which is pretty much the problem we had under the previous regime, because the person of the king was directly involved in making policy, which is the last thing you want to do.

Having said that, yes, I’m fully committed to that. I’m ready to serve in that capacity. If the people so choose, it would be my greatest honor. But at the end of the day, what I tell them is, first and foremost, I’m an Iranian and I’d be just as happy to serve my country in whatever capacity. But if you give me that choice, that opportunity, I think I could do a good job for you.

Failed States Index 2006

ALERT:
001 Sudan
002 DRC
003 Cote d'Ivoire
004 Iraq
005 Zimbabwe
006 Chad
007 Somalia
008 Haiti
009 Pakistan
010 Afghanistan
011 Guinea
012 Liberia
013 Central African Republic
014 North Korea
015 Burundi
016 Yemen
017 Sierra Leone
018 Burma/Myanmar
019 Bangladesh
020 Nepal
021 Uganda
022 Nigeria
023 Uzbekistan
024 Rwanda
025 Sri Lanka
026 Ethiopia
027 Colombia
028 Kyrgyzstan

WARNING:
029 Malawi
030 Burkina Faso
031 Egypt
032 Indonesia
033 Syria
034 Kenya
035 Bosnia and Herzegovina
036 Cameroon
037 Angola
038 Togo
039 Bhutan
040 Laos
041 Mauritania
042 Tajikistan
043 Russia
044 Niger
045 Turkmenistan
046 Guinea-Bissau
047 Cambodia
048 Dominican Republic
049 Papua New Guinea
050 Belarus
051 Guatemala
052 Equatorial Guinea
053 Iran
054 Eritrea
055 Serbia and Montenegro
056 Bolivia
057 China
058 Moldova
059 Nicaragua
060 Georgia
061 Azerbaijan
062 Cuba
063 Ecuador
064 Venezuela
065 Lebanon
066 Zambia
067 Israel
068 Philippines
069 Peru
070 Vietnam
071 Tanzania
072 Algeria
073 Saudi Arabia
074 Jordan
075 Honduras
076 Morocco
077 El Salvador
078 Macedonia
079 Thailand
080 Mozambique
081 Mali
082 Turkey
083 Gambia
084 Gabon
085 Mexico
086 Ukraine
087 Paraguay
088 Kazakhstan
089 Armenia
090 Benin
091 Namibia
092 Cyprus
093 India
094 Albania
095 Libya 6
096 Botswana
097 Jamaica
098 Malaysia
099 Senegal
100 Tunisia
101 Brazil
102 Romania
103 Bulgaria
104 Croatia
105 Kuwait
106 Ghana

MONITORING:
107 Panama
108 Mongolia
109 Latvia
110 South Africa
111 Estonia
112 Slovakia
113 Lithuania
114 Costa Rica
115 Poland
116 Hungary
117 Oman
118 Mauritius
119 Czech Republic
120 Uruguay
121 Greece
122 Argentina
123 South Korea
124 Germany
125 Spain
126 Slovenia
127 Italy
128 USA
129 France
130 UK
131 Portugal
132 Chile
133 Singapore

SUSTAINABLE:
134 Netherlands
135 Japan
136 Austria
137 Denmark
138 Belgium
139 Canada
140 Australia
141 New Zealand
142 Switzerland
143 Ireland
144 Finland
145 Sweden
146 Norway