Maziar Bahari at PostGlobal

Maziar Bahari

Tehran, Iran

Maziar Bahari is an award winning documentary filmmaker and journalist from Iran. His films include “The Voyage of the Saint Louis,” “Targets: Reporters in Iraq,” “Football, Iranian Style” and “Along Came a Spider” for which he received an Emmy nomination in 2005. He is also one of very few journalists who has worked in Iraq consistently for the past four years. Bahari is the Newsweek correspondent in Iran. Close.

Maziar Bahari

Tehran, Iran

Maziar Bahari is an award winning documentary filmmaker and journalist from Iran. more »

Main Page | Maziar Bahari Archives | PostGlobal Archives


For U.S., History May Repeat Itself

There isn’t convincing evidence that an attack on Iran is imminent. But, nevertheless, you should be worried.

» Back to full entry

All Comments (22)

BUBBA:

When will you write of the WAR PROFITEERING being done by political insiders. Republicans and Democrats are consolidating wealth and power through endless war -when will
you seriously address this subject?

YouDecide:

Lets look at the issue a bit objectively.

1. "Axis of Evil" - Bush says that Iran is so because it supports terrorists(Hezbollah). Well, US openly supported and supplied weapons to Mujahedeens of Afghanistan. So, is US different?

2. Ahmadinejad(spl?) is bad because he talks about end of Israel. Well, Hillary talked about obliteration of Iran... din't she? Now, if we say her remark is being misinterpreted, then so is Ahmadinejad's, because he only talked about end of the zionist regime, not the people.

3. Iran supported US during initial attacks on the Taleban. Thousands of Iranians paraded on the streets of Tehran after 9/11, to show sympathy and solidarity with Americans. But soon after, Bush called Iran as "Axis of Evil", which is when Iran backed off from giving any further support.

4. Bush accuses Iran of meddling in Iraq. Well, the fact is that US has been meddling with Iran's interal affairs since decades, starting from Mossadegh, Saddams attack on Iran, then sanctions, and now covert operations in Iran. Who would you say, appears more evil????

Darden Cavalcade:

To all who genuinely fear an American attack on Iran, please be reassured. The Bush Administration is a spent force, a lame duck, a gelded stallion. Pick your metaphor, but the point is that Bush and company are merely caretakers of the federal government while the rest of America figures out just how pissed-off they are at Republicans and how deeply they want to punish them at the polls in November.

The United States is not going to attack Iran unless Tehran closes the Strait of Hormuz. ANY American administration would respond to that militarily: Bush, Clinton, McCain, Obama.

Washington does not control what Israel does any more than it controls the politics of Baghdad. If Israel attacks Iran, it won't be because of anything the United States did or didn't do. Israelis act in their own interest, not the interest of the United States. If any faction of the Iranian government sufficiently threatens the Israelis, Israel will attack.

Iranians will determine whether or not they eat bombs over the next 12 months. If Tehran continues to push Tel Aviv, the chances of conflict grow. If Iran closes the Strait, the chances of war are 100 per cent. It's time for Iranians to recognize that they are largely in control of regional stability for the next 12 months and perhaps longer.


Kaveh:

Brilliant mini-article. Where can I find Mr. Bahari's films?

dweiss:

I believe that Obama will study and talk with Iran before and if he bombs Iran . Bush will attack Iran. He until January to do so.

dweiss:

I believe that Obama will talk with Iran but that Bush will bomb Iran.


Robert James:

No one has a clue as to the course of action that this Administration will follow. Many of us regard it as irrational and unstable. It seems to have an unjustified agenda and one reason is that Bush and his cronies are not deep thinkers. They blame others for the instablity that they create. They also seem to say that if Iran is not with us then it is against us. Bush alienates nations with his rhetoric and his aggression. Why is Iran obliged to follow the stipulations of the USA? What entitles the USA to tell other nations what they can and cannot do?

The US has a history of violence internally and externally. It will not surprise anyone if Bush and Cheney have US or Israeli jets bomb Iran. What will be important will be the Iranians who get killed and the furore and unknown consequences that will follow.

If Iran turns off its oil taps will the US then issue another ultimatum requiring them to turn the taps back on or be bombed again?

The US is a renegade nation. Its behaviour is unpredictable. Further, the implications of its actions may be very dangerous.

If the bombing occurs do not be surprised if oil prices go through the roof and America and other nations fall into a Depression. If this happens who will the US blame. I am certain that the US will not accept blame or rsponsibility for its own actions. I expect that Americans will worry about losing their jobs and the rising petrol prices but they will not care about the suffering that will be experienced by poor nations and they will not care about the families who lose loved ones to US bombs and they wull not care about the indecency of Bush's actions. Afterall, they were dumb enough to elect him twice, they are ready to accept his demonising of Iran and they have left Bush in office notwithstanding that he is erratic and violent.

Kaveh:

Maizar Bahari is a great documentary maker and a brilliant journalist

Ron Orders:

I don't agree with Mr. Bahari's analysis. But he's telling us something that we haven't heard before and he should be listened to.

dave:

Get back on the meds, I see a strong resurgence of some of that paranoia. Watch out, there's Jews out there everywhere, just waiting to take over the world from their secret office in New York City. You can never tell what they might do next.

Roy:

What a bunch of bulls*it!

This guy should use his satellite for watching something other than Fox News.

jackmack74:

When our government and military leaders go on TV and declair we do not have the troops to attack Iran something is wrong! This government lies to much to us and they can not be trusted. They are the best at dis-information! Something will happen!!!

Dave:

I think you're right, for the wrong reasons. Israel can't attack Iran without triggering MAJOR repercussions from China, Russia and its' Arab neighbors, for example. But that doesn't change the fact that Israel's back is up against the wall, and they want Iran GONE. So here's what will happen: Israel makes all kinds of noise about the imminence of attacking Iran, giving Iran a likely motive for action. (This is already accomplished.) Second, Israel launches another 9/11 style attack on the US designed to look like an Iranian preemptive strike. Checkmate for the zionists, as the US annihilates Iran and fights Russia, China and / or whoever else might not approve.

I predict this will happen on Sept. 27, 2008, for whatever it's probably not worth.

Gaston:

History repeats itself- Anybody remember about CIA overthrowing democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953 & brought in the hated Shah until his peacock throne was in turn overthrown by the Islamic revolution in 1979?
Anybody remembered the coup d'etat against President Diem of S. Vietnam in '63 directed by the Saigon CIA chief. Anybody wishing for another Vietnam in the powderkeg of the Middle East? another Vietnam anybody?????????????????

PS: I witnessed the coup d'etat against President Diem in '63 which drew the US deeper into the quagmire called "VIETNAM"

Gaston:

zzim;

LT Cdr John McCain in 1967 was proven definitely by his military experience as a "looser". Please do some research from the US Naval Academy & tell me if he graduated top 5% of his class. In 67 he was shot down over Hanoi & subsequently gave a speech to a French TV crew considered as a propaganda coup for the Vietnamese side, considering his father was a Commander in Chief of the US naval Pacific Command from 68 to 72.

PS: McCain graduated 894 out of 899 for the 1958 graduating class

Şener Çelik:

In my point of view, the real motivation behind the 1993 attack of the US was to emphasize the continuousness of the US foriegn policy. The message was clear: No matter which party govern the Washington, the grand strategy will never change.

Becquer Medak-Seguin:

Excuse me ZZIM, I believe it is you who need a math lesson. Anything divided by zero is not equal to infinity, it is equal to "undefined" or "indeterminant." You are incorrect. Thus, by your definition John McCain has an undefined amount of military credentials more than Barack Obama.

In any case, none of that matters. McCain's military credentials are not very impressive and they do not translate to foreign policy or national security credentials as many people seem to think.

Moreover, the point of Mr. Bahari's post was to argue that Mr. Obama is more likely than Mr. McCain to launch a military offensive against Iran. This is not the case: Mr. Obama is willing to speak and engage in diplomacy with people Mr. McCain regards as "enemies."

Anyone who thinks that a person willing to talk with their enemies is more likely to bomb the very people he is talking to over a person who does not believe in talking to their enemies whatsoever is foolish.

Al Lopez:

Does Mr. Bahari think that Ahmadinejad will be elected next year in Iran? If so, what kind of relationship he envisages between Obama or McCain and Ahmadinejad?

Dr. Hamid Rowhani:

Maziar Bahari seems to be the only reporter who knows anything about Iran. He's also very funny. Why doesn't he write more? It's so sad that some people don't understand that by mentioning the name Barack Obama Hussein, Mr. Bahari doesn't mean that the name is an issue but that there is always the danger that a democratic candidate with no military background can try to appease the warmongers in the United States.

ZZim:

Becquer, today is your Math Lesson 101.

McCain has some military credentials.
Obama has zero military credentials.

Anything divided by nothing is infinity.

Therefore: John McCain has infinitely more military credentials than Barack Obama.

Your attempt to denigrate McCain's military background just makes you look bad. And if you do that then jerks might come along and mock you and rub it in your face.

dr.kahoor khan hooshaapi:

Please do not take the case or intentions on the basis of the names as the Bush administration will not heed to such an action with only four months to go as the failure of task can be effected on the result of the upcoming election regarding the republicans,for the Bush team of the White House have received enough damage so far to the republican institutions by nurturing of President Bush of The Pakistani Government which is directly prolonging the American war of terror by assisting the Taliban with the American supplied weapons and helping them to infiltration into Afghanistan.The soft and peaceful stance of decider's in Washington has emboldened the little creature to defiant and reject whole the persuaded peaceful solutions to halt the nuclear proliferations and enriching programs.

Becquer Medak-Seguin:

Mr. Bahari:

I believe John McCain, who you imply has scores of military credentials, would be less hesitant (by a mile) than Barack Obama to strike Iran with an all-out unilateral military force by his first term in office, should he be elected.

First of all, John McCain does not have superior military credentials by any means. Mr. McCain became only a captain during his stint in the Navy and had no potential to reach full admiral status because of his “poor annual physicals” and the fact that “he had been given no major sea command.” Thus, to imply that Mr. McCain has a great deal of military credentials is purely a fallacy.

In case you happened to have turn off your airwaves to what has been happening in the run up to the 2008 United States Presidential election, Mr. Obama has pledged to diplomatically engage with tyrannical leaders, such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without preconditions whereas Mr. McCain would write-off such leaders as “enemies” and not be willing to engage in any diplomacy whatsoever, leaving him with only military might to solve the world’s most pressing problems.

If Mr. McCain believes that diplomacy is carried out with an assault rifle, I would be hard-pressed to bet against him bombing Iran within his first term in office.

It is exceedingly superficial of you to believe that Mr. Obama’s foreign policy will be guided by something as inconsequential as his name. Moreover, it is insulting that you still believe people care about Mr. Obama’s name. If the U.S. constituency believed that Barack Hussein Obama’s name was strewn with too many Islamic eponyms, then don’t you think they wouldn’t have let him defeat Hillary Clinton, a brand-name Democrat, for the party’s nomination?

It is lamentable that you have fallen into the trap of judging a candidate based on shallow, unimportant niceties. However, I regret that you are not the only one.

Post a comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

Categories

  • America's Role
  • Business and Technology
  • Culture and Society
  • Environment
  • Human Rights
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Islamic Movements
  • Israel-Palestine
  • Security and Terrorism
  • The Global Economy
  • The New Asia
PostGlobal is an interactive conversation on global issues moderated by Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is On Faith, a conversation on religion. Please send your comments, questions and suggestions for PostGlobal to Lauren Keane, its editor and producer.