By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
As more than 32 million people cast their votes in Iran's 10th presidential election on Friday, June 12, 2009, I, like many if my brothers and sisters in the U.S. Muslim community, experienced conflicting emotions when the results of the election were announced the following day.
On one hand, I felt deep satisfaction that a relatively open and free election, with clearly distinct electoral choices, actually took place – albeit with much vigorous debate – in a majority-Muslim nation. On the other hand, however, I felt deep concern that the election results in Iran might lead to more civil strife and political polarization in a nation that faces extraordinary international scrutiny and criticism – not to mention the threat of military attack from either, or both, the United States and/or Israel.
The initial report of a landslide victory (62% of the popular vote) by the current Iranian President and his ruling party was not a huge surprise to many of us. President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, after all, commands a huge (but not universal) base of political support in Iran, although his victory over primary challenger, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, has clearly now become tainted by charges of massive electoral fraud and other voting irregularities.
Mousavi's challenge was broadly considered to be based on a demand for broad social reform in Iran, more openness in the overall society, and a repudiation of the hard-line theocratic rule of the current Iranian religious leadership.
The election results are now in the fifth day of vigorous and violent protests, described as the most dramatic political uprising in Iran since the 1979 revolution, with Iranians in the hundreds of thousands defying a ban on rallies and a crackdown on media coverage.
Although I am fully aware that Iran is a sovereign nation, and that the trajectory of social change in that nation must be determined by the people of Iran themselves, I offer three observations with the hope that they may be helpful for Muslims, the world-at large watching what is happening in Iran, and perhaps even the leadership of Iran as well.
Observation One: Now is the time for a full and impartial review of the election itself. I commend the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for his commitment to respond to the election fraud charges leveled by Musavi and his supporters. There may be evidence that some of these allegations are true, even if the magnitude of the fraud/irregularities might not be sufficient to change the outcome of the vote. But it is also true that any democratic process must also have safeguards to insure the integrity of popular participation. The election review should be swift and thorough, and any persons found guilty of fraud or vote manipulation, on behalf of any candidate or party, must be held fully accountable for the crime.
But I inject a cautionary note here to the American critics and detractors of the Iranian leadership: Most elections in the world, in fact, are tainted by allegations of fraud and voting irregularities. We have only to look at the American presidential elections of 1996 and 2004 realize the ubiquity of democratic imperfection, if not fraud. Any ongoing dispute of President Ahmedinejad’s victory must not be a pretext for directing more threats and hostility toward Iran.
Observation Two: Popular democratic structures and personal freedoms must be safeguarded. The role of independent journalism and free access to the global internet cannot, and must not, be infringed upon – particularly in a time of great volatility and significant desire for change. One of the great strengths of the early Islamic Ummah was the confidence that the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) demonstrated in his recognition of the rights of non-Muslims in the plural society of Medina. The Iranian government must recognize Iranian youth, Sunni Muslims, members of the Baha’I’ community, journalists, secular activists, and many others, are Iranian, too. There is no place in a democracy for second-class citizenship. Any and all Iranians must be allowed to freely express their (non-violent) political sentiments, and their political associations, without the fear of authoritarian crack-downs and the violation of their civil rights.
Observation Three: President Ahmedinejad should not be afraid of constructive change that embraces democratic freedoms within the context of a majority Shi’a Muslim society. The real question that I believe is in front of the people of Iran is not that of Islam vs. the secular "West", but the question of what kind of Islam is best for the people of Iran in the current historical moment. Our faith can certainly be one that rejects modernity and fears the ideas of the outside world, but it can also be a faith that embraces progress, peace, and especially the notion that women can be – and in fact are – a vital constituency in shaping a new, and better, society.
The results of the Iranian election, and it's unfortunate aftermath, will continue to reverberate in both Iran and the entire Muslim world. We must defend the right of self-determination of the people of Iran as we uphold their right to be free from outside aggression and any hostile ambitions of foreign powers.
And the best way to do this, in my opinion, is to encourage and support the development of internal democracy and the advancement of the social changes that will make the Iranian nation – indeed, an Islamic nation – stronger and better.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Friday, September 28, 2007
The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment Means a Green Light for War with Iran
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Sept. 28, 2007 - A bold and potentially dangerous amendment has been added to the U.S. Defense Authorization Bill of 2008 that could very well lead to a pre-emptive U.S. attack on Iran.
If you missed it, you're not alone. It's the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, named after its principle sponsors in the United States Senate (Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona and crypto-Republican Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who used to be, at least in name, a Democrat). The amendment, which expressed the sentiment of the Senate, was passed by an overwhelming majority of 77 to 23.
What the amendment actually means is this: The Senate urges the U.S. to formally regard the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and the Al Quds Force, as "terrorist" organizations, and to authorize the use of "military instruments" to confront Iran.
This amendment to the bloated Department of Defense (DOD) authorization bill was largely created as a response to recent congressional testimony from General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, who testified that Iran trains Iraqi insurgents and supplies them with munitions, including sophisticated bombs used against U.S. armored vehicles and convoys.
Senator Hillary Clinton, by the way, voted in favor of the amendment. Senator Barak Obama did not vote at all.
Senator Lieberman did, in fact, address the Senate to assert that the amendment calls for economic sanctions, rather than military attacks, against the Iranian military organizations. But while falling short of an all-out call for, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is widely believed to be a measure that opens the door for a pre-emptive military attack on Tehran.
It's certainly no secret that the Bush administration is moving in the direction of war with Iran. U.S. military assets are being positioned for air strikes against suspected Iranian military (and suspected nuclear) installations, while the U.S. is busy galvanizing international support for even more stringent sanctions against that nation.
Kyl-Lieberman now gives what amounts to a green light for the kind of aggression that could very well lead to a shooting war that would result in the catastrophic loss of untold human lives in the region - including, sadly, even more Americans in uniform.
I believe that any economic or military attack on Iran would only expand the tragedy, and folly, of a war in Iraq that should never have begun in the first place.
The Kyl-Lieberman amendment is regressive and dangerous, and we encourage you to contact the offices of your Senators to express your objections to a new U.S. war on the people of Iran.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Sept. 28, 2007 - A bold and potentially dangerous amendment has been added to the U.S. Defense Authorization Bill of 2008 that could very well lead to a pre-emptive U.S. attack on Iran.
If you missed it, you're not alone. It's the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, named after its principle sponsors in the United States Senate (Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona and crypto-Republican Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who used to be, at least in name, a Democrat). The amendment, which expressed the sentiment of the Senate, was passed by an overwhelming majority of 77 to 23.
What the amendment actually means is this: The Senate urges the U.S. to formally regard the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and the Al Quds Force, as "terrorist" organizations, and to authorize the use of "military instruments" to confront Iran.
This amendment to the bloated Department of Defense (DOD) authorization bill was largely created as a response to recent congressional testimony from General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, who testified that Iran trains Iraqi insurgents and supplies them with munitions, including sophisticated bombs used against U.S. armored vehicles and convoys.
Senator Hillary Clinton, by the way, voted in favor of the amendment. Senator Barak Obama did not vote at all.
Senator Lieberman did, in fact, address the Senate to assert that the amendment calls for economic sanctions, rather than military attacks, against the Iranian military organizations. But while falling short of an all-out call for, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is widely believed to be a measure that opens the door for a pre-emptive military attack on Tehran.
It's certainly no secret that the Bush administration is moving in the direction of war with Iran. U.S. military assets are being positioned for air strikes against suspected Iranian military (and suspected nuclear) installations, while the U.S. is busy galvanizing international support for even more stringent sanctions against that nation.
Kyl-Lieberman now gives what amounts to a green light for the kind of aggression that could very well lead to a shooting war that would result in the catastrophic loss of untold human lives in the region - including, sadly, even more Americans in uniform.
I believe that any economic or military attack on Iran would only expand the tragedy, and folly, of a war in Iraq that should never have begun in the first place.
The Kyl-Lieberman amendment is regressive and dangerous, and we encourage you to contact the offices of your Senators to express your objections to a new U.S. war on the people of Iran.
Wednesday, March 1, 2006
Another Look at the Iran Nuke Crisis: The Boys, Their Toys, and the Rest of Us
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
NEW YORK (LCNP) March 2006 - I'm probably not the only one to make this observation, but it does seem to me that the conflict over the Iranian nuclear policy is rooted, at least to some extent, in the male-centered, pseudo-phallic gamethink of "mine is bigger than yours" being played out, to possibly tragic consequences, by Presidents Ahmadinejad and Bush.
While issues of global security, terrorism, national sovereignty, and regional stability are thrown around by both parties as arguments against the other, all of this seems to be, in the final analysis, a geopolitical "pissing contest" between the Number One global imperial nuclear bully and the Third World upstart who wants to come onto the playground and get props for having the requisite technology to play in the big game.
But for all the reasons that we know, it's a no-win situation for the people of Iran, the people of the Middle East, the people of the USA, and ultimately, all of humankind.
Why no-win? Because if Bush "wins" by forcing international sanctions (or God forbid, a US invasion) on Iran, Tehran's inevitable response will be resistance and counter-attack. Thousands, and even millions, of combatants and noncombatants on both sides would perish.
And if Mr. Ahmadinejad somehow wins by avoiding (at least in the short term) either United Nations sanctions or a US attack, he's still stuck with an environmentally dangerous technology, and (if he goes for the weapons option), an imminently target-able nation made vulnerable to attack from both the United States and Israel.
All this is typical of the binary, win-lose paradigm that men put on the table of virtually every conflict. But it is a dysfunctional way of thinking that places us all in grave danger.
Forget Tel Aviv's 200 or so nuclear warheads in the Dimona facility. Forget, even, the 8,000 thermonuclear weapons in the United States arsenal. The best way for Iran to neutralize these weapons in any form of retaliatory attack is not to give either nation the made-to-order pretext to use them.
Sure, there may be some cockeyed Strangelove-ian "prestige" in having the technology to process uranium ore into nuclear fuel or nuclear warheads. But it is the prestige of fools. The deadly effect of this technology -- even when atomic explosions don't happen -- is awesome legendary (ask the Shoshone indigenous people in Nevada, or the Marshall Islanders, about the impact of nuclear testing and nuclear waste storage on the cancer rates of children in those places).
Does the President of Iran know this? He should. He must. And he should know, too, that the enormous cultural prestige of the Persian people greatly exceeds any ephemeral glory that might come from Iran's capacity to join the dangerous, foolish, and unholy community of nuclear weapons states.
Others will have their nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Let them. Because, as a Muslim, President Ahmadinejad should know that the Qur'an of Islam exhorts believers to compete in acts of charity and goodness and mercy, and not acts that lead to mutually assured destruction. And in that light, I would invite both the Iranian and American presidents to see the 1980s movie War Games, and note the wise words of the WOPR war computer at the end of the film: "The only winning move ( in the nuclear war game) is not to play."
Nuclear weapons are, quintessentially, male weapons. They are manufactured, deployed, tested, and even used, in ways that virtually no mother could fathom. And if world leaders continue to have deep, foolishly phallic attachments to these most dangerous of boy toys, let them meet in some anonymous men's room somewhere on the planet and actually see who has what.
And while they're at it, they should agree that their own private ego/power/size games should remain their games, not to be played at the peril of the world.
I would suggest, as start, that both nations "disemploy" their nuclear R&D scientists and, in the Iranian case, have all of these bright men ( and possibly a few of their female colleagues) start turning the enormous solar power potential of the Iranian desert into renewable, non-polluting power for the people. The U.S could also "gift" appropriate solar technology to Iran as a gesture of international friendship and non-aggression.
Of course, the obvious security benefit to both nations is this: Iran would have no nuclear facilities to target. The United States would not be threatened by any WMDs that Iran could, theoretically, possess.
Then the empirical evidence of yet another nuclear threat directed against the West would be lessened. And the regime in Tehran could breathe a little easier, because the U.S. Marine Corps has never, to my knowledge, invaded a foreign nation because sunlight shines on it.
All this, of course, is predicated on a major shift of thinking toward nonviolence, renewable energy, and new priorities for Iran, but especially for the ruling elite of the U.S.A.
Women can offer, collectively, a great deal toward the building of a new, and better, global problem-solving model. And we all should support Iranian women in joining their sisters in the United States (and the United Kingdom) in building the relationships necessary to work this thing out.
Because if there is ever a need for a feminist understanding of international conflict resolution, it is, clearly, now.
NEW YORK (LCNP) March 2006 - I'm probably not the only one to make this observation, but it does seem to me that the conflict over the Iranian nuclear policy is rooted, at least to some extent, in the male-centered, pseudo-phallic gamethink of "mine is bigger than yours" being played out, to possibly tragic consequences, by Presidents Ahmadinejad and Bush.
While issues of global security, terrorism, national sovereignty, and regional stability are thrown around by both parties as arguments against the other, all of this seems to be, in the final analysis, a geopolitical "pissing contest" between the Number One global imperial nuclear bully and the Third World upstart who wants to come onto the playground and get props for having the requisite technology to play in the big game.
But for all the reasons that we know, it's a no-win situation for the people of Iran, the people of the Middle East, the people of the USA, and ultimately, all of humankind.
Why no-win? Because if Bush "wins" by forcing international sanctions (or God forbid, a US invasion) on Iran, Tehran's inevitable response will be resistance and counter-attack. Thousands, and even millions, of combatants and noncombatants on both sides would perish.
And if Mr. Ahmadinejad somehow wins by avoiding (at least in the short term) either United Nations sanctions or a US attack, he's still stuck with an environmentally dangerous technology, and (if he goes for the weapons option), an imminently target-able nation made vulnerable to attack from both the United States and Israel.
All this is typical of the binary, win-lose paradigm that men put on the table of virtually every conflict. But it is a dysfunctional way of thinking that places us all in grave danger.
Forget Tel Aviv's 200 or so nuclear warheads in the Dimona facility. Forget, even, the 8,000 thermonuclear weapons in the United States arsenal. The best way for Iran to neutralize these weapons in any form of retaliatory attack is not to give either nation the made-to-order pretext to use them.
Sure, there may be some cockeyed Strangelove-ian "prestige" in having the technology to process uranium ore into nuclear fuel or nuclear warheads. But it is the prestige of fools. The deadly effect of this technology -- even when atomic explosions don't happen -- is awesome legendary (ask the Shoshone indigenous people in Nevada, or the Marshall Islanders, about the impact of nuclear testing and nuclear waste storage on the cancer rates of children in those places).
Does the President of Iran know this? He should. He must. And he should know, too, that the enormous cultural prestige of the Persian people greatly exceeds any ephemeral glory that might come from Iran's capacity to join the dangerous, foolish, and unholy community of nuclear weapons states.
Others will have their nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Let them. Because, as a Muslim, President Ahmadinejad should know that the Qur'an of Islam exhorts believers to compete in acts of charity and goodness and mercy, and not acts that lead to mutually assured destruction. And in that light, I would invite both the Iranian and American presidents to see the 1980s movie War Games, and note the wise words of the WOPR war computer at the end of the film: "The only winning move ( in the nuclear war game) is not to play."
Nuclear weapons are, quintessentially, male weapons. They are manufactured, deployed, tested, and even used, in ways that virtually no mother could fathom. And if world leaders continue to have deep, foolishly phallic attachments to these most dangerous of boy toys, let them meet in some anonymous men's room somewhere on the planet and actually see who has what.
And while they're at it, they should agree that their own private ego/power/size games should remain their games, not to be played at the peril of the world.
I would suggest, as start, that both nations "disemploy" their nuclear R&D scientists and, in the Iranian case, have all of these bright men ( and possibly a few of their female colleagues) start turning the enormous solar power potential of the Iranian desert into renewable, non-polluting power for the people. The U.S could also "gift" appropriate solar technology to Iran as a gesture of international friendship and non-aggression.
Of course, the obvious security benefit to both nations is this: Iran would have no nuclear facilities to target. The United States would not be threatened by any WMDs that Iran could, theoretically, possess.
Then the empirical evidence of yet another nuclear threat directed against the West would be lessened. And the regime in Tehran could breathe a little easier, because the U.S. Marine Corps has never, to my knowledge, invaded a foreign nation because sunlight shines on it.
All this, of course, is predicated on a major shift of thinking toward nonviolence, renewable energy, and new priorities for Iran, but especially for the ruling elite of the U.S.A.
Women can offer, collectively, a great deal toward the building of a new, and better, global problem-solving model. And we all should support Iranian women in joining their sisters in the United States (and the United Kingdom) in building the relationships necessary to work this thing out.
Because if there is ever a need for a feminist understanding of international conflict resolution, it is, clearly, now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
