So Many Inches for So Much Nonsense

Never before have I seen so many inches of Washington Post columns devoted to so much nonsense, and Robert Kaplan ends it all with hollower words, sounding like a pretentious sage basking in the drunken slumber of a deep discovery:

Never before have we needed a more unified military-diplomatic approach to foreign policy. For the future is a multidimensional game of containment.

What on earth, exactly, is a "multidimensional game of containment" supposed to be if it is not a self-isolating policy to doom. Perhaps, to make it sound even more Hilbertian and mathematically pure, Kaplan should have called it an infinite-dimensional game (of self-deception?).

Three Women Dare to Speak the Truth

On Monday, April 17, 2006, Financial Times published a letter from three female professors of Iranian origin—Prof Haleh Afshar (University of York), Dr Ziba Mir-Hosseini (London Middle East Institute) and Dr Elaheh Rostami-Povey (School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London). I reproduce the letter, below, in full.

Essential that we do whatever possible to prevent a war on Iran
By Haleh Afshar, Ziba Mir-Hosseini and Elaheh Rostami-Povey
Financial Times, April 17 2006, p.12.

Sir, As three Iranian British academics, we are writing to express our grave concerns about the growing threat of war against Iran. It is essential that we do whatever is possible to prevent such a disaster.

We would like to clear a number of misunderstandings about Iran. As a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), Iran asserts its right under Article IV of the NPT to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The announcement last week of a nuclear breakthrough is part of this right and is intended for peaceful purposes.

Iran has complied with Articles I and II of the NPT not to acquire nuclear weapons, and Article III, where it accepts full safeguards. It has signed the NPT additional protocol and has allowed intrusive inspections beyond what is required by compliance with the NPT. Numerous inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency have failed to provide any shred of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme.

Iran has repeatedly announced that it is committed to replace the course of confrontation with good-faith interaction and negotiations, as equal partner, for a peaceful solution to its nuclear issue. It has stated its commitment to non-proliferation and to the elimination of nuclear weapons, and considers nuclear weapons detrimental to its security.

It has declared its readiness to abide by its obligations under the NPT and to work for the establishment of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. It has invited the west and the world for cultural and technological collaboration.

Iran strongly condemned the September 11 attack and participated in overthrowing the Taliban regime in late 2001. In return, under the pressure of the neoconservatives in the US and their supporters globally, Iran has faced intimidation based on speculations about its intention of producing WMD.

For the majority of Iranians in Iran and outside Iran, this hostility towards Iran is about returning Iran to a client state for the benefit of US oil corporations and denying Iran's rights to research and development for generating electricity in the future, independently.

Iran is not a threat in the region or to the world as was suggested by the American Jewish Committee's full-page "statement" in the Financial Times recently. Iran is surrounded by India, Pakistan, Russia and Israel, which have nuclear weapons.

The US, UK and Israel, which perceive Iran as a threat, themselves possess WMD and refuse to commit to nuclear disarmament. Iranians believe that Israel may well use its nuclear weapons against them. They are all too aware that Israel has refused to sign the NPT and has not allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear programme.

The only chance the world has of avoiding another disastrous US military adventure in the Middle East is to resolve Iran's nuclear issue through diplomacy. It is essential that all voices opposed to the devastation of a new war in the Middle East speak out now. We need funds for human needs, not endless wars and conflicts.

Haleh Afshar,
University of York

Ziba Mir-Hosseini,
London Middle East Institute

Elaheh Rostami-Povey,
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

Tragedy of Big Powers

Professor John Mearsheimer's The Tragedy of Great Power Politics seems like a good read. Mearsheimer teaches political science at University of Chicago.

Too hot for America

Not only Rachel Corrie's life and death but also her words have proven too hot for America, the country of her birthplace.

Billy Brag wrote and sang about her in The Guardian today.

Amy Goodman interviewed Rachel's parents on Democracy Now last Wednesday.

Salesmanship

Ghali Hassan of Center for Research on Globalization has written an ineresting column.

So, when is a "negligent homocide" a "murder"?

It Takes an Artist

Some times, it takes a courageous artist to recall basic facts — to remind us how important truth can be where lies have found great currency.

As an example, see Arash Norouzi's piece on the how media has demonized Iran. Norouzi's Mossadegh project might also be worth a look. He also points to a Mossadegh rock opera by Michael Minn, which premiered in New York in the summer of 2004. For the audio clips of the opera try here.

Courage should not be that hard to muster but it apparantly has become a very rare commodity only accessible to the few.

IRIB Transcript of Ahmadinejad's Address

Here is IRIB's version of Ahmadinejad's address given in Zehedan, Sistan-Baluchistan province of Iran today. Nadir, a writer from the U.K., contributes an interesting and perceptive comment (obviously, based on an actual reading of the full address) at News Forum on the BBC Online.

Reuters and The New York Times

When it comes to accuracy of reporting, even when it concerns simple items of news such as accurate quoting of world politicians, The New York Times proves itself to be miles behind Reuters (in written form).

What is surprising is that The New York Times can give itself the luxury of deleting words out of Reuters reports and replacing them with "..." when this fits the Times' editorial inclinations!

It is good to see that International Herald Tribune editors do not allow themselves such luxuries when they use Reuters' stories.

How long will Reuters' independence last?

I guess as long as its board is organized the way it is.

BBC or Reuters

The more I listen and read, the less I get to like the BBC and the more I get to like Reuters.

Often it is because of particular reports. For example, I've never quite liked the reports by Judy Swallow of the BBC. She cuts people off and seems to be totally open to the spread of mis-information of all kinds. Since she is such a strong presenter, I'm not sure whether it is her editorial staff to blame or she herself as the presenter and shaper of the news. She is one of those few presenters that I know who seem to be a real shaper of the news that comes. In other words, her selections and mode of presentation are very skilled to push a particular view (i.e. hers) while sounding quite professional.

This is in sharp contrast to reporting by Retuers.

Could this great gap in reporting quality be due to the independence clauses built into Retuers' corporate structure that give Reuters' reporters and editors such a great edge over the ones at the BBC?

Jawad al-Khalisi on the War

For The Guardian, Jawad al-Khalisi has written a very compelling essay on the war.

The Wall Street Journal and the Facts

The Wall Street Journal is one of the best papers published in the U.S.

The fact-checking in most articles is quite impeccable, and the reporters respond positively to the occasional request for correcting errors.

However, when it comes to opinion (and some editorial) pieces, the Journal takes greater liberties and commonly falls quite short on facts, and sometimes, long on fable.

In some cases (for example today's editorial and similar opinion pieces on Iran), the essayist repeats a number of false claims (also made in earlier editorials and opinion pieces), perhaps cognizant that such repetition through time and across pieces will help give such questionable claims greater validity in some minds.

Alas!

This sort of editorializing, whether formally or as an opinion piece, only misguides the reader into beliefs that have no basis in real facts.

Instead of an attempt to help comprehend that which is at stake, the practice clouds and stupefies the mind.