Chomsky interview and the information he revealed about Iran made me search about these deals Iran proposed and United States refused , I was surprised to find they were two proposals
In year 2003 Iran agreed to do the following :
- To negotiate directly with the United States of America
- To accept the most stringent new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) protocols on its nuclear program which would involve onsite inspection of all nuclear sites, something both United States and Israel don't do .
- To accept the Arab Peace initiative in 2002 "Do you remember it in Beirut Arab summit , the Saudi intuitive!?"
- To end its logistic support for Hezbollah in South Lebanon
More about it is in this link Check here
Surprise is n't it !!?? no one in the world knew anything about this proposal
By the way if my memory didn't become weak , in year 2003 I remember that a sudden Irani-Egyptian summit happened n Switzerland between Presidents Mubarak and Khatami , the first meeting from its kind since the Irani Islamic revolution in the year 1977 ,call me crazy but may be some Egyptians knew about this proposal
Now we move in years and we will go to Year 2006 , Ayatollah Khamenei himself re-presented this offer in June 2006 , check the date before the war and I don't know but it seemed to me it is refused for no clear reason !! Khamenei is greater than Nijad in Position in Iran
So why did the United states refuse the Persian Proposal despite it fulfils all what the west and the world wants from Iran ??
And why were these proposal hidden from media ?? especially the American one??
And may be it's a trial of the US Media in order to create a gap between Hezbollah and Iran, actually what proves that this is true, especially that it was never announced anywhere.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, may be Iran wanted to save themselves after the US occupation of Iraq, that might have scared them a lot, however after seeing the real mess USA is in, in Iraq, they decided to forget about such proposal as they felt safer then.
well that's very interesting . Actually, it reminds me with what Condalisa Rice announced 5 months a ago about the U.S being willing to negotiate with iran about Iraq, just when the Death toll of American soldiers was rising drastically.
ReplyDeleteShortly, after the negotiations sectarian violence reached its peak.
Zenobia i do agree with you that Iran is feeling threatened with American troops at its western and eastern border. However that doesn't necessarily mean that the Arab and Persian agenda must be congruent.
Iran's vision and plans for iraq are differnt fromn the Arab ones, for several reasons which i will try to set out .
First and foremost, we all have to realise that shiism is basically being used by Iran as a disguise for Persian Nationalism. If we look far back in the islamic histry
into the origin of that sect We will clearly see that it originated as a persian retaliation against the arabic dominance within the Islamic Empire. During the time of the Ummayads , the claiphs favoured the Arabic elemnt and treated the non Arab Moslems as second class citezens( al-Mawali). The rivaling factions in the Empire the "Alids" and and the "Abaasyds" portrayed themsleves to the oppresed persians who suffered a lot from the Arabic tribes in Iran like Tamim ,Saad, Bakr and Taghloub. Eventually with the help of the persians they siezed power based on their blood relation to mohammed "sala allah alyih wa salem". From that time on shiism becamethe iranian version of islam that ensured their cultural and political independence from the Arabic hegemony.
In the modern times persian and Arabic nationalism are mutually exclusive. Nasser refused to include the iranians into middle eastern regime. During the 1973 war the Shah mobilised the huge iranian army close to the iraqi border to prevent iraq from fully interfering in the battle. Moreover, the israeli tanks were fueled by iranian oil!!!!.
After the islamic revolution tat horrible maniac Khomini used to call for bringig down the infidel baathist regime in iraq and called arabic nationalism herecy. Whereas, in the mean time the Arabs in iran (al-ahwas) were persecuted, forbiden from teaching Arabic in schools and subjected to mass murders. Persian was considered the only language in Iran, despite of the multi ethnic and cultural structure of the iranian society.
Bottom of the line, the iranian islamists viewd arab natinalism as an evil force while persian natinalism is very legitimate!
Now after going throu the roots of shiism and its organic links to Persian nationalism. we can leap into another the current iraq iran issue in modern iraq. iraq went into an 8 years bitter war aginst iran in which khmoni khmini and the rest of the gang were humilated and defeated anf forced to accept the dominance of Arabism in the region. The iranians were full of envy and grudge against iraq. In 1988 the united natins development report mentined that iraq had the highest rate of development in the middle east, the a steadily growing solid middle class, and the best technical elite in the 3rd world. Health care in iraq was simliar to the scandnavian one, iraqi women had the best rights in the Arab world. But what makes the iraqi experience very special was that the modernisation in iraq was taking place in an Arabic contexts . the iraqis were very proud of their Arabic identity and heritage and were succefully modifying the lements of western culture to suit the Arabic context.
in 1990 the main target of the American bombs were the iraqi technical and scientific elite ho were all forced to leave iraq.
The supreme commander of the islamic revolutin council and the Badr miltias in iran Abdel Aziz Al Hakim told poul briemer" am iranian ,you are American , they are iraqis"
the pan arabist shia cleric ayatollah al fadl who asked the shiaa to join the herioc sunni resistance in their war aginst occupation. Consequantly his shiaa followers burned down the Iranian consulate in Basrah and asked the persian dirt to get out of iraq.
His office was bombed 3 months ago!!!!
Al hakim is calling for a federal iraq.
If Iran is really against the American presence in iraq, then why doesn't it ask its man hakim and its proxy militants to fight the Americans. Irinically the traitors are joining the Americans in their war against the noble, heroic iraqi resistance.
the way i see it is hat its in Iran's best favour to let the americans and sunni resistance exhaust eachother, then its men will eventually sieze power and turn iraq into a weak iran client state.
About the iranian people .I have many iranian clolleagues. Almost all of them hate the current regime in Iran, and say that they dont care about Neither the Lebanese nor the Palestinians!! they even say that there are no fundmantal differences between Iran and Israel,which makes some sense though.
Furthermore, some of them view islam as an evil force that destroyed the Persian empire and turned the iranians into slaves for the Arabs, those are not a majority though. Howver, if it hadnt been for the firm grip of the revolutionary guards, am sure we would have seen a very different Iran. There are no transparency in Iran or open source information about opinion polls in Iran. But dont forget that like you Am an Arab . aND ARABS ARE KNOWN FOR EL "FARASAH".
We have a sharper intuition, our feelings are like a compass sometimes it takes us to places pure reason can't
@Tarek , I believe this may have taken place , you see the Iranis know very well that whatever they represent won't please the United States , who wants the end of their nuclear program ,this proposal doesn't harm the relations between Hezbollah and Iran , because if we analysis the proposal we will find the Arab peace intitative was based upon the complete withdrawal of Israel from the the Arab land taken 1967 including shabaa's farms
ReplyDelete@amr el-abyad, when we speak shiism sect history it will be very complicated , i don't like to use the word disguise when speak about Islam in Iran , it is not a disguise , what happened and I read about it when times from many sources is exactly a merge between an old civilization , a great one with a new religion , I won't explain more how it developed a political opposition movemeent in Iraq against the Ummyads to a complete different religious sect ,of course you know that there are many sects inside the shiite sect itself , all are influenced by the land of Iran . I don't know but I feel that you are talking about Iran with lots of hate that those people in Tahran are just planning 24 hourse to invade the lands of the Arabs ,erase the Sunni etc..
Iran is just like Egypt got a strong seperate idenitity , no can deny it , it is a civilization land , a strong one that ruled the world ,just like us , you may find many people here and surprised by their thinking and their look to the Arabs as something inferior "you know the 7000 years civilization people"
anyway just historical remarks Nasser was with Mosadaq revolution in Iran and that's why Shah Iran hated him and stood against him by all suitable ways
I am not a big admirer of the Islamic revolution in Iran but I can' understand why it happened on the other hand I can't forget that they hang Khaled El-Islamboly picture in one of Iran's main squares , I believe in freedom and the regime in Iran kills jounralists I know all these
but there is a famous proverb says the enemy of enemy is my friend
iran is giving back up now for Syria and this is real important for us
about Iraq my dear friend the problem is it has no leader to unite it call me naive , but sometimes I believe to bring Peace in such a country you must have a dictator like Saddam
seriously I believe the Iraqis themselves hold the key , they must forget the past , they must believe in the Iraq , not the Arabic , Not the Irani, not the Islamic but Iraq the real Iraq who gather all those ethnics for thousands of years, it is not shiite only it is kurds , Turkman, Ashuri and Muslim Shiite and Sunni all those people are not controlled by Iran
You forgot the real danger of those kurds who are putting their hands in the hands of the Israelis
@Zeinovia, A proposal like this without a previous agreement between the Hezb and Iran, may harm their mutual relations for sure. So, if the proposal we are talking about here is just an american lie, then from Hezbullahs point of view, it will look like a betrayal from Iran's side, as for sure there is no agreement regarding it between them.
ReplyDelete@Amr, I am not sure about that Persian Nationalism you are talking about. You said that "We will clearly see that it originated as a persian retaliation against the arabic dominance within the Islamic Empire. During the time of the Ummayads", however Iran (Persians) wasn't Shiit before the Safavid dynasty in 1501 A.D. Which is about 1000 years after the Ummayads era. Shiism is in Lebanon for example, long time before Iran. It may be surprising to tell you that most of the Shiit Clerics includin Khomeini for example are of Arabic origins.
Back to what you are calling Persian Nationalism, this may be true during the Shah era in a way or another, which is normal for a Monarchy sysitim, especially that Nationalism was some kind of hype then, Gamal Nasser for example. However the Shah was secular, and his opinions are not supposed to be of any religios roots. Even though, at that time, most of the Arab countries had very good relations with Iran then, or the Shah. Anwar El Sadat is a good example. The attach on Shiia, and fatwas against them were not normally seen before the Iranian Revoultion. It's politics that changes, not religious beliefs, and and that's why the Irqi/Iranian war for example took that religious/national cover, with Saddam claiming that he protecting the Arabs from the Persian ambitions, however it is well know that USA pushed him to attack Iran as a response to the Iranian Revolution that was against them for sure, didn't you ask yourself why did that war take place just one year after the revolution in Iran, however there we persians across the borders before the revolution for sure.
The system in Iran is some kind of tyranny, that could be useing the religion as a cover for fighting democracy, and place their own will against people's will. And that's why I am not really into religious-based governmets, especially in modern nations, where different sects and groups live. But, the ideas of destroying Arabs, and spreading the so called Persian Nationalism are not convincing me at all, especially when they are being coupled with an islamic section that is present long time before Iran, or any other country.
@Zenobia, your feeling is right. i do have some prejude against the iranians. But you might as well remeber that each one of us has got his own prejudices and judments. Otherwise life would turn into a robotic meanigless process ! any way back to our issue. one of them made foul remarks about the Arabs. Consequantly, i taught him a very good lessons in manners
ReplyDeleteYes iraq needs somone like saddam Hussien. Dont get me wrong, my whole life is a struggle for absolute freedom story. But, when it comes to democracy we have to remeber two things: first, most of the think tanks exist in the west, so it is them who decide what is right and what is wrong, basically most of the norms and values that construct our reality are western in origin.And without knowing about we are objects, even the most radical extremists are basically doing nothing, but reacting senselssly and fanatically to the western dominance ! revealing an inverted inferirity complex.
Demcracy means differen things to different people. It took Europe 500 years to turn into democratic peaceful, rational and balanced societies. So why do you expect us o be democratic within a flicker. First we need to develop our petrified mind sets, inflitrate our heritage, achieve social and econom,ic justice. Trust me democracy will be the inevitable outcome. Compare Russia and china, democracy lead to chaeos in Russia, whilst in china economic growth is gradually leading to an incremental democratisation process that is proportional to the growth of the middle class ( am not a nasserist haaa i just try to b fair, if you get what i mean).
Saddam Hussien, despite of his horrrible crimes was dragging iraq by forc into the 20th century. They were not given a fair chance though, they were destroyed prematurly.
iraq needed 3 years to go nuclear sadam threatenbed to burn down half of israel with chemicals idf they dare to attack the iraqi nuclear installments.
the clown Najaad threatens to wipe israel off the map everyday and no one is doing anyhing to him!!!!!!
about the identity of Egypt, i disagree with you! Egypt is Arabic everything in it is Arabic the language, the culture, the neighbours and the ethnicity.
on pure pragmatic basis Egypt is stronger with Arabs. Egypt has remained a colony almost throughout its entire history , the Egyptian peasants carry a detestable heritage of subordination and hypocracy (ya bakht min bat maghloub wa la bat ghalib, min khaf selim). the Arabisation of egypt has provided Egypt with a fresh breath and soul. And provided a frmework for extending the Egyptian influence all over its surroundings. All the Arabs watch Egyptian films, listen to Egyptian songs, use the Egyptian dialect. in the mean time the independent free, proud spirit of the desert has enhanced the depth of the 7000 years old immortal miraculous Egyptian character that has always remaind defiant to time an pace.
About the Persian identity. Well the persians colonised the entire middle east. Egypt by its owbn nature is defencive. IT ONLY CONTROLLED PARTS OF SYRIA and palestin for a short period during the era of the 18th and 19th dynasty.
Dr Gamal Himdan once said" in azzat misr azzah al-arab wa in azza al-arab azza al islam"
The persian identity is tronger than the Egyptian one . Remeber that iran is a big nation with many ethnic groups , the Ballush,Turkoman, Arabs and kurds.
within the arabic regime Egypt is stronger more influential and it is the de facto leader of the entire region. But when it forgets about its Arabic identity, it becomes isolated and marginalised. with only Sudan to integrate with haaaaaaa
No one eveolves in vaccum, the somerians, babylonians, Egyptians, phenecians are all great civilisations that are indigenous to that region. They all interacted and influenced each other, untill the Arabs and islam consoldated those diverse identies into one Arabic dominat nationalism.
I dont think that the people in Tehran are evil and systematically working on destroying the Arabs.
But it is very natural that they would try to protect thei interests and spread their influence. Do you think that an independednt , strong, secular, pan Arabist iraq is in the best intersts of Iran ???
The Arabic Iraq is our strategic depth, along with Syria and Egypt . The former tirangle represents the hope for powerful, free, influential Arab world ( middle east) .
Zenobia i think it is strategic genious that the iraqi resistance is not a single entity. they are orgainsed into small scattred groups, linked together spontaniously by objectives. The back bone of he resistance is the republican guards, the iraqi army. In addition to some monor factins like the communists, and iraqi nationalist. I consder al quida a liabilty, they are criminal terrorist maniacs who are only succeful in distorting the image of the moslems and keeping the Arabs locked out of space and time.
Zenobia pleas answer the following questions:
why doesnt the pro iranian badr militants resist th occupation instead of killing sunnis.
why does the creep lazrangany call the iraqi resitanc terrorists?
while every one knows that al-quida only makes up 5% of the iraqi resistance
why does the secrian violence always spiral out after the restance srtarts to gain the upper hand over the American Army ?
why does the iranian terrorist criminals use drillers and acid to assainate, the iraqi piolts, bathist university professors,scientists and forcing the sunnis to leave basrah.
why does the persian hakim ask hsi terrorists to crack down on the siaa clerics who ask for unity between sunnis and siias, and critisise the iranian influence in southern iraq ?
why does the pro pro iranian persianised clerics ask the siaa s not to attack the occupiers ?
Zenobia i really believe that it will be a bad omen for the future of egypt if the arabic identity of iraq has been diluted
@Amr , Tarek said a very important fact about the Iraqi-Irani war and how it was the United States was behind to destory the weaponry of Iran after the revolution
ReplyDeletealso about the shiism and Iran also he is also it didn't arrive to Persia until thousand years
of course I won't deny that Khomani went alittle far bit far with his Islamic revolution but it is interesting to know that the Islamic group in Egypt took it as a role model.
I won't be afraid about Egypt if Iraq was lost,don't overestimate things ,already when the British occupation was there ,Liberal Egypt was the most powerful country in the Arab world
The identity of Egypt book I can't speak about it because I didn't read it till now to the end plus sometimes I feel myself lost in Gamal Hamadan's style of writing , yet I believe the real identity of Egypt is a mix between all those identities whether Pharaohnic or coptic or Muslim or Arabic , this combination of ids makes it a powerful Egypt , Egypt took the Islam to gave it some sort of Egyptian style ,and this is one of the Islam great features the ability to be merged in the eastern culture easily
anyway here I believe you don't talk much about the Islamic identity yet I know as you know the islamic identity is much greater and powerful that the Arabic identity ,we are talking here about 1 billion muslim all around the world , if you want to achieve this unity I think we will have to forget all about the conflicts of the Arab identity with the persian identity with turkish identity , remember Muslims will speak Arabic only in Heaven , and we are only 300 million arabs in one billion muslims , and also not all arabs are muslims
anyway back to the Iraqi thing, I don't want to disappoint but historically the Arab world becomes in its best forms when the three big sisters come together Egypt,Syria and Saudi Arabia , especailly Egypt and Syria
Iraq is a powerful alley but unfortunately in the last century it was ruled by a group of dictators who didn't have a good relations with Egypt
About democracy , well I don't care how old the concept is but i care what it means democracy for me is Justice that all infron of the law are equal,I am sorry but i won't accept to be ruled by dictator for the success of the Arabic dream , already the Nasseric experience proved its failure for the lack of democracy , same as Saddam's and Al-assad, I won't speak about the Per Catipa income, for God Sake the Gulf countries got the hight per captia income yet i can't say that they are forming some sort of a power with all respect
also about China and Russia ,Russia was never a democratic nation same as China , yet this is not an excuse to fight democracy as some sort of western virus we should fight , Democracy is already a very old political Islamic Concept
anyway back again to the Iraq and the questions you asked
to tell you the truth I don't know , simply because I confuse with all those names just I confuse in front of all those Iraqi TV channels suddenly came from no where "do u know how does it cost to have a channel on the nile sat?"
of course I am with the Iraqi resistance that fights the american invasion and I am not with the Iraqi government at all not with the federal iraq , this is what I think yet all those Hakim or dump ,I don't give a dump
I still believe the answer is the hands of the Iraqis themselves, yet I am afraid Saddam and the war exhausted their real power to choose their destiny
again Egypt's destiny for sure is not connected with iraq at all, Egypt destiny is connected by the Egyptians
@ Tarek . you are right the shiism didnt take its final form until the safavid shiite dynasty in the 16th century. However, iran was predominatly shiite long before that. the bowahid (persians) dynasty in the 10th and 11th century . They controlled the abbasid caliph. about the iraq iran war : Saddam started the war by invading iran. bu you have to remeber that iran made use of the kurdish rebellion in 1973 and the iraqi intetference in the 1973 war to force saddam to sign a treaty in 1975 which gave iran some iraqi territories in shat al arab. After the islamic revolution, the khomini thing used to call for bringing down the iraqi regime and establishing a shiaa rule in iraq. That is recored in public speeches. iraq had no other alternative but to destry the iranian power
ReplyDeleteit is very very clear that you are the supporter of ZIONIST ISRAEL. you seem to support of Palestine so that people would think you are a true Islamic side.nowadays people attack Iran in a very different directions and ways.either they use gay rights or democracy or women rights or free elections.yes usa had democracy too and as well as well financed pornography,prostitution,drug industry too.they got no morality left and they have been broadcasting evangelical Christianity all over the world too. USA does not allow other countries to have a peace so that they could get the chance to develop their democracy,economy...they have financed Sunnis in turkey against alewis,in UK protestants against Catholics,in Pakistan, Bahrain... Sunnis against siias.in USA the hatred has been fueled against black, Catholics, Chinese...israel and usa has collaborating agents all over the world, waiting to take their arms out against anti imperialist governments or socialist or communist or human right activists...i want to warn SUNNI brothers.america hate all the muslims.they have been using you but they are going to get rid of you eventially in the future.so you must unite with siias.you dont have anyother alternative at all.
ReplyDelete