|
Tehran -- History shows us that a continued, perhaps amplified Iranian influence in the Middle East could help bring safety and stability to the region. Western powers have tried to check Iranian influence in the Middle East, but despite such short-sighted policies, Iran has maintained its traditional significance in the region.
Tehran, Iran - For the last 25 years, international trade with Iran has been subject to an unfair, albeit failed political agenda to isolate Iran with sanctions. Blocking Iran's WTO application was a cheap political tool. But alas, Iran's natural gas and oil reserves remain in demand.
Tehran, Iran - I have spent more than five hours today searching Google and world newspapers for articles about the Iran nuclear deal. Thanks to modern technology, I found more than 2100 headlines-- and that is just in English! What amazes me is not Google's search technology, but rather the hype and impatience around the discussion. Diplomacy and negotiations have been rudely overtaken by spin and imagination.
Tehran, Iran - Iranian papers are busy debating the economy. And there is a lot to discuss: a very high rate of real growth (at more than 5% over the last year). We are debating what to do about creating even more value-added activity. All of this takes place within a structural shift of the economy toward increasing liberalization.
Tehran, Iran - I tend to focus on trends rather than personalities when analyzing this part of the world. I look for concepts and structures that are gaining currency here.
Tehran, Iran - It's too easy to carve the world into blocks like the American media often does. It contrasts the West, the Muslim world, the former USSR, and "others". It then injects its simplistic religious analyses into complex events to explain the plight of women abroad. Despite what American media claim, it is not religion or culture that affects women most, but education.
Tehran, Iran - I write from a tough neighborhood at the hub of it all. It seems that all political forces have ganged up to stop the local economy in Iran.
About 11 days ago, 15 members of a foreign naval force in uniform, bearing arms and the British flag in service of Her Majesty’s Government, had trespassed into Iranian waters. Media hype ensued and a campaign of disinformation by the British government attempted to paint it as a UN peacekeeping mission. Nevertheless, these soldiers did not bear the UN flag or the internationally recognisable “Blue Helmets” insignia. In all, it was yet another round of media spin tricks: Eisenhower and his televised denials of violating Soviet airspace with an American U-2; Colin Powel and his satellite photos of mobile WMD labs in Iraq; George Bush and his facts on Iraqi purchase of uranium in Niger.
Winston Churchill said, “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war,” and one ought to frame Columbia University’s debate in such a context. But the invitation proved to be a cheap and failed ruse, put on by aggressive and skewed observers who once supported cakewalk actions and are now suffering from intellectual bankruptcy.
We have to accept that we live in an era of intellectual rip-offs, tactics sold as policy and instant strategies broadcast live on TV. The show on the plastic box and talking-head spin-meisters will do the thinking and planning for us all. Accordingly, we lower expectations and shall not be surprised when we see childish games are sold as a mimic of statesmanship. His Excellency, the president of a superpower, is now demanding that the world forget what it knows and listen to his version of stories.
One thing a president, or a superpower, cannot afford is to be ridiculous. Nevertheless, George Bush lurched into that fatal category and true twilight of his presidency with all the discomfiture that he earned. The about-face of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), originally requested by Congress to update rudimentary knowledge of Iran, flew in the face of the fabrications, hallucinations and innuendoes pigeonholed as the “foreign policy” of a world power. Although it was finalized two months ago, the NIE was the subject of a drawn-out, agonized debate about leaks of such facts. (The Washington Post reported that the White House disclosed it to Congress and allies after sharing the report with Israel, a foreign nation.)
The year 2007 will mark the beginning of a trend towards the real end of the Cold War, the same war that appears to remain in progress in the Anglo-American world, whose thoughts and concepts are fossilized in 1950s daydreams. As an observer, I frame this slow awakening process -- thousands of Starbucks shops and strong caffeine notwithstanding -- with the exit performance of American ministers of war enigma (Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez, and John Bolton, to name a few) and the return of American intelligence services and military to professionals that are, relatively speaking, in touch with reality. The unraveling process gained momentum with the departure of Tony Blair in Britain, and elections in Australia. The massive devaluation of the U.S. dollar and the reality of inflation affirmed it. Napoleon’s financial and political loss after its attack on Russia serves as a fair model.
The Current Discussion: With the U.S. presidential primary season in full swing, there's a lot of talk here about "change" vs. "competence" in leadership. Which does your country have more of? Is that a good thing?
The U.S. presidential primaries are mind-numbing for most foreigners. It appears to be a media jamboree and a quest to get a 30-second clip out of a day’s worth of talk, discussion and speeches. And the most baffling part is that it is a process very different from the actual job of presiding over a powerful and complex country.
When trying to explain the process to a novice, it is as confusing and difficult as explaining the sport of American football. An ordinary football (soccer) fan in the rest of the world is perplexed about different groups of players that come on and off the field. Why the three hours of stop-and-go and how is it that the clock runs on some occasions, but stops on others? Why are there different referees and judges on the field? What is the purpose of those cheerleaders, mascots and massive loads of statistics in a blurring, high energy discussion? Moreover, why do Americans call that oddly-shaped object “the ball,” which is usually a round object elsewhere in the world? Nevertheless, it is a uniquely American event. It is best left to Americans to find their own definitions of change or yardsticks for competence. All can be shrugged off -- live and let live!
Comments (10)