Saturday, March 20, was the beginning of the Persian/Iranian New Year and is celebrated by Iranians and many other people around the world. The American president sent a message on his regard and renewed the offer of an extended hand from United States of America.
This message is very similar to the one sent by Obama exactly a year ago. The effectiveness of such messages coming from the White House might have not been well known. It is now evident that the more the White House extends her hand towards the Islamic Republic of Iran, the more pressure the hardliners in Tehran will face, making it extremely difficult for them to use the so called "great satan" for monopolizing power inside the regime.
Another fortunate event was Obama's hint at the fact that US sanctions should not stop the technology for communication from getting to Iran. This is something the young people really need to bring about any change. For Iranians, this is regarded as Obama's New Year's present for this year.
Iran has been underUS sanctionsfor nearly 30 years dating back to the hostage-taking crisis. Ever since various economic, trade, scientific and military sanctions againstIran were practiced by the US and many other countries.
The purpose of sanctions today is based on mistrust in the nuclear ambitions of Iran, and was intended to put further pressure on the Iranian regime. The sanctions ban various companies to have economic ties with Iran. Therefore, the imposed sanctions have had a lot in shaping today’s economy of Iran. The kind of shaping that has not necessarily made things better for a better future and a better relationship with the region. In fact, many today claim the opposite. If you get a hold of any young Iranian today who has recently left the country, it is unlikely that he doesn’t have a personal story of how hard or how much he tried to have his own business but could not succeed.
We are talking millions and millions of unemployed educated students who are looking for jobs in a country under the embargo. I, for one, tried several times to start businesses with the help of friends throughout my undergraduate and graduate life and have seen many others doing so in the mean time. Here is a small list of the problems we encountered. No foreign investors, no credit card of any kind, no ability to buy or sell any products abroad, no ability to open up international bank accounts. On many occasions communication or even correspondence was out of question. My understanding after living in a country under the embargo for so many years is that you can try to explore creative ideas and various markets but one thing stays the same, the money is always in the hands of the government. So, you end up with two choices, stay and work for the public sector under a compliant non-enthusiastic atmosphere, or leave the country. This is especially true if you do not come from a wealthy family.
The sanctions have frustrated people and limited their option in terms of living to working with or being linked to public sector, namely the government. And as much as I understand it, with limitations, come monopoly. Monopoly in economy, if not political power. It has actually hindered the trend for change rather than favored it.
On the other hand, uplifting certain sanctions, at least in terms of communication can be of great help for bringing about any constructive change. For instance, Reza Zia-Ebrahimi discusses how providing high-speed internet access by satellites can expose different sources of information and disrupt the monopoly of information currently practiced by the state-run media in Iran.
Roger Cohen also touches on the inefficiency of the sanction and how it is actually acting as an obstacle sometimes for democratic movements and the dialogs that are taking place within the country. For instance, it has been many months where the censorship Research Center has been trying to send the software Haystack, which makes it nearly impossible for censors to detect what Internet users are doing, to Iranian users. But thanks to sanctions, they cannot do so.
Uplifting certain sanctions against Iran can signal a more promising future for the US-Iran relations. In the mean time, it can make life easier for many young people who are struggling to bring about change in their country.
The following video is an interview with Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian peace prize laureate, on sanctions against Iran.
A symbolic hunger strike was held was held from 19 Feb to 21 Feb in Atlanta and various North American cities (US and Canada) to show solidarity with Iranian people's struggle for civil rights. The main purpose of this strike was to condemn recent executions in Iran and to emphasize on freedom of all political prisoners and alternativelyabolishment of capital punishment.
The diversity of the people who attended this strike was remarkable. Basically, the people there were from different ethnicities and ideologies. Yet, they were all there doing the hunger strike for a common cause, their love for their land and its people. One of the most remarkable things about the recent civil movement in Iran is its deep belief in non-violent approaches to end violent ones and recognizing every one’s right to express him/herself. My personal take: the recent events had a great psychological impact on many Iranians to be much more accepting towards each others’ beliefs and concerns than before.
The atmosphere there was very friendly. Some from the previous generation were sharing their experiences with the younger ones and talking a lot about the history. “As a result of a long history, there has been so many mixing of the original inhabitants of this land with other ethnicities” said Saeed while drinking hot sweet tea, the only thing he drank for those three days “Iranian pride is not of blood line or lineage but the common history that was shared by everyone. ”
It wasn’t our ethnicity, beliefs, religions, or even our political views that brought us together but our more peaceful interpretation of whatever we saw ourselves a part of. We were all together, wondering what we can do next for our fellow countrymen back home, but ironically it was their peaceful movements that did a lot for us, at least for our hearts. Human rights is not about accepting it but believing in it and it is not always about granting it to those who deserve it. Sometimes it’s about granting it to those who we think do not!
Comparing the two following videos shows just how much people detest violent approaches to bring about change. The first one is a video which was recently leaked out of Iranian intelligent system and it shows the brutality of the soldiers against the university students on campus in Tehran University.
While the second one, is a video which refers to the same time period and shows the attitude of people towards an anti-riot guard that was captured by them. The ending is interesting!
Reportedly 27 Afghan civilians were killed in NATO's airstrike this past Sunday, and Gen. McChrystal apologized for the incident. This is a remarkable attempt to regain Afghan trust, and I think it is commendable. The Afghan civilians need to know that the military sees them as people and not merely as casualties of war or collateral damage.
The video of McChrystal's apology was translated into Dari and Pashto.
If you do not speak either Dari or Pashto here is the English transcript of his apology.
The Great People of Afghanistan, Salam Alaikum. Sunday morning, the International Security Assistance Force, while conducting a mission with Afghan Security Forces, launched an attack against what we believed to be a group of insurgents in Kotal Chawzar, in Southern Afghanistan. We now believe the attack killed and injured a number of Afghan citizens. I have spoken with President Karzai and apologized to him and the Afghan people. I have instituted a thorough investigation to prevent this from happening again. We are extremely saddened by this tragic loss of innocent lives. I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people. I pledge to strengthen our efforts to regain your trust to build a brighter future for all Afghans. Most importantly, I express my deepest, heartfelt condolences to the victims and their families. We all share in their grief and will keep them in our thoughts and prayers.
Joseph Stack flew his airplane into this building and became a domestic suicide bomber
This has been a fascinating week concerning terror and the United States in that everything has been reversed yet no one knows how to feel about this reversal of fortune. This past Thursday Texan Joe Stack flew his airplane into an Austin, TX building that housed a branch of the Internal Revenue Service. Joe Stack was an American who disapproved of our tax codes and now he is an American suicide bomber. At the same time that an American was bombing Americans, the U.S. military along with many allied forces was having their most successful raid on the Taliban. The raids that the military has engaged in over the last week have reportedly captured three top ranking Taliban officials. To finish off the week we have just gotten the news that the Secretary of the Defense Robert Gates wants to change the name of the war in Iraq from operation Iraqi Freedom to operation New Dawn. All three of these events play a very large part in how Americans view their security and safety, and these new developments need to be examined further.
Taraneh Mousavi, one of the victims of the Iranian regime's brutality
More than eight months have passed after the disputed Iranian elections held in the past summer. Yet, despite all the pressure to silence the voices, there are those who are still standing up and calling for justice the only way they can in that country: by protests!
Taraneh Mousavi is one of the many victims of the regimes attempts to intimidate people not to participate in any campaign for reforms. Taraneh was arrested at a protest rally near the Ghoba mosque in Tehran on June 28, 2009. After being tortured and raped, she was then hospitalized for a short while due to rupturing of her womb and anus. About a month later, her family was informed that a burned corpse matching Taraneh’s description was found in a desert outside of Tehran and that they should keep quiet about the incident. Her appearance and family name suggest that she was from a religious family.
Just like Neda, Taraneh also became another symbol for the green movement in Iran. Not just because of the brutality against her, but also because her death showed once more the true face of the dictatorial elements within the Iranian regime that tend to hide behind social and religious values for their own benefits. The kind of elements that, similar to any other dictatorship we know, care for nothing but their own survival, even if it means mercilessly, raping and killing, a Muslim teenage girl for having an opinion different from the authorities. This greed for power has gone to an extent that has lead to denying the very religious and social values the Islamic regime once stood up for.
The history is filled with the story of those who have lost their lives for a greater cause. Those whose shedding of their blood has made them as shining stars shedding light on the lives of many even in the darkest nights of the human history. Though these times are very bitter for many Iranians inside and outside of Iran, but surely, their stars have started shining. It is only a matter of time that this light reaches the hearts and eyes of more and more people to bring about change. A king of change that calls for justice rather than corruption, security rather than fear, peace rather than wars, respect rather than accusations, responsibility rather than ideology, law rather than nepotism, and in one word human dignity. The melody of change has already started playing in Iran, and Taraneh, the Farsi word for Melody, was amongst the first to hear it.
Today is the 22 Bahman according to the Islamic calendar and in Iran this marks the 21st anniversary of the previous Iranian revolution that disposed the Shah and brought about the current regime. Personally, I could not find a better day to protest the illegality and ones displeasure of the current regime than today. The People of Iran appear to have the same opinion. Today the Green Revolution returned to the streets.
In 1979 the U.S. supported Ayatollah Khomeini took control over Iran as the Shah fled the country. He established an Islamic Republic with a government organized like this. This government allowed for the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, to have control over nearly everything including the military, the judicial system, the church, and the media, but allowed for the public to elect a president who according to this government was basically a pawn to the Supreme Leader. In 1989 the Ayatollah Khomeini died, but the governmental structure has remained the same. The current protests and revolution arise around the public’s displeasure with the Ayatollah Khomeini’s successor the Ayatollah Khamenei and the current President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad. Most notably the public is outraged at the corrupt elections of last year that many feel should have resulted in the defeat of Mahmoud Ahmedinajad by his challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi, the new unofficial leader of the Green Revolution. The Iranian people are fighting to get their voice back. They thought the Revolution in 1979 was enough, but it was not thus the revolution continues.
Today is not just great because a group of people are fighting for their freedoms, or because they have continued a fight they thought they had won 30 years previously, but because Iran now is educating the rest of the world about what matters and how hard you need to be willing to fight for it. Living your life as a slave to your government or religious leaders is not a life worth living. Your life as the oppressed may be due to a fear of the oppressor’s retribution or a total feeling of helplessness against the oppressor, but living a full life requires one to transcend these variables. Overcoming a life of fear and helplessness may be hard, and it may be bloody, yet you must acknowledge this difficulty and persevere. The struggle may as hard if not harder than you imagined, but it may be vastly easier too. However, you will never know until you try. The revolutions that swept through Europe in 1989 were essentially bloodless, and I doubt most of those revolutionaries felt it would be as easy as what occurred. Most revolutions do not occur in that fashion, and the facility probably resulted from a fatigued Eastern Europe, which had suffered two World Wars and the oppression of the Stalinist U.S.S.R, and most likely did not feel like fighting anymore.
Additionally, Iran is showing us the absurdity of nuclear weapons. In one country we have a people struggling for freedom, and a government who aims to suppress the public’s rights while also trying to obtain a weapon they will never intend on using. Some may argue that Iran may use a nuclear bomb to obliterate Israel or some other country, but the reality is that the use of that weapon would result in the end of Iran and definitely more destruction than humanity can imagine. The atomic bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki pale in comparison to modern atomic weapons. Modern atomic bombs are at least 500 times as powerful as Little Boy and Fat Man, the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That means one present day bomb equals 500 Hiroshima’s or Nagasaki’s. When you think about that level of destruction you should be able to see why no person would be willing to use that weapon.
Iran is currently a nation of people who are fighting for their freedoms and a government that is intent on obtaining the most destructive weapon on earth. We should celebrate their struggle for freedom. As observers we should appreciate the public’s yearning for a new life and bemoan the government’s obsession with pain and death, yet we should also understand that this is how change occurs. Groups that are diametrically opposed need to clash and changes need to occur, and this is an internal struggle. We all can aspire for the peaceful revolutions on 1989, but if that does not occur we must accept that the freedoms are still work fighting for. Actually, the struggle only increases the importance of these freedoms, and the Iranian people are allowing the whole world to see this reality in addition to societies absurd focus on destruction. The Green Revolution is an education in the importance of living your life.
For a greater understanding of Iran and the Green Revolution I recommend you check out my friend Evan Siegel's blog Iran Rises. This guy knows his stuff.
Earlier this week a Moroccan man was denied French citizenship for forcing his wife to wear a niqab, a full veil that only allows for her eyes to be seen, due to his behavior being ‘incompatible with French values’. (The Guardian has the full story.) French Imigration Minister Eric Besson said,
"It emerged during the inquiry and the interview process that this person forced his wife to wear the full veil, deprived her of freedom of movement with her face exposed and rejected the principles of secularism and equality between men and women,"
This outward and distorted display of Islamic principles not only went against the ideals of France’s secular government, but also its basic principle of equality among the sexes. A man should not be able to so strictly regulate the attire and life of his wife and then be allowed citizenship in a country that opposes these practices. To make matters even worse he justified these actions by citing his religious beliefs. France has had a long tradition of secular values that have existed since the French Revolution, and religious expression in government buildings have long been outlawed. Public schools, courthouses or any government buildings do not display the Ten Commandments, the crucifix, the Star of David, the Koran or any religious imagery. The French Republic is separate from the church and therefore cannot support any religion. By not supporting any religion, the French Republic cannot accept justification for actions based solely on religious beliefs. Actions must be vindicated by reason and logic, and not merely religious dogma. This is a level of governing that many countries have failed to attain; yet all should aspire for.
It seems strange to support an individual not obtaining citizenship due to his religious beliefs, but in this situation it is appropriate. Governments should work towards sustaining and furthering the equality and freedoms of its people, and when an individual acts to diminish this equality and these freedoms he should not be granted the luxury of participating regardless of his justifications. In the end, we should all hope that this man eventually starts to treat his wife as an equal, and allow her to have all the freedoms that a French person enjoys. Until, that day happens he truly is not French, and should not be treated as a Frenchmen.
In a completely unrelated story France was voted the best country to live in for the fifth time in a row by International Living’s annual Quality of Life Index. In evalutating France International Living stated,
"No surprise. Its tiresome bureaucracy and high taxes are outweighed by an unsurpassable quality of life, including the world's best health care."
Two statements could sum up today’s Iraq Inquiry cross-examination of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair: Ignorance is bliss and hindsight is 20/20.
When the former Prime Minister was pressed about the links between terrorism and Saddam Hussein’s supposed WMD’s, and if they posed a threat to the UK he replied with, “Yes, because for the reasons that I have given, if Saddam, freed from sanctions, was able to pursue WMD programs, I was very sure that at some point we were going to be involved in the consequences of that.”
This is good logic except that he in that logic gives an example of how the UK could minimize this threat. Why would you decide to remove sanctions from Saddam Hussein that could allow him to pursue WMD programs?
However, we could review the logic of his decisions for days, but more importantly we should review his competency. When he was asked, "You weren't aware yourself that you were overstating the intelligence?" he replied with, “Correct”. The former Prime Minister of the UK basically stated that he had no idea what he was doing, and therefore since he did not know the difference between up and down he could not have lied. Lying would consist of knowing that down was down, and then telling everyone that it was up. Tony Blair however thought down was up, and told everyone that down was up. That is not a lie, but instead just deadly ignorance and that should be regarded as a nearly equal crime.
Additionally, Mr. Blair also admitted that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein has been overstated, and that the threat did not increase after 9/11. This is a conclusion he has now come to, but is not what he felt while he was Prime Minister. Hindsight is 20/20.
The problem with these excuses is that they basically allow anyone to get away with anything. Ignorance cannot be an excusable reason for committing crimes, and eventual education cannot be an excuse for not having to face punishment. The public should be able to determine what a person should be able to know and that should justify the punishment. The fact that Mr. Blair knows the error of his ways now, once he is in a position of less influence would imply that he should have known more while he was Prime Minister.
Tony Blair’s logic would be the same as driving your car at 110 mph and then protesting that you should not get a ticket because you were unaware of the speed limit since you were driving so fast that you could not see the signs, yet you currently realize that corrections could have been made and therefore will promise not do it again. When nearly all of Britain protests your actions, and you have no explanation that proves the wisdom of your acts, then you have obviously done something wrong. You may have been ignorant and you may know that now, but that should never be an excuse or justification for your actions.
You can read more about the Iraq Inquiry at the Times of London.
Unrepentant, unforgiven, Blair says: 'I'd do it again'
Tony Blair was branded a liar and a murderer after his appearance at the Iraq Inquiry, and this is warranted. Ignorance and poor judgment needs to be punished.
Today former British Prime Minister Tony Blair will face a grueling six-hour cross-examination about the legality of sending British soldiers to fight and die in Iraq. The British want to know when he decided to commit British soldiers to America’s folly. They want to know if the reasons that Tony Blair delivered to the British public to explain his commitment to America’s cause were shrouded in lies. For a country that never supported the war and a Labour Party that publicly expressed its disagreements with the Prime Minister, they both feel they need an explanation for Tony Blair’s acts. The only person that should be able to give that answer is Tony Blair.
I wish Americans had the gumption to hold their public officials accountable to a comparable level to the British. Today, we still have people that will argue on the behalf of the former President and proclaim the benefits and necessity of invading Iraq. People still bemoan the moments when liberals acknowledge that many of our present problems originated with the previous administration. We need to become accustomed to holding people accountable for their actions, especially when those actions may have consisted of illegal acts and lies.
Tony Blair thus far has already acknowledged that he would have committed British soldiers to a war in Iraq regardless of whether Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction or not. Also he has argued that his “assessment” of Saddam Hussein changed after the attacks of 9/11. Before Saddam Hussein was a defiant Middle Eastern leader that needed to be monitored. In the post-9/11 world we could not longer take the risk of simply monitoring him, but instead needed to remove him. That logic would have made sense if Saddam Hussein had any relationship with the attacks on 9/11, but he did not. This logic would be the equivalent of al-Qaeda attacking Canada due to its association with the United States.
Tony Blair will probably have a very rough six-hours, and this is warranted. I will provide an update on the Inquiry once it has been completed.
I've been gone for a week and the issue of the day, or last eight years, is terrorism. How do we stop terrorist and what should we do once we get them? Additionally, once terrorism is viewable on the national stage the next question must be are the people who did not prevent this treat capable or qualified to adequately perform their jobs. During the Bush administration people questioned the competencies of the President and his staff, and now the same is being questioned of President Obama and his staff. These are the questions we ask and the Christmas Day bombing attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has brought them back to the fore.
Lets examine these questions now that the President has voiced his stance on this situation. (Video below)
As the decade draws to a close I am still astonished to realize that to many this is the only decade that they truly remember. This is the decade that they matured in. This has been a decade where even some of the most beautiful and well intended events have an under current of violence. Even the above picture has violence all around it, since the Iranian government actively pursues suppressing her freedoms. What she is doing is now illegal and can prevent her from getting any form of an education in Iran because she would now be a 'star student'.
That is not a place people should want to grow up in.
I have included a series of pictures from the decade below, but to get more I recommend visiting The Big Picture.
The term friendly fire has long been used as a condition where a soldier is accidentally killed by another soldier under the same flag. Instances such as a comrade accidentally being struck by a stray bullet during the heat of battle, or a training exercise that has gone array. That is what we have been accustomed to friendly fire meaning, but the War in Afghanistan has arisen a potential new meaning to this word. What do you call it when soldiers of one country are fighting a war in a foreign land in addition to training said countries troops to fight for themselves, and are then intentionally shot and killed by the troops they are training?
On The Rachel Maddow Show last night she did something amazing and unexpected. She did not take the day of by making her show a year or decade in review special. She actually discussed the news, and this was great. When you consider that the U.S. Senate passed a health care bill on Christmas Eve, an al Qaeda youth attempeted to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day, and Iran increased their protests against their government over the weekend, it would only seem appropriate that we receive news on Monday evening.
Part of her show consisted of giving a great perspective of the complexities of the attempted Christmas bomber, and she did so with the great help of Richard Engel. Watch it below.
On Christmas day, 23 year old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate a bomb on a Northwest Airlines flight carrying 278 passengers and 11 crew members from Amsterdam to Detroit while the plane made its final descent. He hid his bomb of pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN), one of the most powerful high explosives, in the lining of his pants and before he attempted to detonate the bomb he ventured to the lavatory for roughly fifteen minutes to set it up. Upon returning to his window seat, he claimed that he had an upset stomach and then covered himself with a blanket. At that point he attempted to detonate the bomb, but the detonator malfunctioned and instead a fire erupted in his pants seriously burning his legs. Upon seeing the fire, hearing the noise, and smelling the smoke the passengers subdued Mr. Abdulmutallab, and the threat disappeared.
This story should be frightening and infuriating, yet due to the events of the past decade it almost seems like the norm. This should not be a welcomed surprise.
Monday, March 22, 2010 at 12:30AM 
;)
;)
