Kees,

Just what is the accepted pragmatic line ?

Iam intrigued by the following quotation from your article

"Just for those who have missed something over the past years and decades: the fascist Iranian regime has killed tens of thousands of its opponents, it has thousands of political prisoners, most of whom suffer torture, is hostile to women and homosexuals"

You seem so attached to the United states as a model nation deserving of respect that you have failed to take into account the USA record of killing Millions of people to whom they are opposed , torturing and rendering thousands of innocent people whom they suspect of being opposed to them.

The actions of American imperialism has created the need for Latin American Countries to seek allies with countries like Iran because they are all in the same boat, needing to distance themselves from relationships with America who only seek to plunder their resources,force so called Free Trade Agreements on them and as in Honduras, stand by whilst a military coup removes an elected President to instal a regime more to America's liking.

For a Journalist you have a decided bias and compromise all the basic ethics of that profession.You also appear to display a strong Anti Muslim attitude which does you no credit

"Nuclear weapons for Iran will lead to a nuclear arms race in the highly volatile Middle East"

Should read...

Nuclear weapons in Israel HAVE led to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

i'm no fan of Ahmadinejad, or of the repressive iranian state. but western warmongers have told so many lies about iran (and iraq, and venezuela, and ...), i don't take a single word of what kees says on faith. if it's not reasonably documented, i give it absolutely no weight whatsoever.

i also eagerly await kees's next article: america's dubious friends.

I'm with bushbasher.

The Iranian regime is revolting, and its Latin friends not much less so, but the West's atrocities in South America and the Middle East don't leave enough credibility to indulge in criticism.

And mikk's on the money, too. If Israel didn't have nukes, they would be far less desirable for the region's other fascists.

Yep, though we can relate to her social distatefulness, we might give Iran her due, she has never tried to occupy another country since her Persian days.

Certainly we cannot say the same for America, only too anxious to occupy Iran not long after WW2 with the excuse that a victorious Stalin was about to move in waving the Hammer and Sickle.

So America moved in telling lies about a bogey Shah with US oil companies not far behind.

Then the Iranian Ayatolla later moving in ordering the US Embassy to be held in prison for more than a year, and regarded by us WW2 veterans as a deserved kick up the US backside for upsetting generous codes of forgiveness such as the Marshall Plan.

But America stayed determined as she backed Saddam's Iraq to attack Iran in 1981, Donald Rumsfeld acting as war rep'.

But after nearly 8 years, Iraq was ready to quit, with Donald Rumsfeld shamefacedly quiet.

Still, there was America's little favourite, Israel, about ready to roar, years back the US having virtually ordered the UN to keep quiet while Israel went militarily atomic.

The above is enough to say that though Iran does not hold pride of place in today's world, it could be said that there is little doubt that much of it is because she happens to be Islamic.

But surely to goodness a large nation like Iran is allowed to show pride in being Islamic, even if so many Westerners do tend to regard Islamic nations as second rate

Which country has 3 wars in action based on lies? Why is Iran under threat? It only is in the process of developing one and has not the means to deliver it very far.Israel it is estimated has between 100-200 nukes and the means to deliver them.Shouldn't there be sanctions against them?

Iran is an easy target and it has lots of oil.They also need Iran like Afghanistan to get gas and oil pipe lines to the sea.Iran is not a threat.It would not dare launch and attack since the USA could remove it from the planet many times over.

Many thanks, Arjay.

Pity more of our gutless OLO's couldn't show the same historical sense.

Meaning of course, historical knowhow, so much lacking in our OLO threads, even from the management.

Not a great fan of Ahmadinejad either but this piece is a little over the top.

Anti Israeli maybe but "anti-semitic to a sickening degree"? This country has a Jewish member of parliament as mandated by their constitution.

After Israel Iran has the highest Jewish population as a percentage of its total in the Middle East.

It is also interesting to reflect on the incarceration rates per 100,000 in both countries. Iran 222 - USA 760. Granted not all political prisoners but telling none the less.

Where Iran does excel is in the number of executions it carries out per year now well outstripping the US.

Altogether a nasty regime but the US has supported worse.

In reply to the above:

I am not a blind follower of the USA, nor am I devoid of any criticism of America, its policies and history. The Vietnam era is a dark page in US history, as is the support of atrocious right wing Latin American regimes in the 70s and 80s. The Iraq invasion is a debacle that shouldn’t have happened, even though things aren’t as black and white as most US critics wish to see it. Saddam Hussein was one of the worst and most brutal tyrants the 20th century has seen and for the US support in the 80s: I fully agree with Christopher Hitchens – even though I don’t agree with him on everything – that it’s never too late to reverse that shameful support and oppose the regime, although there would of course have been many different options to do so.

However, choosing between the open democracy of the USA and the insipid Iranian regime where any dissident carries the risk of detention (without trial) and often torture isn’t at all hard for me. As for my statement that the Iranian regime is anti-semitic to a sickening degree, I don’t know how much sicker you can get than organising a ‘Holocaust denial conference.’ And I am talking about the regime here, not the Iranians themselves, as that is another story, thank god!

As for my statements regarding the regime’s attitude towards and treatment of women and homosexuals: in Iran, the girl/woman who gets raped is to blame and over the past years there have been several cases where the victim of rape has received the death penalty. There have also been registered executions of homosexuals over the past years.

More in next post

Continuing the above:

As for pragmatic politics: doing business and having diplomatic ties with a country/regime doesn’t mean you have to embrace everything they do. The Australian government does business and has diplomatic ties with China, still that doesn’t withhold them from criticizing the regime if and when necessary. That’s what I mean with pragmatic politics. Considering the history of US-Cuban relations – and I really hope that Obama can end the ridiculous Cuban trade embargo - I can understand that the Cuban regime looks for support elsewhere, but I think it’s repulsive that a regime that calls itself ‘communist’ – and this applies to Chavez’ Venezuela and Lula’s Brazil as well, even though those governments are ‘socialist’ – can wholeheartedly embrace a regime that has killed so many members of the Iranian Communist party. So much for solidarity.

As for Islam: I am not anti-Islam – it seems like you can’t stress these things enough - but I am very worried about the rise of its extreme forms Wahhabism and Salafism worldwide and the way they demand more and more of the public space, especially in Europe – much to the detriment of freedom-loving Muslims themselves. I grant everyone their beliefs and convictions – be it in the atmosphere where it belongs: the private one.

kees, iraq may not as black and white, well black, as critics suggest. however, if you're going to do a pocket comment of iraq, you should at least make it clear that the u.s. invasion was not just a "debacle", something which went wrong. it was also premised on lies. and you should make it clear that hussein's evilness had little if anything to do with the reasons for invading. of course hussein was a tyrant. you say it as if anybody doubts it, as if there's anybody not glad to see him out of power. but that was never the debate.

this is the trouble. even in that little bit on iraq, you seem prone to manipulation, to buy the we're-the-good-guys crap on iraq. well, those liars are the same guys now lying about iran. i don't trust them one iota. you seemingly do, and thus i don't trust you.

as i said, document what you claim, or i simply don't care.

Keep up the good work, Bushbasher, especially the giving of credit where its due.

Reckon holding back the truth comes from both sides, mate. I sometimes wonder who's the worst?

Dear KeesB,

I look forward to your next piece which I'm sure will highlight the deficiencies of Saudi Arabia.

It is responsible for much of the spread of extreme forms Wahhabism that you profess such concern about.

The pilgrimage to Mecca by so many of the world's Muslims facilitates its transmission.

Osama Bin Laden is of course Saudi as were most of the 9/11 attackers.

Many millions of dollars going to the Taliban are from Saudi funds.

Women make up only 5% of the Saudi workforce, the lowest in the world (27% in Iran).

Women can't testify in court unless it is a personal matter that did not occur in the sight of men (In Iran, while their testimony is only worth half of a mans, at least they are able to give it).

Women are not permitted to drive a car (in Iran they are).

Non-Muslims can't testify full stop (In Iran they can).

Its courts don't have a penal code allowing judges almost unfettered freedom in deciding what is punishable and to what degree(Iran does).

Punishment for homosexual behaviour ranges from prison to lashes and sometimes execution.

Amputations are another corporeal punishment regularly exercised in Saudi Arabia (rarely in Iran).

Amnesty reports “Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees were widespread and systematic, and carried out with impunity.

Freedom of speech is severely curbed and political parties are banned (in Iran political parties are allowed and are quite vocal).

All its citizens in Saudi Arabia must be Muslim (In Iran the constitution protects the rights of Zoroastrians, Jewish and Christian Iranians to perform their religious rites and ceremonies but admittedly the Bahai faith is indeed banned).

So go forth young scribe and right some wrongs with your mighty pen.

P.S. When speaking about human rights at the UN in 2007 Ahmadinejad said certain unnamed powers were guilty of "setting up secret prisons, abducting persons, trials and secret punishments without any regard to due process". I wonder who he might be referring to?

Sancho, I usually agree with you, but I can't agree with your relativist comments here.

There's no valid comparison between the US and Iran. When abhorrent regimes are criticised, the first response is often blaming the US. I'm sick of that back-door being abused.

Some say that they're "no fan of Ahmadinejad, but..." before slamming the US. Fair enough, however it still feels a little like: "I'm not racist, but those people..."

I'm not equating these arguments to racism but these preambles are often the prelude to a relativistic argument that's about to discount the full extent of how horrific something can be.

1. Ahmadinejad's threatened nationwide genocide. The US hasn't, and for all of their nasty interventions, they haven't attempted to cleanse any religious groups or ethnicities. Iran has said they will to Israel if they get the chance.

2. Treatment of women. I won't go over well trodden ground, I'll simply reiterate it.

3. Iran hangs people for their sexuality. Look no further than this. It really ought to be enough to finish this argument outright: (warning, a graphic image of a hanging is included).

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/10/shocking_new_ph.html

It's a city street. Broad daylight. People are crowded around. These people were publicly hanged. That's the stuff of horror.

This isn't ancient history, those pics were from five years ago. They were fodder for Ahmadinejad's public image. I'm sure there are horrific images of US atrocities, but I'd bet they're not government sanctioned public executions for *crimes* such as these.

I dunno about you, but when I see things like that I realise how much worse the world could be with a different superpower.

The US has undoubtedly done nasty things. They've shown a cavalier disregard for human life in favour of profit.

But I don't believe the people in their government are inherently evil (with the possible exception of Cheney). Greedy, misguided, idiotic and capable of making mistakes causing death on a large scale, yes.

Look again at those photos and tell me again there's a valid comparison.

There isn't. This is a good article. I concur with it wholeheartedly.

There really is little point in trying to base an argument on international politics on the relative moralities of countries. There are always going to be relatively good stuff and relatively bad stuff on both sides.

Seriously, how can you objectively measure the relative morality of extraordinary rendition against the punishment of homosexuals?

And while making the same points against relativism, TRTL, you seem to fall into your own verbal trap...

>>Some say that they're "no fan of Ahmadinejad, but..." before slamming the US. Fair enough, however it still feels a little like: "I'm not racist, but those people..."<<

It's a good point, but somewhat devalued by your own excursion into the same territory...

>>The US has undoubtedly done nasty things. They've shown a cavalier disregard for human life in favour of profit. But...<<

Fair point Pericles. In which case I'll just state outright that I find Iran far more heinous than the US.

Dear TRTL,

You said,

“Ahmadinejad's threatened nationwide genocide. The US hasn't, and for all of their nasty interventions, they haven't attempted to cleanse any religious groups or ethnicities.”

My understanding is that Ahmadinejad threatened the state of Israel not the Jewish race. Can you confirm otherwise?

As to the US does this mean you regard Bush's envoy Richard Armitage's threat to Musharraf that the US would bomb his “country back to the stone age” unless it supported the 'War on Terror' was hollow and without foundation?

Musharraf certainly didn't think so and his actions now have that country in all sorts of trouble.

Just a little more 'relativist argument' if I may. Your picture is indeed heinous as is the following;

“On the day of his death, Dilawar had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days. A guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling. "Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying. Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned that most of the interrogators had in fact believed Mr. Dilawar to be an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.” Times
It was found that at the time of Dilawar's death, the injured muscles in his legs had become "pulpified."
Wikipedia.
I think most of us, if facing death, would prefer your pictured method compared to the above.

Finally I would be interested to know which country you regarded as the more heinous, Iran or Saudi Arabia?