http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/speakout/Feinstein
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
Post #428 -- Speaking in Tongues
The following piece, by Hamid Dabashi, appeared in the New York Times this week (Opinion Page):
Found in Translation
Though it is common to lament the shortcomings of reading an important work in any language other than the original and of the “impossibility” of translation, I am convinced that works of philosophy (or literature for that matter —are they different ?) in fact gain far more than they lose in translation.
Consider Heidegger. Had it not been for his French translators and commentators, German philosophy of his time would have remained an obscure metaphysical thicket. And it was not until Derrida’s own take on Heidegger found an English readership in the United States and Britain that the whole Heidegger-Derridian undermining of metaphysics began to shake the foundations of the Greek philosophical heritage. One can in fact argue that much of contemporary Continental philosophy originates in German with significant French and Italian glosses before it is globalized in the dominant American English and assumes a whole new global readership and reality. This has nothing to do with the philosophical wherewithal of German, French or English. It is entirely a function of the imperial power and reach of one language as opposed to others.
I. The Mother Tongue
At various points in history, one language or another — Latin, Persian, Arabic — was the lingua franca of philosophical thinking. Now it is English. And for all we know it might again turn around and become Chinese.
In 11th century Iran, the influential philosopher Avicenna wrote most of his work in Arabic. One day his patron prince, who did not read Arabic, asked whether Avicenna would mind writing his works in Persian instead, so that he could understand them. Avicenna obliged and wrote an entire encyclopedia on philosophy for the prince and named it after him, “Danesh-nameh Ala’i.”
Avicenna was of course not the only who had opted to write his philosophical work in Arabic. So did al-Ghazali (circa 1058-1111) and Shihab al-Din Yahya al-Suhrawardi (circa 1155-1208) — who were both perfectly capable of writing in their mother tongue of Persian and had in fact occasionally done so, notably al-Ghazali in his “Kimiya-ye Sa’adat” (a book on moral philosophy) and As-Suhrawardi in his magnificent short allegorical treatises. But in Avicenna’s time, Arabic was so solidly established in its rich and triumphant philosophical vocabulary that no serious philosopher would opt to write his major works in any other language. Persian philosophical prose had to wait for a couple of generations after Avicenna. With the magnificent work of Afdal al-din Kashani (died circa 1214) and that of Avicenna’s follower Khwajah Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Tusi (1201-1274) — particularly “Asas al-Iqtibas” — Persian philosophical prose achieved its zenith.
Today the term “Persian philosophy” is not so easy to separate from
“Islamic philosophy,” much of which is indeed in Arabic. This was the
case even in the 16th century, when Mulla Sadra wrote nearly his entire major opus in Arabic. Although some major philosophers in the 19th and 20th
centuries did write occasionally in Persian, it was not until Allameh
Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938) opted to write his major philosophical works
in Persian that Persian philosophical prose resumed a serious
significance in the larger Muslim context. (Iqbal also wrote major
treaties on Persian philosophy in English.)
It is Amir Hossein Aryanpour’s magnificent Persian translation of Muhammad Iqbal’s “The Development of Metaphysics in Persia” (1908), which he rendered as “Seyr-e Falsafeh dar Iran (“The Course of Philosophy in Iran,” 1968), that stands now in my mind as the paramount example of excellence in Persian philosophical prose and a testimony to how philosophical translation is a key component of our contemporary intellectual history. If there were a world for philosophy, or if philosophy were to be worldly, these two men, philosopher and translator, having graced two adjacent philosophical worlds, would be among its most honored citizens.
II. Two Teachers
It is impossible to exaggerate the enduring debt of gratitude that my generation of Iranians have to Aryanpour (1925-2001), one of the most influential social theorists, literary critics, philosophers and translators of his time and for us a wide and inviting window to the rich and emancipatory world of critical thinking in my homeland. He is today remembered for generations of students he taught at Tehran University and beyond and for a rich array of his path-breaking books he wrote or translated and that enabled and paved the way for us to wider philosophical imagination.
Having been exposed to both scholastic and modern educational systems, and widely and deeply educated in Iran (Tehran University), Lebanon (American University in Beirut), England (Cambridge) and the United States (Princeton), Aryanpour was a cosmopolitan thinker and a pioneering figure who promoted a dialectical (jadali) disposition between the material world and the world of ideas. Today, more than 40 years after I arrived in Tehran from my hometown of Ahvaz in late summer 1970 to attend college, I still feel under my skin the excitement and joy of finding out how much there was to learn from a man whose name was synonymous with critical thinking, theorizing social movements and above all with the discipline of sociology.
Aryanpour was the product of many factors: Reza Shah’s heavy-handed, state-sponsored “modernization”; the brief post-World War II intellectual flowering; travels and higher education in Iran, the Arab world, Europe and the United States; the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s; and finally the C.I.A.-sponsored coup of 1953, after which university campuses in his homeland became the primary site of his intellectual leadership of a whole new generation. He was a pain in the neck of both the Pahlavi monarchy and of the Islamic Republic that succeeded it, making him at times dogmatic in his own positions, but always path-breaking in a mode of dialectical thinking that became the staple of his students, both those who were fortunate enough to have known and worked with him directly and of millions of others (like me) who benefited from his work from a distance.
Aryanpour was sacked from his teaching position at the theology faculty in 1976, retired in 1980, and just before his death on July 30, 2001, one of his last public acts was to sign a letter denouncing censorship in the Islamic republic.
His legendary translation of and expanded critical commentary on
Iqbal’s “Development of Metaphysics in Persia” became the first and
foremost text of my generation’s encounter not only with a learned
history of philosophy in our homeland, but also with a far wider and
more expansive awareness of the world of philosophy. It is impossible to
exaggerate the beautiful, overwhelming, exciting and liberating first
reading of that magnificent text by a wide-eyed provincial boy having
come to the capital of his moral and intellectual imagination.
Born and raised in Punjab, British India (Pakistan today), to a devout Muslim family, educated by both Muslim teachers and at the Scotch Mission College in Sialkot, Iqbal grew up multilingual and polycultural. After an unhappy marriage and subsequent divorce, Iqbal studied philosophy, English, Arabic and Persian literatures at the Government College in Lahore, where he was deeply influenced by Sir Thomas Arnold, who became a conduit for his exposure to European thought, an exposure that ultimately resulted in his traveling to Europe for further studies.
While in England, Allameh Iqbal received a bachelor’s degree from Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1907, around when his first Persian poems began to surface. As he became increasingly attracted to politics, he also managed to write his doctoral dissertation on “The Development of Metaphysics in Persia,” with Friedrich Hommel. Reading “Seyr-e Falsafeh dar Iran,” Aryanpour’s Persian translation of Iqbal’s seminal work, became a rite of passage for my generation of college students attracted to discovering our philosophical heritage.
We grew up and matured into a much wider circle of learning about Islamic philosophy and the place of Iranians in that tradition. There were greener pastures, more learned philosophers who beckoned to our minds and souls. We learned of the majestic writings of Seyyed Jalal Ashtiani, chief among many other philosophical sages of our time, who began to guide our ways into the thicket of Persian and Arabic philosophical thinking. But the decidedly different disposition of Allameh Iqbal in Aryanpour’s translation was summoned precisely in the fact that it had not reached us through conventional scholastic routes and was deeply informed by the worldly disposition of our own defiant time. In this text we were reading a superlative Persian prose from a Pakistani philosopher who had come to fruition in both colonial subcontinent and the postcolonial cosmopolis. There was a palpable worldliness in that philosophical prose that became definitive to my generation.
III. Beyond East and West
When today I read a vacuous phrase like “the Western mind” — or “the Iranian mind,” “the Arab Mind” or “the Muslim Mind,” for that matter — I cringe. I wonder what “the Western mind” can mean when reading the Persian version of a Pakistani philosopher’s English prose composed in Germany on an aspect of Islamic philosophy that was particular to Iran? Look at the itinerary of a philosopher like Allameh Iqbal; think about a vastly learned and deeply caring intellect like Amir Hossein Aryanpour. Where is “the Western mind” in those variegated geographies of learning, and where “the Eastern mind”? What could they possibly mean?
The case of “Seyr-e Falsafeh dar Iran” was prototypical of my generation’s philosophical education — we read left, right and center, then north and south from the Indian subcontinent to Western Europe and North America, Latin America and postcolonial Africa with a voracious worldliness that had no patience for the East or West of any colonial geography. We were philosophically “in the world,” and our world was made philosophical by an imaginative geography that knew neither East nor West.
Works of philosophy — and their readers — gain in translation not just because their authors begin to breathe in a new language but because the text signals a world alien to its initial composition. Above all they gain because these authors and their texts have to face a new audience. Plato and Aristotle have had a life in Arabic and Persian entirely alien to the colonial codification of “Western philosophy” — and the only effective way to make the foreign echoes of that idea familiar is to make the familiar tropes of “Western philosophy” foreign.
Hamid Dabashi is the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University in New York, where he lives with his family. He is the author of numerous books on the social and intellectual history of Iran and Islam, including “The World of Persian Literary Humanism.”
Found in Translation
Though it is common to lament the shortcomings of reading an important work in any language other than the original and of the “impossibility” of translation, I am convinced that works of philosophy (or literature for that matter —are they different ?) in fact gain far more than they lose in translation.
Consider Heidegger. Had it not been for his French translators and commentators, German philosophy of his time would have remained an obscure metaphysical thicket. And it was not until Derrida’s own take on Heidegger found an English readership in the United States and Britain that the whole Heidegger-Derridian undermining of metaphysics began to shake the foundations of the Greek philosophical heritage. One can in fact argue that much of contemporary Continental philosophy originates in German with significant French and Italian glosses before it is globalized in the dominant American English and assumes a whole new global readership and reality. This has nothing to do with the philosophical wherewithal of German, French or English. It is entirely a function of the imperial power and reach of one language as opposed to others.
I. The Mother Tongue
At various points in history, one language or another — Latin, Persian, Arabic — was the lingua franca of philosophical thinking. Now it is English. And for all we know it might again turn around and become Chinese.
In 11th century Iran, the influential philosopher Avicenna wrote most of his work in Arabic. One day his patron prince, who did not read Arabic, asked whether Avicenna would mind writing his works in Persian instead, so that he could understand them. Avicenna obliged and wrote an entire encyclopedia on philosophy for the prince and named it after him, “Danesh-nameh Ala’i.”
Avicenna was of course not the only who had opted to write his philosophical work in Arabic. So did al-Ghazali (circa 1058-1111) and Shihab al-Din Yahya al-Suhrawardi (circa 1155-1208) — who were both perfectly capable of writing in their mother tongue of Persian and had in fact occasionally done so, notably al-Ghazali in his “Kimiya-ye Sa’adat” (a book on moral philosophy) and As-Suhrawardi in his magnificent short allegorical treatises. But in Avicenna’s time, Arabic was so solidly established in its rich and triumphant philosophical vocabulary that no serious philosopher would opt to write his major works in any other language. Persian philosophical prose had to wait for a couple of generations after Avicenna. With the magnificent work of Afdal al-din Kashani (died circa 1214) and that of Avicenna’s follower Khwajah Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Tusi (1201-1274) — particularly “Asas al-Iqtibas” — Persian philosophical prose achieved its zenith.
Archivo Iconografico, S.A./Corbis An
illuminated 15th-century manuscript showing the philosopher-physician
Ibn Sina, also called Avicenna, visiting a pharmacy. Avicenna (981-1037)
lived most of his life in what is now Iran, where he wrote his
million-word medical encyclopedia, al-Qanun, or the Canon.
It is Amir Hossein Aryanpour’s magnificent Persian translation of Muhammad Iqbal’s “The Development of Metaphysics in Persia” (1908), which he rendered as “Seyr-e Falsafeh dar Iran (“The Course of Philosophy in Iran,” 1968), that stands now in my mind as the paramount example of excellence in Persian philosophical prose and a testimony to how philosophical translation is a key component of our contemporary intellectual history. If there were a world for philosophy, or if philosophy were to be worldly, these two men, philosopher and translator, having graced two adjacent philosophical worlds, would be among its most honored citizens.
II. Two Teachers
It is impossible to exaggerate the enduring debt of gratitude that my generation of Iranians have to Aryanpour (1925-2001), one of the most influential social theorists, literary critics, philosophers and translators of his time and for us a wide and inviting window to the rich and emancipatory world of critical thinking in my homeland. He is today remembered for generations of students he taught at Tehran University and beyond and for a rich array of his path-breaking books he wrote or translated and that enabled and paved the way for us to wider philosophical imagination.
Having been exposed to both scholastic and modern educational systems, and widely and deeply educated in Iran (Tehran University), Lebanon (American University in Beirut), England (Cambridge) and the United States (Princeton), Aryanpour was a cosmopolitan thinker and a pioneering figure who promoted a dialectical (jadali) disposition between the material world and the world of ideas. Today, more than 40 years after I arrived in Tehran from my hometown of Ahvaz in late summer 1970 to attend college, I still feel under my skin the excitement and joy of finding out how much there was to learn from a man whose name was synonymous with critical thinking, theorizing social movements and above all with the discipline of sociology.
Aryanpour was the product of many factors: Reza Shah’s heavy-handed, state-sponsored “modernization”; the brief post-World War II intellectual flowering; travels and higher education in Iran, the Arab world, Europe and the United States; the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s; and finally the C.I.A.-sponsored coup of 1953, after which university campuses in his homeland became the primary site of his intellectual leadership of a whole new generation. He was a pain in the neck of both the Pahlavi monarchy and of the Islamic Republic that succeeded it, making him at times dogmatic in his own positions, but always path-breaking in a mode of dialectical thinking that became the staple of his students, both those who were fortunate enough to have known and worked with him directly and of millions of others (like me) who benefited from his work from a distance.
Aryanpour was sacked from his teaching position at the theology faculty in 1976, retired in 1980, and just before his death on July 30, 2001, one of his last public acts was to sign a letter denouncing censorship in the Islamic republic.
Born and raised in Punjab, British India (Pakistan today), to a devout Muslim family, educated by both Muslim teachers and at the Scotch Mission College in Sialkot, Iqbal grew up multilingual and polycultural. After an unhappy marriage and subsequent divorce, Iqbal studied philosophy, English, Arabic and Persian literatures at the Government College in Lahore, where he was deeply influenced by Sir Thomas Arnold, who became a conduit for his exposure to European thought, an exposure that ultimately resulted in his traveling to Europe for further studies.
While in England, Allameh Iqbal received a bachelor’s degree from Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1907, around when his first Persian poems began to surface. As he became increasingly attracted to politics, he also managed to write his doctoral dissertation on “The Development of Metaphysics in Persia,” with Friedrich Hommel. Reading “Seyr-e Falsafeh dar Iran,” Aryanpour’s Persian translation of Iqbal’s seminal work, became a rite of passage for my generation of college students attracted to discovering our philosophical heritage.
We grew up and matured into a much wider circle of learning about Islamic philosophy and the place of Iranians in that tradition. There were greener pastures, more learned philosophers who beckoned to our minds and souls. We learned of the majestic writings of Seyyed Jalal Ashtiani, chief among many other philosophical sages of our time, who began to guide our ways into the thicket of Persian and Arabic philosophical thinking. But the decidedly different disposition of Allameh Iqbal in Aryanpour’s translation was summoned precisely in the fact that it had not reached us through conventional scholastic routes and was deeply informed by the worldly disposition of our own defiant time. In this text we were reading a superlative Persian prose from a Pakistani philosopher who had come to fruition in both colonial subcontinent and the postcolonial cosmopolis. There was a palpable worldliness in that philosophical prose that became definitive to my generation.
III. Beyond East and West
When today I read a vacuous phrase like “the Western mind” — or “the Iranian mind,” “the Arab Mind” or “the Muslim Mind,” for that matter — I cringe. I wonder what “the Western mind” can mean when reading the Persian version of a Pakistani philosopher’s English prose composed in Germany on an aspect of Islamic philosophy that was particular to Iran? Look at the itinerary of a philosopher like Allameh Iqbal; think about a vastly learned and deeply caring intellect like Amir Hossein Aryanpour. Where is “the Western mind” in those variegated geographies of learning, and where “the Eastern mind”? What could they possibly mean?
The case of “Seyr-e Falsafeh dar Iran” was prototypical of my generation’s philosophical education — we read left, right and center, then north and south from the Indian subcontinent to Western Europe and North America, Latin America and postcolonial Africa with a voracious worldliness that had no patience for the East or West of any colonial geography. We were philosophically “in the world,” and our world was made philosophical by an imaginative geography that knew neither East nor West.
Works of philosophy — and their readers — gain in translation not just because their authors begin to breathe in a new language but because the text signals a world alien to its initial composition. Above all they gain because these authors and their texts have to face a new audience. Plato and Aristotle have had a life in Arabic and Persian entirely alien to the colonial codification of “Western philosophy” — and the only effective way to make the foreign echoes of that idea familiar is to make the familiar tropes of “Western philosophy” foreign.
Hamid Dabashi is the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University in New York, where he lives with his family. He is the author of numerous books on the social and intellectual history of Iran and Islam, including “The World of Persian Literary Humanism.”
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Post #427 -- Humanity Asserts Itself
I received this notice from someone at the White House earlier today (links not active):
[*1] See in particular IFSR section 561.203(g) and Note 2 to IFSR section 561.203.
See also Question 314 on the list of Frequently Asked Questions posted on OFAC’s Web site
U.S. Treasury Department
Office of Public Affairs
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 25, 2013
CONTACT: John Sullivan, Treasury Public Affairs (202) 622-2960
TREASURY
EXPANDS LIST OF BASIC MEDICAL SUPPLIES AUTHORIZED FOR EXPORT TO IRAN
AND FURTHER CLARIFIES EXPORT AND FINANCING MECHANISMS AVAILABLE FOR
HUMANITARIAN GOODS
WASHINGTON –
Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury took actions to reinforce
longstanding U.S. Government efforts to ensure that our extensive
economic and financial sanctions on Iran – adopted
to encourage Iran to comply with its international obligations – do not
impede Iran’s humanitarian imports. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) expanded the list of basic medical supplies authorized
for export or reexport to Iran under an existing
general license by adding hundreds of items; OFAC had previously issued
specific licenses authorizing the export or reexport of these items.
OFAC also issued further clarifying guidance on existing broad
authorizations and exceptions applicable to the sale
of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices by
non-U.S. persons to Iran.
“Today’s action to expand
the general license for the export of medical devices to Iran reflects
an important element of our sanctions policy. Even as we continue to
implement and enforce our rigorous sanctions regime
against Iran, we are committed to safeguarding legitimate humanitarian
trade,” said Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
David S. Cohen.
In today’s action, OFAC
expanded the list of basic medical supplies authorized for export or
reexport under an existing general license, originally issued in October
2012, to encompass a broad range of medical supplies
and devices, including electrocardiography machines (EKGs),
electroencephalography machines (EEGs), and dialysis machines, along
with other types of equipment that are used by hospitals, clinics, and
medical facilities in Iran. These items, which were previously
eligible for specific licensing from OFAC, can now be exported without
prior approval from OFAC. Exporters are also still encouraged to apply
for specific licenses for medical devices that may not be included in
today’s expanded list.
Even as the U.S. and
international sanctions have tightened, the Treasury and State
Departments have had extensive discussions with foreign pharmaceutical
and medical supply companies that sell, export, and get paid
for exports to Iran, as well as the foreign financial institutions
involved in those transactions, to ensure that the exemptions from our
sanctions are understood. Medicine and medical supply exporters
reporting barriers to trade have repeatedly pointed to
obstacles placed by the Government of Iran, including the Central Bank
of Iran’s failing to allocate sufficient foreign currency. The Central
Bank of Iran has access to sufficient foreign currency funds outside of
Iran – which are otherwise usable only to
fund bilateral trade – to finance the import of medicines and medical
equipment.
As OFAC has made clear in
its Clarifying Guidance: Humanitarian Assistance and Related Exports to
the Iranian People, issued on February 6, 2013, and in the Iranian
Financial Sanctions Regulations (31 C.F.R. part
561) (IFSR) [*1], foreign financial institutions may process
transactions for the purchase of humanitarian goods including, food,
agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices, using funds in
Central Bank of Iran accounts without being subject to
U.S. sanctions. Today’s Guidance on Sales of Food, Agricultural
Commodities, Medicine, and Medical Devices to Iran is meant to ensure
that all parties to these transactions fully understand the broad
humanitarian allowances embedded in our sanctions laws.
For a link to the expanded List of Basic Medical Supplies authorized for export or reexport to Iran issued today click
here
For a link to OFAC’s Guidance on Sales of Food, Agricultural Commodities, Medicine, and Medical Devices to Iran click
here
For a link to OFAC’s Clarifying Guidance: Humanitarian Assistance and Related Exports to the Iranian People click
here
For a link to OFAC’s Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations click
here
###
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Post #426 - A Critical Moment
Here is a brilliantly-done video promotion, urging sanity and prudence in taking the next step vis-a-vis Iran:
http://www.niacouncil.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Action_seizethemoment
http://www.niacouncil.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Action_seizethemoment
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Post #425 - Voices Matter
Check out this channel for making your wishes known:
http://act.credoaction.com/call/price_dent_letter?source=fbshare-n1&referring_akid=8340.1768011.FziyRt
http://act.credoaction.com/call/price_dent_letter?source=fbshare-n1&referring_akid=8340.1768011.FziyRt
Post #424 - It's All Connected
This letter was written by the principle organization working in the American Jewish community to seek a sustainable peace in the Middle East:
Alexander,
Dylan Williams
J Street Director of Government Affairs
Alexander,
Ahmadinejad is on his way out.
Iran’s belligerent, anti-Semitic president will soon be replaced with
Hassan Rouhani, who ran for and won the Iranian presidency on a
platform of “constructive interaction with the outside world.”
The surprising election results present a new opportunity for
serious diplomacy-- an opportunity a bipartisan group in Congress is
today urging the President not to miss.
Ask
Representative [name of my congressman] to join Representatives Charlie Dent
(R-PA) and David Price (D-NC) in supporting a renewed diplomatic effort
to resolve the nuclear crisis with Iran.
Let’s not be naïve. We don’t know if diplomacy will work.
President-elect Rouhani too has sent mixed signals about Iran’s nuclear
ambitions. And Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei remains in charge.
That's why meaningful sanctions remain in place and President Obama firmly states that “all options are on the table.”
But we’ll never know if diplomacy will work to ensure Iran does not
get a nuclear weapon unless we seriously test Iranian intentions.
Ask
Rep. [name] to stand with those who support a diplomatic resolution
to the Iranian nuclear crisis by signing the Dent-Price letter today.
Thanks,
Dylan Williams
J Street Director of Government Affairs
Read more about J Street at http://jstreet.org/
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Post #423 - Is the Emperor Actually Clothed?
The
following article was published by The Tablet (London) on 6/29/13:
Is
the West wrong on Iran?
By
Jonathan Shaw
We
are all prisoners of our own prejudices – dangerously so in the case of the
Middle East. The popular press portrays Iran as the principal security threat
to the UK, suggesting that its acquisition of nuclear weapons is inevitable,
triggering a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and, at worst, spelling
destruction for Israel. These questionable assumptions have led us to a posture
at odds with the UK’s national interests. At worst, they may lead us into the
very war these interests dictate we should avoid.
I
say this in the light of personal experience. In 2007 I commanded the
British-led division in the Iraqi city of Basra (not far from the border with
Iran) where I faced the challenge of extracting the Coalition (mainly British)
forces from the city. Crucial to success was an attempt to read the future, a
future in which we would have no part. This forced us to look at the powers at
play in the area and to identify their motives and objectives.
I
was living within the Shia population of Basra. As I also had access to
diplomatic telegrams from the British Embassy in Tehran, I had an unusually
informed perspective on Iran and its motives. What I learnt then still seems
relevant to the debate now about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
British
Christian children tend to be brought up in a cultural tradition that is rooted
in the Old Testament and our classical education. The former leaves us with an
instinctive sympathy for Israel and the Jews as victims; the latter makes us
absorb a Greek view of the ancient world which portrays the Persians as “the
enemy”. When considering modern Iran, these twin prejudices reinforce
themselves and make it easy to discount contrary evidence.
Iran
throughout history has been driven by an urge for cultural recognition, and for
respect of its regional status. It is intensely aware of its cultural and
religious isolation. Iran is the only dependably Shia-run state (Lebanon, Syria
and Iraq are highly contested) and Shias are regarded as apostates by Wahhabi
Salafist interpretations of Islam, such as those dominant in Saudi Arabia.
Iran
has suffered Western interference. The UK-inspired US overthrow in 1953 of the
democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh and imposition of the
increasingly tyrannical Shah earned the UK the epithet “Little Satan”. To this
day the UK is deemed guilty by association for the actions of the Great Satan,
the US. Our current support for “democracy” is seen as hollow and hypocritical
by regional observers, especially in Iran.
Iran
is surrounded; to the west by Iraq, historically run by Sunni Arabs, then
latterly by the US, and to the east by Sunni in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Iran’s incentive for securing its borders and creating buffers from aggressors
is clear.
The
West has been cold to Iran’s overtures of support. Having backed the US in its
condemnation of 9/11 and subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, Iran found itself
weeks later castigated as being part of the “axis of evil”. This not only
showed a lack of gratitude for Iranian support to the US, it also discredited
the reformist movements within Iran and their argument that it was possible to
trust the West.
When
I was based in Basra, I found Iranian interference in the city (and Iraq more
generally) to be carefully calibrated, enough to make the Coalition
uncomfortable but always with the desire to sustain majority Shia rule and
economic prosperity. I recognised the huge Iranian investment in Basra’s
prosperity, prompted by comments from Arab friends who had advised that the way
to deal with Iran was to trade with them, and bind them into mutually
advantageous commercial arrangements. Basra represented just such a commercial
arrangement, as evidenced by the fact that no one ever bombed the oil pipelines
in the south, in stark contrast to the US-run areas; not because UK security
was better but because the internal dynamics of the population were different.
By seeing Iran as the enemy, the Coalition missed the cohering effect of Iran
on Iraq, and its limiting effect on intra-Shia violence. Basra has turned out
to be the relatively stable and commercial success we predicted, but it took
the Coalition in Baghdad by surprise.
It
would be no surprise if Iran did harbour ambitions to have nuclear weapons. It
lives (like Israel) with the ever-present fear of an existential threat and any
aspiration it may have to nuclear weapons will be unaffected by President
Hassan Rouhani’s recent election.
That
said, seasoned observers question if Iran is really intent on becoming a
nuclear armed power (and in this context it is worth remembering that the
region is already nuclear armed, with both Israel and Pakistan – the Sunni bomb
– possessing nukes in contravention of the non-proliferation treaty of which
they are not signatories). But even if Iran was intent on creating the Shia
bomb, the doctrine and reality of the ownership of nuclear weapons are that it
is defensive, not aggressive (with the single exception of the two US bombs
dropped on Japan in 1945). Just as Israel has not used its nukes to obliterate
its opponents, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs interlocutors to whom I have
spoken accept that the Iranian Government is highly unlikely to launch a
nuclear attack, recognising that to do so would be to sign their own death
sentence. But “Why should we take the risk?”, they then ask.
And
here is one of the cultural challenges of the region – an Israeli aversion to
risk that is understandable given its history but unsustainable as a guide to
foreign and security policy. Israel’s risk-aversion sits uneasily with the
dominant risk-management tradition of international diplomacy.
A
more interesting question is whether the region would calm down if Iran was
accepted as having no nuclear-weapon ambitions. I suspect that little would
change. Israel would still feel threatened by Iran as the sponsor of opposition
to Israel from Syria and Hezbollah, while the Sunni Gulf states would still
feel threatened by the Shia minorities (or majorities, in the case of Bahrain)
in their midst, which they see as being provoked and encouraged by Iran. From
this perspective, it would not be surprising if both Israel and Saudi Arabia
see the Iranian nuclear issue as a useful tool for keeping the US and the West
engaged on an anti-Iran ticket that goes far beyond the nuclear issue itself.
For them, an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be hugely advantageous,
quite beyond any short-term effect on the nuclear facilities. For to counter
the Iranian threat of retaliation by blocking the Straits of Hormuz, the US
would have to devastate Iranian conventional capability, particularly in the
coastal region. This would have the potential drastically to adjust the
military balance of capability in the region, to the advantage of Israel and
the Gulf states.
One
of the mysteries of the UK’s current posture is its apparent pursuit of
policies that are at odds with its security threat analysis. Throughout my time
in the UK’s defence-planning milieu, the direct threats to the UK came from
extreme Sunni groups; I cannot recall a single Shia threat to the UK mainland.
While
we may sympathise with the domestic threats faced by Israel and the Sunnis, it
is hard to see why they should override our own domestic interests or priority
given to countering Sunni extremism, which receives its ideological and
financial foundation from sources in Saudi Arabia and, increasingly, Qatar. It
is this that makes our current policy in Syria so inexplicable. Not only is it
uncertain that intervention would make things better, but it is clear that the
leading force within the opposition are a group who have openly committed
themselves to the cause of al-Qaeda. It is far from clear to me – and, it would
appear, to many MPs – why we intend to support a group allied to our greatest
threat.
We
need to face facts. Iran’s position in the Middle East resembles Germany’s in
Europe: too large to sit comfortably in the neighbourhood, but not large enough
to demand inevitable dominance. It was only after appalling conflicts in Europe
that we reached the accommodations enshrined in the EU that bound Germany into
stable relationships. If we are to avoid similar bloodletting in the Middle
East, we should recognise that Iran has valid concerns – and not seek to
threaten and marginalise it.
The
liberation of the US from dependence on Gulf oil should give it the courage to
take a detached view of the region and withdraw its unquestioning support for
Israel and Saudi Arabia on this issue. Denied US military muscle to achieve
their aims, they might then be forced to accept Iran as a legitimate state in
the region and to begin the creation of trust, without which the world is
doomed to perpetual conflict.
In
recent elections, the electorates of both Israel and Iran have rejected some of
the more bellicose candidates for office. Perhaps this is a propitious time for
the international community to look afresh at the legitimate aspirations of all
in the region before an unchallenged conviction that Iran is by definition “the
enemy” leads us over the abyss into a war that is certainly not in the
interests of the UK.
[Major
General Jonathan Shaw was Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Global issues)
and served as General Officer Commanding Multi-National Division (South East),
Iraq, 2007.]
Friday, June 28, 2013
Post #422 -- Reaching the End of the Rope
Daniel
Somers was a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was part of Task
Force Lightning, an intelligence unit. In 2004-2005, he was mainly
assigned to a Tactical Human-Intelligence Team (THT) in Baghdad, Iraq,
where he ran more than 400 combat missions as a machine gunner in the
turret of a Humvee, interviewed countless Iraqis ranging from concerned
citizens to community leaders and and government officials, and
interrogated dozens of insurgents and terrorist suspects. In 2006-2007,
Daniel worked with Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) through his
former unit in Mosul where he ran the Northern Iraq Intelligence Center.
His official role was as a senior analyst for the Levant (Lebanon,
Syria, Jordan, Israel, and part of Turkey). Daniel suffered greatly from
PTSD and had been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury and several
other war-related conditions. On June 10, 2013, Daniel wrote the
following letter to his family before taking his life. Daniel was 30
years old. His wife and family have given permission to publish it.
I am sorry that it has come to this.
The
fact is, for as long as I can remember my motivation for getting up
every day has been so that you would not have to bury me. As things have
continued to get worse, it has become clear that this alone is not a
sufficient reason to carry on. The fact is, I am not getting better, I
am not going to get better, and I will most certainly deteriorate
further as time goes on. From a logical standpoint, it is better to
simply end things quickly and let any repercussions from that play out
in the short term than to drag things out into the long term.
You
will perhaps be sad for a time, but over time you will forget and begin
to carry on. Far better that than to inflict my growing misery upon you
for years and decades to come, dragging you down with me. It is because
I love you that I can not do this to you. You will come to see that it
is a far better thing as one day after another passes during which you
do not have to worry about me or even give me a second thought. You will
find that your world is better without me in it.
I
really have been trying to hang on, for more than a decade now. Each
day has been a testament to the extent to which I cared, suffering
unspeakable horror as quietly as possible so that you could feel as
though I was still here for you. In truth, I was nothing more than a
prop, filling space so that my absence would not be noted. In truth, I
have already been absent for a long, long time.
My
body has become nothing but a cage, a source of pain and constant
problems. The illness I have has caused me pain that not even the
strongest medicines could dull, and there is no cure. All day, every day
a screaming agony in every nerve ending in my body. It is nothing short
of torture. My mind is a wasteland, filled with visions of incredible
horror, unceasing depression, and crippling anxiety, even with all of
the medications the doctors dare give. Simple things that everyone else
takes for granted are nearly impossible for me. I can not laugh or cry. I
can barely leave the house. I derive no pleasure from any activity.
Everything simply comes down to passing time until I can sleep again.
Now, to sleep forever seems to be the most merciful thing.
You
must not blame yourself. The simple truth is this: During my first
deployment, I was made to participate in things, the enormity of which
is hard to describe. War crimes, crimes against humanity. Though I did
not participate willingly, and made what I thought was my best effort to
stop these events, there are some things that a person simply can not
come back from. I take some pride in that, actually, as to move on in
life after being part of such a thing would be the mark of a sociopath
in my mind. These things go far beyond what most are even aware of.
To
force me to do these things and then participate in the ensuing coverup
is more than any government has the right to demand. Then, the same
government has turned around and abandoned me. They offer no help, and
actively block the pursuit of gaining outside help via their corrupt
agents at the DEA. Any blame rests with them.
Beyond
that, there are the host of physical illnesses that have struck me down
again and again, for which they also offer no help. There might be some
progress by now if they had not spent nearly twenty years denying the
illness that I and so many others were exposed to. Further complicating
matters is the repeated and severe brain injuries to which I was
subjected, which they also seem to be expending no effort into
understanding. What is known is that each of these should have been
cause enough for immediate medical attention, which was not rendered.
Lastly,
the DEA enters the picture again as they have now managed to create
such a culture of fear in the medical community that doctors are too
scared to even take the necessary steps to control the symptoms. All
under the guise of a completely manufactured “overprescribing epidemic,”
which stands in stark relief to all of the legitimate research, which
shows the opposite to be true. Perhaps, with the right medication at the
right doses, I could have bought a couple of decent years, but even
that is too much to ask from a regime built upon the idea that suffering
is noble and relief is just for the weak.
However,
when the challenges facing a person are already so great that all but
the weakest would give up, these extra factors are enough to push a
person over the edge.
Is
it any wonder then that the latest figures show 22 veterans killing
themselves each day? That is more veterans than children killed at Sandy
Hook, every single day. Where are the huge policy initiatives? Why isn’t the president standing with those families
at the state of the union? Perhaps because we were not killed by a
single lunatic, but rather by his own system of dehumanization, neglect,
and indifference.
It
leaves us to where all we have to look forward to is constant pain,
misery, poverty, and dishonor. I assure you that, when the numbers do
finally drop, it will merely be because those who were pushed the
farthest are all already dead.
And
for what? Bush’s religious lunacy? Cheney’s ever growing fortune and
that of his corporate friends? Is this what we destroy lives for
Since
then, I have tried everything to fill the void. I tried to move into a
position of greater power and influence to try and right some of the
wrongs. I deployed again, where I put a huge emphasis on saving lives.
The fact of the matter, though, is that any new lives saved do not
replace those who were murdered. It is an exercise in futility.
Then,
I pursued replacing destruction with creation. For a time this provided
a distraction, but it could not last. The fact is that any kind of
ordinary life is an insult to those who died at my hand. How can I
possibly go around like everyone else while the widows and orphans I
created continue to struggle? If they could see me sitting here in
suburbia, in my comfortable home working on some music project they
would be outraged, and rightfully so.
I
thought perhaps I could make some headway with this film project, maybe
even directly appealing to those I had wronged and exposing a greater
truth, but that is also now being taken away from me. I fear that, just
as with everything else that requires the involvement of people who can
not understand by virtue of never having been there, it is going to fall
apart as careers get in the way.
The
last thought that has occurred to me is one of some kind of final
mission. It is true that I have found that I am capable of finding some
kind of reprieve by doing things that are worthwhile on the scale of
life and death. While it is a nice thought to consider doing some good
with my skills, experience, and killer instinct, the truth is that it
isn’t realistic. First, there are the logistics of financing and
equipping my own operation, then there is the near certainty of a grisly
death, international incidents, and being branded a terrorist in the
media that would follow. What is really stopping me, though, is that I
simply am too sick to be effective in the field anymore. That, too, has
been taken from me.
Thus,
I am left with basically nothing. Too trapped in a war to be at peace,
too damaged to be at war. Abandoned by those who would take the easy
route, and a liability to those who stick it out—and thus deserve
better. So you see, not only am I better off dead, but the world is
better without me in it
This
is what brought me to my actual final mission. Not suicide, but a mercy
killing. I know how to kill, and I know how to do it so that there is
no pain whatsoever. It was quick, and I did not suffer. And above all,
now I am free. I feel no more pain. I have no more nightmares or
flashbacks or hallucinations. I am no longer constantly depressed or
afraid or worried
I am free.
I
ask that you be happy for me for that. It is perhaps the best break I
could have hoped for. Please accept this and be glad for me.
Daniel Somers
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Post #421 - If only....
This inspired video asks ordinary Iranians what their wish is...(NB: make sure your closed captioning is turned on, unless you understand Persian):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8klYIR9Lm4g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8klYIR9Lm4g
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Post #420 - Renewal and Rebirth
The U.S. President recognizes that with each new year there is the possibility of new life -- even in negotiations about nuclear programs:
http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2013/mar/18/obama-nowruz-new-us-iran-relationship-possible
http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2013/mar/18/obama-nowruz-new-us-iran-relationship-possible
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Post #419 - Getting scary...
Unfortunately, this author usually knows what he's talking about:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34427.htm?utm_source=ICH%3A+Obama+Unleashes+Dogs+of+War+in+Syria&utm_campaign=FIRST&utm_medium=email
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34427.htm?utm_source=ICH%3A+Obama+Unleashes+Dogs+of+War+in+Syria&utm_campaign=FIRST&utm_medium=email
Monday, March 11, 2013
Post #418 - Finding Our Way to Yes
C-Span carried this discussion about Iran and the West and the negotiations between them, which took place on November 26 of last year, in Washington, DC. The event was jointly sponsored by NIAC and the Arms Control Association (it runs 2 hours and ten minutes). Though there have been some further twists and turns since last fall, most of the information and opinions shared are still useful:
www.c-spanvideo.org/program/309597-1
www.c-spanvideo.org/program/309597-1
Post #417 - The Grey Lady Awakes
Congress Gets in the Way
If
there is any hope for a peaceful resolution of the nuclear dispute with
Iran, President Obama needs Congress to support negotiations. But
negotiations and compromise are largely anathema in Washington, with
many lawmakers insisting that any deal with Iran would be unacceptable —
a stance that would make military action by Israel and the United
States far more likely.
Last
week, just as Iran and the major powers made some small progress in
talks and agreed to meet again, two measures were introduced in Congress
that could harm negotiations.
One is a Senate
resolution sponsored by Robert Menendez, the Democratic chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican.
It says that if Israel “is compelled to take military action in
self-defense, the United States government should stand with Israel and
provide diplomatic, military and economic support to the government of
Israel in its defense of its territory, people and existence.” No one
doubts that the United States would defend Israel if it was attacked by
Iran; that commitment has been made repeatedly by President Obama and
his predecessors. The nonbinding resolution, promoted by the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbying group, would not authorize
any specific action, but it would increase political pressure on Mr.
Obama by putting Congress on record as backing a military operation
initiated by Israel at a time of Israel’s choosing. It could also hamper
negotiations by playing into Iranian fears that America’s true
intention is to promote regime change.
The second measure, a bipartisan bill, would pile
on tougher sanctions just as the two sides are trying to create trust
after decades of hostility. The bill would further restrict business
dealings with Iran, widen the list of blacklisted Iranian companies and
individuals, and potentially block Iran’s access to foreign bank assets
held in euros. It could unravel the international coalition against Iran
by penalizing countries — like Turkey, India, South Korea and China —
that have not done enough to enforce sanctions.
Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel told the annual Aipac conference
this week that there must be a “credible military threat” against Iran.
Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. also assured the group that Mr. Obama
would use force if needed.
The
best way to avert military conflict is by negotiating a credible,
verifiable agreement. It is a very long shot. But Congress needs to give
the talks time to play out and not make diplomatic efforts even harder.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Post #416 - Voyage of the Argonauts
From our friends at NIAC, whose advocacy conference I will be attending on Saturday next:
http://www.niacouncil.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9025&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=-1
And a related posting on the same subject:
http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/all/John%20Limbert
http://www.niacouncil.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9025&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=-1
And a related posting on the same subject:
http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/all/John%20Limbert
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Post #415 - Behind the Hoopla
The following piece was published by Global Research following the Academy Award announcements. It was written by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, a scholar, writer and researcher focusing on foreign policy, who has been active in the Campaign against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII).
Sepahpour-Ulrich emphasizes the ways in which Hollywood has supported various administrations and the imperialist cause generally. This fails to note the many memorable Oscar evening manifestations of counter-culture or progressive sentiments among actors and other members of the cinema community. One thinks of Marlon Brando espousing the cause of Native Americans, and, most notably,Vanessa Redgrave standing up to "Zionist hoodlums."
Nor does it acknowledge this year's Oscar nomination for "Five Broken Cameras," a sympathetic documentary about a Palestinian, which was done by an Israeli/ Palestinian film-making duo.
It should be noted, too, that many Americans who are most sympathetic to Iran (returned Peace Corps volunteers, for example) have found the film she is discussing to be not far off the mark, in terms of its presentation of the milieu of post-Revolutionary Tehran, nor particularly unfair to the Iranians portrayed in the movie.
There are other criticisms that can be made. For example, while it may be true that Hannukah was not portrayed on the big screen until the '50's, it is likely that the same could be said for Orthodox Easter, Cinco de Mayo and a Hindu puja.
Nevertheless, this piece offers an alternate view of the red carpet and the glittering stage -- which deserves a hearing primarily because the sanctions regime is having an impact on real, flesh-and-blood human beings who had no part in the taking of hostages in 1979, and who would sooner see movies together than throw bombs in our direction. Historical dramas are no substitute for solid public education about foreign policy, even if done well. A documentary about why we are doing what we are doing in 2013 vis-a-vis Iran would be a welcome addition to the many wonderful offerings of Hollywood.
Foreign policy observers have long known that Hollywood
reflects and promotes U.S. policies (in turn, is determined by Israel
and its supporters). This fact was made public when Michelle Obama
announced an Oscar win for “Argo” – a highly propagandist, anti-Iran
film. Amidst the glitter and excitement, Hollywood and White House
reveal their pact and send out their message in time for the upcoming
talks surrounding Iran’s nuclear program due to be held tomorrow -
February 26th.
Hollywood has a long history of promoting US policies. In 1917, when the United States entered World War I, President Woodrow Wilson’s Committee on Public Information (CPI) enlisted the aid of America ’s film industry to make training films and features supporting the ‘cause’. George Creel, Chairman of the CPI believed that the movies had a role in “carrying the gospel of Americanism to every corner of the globe.”
The pact grew stronger during World War II, when, as historian Thomas Doherty writes, “[T]he liaison between Hollywood and Washington was a distinctly American and democratic arrangement, a mesh of public policy and private initiative, state need and business enterprise.” Hollywood ’s contribution was to provide propaganda. After the war, Washington reciprocated by using subsidies, special provisions in the Marshall Plan, and general clout to pry open resistant European film markets[i].
Hollywood has often borrowed its story ideas from the U.S. foreign policy agenda, at times reinforcing them. One of the film industry’s blockbuster film loans in the last two decades has been modern international terrorism. Hollywood rarely touched the topic of terrorism in the late 1960s and 1970s when the phenomenon was not high on the U.S. foreign policy agenda, in news headlines or in the American public consciousness. In the 1980s, in the footsteps of the Reagan administration’s policies, the commercial film industry brought ‘terrorist’ villains to the big screen (following the US Embassy takeover in Tehran – topic of “Argo”) making terrorism a blockbuster film product in the 1990s.
Today, whether Hollywood follows US policy or whether it sets it, is up for discussion. But it is abundantly clear that Hollywood is dominated by Israelis and their supporters who previously concealed their identity. According to a 2012 Haaretz article
In sharp contrast to its past, Hollywood “celebrated” Israel ’s 60th “birthday” [occupation] with a Gala called “From Vision to Reality”. Israeli TV blog wrote of the Gala: ‘Don’t Worry Israel, Hollywood is behind you’. Actor Jon Voight said: “World playing a dangerous game by going against Israel”. Israeli businessman and Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan, was a longtime weapons dealer and Israeli intelligence agent who purchased equipment for Israel’s nuclear program (the book, “Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon Arnon Milchan,” written by Meir Doron and Joseph Gelman, recounts Milchan’s life story, his friendships with Israeli prime ministers, U.S. presidents and Hollywood stars).
It is important to understand Hollywood not only in the context of a multi-billion dollar industry, but the propaganda aspect of it and as one of the most powerful and universal methods of spreading ideas through visual propaganda. “Propaganda is defined as a certain type of messaging that serves a particular purpose of spreading or implanting a particular culture, philosophy, point of view or even a particular slogan”. With this capability, Hollywood owns the world of ideas on a scale too large and too dangerous to ignore – see this excellent example by Gilad Atzmon – Hollywood and the Past.
Atzmon writes:
As it stands, the purpose of the movie and its backers was to push the extraordinary revelations to the background while sending a visual message to the unsuspecting audience – to lay the blame of the potential (and likely) failure of the upcoming negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program on the Iranians — the gun-wielding, bearded Iranians of “Argo” who deserve America’s collective punishment and the crippling, deathly sanctions.
Sepahpour-Ulrich emphasizes the ways in which Hollywood has supported various administrations and the imperialist cause generally. This fails to note the many memorable Oscar evening manifestations of counter-culture or progressive sentiments among actors and other members of the cinema community. One thinks of Marlon Brando espousing the cause of Native Americans, and, most notably,Vanessa Redgrave standing up to "Zionist hoodlums."
Nor does it acknowledge this year's Oscar nomination for "Five Broken Cameras," a sympathetic documentary about a Palestinian, which was done by an Israeli/ Palestinian film-making duo.
It should be noted, too, that many Americans who are most sympathetic to Iran (returned Peace Corps volunteers, for example) have found the film she is discussing to be not far off the mark, in terms of its presentation of the milieu of post-Revolutionary Tehran, nor particularly unfair to the Iranians portrayed in the movie.
There are other criticisms that can be made. For example, while it may be true that Hannukah was not portrayed on the big screen until the '50's, it is likely that the same could be said for Orthodox Easter, Cinco de Mayo and a Hindu puja.
Nevertheless, this piece offers an alternate view of the red carpet and the glittering stage -- which deserves a hearing primarily because the sanctions regime is having an impact on real, flesh-and-blood human beings who had no part in the taking of hostages in 1979, and who would sooner see movies together than throw bombs in our direction. Historical dramas are no substitute for solid public education about foreign policy, even if done well. A documentary about why we are doing what we are doing in 2013 vis-a-vis Iran would be a welcome addition to the many wonderful offerings of Hollywood.
Oscar to Hollywood’s “Argo”: And the Winners are … the Pentagon and the Israel Lobby
Hollywood has a long history of promoting US policies. In 1917, when the United States entered World War I, President Woodrow Wilson’s Committee on Public Information (CPI) enlisted the aid of America ’s film industry to make training films and features supporting the ‘cause’. George Creel, Chairman of the CPI believed that the movies had a role in “carrying the gospel of Americanism to every corner of the globe.”
The pact grew stronger during World War II, when, as historian Thomas Doherty writes, “[T]he liaison between Hollywood and Washington was a distinctly American and democratic arrangement, a mesh of public policy and private initiative, state need and business enterprise.” Hollywood ’s contribution was to provide propaganda. After the war, Washington reciprocated by using subsidies, special provisions in the Marshall Plan, and general clout to pry open resistant European film markets[i].
Hollywood has often borrowed its story ideas from the U.S. foreign policy agenda, at times reinforcing them. One of the film industry’s blockbuster film loans in the last two decades has been modern international terrorism. Hollywood rarely touched the topic of terrorism in the late 1960s and 1970s when the phenomenon was not high on the U.S. foreign policy agenda, in news headlines or in the American public consciousness. In the 1980s, in the footsteps of the Reagan administration’s policies, the commercial film industry brought ‘terrorist’ villains to the big screen (following the US Embassy takeover in Tehran – topic of “Argo”) making terrorism a blockbuster film product in the 1990s.
Today, whether Hollywood follows US policy or whether it sets it, is up for discussion. But it is abundantly clear that Hollywood is dominated by Israelis and their supporters who previously concealed their identity. According to a 2012 Haaretz article
“from the 1930s until the mid-1950s, Hanukkah never appeared on screen. This was because the Jewish studio heads preferred to hide their ethnic and religious heritage in attempting to widen the appeal of their products. Jews were thus typically portrayed as participants in an American civil religion, whose members may attend the synagogue of their choice, but are not otherwise marked by great differences of appearance, speech, custom, or behaviour from the vast majority of American”.This is no longer the case.
In sharp contrast to its past, Hollywood “celebrated” Israel ’s 60th “birthday” [occupation] with a Gala called “From Vision to Reality”. Israeli TV blog wrote of the Gala: ‘Don’t Worry Israel, Hollywood is behind you’. Actor Jon Voight said: “World playing a dangerous game by going against Israel”. Israeli businessman and Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan, was a longtime weapons dealer and Israeli intelligence agent who purchased equipment for Israel’s nuclear program (the book, “Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon Arnon Milchan,” written by Meir Doron and Joseph Gelman, recounts Milchan’s life story, his friendships with Israeli prime ministers, U.S. presidents and Hollywood stars).
It is important to understand Hollywood not only in the context of a multi-billion dollar industry, but the propaganda aspect of it and as one of the most powerful and universal methods of spreading ideas through visual propaganda. “Propaganda is defined as a certain type of messaging that serves a particular purpose of spreading or implanting a particular culture, philosophy, point of view or even a particular slogan”. With this capability, Hollywood owns the world of ideas on a scale too large and too dangerous to ignore – see this excellent example by Gilad Atzmon – Hollywood and the Past.
Atzmon writes:
“History is commonly regarded as an attempt to produce a structured account of the past. It proclaims to tell us what really happened, but in most cases it fails to do that. Instead it is set to conceal our shame, to hide those various elements, events, incidents and occurrences in our past which we cannot cope with. History, therefore, can be regarded as a system of concealment. Accordingly, the role of the true historian is similar to that of the psychoanalyst: both aim to unveil the repressed. For the psychoanalyst, it is the unconscious mind. For the historian, it is our collective shame.”As Hollywood and the White House eagerly embrace “Argo” and its propagandist message, they shamelessly and deliberately conceals a crucial aspect of this “historical” event. The glitter buries the all too important fact that the Iranian students who took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran , proceeded to reveal Israel ’s dark secret to the world. Documents classified as “SECRET” revealed LAKAM’s activities. Initiated in 1960, LAKAM was an Israeli network assigned to economic espionage in the U.S. assigned to “the collection of scientific intelligence in the U.S. for Israel ’s defense industry”[ii].
As it stands, the purpose of the movie and its backers was to push the extraordinary revelations to the background while sending a visual message to the unsuspecting audience – to lay the blame of the potential (and likely) failure of the upcoming negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program on the Iranians — the gun-wielding, bearded Iranians of “Argo” who deserve America’s collective punishment and the crippling, deathly sanctions.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Post #414 - Novel Idea: Listen to Those Who Know What They're Talking about
No comment required:
Former Hostages Call for Diplomacy to Prevent War & Nuclear Armed Iran
Washington DC – February 15, 2013– News Release - While Ben Affleck’s Oscar-nominated film Argo has refocused attention on the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, two former hostages argue that the lessons of the crisis are very relevant to modern U.S. policy toward Iran. As the U.S. restarts talks with Iran on February 26, former U.S. hostages Amb. Bruce Laingen and Amb. John Limbert are calling for sustained and comprehensive diplomacy to prevent war and an Iranian nuclear weapon.
WHO: Ambassador Bruce Laingen– Amb. Laingen (ret.) was the Chargé d’Affaires, the senior U.S. diplomat in Tehran, when he and 51 other diplomats were taken hostage by the Iranians for 444 days. After his return, Amb. Laingen served as the vice president of the National Defense University. Amb. Laingen served in the U.S. Navy during World War II and in the Foreign Service from 1949-1987. He is an ex-officio officer on the Board of the American Academy of Diplomacy and chronicled the Iran hostage crisis in his memoir: Yellow Ribbon: The Secret Journal of Bruce Laingen. He is the recipient of the Department of State’s Award for Valor, Department of Defense’s Distinguished Public Service Media, the Presidential Meritorious Award and the Foreign Service Cup.
Ambassador John Limbert – Amb. Limbert (ret.) served as the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran during the first Obama Administration and is the author of Negotiating with Iran: Wrestling the Ghosts of History and Iran: At War with History. Amb. Limbert served as political officer to Tehran and was also taken hostage during the 1979 crisis. His Foreign Service career also included duties in Algeria, Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates and as Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. He is a professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and an advisory council board member of the National Iranian American Council. Amb. Limbert holds the Distinguished Service Award, the Department of State’s highest award, and is fluent in Persian.
WHAT: Press Conference
WHEN: February 25, 2013 at 11 AM
WHERE: Cannon House Office Building Rm. 441, Capitol Hill
WHY: As the world prepares for intensive talks between the P5+1 and Iran in Kazakhstan on February 26th and the Oscar-nominated Argo puts the Iran hostage crisis back in the spotlight, two former hostages will discuss the necessity for sustained diplomacy based on a ‘quid pro quo’ approach to resolve the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program and end the vicious cycle of U.S.-Iranian confrontation that has continued since their release from captivity 32 years ago.
RSVPs optional for press and congressional staff, required for members of the public: Kathy@fcnl.org
The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation is a Washington-based non-profit think tank working to reduce the number of nuclear weapons stockpiled across the globe, increase international nonproliferation programs targeted at preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism, redirect U.S. military spending to address 21st century security threats and halt the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons. www.armscontrolcenter.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)