On January 12, 2012, a bomb ripped apart a car in Tehran, killing Iranian scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan and his driver, and injuring several others. In the past two years, four other Iranian scientists have been killed in a similar manner. By now, it is clear that this is a systematic campaign with political intentions. Media reports and political pundits attribute Mr. Ahmadi’s killing to targeted assassinations by those opposed to Iran’s nuclear program, both within and outside Iran, or internal factional fighting.

If public reports are true that these assassinations are orchestrated by foreign powers in order to prevent Iran’s ability to go forward with its nuclear capabilities, then we petition those powers to stop these assassinations – a tactic replacing political engagement with covert operations at the expense of innocent civilians. These assassinations provide the Iranian authorities with ample excuse to continue to suppress voices of dissent, even on the Iranian nuclear issue, to arrest and imprison political opposition, and to further curtail the activities of human rights activists.

As academicians, writers, human rights activists, and intellectuals, we condemn these attacks on civilian scientists. Such terrorist actions can only escalate the internal tension and regional conflicts toward a military clash or war. Regardless of where we stand on Iran’s nuclear program, we find these assassinations outrageous because they target technical or scientific elements of a society without due consideration for human rights, due process of international and national laws, and lives of innocent individuals caught in the crossfire.

These types of killings have to stop, not only because they harm a nation’s scientific community and its civilians, but also because they build a deep psychological scar on the nation’s public mind prompting it to ask for revenge in kind. We hope we are living in a better world than that. Killing innocent or even allegedly guilty people without consideration for their human rights and due process, by any force or government anywhere and anytime, is an outrageous act to be protested by all. If covert targeted assassinations of opponents become the order of the day, no one will be safe in this world.

01. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, SOAS, University of London
02. Masih Alinejad, Journalist
03. Asieh Amini, Journalist and Human Rights Activist
04. Fariba Amini, Independent Journalist and Writer
05. Hooshang Amirahmadi, Professor, Rutgers University
06. Richard P. Appelbaum, Professor of Sociology, University of California at Santa Barbara
07. Rahim Bajoghli, Human Rights Activist
08. Darioush Bayandor, historian, author
09. Asef Bayat, Professor, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
10. Iris Bazing, MD, Baltimore, Maryland
11. Maria Bennett, Poet, New Jersey, USA
12. Mohammad Borghei, Strayer University.
13. Mehrzad Boroujerdi, Professor, Syracuse University
14. Juan Cole, Professor, University of Michigan
15. Shirindokht Daghighian, Independent Scholar & Author
16. Mehrdad Darvishpour, Lecturer at the Malardalen University, Sweden
17. Lucia F. Dunn, Professor of Economics, Ohio State University
18. Goudarz Eghtedari, Ph.D., Voices of the Middle East
19. Mohammad Eghtedari, Economist, Washington, DC
20. Nader Entessar, Professor of Political Science, University of South Alabama
21. Amir Fassihi, Nowruz Foundation for Nonviolence, CA
22. John Foran, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
23. Ali Fathollah-Nejad, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
24. Yoshie Furuhashi, Editor, MRZine
25. Alexandra Gallin-Parisi, Professor, Trinity University
26. Amir Hossein Ganjbakhsh, Senior Investigator, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD
27. Reza Goharzad, Journalist, Los Angeles
28. John L Graham, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Irvine
29. Hossein Hamedani, Professor, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI
30. Nader Hashemi, Professor, University of Denver
31. Esmail Hejazifar, Professor of Physics, Wilmington College, Ohio
32. Paula Hertel, Professor of Psychology, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX
33. Mohsen Heydareian, Ph. D, Political Science, Sweden
34. Fredun Hojabri, Retired Professor of Sharif (Aryamehr) Univeristy of Technology
35. Angie Hougas, Human Rights Activists, McFarland, WI
36. Noushin Izadifar Hart, M.D., Radiation Oncologist, Reston, Virginia
37. Azadeh Jahanbegloo, Sociologist, Wright State University, Ohio
38. Jahanshah Javid, Editor, Iranian.com
39. Hasan Javadi, Retired Professor of Persian Language, University of California, Berkeley
40. Mark C. Johnson, Executive Director, Fellowship of Reconciliation, NY
41. Yahya Kamalipour, Chair, Global Communication Association, Purdue University
42. Aziz Karamloo, MD, Faculty Member, University of California, Los Angeles
43. Mahmood Karimi-Hakak, Professor of Theatre and Film, Siena College, NY
44. Liam Kennedy, Community Board Member,CCPB, UC, Irvine
45. Fatemeh Keshavarz, Professor, Washington University, St. Louis
46. Nanette Le Coat, Associate Professor, Modern Languages and Literatures, Trinity University
47. Arturo Madrid, Professor, Trinity University
48. Ali Akbar Mahdi, Professor Emeritus, Ohio Wesleyan University
49. Azita Mashayekhi, Industrial Hygienist, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
50. Rudi Matthee, Distinguished Professor of Middle Eastern history, University of Delaware
51. Farzaneh Milani, Professor, University of Virginia
52. Yaser Mirdamadi, Independent Scholar
53. Ziba Mir-Hosseini, CMEIL, School of Oriental and African Studies
54. Ida Mirzaie, Ohio State University
55. Valentine M. Moghadam, Professor of Sociology, Northeastern University
56. Mahmood Monshipouri, Professor, San Francisco State University
57. Akbar Montaser, Professor, Department of Chemistry ,George Washington University
58. Reza Mousoli, Canterbury Christ Church University, UK
59. Baquer Namazi, Retired UNICEF Country Representative & Civil Society Activist
60. Arash Naraghi, Assistant Professor of Religion and Philosophy, Moravian College
61. Mohamad Navab, University of California, Los Angeles
62. Farrokh Negahdar, Political Analyst
63. Mohammad-Reza Nikfar, Independent Scholar and Philosopher
64. Azam Niroomand-Rad, Professor Emeritus, Georgetown University Medical Center
65. Farhad Nomani, Professor of Economics, American University of Paris
66. Mehdi Noorbaksh, Associate Professor, Harrisburg University of Science & Technology
67. Trita Parsi, President, National Iranian American Council, Washington, DC
68. Richard T. Peterson, Professor of Philosophy, Michigan State University
69. Davood Rahni, Professor of Chemistry, Pace University, New York
70. Farhang Rajaee, Professor, Carleton University
71. Asghar rastegar, MD, Professor of Medicine, Yale School of Medicinek
72. Thomas M. Ricks, Ph.D., Independent Scholar
73. Mahmoud Sadri, Professor of Sociology, Texas Woman’s University
74. Muhammad Sahimi, Professor, University of Southern California in Los Angeles
75. Hamid Salek, D.D.S. University of Southern California , Los Angeles
76. Reza Sarhangi, Professor, Department of Mathematics, Towson University
77. Mehrdad F. Samadzadeh, University of Toronto
78. Gabriel Sebastian, Author, Futurist
79. Ali Shakeri, Community Board Member, CCPB, UC, Irvine
80. Evan Siegel, Ph.D., Independent Researcher on Iran & Azerbaijan, Adj. Mathematics Prof., CUNY
81. Arman Shirazi, Senior Scientist, CSM North America
82. Sussan Siavoshi, Professor, Trinity University
83. Mark D. Stansbery, Iran Action Network
84. Sussan Tahmasebi, Women’s Rights Activist
85. Mohamad Tavakoli-Targhi, Univeristy of Toronto
86. Bahram Tavakolian, Willamette University
87. Farideh Tehrani, Ph.D., Middle Eastern Studies Librarian, Rutgers University, NJ
88. Mary Ann Tetreault, Cox Distinguished Professor of International Affairs, Trinity University
89. Nayereh Tohidi, Professor, California State University, Northridge
90. Patricia Trutty-Coohill, Professor of Art History, Siena College, NY
91. Farzin Vahdat, Research Associate at Vassar College
92. Bill Wolak, Poet, New Jersey, USA
93. Leila Zand, Program Director, Middle East Civilian Diplomacy, Fellowship of Reconciliation
94. Hamid Zangeneh, Professor, Widener University

SOURCE

The original English version [pdf]:

• Payvand Iran News, 18 January 2012;
• Informed Comment, 17 January 2012;
• Arab News, 17 January 2012;
• Iranian.com (blog entry), 16 January 2012.

Translations in Persian:

• Akhbare Rooz (Iranian Political Bulletin), 16 January 2012;
• iran-emrooz.net, 16 January 2012;
• Shahrgon (“the first and the largest publication for Persian speaking in western Canada”), 16 January 2012.

Translation in French:

• Agence Média Palestine, 19 janvier 2012 ;
• Proche-Orient.net, 20 janvier 2012.

An Obligation Imposed by the »Arab Spring« and the Israel–Iran Conflict

With the war drums on Iran sounding again and the Arab Revolts following an arduous path, the question of a sustainable perspective for a conflict-ridden region remains to be dealt with. After all, the lack of both security and cooperation is an enduring malady plaguing the region.

Civil-society effort towards common security and regional cooperation

Some years ago a civil-society initiative for a Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East (CSCME) was spearheaded in Germany by peace and conflict researcher Prof. Mohssen Massarrat in collaboration with the German branches of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA). After decades of violent conflicts in the region, the initiators chose not to sit down and wait anymore, but decided to assemble civil-society actors from all countries concerned in order to promote a perspective for peace, security and cooperation – something state actors have carelessly neglected. One of its key aims is the creation of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

After a first workshop held in Germany in January 2011, a second took place by late October at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London in cooperation with its Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy (CISD). The meeting was linked to an annual CISD conference on a related subject, the 6th SOAS/British Pugwash London Conference on a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone.

So far civil-society forces from almost all countries of the region have been brought together. Unified in the desire to break out from the vicious cycle of regional militarization, they want to offer a vision for common security and regional cooperation. In addition to security policy, the CSCME process comprises a number of fields for cooperation, among others in the areas of socio-economic development, cross-border resource management, inter-religious and -cultural dialogue, and health. It is hoped that the next expert conference will take place in the region itself. All of that in view of holding a founding conference for the civil-society CSCME process in the near future.

For 2012 (perhaps more realistically for 2013), the first United Nations Middle East WMD-Free Zone Conference is planned, for which Finland has been chosen as host. Ideally, concrete steps towards the realization of that aim would be defined there and civil-society groups involved.

The “Arab Spring”: The necessity of a veritable regional security architecture

An important topic of the last workshop in London was the “Arab Spring” which demonstrated that the pejoratively dismissed “Arab Street” is not a passive object for authoritarian rule, but that societies can offensively fight for their own needs and interests, and eventually bring about change. This development has emboldened the initiative for a CSCME as it showed that civil-society pressure can indeed yield tangible results.

Importantly, if we comprehend the revolutionary process in the Arab world to be motivated by a triad of popular demands, namely the pursuit of socio-economic justice, political freedoms, and independence, what is intimately connected to the latter is the question of security, especially for those countries so far over-dependent on non-regional powers.

The Iran–Israel conundrum: A WMD-free zone as the only sustainable solution

Beyond that implicit demand inherent to the Arab uprisings for security and coexistence, there is another front which propels us to contemplate about new paths and solutions. The seemingly never-ending spectacle around the so-called Iran nuclear conflict, which is more often tilting towards war than a peaceful resolution, has again produced heated debates on its whereabouts. With the bulk of the policy debates endlessly vacillating between a rock (war) and a hard place (sanctions), it is clear that both options will not alleviate concerns for both nuclear proliferation and the Iranian civil society’s well-being. The only meaningful way forward would be to abandon such a bogus policy alternative which has proven counterproductive and will only push the conflict towards the brink of war, and instead striving for regional disarmament and eventually a WMD-free zone. In order to avoid a collision resulting from contentions over nuclear monopoly and deterrence, the creation of such a zone would arguably constitute the only meaningful exit. Hence, the desire to bring both Iran and Israel to the table at the above mentioned UN conference.

While there can be little doubt that civil societies across the region are in need of a prospect for common security and intra-regional cooperation, there can be no less doubt that the so-far preferred policies affecting the region have proven unsuccessful at best. Only in an overall Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East (CSCME) can the concatenation of multi-faceted conflicts in the region be addressed in a sustainable manner. Here, the continuing and increasing insistence from diverse civil society actors will be indispensable to encourage policy-makers to pave the way for bringing sustainable peace and security to the region.

SOURCE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2011) “A Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East“, Fair Observer, 2 December;

▪ slightly edited version published as “Security and Cooperation in the Middle East: Searching for a Solution“, openDemocracy,  1 December;

▪ published as “WMD Free Zone: Avoiding a Collision Over Nuclear Monopoly and Deterrence“, Iranian.com, 8 December;

▪ published as “A Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East: An Obligation Imposed by the “Arab Spring” and the Israel–Iran Conflict“, Payvand Iran News, 9 December;

▪ published as “A Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East: An Obligation Imposed by the Arab Spring and the Israel–Iran Conflict“, Foreign Policy Journal, 9 December ;

▪ published as “A Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East: An Obligation Imposed by the Arab Spring and the Israel–Iran Conflict“, Iran Review, 9 December;

▪ published as “A Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East“, Atlantic Community, Berlin: Atlantische Initiative, 19 January;

▪ republished on Yahanestán: opinión y sociedad sobre Oriente Medio (Mexico), 21 January 2012.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 is considered a defining moment because the Islamic Republic replaced an authoritarian monarchy that was friendly to the West. The revolution, moreover, linked religion to politics in an unprecedented way. Books by Hamid Dabashi, Elaheh Rostami-Povey and Arshin Adib-Moghaddam discuss the country’s history and its influence beyond its own borders.

Arguably the most important reason for the international interest in Iran is its strategically pivotal geography. Like some of its Muslim neighbours, it has tremendous oil and gas reserves. For the United States, the revolution in Iran was nothing less than a geopolitical shock.

Revolutionary dynamics in the Arab World have recently rekindled the debate in the West on “political Islam”. To get a good understanding of the phenomenon, however, it is necessary to define it properly – which, so far, has hardly been done.

The issue is generally approached from two directions. The cultural-essentialist or Orientalistic school holds that Islam determines political, economic and social realities. Orientalists argue that the entire Muslim world is not only somehow monolithic, but even downright resistant to change. Samuel Huntington’s book “The clash of civilizations” is a prominent expression of such thinking. This school is not alone in emphasising religion as the single most important defining feature of society, Islamist fundamentalists say so too.

The competing school emphasises structural aspects that have evolved in history. Its analyses take a wide range of factors into account, namely socio-economic conditions, political trends, historical change, class conflict and revolutions.

The current Arab Spring has dealt the Orientalist school a severe blow, and may yet discredit it once and for all. Obviously, there is a widespread desire in Muslim societies for change, and the revolutionary motivation is not primarily rooted in faith. Rather, the desire for universal freedoms and social justice is making itself heard in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere.

The books about Iran discussed here do not belong to the Orientalist camp. Nonetheless, each author assesses the topic from a different angle.

Struggle for democracy

In “Iran: a people interrupted” (2007), Hamid Dabashi analyses nearly 200 years of history from the literary-intellectual and political perspectives. The author takes his readers on a trip through time, revisiting major historical events. With unparalleled eloquence, he argues that Iranians have been fighting for democracy and against “foreign and domestic tyranny” for more than a century. Dabashi says the anti-colonial Tobacco Revolt at the end of the 19th century, the Constitutional Revolution at the beginning of the 20th, the nationalisation of the oil sector under Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in the 1950s and the “Islamic Revolution” at the end of the 1970s were the most important steps in this process.

He disagrees with the notion of Iran being caught between tradition and modernity, calling it a “fabricated paradox”. Instead, he argues that since the 19th century an “anti-colonial modernity” marked by the struggle against both domestic and foreign oppression has defined Iranians’ emancipatory experience.

Dabashi traces three major ideological formations back to the multicultural, pluralistic Constitutional Revolution of the early 20th century: liberal-democratic nationalism, social-democratic socialism and theocratic Islamism. In his view, these three ideological formations do not necessarily clash. Rather, they all have their roots in the anti-colonial struggle and serve as catalysts for one other.

In the early 20th century, the idea of the modern nation-state with the notion of citizenship took shape, including both women and religious minorities, with relevant roles for a free press and intellectuals. However, it was never fully realised because of the repression of a series of Shah regimes which were allied to colonial and imperial powers. These ideals have yet to materialise.

Dabashi sees Shia Islam as inherently oppositional in its political focus. Accordingly, a dilemma arises when Shia clerics assume state power and get corrupted by it – which is what happened in the Islamic Republic.

Dabashi assesses the role of Shia religious leaders in the context of Iran’s political development. He makes a distinction between progressive clerics who oppose unjust rule and conservative ones who are closely connected to power or strive for it. In doing so, he shows that Shia clerics in Iran do not form a monolithic block. As is evident today, some important leaders sympathise with the democracy movement, and many are not pleased with the increasingly militaristic system that was set up in the name of religion.

A wide range of voices

In “Iran’s influence: a religious-political state and society in its region” (2010), Elaheh Rostami-Povey quotes a wide range of contemporary voices – journalists, refugees, expatriates and researchers from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt. She conducted her interviews with Muslim modernists, secular leftists, nationalists and feminists from 2007 to 2009. She shows that all of them demand democracy and liberty.

Her book is an encyclopaedic discussion of the political dynamics within the religious-political state of Iran. She shows that its internal contradictions have fostered the growth of a new democratic movement, which calls the regime, but not religion as such, into question.

At the same time, she demonstrates why the Iranian state’s foreign policy has found approval in the region where a majority of the public identifies with Iran’s stance against the USA, Israel and the “war on terror”. One reason for the popularity of criticism voiced by Tehran is that many Arab autocracies cooperate with Washington, and open debate has been impossible so far.

Rostami-Povey emphasises the wide range of manifestations of “political Islam”, each of which has to be considered in its specific historical and socio-political context. She writes that Islamists in Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and its associated organisations or Hamas in Palestine are all quite different, and all are struggling with their own internal contradictions. However, all varieties of Islamism have one thing in common: they mobilise popular support by opposing imperialism and Zionism.

Rostami-Povey warns that the term “Islamic fundamentalism” prevents us from seeing the diversity of various Islamisms. As she puts it, “homogenisation and essentialism” make us blind to dynamics of change and thus promote Orientalism and Islamophobia. She argues that, ultimately, the West’s ongoing hostility towards Iran and Islamist movements only strengthens those conservative forces.

Arshin Adib-Moghaddam comes to similar conclusions in “Iran in world politics: the question of the Islamic Republic” (2007). He has worked up an intricate theory on the interaction between society, culture and state institutions. As he puts it, “counter-hegemonic utopias” – such as Marxism, Communism, Maoism and Islamism – radically changed Iran’s political culture in the 1960s. The revolution therefore pursued “utopian-romantic” ideals, which left their mark on the Islamic Republic’s institutionalised norms and still affect its approach to foreign policy.

He emphasises the constant possibility of change in the Islamic Republic as a result of an “active counterculture”. He shows that the picture US neo-conservatives paint of Iran is perverted and calls for “critical Iranian studies” which would pluralise the ways one sees Iran and dissect the international politics surrounding the country.

These three books by noted scholars lay the foundation for a better understanding of Iran and “political Islam”. They theoretically and empirically assess the context in its entire complexity. Without such comprehensive knowledge, Western understanding cannot add up to more than biased knee-jerk reactions. The books show that political trends do not come about in a vacuum, but rather are rooted in complex settings with domestic and foreign social, economic and political factors. The idea of a “monolithic Islam” is not only wrong – it is dangerous.

Books reviewed:

• Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, Iran in World Politics: The Question of the Islamic Republic, London: Hurst 2007 & New York: Columbia University Press 2008.
• Hamid Dabashi, Iran: A People Interrupted, New York: New Press 2007.
• Elaheh Rostami-Povey, Iran’s Influence: A Religious–Political State and Society in its Region, London & New York: Zed Books 2010.

SOURCE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2011) “New Insights Into the Islamic Republic of Iran“, Development and Cooperation (D+C), Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit (German Society for International Cooperation, GIZ), Vol. 52, No. 5 (May), pp. 208–209.

▪ republished on Europe’s World, 22/05/2011;

▪ republished on Global Research, Montreal: Centre for Research on Globalization, 22/05/2011;

▪ republished on e-International Relations (e-IR), 22/02/2011;

▪ republished on Monthly Review Webzine, 23/05/2011;

▪ republished as Defining Moment on Iranian.com, 23/05/2011;

▪ republished on Atlantic-Community.org, 24/05/2011;

▪ republished on Humanitarian Texts: World-Wide Asian–Eurasian Human Rights Forum, 25/05/2011;

▪ republished on ZNet, 31/05/2011;

AUF DEUTSCH | “Neue Blicke auf die Islamische Republik Iran“, Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit (E+Z), Vol. 52, No. 5 (May), pp. 208–209;

▪ republished on ZNet Deutschland, 15/06/2011.

SLOVENČINA | “Čo je to politický islam?“, trans. Peter Nedoroščík, utopia, 01/07/2011.

Research on this book began in 2008 during the transition period between the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, and by winter 2009 the book has been finalized.

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2010 & 2011) Der Iran-Konflikt und die Obama-Regierung: Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? [The Iran Conflict and the Obama Administration: Old Wine in New Skins?], Potsdam (Germany): Potsdam University Press (WeltTrends-Papiere, No. 12), 2010 (reprint in 2011) [ISSN 1864-0656 | ISBN 978-3-86956-042-7 | 5 € | hier bestellen].

ABSTRACT

Deutsch | Mit dem Amtsantritt Barack Obamas wurden nach Jahren schwelender Kriegsgefahr mit dem Iran große Hoffnungen verbunden. Das Papier analysiert die der US-Regierung vorgelegten Iran-Strategiepapiere im Hinblick auf eine Lösung im Iran-Konflikt. Das Spektrum der angedachten Politik reicht von Scheindiplomatie zur Kriegslegitimation bis hin zu Normalisierung der Beziehungen. Zum Schluss wird danach gefragt, ob tatsächlich eine Wende in der Iran-Politik Obamas zu erwarten ist.

English | With Barack Obama taking office as U.S. president, immense hopes have been raised after years of a lurking threat of war. The paper analyzes Iran strategy papers prepared for the new U.S. administration on how to solve the conflict with Iran. The specter of the proposed policies ranges from diplomacy as pretense for legitimating war to normalization of relations. Finally the question will be raised whether under Obama a change of the policy towards Iran can be expected or not.

Bulgarian | С влизането в длъжност на новия президент на САЩ Барак Обама бе свързана голямата надежда след години нарастваща опасност от война с Иран. Авторът анализира стратегически документи на САЩ относно възможно решение на Иранския конфликт- от дипломация за прикриване подготовка за война до селективно сближаване. Потърсен е отговор на въпроса, доколко може да се очаква обрат в политиката на президента Обама. [Source: Center for Strategic Research in the Field of Security and International Relations, Bulgaria]

BUCH-INHALT [BOOK CONTENT]

I. Obama for President! Alle für den „Wandel“ [Obama for President! Everybody for "Change"]
1. Mission: Führungsrolle wiederherstellen [Mission: Reestablishing Leadership]
2. Obamas „Clinton III“-Team [Obama's "Clinton III" Team]

II. Wettlauf um Obamas Iran-Politik [The Race for Obama's Iran Policy]
3 . Wieso die USA eine „Kurs-Korrektur“ in der Iran-Politik anstreben [Why the U.S. Seeks a "Course Correction" in its Iran Policy]
4. Neokonservative und liberale Falken – Zwangsdiplomatie als Kriegslegitimation [Neoconservatives and Liberal Hawks: Coercive Diplomacy as Legitimation for War]
5. Vorschläge der Elite-Think-Tanks – Realpolitische Strategien zur Durchsetzung amerikanischer Interessen [Recommendations by Elite Think-Tanks: Realpolitik Strategies for Asserting U.S. Interests]
6. Moderate Stimmen fordern Kurswechsel [Moderate Voices Demand Course Correction]

III. Im Bush-Modus verfangen? Neue Politik auf tönernen Füßen [Stuck in the Bush Mode? New Policy on Feet of Clay]
7. Von Bushs zu Obamas Kriegen im Irak und am Hindukusch – Auserwählt oder notwendig? [From Bush's to Obama's Wars in Iraq and in the Hindu-Kush: Chosen or Necessary?]
8. Neue alte Iran-Politik? [New Old Iran Policy?]

IV. Schlussfolgerungen [Conclusions]

Continue Reading

ABSTRACT

The south-western part of the Asian continent, an area spanning from the Levant to the Hindu Kush and from the Caucasus to the Arabian Peninsula, is widely – in political, public and even academic discourses alike – referred to as the ‘Near and/or Middle East’. Such thetic denomination of that geographical space has been subjected to exogenous attributions based upon cultural, political and strategic considerations by colonial and imperial powers. Due to the interest-driven and hence arbitrary nature, its boundaries have constantly been altered in the colonial/imperial mind map. However superficial those outside markers are, they tend to shape the reality of that region – and thus to create a political geography. Through imperial incursions and on-going military presence the prescribed politico–strategic framework has imposed itself onto the region.
Beyond those representations, shared cultural values and historical experiences might provide a basis for an endogenously designed future, potentially able to overcome the partitions the region suffers from on multiple levels. Thus, besides tracing the changing ‘political geographies’, the paper proposes a realistic utopia. It aims to de-colonize the ‘Middle East’ through a critical history of the region and embraces a regionalization process. Thus it pro-actively engages with the challenges posed by the imperially designed past and present.

Read the whole document here (pdf).

SOURCE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2010) “The ‘Middle East’: From Past and Present Attributions to a Future Regional Identity?“, Polyvocia: SOAS Journal of Graduate Research, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, Vol. 2 (March), pp. 3–20.

PRAISE

»excellent« (Noam Chomsky)

For French and German versions, please scroll down.

Collateral Damages of Smart Sanctions on Iran

The prospects for democracy, socio-economic development, and conflict resolution will suffer if the West continues to rely on punitive measures

This time, the warmongers’ silly season found its apogée in U.S. neo-conservative Daniel Pipes’ advice to Obama to “bomb Iran,” which appeared shortly after Tony Blair, having outlined why he helped invade Iraq, remarked ominously, “We face the same problem about Iran today.” The Chilcot Inquiry in the United Kingdom on how the Iraq War was launched ironically coincided with a considerable military build-up in the Persian Gulf region. All this occurred amidst the continued struggle of Iran’s civil rights movement and proclamations of Western leaders to be in support of the latter’s efforts. But is there any evidence for this?

In contradistinction to war, sanctions are widely portrayed as necessary, almost healthy medicine to bring about change in the opponent’s policies. However, as the history of the West–Iran conflict proves, sanctions have rather the state of crisis alive than contributed to its resolution. Nonetheless, Western governments do not seem to have lost their dubious fascination for them.

As the call for “crippling sanctions” became morally questionable when last summer the impressive Green wave shook the streets of Tehran for fear of wrecking the same, today the benign sounding “smart” or “targeted” sanctions are on the tip of everyone’s tongue. Yet, a close look reveals a great deal of wishful thinking as to the effects of such sanctions.

Gigantic dimensions of “smart sanctions”

“Smart sanctions”, it is claimed, are a magic wand with which to decapitate evil. In the Iranian case, evil is being identified with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Originally a defense organization erected to counter Iraqi aggression in the 1980s, the Guardians have developed into an expansive socio-politico-economic conglomerate which is believed to possess unrivalled economic and political power in today’s Islamic Republic.

As we are told, “smart sanctions” shall target the Guardians’ grip on the Iranian power structure. The much neglected difficulty here – though it is widely acknowledged that the bulk of Iranian economy is now in the hands of the Guardians – is that in the end millions of civilians connected to these wide-ranging sectors thought to be controlled by the Guardians will be affected. Seen in this light, the gigantic dimension of these alleged “smart sanctions” comes to the fore.

Moreover, so-called “crippling sanctions” that target petrol supply to Iran are still en route. In anticipation of those U.S. unilateral sanctions, the world’s largest insurance companies have announced their retreat from Iran. This concerns both the financial and shipping sectors, and affects petrol supplies to Iran which imports 40 percent of its needs. Also three giant oil traders ended supplies to Iran, which amounted to half of Tehran’s imports. Needless to say, such sanctions ultimately harm the population. To add, a complete implementation thereof – i.e. preventing Asian competitors to step in – would require a naval blockade which amounts to an act of war.

Crippling the ordinary population

As stressed by civil society figures and economists, the price of sanctions is being paid by the Iranian population at large. The Iranian economy – manufacturing, agriculture, bank and financial sectors etc. – has been hurt from almost three decades of sanctions. Even today, businesses cannot easily obtain much needed goods on the international market to continue production and must often pay above-standard prices. Moreover, the scientific community has faced discrimination in areas of research as has Iran’s technological advances been slowed down.

Reflecting the dangers sanctions pose to the Green Movement, last fall Mir-Hossein Mousavi stated: “We are opposed to any types of sanctions against our nation.” The same was recently uttered by his fellow opposition leader Mehdi Karroubi in an interview with Corriere della Serra.

Meanwhile a more fundamental problem remains – hardly acknowledged by many proponents who succumb to the adventurous illusion of having a say in the design and implementation of sanctions: They are mainly designed by the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), introduced to the U.S. Congress and finally implemented by the Treasury Department’s Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey – an AIPAC confidant. Along this process, the potential suffering by Iran’s civil society hardly plays a role.

Sanctions – either “crippling” or “smart” – ultimately harm ordinary citizens. “Smart sanctions” is as much of an oxymoron as “smart weapons” which supposedly by “surgical strikes” only take out evil components. Indeed, much as in the case of their militaristic brothers-in-sprit, in the end the “collateral damages” of “smart sanctions” remain dominant.

A futile political instrument in today’s world

More generally, in an increasingly multipolar globalized world, sanctions imposed upon energy-rich countries are basically futile as an effective policy tool. Too numerous are business-driven actors that are only too happy to jump in. Thus, Chinese, Russian, and even U.S. companies (acting via Dubai) have hugely benefitted from the European, U.S.-pressured withdrawal from the Iranian market.

Thus, sanctions – a medicine with which Western policy-circles are so obsessed with – are not a cure but a slow poison applied to the civil society and thus the civil rights movement. Sanctions as prototype of economic warfare in concert with the seasonal flaring-up of war-mongering are a dangerous mix. The deafening “drums of war” continue to bang upon the beating heart of Iran’s civil society.

Sanctions and threats of war: Poisonous for democratic development

All this suggests that sanctions are perhaps a fig leaf for other agendas. For, in contrast to Western proclamations, sanctions do harm the civil society while cementing the position of hardliners. Iran’s middle class as a result will be affected by this further isolation of the country as sanctions punish honest traders and reward corrupt ones. The Guardians with their assumed 60 harbors at the Persian Gulf control the bulk of imports and sanctions will only bolster the trend of flourishing “black channels”.

One might indeed argue that the not-so-unconscious “collateral damage” of never-ending sanctions is any meaningful transition to more democracy in Iran – a prospect which would set an uncomfortable precedent for the West’s authoritarian friends in the region.

What next: “Surgical strikes” or serious diplomacy?

At the very least, the unending story of sanctions bears testimony to Western leaders’ commitment to uphold “credibility” in the face of adverse conditions as much as to imposing their will on Iran. A futile exercise – even a dangerous one – if one begins to contemplate the aftermath of “smart sanctions” being imposed: Will the next desperate move entail “surgical strikes”?

Instead of going on believing that sanctions will one day develop their desired effects, it is high time to put the brakes. Hence, the only way forward would be to adopt a set of policies that would disarm hardliners of all sides whose business flourishes in the vicious cycle of enmity. It is only by détente that grist to the mills of radicalism can be removed – and a sustainable de-militarization of Iranian politics attained. Revoking existing sanctions on goods for civilian use could work wonders that would shake the very fundaments of confrontational postures.

Despite all frivolous claims, the diplomatic route has not been exhausted. Indeed, we are far from it. Since the core problem remains the “security dilemma” in the region, it would be wise for the West to call upon Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The transatlantic “coercive strategy” vis-à-vis Iran – as it is accurately described in Diplomatic Studies – must be suspended for it undermines prospects for peace and development towards democracy.

SOURCE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2010) “Collateral Damages of Smart Sanctions on Iran“, Informed Comment, guest editorial, 12 March;

▪ republished as “Collateral Damage of Iran Sanctions“, The ColdType Reader, No. 46 (May), pp. 56–57;

▪ republished on Monthly Review Webzine, 12/03;

▪ republished on Europe’s World, 15/03;

▪ republished on Payvand Iran News, 16/03;

▪ republished on e-International Relations (e-IR), 19/04

▪ republished as “How Smart are Sanctions?“, Iranian.com, 15/03;

▪ republished as “Sanctions on Iran: What are the Implications?“, Global Research, Montreal: Centre for Research on Globalization, 16/03;

▪ abridged version published as “Collateral Damages of Smart Sanctions“, Truthout, op-ed, 23/03.

IN CZECH | “Jaké jsou důsledky sankcí na Írán?“, trans. P. Kreuz, Eastbound.cz, 17/03.

* * *

Les dommages collatéraux des « sanctions ciblées » contre l’Iran

En s’obstinant à infliger des « sanctions ciblées» à l’Iran, l’Occident assombrit les perspectives de démocratisation, de développement économique et de résolution des conflits

Le retour saisonnier, sur la scène internationale, des bellicistes a culminé début février avec l’injonction à bombarder l’Iran du « néocon » Daniel Pipes à Barack Obama « afin de sauver sa présidence ». Peu auparavant Tony Blair avait encore glissé, lors de son exposé sur les raisons ayant justifié l’intervention militaire de son pays en Irak, une phrase inquiétante : « nous sommes aujourd’hui face au même problème en Iran ». Ainsi, il a prononcé pas moins de 58 fois le nom « Iran » lors de cette allocution. La commission « Chilcot »  en Grande Bretagne, enquêtant sur les évènements liés à la guerre en Irak, a cyniquement coïncidé avec un important renforcement militaire américain dans la région du golfe Persique. Et pour finir, il a été rapporté que des centaines de bombes anti-bunker avaient été embarquées en Californie à destination de l’île de Diego Garcia dans l’océan Indien, d’où étaient parties les deux dernières attaques aériennes contre l’Irak. Tout cela a exactement coïncidé avec la poursuite de la lutte du mouvement iranien pour les droits civiques et les proclamations des hommes politiques occidentaux qu’ils soutenaient celle-là. Mais quelles preuves existe-t-il de cela ?

Contrairement à la guerre, les sanctions sont très largement présentées comme un remède nécessaire et franchement salubre, permettant de pousser un adversaire politique à changer de cap. Cependant l’évolution du conflit irano-occidental prouve que les sanctions ont pérennisé la crise plutôt que de contribuer à en sortir. En dépit de cela, les gouvernements occidentaux semblent toujours en proie à une véritable fascination pour des sanctions.

L’appel initial à des « sanctions paralysantes » s’est tu dans un premier temps l’été dernier, lorsqu’une impressionnante vague « verte » a déferlé dans les rues de Téhéran, non pas en dernier lieu par crainte de « paralyser » cette dernière. Mais aujourd’hui de telles sanctions sont sur toutes les lèvres. On accole simplement aux mesures punitives désormais envisagées des adjectifs lénifiants tels  qu’« avisées » ou « ciblées». En y regardant de plus près, on s’aperçoit qu’on prend en fait largement ses désirs pour des réalités.

Le gigantesque impact de « sanctions ciblées »

Des « sanctions avisées » seraient, prétend-on, un remède miracle pour décapiter le mal. Dans le cas iranien, le mal est désormais identifié avec le Corps des gardiens de la révolution islamique. À l’origine créés pour défendre le pays contre l’agression irakienne dans les années 80, les Gardiens se sont transformés en un conglomérat expansif socio-politico-économique auxquels on attribue un pouvoir hors pair dans la République islamique actuelle.

On maintient que les « sanctions avisées » devraient affecter de manière ciblée la position des Gardiens au sein de la structure du pouvoir iranien. On néglige cependant la conséquence logique du fait qu’une grande partie de l’économie iranienne est aux mains des Gardiens : ce sont les millions de civils et leurs familles dont le revenu d’existence est lié aux vastes secteurs de l’économie détenus par les Gardiens qui seraient avant tout atteints. On devine alors l’ampleur gigantesque d’une démarche prétendument ponctuelle de telles mesures punitives.

Les prétendues « sanctions paralysantes », qui doivent limiter en  premier lieu les livraisons d’essence à l’Iran, sont actuellement en préparation aux Etats-Unis. Dans l’attente de ces sanctions unilatérales américaines les plus grandes compagnies mondiales d’assurances ont déjà annoncé leur retrait d’Iran. De même, les principaux fournisseurs mondiaux d’essence qui couvraient encore récemment la moitié des importations iraniennes ont cessé leurs livraisons. Ceci fait monter le prix des importations d’essence de l’Iran qui doit importer presque la moitié de sa consommation à cause de ses capacités de raffinerie insuffisantes. Là encore c’est la population qui paie l’addition. Ajoutons qu’une application totale de ces sanctions impliquerait un blocus maritime, ce qui équivaudrait à un acte de guerre.

Paralyser la population civile

Ainsi des personnalités de la société civile iranienne et des économistes le soulignent, c’est la la population civile qui paie le prix des sanctions. L’économie iranienne – de la production industrielle jusqu’aux secteurs bancaire et financier – a déjà été fortement endommagée par trois décennies de sanctions. Aujourd’hui encore les entreprises ont la plus grande peine à maintenir leurs affaires, car elles doivent compter avec des restrictions dans l’approvisionnement en biens indispensables et sont souvent obligées, pour les obtenir, de payer un prix plus élevé. Les faillites et les licenciements sont une conséquence fréquente de ces difficultés et approfondissent la crise économique du pays. En outre, la communauté scientifique souffre de difficultés d’accès aux dernières conquêtes de la recherche international, tandis que le développement technique est également freiné.

Les risques que présentent les sanctions pour la société civile ont été abordé par le chef de l’opposition Mir-Hossein Moussavi : « Les sanctions n’auraient pas d’effet sur le gouvernement, elles causeraient plutôt un mal sérieux à la population […]. Nous refusons toute sanction envers notre nation », a-t-il déclaré très clairement en automne dernier. Son associé Mehdi Karroubi s’est exprimé dans le même sens dans une interview accordée au Corriere della Sera.

Un problème de fond demeure, qui n’attire guère l’attention de tous ceux qui ont succombé à la dangereuse illusion qu’ils pourraient avoir leur mot à dire dans la définition et la mise en œuvre des sanctions contre l’Iran : c’est que celles-ci sont élaborées essentiellement par le lobby pro-israélien aux Etats-Unis – l’American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – et sont la plupart du temps soumises au Congrès pour la forme, pour être ensuite mises en œuvre par le sous-secrétaire d’Etat au terrorisme et au renseignement financier (Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence) Stuart Levey – un homme de confiance de l’AIPAC. Dans ce processus, les retombées potentielles sur le peuple iranien ne jouent pratiquement aucun rôle.

Les sanctions – qu’elles soient « paralysantes » ou « avisées » – nuisent en fin de compte à la population. Des « sanctions avisées » sont ainsi un oxymore comparable  aux « bombes intelligentes » qui sauraient prétendument ne cibler que les objectifs à détruire, au moyen de « frappes chirurgicales ». Et comme pour leurs consœurs  militaires ce sont en définitive les « dommages collatéraux» des « sanctions avisées » qui l’emportent.  Les trouver « avisées » ne peut donc être considérer que comme du pur cynisme.

Une arme politique émoussée dans le monde d’aujourd’hui

En outre, dans un monde mondialisé et de plus en plus multipolaire, les sanctions s’avèrent n’être qu’une arme émoussée, surtout lorsqu’elles visent des pays riches en réserves d’énergie. Les acteurs guidés par leurs seuls intérêts économiques ne manquent pas, trop heureux d’occuper le vide commercial ainsi créé. C’est ainsi que des firmes chinoises, russes et même américaines – agissant via Dubaï – ont largement profité du retrait des concurrents européens sous la pression de Washington.

Devenues une quasi-obsession dans les milieux politiques en Occident, les sanctions ne sont pas un remède efficace menant à la guérison, mais agissent plutôt comme un lent poison administré à la société civile iranienne et à son mouvement démocratique. Prototype de guerre économique, les sanctions conjointement avec les appels réguliers à la guerre constituent un mélange explosif. Les tambours guerriers, qui se font entendre à nouveau, battent à nouveau sur le cœur battant de la société civile iranienne.

Le développement démocratique empoisonné par les sanctions et les menaces de guerre

Contrairement à la doxa politique, les sanctions nuisent en fait à la société civile et consolident la position des faucons. La classe moyenne iranienne est touchée par cet isolement qui n’en finit pas, d’autant plus que les sanctions atteignent les commerçants honnêtes et profitent aux corrompus. Les Gardiens, qui contrôlent vraisemblablement 60 ports dans le golfe Persique, par lesquels passe l’essentiel des importations, peuvent poursuivre leurs affaires, souvent par des « canaux douteux ».

Et c’est pourquoi l’un des « dommages collatéraux » pas tout à fait caché de ces sanctions sans fin est de faire obstacle à une transition démocratique durable en Iran. En fait cette dernière représenterait un risque pour le statu quo régional, et notamment pour la stabilité des autocraties de la région, alliées de l’Occident.

Que faire ? «Frappes chirurgicales» ou une véritable diplomatie ?

L’histoire infinie des sanctions a au moins le mérite d’illustrer les tentatives quasi désespérées des dirigeants politiques occidentaux à imposer leur volonté à l’Iran : On se donne ainsi l’impression de « faire » quand même quelque chose, afin d’avoir au moins l’air « crédibles ». Une entreprise somme toute vouée à l’échec et même dangereuse. Car il est fort à craindre que dans la foulée des « sanctions avisées » l’appel aux « frappes chirurgicales » se fasse finalement rapidement entendre.

Au lieu de s’abandonner à l’espérance illusoire que les sanctions produiront l’effet souhaité dans un avenir pas trop lointain, on devrait y mettre un terme une fois pour toutes. La seule issue consisterait à avoir le courage d’une politique capable de désarmer les faucons de tous bords, dont les affaires prospèrent admirablement dans le cercle vicieux de l’animosité. Ce n’est que par une vraie politique de détente qu’on cessera de manière durable d’apporter de l’eau au moulin des radicalismes – et que l’on contribuera en prime à un renoncement durable à la politique sécuritaire en Iran. Lever les sanctions déjà existantes, qui s’en prennent souvent aux secteurs civils, pourrait faire des miracles et ébranler considérablement les fondements des acteurs qui poussent à la confrontation.

En dépit d’affirmations hâtives, la voie diplomatique est loin d’être épuisée ; bien au contraire. Une politique de détente devrait permettre de renoncer à des mesures punitives et à la menace de guerre, et au lieu de celles-là, par le biais de mesures qui créeraient un climat de confiance réciproque, permettrait une solution équitable des défis sécuritaires qui fragilisent la région. Le problème central se trouve en fait dans le dilemme de la sécurité à l’échelle régionale. L’Occident serait donc bien avisé s’efforcer résolument de contraindre Israël – puissance nucléaire majeure – au régime de non-prolifération. On devrait donc mettre fin à la « diplomatie coercitive » envers l’Iran – comme on la désigne avec pertinence dans les Études diplomatiques – car elle assombrit les perspectives de paix et celles du processus de démocratisation.

SOURCE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2010) “Les dommages collatéraux des « sanctions ciblées » contre l’Iran” [The Collateral Damages of “Targeted Sanctions” against Iran], À l’encontre: Revue politique virtuelle, Switzerland, 11 May;

▪ republished on Mondialisation.ca, Canada, 15/05;

▪ slightly abridged version published as Sanctions contre l’Iran, sanctions contre les Iraniens [Sanctions against Iran, Sanctions against Iranians], Mediapart, France, 14/05.

* * *

Unkluge Kollateralschäden “smarter Sanktionen” gegen Iran

Getrübte Aussichten auf Demokratie, sozio-ökonomischer Entwicklung und Konfliktlösung, wenn der Westen weiterhin auf Strafmaßnahmen setzt

Das saisonale Aufflackern der Kriegstreiber fand ihren Höhepunkt in dem Aufruf des US-Neokonservativen Daniel Pipes an Barack Obama, Iran zu bombardieren, um seine Präsidentschaft zu retten. Kurz zuvor hatte Tony Blair – als er ausführte, wie er dabei half, den Irak zu überfallen – noch ominös bemerkt, dass „wir heute beim Iran vor dem selben Problem stehen“. Und ganze 58 Male führte er den Namen Iran im Munde. Der Chilcot-Untersuchungsausschuss in Großbritannien über die Ereignisse rund um den Irak-Krieg fiel zynischerweise mit einer beachtlichen militärischen Aufrüstung in der Region des Persischen Golfes zusammen. Zuletzt wurde gemeldet, dass hunderte Bunker brechende Bomben von Kalifornien auf die Insel Diego Garcia im Indischen Ozean verschifft wurden, von wo aus die letzten zwei Angriffe auf den Irak geflogen wurden. All dies ereignet sich inmitten der fortgesetzten Anstrengungen der iranischen Bürgerrechtsbewegung und Verlautbarungen westlicher Politiker diese unterstützungswert  zu halten. Doch gibt es Anzeichen für Letzteres?

Im Gegensatz zu Krieg werden Sanktionen weithin als notwendige, nachgerade gesunde Medizin betrachtet, mit der ein Kurswechsel beim politischen Opponenten erwirkt werden kann. Die Geschichte des Konfliktes zwischen dem Westen und Iran bescheinigt jedoch, dass Sanktionen eher die Krise am Leben hielten, als dass sie zu ihrer Beilegung beitrugen. Dessen ungeachtet scheinen westliche Regierungen eine regelrechte Faszination für Sanktionen nicht eingebüßt zu haben.

Der anfängliche Ruf nach “lähmenden Sanktionen” verstummte zunächst, als im letzten Sommer die eindrucksvolle „grüne“ Welle die Straßen Teherans bedeckte, nicht zuletzt aus der Besorgnis heraus, ebenjene zu lähmen. Heute sind Sanktionen wieder in aller Munde, nur schmücken die gutartig klingenden Adjektive „klug“ oder „gezielt“ die nunmehr angestrebten Strafmaßnahmen. Ein genauer Blick jedoch lässt hierbei eine gehörige Portion Wunschdenken zutage treten.

Gigantische Dimension „smarter Sanktionen“

„Smarte Sanktionen“, so wird behauptet, seien ein Zaubermittel, womit das Böse enthauptet würde. Im Falle Irans wird nun das Böse mit den Revolutionsgarden identifiziert. Ursprünglich zur Verteidigung des Landes gegen den irakischen Angriff in den 80er Jahren errichtet, haben sich die Garden zu einem expansiven gesellschaftlichen, politischen und wirtschaftlichen Konglomerat entwickelt, denen eine unvergleichliche Macht in der heutigen Islamischen Republik zugesprochen wird.

„Kluge Sanktionen“ sollen demnach gezielt die Position der Garden innerhalb der iranischen Machtstruktur beschädigen. Vernachlässigt wird jedoch die logische Folgerung aus der Tatsache, dass sich ein Großteil der iranischen Wirtschaft in den Händen der Garden befindet: Die in die Hunderttausende gehenden Zivilisten und ihre Familien, deren Auskommen mit den weitgefächerten Wirtschaftsbranchen der Garden verbunden ist, würden ebenso getroffen. Dies lässt die gigantische Dimension des angeblich punktuellen Vorhabens solcher Strafmaßnahmen erahnen.

So genannte „lähmende Sanktionen“, welche zuvorderst Irans Benzinzufuhr beschneiden sollen, werden in den USA derzeit auf den Weg gebracht. In Erwartung solcher unilateraler US-Sanktionen haben die weltgrößten Versicherungskonzerne ihren bereits Rückzug aus Iran angekündigt. Ebenfalls haben weltweit führende Benzinhändler ihre Lieferungen, die vor Kurzem noch die Hälfte iranischer Einfuhren abdeckten, eingestellt. Dies betrifft in empfindlichem Maße sowohl den Finanz- und Schiffssektor und verteuert die Benzineinfuhren Irans, der fast die Hälfte seines Verbrauchs importieren muss. Auch hierbei ist die Bevölkerung die Leidtragende. Hinzu kommt, dass eine vollständige Implementierung solcher Handelssanktionen eine Meeresblockade notwendig machen würde, was jedoch einem Kriegsakt gleichkäme.

Die Zivilbevölkerung lähmen

Wie Persönlichkeiten aus der iranischen Zivilgesellschaft und auch Ökonomen betonen, wird der Preis von Sanktionen von der breiten Bevölkerung getragen. Irans Wirtschaft – von der Produktion, der Landwirtschaft bis hin zum Banken- und Finanzsektor – wurde bereits durch drei Jahrzehnte Sanktionsgeschichte in Mitleidenschaft gezogen. Noch heute können Unternehmen mit Schwierigkeiten ihre Geschäfte aufrechterhalten, da sie bei der Beschaffung notwendiger Güter mit Einschränkungen zu rechnen haben und nicht selten gezwungen sind, höhere Preise zu zahlen. Des Weiteren leidet auch die wissenschaftliche Community durch den eingeschränkten Zugang zu Forschungserrungenschaften weltweit, während technologische Entwicklungen ausgebremst werden.

Die Risiken, die Sanktionen auch für die Zivilgesellschaft darstellen, hat Oppositionsführer Mir-Hossein Mussavi vergangenen Herbst in einer Erklärung zur Sprache gebracht: „Sanktionen würden nicht gegen die Regierung wirken – eher würden sie nur einem Volk ernsthaft Leid zufügen, das großes Unheil seitens seiner eigenen Staatsmänner davongetragen hat. Wir lehnen jede Art von Sanktionen gegen unsere Nation ab,“ schrieb er unmissverständlich. Ebenso äußerte sich sein Mitstreiter Mehdi Karroubi kürzlich in einem Interview gegenüber Corriere della Serra.

Unterdessen verbleibt ein grundsätzliches Problem, was kaum die notwendige Beachtung findet, vor allem von jenen, die der abenteuerlichen Illusion erliegen sind, die Ausgestaltung und Implementierung von Sanktionen mit bestimmen zu können: Iran-Sanktionen werden hauptsächlich von der American Israeli Public Affairs Committeekonzipiert, dem US-Kongress in den meisten Fällen zum bloßen Durchwinken vorgelegt und schließlich im Finanzministerium vom Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial IntelligenceStuart Levey – ein AIPAC-Vertrauter – implementiert. Im Zuge dieses ganzen Prozesses spielen die für die iranische Zivilgesellschaft potentiell schädlichen Folgen kaum eine Rolle. (AIPAC)

Sanktionen – ob “lähmend” oder “smart” – fügen letzten Endes der Bevölkerung Schaden zu. “Kluge Sanktionen” sind ebenso ein Oxymoron wie “intelligente Bomben”, welche angeblich in gezielter Manier mit „chirurgischen Schlägen“ ausschließlich die üblen Komponenten ausnehmen. Und wie ihre militaristischen Geschwister im Geiste überwiegen schließlich die „Kollateralschäden“ „smarter Sanktionen“. Diese als „klug“ zu empfinden, kann denn nur als purer Zynismus gelten.

Eine stumpfe politische Waffe in der heutigen Welt

Darüber hinaus entpuppen sich Sanktionen in einer globalisierten, zunehmend multipolaren Welt als stumpfe politische Waffe, zumal wenn sie noch auf energiereiche Länder abzielen. Zahlreich sind jene durch Profit gelenkten Akteure, die nur zu froh darüber sind, das von anderen hinterlassene Vakuum zu füllen. Somit haben bislang chinesische, russische, sogar US-amerikanische (via Dubai agierende) Firmen beträchtlich durch den allmählichen, unter Washingtoner Druck erfolgten, Rückzug europäischer Wettbewerber profitiert.

Die in manchen westlichen Politikkreisen nahezu obsessiv betrachteten Sanktionen sind keine Heilung versprechende Medizin, sondern wirken eher wie ein langsames Gift, die der iranischen Zivilgesellschaft und ihrer Demokratiebewegung zugeführt wird. Als Prototyp wirtschaftlicher Kriegsführung stellen Sanktionen gemeinsam mit dem saisonal aufflammenden Ruf nach Krieg eine gefährliche Mischung dar. Die nun wieder vernehmbaren Kriegstrommeln schlagen wieder einmal auf das pulsierende Herz der iranischen Zivilgesellschaft.

Sanktionen und Kriegsdrohungen: Gift für demokratische Entwicklung

Im Gegensatz zu politischen Bekenntnissen schaden Sanktionen der Zivilgesellschaft, während die Stellung der Hardliner zementiert wird. Irans Mittelschicht wird durch diese weitere Isolation des Landes getroffen, zumal Sanktionen ehrliche Händler bestrafen, korrupte wiederum belohnen. Die Garden, denen man die Kontrolle von 60 Häfen am Persischen Golf zurechnet, durch denen sie ein Gros der Importe abwickeln, können weiterhin auf blühende Geschäfte durch oftmals “dunkle Kanäle” setzen.

So ist der nicht ganz versteckte “Kollateralschaden” der nimmer enden wollenden Sanktionen ein nachhaltiger Übergang zu Demokratie in Iran. Letzterer würde für den Status-Quo in der Region samt seiner mit dem Westen befreundeten Autokratien ein herrschaftspolitisches Risiko darstellen.

Was nun? „Chirurgische Schläge“ oder ernsthafte Diplomatie?

Die unendliche Sanktions-Geschichte spiegelt denn auch den nahezu verzweifelten Versuch westlicher Politiker wider, im Angesicht widriger Umstände ihren Willen Iran aufzuzwingen, ihrer eigenen „Glaubwürdigkeit“ wegen doch etwas „zu tun“. Ein alles in allem vergebliches, sogar gefährliches, Unternehmen. Denn nicht zuletzt wird zu befürchten sein, dass im Anschluss an „klugen Sanktionen“, der Ruf nach „chirurgischen Militärschlägen“ nicht lange auf sich warten lässt.

Anstatt der illusorischen Hoffnung weiterhin zu erliegen, dass eines nicht allzu fernen Tages Sanktionen ihre erwünschte Entfaltung ausbreiten, müsste man ein für allemal die Bremse ziehen. Der einzige Ausweg wäre, eine Politik zu beherzigen, die in der Lage wäre, Hardliner aller Seiten zu entwaffnen, deren Geschäft in dem Teufelskreis der Feindseligkeit nur allzu gut gedeiht. Nur durch eine Entspannungspolitik kann man das Wasser auf den Mühlen der Radikalismen nachhaltig abtragen – und überdies zu einer nachhaltigen Entversicherheitlichung iranischer Politik beitragen. Existierende Sanktionen, die oft zivile Güter betreffen, aufzuheben, könnte Wunder bewirken und erheblich die Fundamente konfrontationslustiger Akteure erschüttern.

Trotz unreifer Behauptungen, hat sich der diplomatische Weg nicht erschöpft. Man ist ganz im Gegenteil noch lange davon entfernt. Zumal ein Kernproblem im regionalen Sicherheitsdilemma besteht, wäre es in der Tat wirklich klug, wenn sich der Westen ernsthaft bemühte, die Atommacht Israel an das nukleare Nichtverbreitungsregime zu binden. Die transatlantische “Zwangsdiplomatie” gegenüber Iran – wie man sie in Diplomatischen Studien zutreffend benennt – sollte somit eingestellt werden, da sie Aussichten auf Frieden und eine Entwicklung hin zur Demokratie trübt.

QUELLE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2010) Unkluge Kollateralschäden „smarter Sanktionen“ gegen Iran, Telepolis, 23. März;

▪ erschienen in FriedensJournal, Nr. 3/2010 (Mai), S. 6–7.

▪ auch veröffentlicht auf ZNet Deutschland, 23.03.

▪ auch veröffentlicht auf Global Research, deutsche Site, Montreal: Centre for Research on Globalization, 29.04.

Renowned scholar and descendent of Holocaust survivors prevented by German Israel Lobby to speak about Gaza

Norman Finkelstein, an internationally renowned scholar of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, was due to talk about the state of the decades-old conflict and the situation in Gaza one year after the Israeli assault last week in Munich and Berlin. As part of a European speaking tour which would have led him to Germany for the first time since 2002, Finkelstein has been invited to speak in Prague at a number of prestigious institutions, such as the Institute of International Relations Prague, the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, and the Faculty of Philosophy and Arts at Charles University in Prague.

SOURCE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2010) “Germany’s Fear of Finkelstein”, The Palestine Chronicle, 2 March

▪ republished on Eurasia Review, 02/03

▪ republished on uruknet.info, 02/03

▪ republished on CounterCurrents.org, 03/03

▪ republished on Information Clearing House, 03/03

▪ republished as “Germany’s Finkelstein Phobia” on Pacific Free Press, 04/03

▪ republished as “Silencing Critics of Israel: Germany’s Finkelstein Phobia”, Global Research, Montreal: Centre for Research on Globalization, 04/03

▪ republished on INCnews Global Intelligence, 04/03

▪ republished on Political Theatrics, 04/03

▪ slightly edited version published on Monthly Review Webzine, 01/03 (top story of 1 & 2 Mar.)

▪ republished on the website of Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JFJFP), 10/03.

IN FRENCH | “Finkelstein fiche la trouille à une certaine Allemagne”, trans. M. Charbonnier, Palestine – Solidarité, 04/03

▪ republished as “La phobie Finkelstein en Allemagne“, Mondialisation.ca, Montreal: Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation, 04/03

▪ republished as “L’Allemagne a peur de Finkelstein“, trans. M. Charbonnier, edit. F. Giudice, Tlaxcala, 05/03.

IN ITALIAN | “Zittire i critici di Israele: La fobia della Germania de Norman Finkelstein“, Arianna Editrice, trans. A. Carancini, 07/03

▪ republished on Global Research, Montreal: Centre for Research on Globalization, 08/03.

IN CZECH | “Německé obavy z Finkelsteina a umlčování kritiky Izraele”, Outsider Media, 08/03.

IN JAPANESE | In excerpts.

About the article | “Germany’s Finkelstein Phobia” by Ali Fathollah-Nejad touches on the background of a series of cancellations of projected talks by the renowned scholar on the Israel/Palestine conflict Norman Finkelstein in Germany.

When Promising Ideas Threaten to be Buried in Transatlantic Waters

PRAISE

»Great paper« (Professor Anoush Ehteshami, Durham University, UK)

»Very interesting« (Dr. Elaheh Rostami-Povey, London Middle East Institute)

»Very good« (Ahmed Ijaz Malik, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad)

Last week, on 28 October, a new German government took office. A coalition of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s still ruling conservative Christian Democratic/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) with the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) as junior partner replaced the Grand Coalition of conservatives (CDU/CSU) and social-democrats (SPD). While the new administration is faced with multiple socio-economic crises internally, on the external front the challenges are not less significant.

At a press conference held in Berlin a few days after the election outcome, prospective foreign minister Guido Westerwelle[1] refused to respond in English after a BBC reporter had asked him to do so. When, in quite a non-chalant manner, he added that “This is Germany here”, the field for polemics had been opened. Not only did speculations spark about the FDP leader’s supposedly missing English language proficiency (although one would hardly think that any of his predecessors did better – quite the contrary), the political leanings of a FDP-run Foreign Ministry entered the debate.

Pragmatic answers to Mideast challenges

In an interview[2] to the journal of the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) – perhaps the most influential German foreign policy think-tank[3] –, Westerwelle’s statements were quite astonishing. On the war in Afghanistan, he pledged “to end every German military deployment as quickly as is realistically possible” while nonetheless echoing the highly controversial claim made by former Defense Minister Peter Struck (SPD) that Germany was being defended in the Hindu-Kush. Still he appeared more straightforward than many in the SPD or even the Green Party – who tend to succumb to a paternalistic “liberal interventionism” – when stating that the Afghanistan operation was not based on “altruism”.

On Iran, he recognized the central requirement of improving U.S.–Iranian relations and praised Obama’s “de-escalation” imprint as opposed to George W. Bush’s “policies of containment and escalation”. As a second key element, he pointed to the precarious security architecture both globally and regionally. The nuclear powers would need to cut their arsenals, thus following their obligations enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)[4]. “The more seriously the existing nuclear powers take their obligation to help create a world free of nuclear weapons, the greater credence they will have in the eyes of states like Iran, who [sic!] find the prospect of possessing a nuclear arsenal extremely tempting,” Westerwelle added.

He further pleaded for a regional approach to the manifold Middle East conflicts, modeled on the so-called Helsinki Process, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), in the 1970s. For some years now, conflict researchers and international peace organizations have strongly advocated that a Conference on Security and Cooperation in the Middle East (CSCME)[5] be set as number one of the global political agenda. However, while the latter envisages civil society participation, Westerwelle’s suggestion comprises the involvement of the U.S., Russia and the UN.

Despite the unsatisfying details of his Middle East plan – which by the way underlines Berlin’s commitment to a two-state solution in the Israel/Palestine conflict –, there appears to be an improvement from past orientations. While the former Foreign Ministry headed by the SPD’s Frank-Walter Steinmeier proved to be quite disregardful of such an idea, the acknowledgement by the FDP, which over the last few years has consistently favored such an initiative, is without doubt a development in the right direction as how to handle the much-loaded Mideast crises.

The Coalition Agreement: Westerwelle’s foreign policy ideas enriched with a conservative flavor

The conceptions promoted by Westerwelle have indeed found their way into the Coalition Agreement[6] (pp. 121-122) – though enriched with a clear conservative handwriting. This is displayed when in Berlin’s official attempt to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the agreement states that the new government, along with its partners, would support harsher sanctions against Tehran if necessary. Such a political instrument was hardly favored by the FDP in the past which had been rather critical towards the Grand Coalition’s handling of the Iran dossier and Berlin’s unflinching insistence on the “carrot and stick” approach that after all proved to be a failure[7]. On the contrary, voicing the stark resentment from considerable branches of the industry, the Liberals criticized the government in Bundestag appellations[8] for imposing trade limitations on German companies, which went beyond the sanctions framework as mandated by UN Security Council resolutions.

Yet, in a speech at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) on 22 October, the President of the Federation of German Industries (BDI), Hans-Peter Keitel, pointed to the fact that Washington would not wish to see the sanctions regime bypassed. This indicates that Germany still fears the U.S. Treasury Department’s warnings to be excluded from the vast American market if trade ties with Iran are being maintained. This happens while German entrepreneurs moan about losing the Iranian market while Chinese and American companies, directly and indirectly respectively, get increasingly involved there.

Providing a nice face for “Germany’s defense in the Hindu-Kush”

Nevertheless, the FDP’s fresh conceptions are likely to be counterbalanced by a strong transatlanticist camp within the much stronger Union parties. One of the latter’s exponents is the new Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg (CSU). The Bavarian aristocrat is a member of the DGAP, the Atlantik-Brücke (“Atlantic Bridge”), the Aspen Institute, and spokesman for his party’s Transatlantic Forum – all of which advocate a strict Atlantic orientation of German foreign policy. Being one of the most prominent[9] German politicians, Guttenberg is expected to provide a handsome image for the highly contested war in Afghanistan, which his predecessor, the sallow Franz-Josef Jung (CDU), plainly failed to do. Jens Berger, whose blog Der Spiegelfechter (“shadow boxer”) is amongst the country’s most read[10], writes[11]: „In Washington there is no single neoconservative think-tank in which the name Guttenberg would not prompt a pleasurable click on the tongue”. In the meanwhile, it is expected[12] that the policies around the “Afghanistan problem” will not be set in the liberal Foreign Ministry, but in the conservative Defense Ministry.

Hawks vs. public opinion: Militarization or security?

A definite darling of America’s neo-cons is Eckart von Klaeden, an Atlantik-Brücke executive committee member, who is the Foreign Policy Spokesman for the CDU/CSU Parliamentary Group. Known for his hawkish stances, he can be expected to lobby against any FDP initiatives trespassing the transatlantic framework. Despite a majority[13] of Germans favoring the Bundeswehr’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, Guttenberg[14] and Klaeden[15] have repeatedly favored the military engagement there – which the Obama Administration wants the Germans to even boost further. In December, the Bundestag will decide upon the continuation of its mandate for what euphemistically is often called “peace and stabilization mission”.

By currently providing about 4,500 troops in the no-longer calm northern areas of Afghanistan, Berlin finds itself as third largest troop contributor after Washington and London. It is now being discussed to increase the level of German troops to 7,000. This might reflect the country’s great-power aspirations, as Andreas Buro – one of the founding figures of the German peace movement – accurately notes[16]: “While the NATO states Canada and the Netherlands have announced their troops to be withdrawn already by 2010/2011, the Federal Government still adamantly adheres to the war alliance. Not because of Afghanistan, but because Berlin would like to distinguish itself as an important EU military pillar for the leading NATO power, the US.”

However big the political odds are – be it the CDU/CSU’s transatlantic hawks or America’s call for a rising engagement of her allies – a rational-pragmatic input by the FDP could constructively impact the foreign policy discourse in Europe’s largest country. One can hope that the insight gains in prominence that the only truly responsible way to help Afghanistan to free itself from this mess is to end the NATO war. That the latter provides an indispensable feature for the continued armed conflict in that war-torn country must not remain a historic lesson that only the Left Party and the peace movement have learned. Yet, it remains to be seen how successful the latter two can articulate public opinion and thus force the new government to abstain from a further militarization of Berlin’s foreign policy. Germany’s – and for that matter, any other NATO member’s – security is not defended in the Hindu-Kush, but jeopardized.

[2] “Guido Westerwelle’s Foreign Policy: Germany’s new foreign minister answers IP”, IP Global, 27 Sep. 2009.

[3] See James G. McGann, The Global “Go-To Think Tanks”: The Leading Public Policy Research Organizations In The World, Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 2008, p. 26 (Table No. 2).

[4] For the text of the NPT, see http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm.

[5] “CSCME: Number one on the world political agenda”, IPPNW.de, Initiated by IPPNW (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) e.V. (Registered Association) and IALANA (International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms) Germany, 1 Feb. 2007.

[6] Wachstum. Bildung. Zusammenhalt. Der Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und FDP, 16th Legislative Period, enacted and signed on 26 Oct. 2009.

[7] See Christoph Bertram, Rethinking Iran: From Confrontation to Cooperation, Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies (Chaillot Paper, No. 110, August 2008).

[8] See http://dipbt.bundestag.de/extrakt/ba/WP16/121/12109.html.

[9] See e.g. “Beliebteste Politiker: Guttenberg zieht an Merkel vorbei”, FR-online.de, 24 July 2009.

[10] See http://www.deutscheblogcharts.de/archiv/2009-42.html.

[11] Jens Berger, “Deutschland wird Schwarz(Gelb): Der Koalitionsvertrag steht und die Versprechen des Wahlkampfs sind vergessen”, Telepolis, 24 Oct. 2009.

[12] René Heilig, “Bundeswehr bleibt an der Afghanistan-Front: Verbündete ziehen ab, Deutschland steht zum »Mittelweg« – was will Westerwelle?“, Neues Deutschland (Berlin),   22. Oct. 2009.

[13] See e.g. “stern-Umfrage zu Afghanistan: Deutsche für Abzug – und für Jung”, stern.de, 16 Sep. 2009.

[14] Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, “Afghans Respond Favorably to NATO Efforts in Afghanistan”, Atlantic-Community.org, 7 Jan. 2008.

[15] Eckart von Klaeden, “Afghanistan: Der richtige Einsatz” [Afghanistan Is Not Iraq – Germany Must Stay!], Die Zeit, No. 30/2009.

[16] Andreas Buro, “Abzug jetzt: Friedenspolitik statt Krieg” [Withdrawal Now: Peace Policy Instead of War], junge Welt (Berlin), 8 Oct. 2009, p. 8.

SOURCE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2009) “What Middle East Policy to Expect from the New German Government? When Promising Ideas Threaten to be Buried in Transatlantic Waters“, e-International Relations (e-IR), 4 November;

▪ republished on Global Research, Montreal: Centre for Research on Globalization, 05/11;

▪ republished on Foreign Policy Journal, 08/11;

▪ republished on Iran Review, 08/11;

▪ republished on Payvand Iran News, 16/11;

▪ slightly edited version published on Monthly Review Webzine, 06/11/2009.

Erklärung von 40 engagierten Wissenschaftlern

Die Kinder Adams sind aus einem Stoff gemacht,
als Glieder eines Leibs von der Schöpfung erdacht.

Sobald ein Leid geschieht nur einem dieser Glieder,
dann klingt sein Schmerz sogleich in ihnen allen wider.

Ein Mensch, den nicht die Not der Menschenbrüder rührt,
verdient nicht, dass er noch des Menschen Namen führt.

– Sa’adi (1210 – 1290)

Wenn wir uns gegen die Gewaltandrohung von außen an den Iran (im Atomkonflikt) aussprechen und vor einem Luftangriff warnen, können wir nicht bei der Gewaltanwendung im Iran selbst gegen die eigene Zivilgesellschaft schweigen. Denn die Solidarität mit der Zivilgesellschaft und eine Friedensordnung in der Region begründen das Hauptanliegen unserer Bemühung. Wenn wir die Sanktionen des Auslandes gegen das iranische Volk verurteilen, verurteilen wir umso mehr inländische Sanktionen gegen friedliche Demonstranten, Journalisten, Gewerkschaftler, Professoren, Studenten u.a. Dadurch entzieht sich die Regierung auch die eigene inländische Basis gegen die ausländische Bedrohung.

Wir wollen nicht nur einzeln, sondern auch als eine Gruppe von engagierten Wissenschaftlern unseren entschiedenen Protest gegen die brutale Niederschlagung von Demonstrationen und gegen die massenhaften Verhaftungen kundgeben und zum friedlichen Dialog mit der Zivilgesellschaft ermahnen. Wir fordern die iranische Regierung auf, alle politischen Gefangenen der letzten Wochen, darunter auch alle Professoren, freizulassen und gerade mit diesen als Moderatoren der Zivilgesellschaft ins Gespräch zu kommen. Meinungsfreiheit und Demonstrationsrecht – Grundpfeiler der auch vom Iran unterzeichneten UN-Charta der Menschenrechte – werden heute im Iran massiv verletzt.

Wir erinnern daran, dass der gegen Iran aufgebaute Belagerungszustand und die fortwährende Drohkulisse nun wieder auf fatale Weise vor Augen führen, wie sehr dadurch die Spielräume für eine demokratische Entwicklung beschnitten werden.

Gleichzeitig wenden wir uns gegen die unsachliche und vereinnahmende Darstellung der letzten Geschehnisse im Iran in einigen deutschen und internationalen Medien. Als Unterstützer der iranischen Zivilgesellschaft möchten wir die genuine Natur der Proteste der iranischen Demokratiebewegung betonen. Die Demonstranten, die sich aus allen gesellschaftlichen Schichten zusammenstellen, setzen sich für freie Wahlen und freie Meinungsäußerung ein.

Andererseits erzeugt gewisse Verwunderung, dass gerade diejenigen, die für lähmende Sanktionen und Präventivkrieg gegen den Iran warben, worunter die Zivilgesellschaft zu leiden gehabt hätte, plötzlich von der Solidarität mit dem iranischen Volk sprechen. Sie werden erst dann überzeugend, wenn Sie sich auch gegen die Sanktionen und Gewaltandrohung und für friedlichen Dialog in der Region einsetzen.

UnterzeichnerInnen:

1.       Dr. Behrooz Abdolvand, Freie Universität Berlin & Wissenschaftlicher Beirat von CASMII (Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran)

2.       Prof. Dr. Gilbert Achcar, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London

3.       Dr. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London

4.       Dipl.-Ing. Ahmad Ahgary, Gründungsmitglied des Vereins Iranischer Naturwissenschaftler und Ingenieure (VINI) in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Berlin

5.       Prof. Dr. Mohammad Ala, Persian Gulf Taskforce & Iran Heritage

6.       Tariq Ali, Autor, London

7.       Dr. Katajun Amirpur, Hochschule für Philosophie der Jesuiten in München

8.       Dr. Matin Baraki, Universität Marburg & Wissenschaftlicher Beirat von CASMII

9.       Angelika Beer, ex-MdEP & ehem. Präsidentin der Iran-Delegation des Europäischen Parlaments

10.   Reiner Braun, Juristen gegen Atomwaffen (IALANA) & Wissenschaftlicher Beirat von CASMII

11.   Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Hans-Peter Dürr, Alternativer Nobelpreisträger 1987 & Schirmherr Internationale Münchner Friedenskonferenzen

12.   Prof. Dr. Hamid Dabashi, Columbia University, New York

13.   Prof. Dr. Abbas Edalat, Imperial College London & Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII)

14.   Ali Fathollah-Nejad, Universität Münster & Wissenschaftlicher Beirat von CASMII

15.   Prof. Dr. Sasan Fayazmanesh, California State University, Fresno

16.   Prof. Dr. Ali Gorji, Universität Münster

17.   Prof. Dr. Kai Hafez, Universität Erfurt

18.   Homeira Heidary, Leiterin des “Panorama Hindukusch”-Festivals, Kölner Filmhaus

19.   Foaad Khosmood, University of California, Santa Cruz & CASMII International Steering Committee

20.   Prof. Dr. Mohssen Massarrat, Universität Osnabrück & Wissenschaftlicher Beirat von CASMII

21.   Naz Massoumi, Campaign Iran, London

22.   Prof. Dr. Georg Meggle, Universität Leipzig

23.   Prof. Dr. Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh, Tarbiat-Modares-Universität, Teheran & Urosevic Research Foundation, London

24.   Daniel M. Pourkesali, US-Vorstand der Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII)

25.   Prof. Dr. Ahad Rahmanzadeh, Universität Bonn & Wissenschaftlicher Beirat von CASMII

26.   Sanaz Raji, University of Leeds & London School of Economics and Political Science

27.   Dipl. Päd. Jürgen Rose, Oberstleutnant der Bundeswehr, München

28.   Prof. Dr. Werner Ruf, Universität Kassel & Wissenschaftlicher Beirat von CASMII

29.   Tobias Pflüger, ex-MdEP (Die Linke) & Vorstand der Informationsstelle Militarisierung (IMI) e.V., Tübingen

30.   Prof. Dr. Nader Sadeghi, George Washington University Hospital, Washington D.C.

31.   Prof. Dr. Muhammad Sahimi, University of Southern California, Los Angeles

32.   Dr. Sabine Schiffer, Gründerin und Leiterin des Institut für Medienverantwortung (IMV), Erlangen

33.   Dr. Yvonne Schmidt, Universität Graz & Wissenschaftlicher Beirat von CASMII

34.   Miriam Shabafrouz, German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), Hamburg

35.   Ali Shakeri, Vorstandsmitglied des Center for Citizen Peacebuilding, University of California in Irvine

36.   Siba Shakib, Autorin & Filmemacherin

37.   Prof. Dr. Albert Stahel, Universität Zürich & Wissenschaftlicher Beirat von CASMII

38.   Dr. Rainer Werning, Politikwissenschaftler & Publizist, Frechen

39.   Kaveh Yazdani, Universität Osnabrück

40.   Azadeh Zamirirad, Universität Potsdam

QUELLE

Die Erklärung wurde von den deutschen Tageszeitungen junge Welt (08./09.08.2009, S. 8 ) und Neues Deutschland (06.08.2009, S. 2, in Auszügen) veröffentlicht sowie online auf ZNet Deutschland (07.08.2009), im Magazin des Lebenshauses Schwäbische Alb (09.08.2009) und Das Palästina-Portal (13.08.2009).

Die englische Übersetzung erschien auf Monthly Review Webzine (05.08.2009), ZNet (07.08.2009), Informed Comment (08.08.2009), PULSE (09.08.2009), Payvand Iran News (09/08/2009), Revista Amauta (14.08.2009), Iranian.com (14.08.2009), Campaign Iran (15.08.2009) und wurde als Auszug in The Arabist (08.08.2009) dokumentiert sowie auf den Blog des National Iranian American Council (NIAC), niacINsight (09.08.2009), verlinkt.

Letzte Aktualisierung der UnterzeichnerInnen-Liste: 14. August 2009.

SOURCE

The statement apeared on Monthly Review Webzine (05/08/2009), ZNet (07/08/2009), Informed Comment (08/08/2009), PULSE (09/08/2009), Payvand Iran News (09/08/2009), documented as extract on The Arabist (08/08/2009) and linked at the blog of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), niacINsight (09/08/2009).

The German original statement was published by the German dailies junge Welt (08-09/08/2009, p. 8 ) and Neues Deutschland (06/08/2009, p. 2, in excerpts), and online at ZNet Deutschland (07/08/2009), Das Palästina-Portal (13/08/2009) and the online magazine of the Lebenshaus Schwäbische Alb (09.08.2009).

Last update of the list of signatures: 14 August 2009.

We are a group of Iranian academic and antiwar activists in Europe and the United States who, in the past few years, have consistently defended Iran’s national interests in all areas including its right to develop peaceful nuclear technology. Our varied activities in the face of anti-Iran propaganda by the neoconservatives in the West have included organizing press conferences, taking part in radio and TV debates, creating antiwar websites, publishing bulletins and newsletters, writing opinion pieces and letters to editors, attending national and international antiwar conferences and  petitioning and lobbying western politicians and parliamentarians.

We have campaigned against the policies of the United States and its Western allies which have unjustifiably targeted Iran – including sending Iran’s nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council, issuing UNSC resolutions against Iran, secret and public efforts to provoke strife in Iran and destabilize the country, and threats by the United States and Israel for military intervention and bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

As we approach Iran’s presidential elections, we are duty bound to share the lessons of our antiwar activities and highlight what national policies can defend Iran’s interests effectively in the international arena without isolating it or enduring U.N. sanctions.

In order to safeguard Iran’s national rights successfully, we think Iran’s president elect must give priority to the following policies in his programs and plans:

(1) Questioning the Holocaust, which has greatly aided the hawks in the West, must be discarded and replaced with a constructive foreign policy devoid of any provocative rhetoric.

(2) Releasing all political prisoners, freedom of press, organizations and political parties, as well as peaceful meetings and gatherings. Recognizing the right of all citizens to run for election without any political vetting.

(3) Abolishing medieval punishments, such as stoning and cutting limbs, public executions, and execution of minors.

(4) Recognizing full and unconditional equality in all areas for women and ethnic minorities. Recognizing the full citizenship and civic rights of official and unofficial religious minorities.

Disregarding these tasks will seriously hinder the social and political development of the country, and will divide the Iranian people in their resistance against the unwarranted neo-colonial pressure and double standards of the Western powers. It will also provide powerful propaganda tools to hawks and their allies in mainstream media for isolating Iran and denying its fundamental rights in international organizations.

Taking steps to carry out these measures, on the other hand, will put our country on a fast track to progress, will unite Iranians of all walks of life, and disarm the neoconservatives in their aggressive propaganda against Iran.

Signed

Professor Ervand Abrahamian, City University of New York
Dr Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, School of Oriental and African Studies
Professor Haleh Afshar, University of York
Professor Mohammad Ala, Persian Gulf Task Force
Professor Hamid Dabashi, Columbia University
Professor Abbas Edalat, Imperial College London
Ali Fathollah-Nejad, University of Muenster and School of Oriental and African Studies
Dr Mehri Honarbin, Canterbury Christ Church University
Dr Farhang Jahanpour, University of Oxford
Mohammad Kamaali, Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran
Professor Mahmoud Karimi-Hakkak, Siena College, New York
Professor Fatemeh Keshavarz, Washington University in St Louis
Dr Ziba Mir-Hosseini, School of Oriental and African Studies
Professor Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, Tarbiyat Modarres University
Professor Davood Nabi-Rahni, Pace University in New York
Professor Azam Niroomand-Rad, Georgetown University
Dr Ali Rastbeen, International Institute of Strategic Studies Paris
Dr Elaheh Rostami, School of Oriental and African Studies
Professor Nader Sadeghi, George Washington University Hospital
Shirin Saeidi, University of Cambridge
Professor Muhammad Sahimi, University of Southern California
Leila Zand, Fellowship of Reconciliation

SOURCE

Bayâniyeh-e grouhi az faâliyan-e zedd-e jang dar khârej az keshvar dar bâreh-ye entekhâbât-e riâsat jomhouri, Etemad-e Melli & Andisheh-ye No, 08/06/2009.

Statement by a Group of Iranian Anti-War Activists about Iran’s Presidential Elections, 08/06/2009, also published as Statement of Academics, Tehran Bureau, 08/06 | In Defence of Iran, guardian.co.uk, 10/06 | Monthly Review Webzine, 10/06 | Global Research, 10/06 | ZNet, 15/06.

Tahran’ı ‘temize çıkarmak’ için dört basit yöntem, Radikal, 12/06/2009.

Erklärung einer Gruppe von Antikriegsaktivisten an den künftigen iranischen Präsidenten, ZNet Deutschland, 14/06/2009 | republished as Aufruf einer Gruppe von Antikriegsaktivisten an den künftigen iranischen Präsidenten, Sand im Getriebe (SiG), No. 74 (28/06/2009) | short version published as Fortschritt statt provokativer Rhetorik, junge Welt (Berlin), 13/06, p. 8.