Over the last fifty or so years, US foreign policy toward the Middle East has had one overriding feature: more or less unquestioned support for Israel and for the corrupt regimes in the Middle East (largely to insure the uninterrupted flow of cheap oil). US Middle Eastern foreign policy, while seemingly expedient in the short run, has had ominous implications in the longer run. As a result, the US has become broadly disliked in the region. To turn things around, in addition to insisting on a just settlement in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the US must end its support for corrupt regimes, be more credible in its rhetoric and accept the fact that a turnaround can come only in an Islamic context. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has an opportunity to make a fresh start and to turn around fifty years of misguided policies if she is humble enough to listen and understand US problems in the region.
The US has historically supported corrupt and brutal regimes and has thus become identified with their corruption, economic failure, repression and other unjust policies. In the case of Iran under the Shah, the majority of Iranians place the ultimate blame for most of their gripes on the US, not on the Shah; this was the basis of the average Iranian’s hostility toward the US in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution. The US still has a simple lesson to learn from its unfettered support of the Shah. Guilt by association has become the signature of US foreign policy in the region, fueling Muslim hatred toward the US and affording the likes of Osama bin Laden a huge support base. Lesson 1: If you support repressive, corrupt and failed regimes, you will become as unpopular, if not more so, as the regimes you back.
US rhetoric must be supported by the facts; otherwise US credibility is damaged. The Bush Administration has been bashing Iran for its tyrannical policies more or less constantly over the past four years, while it has said very little about Saudi Arabia and Egypt. If this rhetoric is to be credible in the Muslim world (not just in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt), Iran would in fact have to be significantly more corrupt and repressive than Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Let’s take a brief look at some of the facts: constitution, elections, freedom of religion, women’s rights, the rights of minorities, freedom of the press and corruption.
Iran and Egypt have a constitution, Saudi Arabia does not. In Iran there are elections, though flawed, for everything except for the Supreme Ruler; while the elections are fair, the major flaw is that the candidate list for president and for members of parliament has to be approved by a council. In Saudi Arabia there is no parliament and there has never been any election of any kind; although there are municipal elections slated for 2005. In fact Saudi Arabia has been so thoroughly against elections that it managed to persuade the US to criticize neighboring Yemen after its election! Although Egypt has elections, not everyone is allowed to participate and, more importantly, elections are totally rigged.
In Iran, there are mosques as well as churches and synagogues, though significantly fewer in number given the predominance of Islam; sadly, in Iran Bahaiis have been persecuted since the Revolution. In Saudi Arabia there are only mosques; Christians cannot even legally hold a service in the sanctity of their own home as the mutawas (religious police) may break in. In fact a number of years ago a Catholic clergyman came into Saudi Arabia under cover and held services in people¹s homes. He was arrested and jailed for some time. The US and the Vatican hushed up the affair so as not to offend the rulers in Saudi Arabia and to avoid stoking anti-Saudi feeling in the US and elsewhere. In Egypt there is freedom of religious worship.
In Iran, women vote, are members of parliament, are cabinet ministers, are doctors and work alongside men in almost every profession; and yes, women drive. Unfortunately, the regime forces women to wear a headscarf and to wear a long cover-up (akin to a raincoat). In Saudi Arabia, Saudi women dress in such a way that even their faces are covered; they don’t vote because there are no elections and no parliament; their right to work openly in most positions (i.e., alongside men) is severely limited; and they cannot drive. In Egypt, women are not discriminated against in these ways. The rights of minorities are respected in Iran and in Egypt but Shia Muslims have been historically disenfranchised in Saudi Arabia and are at best third-class citizens.
In Iran there is freedom of the press but it is not consistent over time and there is a limitation; the Supreme Leader and Islam cannot be criticized (the government and the president are fair game). If an editor goes too far the paper is shut down and restarts under a new name. In both Egypt and Saudi Arabia there is almost total censorship.
Corruption is rampant in all three countries.
Let’s add up the scorecard. If you accept this summary, it would appear that Iran comes out best, followed by Egypt. Saudi Arabia, however, is not even at the bottom of the same page. Are we credible when we bash Iran on its tyrannical government and are so accepting of Egypt and especially of Saudi Arabia (and of others outside the region such as Pakistan)? The answer is no. Yet others could say it is Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and missiles that is the basis of US rhetoric. If this is so, then stick to what should be criticized and omit freedom and the like from our Iran-bashing. If weapons are truly the problem, then also mention that Saudi Arabia has Chinese missiles, acquired a number of years ago, with a range of 2,000 kilometers and the capability to carry nuclear warheads. Some even speculate that the Saudis may have a bomb or two. In fact, while acquiring these missiles, King Fahd became so enraged by the US Ambassador, Hume Horan, that he shouted at him to get out of Saudi Arabia; again something that the US hushed up so as not to stoke anti-Saudi feelings. Lesson 2: Be accurate and consistent in what you say, otherwise you erode your credibility.
Finally it has become a popular strategy to blame our failed policies on Islam. It is the tactic of a scoundrel to blame his failure on what he assumes to be an irreparable defect in his adversary. If one studies the entire Koran (not a verse here and there) there is no doubt that the hallmark of Islam is threefold: spread faith, economic and social justice, and tolerance toward others. There is no Muslim regime that is Islamic, not 90 %, not 75%, and not even 50%. Governments in the region have embraced false but what they call Islamic tenets to garner legitimacy, to hold on to power and to continue their corrupt rule. Any turnaround in the Middle East will have to come about within a “true” Islamic context. This is an inescapable fact. Governments and rulers will come and go but Islam will stay. Hopefully, governments will adopt the real teachings of Islam. Lesson 3: Don’t bash and blame Islam for US failure but instead use its “true” teachings to turn things around.
Can Dr. Rice follow such a course? The answer ultimately lies in the power of special interests over the Bush Administration with business interests in the bankrupt countries of the Middle East. The reason why Iran-bashing is so painless and popular in Washington is that there are no ongoing US business interests in Iran!
Over the last fifty or so years, US foreign policy toward the Middle East has had one overriding feature: more or less unquestioned support for Israel and for the corrupt regimes in the Middle East
The duplicity of US foreign policy in regards to Israel and Islamic countries is despicable.
quote:
The US and the Vatican hushed up the affair so as not to offend the rulers in Saudi Arabia and to avoid stoking anti-Saudi feeling in the US and elsewhere.
The Vatican? I repeat: The Vatican?
And people wonder why I have such a low regard for The Vatican?
Why are they so concerned about the feelings of Saudi Arabia?
Is the nation state of the Vatican in need of cheap oil, perhaps?
quote:
In Egypt there is freedom of religious worship.
Well, practically speaking here...If a follower of Islam converts to Christianity...they are threatened with outright murder.
Lots of evangelists go in muslim countris and convert people there - but indeed converted people are threatened and evangelists themselves are in danger.
By the way, today in Iran there is a revival of great numbers of people renouncing Islam and believing in Jesus Christ.
Christianity thrives in persecution. Always has and always will.
That's why freedom and democracy may not be the way in which God seems to work. It's a Catch-22.
That's why the USA and Europe are becoming more and more secular.
With wealth comes pleasure, distraction, and the feeling that God is not needed.
It used to be that America sent evangelists to other countries, now other countries are sending evangelists into the USA...even with the strong so called "Christian right." Because the Christian right are more about political issues than salvation.
And I know evangelists who go into Europe for the same reason. Europe has become dry spiritually.
With the influence of the Vatican, it is not surprising.
JY_French said this in post #1 : Hossein Askari
In the National Interest
Over the last fifty or so years, US foreign policy toward the Middle East has had one overriding feature: more or less unquestioned support for Israel and for the corrupt regimes in the Middle East (largely to insure the uninterrupted flow of cheap oil). US Middle Eastern foreign policy, while seemingly expedient in the short run, has had ominous implications in the longer run. As a result, the US has become broadly disliked in the region. To turn things around, in addition to insisting on a just settlement in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the US must end its support for corrupt regimes, be more credible in its rhetoric and accept the fact that a turnaround can come only in an Islamic context. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has an opportunity to make a fresh start and to turn around fifty years of misguided policies if she is humble enough to listen and understand US problems in the region.
The US has historically supported corrupt and brutal regimes and has thus become identified with their corruption, economic failure, repression and other unjust policies. In the case of Iran under the Shah, the majority of Iranians place the ultimate blame for most of their gripes on the US, not on the Shah; this was the basis of the average Iranian’s hostility toward the US in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution. The US still has a simple lesson to learn from its unfettered support of the Shah. Guilt by association has become the signature of US foreign policy in the region, fueling Muslim hatred toward the US and affording the likes of Osama bin Laden a huge support base. Lesson 1: If you support repressive, corrupt and failed regimes, you will become as unpopular, if not more so, as the regimes you back.
US rhetoric must be supported by the facts; otherwise US credibility is damaged. The Bush Administration has been bashing Iran for its tyrannical policies more or less constantly over the past four years, while it has said very little about Saudi Arabia and Egypt. If this rhetoric is to be credible in the Muslim world (not just in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt), Iran would in fact have to be significantly more corrupt and repressive than Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Let’s take a brief look at some of the facts: constitution, elections, freedom of religion, women’s rights, the rights of minorities, freedom of the press and corruption.
Iran and Egypt have a constitution, Saudi Arabia does not. In Iran there are elections, though flawed, for everything except for the Supreme Ruler; while the elections are fair, the major flaw is that the candidate list for president and for members of parliament has to be approved by a council. In Saudi Arabia there is no parliament and there has never been any election of any kind; although there are municipal elections slated for 2005. In fact Saudi Arabia has been so thoroughly against elections that it managed to persuade the US to criticize neighboring Yemen after its election! Although Egypt has elections, not everyone is allowed to participate and, more importantly, elections are totally rigged.
In Iran, there are mosques as well as churches and synagogues, though significantly fewer in number given the predominance of Islam; sadly, in Iran Bahaiis have been persecuted since the Revolution. In Saudi Arabia there are only mosques; Christians cannot even legally hold a service in the sanctity of their own home as the mutawas (religious police) may break in. In fact a number of years ago a Catholic clergyman came into Saudi Arabia under cover and held services in people¹s homes. He was arrested and jailed for some time. The US and the Vatican hushed up the affair so as not to offend the rulers in Saudi Arabia and to avoid stoking anti-Saudi feeling in the US and elsewhere. In Egypt there is freedom of religious worship.
In Iran, women vote, are members of parliament, are cabinet ministers, are doctors and work alongside men in almost every profession; and yes, women drive. Unfortunately, the regime forces women to wear a headscarf and to wear a long cover-up (akin to a raincoat). In Saudi Arabia, Saudi women dress in such a way that even their faces are covered; they don’t vote because there are no elections and no parliament; their right to work openly in most positions (i.e., alongside men) is severely limited; and they cannot drive. In Egypt, women are not discriminated against in these ways. The rights of minorities are respected in Iran and in Egypt but Shia Muslims have been historically disenfranchised in Saudi Arabia and are at best third-class citizens.
In Iran there is freedom of the press but it is not consistent over time and there is a limitation; the Supreme Leader and Islam cannot be criticized (the government and the president are fair game). If an editor goes too far the paper is shut down and restarts under a new name. In both Egypt and Saudi Arabia there is almost total censorship.
Corruption is rampant in all three countries.
Let’s add up the scorecard. If you accept this summary, it would appear that Iran comes out best, followed by Egypt. Saudi Arabia, however, is not even at the bottom of the same page. Are we credible when we bash Iran on its tyrannical government and are so accepting of Egypt and especially of Saudi Arabia (and of others outside the region such as Pakistan)? The answer is no. Yet others could say it is Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and missiles that is the basis of US rhetoric. If this is so, then stick to what should be criticized and omit freedom and the like from our Iran-bashing. If weapons are truly the problem, then also mention that Saudi Arabia has Chinese missiles, acquired a number of years ago, with a range of 2,000 kilometers and the capability to carry nuclear warheads. Some even speculate that the Saudis may have a bomb or two. In fact, while acquiring these missiles, King Fahd became so enraged by the US Ambassador, Hume Horan, that he shouted at him to get out of Saudi Arabia; again something that the US hushed up so as not to stoke anti-Saudi feelings. Lesson 2: Be accurate and consistent in what you say, otherwise you erode your credibility.
Finally it has become a popular strategy to blame our failed policies on Islam. It is the tactic of a scoundrel to blame his failure on what he assumes to be an irreparable defect in his adversary. If one studies the entire Koran (not a verse here and there) there is no doubt that the hallmark of Islam is threefold: spread faith, economic and social justice, and tolerance toward others. There is no Muslim regime that is Islamic, not 90 %, not 75%, and not even 50%. Governments in the region have embraced false but what they call Islamic tenets to garner legitimacy, to hold on to power and to continue their corrupt rule. Any turnaround in the Middle East will have to come about within a “true” Islamic context. This is an inescapable fact. Governments and rulers will come and go but Islam will stay. Hopefully, governments will adopt the real teachings of Islam. Lesson 3: Don’t bash and blame Islam for US failure but instead use its “true” teachings to turn things around.
Can Dr. Rice follow such a course? The answer ultimately lies in the power of special interests over the Bush Administration with business interests in the bankrupt countries of the Middle East. The reason why Iran-bashing is so painless and popular in Washington is that there are no ongoing US business interests in Iran!
An enlightening post, JY, explaining why the US is so disliked and distrusted in the Middle East, blowing away the juvenile and idiotic nonsense that Bush successfully peddled to the American public about envy and hating freedom.
Too many Americans are ignorant of the world and that allows Bush to misleed, misdirect, and downright lie to the US public about what's going on, using thumping patriotism, and prejudice to silence criticism. Does anyone seriously think that this is the healthiest way to run a country?
So many people should read this kind of contribution emanating from an American of arab descent.
But as you say, lots of people in the US are ignorant of the stakes and past History. So easy then for crooks in office to use childish arguments to mislead them.
JY_French said this in post #6 : So many people should read this kind of contribution emanating from an American of arab descent.
But as you say, lots of people in the US are ignorant of the stakes and past History. So easy then for crooks in office to use childish arguments to mislead them.
You have to be optimistic because although Bush won the election, America is a country divided. Half don't support his policies and the necon's views of how to tackle problems that the whole world is now facing.
Bush's main tool to drag the US into war was fear, and he's fully exploited 9/11 to carry out this violent interventionist agenda. But if there are no more attacks on US soil, then fear cannot be maintained indefinitely.
04-17-2005 10:02 AM
