|
By Nasrin Alavi
Here we go again. As Iran becomes increasingly isolated and under pressure from both Western powers and its Arab neighbours in the region, the battle lines are drawn. For many Iranians the signs are both ominous and all too familiar. On 22 September 1980, Iraq attacked western Iran, launching what would become the longest conventional war of the twentieth century.
By Richard W. Bulliet
On a balmy April day in 1959, I joined with thousands of other students to listen to Fidel Castro speak from the balcony of the field house at Harvard University.
By Rt. Hon. Lord David Waddington, QC
The Iranian Regime’s nuclear ambitions are a threat to world peace. In dealing with this threat and with the Regime’s unbridled meddling in Iraq and the Middle East, the West needs to make a strategic choice.
Iran’s mullahs have managed to remain several moves ahead of us thus far, and last August Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was able to say with conviction: “Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap.”
The chairman of the United States’ Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael G. Mullen acknowledged in April that Tehran was continuing to funnel weapons and other aid to extremists in Iraq for use against Coalition troops. He highlighted in particular the “increasingly lethal and malign influence” exercised by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s extra-territorial Qods Force, which is bent on destabilizing not only Iraq but the rest of the Middle East.
Editor’s Note: PostGlobal received this e-mailed commentary from a former CIA officer who has extensive experience with covert and paramilitary action. It argues for a much more aggressive covert-action program against Iran, comparable to what the CIA mounted against the Soviet Union during the Reagan administration.
The author has requested anonymity because of the sensitiivty of the subject, and the fact that he continues to work and travel overseas.
We are sharing that perspective with PostGlobal readers not because we necessarily agree with it, but because that argument is rarely expressed in public. We include it here to add another layer to our debate.
Iran cries out for a global, comprehensive Foreign Intelligence and Covert Action program. They are so exposed in the Gulf, Africa, Asia, and South America. Here in the United States as well.
By David Amess
Tehran's brazen approach to nuclear negotiations has been fueled in part by its thus-far correct presumption that the West does not have the resolve to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. The West's strategic blunder is in its determination to pressure the regime into changing its behavior rather than to seek a long-term change of regime.
It is in the interest of the international community and financial markets for Iran to have a democratic stable government. This, however, cannot be achieved by foreign military intervention or maintaining the status quo as Tehran speeds up its illegal nuclear activities in defiance of the Security Council and the UN's nuclear watchdog.
By Maziar Bahari
I did the following interview with Dr. Akbar Etemad for the British magazine New Statesman. Some may find Dr. Etemad's comments in support of current nuclear policy of the Islamic Goverment to be surprising. After all, he was a high-ranking official in the Shah's government, which was toppled by the current regime. Yet like millions of Iranians, who are not particularly fond of the Islamic Republic, Dr. Etemad thinks of the Iran's nuclear program as a national issue that doesn't have to do with any particular government in Iran.
I think in the light of the light of the upcoming meeting of permenanent members of UN Security Council and Germany, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's next week's visit to New York, Dr. Etemad's interview will provide good background to any reporting of Iran's nuclear program.
By Richard W. Murphy
As she prepares for her role as Secretary of State, Senator Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Obama foreign policy team should consider how a new American-Iranian relationship might advance American interests in Iraq and Afghanistan, and conceivably even the Arab-Israeli peace process.
This will not be easy. Thirty years have passed since the Iranian Revolution without formal diplomatic relations or any sustained dialogue between Washington and Tehran, and mutual suspicion remains entrenched.
By Abraham Cooper and Harold Brackman
North Korea's newest nuclear blast raises many questions, but also provides a discomfiting answer to a big one: Is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty working? The answer is no. Over the years, Pyongyang has made a mockery of U.N. and U.S. non-proliferation efforts. Neither then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's charm offensive with Kim Jong-Il nor the subsequent Bush Administration's diplomatic offensive through six-power talks have restrained North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
The newest nuclear and missile testing are an unmistakable slap at President Obama's call for broader dialogue. What's also particularly galling to U.S. officials is that Pyongyang signed the Nuclear Treaty and then proceeded to render it virtually meaningless. Meanwhile, treaty non-signatory Pakistan followed non-signatory India in unleashing the nuclear genie on the Subcontinent while doing nothing as Sir Ahmad Khan proliferated nuclear weapons technology from Tehran to Pyongyang. Today, the world is left to hold its collective breath as the Taliban nips at the gates of Islamabad--too close to Pakistan's growing nuclear arsenal.
"We can't be careful," he said when I urged him to stay indoors. "We can't lose this chance."
By Jonathan Spollen
Iran's electoral watchdog, the Guardian Council, said today that it was investigating 646 complaints of polling violations in the country's disputed presidential elections, and announced it will hold a meeting Saturday with the three defeated presidential contenders to hear their allegations of voting irregularities.
Meanwhile, more than 100,000 opposition protesters filled the streets and squares of Tehran in the sixth straight day of mass rallies in Iran's capital, with many wearing black and holding candles to commemorate the deaths of at least eight demonstrators killed by Iranian security forces on Monday.
Reports of voting irregularities in last Friday's election range from shortages of ballots to voting centres being closed prematurely to reports of turnouts in at least 30 locations registering over 100 per cent.
By Mark Weisbrot
co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Since the Iranian presidential election of June 12, allegations that the announced winner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory was stolen have played an important role in the demonstrations, political conflict, and media reporting on events there. Some say it does not matter whether the elections were stolen because the government has responded to peaceful protests with violence and arrests. These actions are indeed abhorrent and inexcusable, and the world's outrage is justified. So, too, is the widespread concern for the civil liberties of Iranians who have chosen to exercise their rights to peacefully protest.
At the same time, the issue of whether the election was stolen will remain relevant, both to our understanding of the situation and to U.S.-Iranian relations, for reasons explained below. It is therefore worth looking at whether this allegation is plausible.
Comments (12)