Out of sight, Iran remains on the brink

sarah

Double standards or what.

Israel is blameless, except to those who fabricate blame because of their anti semitism or desire to see Europe extinguished in a sea of mosques.

Israel defends the West. Melanie gets this. We start by pressing Palestinians in the same way that Europe must learn from us how to resist the onslaught of Islam.

GeoffM

The problem for western leaders is that they cannot bring themselves to challenge muslim theocracies.

If they do that they run into Saudi, Pakistan, Egypt and all the others who we have tried to suck up to.

In the same way that they gave away Kosovo to the Albanians and turned a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing and cultural vandalism that still continues today. And don't forget about the occupation of Northern Cyprus - ignored in order to suck up to the Turks.

It will all end badly unless the West decides to stand up for its principles of freedom, equality, democracy, secular society and Enlightenment values.

And for Europeans themselves of course.

Unfortuantely the Left see's the Muslim vote as essential to remain in power - even though indiginous Europeans have now largely abandoned the Left and many seek refuge in parties like the BNP who are unafraid of "telling it how it is".

The next 10 years will be most interesting.

Tommy

quote...Iran would cease to be a mortal threat to the world. It if didn’t, the world would be no worse off....Unquote

This would be my logic also, but logic is something the western world seems to have lost

Dave

If Israel is defending my interests as a Westerner than could I object to some of the tactics used without being labelled an anti-semite?

Larry in Israel

You have Obama in the White House clammering for the Jews to stop having babies in the West Bank, that will make Hamas and Hezbollah go away. So what to expect from the White House, and their like-mindless cousins in Europe and the UK re the turmoil in Iran - events in Iran have nothing to do with the Jews so what do they care?

Vision Aforethought

I have mentioned this before on this blog, but what M and most of those posting here do not seem to realise (or they do, but it rarely gets mentioned) is that the people and nations remaining silent with regards to the events in Iran (and similar goings on elsewhere) empathize with the values behind these nations. In particular with the collapse of the banks and the general mess we're in. In the UK city I live in, I hear very few people express opposition to Iran possessing nuclear weapons - in fact, they state that Iran has as much right to as any other nation. M has (correctly) mentioned in the past that Islam is filling the moral vacuum within the UK - well, likewise, the mess capitalism is currently in has given credence (even if not justified) to empathy with nations that are based on different values. (Family, strict hierarchy within family and organisations, capital punishment, a closer bond with nature, less artificial ingredients in their diet - something often mentioned by Palestinians who shudder at the processed Western diet etc.)

While I'm personally keen on a nice balance, I have often thought that if the West does fall apart before sorting itself out that the Taliban and similar nature and battle hardened cultures may well survive decades, if not just centuries into the future. In addition, I think a few here in the West see this as a real possibility. IE, Iran may well outlive the West as a civilisation - under Islamic rule. I once saw a map of history on the wall of a house in California. It was fascinating to see how old Iraq's civilisation was compared to the fragile Western nations. In fact, I believe it was one of the oldest in history.

Anyway, I'm on a ramble, so I better stop while I'm ahead/behind/confused. (It's hot here!)

In the Wilderness in America

Melanie,

Terrific article.

We in America and the West are not serious about stopping Iran and assisting the protesters. In some cases, there is trade and wealth to be had, which makes it advantageous to let the protesters wither on the vine. But, as your article points out, they won't because the desire for freedom is overwhelming. Let's pray that they maintain their fervor and their zeal and that they prevail.

Obama is too busy using diplomacy as the be-all and en-all of his foreign policy, no matter who he is dealng with. Europe, the Americas, and Asia have seen right through this strategy. Transparency at its worst. He wants to deal with the mullahs rather than encourage and support freedom-loving people though action and not rhetoric. How un-American, how disastrous.

Augustus

Lech Walesa, the leader of the Solidarity movement in Poland, wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal on June 11, 2004
thanking President Reagan for his support for Poland at the time. He said, "I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. They're convinced that there are values worth living for, and even worth dying for. Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them."

How unlike the spineless individual who now sits in the Oval Office. Obama is no statesman. He would most likely have sided with the Polish Communists because, after all, if Walesa and his movement failed, the Polish thugs in charge might have become upset with us. Lech Walesa concluded,
"As I say repeatedly, we owe so much to all those who supported us. Perhaps in the early years we didn't express that gratitude enough. We were so busy introducing all the necessary economic and political reforms in our reborn country. Yet President Reagan must have realized what remarkable changes he brought to Poland, and indeed to the rest of the world. And I hope he felt gratified. He should have. I'm sure he still does. I think he knew, and still knows, just how big an impact he had upon the United States, Poland, and the entire world."

How far the West has now fallen!

Gil

@Dave: Yes, that is resonable but with one caveat: That you indeed accept in good faith that Israel is at the frontline in the defence of the West. So what do you say, Dave?

Don't believe the Europeans and the Americans who say they aren't afraid of Iranian nukes. If they weren't afraid they wouldn't be having simulated exercises and preparing contingency plans. What they really want is for Israel to do their dirty work for them. It's a relatively low-cost strategy for the West. Israel does the deed and gets all the blame.

I agree that the silence of the 'Left' in this country is nothing short of a travesty. A golden opportunity for the Left to protest against a theocratic regime adopting tyranical characteristics and no one to be heard.

Shame on Tony Benn, Annie Lennox, Alexi Sayle, Stop the War etc.

patricia

That s right Gil, and Mel of course.

Shame on anybody who wants to Stop the War.

How dare they?

Original Tony

GeoffM...I disagree with you. Now is the perfect opportunity to challenge Moslem theocracies because the countries you mention, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are ALL afraid of a nuclear Iran. They would wholly support bringing down the Iranian regime.

The USA has lost its chance to crack the Iranian nuclear threat and castrate Hizbullah and Hamas all in one go. And what do they do? Sit back and wring their hands! I will not mention what Europe should do because Europe is a lost cause, it's already basically muslim.

I am very sad and angry for the people wanting true freedom in Iran (and in all other dictatorial states for that matter). Who is there to help these folk? I used to think it would be the USA but under its present government, that hope is crushed.

Both right wing and left wing governments do deals with dictators but left wing governments do it through submission and defeatism, whereas right wing governments to deals to enhance the strength of their country.

It appears Obama is selling out freedom, strength and stability both abroad and at home.

Dixon

Personally, I cannot see how dissidents had any bearing on the collapse of the USSSR. It was driven into the ground by a relentless arms-race that it was totally dedicated to but could never win. Reagan's administration grasped the nettle and went full throttle for this, introducing new programs of ICBMs ( MX ) bombers ( B1 and B2 ), fleets ( Ticonderoga class cruisers ) SLBMs ( Trident D111 ), space based systems ( Nav-Star, that gave us GPS ) and, last but not least, though never needing actually to be built, the final nail in the coffin for Soviet militarism, the BMDI.

Then again, what lit the fuse for the collapse of the USSR. Afghanistan. So it was arguably Islamism ...sponsored by the West...that lead to the end of the Soviet Union.

Whilst I would like to discover otherwise, I suspect that Islamism is also going to see the Free west and liberalism go the same way as the USSR. Its just a slow drip, and demographically an inevitability.

Ros

What 'war' Patricia? Which particular 'war' are you so enervated about?

Mike L

Melanie Phillip's blog posts follow a familiar pattern here of moral outrage and assertion that is not backed up by evidence. For example:

"The shocking one is that the ‘progressive’ western intelligentsia, ... are mute over the brutal crackdown that has been going on in Iran these past three weeks, and totally indifferent to the desperate struggle for freedom that is being waged. "

Progressives are mute over the crackdown in Iran? That is clear nonsense. Any number of liberal newspapers, political grounds and human rights organisations have been critical of the Iranian government, including Amnesty International, the Guardian and Human Rights Watch.

Just because you have asserted something doesn't mean it is true, and to suggest the left have been uncritical of the Iranian crackdown is a simple misrepresentation.

Nigel Freeman

It is very interesting that here in Athens, the Persians (they prefer to call themselves that rather than Iranians) who have left Iran to get away from the regime seem to be suddenly wearing Union Jack sweatbands and London/UK t-shirts.

Linda Smith

I note one of Amil Imani's list of actions that he "wants the west to take against the regime" is: "File legal charges against the leaders of the Islamic Republic's wanton violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights..."

The Islamic Republic, although a member of the United Nations, rejected the UDHR for being based on Judaeo-Christian principles and transgressing Sharia law. Instead Iran and other member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference adopted the discriminatory Cairo. Declaration of Human Rights in Islam in 1990.

Presumably Iran would claim that, as it does not subscribe to the UDHR, all its actions are "legal" according to Sharia law and justified under the discriminatory Islamic ideas of human rights it adheres to, specified in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam.

Time for a debate on the meaning, accuracy and applicability of the term "Universal" in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Time for a debate on "Human Rights".

Jeremy

Briliant and trenchant, Melanie. One of those pieces with which you demonstrate how crucial and important your voice, your insight and your intellectual rigour are. You write, sometimes, like an historian looking back at the reasons why Britain disintegrated and the West fell.

Frank P

A 'You Tube' musical boost for the Iranian freedom:

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/grace_notes/better_than_we.php

hat tip: Gerard Vanderleun.

Pass it on.

Anthony Posner

We all have a moral responsibility to speak out 24/7 about what is happening in Iran. Obamad doesn't really know what The F to say or do because he believes that he can "engage" with Ahmad-inejad. Such a belief is not only idiotic. It is also insane.

Unfortunately, Ahmad-inejad is an extremely clever and evil politician and he will inevitably run rings around the hopelessly naive Obamad. And for that reason, we are living in extremely dangerous times.

Derek BLADES

Linda Smith, June 30th writes "Time for a debate on the meaning, accuracy and applicability of the term "Universal" in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Time for a debate on "Human Rights".

Why not indeed. I rather like the existing UN Declaration but others may see it as an attempt to impose Western norms on the rest of the world. Could a revised declaration win wider acceptance? There is nothing sacrosanct about the existing Declaration and the United Nations is the obvious place to find out if the world community can devise a better one.

Mehran

In all fairness, Melanie, the liberals haven't all been guilty of looking the other way. There has been extensive, and highly critical, coverage of the brutality of the mullahs' regime in the Huff Post (the house journal of the Obamaniacs), the Daily Beast, the Independent as well as the Grauniad, giving proper coverage and deep analysis. I was really pleasantly surprised when Fisky got all indignant about the fraudulent election and started to call A'Nejad all sorts of things. We have had even dear old Joan Baez coming in strongly in support of the Iranians, with her part-Farsi rendition of "We Shall Overcome'.

As for the usual suspects like Ken Livingstone and that fascist lickspittle Galloway and their lack of compassion and support, well what can I say? These are bitter has-beens (or in Galloway's case a never-was) who very much crave power, and reckon Islam is where it's at, and so they pull out all the stops when it comes to sucking up to all these hairy Middle East monsters. (Galloway actually acts as a mouthpiece for the fascists in Iran, and gets paid handsomely by the mullahs' Press TV).

I would not expect characters such as these to side with the Iranian people - nor would I want them to.

Lizzy

Would have thought it was the perfect opportunity for the rest of the world to seize. And what did Sarah Palin say about America remaining the abiding alternative to tyranny (quoting Reagan)?

I love the protesters' energy and defiant spirit. They even produced a great video to the theme of Michael Jackson's 'Beat It!' (chosen coincidentally before his death).

Seems too much like the right thing to do to support them, so the left don't.

John

Any regime, which shoots down young women and peaceful protesters, is living on borrowed time. This is far from over. Revolutions tend to take time. 60% of Iranians are under 35. Many are articulate and seek real democratic institutions. They are not going away.

Adam B.

Dave, who has called you an anti-Semite? And in what circumstances?

Linda Smith

Derek Blades, asked if a revised United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be devised that will win wider acceptance.

The signatories to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam reject the UDHR as being incompatible with Islam on two particular points of Islamic principle:

1. The UDHR cannot be implemented as it transgresses Sharia; all Human Rights must be determined by Sharia Law,

2. Sharia requires discrimination to be exercised between discrete groups of human beings with respect to human rights, so that Muslim males have different Human Rights rights from Muslim women. All Muslims have different Human Rights from Non-Muslims.

Being an absolutist religion, Islam is unable to compromise its principles. Therefore, the only way to devise a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that will satisfy the signatories to the discriminatory Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam would be for non-Islamic nations to abandon the principle of the equality of all humanity enshrined in the UDHR, to adopt the CDHR in Islam and be subjected to Sharia Law.

Not only does the world need a debate on the word "Universal" in United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we also need a debate on the notion of "United" in United Nations and all that devolves from that.

Augustus

John - Quite right! Neda has become a symbol of freedom. Her wide open eyes looked at the world. Neda symbolizes the truth. Her eyes did not portray surprise, neither did they ask for pity. She didn't set out to be a martyr, she was just there and she was hit, and became an instant icon for everyone. Her eyes spoke for the true calling of mankind; freedom. A truth covered in blood. Any God or supreme leader who refuses to tolerate this desire for freedom will one day have a fight on his hands. All this was spoken in the truth of Neda's eyes.

max

In praising Ronald Reagan, several previous posts have identified the danger to supporters of Iranian democracy that the US electorate has created in choosing Obama and rejecting the neo-con world view. We can still pay lip service to their values and their courage. We can still give them the illusion of support. We will leave them twisting in the breeze. If anyone is serious about this, Amil Imani's petition forms a coherent series of measures with dynamic possibilities. What chances?

Kiwi

Derek BLADES writes: "Could a revised declaration win wider acceptance? There is nothing sacrosanct about the existing Declaration and the United Nations is the obvious place to find out if the world community can devise a better one."
No need, as Linda Smith has pointed out, there already is a revised declaration in existence. In August of 1990, representatives from 54 Moslem countries met in Cairo and signed the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Most of these countries had not signed the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) sponsored by the UN, admitting that this document was in conflict with Islamic values. See: http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/cairohrislam1990.htm
The most striking thing about the Cairo Declaration, no surprises here, is its entire foundation is based on the Sharia, and the supremacy of Islam; a direct contradiction to the morally superior UN sponsored UDHR, whereby all cultures and religions are considered equal.

Simon Denis

Quite so, Miss Phillips. There has been a tragic decline in Western self-confidence over recent years. Indeed, the Cold War might not have been won at all had the current generation been waging it. Surely, this unpardonable weakness comes down to the legacy of sixty-eight. The "soixante-huitards" are in charge and they have never believed in democracy. They call it a "bourgeois sham" and prefer to put their trust in "history". Against all odds, they continue to believe that a train of violent events will bring the classless nirvana and that the best way to help this along is to bring down the currently powerful. They would be happy, therefore, if the Muslim world were to destroy Europe. For them, this would not only constitute a sort of revolution on a global scale, it would be a just payment for the years of "racist colonialism". For proof of this assertion, peruse any number of so-called "anti-racist" tracts. This left is delighted, therefore, by those developments in our society which have been summed up in the murder of Theo van Gogh. Equally, they are anxious to prevent the spread of "bourgeois democracy" to societies which they hold to be rightly inimical to it. Never underestimate the degree to which these people - and I have met a few of them - despise the standards of truth and reason which underpin our democratic ideals. For them, the Enlightenment itself - that noble movement, the best strains of which are still to be heard in the tender grandeur of Beethoven - was nothing but a cloak around the slave trade. The slightest acquaintance with the world of higher academe will confirm this picture. Of course, the objection that if reason does not exist, how can we identify the various social forces in which the left believes, does not matter to our opponents. Vitally disabling as it is to their case, their habits of irrationalism enable them to dismiss it. And lurking among the far left we find - as usual - figures from the over-romantic right, whose rejection of humanism leads them to dismiss the Iranian yearning for liberal democracy out of hand. Along different lines, they too believe that Teheran can never enjoy the expressive liberty of London or Paris.

Now, it is true that local cultures will set the tone and to some extent underpin the workings of democracy - which is why the recent vandalism of Speaker Bercow is so infinitely to be regretted - but this is essentially a matter of the psychological well being which arises from familiar and harmless ritual. The general underlying principles of classical liberalism remain universally valid.

As to Obama - he is to some extent the prisoner of the anti-Bush backlash. Cards on the table, I harboured grave misgivings over the Iraq war - not because of some clandestine, hypocritical suspicion of Arab society, but because it seemed to me that the balance of forces in the region did not favour that path to democracy. I may well be proved wrong and indeed, on this issue, I hope that I am. However, the controversy surrounding the second Gulf War has understandably disabled the west's response to the current danger: Iran. And yet, policy makes should grasp the nettle. It should by now be clear that the mass of the Iranian people are desperate to be rid of their clerico-fascist masters. Our failure to back them recalls the most pusillanimous diplomacy of "detente". It is also the result of blind, malicious, "left-think" which is annoyed and baffled by the direction repeatedly taken by recalcitrant "history". The role which the masters of our masters have assigned to the Muslim world is to remain, by enlightened standards, backward and to threaten the West from within and without. If we are to have any future as a properly Liberal society - not "liberal" a la Obama - then we must meet this essentially Marxist challenge head on: back the Iranian rebels abroad and insist on loyalty to western modes of law at home.

Before concluding, a final word about "the left". The expressionn does indeed lump a lot of disparate persons together, but they are objectively united in eroding the power of the west. Behind the hand-wringing small-l liberals - the Obamas and the Kennedys - lie altogether more sinister thinkers, those whom I have termed "the masters of our masters". One only has to think of the poison which has streamed from the universities from the sixties on to see what I mean. It has now reached down into the foundations of the west and done appalling damage.

Linda Smith

Kiwi posted
"The most striking thing about the Cairo Declaration, no surprises here, is its entire foundation is based on the Sharia, and the supremacy of Islam; a direct contradiction to the morally superior UN sponsored UDHR, whereby all cultures and religions are considered equal."

To say that the UN sponsored UDHR is morally superior to the Cairo Declaration because under the UNUDHR all cultures and religions are considered equal is a judgement made within the framework of Judaeo/Christian/Secular values. Within the Islamic framework all cultures and religions are NOT considered equal; Islamic culture and religion are deemed to be superior. The first paragraph of the Cairo Declaration reads:

"Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization. "

Thus, signatories to the Cairo Declaration consider Islamic values to be morally superior to all others and the discriminatory CDHR morally superior to the egalitarian UDHR.

United Nations? I think not - more like a Clash of Civilizations.

Wm. Hazlitt

A long list of measures to be taken against any state engaged in genocide and state terrorism is quoted here with approval.

Genocide was defined by Raphael Lemkin in 1943: "...it is intended to signify a coordinated plan aiming at the destruction of the essential foundations of the life of a national group...the objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions...and of the economic existence...and the destruction of personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals..." (Only in its most extreme form, as practised against the Jews in Europe and the Tutsis in Rwanda, does it take the form of systematic slaughter.) The UN in 1948 added some variations on the theme, but the definition has been generally accepted.

Terrorism has been defined by the US state department. I forget the exact wording, but the gist is that terrorism is the deliberate use of violence to coerce a population for political ends.

Some of those who have posted comments complain of double standards. I have to agree with them.

Just Louise

If anything proves that at least 90% of leftwing demos and petitions against Israel are fuelled by Jew-hatred, the thunderous silence over brutal repression in Iran (Burma, Tibet, Sri Lanka) does.
The wall-to-wall coverage of Michael Jackson's death that's still on Sky TV and even on Al Beeb, has helped to obliterate Iran from the public consciousness.
Al Beeb got into the act with gusto by sending Emily Maitlis from the London newsroom all the way to LA despite already having at least one reporter on the spot. All at licence payers' expense, of course. Nice little junket and to hell with what's going on in Tehran, eh?

steve

JustLouise: Perhaps you hadn't noticed but the BBC had extensive reporting about Iran up until its reporters were first restricted then expelled from the country because of the BBC's coverage. Apparently, BBC Persian has also provided in-depth coverage of on-going events.

Just Louise

OK, I'll give 'em kudos for that, Steve.

JIll

The West will not defend itself from tyrants ie Islamofascists, but turns on its own (America and Israel). Why would it defend anyone else's bid to stand up to tyrants?

Real tyrants I mean, like the mullahs and murderers, not scapegoat "tyrants" like America and Israel.