In his current visit to the United States, Former Iranian President Khatami has blamed Bush for inciting terrorism in the Middle East.

Here's an excerpt from the link:

I think there's a lot to what Khatami says, and although I don't subscribe to all of his viewpoints, I do think that he represents a potential "third way" in resolving the present disputes in the region. He surely deserves to be listened to. Any comments?

If I remember correctly Abdul, and friends, have been blowing shit up for generations.

__________________
Chicago green, talking bout Black Lebanese.............

I think it would be great if we could work together with leaders in the ME through mutual understanding. The question is, can we or should we try to come to a mutual understanding with people who state as one of their goals the destruction of America and the death of Americans (by the way, they don't ask what party you are from when they kill you). I think a problem is that we don't communicate properly that this is not a war against Islam.

As far as creating terrorists, there are more terrorists active in Iraq, but terrorists were being created long before we went into Iraq. The US invasion has no doubt led to increased activity, however this doesn't explain a lot of terrorist activity before this. The state education systems of even moderate Egypt depicts Jews as less than human. The Syrian education system does the same and worse. Iran has shown cartoons, obviously aimed at children, showing the glory of being a suicide bomber. The best selling song in Egyptian history is "I Hate Jews", you can find the lyrics online. There are many more examples. The hatred is indoctrinated in some and cannot be blamed on the US.

Dom - Not all Middle Eastern Muslims want to destroy America. It's true that there is a violent and extremist fringe who do... my question is this: How do you serve your purposes by playing into the hands of those extremists? They say America is the enemy, and America proves it by invading Iraq and destabilizing the region. How does that bolster the case of the moderates there?

I agree completely that terrorism existed long before the Bush Administration and in all probability it will long after Bush has left office. But how do you deal with it? With force of arms or by negotiations tailored to bolster the position of moderates in places like Iran?

Take Khatami's experience, for example.... he came into office in 1997 on a platform of liberalizing society and opening up to the West. And what did the West do to reciprocate? Absolutely nothing. Clinton ignored him and Bush invaded the countries on either side of him and labelled his country in the "Axis of Evil" - it's no exactly conducive to bolstering the moderate position in Iran. Is it any wonder why the Iranians suddenly turned from a far-left liberal like Khatami to a far-right conservative like Ahmadinejad?

Instead of reaching out to moderates, we ignore them... we even undercut them. Instead of negotiating, we bomb. Instead of actually embracing democracy where it springs up there, we pay it lip service and then ignore it when it comes up with results we don't like, like with Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections. And all the while our closest allies in the Muslim world are tyrannical Royal families who view the wealth of their countries as their own personal treasury... but so long as they tow the Western line and keep enough oil flowing to quench our unending thirst, they're our best friends. And you wonder why they might develop a hatred for the West?

Say what you will about Islamic fundamentalists, but they know what they're fighting for... can we say the same for ourselves?

Copy...Print...Frame

Well, Islamic fundamentalists are fighting among themselves as well, so I am not so sure if that the leaders of these groups and the ordinary members of these groups are on the same page.

I am not saying that all paople of the ME are terrorists, I am sorry if you interpreted what I was saying that way. Again, I think a problem that we face is not communicating clearly enough that this is not a war against Islam.

Two points I want to address about Khatami and Iran.

1) As a nation we should have supported Khatami more, but it is claimed he lost because of a floundering economy. His base was the students, and late in his last term he had stormtroopers raid a peaceful protest of students which I believe was about a lack of opportunity. He alienated much of his base by doing this. This isn't any American presidents fault that he did this. I don't believe that it is any American's fault that theri economy was floundering.

2) Even during Khatami's reign, they had rallies in Tehran in which American flags were burned and with people chanting "Death to America." The 'Great Satan' rhetoric was still coming from Iran. I am not saying this was supported or fostered by Khatami, probably the opposite, but it was still going on. Regardless of who is in charge of a country, when the populace thinks the only good American is a dead American it is not a friend of the US.

I'll agree that Hamas was democratically elected. But why would we support someone just because they are democratically elected? All it really means is that a certain percentage of the populace supports the policies of Hamas, which are not a peaceful resolution of the conflict. It is in effect a democracy which supports continued war with Israel. Hamas doesn't just want Gaza and the West Bank, they want to destroy Israel. Because Hamas is a democracy does this make this right? I don't see why we would embrace a democracy which preaches hate towards us and Israel. I think Hitler was elected by about the same percentage of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Khatami didn't lose the election last year, though - Iranian Presidents are limited to two consecutive eight-year terms, so he couldn't run again in 2005. I agree that the Tehran University incident may have damaged his support among the youth... but I think you overestimate it's importance. The Kent State shootings in 1970 were a big event as well, but I imagine their importance would have faded to insignificance if the Soviet Union was taking over Canada and Mexico at the same time - don't you? How do you think US voters would have reacted come election time if that had happened? They'd vote in droves for the biggest hardliner in the running, would they not?

All that being said, you don't believe that US economic sanctions and the freezing of Iranian assets after the fall of the Shah has had an adverse effect on the Iranian economy? What do you figure economic sanctions have accomplished in Iran (or Cuba for that matter) besides giving the government there an easy scapegoat on which to blame their economic shortcomings? Sanctions only hurt the people in the street - they only serve to bolster the people in power.

Are you really threatened that a mob in Iran burns an American flag? Who really cares what they chant? There was plenty of anti-US rhetoric coming from China during the Cultural Revolution as well, but it didn't stop Nixon from opening relations with them, did it? Sticks and stones, Dom. I know when Khatami ran for re-election in 2001, he was clearly in favor of improving relations with the West and managed to get over 78% of the vote... so I sincerely doubt whether the view that the only good American is a dead American is the predominant one there.

I'm not saying that you have to support a government you don't agree with - but by the same token, don't you think it's just a little hypocritical on the one hand to push the right to democracy in the Middle East and then on the other to punish the Palestinians for exercising that right on the other? What did Hamas do besides get elected to a parliamentary majority before the US cut off aid? They didn't pass any laws, they didn't put forward an aggressive and concrete program of action against Israel, they didn't call for a holy war against the US. All they did was get elected. The Palestinian people were punished for exercising their democratic right to vote. Nice. So now times are all the tougher in Gaza and the West Bank... more young men are sitting around without a job. More fathers can't feed their families. And they all know who to blame. How many more terrorists do you figure Bush has created by cutting off the aid? And the Saudi Princes make another couple of billion dollars - we're perfectly happy doing business with them, aren't we? No fickle democracy messing things up there.

---

Don't you see how hypocritical the US is coming across in the region. Forget about democracy - much as the US wraps itself up in the concept. The US invented WMD's - they have more WMD's than the rest of the world combined. Not only that, but they are the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons on an inhabited city... not once, but twice. And yet they have the gall to suggest that a country like Iran cannot even possess the possible capability to manufacture them. Doesn't that reek of imperialistic arrogance? Let me get this straight... possession of WMD's is the new "white man's burden" - it can't possibly be entrusted to the "wogs", can it?

You want to deal with Iran? Here's what you do - attack the legitimacy of the regime. Iran's government is based on the concept of the Islamic Republic - they adhere to the tenants of Islam or they have no legitimacy at all. The clerics have the final say in all matters there, and the top cleric of all - Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei - has supposedly issued a fatwah against the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons. If we could sit down with the Iranians and get further clarification on this fatwah - verify it's legitimacy and permanence - it could possibly be the basis for a solution of the present situation. If we can get Khamenei to publicly stand by this fatwah and that it will never be revoked, then doesn't the principle of mutual respect dictate that we Iran's "word for it"? In that case, if Iran then turns around and violates Islamic law by manufacturing nuclear weapons, what legitimacy will the regime then have? If they are seen to cynically use the religion to further narrow sectarian ends, doesn't that strike at the very foundations upon which the regime is based?

But...what does one reach out to a moderate with? Moderates are passionate about virtually nothing, so what can they be enticed with? Besides, the truth is rarely found in the middle.

I disagree, Skinny... the truth is rarely found on the extremes. It's not a black-and-white world - it's all shades of grey. Moderates may not be the most passionate, but they are the most logical... what do you figure is more conducive to negotiated settlements? Logic or passion?

That all depends on what you are negotiating for

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp92vkXcC0w