پستها
بهداد بردبار
محمد جعفری، روزنامهنگار و محقق تاریخ معاصر ایران، از یکسو بهعلت حاکمیت ولایت مطلقهی فقیه و قانون اساسی منبعث از آن و از سوی دیگر بهدلیل نتیجهی هشت سال دولت اصلاحات با در اختیار داشتن دولت و مجلس که نتیجهاش رسیدن به رئیسجمهور «تدارکاتچی» بود، معتقد است که چنین سیستمی اصلاحبشو نیست و از اصلاحطلبی، نتیجهای حاصل ملت ایران نمیشود.
او به مدت بیش از پنج سال، بهدلیل داشتن مسئولیت روزنامهی انقلاب اسلامی و ارتباط و همکاری با رییسجمهور وقت ایران، ابوالحسن بنیصدر زندانی بود. پس از آزادی تا به امروز، کتابها و مقالات متعددی نگاشته است. موضوع تحقیق کتابهای او دربارهی چگونگی به انحراف کشیده شدن اهداف انقلاب در آزادی، استقلال و حکومت جمهوری اسلامی و مردمی است.
جعفری معتقد است آقای خمینی در پاریس قول برقراری آزادیها را به ملت ایران داده بود و سرانجام با دست او، کشور به دیکتاتوری و استبداد ولایت فقیه کشیده شد.
در این گفتوگو رابطهی خوانش صحیح تاریخ انفلاب و رابطهی آن با مسائل امروز را پی میگیرم.
شما در مقالهی اخیر خودتان در مورد اعدامهای اخیر، اشاره میکنید که «برای مبارزان آزادی وطن، واجبترین کارها این است که اول زمینههای تاریخی این اعدامها که کار را به اینجا رسانده است، تجزیه و تحلیل کنند. بدون این درک و تعقیب نتایج آن نمیشود مانع قتلهای سیاسی جدید شد.» دلیل تأکید شما بر یافتن ریشههای خشونت نظام حاکم چیست؟
در اینکه هیچ آیندهای بدون گذشته و حال متصور نیست، گمان نمیکنم کسی را شک و شبههای باشد. بنابراین برای رسیدن به آیندهای بهتر و مطمئنتر، باید از تجربههای مثبت و منفی گذشته درس آموخت. اگر این نکتهی بدیهی قابل قبول است که هست، پس بر ما و جامعهی ماست که کوشش کند تاریخ گذشتهی خود را تا جای ممکن صاف و زلال بشناسد تا بتواند از آن تجربه بیاموزد و دوباره از چاله در نیامده به چاه در نغلتد.
حال اگر هدف ما این است که ملت ما از آزادی، حقوقمداری و داشتن اختیار سرنوشت خود یعنی حکومتی مردمسالار برخوردار شود که بتواند از آزادی و حقوق همهی آحاد کشور بدون در نظر گرفتن دین و نژاد و یا ... دفاع کند و همه از آزادی و حقوق ذاتی و خدادادی خویش برخوردار باشند، بدون شناسایی درست گذشته غیرممکن است. زیرا که زمان به مثابه رودی پیوسته است و آیندهی آن در گذشته است که شکل میگیرد.
وقتی برای ما و جامعهی ما روشن نباشد که اصولاً چرا و به چه هدفی اینهمه کشت و کشتار در کشور ما، در طول سیسال گذشته صورت گرفته و می گیرد اولاً جامعه به شعور و احساس جمعی نمیرسد که کشتن به دست هرکسی که صورت بگیرد جنایت است و کلید حل مسائل کشور کشتن نیست، بلکه در نتیجهی ناروشن بودن تجربهی گذشته، آنها که عامل و یا آمر کشتنها بودهاند و یا کسانی که آن را توجیه و یا حتی برای آن کف زدهاند، فکر میکنند که نه تنها میتوانند خود به نفس جنایت کشتن پی نمیبرند، اما وقتی معلوم شد که چه کسانی دست به این قبیل جنایات زدهاند، هم جامعه و هم خود افرادی که آمر و یا عامل بودهاند متوجه میشوند بالاخره در کشور حساب و کتابی در کار هست و هرکسی باید پاسخگوی اعمال خود باشد.
در نتیجه در آینده کمتر برای اهداف شخصی و یا گروهی خود، به فکر جنایت و چپاول و غارت اموال مردم میافتند. هیچ یادمان نرود که یکی از اصلیترین عللی که هیتلر جرئت کرد که دست به کشتار یهودی ها و کولیها و اسلاوها بزند این بود که دیده بود دنیا در برابر قتل عام ارامنه بهوسیلهی ترکیهی جدید سکوت کرد و آن را به فراموشی سپرد. بنابراین فکر کرده بود که در برابر این قتل عام هم، دنیا چنین روشی را در پیش خواهد گرفت. اگر غیر از این باشد اصلاً فلسفهی وجودی تمام دستگاههای دادگستری و حسابرسی در تمام دنیا معنی خود را از دست میدهند .
ضرر دیگر روشن نشدن گذشته این است، همانطور که قبلاً متذکر شدم، کسانی که با دست آنها استبداد ولایت مطلقهی فقیه بر کشور حاکم شده است و دین و دنیای مردم را به تباهی کشانده است و یا کسانی که در گذشته دست به جنایت زده و یا آمر و عامل قتل و جنایت بودهاند بازهم طلبکارتر شده و در لباس دموکراسی و یا آزادیخواهی بر گردهی مردم سوار خواهند شد و در کشور ما از این نوع تجربه کم نداریم.
در اینجا یک نکتهی سخت در خور و با اهمیت وجود دارد و آن این که روشن شدن مسائل در سیسال گذشته نبایستی بهمعنای گرفتن انتقام باشد و یا این که حاکمان بعدی بگویند چون قبلیها اینهمه کشتهاند ما هم باید مقابله به مثل بکنیم. چنین طرز تفکری کار را به دور تسلسل میرساند و در جامعهی رشدیابنده و دموکراتمنش حرفی باطل است. صرف روشن شدن گذشته، به جامعه و آیندگان، آرامش و اطمینان به صلح و صفا و همزیستی مسالمتآمیز در کنار هم در محدودهی سیاسی- جغرافیایی کشور میدهد. حتی به کسانی که بهدلایل مختلف فکری، ناآگاهی، اغفال و یا حتی منافع شخص و گروهی دست به اعمال نادرست زدهاند و هنوز هم میزنند وقتی مشاهده میکنند که جامعه بهدنبال انتقام نیست و بخشنده است، زودتر اشتباهات خود را میپذیرند و به آغوش جامعه بازمیگردند.
بهنظر من اعتراف به اشتباهات گذشته برای جامعه و کشور کافی است. متأسفانه در کشور ما انتقاد از اعمال و کردار خود ضعف تلقی میشود. در صورتی که لازم است ما در بهبود بخشيدن به انتقاد از خود تمركز بيشترى داشته باشيم و سخاوتمندانه و آشكارا به اشتباهات خود در برابر مردم اقرار و اعتراف بكنيم.
به لحاظ تئوری اما، مهمترین ریشهی اعدامها استقرار استبداد ولایت مطلقهی فقیه است زیرا اسلام و دین را بیانگر قدرت ساختهاند و نه بیان آزادی. چون دین امر مقدسی است وقتی بیانگر قدرت شد، بایستی در حفظ این قدرت مقدس بههر قیمتی بایستد. این بدون کشت و کشتار و اعدامهای مداوم غیرممکن است. پس به ناچار دین باید بیان آزادی باشد تا از قدرت برکنار بماند.
بعضی معتقدند مسلح بودن و خشونت گروههای اپوزیسیون مانند مجاهدین خلق، حزب کومله و دمکرات در کردستان، و افراطیگری، خشونتطلبی و تجزیهطلبی بود که راه را بر افراططلبان و طرفداران قاطعیت و خشونت باز کرد. اینها بودند که باعث سقوط دولت موقت شدند. شما چه پاسخی دارید؟
اولاً این مسئله باید روشن شود که بار گناه هركسى به گردن خود او است. حتماً میدانید که یکی از مهمترین ارزشهای دین و حفظ و صیانت از آن، «وفای به عهد» است. آقای خمینی در پاریس به ملت ایران در برابر انظار جهانیان عهد بست و قول و قرار گذاشت ولی در ایران بعد از رسیدن به قدرت و تثبیت رهبریاش، عکس تمام آن عهدها را مرتکب شد. به ضرس قاطع میشود گفت که حتی به یکی از وعدهها و قول و قرارهایش عمل نکرد.
برای این که روشن شود وفای بهعهد چقدر اهمیت دارد و تا کجا باید بر سر آن ایستادگی کرد، از امام علی نمونه میآورم:
امام علی، عهد و پیمان را با هرکس و با هر نوع تفکر و اندیشه و دین و مذهبی که بسته شود، حق خداوند و از حقوق عام بشر دانسته و شکستن عهد و پیمان را تحت هر نوع بهانه و حیلهای ضد حقوق مردم و خداوند معرفی میکند و بر آن است که مردم باید تا پای جان خود از آن مراقبت و محافظت کنند. (از فرمان امام به مالک اشتر)
آقای خمینی که شخصیتی روحانى، پير، عارف، نايب امام زمان و مرجع تقليد است و در جاى خدا و رسول ظاهراً تكيه زده است و مسئوليت هدايت مردم را بهدرستى و راستى و صداقت بهعهده گرفته، حال كه به قدرت رسیده، نادرستى و سياستبازى را بر كرسى حق و حقيقت نشانده است. اين خود گناهى بس بزرگ در نزد جامعه و درگاه خداوند متعال است.
در جاىجاى قرآن آمده است كه هر قوم و ملت و شخصى مورد آزمايش پروردگار قرار مىگيرد. همه مورد آزمايش قرار مىگيرند حتى پيامبران و اولياءالله. هيچكس بدون آزمايش رها نخواهد شد. موضوع امتحان و آزمايش هر قوم و گروه و شخصی آن چيزى است كه آنها خود را صاحب، امين و دلباخته نسبت به آن معرفى مىكنند و مىپندارند كه خود بهترين امين، حافظ و نگهدارندهی حقوق و پيمانهاى الهى در مورد آن هستند.
روحانيت و علماى حاكم شيعه در ايران نيز گوى سبقت را در ابعاد مختلف آن، از پيشينيان خود ربودند. اين انقلاب و جمهورى اسلامى امتحان الهى هم براى مردم و هم براى آقاى خمينى، روحانيت و سردمداران حكومت بود. براى مردم آزمايشی بود كه بهخود بيايند. مىبايست مردم چشم خود را باز مىكردند و به پيام عام الهى توجه و علماى خود را امتحان مىكردند و چشم و گوش بسته تابع بىارادهی آنها نمىشدند.
براى آقاى خمينى، روحانيت شيعه و سردمداران حكومت آزمايش بوده و هست كه كساني كه خود را صاحب منبر و محراب حضرت رسول و على (ع) تصور مىكردند، وعدهی حكومت عدل اسلامى و جامعهی امام زمانى به مردم مىدادند، همهی حاكمان را در طول تاريخ غاصب و ناحق مىشمردند و خود را صاحب اصلى حكومت و اصلحترين گروهى كه لايق ادارهی امور مردم است مىپنداشتند، وقتى به مسند حكومت تكيه زدند، براى استقرار ديكتاتورى مطلق و حفظ حكومت هر عملی را جایز شمردند و برای اعمال ضد انسانی، بشری، دینی و اسلامی توجیه دینی تراشیدند.
در اين آزمايش الهى، آقاى خمينى و روحانيت شيعه، چنان شكستى خوردند و از جلسهی امتحان مردود بهدرآمدند كه در تاريخ چنين چيزى و با ابعاد به اين گستردگى سابقه نداشته و يا كم سابقه بوده است. زعماى قوم و مردم هم كه بدون توجه به پيام رساى قرآن شكل گرا شدند و بدون آزمايش كردن محتواى شكل و تجربه گرفتن از گذشته، واله و شيداى نام مرجع تقليد، عارف و پير، نايب امام زمان و... شدند. در واقع دچار چنين مصيبتى خودساخته شدند. از حضرت على (ع) است:
«اعتماد به هركس پيش از آزمايش او زبونى و ناتوانى است.»
بعد از ذکر این مقدمه، بنابراین اگر حتی بهزعم بعضیها بهقول شما بپذیریم که «معتقدند مسلح بودن و خشونت گروههای اپوزیسیون مانند مجاهدین خلق، حزب کومله و دمکرات در کردستان و افراطیگری و خشونتطلبی و تجزیهطلبی بود که راه را بر افراططلبان و طرفداران قاطعیت و خشونت باز کرد»، از بار گناه اعدامهای فلهای و بی حساب و کتابی که بهفرمان آقای خمینی در قید حیات ایشان اتفاق افتاده است، نمی کاهد و او را از گناه و فرمان قتل مبری نمیکند.
از این که بگذریم، مرحوم مهندس بازرگان در کتاب «انقلاب ایران در دو حرکت» که چاپ سوم آن در سال 63 به طبع رسیده است، پنج دسته از کسانی که چوب لای چرخ دولت موقت گذاشتهاند را خود معرفی کرده است:
صدا و سیمای جمهوری اسلامی ایران، بعضی محافل روحانی مؤثر (یعنی روحانیون شورای انقلاب)، بعضی محافل حزبی مؤثر (حزب جمهوری اسلامی)، آقای خمینی و چپهای افراطی و مجاهدین.
بهنظر من گرچه مرحوم مهنس بازرگان چپهای افراطی و مجاهدین را جزو کسانی میشمرد که چوب لای چرخ دولت موقت گذاشتهاند و این در جای خود صحیح است، اما تضیف دولت موقت به دو عامل مهم اصلی اساسی زیر که کمتر بدان پرداخته شده است بستگی دارد:
الف- آقای خمینی و روحانیت حاکم قدرتطلب و انحصارگر به سردستگی حزب جمهوری اسلامی و روحانیون شورای انقلاب.
۱۳۸۹ خرداد ۴, سهشنبه
۱۳۸۹ اردیبهشت ۲۳, پنجشنبه
«اعتراض به اعدامهای اخیر مقابل سفارت ایران در اسلو»
روز سه شنبه (۹ می ۲۰۱۰) ایرانیان معترض به اعدامهای سیاسی تظاهراتی را در برابر سفارت ایران در اسلو ترتیب دادند.
تظاهرکنندگان خشمگین در اسلو با حمله به سفارت جمهوری اسلامی، با پرتاب سنگ شیشههای ساختمان را شکستند.
عکس و خبر از من
تظاهرکنندگان خشمگین در اسلو با حمله به سفارت جمهوری اسلامی، با پرتاب سنگ شیشههای ساختمان را شکستند.
عکس و خبر از من
۱۳۸۹ اردیبهشت ۲۲, چهارشنبه
نبود ادبیات امیدبخش، جنبش را زمینگیر میکند
محسن کدیور، اسلامپژوه و فعال سیاسی معترض، با انتشار مطلبی تحت عنوان: با «قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران» چه باید کرد؟ مسایل مهمی را پیرامون خواستههای جنبش سبز مطرح کرده است. تداوم این مباحثه بسیار مهم و سازنده خواهد بود و نگارنده از شنیدن پاسخ سایر اندیشمندان استقبال میکند. به ضرس قاطع عرض میکنم، اگر روشنفکران ما نتوانند گفتمانی پیشرو و ادبیاتی امیدبخش تولید کنند، و اگر ارادهی مردم را باور نداشته باشند، جنبش سبز زمینگیر خواهد شد. هرچند که خواست برقراری حکومت قانون و آزادی تا زمان تحقق آن زنده خواهد ماند، اما حرکت اشتباه روشنفکران اصلاحطلب، میتواند برقراری جمهوری با محوریت مردم و حاکمیت شهروندان را برای سالها به تاخیر بیاندازد.
بهداد بردبار
بهداد بردبار
بیست سال پس از سقوط
اشاره: اسلاوی ژیژک فیلسوف و نظریهپرداز نامدار معاصر منتقد سرسخت لیبرال دمکراسیهای غربی است. از زمانی که ژیژک مقالات و کتابهای خود را به زبان انگلیسی منتشر کرده چنان مورد استقبال مجامع آکادمیک و عموم مردم قرار گرفته که گاهی او را الویس پریسلی حوزهی نقد فرهنگ مدرن مینامند. معرفی ژیژک به عنوان یک روشنفکر مارکسیست کار سادهای نیست. او اگر یک مارکسیست باشد مارکسیستی غیرمتعارف است. نظريهپردازی است که مارکس، فلسفهی هگل و روانشناسی لاکان را با فرهنگ پاپ میآميزد تا بتواند مفاهيم فرهنگ معاصر را تحليل کند و به ما يادآوری کند که درک ما از اين مفاهيم تا چه حد از منطق به دور است. ژیژک اهل اسلوونی است و نظارهگر فروپاشی بلوک شرق بوده است. تجربهی درغلطیدن کمونیستهای سابق به دامان کاپیتالیسم میتواند تجربهی مهمی برای جامعهی ما باشد. اقتصاد بیمار ایران که همیشه دستخوش سیاست بوده در آرزوی آزادسازی اقتصاد و پیوستن به بازارهای آزاد به سر می برد. در ایران چه مدیران دولتی، چه مخالفان آنها همه در آرزوی جذب شدن ایران به بازارهای جهانی هستند
۱۳۸۹ اردیبهشت ۶, دوشنبه
۱۳۸۹ فروردین ۲۷, جمعه
Interview with Professor Johan Galtung, the father of Peace research
Interview by Behdad Bordbar
A conversation with one of the most important dissident intellectuals of our time.
Johan Galtung
Johan Galtung, distinguished professor of Sociology, Peace and conflict research and world renowned founder of the academic discipline of peace research and founder of PRIO, is currently director of TRANSCEND, a global peace and development network. He has served at so many universities that he has "probably taught more students on more campuses around the world than any other contemporary sociologist. The long life peace activist during the 1970s predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1990.
I had the honor to interview him on Iran.
A conversation with one of the most important dissident intellectuals of our time.
Johan Galtung
Johan Galtung, distinguished professor of Sociology, Peace and conflict research and world renowned founder of the academic discipline of peace research and founder of PRIO, is currently director of TRANSCEND, a global peace and development network. He has served at so many universities that he has "probably taught more students on more campuses around the world than any other contemporary sociologist. The long life peace activist during the 1970s predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1990.
I had the honor to interview him on Iran.
Israel is very concerned about a Green victory in Iran
By Behdad Bordbar
I have a rare chance to interview with professor .Dr. Trita Parsi is the author of Treacherous Alliance - The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States, He is professor of International Relations at Johns Hopkins.
In 2002, Parsi founded the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) "to enablea Iranian Americans to condemn the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and that he has since run it as a grass-roots group aimed at strengthening their voice." Through the organization, he supports engagement between the US and Iran in belief that it "would enhance our [US] national security by helping to stabilize the Middle East and bolster the moderates in Iran.
Q: It seems that the situation in Iran has reached the point of no return. The demonstrators in the streets have calling for weeks for the downfall of the Islamic Republic, hence the removal of supreme leader from power. But opposition leaders, so far, remained uncertain, while the debate over the future of democratic movement is going on. What is your opinion about future of Green movement?
A: I believe that the Iranian people's aspiration for democracy, human rights and proper representation is unbeatable. The struggle for democracy in Iran is more than a century old. It has faced many obstacles; its progress has not always been unidirectional. But the forces for authoritarianism and repression don't have time on their side. Whether the movement will be victorious in the short run, or in the medium term, is difficult to predict. But I think it is undeniable that the aspirations are not going away, and hence, whether it is manifested through the Green movement or through some other form, the demands for democracy will remain till they are met.
Q: The Iranian leadership's handling of the dispute over the tenth presidential election, which resulted in violent crackdown of protests, had a significant effect on future of Islamic regime. You have broad connections with intellectuals, politicians and journalists. How do you sum up political analyses or Iran's current situation in Washington?
A: The policy in Washington is entering a new phase, the pressure track. Though the President Obama says that the door for diplomacy is still open, not many resources are put into it. And frankly, it is not clear whether diplomacy under these circumstances - where Iran seems incapable of making big decisions - is valuable. At the same time though, the pressure track is unlikely to produce any results. And the fear is that just as sanctions are seen as a political necessity today due to the perception of diplomacy failing, there is a risk that military action will be seen as a necessity in 12 or so months from today, when the sanctions path has been deemed a failure.
Q: As we know president Obama came to office with hope of 'a new beginning' of engagement with political leaders in Tehran. He said his administration was committed "to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This offer was rejected by Tehran. Supreme leader of Iran warned negotiating with the United States would be "naive and perverted" and that Iranian politicians should not be "deceived" into starting such talks. Last week Iran arrested leader of Jundullah, Militant Islamist organisation and blamed United States for support of terrorism, while there are strong rumours that his arrest only became possible through the help of Americans. Do you think the strategy of negotiations with current administration has come to its dead end?
A: The picture is quite a bit more complicated than your question reveals. From the US perspective, hope for this round of diplomacy has been depleted. Yet, there isn't any real confidence that pressure will lead to a solution. But starting a new round of diplomacy while the Iranian regime seems incapable of making decisions, and while nuclear-first negotiations risk hurting the movement fro democracy, may be unwise.
Either way, any new potential diplomacy, the mistakes of the past must be corrected. Diplomacy must give equal weight to the human rights situation in Iran and should not be cantered or exclusively about the nuclear issue.
Q: The new head of IAEA informed the international community that Iran is not co-operating with the UN nuclear watchdog's investigation into the country's nuclear programme .United States and its allies are going to impose new sanctions on Iran. Is the international community in your view taking the right approaches?
A: There is little confidence that sanctions will work, even among its proponents. The question has to a large extent become about imposing either broad based, indiscriminate sanctions, or targeted sanctions. Indiscriminate sanctions have in the past only hurt the Iranian economy and at times even strengthened the regime and the IRGC. Targeted sanctions that hit the people in the regime responsible for the human rights abuses and the nuclear program seems wiser, though there are question marks about their efficiency as well. At the end of the day, no one singly measure can be successful. It's about crafting a policy that combines various measures and utilizes all their strengths.
Q: Mr. Ahmadinejad is well known for his rhetoric's against Israel; Iranians have consensus that Iran is not a security threat against Jewish state. Israeli lobby is strongly trying to convince public opinions that Iran is working to develop a nuclear-armed bomb/missile. In the other hand Israeli leadership repeatedly said they put all the options on the table .How serious are threat of direct conflagration between Iran and Israel?
A: The risk of a war initiated by an Israeli attack on Iran is increasing. In the past, Israeli rhetoric about bombing Iran was mostly aimed at putting pressure on the US and the EU to be tough with Iran. At this point though, particularly with the deterioration of US-Israeli relations, we are entering an era of greater uncertainty.
We also have to keep in mind, as several Israeli officials have told me, that Israel is very concerned about a Green victory in Iran. The Israelis fear that if the Greens win, Iran will become a country that continues to develop nuclear energy, but with a nicer face and with much international sympathy for its emerging democracy. As a result, for the Israelis - who focus on Iran's capabilities more than on its regime - they will face greater difficulty isolating Iran, pushing to sanction it or to build a consensus around bombing it. Add that to the fact that any attack on Iran likely would enable the regime to go after the Green movement with even greater brutality, and you have a very explosive mix.
I have a rare chance to interview with professor .Dr. Trita Parsi is the author of Treacherous Alliance - The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States, He is professor of International Relations at Johns Hopkins.
In 2002, Parsi founded the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) "to enablea Iranian Americans to condemn the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and that he has since run it as a grass-roots group aimed at strengthening their voice." Through the organization, he supports engagement between the US and Iran in belief that it "would enhance our [US] national security by helping to stabilize the Middle East and bolster the moderates in Iran.
Q: It seems that the situation in Iran has reached the point of no return. The demonstrators in the streets have calling for weeks for the downfall of the Islamic Republic, hence the removal of supreme leader from power. But opposition leaders, so far, remained uncertain, while the debate over the future of democratic movement is going on. What is your opinion about future of Green movement?
A: I believe that the Iranian people's aspiration for democracy, human rights and proper representation is unbeatable. The struggle for democracy in Iran is more than a century old. It has faced many obstacles; its progress has not always been unidirectional. But the forces for authoritarianism and repression don't have time on their side. Whether the movement will be victorious in the short run, or in the medium term, is difficult to predict. But I think it is undeniable that the aspirations are not going away, and hence, whether it is manifested through the Green movement or through some other form, the demands for democracy will remain till they are met.
Q: The Iranian leadership's handling of the dispute over the tenth presidential election, which resulted in violent crackdown of protests, had a significant effect on future of Islamic regime. You have broad connections with intellectuals, politicians and journalists. How do you sum up political analyses or Iran's current situation in Washington?
A: The policy in Washington is entering a new phase, the pressure track. Though the President Obama says that the door for diplomacy is still open, not many resources are put into it. And frankly, it is not clear whether diplomacy under these circumstances - where Iran seems incapable of making big decisions - is valuable. At the same time though, the pressure track is unlikely to produce any results. And the fear is that just as sanctions are seen as a political necessity today due to the perception of diplomacy failing, there is a risk that military action will be seen as a necessity in 12 or so months from today, when the sanctions path has been deemed a failure.
Q: As we know president Obama came to office with hope of 'a new beginning' of engagement with political leaders in Tehran. He said his administration was committed "to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This offer was rejected by Tehran. Supreme leader of Iran warned negotiating with the United States would be "naive and perverted" and that Iranian politicians should not be "deceived" into starting such talks. Last week Iran arrested leader of Jundullah, Militant Islamist organisation and blamed United States for support of terrorism, while there are strong rumours that his arrest only became possible through the help of Americans. Do you think the strategy of negotiations with current administration has come to its dead end?
A: The picture is quite a bit more complicated than your question reveals. From the US perspective, hope for this round of diplomacy has been depleted. Yet, there isn't any real confidence that pressure will lead to a solution. But starting a new round of diplomacy while the Iranian regime seems incapable of making decisions, and while nuclear-first negotiations risk hurting the movement fro democracy, may be unwise.
Either way, any new potential diplomacy, the mistakes of the past must be corrected. Diplomacy must give equal weight to the human rights situation in Iran and should not be cantered or exclusively about the nuclear issue.
Q: The new head of IAEA informed the international community that Iran is not co-operating with the UN nuclear watchdog's investigation into the country's nuclear programme .United States and its allies are going to impose new sanctions on Iran. Is the international community in your view taking the right approaches?
A: There is little confidence that sanctions will work, even among its proponents. The question has to a large extent become about imposing either broad based, indiscriminate sanctions, or targeted sanctions. Indiscriminate sanctions have in the past only hurt the Iranian economy and at times even strengthened the regime and the IRGC. Targeted sanctions that hit the people in the regime responsible for the human rights abuses and the nuclear program seems wiser, though there are question marks about their efficiency as well. At the end of the day, no one singly measure can be successful. It's about crafting a policy that combines various measures and utilizes all their strengths.
Q: Mr. Ahmadinejad is well known for his rhetoric's against Israel; Iranians have consensus that Iran is not a security threat against Jewish state. Israeli lobby is strongly trying to convince public opinions that Iran is working to develop a nuclear-armed bomb/missile. In the other hand Israeli leadership repeatedly said they put all the options on the table .How serious are threat of direct conflagration between Iran and Israel?
A: The risk of a war initiated by an Israeli attack on Iran is increasing. In the past, Israeli rhetoric about bombing Iran was mostly aimed at putting pressure on the US and the EU to be tough with Iran. At this point though, particularly with the deterioration of US-Israeli relations, we are entering an era of greater uncertainty.
We also have to keep in mind, as several Israeli officials have told me, that Israel is very concerned about a Green victory in Iran. The Israelis fear that if the Greens win, Iran will become a country that continues to develop nuclear energy, but with a nicer face and with much international sympathy for its emerging democracy. As a result, for the Israelis - who focus on Iran's capabilities more than on its regime - they will face greater difficulty isolating Iran, pushing to sanction it or to build a consensus around bombing it. Add that to the fact that any attack on Iran likely would enable the regime to go after the Green movement with even greater brutality, and you have a very explosive mix.
۱۳۸۹ فروردین ۲۵, چهارشنبه
Regarding The 2010 TIME 100 Poll
Regarding The 2010 TIME 100 Poll
Please use this text and Email to letters@time.com
Dear Editors;
During the past few days, the supporters of Mirhossein Mousavi, the opposition candidate in the disputed Iranian presidential elections and a prominent figure in the movement that followed the elections demanding civil and political rights, have found the 2010 Time 100 Poll as an avenue to voice their opinion to the international community at large and make their demands and the prominence of their heroic move clear. After months of brutal crackdown of a movement that has repeatedly been compared to Gandhi's nonviolent move against British colonialism and the American Civil Rights Movement which has succeed in enforcing a deadly political silence on the Iranian streets, the 2010 Time 100 Poll once again provided a rally ground for re-energizing the same will to be viewed and counted as that the manifested itself in the Iranian streets through the past month. It was thus of no surprise that Mr. Mousavi's votes kept increasing and reached to the top of list on the late hours of April 13th 2010. The main fundamental distinction between Mousavi and his rivals on the 2010 Time 100 Poll was that Mousavi was being supported by great segments of a nation and symbolized not merely a politician but a movement that rose out of the demand to be counted. “We are countless!,” as one motto of the Green Movement explicitly said. Currently, I see people claiming to have complained to Time regarding the resort to fraud by voters of Mousavi. “They must have slave robots voting for them,” one person claimed. I am writing this email not only to remind you that this is an untrue claim given the fact that mobilization for Mosuavi was done on a large scale through not just famous Iranian websites but in some cases satellite televisions, but also to remind you of some of the circumstances in which the Iranian people voted for Mousavi: 1.There were repeated cases of government filtering of the Time website through the voting and many people claimed that the state is purposely bringing the internet speed in Tehran to an unbelievably low level to block the voting process. 2.On April 14th, 2010, the Iranian right-wing newspaper Kayhan wrote a story on how inspire of the fact that the “bankrupted opposition” are using Time to voice their message, Lady Gaga, “a counter-moral singer” is still at the top: http://kayhannews.ir/890125.... 3.Kayhan's report itself showed how sensitive the government is on the issue. In spite of such serious limitations, the will to make Mousavi, as a symbol of the collective consciousness of a movement, outstanding in the list has succeeded so far. I would like to once again thank you for the opportunity you are providing to us, the citizens of the international community, to voice our opinions.
Sincerely Yours
In paragraph three I referred to the mobilization for the voting on Iranian media outlets. One case can be found in the Iranian Digg-like website Balatarin: http://balatarin.com/topic....
--
Please use this text and Email to letters@time.com
Dear Editors;
During the past few days, the supporters of Mirhossein Mousavi, the opposition candidate in the disputed Iranian presidential elections and a prominent figure in the movement that followed the elections demanding civil and political rights, have found the 2010 Time 100 Poll as an avenue to voice their opinion to the international community at large and make their demands and the prominence of their heroic move clear. After months of brutal crackdown of a movement that has repeatedly been compared to Gandhi's nonviolent move against British colonialism and the American Civil Rights Movement which has succeed in enforcing a deadly political silence on the Iranian streets, the 2010 Time 100 Poll once again provided a rally ground for re-energizing the same will to be viewed and counted as that the manifested itself in the Iranian streets through the past month. It was thus of no surprise that Mr. Mousavi's votes kept increasing and reached to the top of list on the late hours of April 13th 2010. The main fundamental distinction between Mousavi and his rivals on the 2010 Time 100 Poll was that Mousavi was being supported by great segments of a nation and symbolized not merely a politician but a movement that rose out of the demand to be counted. “We are countless!,” as one motto of the Green Movement explicitly said. Currently, I see people claiming to have complained to Time regarding the resort to fraud by voters of Mousavi. “They must have slave robots voting for them,” one person claimed. I am writing this email not only to remind you that this is an untrue claim given the fact that mobilization for Mosuavi was done on a large scale through not just famous Iranian websites but in some cases satellite televisions, but also to remind you of some of the circumstances in which the Iranian people voted for Mousavi: 1.There were repeated cases of government filtering of the Time website through the voting and many people claimed that the state is purposely bringing the internet speed in Tehran to an unbelievably low level to block the voting process. 2.On April 14th, 2010, the Iranian right-wing newspaper Kayhan wrote a story on how inspire of the fact that the “bankrupted opposition” are using Time to voice their message, Lady Gaga, “a counter-moral singer” is still at the top: http://kayhannews.ir/890125.... 3.Kayhan's report itself showed how sensitive the government is on the issue. In spite of such serious limitations, the will to make Mousavi, as a symbol of the collective consciousness of a movement, outstanding in the list has succeeded so far. I would like to once again thank you for the opportunity you are providing to us, the citizens of the international community, to voice our opinions.
Sincerely Yours
In paragraph three I referred to the mobilization for the voting on Iranian media outlets. One case can be found in the Iranian Digg-like website Balatarin: http://balatarin.com/topic....
--
اشتراک در:
پستها (Atom)
