Category: Muslim World Opinion

Dr. Mohamed Elmasry

Displayed on the poster was an image of a Muslim woman wearing a hijab, accompanied by the words, “how can we liberate them?”

The poster was disturbing enough, but even more disturbing was the fact that it was distributed all over Amsterdam in 2003 as a government public service announcement.

Two persistent false images dominate the propaganda used by Islamophobes. One is that Muslim women are oppressed because of — not in spite of — the teachings of Islam.

The other is that Western imperial powers, particularly the United States, are genuinely interested in liberating Muslim women, especially following the American-led occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

In reality, these false images are not new at all; their roots date back to the European occupation of Muslim lands during the 1700s. Today they are so widespread thanks to Western media.

While Reformation-era Europe learned much from its Muslim neighbours (especially in sciences and medicine), it seems Western culture has a very short collective memory. Present-day media rarely refer to Islamic truths that paint a very different image from the depressing and confusing portrayals of women that readers are more likely to find in their pages.

Where can non-Muslims learn, for example, that in Islam women have souls; that they have equal intellectual capabilities as men; that they have as much right and need of advanced education in every field of human inquiry; that they can initiate divorce; keep their family names after marriage; or have separate and distinct careers in their own right?

Alongside the false imagery of missing information is the insidious media-hyped disinformation that Muslim men (especially “religious” ones) are sexist, oppressive wife-beaters.

You’d think that the media in our so-called “liberal” society would pay more attention to concrete issues that genuinely compromise and demean the quality of life of Western women, who are statistically at greatest risk from the effects of poverty, pornography, domestic abuse, marginalization, or lack of educational opportunities in career-building fields (like maths and sciences).

And you’d think that these same media would invest far more emphasis on the urgency of exposing human rights violations committed against Muslim women in Palestine, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan or any other area in which war and civil unrest produce many more victims among non-combatants.

Other truth to keep in mind when confronted with media stereotypes and comparisons are that ultra-orthodox Muslim women often have more traditions and practices in common with ultra-orthodox women from other faiths (Judaism, for example) than with many of their own co-religionists.

This is even true of many Christian sects and denominations, and has been so for generations. Similarly, Muslim women in the developing world suffer the same deprivations and obstacles as woman of all religious groups in the same socio-economic circumstances.

Very little is published about high-achievers (past or present) among Muslim women.

Even today, surprisingly few people know that in our modern era, Turkey, Pakistan and Bangladesh have all had Muslim women as their prime ministers; or that in many Muslim countries women routinely achieve high-profile professional careers as medical doctors, lawyers, government ministers, academics, judges, ambassadors, airline pilots, athletes, actresses, directors, writers, poets, corporate CEO, political officials, or that they serve in the army, police forces, and as customs and border officials – to name but a few occupations that are still considered “non-traditional” in Western culture.

As well, you’ll find little mention that in many Muslim countries female university and college students in engineering and science classes far exceed the numbers found in the West. This is the case in Iran and Egypt, to name only two Muslim countries.

Some of these women are fully practicing Muslims, some are not. Some are bare-headed and indistinguishable from any women you’d meet working or studying in Europe and North America; others wear head scarves, or hijab; and a few may wear a full head-to-toe Burqa.

But the way they choose to dress has nothing to do with their level of competence.

In the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, Muslim women athletes from Egypt, Iran, Bahrain, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Oman and Pakistan proudly represented their countries.

Two of them, Bahraini track star Roqaya Al Ghasara and Iranian rower Homa Hosseini — both of whom wear the hijab in public — won the honour of being flag bearers for their countries at the opening ceremonies.

“The hijab has never been a problem for me. In Bahrain you grow up with it,” 25-year-old Al Ghasara told a Reuters reporter [1]. “There are more women in sport all the time from countries like Qatar and Kuwait. You can choose to wear the hijab or not. For me it’s liberating,” she added.

Al Ghasara’s close-fitting running hijabs come in red or white, the Bahraini colors. In fact, Reuters reported that the women in Al Ghasara’s home town were so proud of their pioneering Olympic sprinter that some got together to design and sew a set of tailor-made aerodynamic hijabs for her to run in.

Al Ghasara made news in 2005 as the first female medalist of the West Asian Games after the event was opened to women and the first Bahraini athlete to win gold in international athletic competition.

Egyptian fencer Shaimaa El Gammal, 28, wore the hijab for the first time in Beijing – her third Olympic competition. She called the change a sign she has come of age and, like Al Ghasara, feels more empowered than ever.

Hijab-wearing Muslim women athletes began appearing at the Olympics and other international sporting competitions a few decades ago and they have always drawn curious stares.

“People see us wearing the scarf and think we ride camels,” El Gammal told a journalist recently. “But Muslim women can do anything they want … When I fence I’m proud that I’m a Muslim. It’s very symbolic for women in my country.”

Iranian women with hijabs competed in the 2008 Olympics in rowing, tae-kwon-do and archery. From Afghanistan, where a majority of women still wear the head-to-toe burka, sprinter Robina Muqimyar competed in the 100 metre race wearing a hijab.

In the summer of 2008 British singer-songwriter Yusuf Islam (formerly known as Cat Stevens) became a high-profile victim of false accusations regarding “veiled women.” He won libel damages and an apology from a news agency after it reported erroneously that he had refused to talk to non-veiled women at an awards ceremony. [2]

Islam, 59, is best known for a string of 60s and 70s hits such as “Moonshadow.” He changed his name after becoming a Muslim during the late 1970s. He said he plans to donate the “substantial” libel payout to Small Kindness, a UN-linked charity he chairs.

When interviewed by Reuters about the court case brought by Islam against World Entertainment News Network, Islam’s lawyer Alam Tudor described the article as suggesting that the singer was “so sexist and bigoted that he refused at an awards ceremony to speak to or even acknowledge any women who were not wearing a veil.” Tudor said the article had embarrassed the singer, creating a false impression of his attitude to women and also casting serious aspersions against his religious faith.

As in any culture, however, some Muslim women do fall victim to domestic violence, despite the volume of teachings by the Prophet that condemn spousal abuse.

Instead of studying the problem within in the broader context of violence against women, Islamophobes cling to a narrow interpretation of isolated and out-of-context Qur’an verses, which supposedly show a correlation between domestic violence and Islamic teaching. This counterproductive practice, known as proof-texting, is an ongoing problem for Christianity as well; it applies to any self-proclaimed religious expert who attempts to justify an opinion based on partial and/or misleading “proof.”

Deeper study and understanding will show that Islam actually gave women more rights from its inception than either Judaism or Christianity.

Islam, for example, treated women and men as equal life-partners. None of the demeaning, restrictive or judgmental teachings about women found in the Jewish Torah or Christian Bible (both Old and New Testaments) appear in the Qur’an.

A Jewish woman, for example, cannot remarry unless her divorcing husband gives her permission.

St. Paul taught that a woman has no “head” (i.e. identity or personal authority) of her own, but that her husband is her head as much as she is his body. In 1st Timothy 2:12-14, Paul writes: “I do not allow women to teach or to have authority over men. They must keep quiet. For Adam was created first and then Eve. And it was not Adam who deceived. It was the woman who was deceived and broke God’s law.”

1. Renowned Christian theologian, Prof. Rosemary Radford Reuther, notes: “Traditional Christianity adopted this reading of the Fall story, in which Eve was the primary guilty partner in causing historic evil in the world … Woman’s subordinate status, therefore, not only reflects her original inferior nature but also is a just punishment for her guilt in causing evil to come into the world, thereby leading to the death of Christ. Far from saving her, the death of Christ only deepens her guilt, while it absolves the male of his faith and allows him to represent the male saviour.” [3]

The great Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, echoed the same tradition as St. Paul whose theology he most admired: “The wife was made subject to the man by the Law which was given after sin … The rule remains with the husband and the wife is compelled to obey him by God’s command. He rules the home and the state, wages war, defends his possessions, tills the soil, plants, builds, etc. The woman, on the other hand, is like a nail driven into the wall. She sits at home …” Ironically, Luther’s own wife (a former nun) was an accomplished businesswoman, musician, scholar and mother!

Prof. Reuther comments further; “Grumbling by women about this status or their efforts to change it represent for Luther a wrongheaded effort to revolt against a punishment that they must be forced to accept and bear as an expression of their sinful status … The story is no better for women when told by John Calvin.”

Confronted by centuries of Catholic and Protestant teachings filled with judgmental — or at best, ambiguous — attitudes toward women, one cannot blame Muslims for being both confused and skeptical about the message of Christianity. This kind of anti-feminist theology is totally alien o Islam.

Prof. Reuther explains that: “ … the Council of Toledo in AD 400 decreed that if a wife of the clergy transgresses his commands, the husband may beat the wife, keep her bound in their house, and force her to fast but ‘not unto death’.” She adds that canon (church) law gives a cleric the “right to beat his wife harder than does the ordinary man … Most customary and town law in the medieval and Renaissance periods gave husbands the right to beat their wives, although it was usually said that they should do so ‘reasonably’ or ‘moderately’.”

For the past 1400 years, no such laws or practices have been decreed or sanctioned in any Muslim country.

Yvonne Ridley, a British journalist who converted to Islam said that, based on her lifelong experience as a feminist, “women do not need liberating from Islam but from ubiquitous male chauvinist fear.” [4]

In the process of studying Islam and its beliefs, she re-examined the liberal tradition of her Western Christian upbringing and “saw its paucity in relation to the rights granted to women by Islam 1400 years ago.”

The Qur’an mentions two women – Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the wife of an Egyptian Pharaoh — as models of piety for all humanity, men and women alike. The Qur’an also mentions two other women who should not be emulated by anyone — the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot (66:10-12).

For both genders, the Qur’an explicitly states (in 9:71-72 and 10:62-64, for example) that the entry-way to sainthood was, and still is, open to all. Among the female saints honoured in Islam is Khadija, the first wife and faithful supporter of Prophet Muhammad, as well as the first Muslim (and protector of the fledgling Muslim community), and mother of his children.

Another revered saint is the Prophet’s second wife, Aisha, a scholar who taught an entire generation of male students and who provided political leadership after her husband’s death. And then there is Muhammad’s courageous daughter Fatima, who served in the first Muslim army. More than a century later, Rab’a al-Adawiyya (d.801) was a revered woman saint who inspired a generation of Sufis.

Islam was the first to introduce the legal right of women to inherit a proportional share of a family’s wealth and assets; in some cases, her share would even be more than that of a male relative.

Islam was also the first to officially limit the number of wives a man could have to four, but with emphasis on one as the norm.

Zina (adultery, or any other sexual misconduct) was pronounced off-limits for men and women alike and both were granted the right to dissolve their marriages.

Remarriage was granted to both genders, including divorcées and widows – a right still withheld from many women today.

The Islamic dress code for men and women emphasized modesty; in fact, the draped head cover seen in many famous portraits of Jesus’ mother Mary is thought to be very similar to what Muslim women used to wear.

Setting Islamophobic propaganda aside, societies and governments must work together to solve the negatives issues all women face in today’s world.

“Poverty is still very much a women’s issue,” asserts Canadian researcher Monica Townson. “While there have been improvements in the past decade or so, women are still more likely than men to be living in low income … But statistics on low income do not tell the full story of women’s poverty. While governments and advocacy groups redouble their efforts to ‘make poverty history,’ the United Nations has suggested that poverty cannot be eradicated unless we adopt a more comprehensive view of poverty — one that recognizes poverty is more than a shortage of income. As the United Nations describes it, poverty is ‘the denial of opportunities and choices most basic to human development — to lead a long, healthy, creative life and to enjoy a decent standard of living, freedom, dignity, self-esteem, and the respect of others’.” [5]

Townson is the author of five books, as well as many studies and reports on the economic situation of women. She was Chair of the Ontario Fair Tax Commission, and has been a consultant to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on the economic role of women.

“In Canada at the time of the 2001 Census, based on before-tax incomes, more than 36% of Aboriginal women, compared with 17% of non-Aboriginal women were living in poverty,” she noted. “Data from the 2001 Census, based on before-tax incomes in 2000, indicated 29% of visible minority women were living in poverty. While the poverty rate for all foreign-born women was 23%, women who immigrated to Canada between 1991 and 2000 had a poverty rate of 35%. It is perhaps significant that the majority of these women were also from visible minority groups.”

“Racism and discrimination almost certainly contribute to high rates of poverty among racialized women,” she continues. “Immigrant women may also face difficulties in finding paid employment because credentials from their countries of origin are not recognized in Canada. Access to language training may also be a problem. Many immigrant seniors do not receive Old Age Security benefits because they have not been in Canada long enough to qualify for a benefit.”

And “women are much more likely to be poor if they are on their own without a spouse or partner. The depth of poverty of lone-parent mothers is a serious concern. For example, in 2003, the average income of the 208,000 women who were heads of lone parent families was $6,300 below the poverty line … In 2003, the low-income rate for women aged 65 and over was 8.7% compared with 4.4% for senior men. For the past decade, however, the poverty rate of older women on their own has varied between 27% and 19% with no significant downward trend over that period. In 2003, 19% of senior women on their own compared with 15% of unattached older men were considered low income. Average incomes of women aged 65 plus who were on their own and living in poverty in 2003 were $2,300 below the poverty line.”

“I find it really outrageous and inconceivable to watch this fierce campaign rallying in ‘defence’ of ‘our rights,’ the rights of Muslim women,” wrote Nahida Izzat, articulating what many Muslim women feel and want to say. [6]

Izzat, a 47-year-old mother, describes herself as “… a Jerusalem-born Palestinian refugee living in exile for over 40 years. I was forced to leave my homeland, Palestine, at the age of seven during the six-day war. I am a mathematician by profession, but art is one of my favourite pastimes; I love hand-made things, so I make dolls, cards, and most of my own clothes.

“What disturbs and frustrates me about this impious movement,” she continues, “is the fact that those who are holding the banner of our ‘liberation’ are precisely the ones whose hands are dripping with our blood, the blood of Muslim women! Wouldn’t it be a good idea if they stop killing us first (in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine with the imminent threat to Iran)? I mean, honestly, at least their hideous and bogus calls might gain some legitimacy and credibility then.

“Wouldn’t it be a good idea if they could spare us their fake concern, and their crocodile tears, weeping over our state of affairs and act honestly for once, by stopping their genocide against us, and by washing our blood off their hands? This shrieking and fussing calling for our liberation from the ‘oppression’ and ‘dominance’ of Islam is not innocent; it’s rather sinister and disturbing…”

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSPEK28709020080811?sp=true

[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSL1888341620080718

[3] Joanne Carlson Brown and Carole R. Bohn, Editors, “Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse,” The Pilgrim Press, 1989.

[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/women.islam/print

[5] http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/resources/consultations/ges09-2005/poverty_e.html

[6] http://poetryforpalestine.spaces.live.com/default.aspx
To read more click below…
“Liberating” Muslim Women

Dialogue between the US and the Muslim world is important even if the US is a country/superpower and the Muslim world is divided and spread over at least 56 countries that are more in need of dialogue amongst themselves than with Washington.

A forum that allows Muslims to voice their views about the US military presence and wars in the Muslim world, and Americans to explain their policies and approach to the region, is welcomed, and Doha should be congratulated for hosting such forums.

However, considering that for decades Zionism and Israeli occupation have been the main points of contention between the US and the Muslim world, it is rather bizarre, even absurd, that the centre that sponsors the dialogue has been financially backed by a radical right-wing Israeli and managed by renowned Zionist friends of Israel.

Haim Saban is the ‘godfather’ (founder and chairman) of Brookings Saban Centre for the Middle East Policy – which explains the name.

By his own words, he is an Israel lover, friend and supporter of Ariel Sharon, who admires Israeli combat troops, considers Ahmadinejad to be a Hitler, and wishes one day to be Israel’s minister for public relations. (See Saban by his own words below, it’s a must read).

Although he left Israel many years ago, Haim maintains strong relations with Israel and its leaders. He is a major backer of the Israeli lobby, the American Israel Public affairs Committee (AIPAC), which runs a programme for hundreds of activists from around the US under his name – The Saban Leadership Seminar. Not the best credentials for bridging between Americans and Muslims!

Saban is also big financial supporter of Washington insiders such as the Clintons.

According to press reports, Haim Saban was the “Israeli agent” that Congresswoman Jane Harman was caught on tape telling that she would lobby the justice department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of AIPAC.

I personally doubt that, he’s far bigger than a mere “agent”.

Martin Indyk, who helped Haim establish the Saban Center and went on to direct it, is a former friend of AIPAC and director of the staunchly pro-Israeli think-tank, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).

Indyk was also responsible for a number of controversial (read failed) policies towards the Muslim world as National Security Director for the Middle East in the Clinton White House, including the policy of “dual containment” towards Iran and Iraq, and the failed peace process in Israel-Palestine.

The present director, Kenneth Pollak – a former CIA analyst- supported Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and later in Iraq.

A former National Security Council director for the Persian Gulf and South East Asia, he actually helped instigate the invasion of Iraq in his book “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq”.

Considering the centre’s management and that they represent all that is problematic about US-Muslim relations, how does the Saban Centre get away with managing dialogue between the US and the Muslim world?

That’s precisely why it distinguishes itself from the likes of the flagrantly pro-Israeli WINEP, AIPAC or JINSA (The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs).

The Saban Centre for Middle East Policy presents itself as mainstream think-tank, when there is nothing mainstream about it.

It invites Muslim leaders and scholars to speak and hires Arabs and Muslim “experts” and hosts “visiting scholars” from the Muslim world along with their Israeli “experts”, such as former heads of the Israeli intelligence services and the former head of military planning.

Politically savvy, but hardly credible for constructive engagement in such sensitive even explosive issue as US-Muslim world dialogue.

Imagine for a moment if a Saudi financed pro-Hamas think-tank runs US Jewish world dialogue. How credible would that be?

Excerpts from Haim Saban’s 2006 interview with Ari Shavit of the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz.

On his worries for Israel:

“… Israel does not worry me. Israel’s neighbours worry me … History proved that Sharon was right and I was wrong. In matters relating to security, that moved me to the right. Very far to the right.”

On Iran:

“The Iranians are serious. They mean business. Ahmadinejad is not a madman.

“When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five-and-a-half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that.

“Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It’s truly an existential danger.”

On the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran:

“Is there a higher price than two nuclear bombs on Israel? So they will fire missiles, all right then. Iran is not Lebanon, where you pinpoint specific targets: this bridge here, that building, half of that courtyard over there. In Iran you go in and wipe out their infrastructure completely. Plunge them into darkness. Cut off their water.”

“Would I prefer a defence minister who is capable of looking at a map and saying, ‘Half a division here, two divisions there, send the commandos from the north and let the navy hit from the south’? Yes, I would prefer that. Because to negotiate with management on behalf of the unions is a skill, but it’s a different skill from planning a war. In our situation, for all time, at least in our lifetime, we need a defence minister who has a thorough understanding of these subjects.”

On Israeli leaders:

“Sharon was a terrific prime minister. First of all as a human being. He’s a sweetheart. I would phone him and he would get back to me in five minutes. He didn’t get into, you know, games. And he had a realistic view of the situation.

“Bibi [Binyamin Netanyahu] did wonders for the economy. [Ehud] Barak’s understanding of security matters goes without saying. They both have a contribution to make. If Ehud could form a partnership with them that would not be accompanied by subversiveness, that would be fantastic.”

On entering Israeli politics:

“I would be very happy to be given an opportunity to be minister of public diplomacy… [apparently he had tears in his eyes at this moment during the interview]

About his relationship with Israel:

“More than love. Passion. A love that is passion…. When we approach Israel I always ask the pilots of my plane to let me sit in the chair between them. We don’t play ‘Heveinu Shalom Aleichem,’ but when I see the coast coming up my heart starts to go boom, boom, boom.”

On Israeli combat soldiers:

“I can’t handle combat soldiers: whenever I have any interaction with them, I cry. Really. I swear. I was in the north two months ago and Gal Hirsch [division commander during the war in the north who resigned shortly afterward] did a tour with us.

“When he spoke to us and explained what happened in the abduction [of two soldiers by Hezbollah] and what happened in the war, I looked at him and cried. I, as an Israeli, would not exist if not for people like that. I strut around like a peacock in America and say I am an Israeli-American.”

Source: Al Jazeera.com

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Muslimsvoice of America’s editorial policy.
To read more click:

An Obstacle to Better Us-Muslim Relations

Turkish Daily News:

The United States’ recent speeding up of arms sales with its Gulf allies has raised some eyebrows as these sales appear to be preparations for a potential clash with Iran. Although these contracts to sell warplanes and anti-missile systems actually started with the George W. Bush administration in 2005 to ally with Arab states and counter Iran’s growing influence in the region, accelerating it now increases the tension in an already tense Middle Eastern climate.
According to the Washington Post, arms sales, including a U.S.-backed plan to triple the size of a 10,000-man protection force in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, are leading a region-wide military buildup that has resulted in more than $25 billion in U.S. arms purchases in the past two years alone.
While we are getting closer to a period that seems to be generating a historic set of events in terms of the Iranian conundrum, there are two schools of thought emerging with two sundry arguments on the situation. There are those in Washington, including Seymour Hersh as well as Flynt and Hillary Mann Leveret, who think the U.S. must do more to bind Iran to multilateral negotiations. On the other hand, there are others who argue that Iran is not willing to negotiate at this time because it mainly does not see having close ties to the U.S. as beneficial to its national security interests.

I had a chance to listen to both Hersh, an investigative journalist with many links to the region, and talk to Ladan Yazdian, an Iranian-American security analyst in Washington D.C., on the Iranian nuclear question, in the interests of getting two different approaches on the issue.

According to Hersh, Iran has not been able to enrich the uranium it possesses more than 3 or 3.5 percent so far because of technical issues. This level of enrichment is much lower than 90 to 95 percent, a level which is considered to be needed for a nuclear weapon.

And Hersh defends the Iranian position by claiming that Iran has already accepted the West’s offer to send 20 percent of the 1300 or 1500 kilogram uranium, the amount that Iran is considered to possess currently, to Russia to be enriched by up to 20 percent. Subsequently, this uranium from Russia will be shipped to the French where it will be put into pallets that they can only be used for the medical purposes, which is what Iran claims the enriched uranium is necessary.

It is the irrationality of the Americans, and the West, that prevents this nuclear deal from happening, Hersh argues, and by asking Iran to ship all the uranium at once. Therefore, although Iran is doing nearly all it can do to solve the problem, it is this attitude of Western obstructionism that does not let this detail be overcame.

After listening to this perspective, I called up Yazdian, my Iranian-American friend, who was born and raised in Iran and follows the Iranian issues closely. I informed her of what Hersh had to say about the current state of the Iranian nuclear impasse and sought her opinion.

According to Yazdian, since President Barack Obama came to the office, he has been sincere and committed to unconditional negotiations with Iran. Despite three decades of distrust and conflict, Obama made an effort to offer a considerable package of incentives and start a new chapter in bilateral relationships as a part of his new foreign agenda to open up to rough regimes around the world.

A generous nuclear incentive package was offered to Iran during the past summer, which included a broader range of economic, political and energy incentives, improving Iran’s access to the global economy by promoting investment, membership in the World Trade Organization and the possible lifting of U.S. and European restrictions on the export of civilian aircraft and telecommunications equipment, as well as other diplomatic and cultural exchanges.

Yazdian said despite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s initial Sept. 23 proposal to buy enriched uranium from the U.S., and International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, efforts at multilateral negotiations, talks have come to a halt. She cited several factors for the regime’s unwillingness to respond to the international community and oblige it to keep its commitments.

These factors embody the internal divisions among the factions within the Iranian regime, lack of international pressure, and the anti-American nature of the Iranian regime that makes it impossible to explain changes of policy to its people after years of harsh rhetoric toward the U.S., especially during the post-election uprising. Yazdian said Iran has not shown a goodwill gesture and has bought time on numerous occasions, therefore pushing the international community toward tougher multilateral actions.

If the Iranian regime accepts the offer, it will appear weak at home and would lose its legitimacy. Yazdian recalled that there were similar debates during the Mohamed Khatami presidency, and when Khatami softened his tone toward the West, his administration was immediately criticized by hardliners who saw the reform movement as the tool of the West.

Since it was known that Iran was working on secret uranium enrichment programs, several estimates about Iran’s capability for a nuclear bomb have been put forward by various intelligence agencies. Despite the revelation of another nuclear facility near the city of Qom last fall, Iran’s nuclear capability remains mostly a guessing game according to Yazdian, as opposed to Hersh’s concrete assessments about Iran’s nuclear capability.

In the eyes of this latter approach, the current nuclear impasse between Iran and the West stems from the nature of the Iranian regime and that Iran sees no imminent danger except toothless sanctions coming from the West. Also, the Islamic regime considers negotiations as a “kiss of death” and instead has tried to close its doors to the outside world during the internal upheaval which it still is dealing with.

We might just find out whether Hersh, who has uncovered some of the darkest sides of the Bush’s global war on terror, just reactively views the West vs. Iran conflict or whether he does know things that other colossal intelligence agencies around the world could not piece together.

To read more click below..
Is Iran or the West to blame?