reza aslan egypt رضا اصلان moslem brotherhood islamists tunisia
"تصاویری كه در طول هفته گذشته از مصر پخش شده نشان می دهد که دیکتاتوری ٣٠ سالهء متحد نزدیک امریکا، حسنی مبارک، ممکن است به پایان برسد. جهان منتظر است ببيند كه چه نوع کشوری می تواند از آخرین شورش مردمی ای كه جهان عرب را به لرزه در آورده پديدار شود. ولی در ايالات متحده، بحث ها، طبق معمول وقتی كه خاور ميانه مورد نظر باشد، روی مسئله اسلام تمركز كرده، مخصوصا نقشی كه احتمالا اخوان المسلمين در آينده مصر خواهد داشت. "Rick Santorum" جمهوری خواه، همين حالا معترضین جوانی كه خواستار پایان دادن به رژیم خشن و سرکوبگر مبارک هستند را با تظاهرات مردمی ای که سه دهه پیش دیکتاتور نفرت‌انگيز دیگری و متحد سابق آمریکا، شاه ایران را سرنگون كرد تشبيه ميكند. به گفتهء او، "ما شاه را رها كرديم و بجايش يك رژيم اسلامی تحويل گرفتيم." جمهوری خواه ديگری.... (بله آمريكا شاه را "رها" كرد، به او "پشت" كرد، "اشتباه" كرد، ولی سرنگون نكرد!! اينها، بويژه جمهوری خواهان آمريكا كه صد برابر از دمكرات ها هار تر اند، هميشه "تماشاچی" بوده اند!)
...اما اشتباه نکنید، در هر صورت شکی نیست که بعد از مبارک اخوان المسلمین نقش قابل توجهی را در مصر خواهد داشت. و این چیز خوبی است... نظر سنجی های مركز پژوهشی پييو در آمريكا نشان می دهند كه ٩٥ درصد مردم مصر اعتقاد دارند كه اسلام بايد در سياست مصر نقش داشته باشد، و همزمان اين تصور كه دمكراسی غربی است و نميتواند در كشورهای مسلمان پايه گيرد را رد ميكنند... واقعيت اين است كه بدون شركت گروههای مذهبی، دمكراسی نميتواند در بخشهای بزرگی از خاور ميانه پايه بگيرد...
...در طول چند دههء گذشته، اخوان المسلمین خودش را به نيرويی برای تغييرات دمكراتيك در مصر تبديل كرده.... اخوان المسلمین بجای اينكه بخواهند مصر را به حكومتی مذهبی تبديل كنند، يعنی آنچه كه نظريه‌پردازان غرب (اربابان اخوان المسلمین را ميگويد) پيش‌بينی ميكردند، اصول دمكراسی را كاملا در آغوش گرفته، با برندگان جايزه نوبل هم همكاری ميكند....
...مبا‌رك اعضای بصورت دمكراتيك انتخاب شدهء اخوان المسلمین را در سلولهای مرطوب و سرد و ساديستی زندانی و شكنجه ميكرد و به قتل ميرساند..."
"Washington Post"، ٣٠ ژانويه ٢٠١١ م
بازتاب در رسانه های حقوق بشری و "طرفدار" سكينه
=================
"كسی كه با اسلام آشنا است، با دمكراسی آشنا است."
از تبليغ "Los Angeles Times" برای دار و دستهء الغنوشی در تونس
posted by سرباز كوچك at 3:20 PM EST
4 Comments:
با درود،
ح. گرامی، ترجيح ميدهم پيامتان را چاپ نكنم چرا كه از شهر تان هم نام برديد. در هر صورت خوش‌حالم كه اين وبلاگ را پيدا كرديد. در پاسخ به پرسش‌تان، من نفر دوم را نميشناسم، كاری هم با او ندارم، چون كوچك‌ترين نشانی از ايرانی بودن در نوشته هايش نميبينم. ولی با نفر اول چند سالی است كه از طريق نوشته هايش آشنايی داشته ام، و چند بار هم از همين وبلاگ به او "لينك" داده ام. البته اين آشنايی نتوانسته به يك دوستی تبديل شود چرا كه، سوای ديدگاه های مشترك در رابطه با دشمنان ايران، ايشان مانند اكثر جمهوری طلبان جمهوری اسلامی را ادامهء دوران پادشاهان پهلوی عنوان ميكنند. اشارهء ايشان به يادداشت من در بارهء پروپاگاندهای پايان ناپذير اربابان جهانی بر ضد پادشاهان پهلوی است كه در ١٩ ژانويه نوشته شده است و به آسانی ميتوانيد آنرا پيدا كنيد.
در پاسخ به پرسش ديگر شما، در دوران كودكی مجبور به خروج از ميهن‌ام شدم (نگاه كنيد به برخی از اشتباهات املايی!) و پس از چند سال آوارگی اكنون در شرق آمريكا "زندگی" ميكنم. برای بازتاب راستی ها تلاش ميكنم، هميشه يك سوسياليست بوده ام، و هوادار پادشاهی در ايران هستم.
اميدوارم در آينده بتوانم از پيام های شما بهره‌مند باشم
Dear Sarbaze Kuchak:
I regret to say that in the years that I have been eagerly following your blog, this ranks as your most disappointing post for me. I am so troubled by it that I am actually considering “resigning” from your readership, for what it is worth (which I am sure is not much). For a perceptive and passionate observer and commentator as you to resort to what I have no choice but to call a “cheap shot” on the American Right is unusual, unnecessary, and uncharacteristic.
The fact that you would use the occasion of a column by a “despicable” and vile columnist named “Reza Aslan” to launch an attack of ridicule and innuendo on American conservatives is really an error in judgment. It is doubly so to do it in the context of a reference made to the former senator “Rick Santorum”, who for anyone familiar with his writings and pronouncements is one of the most eloquent and passionate opponents of the fascist Islamic regime in Iran. To bolster your scorn for the American Right (or as you refer to them, the “Republicans”), you attach a video of Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck debating, and accuse them of being “a hundred times more rabid than Democrats”! Putting aside the fact that Bill O’Reilly does not view himself a “Republican” and always calls himself an “Independent” and a “traditionalist”, and the fact that Glenn Beck is a “libertarian” whose views are more in line with the “John Birch Society” than the Republican party and whose dislike for George W. Bush and John McCain is renowned, I wonder why you would find it necessary to launch an attack on the Republicans at a time that there is so much more to question and to hold accountable! You ridicule the “Republicans” for having “watched” the fall of the Shah and for not having referred to what happened to the Shah as an “overthrow” as opposed to a “fall”. Are you unaware of the pronouncements of so many American conservatives and Republicans, condemning the active participation of the “Democratic” administration of Jimmy Carter in “toppling” the Shah? Are you not familiar, just as an example, with Ronald Reagan’s memorable comments in this regard in his presidential debate against Walter Mondale back in the 80’s? Have you not read the text of the speech given by the late, great, senator Jesse Helms on the floor of the US senate concerning the role of England and the Democratic Party in “overthrowing” the Shah? These are only two examples among many more that I can site….!
But again, one wonders why at a time that President Obama is committing the same horrendous calamity in Egypt that Carter committed in Iran, you don’t speak up against that? Why don’t you point your keen attention to the alliance of the radical left and Islamic fascists in overthrowing yet another stalwart US ally? Why do you not wonder why it is that such significant US allies are targeted and “pushed out” largely during Democratic administrations?? No, you have better things to do. You attack and mock the Republicans and the American Right.
I stand on my point that the Shah of Iran would not have been “toppled” had a Republican president been in the White House.
I am very sorry that my once favorite blogger seems to be allowing his ideological inclinations (you describe yourself as a Socialist) to cloud his judgment and to miss the target.
This post was not your finest moment, I am sad to say.
With respect;
Farid
Look beyond the Republicrats or the Demopublicans. The vast majority of information perpetuated by either party is an impediment to our understanding of the Truth.
For instance, a report based on declassified documents suggests that the Nixon and Ford administrations, angry with the shah for his support for raising oil prices, worked to curb his ambitions.
A new report based on previously classified documents suggests that the Nixon and Ford administrations created conditions that helped destabilize Iran in the late 1970s and contributed to the country’s Islamic Revolution.
A trove of transcripts, memos and other correspondence show sharp differences over rising oil prices developing between the Republican administrations and Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi in the mid-1970s, says a report to be published today in the fall issue of Middle East Journal, an academic journal published by the Washington-based Middle East Institute, a think tank.
The report, after two years of research by scholar Andrew Scott Cooper, zeros in on the role of White House policymakers — including Donald H. Rumsfeld, then a top aide to President Ford — hoping to roll back oil prices and curb the shah’s ambitions.
“The shah is a tough, mean guy. But he is our real friend,” Kissinger warned Ford, who was considering options to press the monarch into lowering oil prices, in an August 1974 conversation cited by the report. “We can’t tackle him without breaking him.”
Analysts and historians often contend that President Carter, a Democrat, fumbled Iran, allowing the country to eventually become one of the chief U.S. opponents in the region. But the report suggests that his Republican predecessors not only contributed to the shah’s fall but also were inching toward a realignment with Saudi Arabia as the key U.S. ally in the Persian Gulf.
As high oil prices in the early 1970s began strangling the U.S. economy, Washington began to sour on Iran, the documents suggest. After an oil embargo over American support of Israel ended in March 1974, U.S. officials considered the shah the principal culprit in keeping oil prices from falling and wanted him to put on the brakes. At one point, Rumsfeld, who later served as the current President Bush’s Defense secretary, warned Iran’s chief arms procurement official that Tehran was losing friends in Washington.
“Don’t try to get around me,” he reportedly told Gen. Hassan Toufanian, in an encounter described by the Washington Post three decades ago and cited in the report. “Remember, Kissinger and I have to approve all [arms] exports.”
Chief among those advocating pressure on Iran was William Simon, who served as Treasury secretary and energy czar under the Nixon and Ford administrations. He blamed the shah for high oil prices and wanted the U.S. to use weapons sales to Tehran as leverage.
“He is the ringleader on oil prices, together with Venezuela,” Simon told President Nixon in July 1974, referring to the Iranian ruler. “Is it possible to put pressure on the shah?”
y late 1976 the shah was in deep financial trouble, facing a huge cash crunch. He wanted the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries oil cartel, or OPEC, to raise oil prices by 25%, a move the U.S. opposed.
“There is unanimity among my advisors that the world economy health is not good,” Ford told Iranian Ambassador Ardeshir Zahedi in December 1976, according to the archives. “Any increase in the price of oil would have a serious impact on the world financial structure.”
But U.S. officials, especially Simon, had been working with Saudi officials behind the shah’s back to seek help on oil prices in exchange for political and military support for the Arab kingdom. The Saudis stunned OPEC by announcing at a December summit in Doha, Qatar, that they would boost production to 11.6 million barrels a day from 8.6 million barrels, driving down prices.
“We should get credit for what happened at OPEC,” Kissinger told Ford. “I have said all along the Saudis were the key. . . . Our great diplomacy is what did it.”
But it would prove to be a Pyrrhic victory in terms of one American ally. Iran was cash-strapped, having spent much of its reserves on American weapons and the shah’s Great Civilization programs, which spurred inflation by flooding the country with money.
The shah was broke. Declining oil revenue amid continued inflation forced him to abandon ambitious plans to modernize his country.
“The collapse of the Doha summit, and the Saudi decision to undercut the price of crude and boost its output to try to flood the market, rushed the Iranian economy to the precipice,” Cooper writes in his report.
Within a year of the Doha summit, the first mass demonstrations that grew into revolution broke out on the streets of the Iranian capital.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
<< Home