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.

Der vorliegende Artikel befasst sich mit (1.) der tiefreichenden Verflechtung von Religion und Staat in Iran sowie (2.) der Entstehung einer schiitischen Theokratie sowohl als Ergebnis eines Zusammenstoßes von internen (d.h. politischen, ideologischen, sozialen und ökonomischen) und externen (Imperialismus) Strukturen als auch von kurzfristig zurückliegenden kontingenten historischen Umständen.

[...]

QUELLE

Fathollah-Nejad, Ali & Yazdani, Kaveh (2011) “Das Verhältnis von Religion und Staat in Iran: Von den Safaviden bis heute” [The Relationship between Religion and State in Iran: From the Safavids until Today], Zeitschrift für Religion und Gesellschaft, Köln: Forschungszentrum für Religion und Gesellschaft (forege), Jg. 1, Nr. 2 (Herbst), S. 298–312.

[Die Zeitschrift ist hier zu beziehen.]

REAKTIONEN

Die mit dem Düsseldorfer Friedenspreis 2010 ausgezeichnete FriedensTreiberAgentur (FTA) berichtet in ihrem Newsletter Nr. 270/2011 (03.11.2011) von diesem Artikel.

Der Iran ist kurz davor sich atomar zu bewaffnen, womit er nichts Geringeres als den
Weltfrieden bedroht. Solch einer Version des Konflikts mit Teheran entgegnet der Strategie‐
Experte Christoph Bertram: „Es ist Zeit, uns die Augen zu reiben und uns zu fragen, ob dies eine
stichhaltige (sound) Analyse oder kollektive Konfusion ist“ (S. 9). Seine Schrift, die anstelle von
Konfrontation, Kooperation mit dem Iran fordert, wurde im Mai 2008 auf Deutsch von der
Körber‐Stiftung und anschließend im August auf Englisch von dem Think‐Tank der
Europäischen Union, dem »European Union Institute for Security Studies« (EUISS) in Paris,
herausgegeben. Von Bertrams Nachfolger als Direktor der die Bundesregierung beratenden
»Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP)«, Volker Perthes, erschien dann Mitte August eine
ähnliche Studie, die dieser auf der Grundlage eines Berichtes für die europäisch-nordamerikanisch‐
japanische »Trilateral Commission« verfasst hatte.

Den Rest lesen Sie hier (pdf).

QUELLE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2009) “Wenn das Rationale den Blick für Lösungen frei macht”, WeltTrends – Zeitschrift für internationale Politik, Jg. 17, Nr. 68 (September–Oktober), Online-Extra.

PRAISE

»Good piece« (Parag Khanna)

A sober analysis of Tehran’s intentions suggests the Islamic republic has little to gain from acquiring the bomb

PRAISE

»absolutely fascinating«

Professor Anoushiravan Ehteshami (Dean of the »School of Government and International Affairs«, Durham University, United Kingdom), 11 April 2007

»The study is of great interest«

Professor Michel Chossudovsky (Department of Economics, University of Ottawa, and Director »Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG)«, Montreal, Canada), 5 April 2007

»Impressive«

Professor Emeritus Hans-Jürgen Krysmanski (Institute of Sociology, University of Münster, Germany), 11 October 2007

»Highly interesting«

Professor Albert A. Stahel (Director of the »Institute for Strategic Studies«, Zurich, Switzerland), 13 March 2008

»umfassende und sehr lesenswerte Studie«

Informationsstelle Militarisierung (IMI), Tübingen, 13. April 2007

 

Abstracts in English, German and French

English | The Iran crisis has become a synonym for escalation dangerously tending towards confrontation. Tehran therein is accused by the U.S.-led West of developing nuclear weapons. This in fact is an alerting highlight in the tense history of U.S.-Iranian relations since World War Two, as we clearly hear the war bells ring. What lies behind that present Irano-Western conflict has to be seen in a broader historical and political context: Beginning with the 1953 coup d’état against Iran’s democratically elected Mossadegh government till recent wars in the Iranian periphery, American interventionist foreign policy in the world economy’s most crucial region, the Middle East, proves a great deal of bitter continuity in its push for controlling this part of the world for the sake of global hegemony. The new U.S. preventive war doctrine provides the political legitimacy for such an agenda. The major battlefield of this militaristic agenda of America’s grand strategy seems to be focused on the ‘Greater Middle East.’ Besides having to cope with a considerable security dilemma due to tremendous trembles in her environment, Iran now sees herself targeted as an exclusive member of the ‘Axis of Evil.’ This paper will attempt to clarify the interests at stake for the sole remaining superpower. It will thus argue that the only meaningful way to perceive the present conflict is through considering its politico-strategic background and implications. The Iran crisis is indeed a significant symptom of a unilateral world order on the verge of collapse. To prevent a catastrophic conflagration, an unbiased engagement by the European Union is indispensable in order to decrease the regional security dilemma by ultimately establishing a nuclear-free Near and Middle East zone. Europe should assume responsibility vis-à-vis her neighboring region, for surrendering to New Order fantasies à l’Américaine will heavily harm her own interests.

Français | La crise iranienne est devenue un synonyme pour une escalade dangereusement menant à la confrontation. Téhéran est accusé par l’Occident, mené par les Etats-Unis, de vouloir développer l’arme nucléaire. Ceci est en fait une culmination alarmante des relations américano-iraniennes depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale, comme nous entendons clairement les cloches de guerre sonner. Ce qui est derrière ce présent conflit irano-occidental doit être considéré en prenant en compte le contexte historique et politique : Commençant par le coup d’état de 1953 contre le gouvernement iranien démocratiquement élu de Mossadegh jusqu’aux guerres récentes dans la périphérie iranienne, la politique étrangère interventionniste des Américains dans la région la plus prépondérante pour l’économie mondiale, le Moyen-Orient, atteste une continuité amère dans sa volonté de contrôler cette part du monde. Désormais, la nouvelle doctrine de guerres préventives des Etats-Unis offre la légitimité politique pour un tel agenda visé à sauvegarder son hégémonie mondiale vis-à-vis ses rivaux. Le champ de bataille majeur de cet agenda militariste de la politique mondiale des Etats-Unis semble se concentrer sur le « Grand Moyen-Orient ». Face à un considérable dilemme sécuritaire, l’Iran se voit dorénavant ciblé en tant que membre exclusif de l’« Axe du Mal ». Cette étude veut clarifier les intérêts en jeu pour l’hyper-puissance. Elle veut ainsi argumenter que la seule manière significative de percevoir le conflit présent se fait par la considération des éléments de base au niveau politico-stratégique. Afin de réduire le dilemme sécuritaire régional, un engagement sérieux par l’Union européenne est indispensable qui devrait viser l’établissement d’une Conférence sur la sécurité et la coopération dans un Proche- et Moyen-Orient complètement dépourvu d’armes nucléaires. L’Europe devrait assumer ses responsabilités face à sa région voisine, car en cédant à des fantaisies d’un « New Order » à l’Américaine ses propres intérêts seront terriblement nuis.

Deutsch | Die Iran-Krise ist zum Synonym einer gefahrenvollen Eskalation, die gen Konfrontation tendiert, geworden. Der von den Vereinigten Staaten geführte Westen wirft Teheran vor, die Atomwaffe entwickeln zu wollen. Dies ist in der Tat ein alarmierender Höhepunkt in den iranisch-amerikanischen Beziehungen seit Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs, zumal die Zeichen unverkennbar auf Krieg weisen. Um die Hintergründe dieses Konfliktes zu verstehen, darf ein Blick auf den historischen sowie politischen Kontext nicht außer Acht bleiben: Beginnend mit dem 1953 erfolgten Staatsstreich gegen Irans demokratisch gewählte Mossadegh-Regierung bis hin zu Kriegen neueren Datums in Irans Peripherie, zeugt die interventionistische US-Außenpolitik in der für die Weltwirtschaft ausschlaggebendsten Region, dem Mittleren Osten, von der bitteren Kontinuität diesen Teil der Welt beherrschen zu wollen. Die Präventivkriegs-Doktrin der USA stellt die politische Legitimation solch eines Unternehmens dar, dessen Anspruch es ist ihre weltumspannende Hegemonie aufrechtzuerhalten. Der dafür identifizierte Hauptkampfschauplatz scheint unverkennbar der „Größere Mittlere Osten“ zu sein. Einem existentiellen Sicherheitsdilemma ausgesetzt, sieht sich Iran derweil als exklusives Mitglied der „Achse des Bösen“ im unmittelbaren Schussfeld. Die vorliegende Studie beabsichtigt die auf dem Spiel stehenden Interessen der einzig verbliebenen Supermacht zu verdeutlichen. So argumentiert sie, dass die einzig konstruktive Weise diesen Konflikt zu betrachten eine sein muss, die den politisch-strategischen Implikationen bezüglichen des internationalen Systems Rechnung trägt. Um das regionale Sicherheitsdilemma zu verringern, ist ein ehrliches Engagement der Europäischen Union für eine nuklearfreie Zone unerlässlich. Europa sollte sich gegenüber seiner immens bedeutsamen Nachbarregion seiner Verantwortung stellen. Sich stattdessen amerikanischen Neuordnungsfantasien zu beugen, würde ihr großen Schaden zufügen.

Contents

Introduction

PART 1          ON GEPOLITICS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

1. Geoeconomic Centers: The Stage of Empire

1) The Middle East’s Centrality for the World

2) Iran’s Centrality in the Middle East

2. Geostrategic Hot Spot: The Age of Gulf Wars

1) Oil and Democracy

2) Iran and Great Powers Rivalry

PART 2          THE HEGEMON’S HOLD ON THE MIDDLE EAST

1. 21st Century U.S. Grand Strategy

1) On How to Designate American Supremacy

2) The ‘Cheney Report’ on Energy Policy (May 2001): On Securing Oil

3) The 2002 National Security Strategy: The ‘Preemptive’ Strike Doctrine

4) The ‘Greater Middle East Initiative’: America’s Restructuring Offensive

5) The 2006 National Security Strategy: Putting Iran in Crosshairs

6) A Carefully Prepared Highly Explosive Mixture

2. Iran and America’s Wars

1) Iranian Détente as Response to U.S. Containment and Peripheral Wars

2) Iran’s Security Dilemma: U.S. Militarization of the Middle East

3) Forced Modus Vivendi: ‘Axis of Evil’ as Reward for Cooperation

4) The Neocons in the Corridors of PowerŽ

PART 3          MANUFACTURING A GLOBAL CRISIS: THE IRAN CONFLICT

1. On Iran’s Nuclear Program?

1) The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and Its Erosion

2) Historical Outline of Iran’s Nuclear Program

3) Dilemmas of Double-Standard and Dual-Use                            

2. On How Diplomacy Can Pave the Way for War

1) Negotiations over Iran’s Nuclear Program: Escalating Diplomacy

2) Why the Talks’ Failure was Foreseeable

3) Tackling the Real Issues: How Diplomacy Can Finally Succeed

PART 4          AT THE EDGE OF EMPIRE

1. Who is the International Community? On Global Fissures

1) The West’s Sole Agency Claim

2) Southern Objection

2. The Global Hegemon’s Decisive Battle

1) Stranglehold on its Rivals: America’s ‘Oil Weapon’

2) Feeling the Hegemon’s Squeeze: Asian Great Powers and Iran

3) Consequences of an Iran War

4) Who Would Benefit from an Iran War and Who Not?

5) The War Bells Ring: America and the World at the Crossroads

Concluding Remarks

SOURCE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2007) Iran in the Eye of Storm, 2nd fully revised version, April, 95 pages | 3rd updated version, May, 103 pages, German Power Structure Research, Peace and Conflict Studies, Institute of Sociology, University of Münster (Germany) [over 8,000 downloads until 1 May 2007];

▪ republished by the Institute for Strategic Studies, Zurich, 3rd updated version, 2007;

▪ documented by the Informationsstelle Militarisierung [Information Agency Militarization] (IMI), Tübingen (Germany), 13 April 2007;

▪ reprinted as Report by Nathan Hale Institute for Intelligence and Military Affairs (Boise, ID: Liberty Park, USA™ Foundation).