The US emerged as the global superpower thanks to World War II. In 1945, Europe was in ruins. The war caused widespread destruction in Europe because of the bombing of cities and factories. European powers lost millions of people in the war. Being far from Europe and Japan, the US incurred a very low rate of civilian casualties. There was almost no destruction of US infrastructure, with the Japanese attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Hawaii, as a notable exception. Naturally, the US emerged as the leader of the West. Although the Soviet Union was a US ally during the war, it competed with the US for global hegemony following the Allied victory, a period referred to as the Cold War.

During the Cold War, the US and its Western allies engaged in a brutal global competition with the Soviets and other communist states. Notable confrontations between these two power centers included the Korean War (1950–1953), the Vietnam War (1955–1975) and the Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989). Using Soviet influence as an excuse, the US intervened in many countries, including Iran. At the behest of the UK, the US overthrew the first democratically elected government of Iran. Only 26 years after the infamous 1953 coup, the Iranian Revolution deposed the Shah and established Iran’s independence from both the US and the UK.

The US tacitly supported European imperial and colonial powers when they committed some of the worst genocides in human history. The most notable include the horrendous atrocities committed in Congo, Kenya and Algeria.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the world looked forward to years of peace and prosperity. Although the US proclaimed that this new era was one of peace, it began with the Rwandan Genocide (1994), the Bosnian Genocide (1995), to the present day with the US-backed Israeli genocide against Palestinians and the takeover of Syria by al-Qaeda’s affiliates.

The fall of the Soviet Union did not make the world more peaceful; it worsened it under unilateral US leadership. The fall produced a power vacuum that has yet to be filled. In particular, it released nationalistic, ethical, cultural and self-determination movements in the former Soviet states. It led to social unrest, organized crime, terrorism and corruption. The ripple effects of the fall will “continue to be felt for some time yet.”

After the Soviets were gone, the US no longer faced any serious challenges to its global hegemony. However, the US considered Iran’s independence from US influence a challenge to its global domination and has supported efforts to undermine the Islamic Republic of Iran. Presently, the US efforts that have unseated Assad of Syria were meant to undermine Iran’s dominance in the region. 

Recently, reporters saw US President Joe Biden leaving a bookstore with a copy of The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi in his hand. The book describes the Palestinian struggle for their homeland. “Settler-colonial confrontations with indigenous peoples have only ended in one of three ways: with the elimination or full subjugation of the native population, as in North America; with the defeat and expulsion of the colonizer, as in Algeria, which is extremely rare; or with the abandonment of colonial supremacy, in the context of compromise and reconciliation, as in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Ireland,” Khalidi writes. 

Hopefully, Biden will read this book and realize that instigating the war in Ukraine, enabling Israel’s genocide against Palestinians and aiding al-Qaeda affiliates are immoral.

The US’s prestige is falling worldwide, all it can do is slow the fall

The world is waking up thanks to Iran. The US’s decision to back Ukraine in the war and enable Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians has placed global attention on Iran. In particular, Iran’s support of the oppressed Palestinians has been a popular move. In the US, like around the world, young people stand with the oppressed Palestinians.

Iran has become so notable for its global standing as a supporter of the oppressed that its archenemy, Israel, admits it. On July 25, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, against whom the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, addressed the US Congress.

Hearing the loud protest outside, he felt frustrated with the protesters, crying in his speech that “Iran is funding the anti-Israel protests that are going on right now outside this building.”

Led by Iran, worldwide, people realize the US is not what it claims to be. The US is not a promoter of democracy or peace but a brutal warmonger with no regard for human rights and international law. Internationally, it has used its veto power 49 times since 1970 against UN resolutions concerning Israel, with four in the last year. In November, it vetoed the latest UN resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Recently, it blundered by indirectly supporting the rise to power in Syria of Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) formerly part of al-Qaeda.

To stop the US’ destructive behaviors globally, China, Russia, Iran and some other countries have moved away from the US and formed the BRICS+ alliance. More countries are planning to do the same. Within the new alliance, China pushes for more collaboration between countries rather than subjugating them, as the US does.

No supporter of democracy, not even much of a democracy

Globally, people are becoming more aware that the US does not support democracy. Its ventures into other countries in the name of democracy are a ploy to access their resources and wealth. In pursuit of power and wealth, the US has destroyed lives. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are just a few known examples where millions of innocent people were killed and billions of dollars of infrastructure were destroyed by US-led aggression.

The US is also a very flawed democracy itself. According to a poll from the Harris Poll and the Quincy Institute, around 70% of Americans want the US to pursue peace with Russia. Yet, the US continues arming Ukraine against Russia. Likewise, 57% of Americans disapprove of Biden’s handling of the “Israel–Palestine conflict,” but Biden continues arming Israel. Biden is acting as a dictator, ignoring the will of the people. This is not unique to Biden. US presidents have been getting the US in wars since its inception. Despite its global proclamation as a beacon of democracy, the US has never been a true democracy.

The US presidential system is flawed. The winner of the majority of Electoral College votes wins. In 2000 and 2016, George W. Bush and Donald Trump lost the popular vote but still became presidents because they commanded a majority of Electoral College votes. Furthermore, the US is dominated by two main parties. Third parties are not even on the ballot in many states. Big money in politics also strengthens the hand of the two main political parties.

This means that American politics makes for the strangest of bedfellows. Christian evangelicals voted for Trump despite his chauvinism, infidelity, nepotism, racism and corruption. So did many working-class Americans as well as a majority of white women and Latino men voted for this celebrity billionaire who has given and plans to give tax cuts to the rich. On the other hand, Ivy League elites largely voted for Democrats even if they had misgivings about Kamala Harris.

Giving the rich tax breaks and spending too much on the military-industrial complex has led to the US suffering the highest poverty rate among industrial countries. The US ranks last in healthcare outcomes among the ten major developed countries despite spending nearly twice as much — about 18% of gross domestic product — on healthcare than the others. The suicide crisis is also worse than in other Western countries and the country has the highest homicide rate among high-income countries.

As is well known, American interventions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and other countries led to the expansion of the military-industrial complex. Today, the US sends its poor to war who come back with post-traumatic stress disorder if not wounds or in body bags.

The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 killed thousands of innocents. Its intervention in Libya caused a civil war that continues to this day. Today, the US is inflicting similar misery on Syria. Together with Turkey and Israel, the US is supporting HTS. Note that HTS is an affiliate of al-Qaeda. The HTS fighters are nothing but terrorists who have beheaded innocents, including 12-year-olds and Americans. That is the reason why the US put a $10 million bounty on HTS leader Abu Mohammed al-Golani. Yet today the US has supported HTS to get rid of the Assad family, legitimizing the very fighters it has designated as terrorists.

Instead of continuing to support death and destruction, the US should support peace and harmony. First, Washington must stop threatening, invading and harming other countries. This includes stopping support for terrorists like al-Golani as well as dropping sanctions that hurt millions of innocents. Second, the US must stop its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. A peace deal is in the interest of the entire world. Third, the US must support a free Palestine where Christians, Jews and Muslims can live together in peace.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Facilitating the Rise of HTS Is the Latest US Blunder appeared first on Fair Observer.

The UN has been a nightmare. It is as dysfunctional as the League of Nations. The world has not seen peace even for a day since the UN’s inception in 1945. Delegates should have foreseen the UN’s failure in 1945. The organization came into existence for the UK, the US and the Soviets to expand their hegemony across the world. They projected peace for themselves, and not necessarily for the rest of the world.

How the Allies became the United Nations

On September 1, 1939, World War II started with Germany invading Poland. The United Kingdom (UK) and France declared war on Germany as allies. The Soviet Union (Soviets) invaded eastern Poland on September 17. In June 1941, the Soviets joined the Allies. The Big Three (the UK, the US and the Soviets) formed a united organization of nations to maintain their global peace and security. The Allied powers met and signed the Declaration of St. James Palace, pledging collaboration in fighting aggression. It proclaimed that “the only true basis of enduring peace is the willing cooperation of free peoples in a world in which, relieved of the menace of aggression, all may enjoy economic and social security.”

The US Constitution strictly limits the president’s power and rests the war declaration with Congress. However, President Franklin D. Roosevelt short-circuited the Constitution, by authorizing the US to finance and arm the UK and France. In March 1941, Congress put this policy into law in the form of the Lend-Lease Act without the constitutional process of declaring war. Germany and its allies, Italy and Japan (the Axis Powers), of course, considered the US to be aiding the enemy in war. 

The US later entered the war formally. In December 1941, Japan’s air force attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Hawaii, catching the US by surprise. Within days, that attack triggered the US to declare war on Germany. Within hours, Germany also declared war on the US. That month, China joined the Allies while resisting Japan’s expansion in China since 1937.

In August 1941, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter pledging to stop territorial expansion, engage in free trade, collaborate with other nations, have access to “high seas and oceans”, stop the use of force, and work for a world peace free of “fear and want”, where all individuals are free to choose their form of government and enjoy economic advancement and social security. In January 1942, about four weeks after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Big Three (the UK, the US, and the Soviet Union) and China, along with 22 other countries, signed a document pledging to accept the Atlantic Charter, which is referred to as the Declaration by the United Nations.

During World War II, the devastating effect of that war encouraged the the Big Four, to put aside their differences and collaborate in the war. To avoid such a war in the future, they began planning for the world. As the discussion progressed, the idea of a united world organization emerged. In October 1943, the Big Four signed the Moscow Declaration, recognizing “the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organization, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving States, and open to membership by all such States, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

In November- December 1943, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met for the first time in Tehran, Iran. They discussed the post-war arrangement and partitions. Roosevelt and Churchill assured Stalin that he could expand Soviet territory into Poland and Germany. President Roosevelt was so infatuated with Stalin that he called him Uncle Joe. “I began to tease Churchill,” the American President boasted, “… Winston got red and scowled and finally Stalin broke into a deep, hearty guffaw. It was then that I called him Uncle Joe.” This cavalier attitude of President Roosevelt regarding Eastern Europe is a typical example of a public servant intoxicated with power, and turning into a despot. Such a cavalier is responsible for the US presidents’ empowering the Zionist genocide against Palestinians and the takeover of Palestine. At the end of the Tehran meeting, they agreed on the Tehran Conference. They said: “We are sure that our concord will win an enduring peace. We recognize fully the supreme responsibility resting upon us and all the United Nations to make a peace which will command the goodwill of the overwhelming mass of the world’s peoples and banish the scourge and terror of war for many generations.”

The victorious Allies founded the UN

In October 1944, the Big Four met at Dumbarton Oaks, in Washington, DC. They proposed a United Nations consisting of the following:

• A General Assembly, composed of all the member nations oversees an Economic and Social Council. Nowadays, it oversees other councils, too.
• A Security Council is composed of eleven members, five permanent and six chosen by the GA for two-year terms.
• An International Court of Justice.
• A United Nations Secretariat.

After the war, they all wanted to be in control of the global issues. The US had risen to the most powerful one among the Big Three but felt needed Soviet cooperation to finish the war. The Soviets did not trust the UK or the US. They insisted on restoring the old Russian Empire and succeeded. 

In April 1945, delegates from 46 nations attended the San Francisco Conference and discussed and approved the UN. They set up the UN objectives to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights…to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” 

On June 25, 1945, the delegates met in San Francisco. After days of meetings, they unanimously passed the UN Charter. The major debacle was the veto power of the Big Five (the UK, the US, France, the Soviets, and China). Less powerful nations feared that if a veto power threatened peace, the Security Council would lose its significance. They wanted more power distribution. Finally, they went along in the interest of global peace. 

On September 2, 1945, the war ended. The Big Three decided to expand the United Nations by inviting other nations to join it. 

The shortcomings of the victors’ peace

To ensure their global hegemony, they planned the UN Security Council (UNSC) in the UN. The UK insisted on limiting the UNSC to the UK, the US and the Soviets. The US wanted China to be included because of its strong resistance against Japan, which freed the US to support Europe. To ensure Western control, the UK insisted on adding France to the Council. That is how the Big Five surfaced. The Soviets felt outnumbered by the West and asked for veto power, which was granted to all permanent members. 

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) is the only organ in the UN in which all member nations vote. Regardless of size or population, each member nation has only one vote. A simple majority decides procedural questions while a simple majority or a two-thirds vote decides substantive ones, depending on importance. It is mainly a deliberative body empowered to make recommendations to the UN Security Council (UNSC) regarding international issues. 

In contrast, the UNSC is primarily responsible for maintaining international peace and security. It is an exclusive club. Nowadays, it has 15 members, 5 of whom are permanent members and endowed with veto power on every issue. The permanent members are the US, the UK, China, France, and Russia, also known as the Big Five. The GA chooses the other ten for two-year terms.

Like the League, the UN’s primary purpose has been to preserve peace and security. The UN members have promised not to use force except in self-defense and to use force collectively to preserve peace. In apparent violation of the UN Charter, the veto powers granted to certain member states have led to conflicts and wars, rather than preventing them. Until the fall of the Soviets in December 1991, the world faced two superpowers, the US and the Soviets, competing for global influence, a period known as the Cold War. They incited proxy wars nearly everywhere. 

Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US emerged as the world’s sole superpower. This shift in global dynamics has led to military interventions and interference in various countries, resulting in significant human suffering and destruction. Presently, the US is responsible for much of the global deaths and destruction, particularly in Iraq, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. The US complicity in the genocide against Palestinians is the talk of the world these days.

Given these ongoing challenges, it is clear that the current state of the UN is not conducive to achieving lasting global peace. Meaningful reform or even the dismantling of the organization may be necessary. Adding Brazil, Germany, India, Japan or another country is unlikely to address the fundamental issues.

[Tara Yarwais and Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Can You See Why the UN Is Bad at Peace? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Ukraine, NATO and the Soviet Union

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not simply a territorial land grab. There is a long and complex history between the two countries that exist in the context of a tense global political climate. 

After Russia, Ukraine is the largest country in Europe. The two nations share deep cultural, economic, familial and political ties. But compared to Russia, Ukraine is a fledgling nation. Ukraine officially gained independence from the USSR in 1991, but has since had a difficult time escaping Russian influence and finding stability.

After WWII, the rivalrous Cold War began between the US and the Soviet Union, which at the time included Ukraine. Two years later, the US led the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to resist Soviet expansion. To balance the scale, the Soviet Union created the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO), also known as the Warsaw Pact, in 1955.

In 1991, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact fell. There was no longer a need for NATO. However, NATO did not dissolve. Despite assurances from the US and NATO’s Secretary to limit expansion, NATO engaged in membership talks with numerous post-Soviet republics and satellite states, such as Ukraine. 

The US affirmed its support for Ukraine joining NATO with NATO’s 2009 Declaration to Complement the Charter. In the following years, the US channeled both political and financial support to Ukraine and began aiding the country with military supplies, becoming Ukraine’s biggest defense partner. 

America’s place in the war

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been catastrophic, costing billions of dollars and resulting in nearly one million casualties. While US President Joe Biden has made it a point to show his support for Ukraine, some argue that international involvement in the war has been uncalled for and driven by political interests. 

While serving as vice president, Biden supported the termination of a top prosecutor in Ukraine. The prosecutor was investigating Burisma, a private energy company where Biden’s son Hunter served as a board member. During his time at the company, Hunter made one million dollars per year. Political opponents accused Biden of abusing his power as vice president to benefit his family’s personal financial benefit. 

On September 24 at the United Nations, Biden spoke proudly of American democracy. He dared to say “I’ve made the preservation of democracy the central cause of my presidency.” Yet his role in the Russia–Ukraine War says otherwise. While at least 70% of Americans want negotiations to end the war in Ukraine, Biden ignores the will of the people and brutally continues escalating the war by providing weapons and $175 billion in aid to Ukraine. 

However, the role of the US is not simply that of an individual actor. The US also leverages its immense power within NATO to influence the war strategically. 

NATO’s mistakes

In reality, NATO has been a disaster for the world. The organization and its allies have stockpiled biological, radiological, chemical and nuclear weaponry. Led by the US, NATO member states have aided and armed belligerent nations, such as Israel against the Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians. They armed and provided intelligence to Saudi Arabia against Yemenis. They instigated civil wars in Libya and Syria. The US alone has a military presence in many nations and participates in military alliances, often in support of NATO members. A recent example is the US involvement in Niger in support of France, but now, both countries are arguing on how to deal with the junta that overthrew the president. 

The Russia–Ukraine war and the bloodbath caused by Israel in Palestine are testimonies to NATO members’ destructive behaviors, which violate the organization’s commitment to the UN to support global peace and security.

As for the situation in Ukraine, NATO continued expanding east despite Russia’s persistent objections. In December 2021, Russia gave its last official warning to NATO to cease this expansion. Russia demanded, among other things, that NATO bar any military activity in Ukraine. Putin also referenced alleged genocide being carried out in eastern regions of the country and the need to denazify a fascist, Western-leaning Ukraine to further justify the invasion. 

If Ukraine had joined NATO, Russia could have had US offensive nuclear missiles right at its borders. By permitting Ukraine to stay neutral, NATO could have prevented the catastrophic war. But, as usual, the US-led NATO ignored the warnings. 

Unable to resolve the concerns through negotiation, Russia deemed itself forced to invade Ukraine. For Americans to understand Russian concerns about Ukraine joining NATO, they might see a parallel with the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviets installed some of their offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba. If the Soviets had not withdrawn those missiles, it could have resulted in another world war. Regrettably, Biden has not demonstrated the same circumspection that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev did when he decided not to provoke his adversary further.

As a result, the Russia–Ukraine war has gone on and has been one of the deadliest European wars in history. As of September, Russia incurred over 610,000 casualties and Ukraine around 480,000. All that could have been prevented if the US-led NATO opted for negotiation. 

The world is wising up. Many nations do not support US-led NATO action against Russia and reject efforts to isolate Russia, instead favoring peace.

Negotiating peace is the right thing to do

As in the Cuban Missile Crisis, negotiation has been the only way to resolve these issues effectively. Escalation may ultimately lead to nuclear war, threatening the existence not only of the US and Russia but the entire world. Many nations would like to see a ceasefire and meaningful negotiations, especially regional powers that are sympathetic to Russia such as China, India and Iran.

To stop further destruction, NATO must allow Ukraine to remain a neutral country outside of the organization. But suppose that does not mitigate the Russian security concerns. In that case, NATO may have to withdraw the membership of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to support further neutrality. Before his death, political scientist Henry A. Kissinger even suggested that NATO allies push Ukraine to give up territory to stop the war. 

Yet, a far better solution for global peace would be the dissolution of NATO itself. A US-led NATO interfering in the affairs of other countries has caused much pain and suffering across the globe. It is time for the organization to be tethered or dissolved for good.

Achieving peace requires that all parties come to the table and negotiate, give up something they want and atone for past wrongs. As hundreds continue to die each day, it is high time for the US to recognize these truths and take steps toward achieving peace. 

[Emma Johnson edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Can You See Peace in Ukraine? appeared first on Fair Observer.

In the Algerian War of Independence from 1954 to 1962, France committed unimaginable atrocities against Algerians in both Algeria and France. Algerians who cooperated with French forces were often captured and killed by their countrymen fighting for independence. Many escaped and sought asylum in France, where they were then put in camps and denied basic human rights and access to education. Those in Algeria fighting against the French were subject to horrific crimes such as systematic torture, which often resulted in deaths that were labeled as suicides. 

In 1961, a year before Algeria gained independence, thousands of Algerians peacefully protested in Paris. In this event that became known as the Paris Massacre, French police killed over 100 of the demonstrators, shooting some and throwing others into the river. The French government covered up such atrocities by censoring the media and destroying archival evidence. 

On September 20, 2021, President Macron condemned the “massacre of Algerians in Paris.” He issued an apology to the Algerians who fought alongside the French forces and to the families of those whom the Algerians captured as traitors and killed during the fight for independence.  

Over the course of the conflict, the French colonization of Algeria is estimated to have cost up to 1.5 million Algerian lives. In 1962, an agreement was finally reached calling for a cease-fire, and Algeria gained independence after 132 years of French rule.

The shaping of Algeria

For the last five hundred years, Algeria has had a turbulent past. Around the turn of the seventh century, Arabs first conquered the region today known as Algeria. At the time, it was home to an indigenous group called the Berbers, known for their bravery and independence. However, that conquest was short-lived, and upon a second attempt, the Arabs were defeated by a Berber warrior queen named Kahinah. 

In 705, the conquest finally succeeded. Arabs settled in the region and Berbers gradually became Muslims, adopting Arabic as their language. In 711, Berbers joined the Arabs in the conquest of Al-Andalus, present-day Spain and Portugal. 

In 742, the Muslim Berbers rebelled against Arab rule and succeeded. By 907, much of North Africa came under the control of the Fatimids, a Shia sect. Over time, local rulers began to follow Sunni Islam and from that event to the 15th century, the area lived in turmoil. 

Then, the Europeans arrived. In 1471, the colonization of Africa began with the Portuguese taking some of the Moroccan coastlines. In the early 16th century, Algeria came under the Ottoman Empire. 

Although Algeria was under the Ottomans, that did not stop colonists from attacking it. The French invaded Algeria in 1682, the Dutch in 1715, the Spanish in 1775 and the US in 1815, to name a few. In 1830, the French conquered Algeria and it eventually became a French colony. 

The colonization of Algeria

When the French invaded again in 1830, it took them nearly 20 years to conquer Algeria. The occupation was bloody and brutal, resulting in a substantial reduction in the local population. Some even consider the conquest genocide. 

As the French struggled to gain control, they deliberately killed, raped, tortured, and buried unarmed civilians alive. Out of a population of three million, French forces caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Algerians, some occurring as the result of disease and famine. Around two million civilians were kept in prison camps. French officer Lucien de Montagnac, who was sent to assist in the colonization effort, wrote that the French must “annihilate all that will not crawl beneath our feet like dogs.”

The legacy of colonization in Algeria goes far beyond mass killings. The French stole religious endowments, restricted movement and confiscated fertile lands which they then gave to settlers. The French also plundered gold, iron, coal and other minerals, some of which are still in France.

Over the next century, France struggled to maintain control of Algeria. In 1911, a group of upper-class Muslims labeled themselves “Young Algerians” and demanded representation in the French National Assembly, which was duly declined. Not long after, when France began drafting Muslims to fight the Germans in WWI, many Algerian Muslims took up arms and resisted the law. In the following decades, tensions continued to boil over between Algerians and the French.

The Algerian War

By 1945, encouraged by the 1941 Atlantic Charter, Algerians demanded full independence. When Nazi Germany accepted defeat, Algerians gathered in large numbers to not only celebrate the fall of the Nazi regime but also to garner attention during the United Nations Conference in San Francisco. They wanted the delegates to know that Algeria existed and was ready to be an independent nation. In May, after the conference commenced, mass protests broke out in cities across Algeria.

Like all other mass protests, some violence occurred. The French reacted with aggression, and by the end of June had massacred several thousand Algerians. Many of those Algerians had fought side-by-side with France against Germany.

From their experience in 1945, Algerian patriots realized the only way to gain their freedom was through armed struggle. In 1954, unable to make progress, young Algerian patriots formed the Revolutionary Committee of Unity and Action (CRUA). They tried to unite the Algerians to fight the French and liberate their country. The CRUA created the National Liberation Front (FLN) to direct the Algerian War of Independence, which in turn created the National Liberation Army (ALN). So began the Algerian War. 

Protests continued throughout the country, and as France suppressed uprisings, violence broke out. French brutality angered more peaceful civilians to join the revolutionaries, and the movement grew. 

In 1958, France offered Algerian Muslims an opportunity to become equal with the French settlers. After so much bloodshed, it was too late, and revolutionaries rejected the offer and asked for independence. By March 1962, the French agreed to grant independence after the 132-year struggle.

Make wrongs right

Despite admitting their atrocities, the French maintain that they will not offer any “repentance or apologies.” To regain some respect, France could acknowledge, apologize and make reparations for the crimes against humanity they committed during colonial times. Importantly, reparation payments should go directly to victims and their descendants, not to the coffers of the Algerian government. To compensate for the ravages of colonization, the French could additionally allocate a sum for education and infrastructure. 

Support should also be offered by organizations like the UN. Despite its mission to support peace and security, the UN has consistently failed to stop genocide, prevent ethnic cleansing or sufficiently support victims such as those in Algeria. Consider the ongoing example of the innocent Palestinian men, women and children being butchered daily by US-backed Israel. From Cambodia to Sudan, the UN has let down countries and communities across the world. 

In the case of Algeria, the UN heard the cries but failed to provide justice. Even with denials and cover-ups, evidence of the French atrocities were overwhelming. To right these wrongs, a UN organized International Tribunal for Algeria (ITA) would be a good first start. Just as victims of the Holocaust have been compensated, Algerians must also receive compensation.

While no sum of money can ever erase the suffering of Algerians, reparations are an important step. First, victims get justice. Second, poor countries and victims get valuable financial support. Third, they set an important precedent for holding colonizers accountable. France must take responsibility and action to rectify the country’s dark history in Algeria. 

[Emma Johnson edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post French Genocide in Algeria: Time for Introspection appeared first on Fair Observer.

Raisi’s life and achievements

Ebrahim Raisi was born in Mashhad, Iran in 1960. He lost his father at age 5, causing his family to struggle financially. At age 15, he joined the seminary in the city of Qum. At age 20, he joined Iran’s new judiciary following the conclusion of Iran’s 1979 Revolution. In 1983, he married Jamileh Alamalhoda, daughter of Mashad’s Friday prayer Imam Ahmad Alamolhoda. They had two daughters together.

From here, he was appointed to several important positions. In 1988, he stood as a member of a judicial committee overseeing political prisoners, including the members of the Mujahideen-e Khalq terror organization. A year later, he became the prosecutor of Iran’s capital city of Tehran. In 2004, he was appointed as first deputy chief justice. In 2006, he was elected to the Assembly of Experts, a clerical body appointing the Supreme Leader. In 2012, Raisi earned his PhD in law from Shahid Motahari University. He was appointed Prosecutor General of Iran in 2014 and chair of the Astan Quds Razavi, one of Iran’s biggest religious endowments, in 2016.

His political career did not stop there. Raisi ran in the 2017 presidential election as a critic of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The incumbent president Hassan Rouhani, who invested much of his reelection campaign in the JCPOA, ultimately won. In 2019, Raisi was appointed as Iran’s chief justice. He ran again in the 2020 presidential election and won in 2021. He earned 62% of the popular vote, though the turnout was around 49%. This was over three years after US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA.

Finally, on May 19, 2024, Raisi died in the aforementioned helicopter crash in the mountainous region of Azerbaijan. His funeral processes were held in Tabriz, Tehran, Ray, Qum and Mashhad, with over a million attendees.

Raisi was the people’s president. He worked seven days a week, traveling across the country, visiting every province and talking to people from all walks of life. He sat with villagers as if he were one of them, listening and trying to address their issues. In government, he developed positive relations with Iran’s judicial and legislative branches. He enjoyed good relations with the military and religious authorities.

Raisi took the focus away from Iran’s unsuccessful approach with the West, instead turning attention to neighboring countries and the East. He improved relations with Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Uzbekistan. In particular, he solidified Iran’s friendship with Russia and China. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman speaking on behalf of Chinese President Xi Jinping said Raisi made “positive efforts to consolidate and expand the comprehensive strategic partnership between China and Iran.”

In February 2023, Raisi finalized the 25-year “strategic cooperation pact,” with China. The two countries signed numerous other bilateral cooperation documents. In April 2023, Raisi led Iran to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a Eurasian political, economic and security organization. He led Iran to sign an agreement with Iraq to construct a railway from the Iranian city of Shalamcheh to the Iraqi city of Basra.

In May 2023, Raisi signed an agreement with Russia to build a 170-kilometer railway connecting the Iranian city of Rasht to the Azerbaijani city of Astara. In November 2023, a month after the October 7 Hamas terror attack on Gaza and Israel’s barbaric response to it, Raisi participated in a Saudi summit. This meeting condemned Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza.

In January 2024, Raisi led Iran to join Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS), an intergovernmental organization promoting non-interference, equality and collaboration. In May 2024, he signed several agreements with Pakistan to strengthen “bilateral relations across political, economic, trade, and cultural domains.” That included increasing the bilateral trade to $10 billion.

During Raisi’s tenure, Iran increased its crude oil exports from 0.6 million barrels per day in June 2021 to over 1.6 million in April 2024. The country achieved this over 200% increase despite the draconian sanctions the US implemented in 2018.

Official condolences from world leaders

Iran was showered with condolences from countries worldwide honoring Raisi and the other officials. “I send condolences upon the deaths of President Ebrahim Raisi, Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian and all who perished in yesterday’s helicopter crash,” Pope Francis wrote to Iran’s Supreme Leader.

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was “deeply saddened” by Raisi’s passing. “His dedication to justice, peace, and the upliftment of the ummah [the Islamic community] was truly inspiring. We committed ourselves to bolstering Malaysia-Iran relations, working together for the betterment of our peoples and the Muslim world. Our pledge will be fulfilled,” Ibrahim said.

Even the US, Iran’s worst adversary, sent Iran a message regarding his death: “As Iran selects a new president, we reaffirm our support for the Iranian people and their struggle for human rights and fundamental freedoms,” Department of State spokesman Matthew Miller said.

Iran declared five days of mourning for Raisi and the other officials’ deaths. Lebanon and Syria followed with three days while India and Iraq took one. On May 21, the UN lowered its flag to half-mast in honor of the late president. The UN Security Council atomic watchdog observed a minute of silence to honor him.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres and members of the Security Council extended “sincere condolences to the families of the deceased and to the Government and people of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Iran’s policy will not change

Iran’s democracy must continue without Raisi. According to Article 131 of the Iranian Constitution, “The Council…is obliged to arrange for a new President to be elected within a maximum period of fifty days.” Iran has already scheduled the popular presidential election for June 28.

The deaths of Raisi and others will not alter Iran’s foreign policy. After such large public attendance at his funerals in five different cities, any loyal follower is obliged to enforce his policies: to strengthen relations with neighboring countries, collaborate further with China and Russia and support oppressed people worldwide. Specifically, Iran would continue supporting the oppressed Palestinians until they can restore Palestine.
Raisi was a great man. We must never forget nor devalue his policies that brought our world one step closer to peace.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Wondrous Life and Strong Policies of President Ebrahim Raisi appeared first on Fair Observer.

Iran’s leadership demonstrates sagacity rather than acting capriciously. It has no desire to provoke an unnecessary war with Israel. However, when Israel assassinated senior Iranian officials in Damascus via an airstrike on April 1, 2024, Iran needed to respond. On April 14, Iran responded with a drone and rocket attack that targeted Israeli territory but caused no deaths.

In the aftermath of Iran’s attack, the US has made efforts to rein in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and prevent escalation. However, this endeavor has proven to be challenging. Netanyahu believes that the US Congress would compel the US to support Israel in a potential conflict with Iran. Presently, he finds himself surrounded by fellow hardline extremists who, like him, fail to recognize the shifting attitudes of the American populace towards Israel. Notably, among the younger generation of Americans, only 14% express sympathy towards Israel, a stark decline from 64% in 2023. These Americans are unwilling to commit to armed conflict or sacrifice their lives for Israel.

Once again, the US intervened to support Netanyahu, entreating Iran to permit a symbolic Israeli strike. Iran, of course, refused, but on April 19, Israel carried out an air strike in Iran’s Esfahan province. There were no casualties. For the moment, this seems to be the end of the exchange.

Netanyahu is cognizant that his political career is effectively over after the Israel–Hamas war, and thus his mandate as well, ends. He faces prosecution for personal corruption and mismanagement, particularly concerning dealings with Hamas. He thus has a personal incentive to prolong the war, perhaps banking on US intervention to safeguard Israel.

Should Israel or the US mount another offensive resulting in casualties or significant damage, hell would break loose in the Middle East. Such a war could destroy US influence in the region and even imperil the very existence of Israel.

A century of struggle and suffering in Palestine

Let’s back up a bit and consider why Gaza is such a sensitive topic for Iran.

In the early 20th century, Jews fled persecution in Christendom and migrated to Palestine. Palestinians initially welcomed them, providing sanctuary. Palestinian hospitality encouraged Zionist-minded Jews to settle in Palestine. By 1930, tensions escalated as the newcomers perpetrated violence against Palestinians. This violence peaked between 1947 and 1948, resulting in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians known as the Nakba.

Related Reading

Palestine and Israel: A Bloody Saga

Since then, Israel, with the support of the US-led West, has continued to marginalize Palestinians and push them into smaller and smaller plots of land. Israel split Palestine into two territories: the larger West Bank in the east, and the tiny Gaza Strip, only 365 square kilometers, to the south. After Palestinians voted for Hamas in 2006, the militant group assumed control of the Gaza Strip. Israel (and Egypt) responded by blockading the territory, creating what is frequently called an open-air prison, with two million people crammed into an area the size of the US Virgin Islands (home to 87,000 people).

Since the outbreak of the present Israel–Hamas war in October 2023, Israel has not only killed over 34,000 people in its land and air assault on the Gaza Strip but intensified its blockade, at times even restricting the inflow of drinking water, and put the territory’s population on the brink of starvation.

Founded in a revolution against an oppressive secular government backed by Western powers, the Islamic Republic of Iran sees itself as the protector of the Islamic world against oppression and imperialism. For Iranians, Palestine is the prime case of a suffering Muslim people. So, naturally, whatever happens in Gaza reverberates in Iran.

Iran’s commitment to standing with the oppressed finds its origins in the nation’s majority Shia Islamic faith. Wherever Shia Muslims reside, they draw inspiration from Imam Hussein, a grandson of the Prophet of Islam, who sacrificed his life and those of his loved ones in defense of justice. “In the face of oppression,” Imam Hussein declared, “I choose to stand with courage and uphold the banner of justice.” Shias align themselves with the oppressed and advocate for justice. They do not discriminate based on race, religion, ethnicity, or any other criteria. Presently, Shias in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and various other nations unite in solidarity with Palestinians, even though most Palestinians are Sunni Muslims rather than Shia. What matters most for Iranians is solidarity with the Muslim community and with oppressed peoples across the globe.

Israel’s actions have provoked anger worldwide, even in the West. What is true in the rest of the world is true in Iran tenfold. Iranians are deeply angry. Yet it is a testament to the restraint and prudence of Iran’s leadership that it has so far not let this righteous outrage tempt it into a war.

Iran’s strategic calculations in the face of Israeli provocations

Although Iran rejects aggression, Israel nearly drew it into war anyway by striking its officers. On April 1, 2024, Israel breached Syrian and Iranian sovereignties by bombing the Iranian consulate compound in Damascus, Syria, resulting in the death of 16 individuals. Among the casualties were three senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s Quds Force — Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, General Hossein Aminollahi and General Mohammad Hadi Haj Rahimi — and six other Revolutionary Guard members.

The US promptly announced that it had nothing to do with Israel’s bombing of Iran’s consulate in Syria. However, the US administration refrained from condemning it. As usual, its media empire repeated the US assertions by downplaying the Israeli assault on the consulate. Incapable of independent thought, the US and its media still keep persistently echoing Israel’s lies, propaganda and unverified rumors.

For years, Iran’s Supreme Leader has exercised patience in response to Israel’s provocations, including sabotage of its endeavors in Iran’s nuclear and missile programs as well as targeted killings of Iranian scientists and military personnel. Following Israel’s bombing of Iran’s consulate in Syria on April 1, military action was withheld initially, with Iran appealing to the UN Security Council to denounce the violations.

After the UN failed to condemn Israel, Iran’s Supreme Leader declared Iran’s intention to retaliate against Israel, approximately ten days before the attacks. Demonstrating an exemplary degree of responsibility, Iran issued a warning to Israel, the US, the UK, France, and other supporters, prompting them to prepare for defense. Approximately 72 hours before the attacks, Iran notified both its regional neighbors and Western powers of its imminent intentions. This deliberate choice allowed Israel and its allies time to prepare for defensive measures. Symbolically, Iran sought to showcase its capabilities to its adversaries while assessing their strengths and vulnerabilities.

On April 14, Iran executed its attacks on Israel utilizing outdated, sluggish drones and missiles. The journey spanned three to five hours before reaching their intended targets.

By international law and moral standards, Iran’s response was appropriate. Unlike Israel, which follows the Western model by indiscriminately targeting innocent men, women and children, Iran’s objective from the outset was to minimize casualties. Notably, the attacks resulted in no deaths and only one unintentional injury.

Through the operation, Iran successfully achieved its objectives. The strikes seriously damaged at least two Israeli bases, including the highly sensitive Nevatim Airbase, previously utilized by Israel to target Iran’s consulate. Notably, Israel’s purportedly top-tier defense infrastructure faltered during this operation. While British, French and other Western forces participated, the US conducted the bulk of the interceptions. 

To Iranians, the attacks served as significant experimental endeavors. Remarkably, the financial cost to Iran amounted to less than $2 million, whereas its adversaries had to spend $3 billion to counter the attack. Perhaps more importantly, the exercise afforded Iran a deeper understanding of its adversaries’ capabilities.

On April 19, Israel launched rockets toward the nuclear facilities in Natanz, Esfahan province, Iran. Reports indicate that Iran intercepted all incoming projectiles, with some debris landing in Iraq. Iran has not retaliated.

The ever-pro-Israeli US press, led by The New York Times, sought to ignore or downplay Iran’s success and paint the exchange as a mere distraction. Americans should exercise discernment and not take such propaganda at face value. Instead, they should seek out independent sources, such as Fair Observer, for a more realistic perspective.

A call to reform US policy on Israel

It is time for Americans to shake off the passivity they have indulged for too long. The US, after all, is supposed to be a democracy. Yet a significant majority, exceeding 60% of Americans, disapprove of Israel’s actions in Gaza, while Congress approves $26 billion in more aid for Israel. To reclaim the nation’s integrity, Americans must conscientiously vote out representatives who support such allocations in future elections.

As an American committed to safeguarding the nation’s long-term interests, I advocate for constructive engagement with Palestinians to facilitate the cessation of Israeli colonization and the restoration of the Palestinian state. This endeavor should ensure equal rights for all Palestinian Christians, Jews and Muslims. Additionally, individuals of Jewish descent without historical ties to Palestine should be permitted to repatriate to their ancestral lands or other countries, provided they have not been complicit in crimes against humanity.

True Christians and Jews must actively follow their religious teachings by promoting brotherhood and peace. They must not permit political and religious demagogues to encourage or engage in atrocities such as those in Palestine in their names. Additionally, they should acknowledge that Israel is no friend of the US, but rather an adversary, one which has even fired upon the US Navy with apparent impunity.

Under President Joe Biden — a self-declared Zionist — achieving a peaceful solution in Palestine appears unlikely. Nevertheless, it remains certain that each individual will be held accountable for the suffering they cause, whether directly or indirectly, upon others. Before they are held accountable before God, let us hold them accountable at the ballot box, and perhaps save their souls or, at least, our own.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post How Do You See Iran’s Attacks on Israel? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Sensationalism plagues the American media. The dramatization of news stories to attract a wider audience and generate revenue is a persistent trend. The media habitually deploy misleading information, propaganda and unverified rumors.

This penchant for sensationalized reporting has become so ingrained that even some formally independent media outlets can be drawn into this vortex. Fair Observer purports to champion balanced and truthful reporting. However, during the recent coverage of escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, this author noted with surprise the editorial oversight that allowed contributors to refer to Iran’s allies and partners as proxies.

The terms “proxy,” “ally” and “partner” all describe relationships between actors on the international stage, but they are not synonyms. A proxy is an entity acting on behalf of another, often with a degree of subordination. In legal contexts, a proxy typically grants the designated individual general discretion throughout the matter at hand.

An ally, by contrast, is a party that provides assistance or support in a shared endeavor. Formalized agreements between states for wartime support are what alliances often become in the legal realm. In the context of Iran’s Axis of Resistance, this can include non-state actors as well.

Finally, a partner refers to an entity associated with another for the joint execution of an activity that offers mutual benefit. In legal terms, a partnership is an agreement between two or more parties to engage in mutually advantageous projects.

Iran’s Axis of Resistance comprises entities such as the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah. These groups should not be categorized as Iranian proxies, but rather as allies or partners. (While their alliances with Iran may lack formal agreements, their actions demonstrate a level of cooperation.) Most importantly, each group retains its own decision-making authority. The Houthis pursue independent governance in Yemen. Similarly, Hamas, a Sunni group, has a history of conflict against Iranian-backed forces in Syria to overthrow Syrian President Assad. Hezbollah receives financial and military aid from Iran, yet it maintains its independent decision-making capacity.

Iran firmly bases its policy on ethical grounds when it supports the restoration of Palestinian control over Palestine. Analogous to the shared democratic values purportedly uniting the US and the EU, Iran and its allies share a common goal: the cessation of Palestinian occupation and the facilitation of a coexistence of Palestinian Christians, Jews and Muslims without unequal Jewish power.

The era of colonialism has concluded. Should the Western coalition, led by the US, seek to dismantle Iran’s Axis of Resistance, they must stop colonizing Palestine, thereby letting Palestinians to govern their own territory. Failing this, the resistance will grow stronger and force the West to retreat in disgrace, as seen in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

The proxy narrative is a misconception in Middle Eastern politics

The ongoing conflict between Israel, backed by the US, and the Palestinians in Gaza has garnered global attention since the October 7 attacks by Hamas on Israel. While not directly implicated in the October 7 assault, Iran’s allies or partners in Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Yemen and other nations have aligned themselves with Hamas in the aftermath of the incident. The adversarial stance of the United States and its media towards Iran often unjustly characterizes these entities as Iran’s proxies. That is just another lie to instill public anger against Iran. 

In a report spanning 20 pages, Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy asserted that Iran typically refrains from imposing its will on groups such as the Houthis, allowing them autonomy in their decision-making processes. Knights contends that the Houthis are neither direct proxies of Iran nor opportunistic wartime allies. They align with Iran based on shared ideological beliefs rather than coercion. Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, the leader of the Houthi movement, considers himself equal to Iran’s supreme leader.

The Council on Foreign Relations’ study too found that mutual consent, not proxy servitude, forms the basis of Iran’s associations, which further debunks the notion of Iran’s dominance over its partners.

The persistence of Palestinian resistance

The Houthis, Zaidi Shia Arabs known for their robust determination and autonomous disposition, remained unsubdued by British dominion over Yemen for 129 years. The are combatants who resist oppression, something evident in their solidarity with the oppressed Palestinians in Gaza. Although, like Iranians, they are Shia Muslims, Iranians are predominantly Twelver Shias. The two sects diverged in the 7th century, and so are separated by more historical distance than Catholics are from Protestants or Orthodox Christians. 

Currently, the Houthis are attracting attention for their strategic blockade of the Bab al-Mandab strait in the Gulf of Aden, aimed at Israel and its allies, including the United States and the United Kingdom. Their actions are underpinned by a principled stance, conditioning the lifting of Israel’s internationally condemned blockade of Gaza as a precondition for de-escalation.

Since 2007, Hamas has effectively governed Gaza following the 2006 parliamentary elections, catalyzed by US President George W. Bush’s endorsement of Palestinian electoral processes To the US’ surprise, Hamas won the election in Gaza. Instead of endorsing it, the US opted to finance and endorse violence against Hamas, instigating internal conflict among Palestinians. Subsequently, Hamas consolidated control over Gaza in 2007.

Despite Israel’s awareness of Hamas as a resistance movement aspiring to reclaim Palestine, it seized upon Hamas’ ascension to perpetuate Palestinian disunity and thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state. Under Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel supported Hamas to prevent the realization of a Palestinian state. In return, Hamas purportedly endorsed a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel, notwithstanding its status as a resistance entity.

Lacking progress on the two-state paradigm, hostilities naturally escalated between Hamas and Israel. Despite agreeing to a ceasefire and lifting the blockade in 2008, Israel broke the agreement, launching a ground invasion and aerial bombardment of Gaza, subsequently reinstating the blockade. Since then, Israel has invaded and bombed Gaza. The October 7 assaults represented Hamas’ desperate bid for liberation from Israeli subjugation. Predictably, Israel’s responses have been disproportionately forceful, seeming even genocidal to observers in many corners of the globe. However, US media persists in hiding the truth, perpetuating Israel’s customary falsehoods and propaganda.

Iran’s allies share a common objective with Iran: the liberation of Palestine from prolonged oppression under Western colonization. This aggression has perpetuated regional instability, engendering numerous casualties and extensive devastation.

A wake-up call for transparency

Israel has committed atrocities that lay bare a disturbing reality: Media conglomerates are complicit in perpetuating a narrative that shields Israel from accountability, serving as an extension of US policy. Chief among these entities is The New York Times, which actively disseminates falsehoods and propaganda to obfuscate the crimes committed by both the United States and Israel.

We must recognize that the deep state influences the US government and its affiliated media conglomerates, making them untrustworthy as information sources. Therefore, individuals should cross-reference information from these sources with independent media outlets and alternative sources to verify their truthfulness.

Independent media like Fair Observer must vigilantly avoid falling into the deceptive narratives that mainstream conglomerates perpetuate. They must conduct rigorous independent research to maintain the accuracy and integrity of their reporting. Accountability is a moral imperative. And even if we do not hold ourselves accountable in this life, we all will be accountable before God.

[Ali Omar Forozish edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post How to Tell Between an Iranian “Proxy” and an Ally appeared first on Fair Observer.

In history, man has realized that there must be a God that transcended everything, although he cannot perceive this deity with his usual senses. As time passed, the spontaneous realization of God gradually evolved into institutions that we now refer to as religion. People sought religion to address their concerns about natural phenomena and the powers that control them. Therefore, it is not surprising that the essence of all major world religions remains the unity of mankind. It is founded on the belief in the one and only God, which is worshiped through the multitude of idols in Hinduism, the Trinity in Christianity and the oneness in Islam.

When these three major religions are cleared of all man-made innovations, they boil down to many of the same virtues. They promote honesty, trust, compassion, love, peace, cooperation and brotherhood. They prohibit dishonesty, betrayal, theft, rape and murder. They inspire us to help the poor and disadvantaged. The following is a brief discussion of God as he is presented in these religions.

God in Hinduism

Among the world’s major religions, Hinduism is believed to be the oldest, beginning between 2,300 and 1,500 BC. It is rooted in monotheism, the belief in a single omnipotent God. In about 2,000 BC, an early Vedic hymn titled, Origin of All Things, set the foundation for Hinduism by referring to God as the source of life:

There was neither aught nor naught, nor air, nor sky beyond.

What covered all? Where rested all? In watery gulf profound?

Nor death was then, nor deathlessness, nor change of night and day.

The One breathed calmly, self-sustained; nought else beyond it lay.

As time passed, the deity was called the Brahman — “supreme, lord, eternal, unborn, imperishable.” He put in motion “creation, preservation, and destruction.”

Over time, Hindu writers went overboard in creating deities to illustrate the Brahman. He is now represented by over 30 million gods, vying for superiority. This is head-scratching for many. However, the hymn leads wise believers to one conclusion: “God alone knew how the world came into being.”

Hinduism’s core values are based on the purpose of life and ethical virtues. It teaches that given how our universe is created, it is in our best interest to work together for the well-being of mankind and other species. The primary belief of Hinduism is of a universal God. It perceives a pure, wakeful, omnipresent intelligence that created and maintains the universe. It professes the mindset that a clever person should have: He knows that God is beyond the grasp of knowledge, he sees God in every being and he does not get fixated on his choices in achieving eternal life.

Hinduism has influenced and been influenced by other religions. In particular, the faith has influenced Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and Zoroastrianism. It shares numerous concepts with the Abrahamic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — including the soul (atman) and personal, loving devotion to a deity (bhakti).

The peaceful spirit of Hinduism must not be confused with the bigoted zeal of its followers in attacking minorities in India, especially Christians and Muslims. The country is considered extremely dangerous for women. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi has disgraced the faith by demonizing the minority Muslims and polarizing Hindus against them. In the 2002 Gujarat massacres, Modi allegedly instructed other officials not to intervene as Hindu mobs killed Muslims. As punishment for failing to stop the massacres, the United States banned Modi from entering the country for years.

God in Christianity

Around 2,000 years ago in the early 1st century AD, Jesus Christ was miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of his virgin mother, Mary. He was one of Abraham’s descendants. He rose among the Israelites and performed countless miracles.

According to biblical scholars, Jesus’s ministry began with his baptism by John the Baptist. He taught that besides worshiping the one God, people should treat others the way they want to be treated. His kind demeanor and peaceful approach provided a positive passivity permeated with intense love and charity toward others.

In his lifetime, Jesus attracted a few dedicated followers. But his message of compassion resonated in the hearts of millions long after him. His teachings became the doctrine of a new religion, dubbed Christianity.

Jesus called the Jews to return to God and observe the commandments laid out in the Torah, the Jewish holy law. In Jesus’s spoken language of Aramaic, God is called Alaha. This is cognate to the Arabic word ilah, the root of Allah (al-ilah, “the God”), the name Arabs and Muslims would go on to use when referring to God.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.” He preached, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” Even as the Romans crucified him, he cried, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

The gospels were written years after Jesus. So, some contradictions and inaccuracies are not surprising. However, one thing is clear in all four gospels: Jesus preached the worship of only one God. On occasion, the scribe’s imagination scandalously stretched, equating Jesus or the Holy Spirit with God.

His message clearly shows that Jesus worshiped the single God, Alaha. This defies the Trinity, an innovation that emerged years after he was gone. The idea of the Trinity, rooted in “threefold”, was first used by Tertullian (d. 200) in his small circle. 

In the 4th century, the First Council of Nicaea (325), discussed Christ’s relationship with the Father and formalized the doctrine of the Trinity, declaring Jesus to be “of the same substance” as God. Yet the word “trinity” does not appear anywhere in the four Gospels. Matthew 28:19 does appear to refer to it with the formula, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” However, that statement does not imply that the three are equal or the same. 

As for the Bible, Jesus’s teachings hang on two commandments: First, you must love God with all your heart, soul and mind. Second, you must love other people as you love yourself.

Jesus’s early followers considered themselves Jews by birth or conversion. They believed in the Jewish God and Jesus as the Savior, considering him the prophesized Jewish mashiach, or messiah. They insisted on following Jewish laws and rituals. They believed God would destroy their enemies and set the stage for the coming mashiach. He would gather all Jews and bring justice and peace, specifically to Egypt.

Jesus’s disciples lived alongside other Jewish sects, such as Essenes, Sadducees and Pharisees. Some of them were referred to as Ebionites and Nazarenes. Jesus’s early followers closely obeyed his teachings. These peaceful people lived by loving their neighbors, adversaries and persecutors. In the Bible, they never referred to themselves as Christians, although that name was given to them in the pagan city of Antioch. Jesus never gave a name to the faith or followers. However, they considered themselves those Jews who worshiped the one God and exercised love for one another.

Christ preached for people to love one another unconditionally. The aggressively vicious behaviors of Christendom must not be bemused with his teachings. In his book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon wrote: “Jesus did not bring peace on the earth, but a sword; his patient and humble virtues should not be confounded with the intolerant zeal of princes and bishops, who have disgraced the name of his disciples.”

God in Islam

In 610 AD, in a forgotten land that interested neither Romans nor Persians, a middle-aged man undertook a task no man had ever achieved: to unite mankind. His only weapon was his passionate conviction in the oneness of God, and thus the oneness of humanity. Like Noah, he was patient, persistent and faithful to God. Like Abraham, he reasoned to explain his ideas in a simple language that his people could easily comprehend. Like Moses, he spoke only a few words, filled with wisdom and meaning. Like Jesus, he was humble, compassionate, forgiving and looked after the sick and orphaned. His eloquence pierced the hearts of his listeners.

In his early years of preaching, no one beyond his close family joined him for fear of retribution from the tribal chiefs. After preaching for 13 years in his hometown of Mecca in Saudi Arabia, few people followed him. That only made him more determined. His perseverance finally paid off when he left his home; his teachings changed the desolate Arabian peninsula and the world. This brilliant man was Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam.

Muhammad preached Islam, an Arabic word meaning, “submission to the will of God.” This was the continuation of God’s message to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. He spoke of the one God, Allah, Who commanded him:

Say: He, God is one.

God is He on whom all depend.

He begets not, nor is He begotten.

And none is like Him.

As for the oneness of God:

If there were, in the universe, other gods besides God, there would have been confusion!

1,400 years ago, Muhammad rejected superstitions and the tradition of following the paths of ancestors. He called people to think, reason and reflect.

At a time when women had little value, Muhammad addressed men and women equally. When men considered daughters shame and killed them, Muhammad preached rights and privileges for women and forbade the people from molesting and hurting them. When the economy ran on the toil of slaves, Muhammad encouraged people to set them free for goodwill and penitence. He championed equal opportunity and encouraged people to give to those less fortunate what they loved for themselves.

These days, we must all have a keen mind when absorbing information. The propaganda against Islam must not fool us that the US has disseminated across the globe. It is perpetuated to distract from domestic issues, cover for atrocities and justify interventions in Muslim countries. The Western support of the Israeli genocide against Palestinians clearly demonstrates that the West has long abandoned its Christian values.

To retake a page from Edward Gibbon, we can say: “[Islam] is free from suspicion or ambiguity; and the Koran is a glorious testimony to the unity of God. The prophet of Mecca [Muhammad] rejected the worship of idols and men, of stars and planets, on the rational principle that whatever rises must set, that whatever is born must die, that whatever is corruptible must decay and perish.”

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post How to Know God in Religion appeared first on Fair Observer.

— George Orwell.

There is a growing sentiment of distrust with the mainstream media. People are disturbed by the reporting of the Israel–Hamas war.

In communist countries, the press spoke on behalf of the government’s position, like the Soviet outlet Pravda. However, the Western mainstream media’s collaboration with their government in a supposedly free world is manipulated in such a way that the connection is not that clear, especially on global matters. On the US-backed Israel, the media follow the US, avoiding the urge for a permanent cease-fire. 

The depth of Western media’s level of corruption is clear in portraying the US-backed Israel the oppressor as a victim despite its indiscriminate and massive bombardments of Gaza. The narrative portrays Israel as the aggrieved victim and criticizes the West in a merely peripheral and artificial way. Brazenly, the media keep dramatizing the stories 24/7, enforcing Israel’s views with little or no attention to the Palestinian victims. This is a clear example of Western tribalism and the lack of a moral compass.

In a 2022 survey, Americans showed they were losing confidence in their major institutions. Their trust in newspapers had dropped to 16% and television news to 11%. Since then, Israeli bombings of Gaza since the beginning of the war on October 7, 2023, have made many Americans realize that their government and media support ethnic cleansing and genocide, to their dismay. In a Gallup poll published after October 7, it was found that only 7% of Americans trusted the media while 38% said they had “none at all.”

Chances are if the survey were conducted today, it would have shown even fewer Americans trust their media. Americans are becoming more aware that their government and media are biased and controlled by the rich and the deep state.

Fortunately, the government and media collusion has sometimes received national attention. In July, a federal judge blocked the US government from influencing social media after people complained about being censored by Facebook and Twitter. 

The US and the media use fear

As human beings, we each share in the joy, sadness and fear-triggered emotions leading us to our perceptions of reality. Unfortunately, fear tends to have the most prolific impact on our thoughts and actions. 

The fear perpetrated by the actions of terrorists and the corresponding government and media reactions, lead us to believe that peace will never be achieved. The government is determined to keep us under its control using fear and so are the media, to maximize profit.

If the media stopped at “Kool-Aid” or “L’Eggo My Eggo,” they probably would not even be worth mentioning, but they do not. The media do not just influence us in our nutrition, but our way of life, our politics, our health, our ideas of right and wrong, who is good or bad, what religion is right and which country we should go to war with. The media follow the government, using fear to increase readers and viewers. 

To illustrate the media’s power, consider the case of terrorism. We all tuned in day and night to get more details about the attacks, such as the World Trade Centers in New York, Orlando Night Club in Florida, Route 91 in Las Vegas or the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France. Now, they have been following the US by calling the Hamas fighters terrorists to entice more fear within us. 

The media aim to achieve high ratings and more profit by highlighting the negative events that can provoke fear. We know the media information comes from the government and inciting fear appears to be the objective of both the government and the media. If this isn’t collusion, then what is it?

How media use fear

The media know we are accustomed to headlines. They design and disseminate slanted information to increase readership. Every dosage is well prepared for our absorption. Over the years, the media have mastered the art of inducing constant fear with a shock factor in their audience to direct our preferences. The higher the shock level, the higher the ratings and the more profit. 

Subconscious ideas of fear, segregation and conceit are constantly planted like seeds in our heads. Each official speech, newscast, commercial or film we see is watering the seeds to flourish. We all see or seek evidence to support our underlying beliefs

As if terrorism was not inciting enough fear, we faced the COVID-19 pandemic. The media had a ball with it, reporting it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, each one with its spin.  

Supposedly, COVID first started in Wuhan, China. Soon after that, the media were giving minute reports on the deaths due to it. When the virus hit Iran, the media cheered some neo-conservatives who felt so secure from the virus that they forecasted the virus was about to do the job of changing the Iranian regime that the 40-year sanctions could not do. The Trump Administration mercilessly increased sanctions, “unnecessarily prioritizing its own political agenda above Iranian lives.”

Foolishly, those neocons did not think that the virus recognized no boundary, it would gradually reach the US shores. Of course, it inevitably did, killing over one million.

Using the fear of the virus, the media hooked audiences pocketing large profits and the government served the rich, the deep state, in expanding its tentacles. Now, the media are focusing on Hamas to generate fear and optimize profit.

As for media control, see how the media attract us to absorb their information. We feel thirsty for information. We are glued to our television, radio, press releases, web browsers, social media and cell phones. Often, we have no other place to go to get unbiased information. On the internet, much of the information we gather from other sources is just the restatement of that in the media. 

The US and the media are on the wrong path

In the post-9/11 period, we have seen what the collusion of the government and the media has done to us. The collusion has planted deep fear in each of us. It has brought us unjust wars, large numbers of casualties and global humiliation. It has caused millions of innocent people to die. For years, it has been beating the drum for a war with Iran. Now, it has been supporting Israel in its genocide against the oppressed Palestinians. 

On October 7, Hamas carried out an attack against Israel. Once again, the media revealed their true nature. They portrayed the victim, Palestine, as the aggressor and the aggressor, Israel. as the victim. As usual, many older Americans fell for it. 

So far, Israel has killed over 30,000 Palestinians. The media ignore to say that Israel has occupied the Palestinian lands through ethnic cleansing and genocide for over 75 years. Israel has pushed millions of Palestinians into the open-air prison, the Gaza Strip. Israel has blockaded that small territory from the land and the sea. It has controlled Palestinian livelihood, regularly harassed them and periodically bombarded them, killing hundreds to keep them living in perpetual fear. 

Over the years, the media have failed to reveal that the US approach is not helping Israel. In fact, the US’s strategy contributes to the destruction of Israel in the long run. By supporting Israel with billions of US taxpayer dollars (while more Americans languish in poverty at home), the US is merely pouring more fuel on the fire. 

In the eyes of the world, the media have concealed the truth from Americans that the US has become a collaborator in Israel’s atrocities against the Palestinians. The case South Africa v. Israel, before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has globally exposed the potential crime of genocide in Gaza, implicating Western powers, especially the US. That places a moral imperative on the US and its media to critically examine their positions and align with international standards.

I believe that the media could take a positive step in urging the US to become an honest broker, especially in the Middle East. Then, Palestinian issues can be resolved. In exchange for its billion-dollar aid, the US could demand Israel to publicly apologize to the Palestinians for the land/property stolen and atrocities committed against them and make reparations. 

On January 26, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) took the first step although it followed the US line short of decreeing a permanent cease-fire. The ICJ ruled that Israel’s military actions in Gaza fell under the scope of the Genocide Convention; thus, the Palestinians must be protected as a national group. Now, can the US and its media put their biases aside and get on board?

What can be done about the US and the media?

Indeed, Americans need free, honest, curious and resourceful media that meet these conditions: First, independent from government, powerful people and corporations. Second, investigate, check facts, expose cover-ups and show different perspectives. Third, non-partisan challenges the government on matters affecting our safety, security and health. 

None will happen without the American people’s participation. They must use good judgment, demand transparency from their government and be selective in giving attention to the media. They must become more skeptical and open-minded in listening, reading and watching the news in its current form. Whenever there is a conflict, they must stand with the oppressed.

Today, Israel’s existence is indebted to the US, which financially supports the apartheid state and keeps misusing the US veto power to block any move against it in the UN Security Council. If the majority of Americans truly believe to be Christians, they must push for peace in Palestine by heeding advice from their Bible: “Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.”

[Tara Yarwais edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post What Do You Know About Mainstream Media? appeared first on Fair Observer.

This content fosters an insatiable demand for information, yet the desire for unbiased perspectives often faces a significant obstacle. Much of the readily available alternative content online merely recycles the dominant narratives established by the mainstream media, highlighting the media’s substantial influence on public discourse and the challenge of readily accessing diverse and objective viewpoints.

In relation to Iran, the media has consistently adhered to a particular narrative. It has neglected to critically examine US claims, choosing instead to echo US propaganda. This has resulted in Iran being depicted as a pariah state, ruled by a dictatorship and involved in supporting terrorism. These portrayals are often accepted without the necessary critical scrutiny.

Nonetheless, a discernible shift is occurring. A growing number of Americans are becoming aware of the interconnectedness of their government and media, recognizing the presence of biases and the influence of powerful entities, often linked to the so-called “deep state.” This newfound consciousness was evident in a recent interview in which Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking with Tucker Carlson, described the US “deep state” as the American ‘elite’ with the power to overrule the US president and dictate the country’s policies.

Déjà Vu in the Middle East: is the US destined to repeat history?

The January 3 terrorist attacks in Kerman, Iran, targeting a gathering at the burial site of Qasem Soleimani, resulted in a significant loss of life (84 reported dead) and injuries (284). This tragedy raises the specter of another potential conflict in the Middle East, with concerns escalating about Iran’s potential retaliation against Israel, given the Islamic State’s claim of responsibility and the possibility of Israeli involvement.

As a staunch ally of Israel, the United States faces a delicate decision. Historically, US involvement in wars has often resulted in widespread casualties and destruction. Examining interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Vietnam reveals a pattern of initial engagement followed by gradual withdrawal due to unforeseen challenges, potentially eroding US global credibility.

Furthermore, concerns exist regarding the dissemination of misinformation by the US government and media. The echo chamber effect, where media narratives align with government pronouncements, is particularly concerning. Historical examples, such as the Vietnam War, highlight the devastating consequences of such deceit, costing over 3 million lives, including approximately 60,000 Americans. The media’s complacency in events like the Cambodian Genocide and the Iraq War, where questioning of US actions often lagged behind public opposition, further underscores its role in facilitating government actions.

The post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan aimed to remove the Taliban, resulting in substantial casualties and destruction. However, the Taliban’s return to power after a staggering financial and human cost exposes the futility of such interventions. Similarly, the Iraq War, based on false claims of weapons of mass destruction and connections with al-Qaeda, resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths and immense financial expenditure. The lack of accountability for those responsible, such as US President George W. Bush and his administration, remains a troubling aspect.

Iraq is not alone in bearing the brunt of US intervention. Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen have all witnessed the repercussions of US involvement in various conflicts. The instigation of regime changes and interventions in democratic governments, exemplified by the overthrowals of Mohammad Mosaddeq in Iran and Salvadore Allende in Chile, have proven to be costly and destabilizing endeavors.

The global cost of war, two decades after the US invasion of Afghanistan, has reached an estimated $8 trillion, with approximately one million lives lost. This contributes to heightened anxiety and poverty, particularly among Americans.

In the case of Israel, media support predates the nation’s inception, marked by the Nakba and associated violence. The media’s historical alignment with the US and its recent support for Israeli actions, resulting in nearly 30,000 Palestinian casualties, raises ethical questions. The International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s examination of South Africa v. Israel has globally exposed the potential crime of genocide in Gaza, implicating Western powers, especially the US. The ICJ’s preliminary ruling, acknowledging Israel’s actions as potentially falling under the Genocide Convention, places a moral imperative on the US and its media to critically examine their positions and align with international standards.

Related Reading

South Africa v. Israel: Killer Administration Gets Off Easy

A historical paradigm of misrepresentation

Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, a recurring motif in US foreign policy has been an inclination towards conflict with Iran. This approach has been driven by a narrative, often amplified by media portrayals, depicting Iran as on the precipice of acquiring nuclear weapons, harboring terrorists and colluding with al-Qaeda. However, this narrative stands in stark contrast to demonstrable evidence: Iran has actively participated in combating terrorism, as evidenced by its crucial role in defeating ISIS in Iraq. Furthermore, while the US and media often label Iran as an authoritarian regime under the Mullahs, a closer examination reveals a system remarkably similar to the US itself and one that actively promotes regional democracy.

While historical timelines do diverge, with Iran’s civilization boasting a legacy exceeding 2,500 years, compared to the US’s 250 years, their differences cannot justify misconstruing realities. Notably, the US has historically engaged in acts of aggression against numerous nations, with the oppression of Native Americans serving as a stark example. Further, the US, alongside Britain and Russia, has participated in suppressing Iranian aspirations for over a century, exemplified by the recently imposed draconian sanctions.

In stark contrast to US backing Arab authoritarian monarchies, Iran’s foreign policy demonstrably favors alignment with the downtrodden. This principle, enshrined in Article 154 of its constitution, directly guides its active support for oppressed nations like Iraq and Syria in their fight against terrorism. While the US actively backs Israel, whose treatment of Palestinians remains a concern, Iran stands firmly in support of the oppressed Palestinian people. Notably, Iran recognizes Hamas as legitimate and raises concerns regarding Israel’s disproportionate retaliatory measures, not only in response to the October 7 incident but also in previous instances.

On the critical issue of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), while significant global powers, led by the US, maintain stockpiles of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons, Iran adheres to a demonstrably higher moral ground. It explicitly prohibits the production of WMDs, citing their indiscriminate and unacceptable impact on human life. Iran’s commitment to this ethical principle is further underlined by its restraint from utilizing chemical weapons in retaliation against Iraqi forces during the 1980–88 Iran–Iraq War, despite facing the deployment of such weapons.

The October 7 Hamas attack on Israeli citizens incited a response from Israel. The US-backed Israeli state, which a UN human rights expert accused of apartheid policies, has waged a war that has resulted in significant casualties, predominantly among Palestinians. While the US and mainstream media have focused on the objective of neutralizing Hamas, concerns regarding civilian casualties and potential human rights violations have received less attention, potentially reflecting Western biases.

Furthermore, media narratives align with the US in attributing the Hamas attack to Iranian training, a claim Iran acknowledges but does not explicitly endorse as pre-planned. This framing could serve to strategically prepare the public for potential US involvement in a broader conflict with Iran. It potentially diverts attention away from concerns regarding Israeli actions in Gaza.

In support of Israel, media reports often cite a statement by an Iranian Revolutionary Guard official linking the October 7 attack to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. This suggests a potential retaliatory motive, but the extent of Iranian involvement remains unclear.

A new approach to US–Iran relations

The current state of US–Iran relations is characterized by a pervasive climate of mistrust and hostility. This atmosphere, shaped by governmental pronouncements and media narratives, has instilled profound anxieties and insecurities within the American public. To ensure a more stable and equitable global order, a paradigm shift is required. This necessitates a concerted effort from both the US government and its media apparatus to engage in open and transparent communication with the American people.

Firstly, there is a pressing need for the US to abandon its reliance on demonizing narratives directed towards Iran. The persistent rhetoric of regime change has demonstrably yielded counterproductive outcomes, furthering tensions and fostering animosity. Instead, the US should consider pursuing a diplomatic approach based on mutual respect and understanding.

Some analysts argue that Iran is currently the most influential power in the Middle East. Recognizing Iran’s regional influence presents an opportunity for the US to engage in strategic collaboration. A crucial step in this process involves acknowledging and apologizing for the 1953 coup, an event that undeniably shaped the trajectory of US–Iran relations.

A promising avenue for diplomatic progress lies in recognizing and endorsing Iran’s stated opposition to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Collaborative efforts with other WMD-possessing nations, focusing on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, could prove highly beneficial.

Transitioning from belligerent postures to collaborative frameworks is essential for safeguarding US interests. Exploring possibilities for peaceful partnerships with other nations, potentially aligning with Iran on issues of global concern, offers a more sustainable path forward.

However, this transformation cannot be achieved solely by governmental actions. The active participation of the American public is crucial. This necessitates the cultivation of critical thinking skills, demands for transparency from governmental institutions and selective engagement with media sources. By doing so, American citizens can empower themselves to shape a narrative that prioritizes justice, collaboration and global well-being.

[Ali Omar Forozish edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Lies the United States and Media Told About Iran appeared first on Fair Observer.

Recently, when the question of God was raised, a good and canny friend of mine said, “I find the very idea of an omnipotent, omniscient god frightening.” That remark shocked me as if someone denied the light in the middle of the day. The truth is, I am indebted to an all-powerful, all-knowing higher power. I wish to share some of my reasons for having this perspective.

You see, all cultures regardless of language, race or religion have some sort of faith in the supernatural. People throughout the world have independently envisioned a unique, transcendent source. Aristotle christened it the First Cause, Hindus know it as Brahman and Muslims call it Allah. Many Native Americans refer to it as the Great Spirit. Others call it Father, Lord, Spirit, Source, Universe, Supreme Intelligence, etc.

In April 2022, a survey found that more than two-thirds of the world’s population believe in God, an afterlife and heaven and hell. Around 90% of the US population believes. This implies that God exists and that we are accountable for our actions before Him. That is, we each must assume responsibility and act wisely. Knowing this truth, we will thrive in a healthier, more peaceful world.

Related Reading

Can You See the Link Between God and Justice?

Despite this, there are doubters. These people shy away from God, thinking such a concept contradicts science. On the contrary, the belief in Him strengthens science and directs scientific results for good purposes.

Sir Isaac Newton, who is considered by many the father of classical physics, was a theist. In his book, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he wrote, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Michael Faraday, who gave us electromagnetism, held that “everything was created by God in a unified way—that if you opened up one little part of it you could see how everything was connected.” Max Planck, who initiated the concept of quantum physics, believed that being humble before a supernatural power “controls our weal and woe.”

God binds us together

The modern man sees himself as uniquely intelligent and separate from everything else. He fanatically strives to subordinate the world to his whim. He arrogantly asserts the theory of the Big Bang, insisting that the universe spontaneously sprung into existence 14 billion years ago without causation. He holds to Herbert Spencer’s social Darwinian theory of the “survival of the fittest” to explain human destiny. It never occurs to him that taking a silent pause, freeing all his senses from preconceptions and allowing himself to sense his inner peace might show him that he is one with the whole universe. Moreover, man’s role in this world is not to dominate the universe but to serve it. But that reality is achievable by knowing his actions imply accountability.

Like the realization of self-existence, the perception of a universal oneness climaxing in God represents a profound awareness that requires neither reasoning nor rationalization. Knowing one’s self or God is a feeling lying deep within our existence.

Science tells us that matter is energy, which can be visible or invisible. Energy does not have a finite boundary. One example is a lightbulb emitting light from its interior filaments.  Its light is not bound by the surface of the bulb. People on Earth can see light emitted by stars millions of lightyears away. All forms of matter, whether derived from humans, plants, animals, planets, stars or the rest of the universe, are forms of energy-emitting radiation. 

The personal radiation fields we all possess mingle with one another as well as other matters as if we are just one entity. In other words, we are one with each other, one with everything near or distant, and one with the universe as far as it stretches. And the power that perfectly connects us all as one defines the notion of God.

Creations have creators

Reason dictates that if I acknowledge the fact that most of the world’s population believes in God, I should give this further thought. Having looked at the world we inhabit and have made a few observations, I cannot escape the thought that it all points to the existence of an almighty Creator.

Let’s say you are walking in a park. Somebody tells you with a probability of 10%, 5% or even 1% that if you take one more step forward, the ground beneath you will give way and send you tumbling into a den of poisonous snakes. You quickly change direction to avoid the suggested peril. It is wise to do so. Similarly, many religious people say making ungodly choices results in damnation to hell. Wouldn’t this make some people want to believe in God?

Now let’s say you leave the park and walk through town. You see a building and instantly arrive at a builder. You see a car and find an automaker, then a piece of equipment and its manufacturer. The universe is the same way. How could you see the vastness of space and not think it has a Creator?

Then you pass through a beautiful mall, sports arena or market. You instantly know that none of it can exist without an architect, planner or intelligent designer. How can you then look at the elegance of the universe that surrounds you and dismiss the idea that this is the work of a perfect Designer?

Next, you enter a restaurant and consume a delicious meal. You immediately know that an experienced chef picked the right recipe and closely watched the stove, constantly checking on the temperature, fluid and heat. The recipe includes many ingredients like herbs and vegetables, and it was delicately assembled. Why can’t you conclude that a Master made each of those elements possible?

If the above reasoning seems too cumbersome, just look at your human body. It is composed of over 50% water and 99.9% void, constantly changing in space. But all that appears to you is connected as one, functioning without disruption. Why can you not admit that there is a perfect Operator?

Belief without seeing

Imagine you are lost somewhere, alone, and do not know the way back to safety. Or you are in a hospital bed and the doctors say there is nothing more they can do for you. Or you are in a plane facing a terrible windstorm, and you feel that death is imminent. Throughout all these ordeals, you have no time to think about money, position, family or friends. Instead, something deep within keeps giving you hope. Why can’t you admit that when you are free from the material world, you can feel God’s presence shining in your soul and giving you inner peace?

Like soothing comfort, phenomena exist in nature that you cannot see, but know with certainty they exist from their impacts on the environment. You do not see light but you know from its reflection that it exists. Astronomers do not see the dark matter in space but they know from its attractions that it is there. When you look at the universe in motion with such beauty and magnificence, why can’t you admit that it is operated and managed by an omniscient God?

As another hypothetical, let’s say you are visiting your mother across town. You get a feeling that you must hurry home. Although your mother insists you stay the whole evening, you follow the hunch and leave. That night, your phone rings. Your mother says there was a fatal car crash on that road after you left, one you unknowingly dodged. Did you fall to your knees to thank your Creator for giving you the inclination to leave early?

Eyes and brain reveal the divine

We can find more evidence of divinity by taking a closer look at the human eye. We have sight because light passes through our cornea, pupil, iris, and lens to the retina. Photoreceptors turn that light into electrical signals and send them to the optic nerve and then to the brain. For all that to work, we must have tears to keep the eye moist. This process involves 4-6 billion neurons organized in a sophisticated manner. From the cornea to the brain, if any component does not do its part correctly and in a timely way, we see nothing. For all that to repeatedly, continuously and flawlessly work, it requires a perfect Guardian.

Among the over eight billion people on Earth, no two have identical eyes. As a measure of security, our eyes may used for identification. That implies a perfect Designer and Diversifier.

The eyes also express the state of our health. A good physician can look into a patient’s eyes and tell that they are sick. Evidence shows that some illnesses in our body with about 30 trillion cells can be seen through the eye. That implies a design done by a Perfector.

The brain is another amazing body part God has blessed us with. Not only does it provide us with conscious thoughts, but unconscious ones as well. Dreams are generated while we sleep, which entertain us, warn us of danger, and help us solve problems we have during the day. That implies a super Originator.

The brain is made of about 86 billion neurons. Each receives around 10,000 synapses per second. The probability of a synapse to release the right neurotransmitter is 10-50%. Thus, the probability of any synapse releasing the right neurotransmitters is 50% at best. Doing that correctly each time for even ten seconds, mathematically speaking, is nearly impossible. Thus, there must be a higher order to keep the billion neurons and trillion synapses in such a way for the brain to work. That power has to be an omnipotent, omniscient Sustainer.

Closing remarks

Try this experiment. Just lie down on your back, relax and look at the sky on a clear night. Clear your mind of all mundane thoughts. You will see the sky decorated with shiny stars, all moving in organized paths. While you are doing this, the Earth beneath you is traveling about 30 kilometers (18.5 miles) per second around the sun. The sun is traveling about 230 kilometers (144 miles) per second around the Milky Way Galaxy. The moon that makes Earth livable is constantly revolving, circulating about every 28 days. You are created in such an ingenious way that you do not feel the impacts of all these movements. Yet all follow gravitational, centrifugal and quantum laws. Any reasoning person would conclude that there ought to be an omnipotent Creator and Lawgiver.

In God alone can we have prosperity and universal peace. His presence is so overwhelming that one has to be detached from reality to miss it. Finding Him requires no education, simply deep introspection. As the Persian proverb goes, “If something is everywhere, it cannot be seen anywhere.”

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post How to Know God Exists appeared first on Fair Observer.

On March 10, in Beijing, Iran and Saudi Arabia signed an agreement restoring their diplomatic relations. This will have ramifications for the United States: That action was not in line with US policy, which sees China as a competitor and adversary. The Saudi action surprised the US since Saudi Arabia has been a client of the US since 1945. The Saudi move could have only happened in the changing world. 

The US can get clues from Saudi Arabia’s choice and face reality by adjusting its foreign policy. The US could stop interferences, coups and invasions in other countries, particularly Iran. It could give up on “regime change” in Iran and apologize for the 1953 coup that overthrew Iran’s first-ever democratic government. It must stop supporting ethnic cleansing and genocide against other people, especially the native Palestinians. By taking those vital steps, the US would improve relations with Iran and decrease tensions in the world. 

Iran’s mullahs, or religious leaders, can also take crucial steps to restore the economy and pacify the country’s young generation. Presently, the mullahs do not walk the talk. The father of the 1979 Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, purportedly warned the mullahs: “Clergy, wake up; now, it is not time to talk … think about people’s problems! Discussion by itself is of no use.” Mullahs have a responsibility within the state of Iran: to listen to the people and adjust their policies accordingly.

Mullahs live in a fantasy world

In my recent visit to Iran, I noticed that the mullahs keep ignoring the advice from the Islamic Revolution’s father. They continue competing with one another for high political positions while the country faces serious economic issues. They claim that the main culprit for poverty is the US’ brutal economic sanctions against the nation that violate the UN Charter. Although that is partially true, the real threats to the regime are the mullahs who have failed to do what they say, listen to the people and address domestic issues. 

During my visit, Iranians kept saying that they get paid in local currency, rials, but buy in dollars. At the time, I could not understand their complaints after seeing perishable foods at low prices. 

However, when I returned to the US and looked further into the matter, I recognized the reasons why the youth are protesting in Iran. I realized that the government privatized most national industries, including refineries, petrochemicals and steel. It is still subsidizing them and providing them with cheap crude oil and other raw materials, expecting the finished products to include reasonable profit for sale in the country. However, those outfits have been exporting their products and selling them in dollar values in a country where the wages are low and labor is very cheap. The companies have no regulatory oversight. Their shareholders are profiting incredibly while contributing immensely to the nation’s inflation and poverty.

Despite the arduous efforts of the new President Ibrahim Raisi, the economy of Iran is still in shambles with an inflation rate below 40%. Corruption and nepotism are widespread, ranking the country 147 among 180 countries in transparency. Women are still widely discriminated against by the government despite great women’s strides in law, medicine, journalism, engineering and other scientific fields. Ethnic groups such as the Baluchis and Kurds remain among the least educated. Thus, indigenous groups like them are easy prey to terrorist groups like Jundallah and Komalah, armed and financed by the US and allies.

How could Iran’s religious leaders let this issue grow so large? Due to their lack of knowledge of the modern world, the mullahs have entrusted running the government chiefly on their staff, ministers and supporting personnel, mostly educated in the West. The staff have pushed for free enterprise in a laissez-faire way without regulatory oversight. They have pressed to privatize the national industries, particularly oil and steel. Once these industries are privatized, they and their relatives and friends buy large shares, aiming for low production costs and maximal profits. They have formed Iran’s oligarchs. Like in Russia, the oligarchs manipulate the market. Consequently, Iran’s inflation has hit the roof and poverty is fast expanding!

On the surface, Iranians think that the mullahs are ruling the country. In reality, the oligarchs are running the nation. In the 1950s, Mohammad Mosaddegh fought with Britain for Iran’s oil nationalization. For that effort, he lost his power and was forced into exile in his house until his death. Sadly, the mullahs have foolishly given away the national treasures to a selected group who have emerged as Iran’s oligarchs. 

The oligarchs convert much of their profits into gold and foreign currencies. Those actions have further devalued the local currency, causing public panic. With the money made in Iran, they buy properties in Istanbul, London, Montreal, Los Angeles and other popular foreign cities. In those foreign cities, their children whose mere existence and liberal lifestyle are indebted to the mullahs, are often among the instigators against the mullahs. 

The oligarchs own private banks that invest and operate commercial facilities across the country, unavailable for sale or rent, counting on higher profits in the future. This is when millions of families are looking for residence. 

Under the mullahs, it never occurred to the oligarchs that the investments were not earned by them or their parents but entrusted to them by the nation. Thus, they should make their products affordable to buy by Iranians. 

Seven simple steps for mullahs to save Iran

The forecast for Iran’s future is gloomy. Execution and imprisonment are not the answers to domestic issues. For Iran to survive in its present form, drastic actions must be taken. As Mosaddeq brought the oil back to Iran from the British, the mullahs must bring back the economy to Iranians from the oligarchs. To start, they could take these seven steps. 

First, stop vying for power. Clean up corruption and nepotism. Choose qualified personnel who are clean from bribery, embezzlement, peddling, or any other activity financially benefiting them or people close to them. Learn how Singapore brought corruption under control.

Second, implement effective management, accountability and transparency programs. Train managers on how to use the resources effectively to meet the targets before deadlines. Learn how Switzerland managed affairs.

Third, address inflation by tightening government spending, overseeing banks and controlling trade. Limit ownership of foreign currency and precious metals like gold. Require the use of only national currency in domestic dealings. Ensure banks are involved in only banking (accepting deposits from the people with a guarantee that the funds will be there when needed and making loans available to them, based on certain reasonable conditions). Learn from Russia on how to manage the inflation rate. Despite facing tough sanctions, Russia managed an inflation rate of 11.9%, and even Afghanistan under the Taliban controlled an inflation rate of 5.2% in December 2022. 

Fourth, temporarily take over imports and exports for all essential goods and services. When the products are sold to distributors, define the profit margin clearly. Increase trade with neighboring countries. Implement regulatory oversight on at least all oil and steel industry production. Give attention to China’s trade regulations.

Fifth, attend to women’s issues and include more in decision-making processes. Remove all barriers that prevent women from rising to power. On equality, learn from Sweden.

Sixth, help the ethnic groups such as Baluchis and Kurds and address their economic and other issues. Promote ethnic diversity in all workplaces with an objective of ethnic equality. Sweden provides a good example.

Seventh, get away from depending on oil revenues for the budget. Promote investments and increase domestic production for exports. Look into the world’s top agricultural exporters.

Despite the benefits of these necessary steps, they are merely bandages on wounds. Above all, culture must be changed. Until the 1979 fall of the monarchy, the Shah made law at his will. He was accountable to no one. People adopted sycophancy to get royal attention. Powerful families practiced nepotism to strengthen their hold on power and demanded bribes to keep their living status. People lied to safeguard their lives and honors. Although Iranians finally got a constitution about 100 years ago, the monarch gave that little attention. Naturally, people followed the king, giving little attention to law and order. The long-term solution is to change the thoughts and false beliefs. From an early age in school, pupils must be taught to practice honesty and respect law and order. Overcoming poor habits takes a generation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Iran’s Future Lies Heavily in the Hands of its Mullahs appeared first on Fair Observer.

Iran has multiple political parties. They come together to form factions. Two of them are most important. The reformist (Islah-talab) and fundamentalist (Usool-gar) vie for political power. Since 1989, the reformists have controlled the government. After the Iran-Iraq War ended, reformists were largely dominant. In 2021, President Ebrahim Raisi unseated the reformists, winning a landslide victory at the polls. Even before Raisi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was president for eight years from 2005 to 2013. Like Raisi, he is conservative but, unlike Raisi, he did not have the same control over the government.

The rich in Iran support reformists. Like their US counterparts, rich Iranians exercise immense control over the country’s economy. Unlike the narrative in Western media, Iranian oligarchs have more power than the supreme leader, presidents or mullahs. Many Iranians call these oligarchs Iran’s mafia.

The Dirty Secrets About How Reza Shah Destroyed Iran

The US consistently ignores the complexities of Iran. For Washington, Tehran is a convenient whipping boy. American policymakers berate Iran for human rights violations but ignore Saudi Arabia’s arbitrary executions, torture and even potential involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Similarly, the US supports the apartheid state of Israel. The Jewish state was formed after pushing out Palestinians from their ancestral lands, causing nakba — the Palestinian catastrophe in which millions of people fled from their homes. Even today, Israel oppresses and persecutes the native Palestinians. Over two million live in Gaza, which is an open-air prison. In the latest war, Israel has ordered over a million to leave their homes as its tanks and troops move into northern Gaza. Israeli air strikes have killed thousands already.

Iran’s reformists look up to the US

Iran’s reformists have followed the path of Akbar Rafsanjani, who was president from 1989 to 1997. His focus was on the economy. Rafsanjani said, “Germany and Japan have the strongest economy these days because they were banned from having a military force after World War.” He suggested that Iran should follow Germany and Japan with no military power and depend on the US for protection. He advocated total dependence on the US and its Western allies. 

Like Rafsanjani, the reformists look to the West, especially the US. They openly criticize closer relations with China, Russia and neighboring countries to avoid offending the US. They opposed Iran joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS).

Reformists ignore the fact that the US pressured Germany and Japan to participate in Syria and Ukraine. Thanks to the US, both economies are now in shambles. Among the reformists are many Western-educated individuals, such as Hassan Rouhani and Mohammad Javad Zarif, the former president and foreign minister respectively. Like Rafsanjani, they look up to the West for answers. In particular, they pushed the country to emulate the US capitalist system. Reformists have privatized major national industries, imports, exports and banks, benefiting themselves, and their relatives, and friends. These have emerged as Iran’s new oligarchs in a system of crony capitalism.

Now, the oligarchs get their free or cheap raw materials from the government and sell their finished products at dollar prices. They manipulate profits and enjoy special privileges. Oligarchs evade taxes, cheat on profits, bypass regulations, and deposit their huge funds overseas. They own villas in Europe, Canada, and the US. Among them have emerged numerous billionaires. One of them charged with embezzlement made headlines in Canada. 

In Tehran, I saw many residential high-rise towers, nearly all of them empty. The rich owned six million empty units as investment properties because they aimed to make money from rising property prices. At the same time, over six million families were searching for residence. 

I was shocked when visiting malls in Tehran. I noticed that nearly all the products on sale were foreign-made. Oligarchs make money off imports. That is why they oppose domestic production and pursue better relations with the US. In Iran, the rich have followed their US counterparts. They keep the poor busy with alcohol, drugs, social media, pop culture and soap operas. 

In Iran, people are poor but educated. Literacy is now 98%. Women have progressed remarkably. Most university students, physicians and academic professors are now women. However, in the country’s poor economy, women are disadvantaged against men who are legally held responsible for their family finances. Jobs are scarce for everyone, especially women, and this causes discontent.

Why Are Young People Protesting in Iran?

Reformists paint a misleading picture of the US. I met people who genuinely think everyone in the US enjoys ample free time, a good life, and sufficient income. Iranians believe that every American owns a nice car and a house. Most young Iranians dream of living in the US. When I tell them that at least 11% of Americans live in poverty and 60% of them “live pay-check-to-paycheck,” they are shocked. Culturally, the young Iranian mind is often colonized and too many Iranians live in fantasy.

Iran’s reformists have made many mistakes 

The reformists claim their most notable accomplishment to be the 2015 Iran-US Nuclear Agreement, AKA Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Iran fully complied with the JCPOA despite heavy losses but the US, UK and France threw this agreement in the bin. Under pressure from the Israeli lobby in 2018,  Donald Trump abandoned it when he was president. 

In hindsight, the JCPOA was a mistake. Zarif and his associates signed off on the agreement without reading it closely or understanding it thoroughly. Reformists used their influence in the majlis, the Iranian Parliament to get MPS to approve the JCPOA in less than 30 minutes without any discussion. In particular, they crossed some redlines set by Khamenei, Iran’s supposedly all-powerful supreme leader.

President Joe Biden has been trying to revive the JCPOA with little success because the Iranians no longer trust the US. After assassinating Iran’s top general Qassim Soleimani, it is doubtful if Iran would have normal relations with the US in the near future. Many Iranians think of the US as their worst enemy but their worst enemies are Iranian oligarchs, who really are rich reformists.

Raisi is a fundamentalist. Since 2021, fundamentalists have been in power. They inherited an economy in shambles with large debts and an annual inflation rate of around 50%. So far, they have been busy restoring the economy and cleaning up the system. Note that the inflation rate has fallen to below 40%.

Unlike reformists, Raisi wants to be even-handed towards both the West and the East. He has improved relations with the neighboring nations. In particular, Iran has joined the SCO and is supposed to join the BRICS in January 2024. Raisi has also negotiated with the US to release some of Iran’s funds. Iran’s increases in oil exports imply that the US may have eased sanctions on Iran.

Raisi works long hours and is busy meeting with citizens or diplomats nearly every day. In his short time, he has accomplished notably. Unlike reformists, Raisi does not publicize his successes and improve his public relations. Therefore, many Iranians still blame him for a slow economy.

Raisi’s greatest enemies are the rich reformists. These oligarchs are determined to make Raisi fail. Reportedly, reformists have supported protests over women’s rights to increase their influence. As usual, the Western media is acting as cheerleaders for the reformists.

Today, Iran has the world’s second-largest gas reserves and fourth-largest oil reserves. In the pursuit of cheap energy, the US and the UK want access to those resources. This is not new. In the early 1950s, the UK controlled Iran’s oil production. When Mosaddegh asked for a greater share of oil revenue, the UK and the US launched a coup. Both countries still want a subservient Iran, which they can exploit for cheap energy.

Why Do You Need to Know About Mohammad Mosaddegh?

Note that Iran is still traumatized by the 1953 coup. Then, the MI6 and the CIA were able to bribe, manipulate and coerce unscrupulous Iranians to oust Mosaddegh. That coup remains the postwar original sin of the US in the Middle East. Washington sowed the wind then and the world is reaping the whirlwind today. After the Islamic Revolution, the US and its Western allies have been unable to access Iran’s resources cheaply. Thus, the US continues using tremendous pressure, threats and sanctions against the country. 

Raisi’s big challenge lies not only in taking on the US but also in taming Iran’s oligarchs.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post How Do You See Iran, Dictatorship or Multiparty? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Many people who lack faith in God presume that he is just some sort of meme — an idea that got popular at some time, being repeated by enough people. They think that the idea of God will eventually fade away. On April 8, 1966, Time ran the cover story, “Is God Dead?” The article projected that people will have less and less God in their daily lives. 

Time’s projection has been proven wrong. There is some evidence to suggest that belief in the divine and religion are as natural as language or culture. Belief in God has coexisted with modern science for hundreds of years now, and so far, there is no sign that God has faded away from our lives. In an April 2022 survey, Gallup International discovered that more than two-thirds of the world’s population believes in God, a “life after death” and “heaven and hell.”

Most people do not just believe that there is a God, but that there is life after death, and that there are rewards and punishments there. We do not only believe that God exists, but that he is a just God. We believe that human beings are free agents who are responsible for their own actions. If this is so, God must reward us for our good deeds and punish us for our bad ones. 

We feel in our bones that the good will not be unrewarded or the bad unpunished. But in this life, we hardly see it. In most places, a poor person stealing a loaf of bread is punished. Meanwhile, powerful people kill and get away with it. And they steal the bread of the poor. In the 2008 financial crisis, we all saw many executives who manipulated the market for personal gains causing much poverty and destruction worldwide. However, they walked away with large bonuses instead of being tried and going to prison. Murderers get away without a penalty. Sometimes, they are celebrities, like O. J. Simpson. Sometimes, they are heads of state.

The criminals of the world think that they can get away with their deeds because they are not punished by the laws of men. But most of humanity agrees that there will be a higher and more certain justice.

Let’s think of global values, justice and peace

Right and wrong are not just social conventions, differing from place to place. Sure, different cultures may agree or disagree on the details of morality. But if you look at human beings as a whole, you will find that the content of morality is strikingly the same.

Universally, human beings admire consideration, compassion, love, empathy, forgiveness, charity, sharing, justice, looking after parents, helping the weak and so on. They condemn murder, harm, contempt, hatred, apathy, theft, revenge, selfishness, rape, lying, hoarding, ignoring parents, abusing the weak and so on.

Though we might sometimes like to deny it, human beings know the difference between right and wrong. We must be conscious of our thoughts and deeds. We must think and reason before embarking on any action by assessing its impact on other people. As the maxim goes, treat others as you want to be treated. 

Do we take this seriously? Do we really live as if we believed that good were good and evil were evil? Or do we allow ourselves to compartmentalize, to forget evil when it does not concern us personally? Do we fall into the habit of condemning in others what we excuse for ourselves?

If a police officer pursuing a criminal kills an innocent person in San Francisco, we rightfully stand on the side of the innocent victim and demand justice. However, if a drone pursuing a perceived enemy, kills thousands of innocent people in Kandahar, Afghanistan, do we make as much noise? If the atrocities are even reported by the biased media, we condone them as collateral damage. Where is the objectivity? In the eyes of a just God, is there any difference between killing an innocent person whether he lives in San Francisco or Kandahar?

We know this. We want to believe that this is how a just God would judge, but we do not wish to judge justly ourselves.

If we believe in justice, why do we let the wicked go free?

Recently, a gathering in New York City honoring Henry Kissinger, former US national security advisor and secretary of state, came to my attention. Numerous people came to celebrate the man’s 100th birthday, and mainstream media covered the event. I was shocked. How low have we gotten, honoring one of the world’s worst criminals?

As they say, the good die young. Kissinger has enjoyed the warmth of the sunlight for a century. According to most people, this world is all he has to enjoy. Once dead, he, like his boss Richard Nixon, will have to answer for the killings of millions of innocent people in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam; supporting juntas in overthrowing Argentinian and Chilean democracies; empowering Pakistan and Indonesia in the genocides in Bangladesh and East Timor, and countless other atrocities across the world. God will demand an account from both of them for the killing, maiming and injuring of every innocent child, man and woman. Those who shared in their crimes by enabling, collaborating in or executing their designs, or by honoring them after the fact, will share in their punishment as well. After visiting Cambodia, Anthony Bourdain said, “Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands … and you will never understand why he’s not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milošević.”

Perhaps there is still time for him to repent. I hope that he does — before the world. Repenting must mean acknowledging one’s misdeeds and trying to right them, to the extent that it is within one’s power.

Justice in the afterlife applies to all. We will all account for our deeds. None of us will get away with it if we have inflicted harm on innocent people whether in our own family, community, country or war.

Most of us believe that God will not forget the suffering of the innocent, but we behave as if he did. We treat murderers like respectable people, or even heroes, as if one’s inequities were forgotten when human beings forget about them. But if justice is real, God is not so fickle. Neither should we be.

We cannot allow ourselves to continue to be so deeply unserious. We have created a dangerous world by ignoring justice and God in our national affairs. Led by the US, all of the permanent members of the UN Security Council indulge in profits from armament. The huge US armory and arms production have turned the world into an arms race. We not only accept that nations own these instruments of death, but see them as a source of prestige.

The proliferation of these weapons is responsible for much of wars and destruction in our world. If only our political leaders paused and contemplated how to justify their actions in the afterlife, we would have had much less armament and a far better world. We would not provoke conflict with sanctions against nations like Cuba and Iran or turn a blind eye to conflicts in Libya and Syria and wars in Somalia and Ukraine. 

Negotiate With Russia and Let Ukraine Have Peace

Let’s honor the will of people

The majority of the world’s population believes that there is a higher justice. If we truly believe in democracy, the world’s order must change to reflect that reality. The UN must change, dismantle if necessary, to hold countries (powerful or not) responsible for waging unjustifiable wars and bring the responsible persons to justice.

No longer must we pretend that inequities will be forgotten with the mere passage of time. We all remember the US waged war on Iraq without any provocation and under a false pretext. None of the guilty parties ever faced justice. George W. Bush and his conspirators are freely moving across the country. Some like Donald H. Rumsfeld have already died without facing justice.

Never again should the scenario in Iraq be repeated anywhere in the world, where a powerful country wages an unjustified war on a weaker one. Human rights must be redefined to count for the innocent victims of wars. 

God is not dead. Dead, rather, is the pretense of wealth and power to impunity. Reportedly, two Saudi officers were recently executed for disobeying a command to bomb civilian targets in Yemen. These were men who believed in a higher justice, who preferred the judgment of God over the judgment of men. We should take a lesson from their brave example. We will all be held accountable for our deeds; we must hold each other accountable, too. If can be aware of this truth — a truth most of us already believe in — we will enjoy a far more prosperous and peaceful world.

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Can You See the Link Between God and Justice? appeared first on Fair Observer.

As the founder and president of Peace Worldwide Organization, I could not get the idea off my mind. In the US, we cannot have a concert with a few thousand attendees without some trouble. How in the world was it possible for millions of people to get together so lovingly and peacefully?

Finally, I took the journey. My experience with Arba’een opened my eyes to many possibilities to achieve global peace. I had never encountered such hospitality, love and generosity in my life. Although it was held in Iraq under the threat of terrorism, I spotted pilgrims from across the world eagerly participating. I was touched by the display of faith in humanity, the likes of which I had never seen anywhere else.

A multicultural gathering

Although it was originally initiated by Shi’a Muslims as a spiritual reawakening, I witnessed that Arba’een brought people together from all walks of life. It was a true representation of all people in the world. The participants included not just Shi’as but Sunnis, Ibadis, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Yazidis and Zoroastrians. There, we were all united in purpose and welcomed with the utmost respect, regardless of religion, culture, ethnicity, gender or race. 

Four years earlier, I had participated in the annual Islamic Hajj pilgrimage. In Karbala, I noticed the much greater crowds; Arba’een attracts five or more times more people than the Hajj. In contrast to the Hajj, which is riddled with accidents and troubles, my experience with the Arba’een event was peaceful. While the Hajj consists exclusively of Muslims, Arba’een breaks across identity barriers. Arba’een is truly unique.

As I had read, it was embellished with the longest continuous free dining table with a variety of foods and personal sleep accommodations. Iraqis were stationed throughout the path of pilgrims to wash feet and massage feet, backs, shoulders and necks. Clinics and doctors were available to treat pilgrims. All amenities, down to baby diapers, were furnished free. All services, including the tight security, were provided by volunteers. None of these were paid for by any government or corporation. They were all offered by Iraqis and others who had been saving for a year to serve pilgrims with pure love and compassion. They expected no pay; rather, they felt honored when we accepted their offerings or lodging.

On my journey, I was told that among the servers were the Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi and the Chinese Ambassador along with his wife. I wondered why US officials were absent, especially when the US was generally unpopular in the region and had the largest embassy and military presence in the country. It would have been a great PR opportunity. 

Arba’een rarely makes headlines, but when it does, it gives hope to humanity that universal peace is realizable.

Arba’een memorializes the end of the 40-day mourning period for the brutal 7th-century killing of al-Husayn (Husayn), the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson and third Shia Imam. His murder at the hands of the wicked Umayyad Caliph Yazid made him a martyr standing up against injustice. The event left an indelible mark on Islamic history. 

As Modarresi says, Husayn’s “legend encourages, inspires, and champions change for the better, and no amount of media blackout can extinguish its light.”

Iraq’s Massive, Peaceful Annual Arba’een Pilgrimage Is Beginning Now

For me, Arba’een was a life-changing experience

Starting in 2014, ISIS freely roamed much of Iraq and committed atrocities that shocked the world. Armed with weapons and vehicles of Western manufacture, ISIS tortured suspects, raped women and girls, robbed, enslaved, used child soldiers and carried out genocide.

I read Modarresi’s article in 2015 and learned that millions of people from all over the world ignored ISIS to attend Arba’een. ISIS, which takes an extreme anti-Shi’a stance, attempted to menace pilgrims into skipping Arba’een. The threat encouraged even more participation in defiance, a courageous audacity rarely seen anywhere around the world. 

To the pilgrims, Husayn typifies the man who is spiritually connected to Allah, the Source of all things, which enables him to stand firmly against despotism and never submit to oppression or persecution. Husayn did so even though it cost him his own life and those of his brothers, sons and other loved ones.

To me, Arba’een appeared to be a truer representation of cross-cultural participation and cohesiveness than even the United Nations. Like other political entities, the UN is riddled with favoritism and corruption. Unlike in the UN, all people are treated with equal respect in Arba’een.

For days, nights, weeks and months, I was preoccupied. Something deep inside me urged me to participate. I wanted to be a part of it. I needed to see it for myself and experience the event known to millions. I felt a strong zeal to take the journey, despite the imminent threat of ISIS against the pilgrims. I became excited and eager knowing there was a purpose.

With ISIS controlling much of Iraq, my family was adamantly against me traveling in the Middle East, especially within Iraq. I was compelled to delay my journey.

Thanks to Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s late top general, things have since changed for the better in the region. In mid-2018, Iraq gathered strength with assistance from Iran and Russia to push ISIS out of Iraq. On the ground with Russian air support, Iraqi special forces led by Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis soundly defeated ISIS. That brave action gave me an opportunity to convince my family to let me participate in Arba’een. I assured them that I would be careful traveling there. Knowing how badly I wanted to go there, they reluctantly agreed.

In 2018, Arba’een was at the end of October. I was astonished. The journey exceeded all my expectations; every moment was breathtaking. I stayed in Iraq for 12 days, and it cost me not even a dime for food. My lodging would also have been totally free, but I chose to stay a few nights in nice hotels to reflect. The hotels were around $20 a night. 

Step by step, side by side, I marched all 50 miles of the way on foot over three days, alongside millions of other pilgrims. The journey began at the mausoleum of Ali in the holy city of Najaf and terminated at Husayn’s mausoleum in the holy city of Karbala.

As I looked over my shoulder, I saw children in the arms of their mothers and young men assisting the women and elderly in their quest to make the journey. I saw folks with canes and crutches taking each intentional step forward. I found the weakened, aged or disabled rolling in wheelchairs as persistent and committed as those of us on foot beside them. There were no divides or differences. There, we were all one. 

There was only hope in their eyes and love in their heart as the people moved beside me. Often, I would find myself interrupted in thought, taking in each individual, making individual picture frame memories of their faces, with the various Iraqi citizens lining the trail motioning to give us water and food or guiding us along the path. I could feel the energy pulsating throughout my body, my mind, my soul—the frequency around me was vibrating, unconditional, pure, wholehearted love. 

It was with this powerful frequency that I then took each individual step. All of this beautiful, loving energy made what could otherwise be characterized as a marathon feel like a walk in the park. I had very little on me except for a backpack of clothes, yet I felt fully abundant.  

I had never seen generosity to that extent in my whole life. Various kinds of food and comfortable lodging were freely available along the path everywhere. I was astonished to see that even the poorest Iraqis traveled on foot for days to get there, simply to offer the pilgrims dates here and there.

Heaven on Earth

I thought to myself: If Iraqis could continue that spirit for the rest of the year by treating one another with the same compassion and love, Iraq would once again be the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:8), a place of happiness and peace. Imagine what the world could be if we existed in this nature daily as well.

The instantaneous coming together of millions of people from across the world in Arba’een must be of Heavenly inspiration. It is equally magical how Iraqis work together providing the pilgrims safety and security along with free food, lodging and other services. As Oregon’s Southminster Presbyterian Church Pastor John Shuck described it, “… it is a divine interplay of an unchoreographed dance of love.”

In my journey, I learned that millions of the pilgrims began their journey on foot from Iran, Kuwait, Syria and Lebanon, along with cities in Iraq and the Gulf Arab States, towards Karbala. For days, young and old traveled miles through mountainous and rocky trails in the burning sun of the day and the freezing cold of the night to reach the holy city. Regardless of where they came from, they all simply wanted to connect to Allah and live in harmony and peace. To accomplish these noble goals, they knew that a level of unrelenting self-will, accountability, good nature, kindness and endurance was required to win over oppression and persecution. 

Husayn gave us many examples of courage in his stand against tyranny and injustice. Many of his quotes can be heard across the world, even if few are aware of the source of them. Over 1300 years ago, before he was viciously murdered, he said, “Death with dignity is better than a life in humiliation.”

More than ever, I am now convinced that we can all learn a lot from religion in pursuit of harmony and peace. Religion is not inherently good or bad. It can be used as a positive force or abused for personal gain. The event of Arba’een symbolizes a religious occasion that annually brings the largest number of people from across the world together in the hope of promoting compassion, love, harmony and peace.

My journey was exceptional. My life’s dream of unity and peace was realized in my travels. I watched people who were amazingly liberated from fear, judgment and the desire for control and power. I saw them all sharing their basic needs with strangers. I learned that the vision of the coming together of people from all walks of life united for the pursuit of compassion, love and peace ALREADY exists. Now, I can imagine an entire world through this vision, where I paint a picture in my mind as I lead the Peace Worldwide Organization and write about history, philosophy, politics, religion and spirituality.

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post A First-Hand Look at Arba’een, the World’s Largest Annual Pilgrimage appeared first on Fair Observer.

— Sayed M. Modarresi, “World’s Biggest Pilgrimage Now Underway, and Why You’ve Never Heard of It!”

We haven’t heard of Arba’een because the media is primarily interested in negative news, embellished tabloids and controversial matters. Positive news and inspiring stories are often ignored, especially when they relate to Islam. When a few hundred protest in Russia, China or Iran, it makes headlines. When millions gather for the world’s greatest peaceful annual event, with the longest continuous free dining table and sleep accommodations, none of it paid for by any government or corporation, all in defiance of imminent terror, it routinely fails to make a single headline. When it somehow does, it gives hope to humanity that universal peace is achievable!

Last year, despite the threat of the Covid pandemic still persisting and terrorist bombings among crowds, around 21 million people from across the world gathered in Iraq and participated in the event.

Pilgrims are not inhibited by terrorists from participating in Arba’een. In contrast, it draws out more pilgrims in masses in defiance, displaying a faith in humanity never seen before anywhere around the world. 

Arba’een breaks across ethnic, racial, religious, and national barriers. Although it began as a Shi’a Muslim pilgrimage, its participants include Sunnis, Ibadis, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Yazidis and Zoroastrians.

Nevertheless, Arba’een has its roots in tragedy. The festival marks the end of the 40-day mourning period for the 7th-century barbarous killing of Husayn ibn Ali, the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson and the third Shi’a Imam. That happened in Karbala, Iraq, around 1350 years ago by the order of the tyrannical Umayyad Caliph Yazid.

This year, Arba’een falls on Safar 20th in the Islamic lunar calendar, corresponding to September 6th. Millions of people from around the globe will gather in Iraq’s holiest city of Karbala to commemorate it, one of the most revered Islamic religious occasions. 

Who was Husayn ibn Ali?

The death of Husayn is considered a formative tragedy in Islamic history. In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon said, “In a distant age and climate, the tragic scene of the death of Hosein will awaken the sympathy of the coldest reader.” His heroic life and death inspired countless generations.

To know Husayn, we begin with when Muslims wanted to reward the Prophet Muhammad for his services. Allah commanded him, “Say: I do not ask you for any reward for my services except to love my blood family.” (Quran 42:23). The blood family of the Prophet was above all Fatima, his only living child, her husband Ali and their sons, Husayn and Hasan. Tradition holds that the Prophet said of the lad, “Husayn is from me and I am from Husayn.”

Husayn’s life was tragic from the very start. In 632, when he was 6 years old, his beloved grandfather, the Prophet, died.

Before his demise, the Prophet gathered the Muslims and gave them his farewell speech. On the return from his last pilgrimage to Mecca, he commanded all the over a hundred thousand pilgrims to meet him there. He said that it was his last pilgrimage and that he would leave them soon. People cried uncontrollably. In his long speech, he reminded people about their religious duties and Allah’s commands for them to love his blood family.

Then, he introduced Ali, his son-in-law and Husayn’s father, as his heir and the leader of all Muslims. At the end of the speech, the people rushed and gave their allegiance to Ali. This paved the way for Husayn himself to eventually inherit his father’s claim to leadership.

If the demise of his grandfather was not painful enough for Husayn, another tragedy was in waiting. Ignoring Ali’s claim, some men moved to the leadership for another claimant. The ringleaders rushed to Ali’s house to secure his allegiance since Ali’s influence was immense. According to Shi’a tradition, Fatima, Husayn’s mother, intervened to save her husband. The men attacked her. She was badly injured and miscarried her baby, whom the Prophet had named Muhsin. Consequently, she died within six months of her father’s death. At 6, Husayn had now lost both grandfather and mother within a short time. 

Among Muslims, Fatima has been considered something like a First Lady of Islam. The outrage provoked by Fatima’s brutal death saved the rest of the Prophet’s family and their small group of supporters, Shi’as, from being killed by the authorities. However, they were mostly kept under house arrest.

After the death of the third Caliph, Uthman, the people rushed to Ali’s house begging him to take the power. Ali consistently refused. After three days of riots, Ali finally consented under certain conditions, ruling only by the Quran and the Prophet’s traditions. They all agreed. 

Soon, the rich and powerful people realized that Ali was not giving them any favors as the previous Caliphs had done. They deserted him, rallying around the Umayyad governor of Syria, Mu’awiya. Ali’s rule lasted less than five years. In 661, while prostrating at the mosque of Kufa, a city in Iraq, Ali was fatally struck in the head by an assassin’s poisoned sword. He died three days later from the wound. Hasan, Ali’s oldest son, succeeded him, but Hasan’s rule lasted only a few months before he was forced to abdicate in favor of the Mu’awiya, the first Umayyad caliph. The group left Kufa and resettled in Medina.

In 670, Hasan was poisoned and died. At 44, Husayn had lost his mother, father and brother. Now, he was the only living son of Ali and Fatima. Husayn became the patriarch of the Prophet’s family and leader of the Shi’as. Mu’awiya did not find Husayn an existential threat to their power and chose to ignore him rather than force allegiance on him.

A heroic death in resistance to tyrants

In 680, all that changed when Mu’awiya’s son, Yazid, ascended to power. He wanted allegiance from everyone in the empire. Disobedience meant death. Husayn was no exception.

When Yazid’s ultimatum was formally presented to Husayn, he skillfully asked for a night time to think over it. After tough negotiation, he got the time. That night, when everyone was in deep sleep, he took his family and headed for the safe haven of Mecca. Muslims were strictly forbidden to fight in the holy city. Many of the Shi’as followed him. 

In Mecca, Husayn received many letters from the people of Kufa imploring him to come there. He pondered over them. As the annual pilgrimage to Mecca neared, he realized that the holy city was not safe, either. Yazid had sent spies among pilgrims to kill him. Husayn hurriedly gathered his family and the Shi’as, and they secretly headed for Kufa. 

Yazid soon learned of Husayn’s move towards Kufa. He sent one of his commanders, Hur, to block Husayn’s path. Husayn and his company were forced to reroute to Karbala, on the Euphrates River. There, Husayn and his male companions numbered about one hundred. Within a few days, they were surrounded by over 30,000 armed soldiers, all with orders to kill Husayn.

Husayn spoke before the enemy soldiers reminding them of what the Quran and the Prophet have said about him and his family. All fell on deaf ears, except for the ears of Hur, who had a change of heart.

Husayn managed to negotiate for one last night to be with his family and companions. That night was critical. Husayn wanted to ensure those who would remain with him truly believed in his mission. In a tent in the middle of the desert that night, Husayn had all the males gathered. He frankly told them all that the enemy wanted to kill him. They did not need to have themselves killed for his sake and should feel free to leave him. He even asked whoever owed someone a debt to leave. Then, he turned off the candles so that people would not feel embarrassed to leave. Some people left, but those who stayed uttered words that history would never forget. Zuhair ibn Qayn, Husayn’s devoted follower, said, “By Allah, I would love that I be killed, then revived, then killed a thousand times in this manner if it keeps you with the young ones from your family.”

On the next day, Muharram 10, 61 AH (October 9, 680 AD), Hur along with a few of his soldiers somehow deserted the camp and joined Husayn. He begged for forgiveness, which Husayn readily accepted. For what he had done, he insisted on being the first one to face the enemy. When Husayn consented, he and his company fought bravely and killed many soldiers before they were killed.

Abu Wahab Abdullah ibn Umayr, a Christian who had just married, overheard Husayn speaking before the enemy forces. Wahab was touched, embraced Islam and joined Husayn. When he was killed, his bride begged to go and fight the enemy. When Husayn tried to discourage her, she replied, “Please do not ask me to go back! I prefer to die fighting rather than to fall captive in the hands of the Umayyad clan!”

When the soldiers threw Wahab’s head to his mother, she threw the head back and said what we have given for Allah, we do not take back. With that statement, she grabbed a weapon and killed at least two soldiers.

The companions begged Husayn to allow them to be the first to defend him. One by one, they fought bravely until death. Next, his brothers volunteered, fought and died. Abbas, Husayn’s half-brother, known for bravery, attempted to save the family from thirst. He broke through enemy lines and reached the Euphrates. On the way back, he was brutally wounded and killed. Today, his mausoleum is across from that of Husayn.

There were around 80 who died in defense of Husayn and his family on that day. Just like today’s pilgrims, Husayn’s companions came from varied persuasions. They all knew that Husayn was right, standing for justice and against oppression.

As the day wore on, the hostile Umayyad force was restless and impatient to kill Husayn. Husayn prayed before facing the enemy: “I will be patient with whatever you decree, my Lord. There is no deity but you. You are the helper of those who seek help. I have no Lord except you, and no one to worship except you. I am patient with your wisdom, O rescuer of the one who needs rescue. O you who are eternal and everlasting. O you who bring the dead back to life. O you who observe the action of every soul. Judge between me and them, for you are the best of judges.”

Before being attacked, Husayn looked at the enemy asking them why they were so determined to kill him. According to Shi’a tradition, they responded, “We will kill you out of hatred for your father.” Husayn fought bravely, sending many of his assailants to their deaths. Finally, he fell. Killing him did not satisfy the enemy’s thirst. They severed his head and ran their horses over his corpse. 

After the ordeal, only one male, Husayn’s oldest son Ali, who was sick with fever, survived.

Thereafter, the forces ransacked Husayn’s tents, captured its inhabitants and took them as slaves to Yazid in Damascus.

The Umayyads’ fury against the family of the Prophet knew no limits. They started the tradition to celebrate the occasion by urging people to fast on that day. Today, many Sunnis follow suit. Across the world, Shi’as follow the traditions of mourning that day and feeding the poor and needy.

Despite exhibiting the utmost savagery, though, the Umayyads spared the sick, women and children. Today, military forces are more ferocious. They indiscriminately kill men, women and children without feeling any remorse.

This year, Muharram 10 fell on July 28. Millions of people from around the globe gathered in Karbala to commemorate Husayn’s death. On September 6, they will break their period of mourning in the peaceful festival of Arba’een.

Husayn’s words should be written in gold: “Anyone who keeps silent when others are being oppressed is himself considered to be guilty of oppression.” I am unable to locate the source of this popular quotation, but it certainly encapsulates the meaning of his famous Sermon of Mina in which he condemned the Umayyad tyranny and the lackeys who failed to oppose it. Husayn refused to be like them and submit, uttering the words which would become like his epitaph: “Death with dignity is better than a life of abasement.”

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Iraq’s Massive, Peaceful Annual Arba’een Pilgrimage Is Beginning Now appeared first on Fair Observer.

The Aryans moved into the region of Persis or Parsa, in the southwest of Iran. The region is known in the Western languages as Persia, and its people, Persians. The Persians were united as a nation by the year of 625 BC. A century later, they had conquered the whole of the Iranian plateau.

In time, from its capital of Persepolis, the Persian Empire extended its rule into three continents, covering Eastern Europe, North Africa and Central Asia. At its peak, it was the greatest empire that had yet existed in history, and it remains to this day the largest empire ever as a percentage of world population. It extended from Egypt in the west to India in the east and from much of Ukraine in the north to Yemen in the south.

Cyrus the Great founded the world’s first biggest empire, Persia, stretching from modern-day Syria through Turkey to India’s borders. Cyrus is considered the father of human rights for issuing the “first bill on human rights” after capturing Babylon peacefully. Cyrus instituted freedom of worship and allowed people to return to their ancestral homelands. 

In 550 BC, Cyrus, called anointed (“messiah”) in the Bible, allowed Jews to go back to Israel after 70 years of captivity imposed by the Babylonians. The Jews have never forgotten the Persian generosity for their existence. In the Hebrew Bible, there are over 200 references to Persia, Persians, Persian kings, and Persian contributions to humanity. Cyrus alone is mentioned 19 times. Persia is spoken of as a “blessing to mankind”. Whether the Bible is inspired scripture or just historical record, one comes away with the impression that Persia (Iran) will survive the ages and friendship with it is a sure way to be heaven-blessed.  

Persia was later temporarily captured by the Greeks and rivaled the Roman Empire, which failed many attempts to subdue its eastern neighbor. Iran was only finally conquered by the Arabs in the 7th century.

Yet, within a century, the Persians bounced back. They survived numerous invasions by Mongols, Turks, and Afghan rebels but kept their unique multi-ethnic national unity. 

What emerged was quite exhilarating. Iran produced some of the world’s greatest intellectuals, and they changed the world forever. These included Ibn Hayyan (known in the Latin West as Geber, died in 815), Khwarazmi (Lat. Algorismus, d. 850), the Banu Musa brothers (800-850), al-Farabi (Lat. Alpharabius, d. 870), Razi (Lat. Rhazes, d. 925), al-Balkhi (d. 934), Al-Sufi (Lat. Azophi, d. 986), Ibn Sina (Lat. Avicenna, d. 1037), Al-Biruni (d. 1048), Umar Khayyam (d. 1131), Al-Tusi (d. 1274), Qotb al-Din Al-Shirazi (d. 1311) and Kamal al-Din Al-Farisi (d. 1319).

Each of these great individuals left a permanent mark on human intellectual progress. Al-Farabi’s influence on the West is well known. Among others, he influenced Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), the famous theo-philosopher who would come to be the most influential thinker in the Catholic Church.

 Without their ongoing influence, transmitted to Europe over centuries via conduits such as Moorish Spain and Venetian trade, the Renaissance could have looked very different.

As late as the 17th century, Mulla Sadra (d. 1636) expanded theo-philosophy by a combination of reasoning, spirituality and meditation.

As for the poets, Iran produced poets like Rumi (d. 1273), Saadi (d. 1291) and Hafiz (d. 1389) who deeply influenced world literature and philosophy.

There is substantial evidence that much of the scientific progress credited to the Westerners was earlier developed by the Persians. For instance, a mathematical formulation in astronomy credited to Copernicus is identical to that of al-Tusi, who preceded him by about 300 years. Umar Khayyam, famous for his Rubaiyat, was also a polymath. Evidence is emerging that Rene Descartes (d. 1650) plagiarized much of his scientific work from Khayyam who preceded him by over 500 years.

Nevertheless, all that glory vanished In 1747 with the death of Nader Shah. Nader was the last monarch to rule a united Persian Empire and became famous by defeating the Mughal Empire in India in 1739 and ransacking Delhi, capturing the incredible peacock throne. After him, the country fell into a period of anarchy, fracturing into a number of states. Rebels assumed autonomy in Afghanistan and Bahrain. The Ottomans grabbed some territories. Much of the Caucasus regions declared independence, while Nader’s Afsharid dynasty was reduced to a tiny rump state.

From 1796, the Qajar clan took power and initially unified the remnants of the empire. Later under British influence, the Qajar dynasty lost Armenia, Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Georgia and some other notable territories to Russia. When the dust settled, Iran was intact but had lost almost all of its empire in West and Central Asia.

In 1925, with British help, Reza Khan overthrew the Qajars. Under British control, he lost substantial territories to Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Soviet Union. In 1941, the British removed him and installed his son, Mohammad Reza, who gave away Bahrain along with about 50 islands to please Britain and the US.

In 1979, foreign influence was removed when the dynasty was overthrown by a revolution. The Islamic Republic replaced it and now rules the country.

Foreign Interests

“I tell you plainly that a dark, dangerous future lies ahead, and that it is your duty to resist and to serve Islam and Muslim people,” warned Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran’s independence was too much to bear for the US and British. Ever since the revolution, they found it difficult to come to terms with that reality after years of access to Iran’s resources. They have been determined to “change regime” through hostilities, threats, sanctions and propaganda.

Iran’s problem is its immense natural resources. Iran is ranked the fifth nation in the world in terms of the value of its natural resources. Its resources include chromium, coal, copper, crude oil, iron ore, lead, manganese, natural gas, sulfur and zinc. It has the world’s second-largest known gas reserve and fourth oil reserve. It is chiefly for the access to these resources, especially oil and gas, that the US leads Britain and the EU in spending much of their budgets and time to effect “regime change” in Iran. They are all oblivious to the fact that an overwhelming number of Iranians support the regime, as demonstrated in the recent anniversary of the Republic when over 20 million, a quarter of the population, participated in the parades. 

In 1953, it was this desire to access Iranian oil, under the pretext of fear of communist influence in Iran, that caused the US to work with the British to overthrow the first-ever democratically elected government in Iran and install a ruthless puppet, the Shah. At the same time, the US gave little attention to genocide in Cambodia, Darfur, Myanmar and Rwanda, responding only belatedly even to atrocities in Bosnia, in NATO’s backyard. 

Scary CIA-MI6 Coup Destroyed Iran and Damaged the World

The British and the US have not given up intervening in Iran. They have long planned to break up Iran as they balkanized Yugoslavia into numerous hostile countries based on ethnicities by instigating riots. The US has continued having a “covert relationship” with numerous ethnic terrorist groups in Iran. The US support of the MEK terrorist group is well known. So far, the Islamic Republic has deftly resisted the foreign aggression. 

The 2022 unrest has given more opportunity to Iran’s adversaries. The US and its allies, especially Israel and Saudi Arabia, have intervened in the domestic affairs of Iran. Through BBC, VOA, London-based Persian TV, and social media outlets, the US and its allies continue sensationalizing the protests in Iran in hope of instigating civil war, leading to “regime change.” If human rights were truly their objectives, they would have focused on Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s worst human rights violators. As for the oppression, attention should have been given to the apartheid state of Israel for brutally oppressing Palestinians for years. Unsurprisingly, Iran reportedly has considered the US, Britain, Israel and Saudi Arabia fermenting unrest in the country. 

Change is coming for Iran. After years of contributing to hostility in Iran, Saudi Arabia has decided to break away from the US front and mend relations with the country through China. They have already exchanged ambassadors. Other Arab countries are following suit. That move paid off well. Saudis are now pursuing opening relations with other members of the “Axis of Resistance,” namely Syria and Yemen. 

With the US-led NATO engulfed in the Russo-Ukrainian War, Iran has a great opportunity to live up to its ancient reputation, enhancing global peace.

After years of spending billions of dollars in support of the US plan for the “regime change” in Iran, Saudi Arabia realized that they were wasting their funds. They saw Iran as vital to real progress in the region. Knowing that China had good relations with Iran, they opened up to China, leveraging its growing capabilities to enhance relations with Iran. When they asked China to talk to Iran on their behalf, China gladly cooperated. The result was the 2023 agreement to resume their diplomatic relations. That was welcomed by other Arab countries that are rushing to normalize relations with Iran. Syrian Bashar Assad was welcomed by the Arab League with his powerful speech that the region must be cleared from foreign powers. The message resonated with other leaders. Iranian and Saudi teams are now working together to resolve other issues in the region, such as the Yemen conflict.

If Iranians continue to play their cards right, they could finally bring peace to the troubled region, which has been under foreign influence for over a century. If the US wants to have some voice in the future in that part of the world, it must find a way to collaborate with Iran as the Saudis did.

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post What Do You Know About Iran, Formerly Persia? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Like members of Congress, federal judges are divided. According to the National Constitution Center, the Supreme Court’s nine justices are presently six Republicans and three Democrats. Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of such partisanship. A 2022 Pew Research survey found that 84% of American adults overwhelmingly hold that the Supreme Court justices “should not bring their own political views into how they decide cases.”

What You Need to Know About the US Congress

Furthermore, the judiciary is filled with incompetent individuals who favor the rich as the poor and minorities remain their victims. It was not surprising when the infamous 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission enabled corporate entities, wealthy institutions and individuals to donate unlimited money to elections. Consequently, politicians, especially presidents, have become the puppets of the rich in their struggle to finance their campaigns. Not only this, but some of them have become puppets of foreign states. The contributions of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to political campaigns in support of Israel and stopping those who think America first are well known.

AIPAC has also opposed any attempt by the US to negotiate with Iran, and continuously pushes for sanctions and hostilities against that nation. In reaction, Iran has finally put de-dollarization in motion globally. Thanks to AIPAC. So begins the fall of US hegemony worldwide.

How Good Is the US Policy on Iran, Really?

Americans are looking at a stark future. The Supreme Court’s decisions are often tyrannical and devoid of moral values. Its extreme-right majority is now poised to roll back many “long-standing rights and laws.”

What do you really know about the US Supreme Court?

As for the US Constitution, Article III, Section 1 establishes that the US judicial power is vested in “one supreme Court” and that judges hold their office on “good Behaviour.” Going back to the precedent set by George Washington in nominating John Jay as the first Chief Justice, “good Behaviour” has meant that Justices must be patriots and high caliber jurists, known for integrity and impartiality.

While there is no mention of “checks and balances” in the Constitution, the principle is implicit in many of its provisions. Federal judges are appointed by the President, but the Senate must approve them. The Supreme Court may declare presidential actions or Congressional legislation illegal, but Congress can override them by changing the law or even proposing to amend the Constitution. The House of Representatives, furthermore, impeach executive officers and federal judges, including the President and Supreme Court justices.

In 1803 Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court established its authority to void actions of the executive and legislative branches found “repugnant to the constitution.” Over time, the Supreme Court has miserably evaded its responsibility to do so and keep those branches in check. The Congress has frequently delegated more and more of its constitutional power to the President, and the Supreme Court has not objected but colluded with the Congress, enabling “legislative distortion.” In doing so, the Supreme Court and the Congress have undermined the constitutional ideal of a balance of power. 

The framers of the US Constitution created it in order to “establish Justice.” The 14th Amendment clearly states that no State can “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” However, the US has never lived up to its commitment. The bigotry peaked in the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford when the Supreme Court excluded “enslaved people” from US citizenship.

As for the “equal justice under law,” the recent arrest and arraignment of the former President Donald Trump shows how that has been turned upside down. Unlike others, Trump was treated with respect, including escort through a private corridor and not being handcuffed or subjected to a mugshot. 

Like Congress, the Supreme Court has also given in to the expansion of presidential power. The President issues executive orders at will, “instant laws” passed without Congressional approval. The Supreme Court could overturn them but has chosen to do nothing. In other words, the court has practically become a politically rubber-stamp for the other two branches. 

Is the US Presidency Actually a Powerful Dictatorship?

The reason is clear. Presidential nominations, especially those for the Supreme Court, have become increasingly political. Presidents have been appointing party loyalists to such positions. In 1991, George H.W. Bush nominated the infamous Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed his nomination, despite attorney Anita Hill’s extensive testimony of Thomas’s sexual misconduct. Now, Thomas is in hot water for violating the court’s own judicial ethics. Trump sparked outrage when he nominated Brett Kavanaugh, who was accused of attempted rape, but Brett was also confirmed.

The Supreme Court has become incorrigibly corrupt. The justices have used their judicial positions to enhance their private interests. While on the Supreme Court, Justice Louis Brandeis promoted Zionism and advised President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Zionism-related issues. Meanwhile, for decades up to the present-day, Justice Clarence Thomas has been taking vacations paid for by a billionaire.

A culture of injustice

The Supreme Court’s corruption and incompetence have taken their toll. The US suffers from endemic male chauvinism, racism, nepotism, and deceit. It continues to have the world’s highest criminal incarceration rate, including a disproportionate number of Black and Native Americans, whom police likewise disproportionately abuse and murder. The US has the world’s most mass shootings, about 5 times that of Russia, which comes second to the US. The shooters are 74% white, nicely treated by police, and seldom die unless they commit suicide. Black, Latino and Asian shooters rarely live to see the next day. Harassment and abuse of Hispanics, migrant workers and asylum seekers by authorities have become common affairs. Women, as well, are still treated unequally.

Although females constitute the majority in the US, they continue to be discriminated against. Female prisoners in the US are sexually harassed with impunity. Violence against women and girls remains widespread and alarming. Gun violence remains high across the country, and their biggest victims are women. Assaults on Native American women and girls continue to be substantially more frequent compared to assaults on other US women. As for wages, the “gender pay gap” persists, with women making 17% less than men doing the same jobs.

Judicial incompetence has put the US on the path of revolution. It has frustrated and polarized Americans, with many of them living in anger. Over 32% of the wealth is possessed by the wealthiest 1%. Over 11% of Americans live below the poverty level and 60% “live paycheck-to-paycheck.” It was in this environment that Trump could manipulate the oppressed into the January 6 insurrection. 

The Truth About US Democracy

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court is not representative of democracy. Its judges are not elected by the people but nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, neither of which is representative of democracy, considering the US population.

The court’s degenerated status was summed up by a former judge. On March 11, 2020 in a letter to the US Chief Justice John Roberts, former Hawaii State Judge James Dannenberg resigned from the Supreme Court Bar. Addressing Roberts, he wrote, “You are allowing the Court to become an ‘errand boy’ for an administration that has little respect for the rule of law.” He noted that the Supreme Court was moving towards limiting freedom in favor of “wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males—and the corporations they control.” He ended his letter by saying, “I no longer have respect for you or your majority, and I have little hope for change. I can’t vote you out of office because you have life tenure, but I can withdraw whatever insignificant support my Bar membership might seem to provide.”

What You Need to Know About the US Presidency

Time for the US to Reform

The Supreme Court is riddled with corruption and incompetence. This is not sustainable in the long run, as we saw in the 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol building. At the very least, two steps must be taken:

1. The justices must take an oath of allegiance to carry out impartial justice, not to serve Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, white or non-white sectors.
2. The court must develop an “ethics code” to provide the judges with sensible standards for conducting themselves.

If the US doesn’t get its own house in order soon, another insurrection is inevitable.

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The US Supreme Court’s Credibility Is at Its Absolutely Lowest Level appeared first on Fair Observer.

The US has consistently brandished its “all options open” policy as a formidable weapon against Iran. Under the Obama administration, it unleashed some of the most stringent and extensive sanctions witnessed since 1980. Continuing its relentless pursuit of regime change, the US has unveiled this April a fresh wave of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. While clamor for threats of a military nature has failed to resonate, the repercussions of sanctions on Iran’s economy have been profoundly debilitating. The insidious grip of poverty has tightened unabated across the nation, with countless Iranians succumbing to illness and anguish amidst a dire scarcity of vital medications.

Amidst a relentless barrage of western propaganda advocating for a regime change in Iran, the Iranian populace remains resolutely unfazed, displaying a conspicuous choice not to heed these efforts. There are reasons for this optimism. This is not the first time Iran has faced stern international opposition to its regime, and survived. During the 1980 invasion by Iraq, a conflict that saw the involvement of over 80 nations and military backing from 34 countries, including both the US and the Soviet Union, in support of Iraq, Iran found itself pitted against overwhelming odds, with only Libya and Syria extending their sympathies. In the face of this formidable hostile force, Iran valiantly resisted for a grueling eight years, steadfastly preserving its territorial integrity without conceding an inch of its land to the Iraqi aggressors. One of those killed in the pushing back of Iraqis out of  the country was my brother Sayyid Husayn. He was then a 23-year-old seminary student. Even my over 70-year-old father and other brothers volunteered to defend their country.

Despite the barrage of American sanctions, Iran has been able to avoid their suffocating effects, navigating a path towards self-reliance. The Islamic Republic responded to years of relentless US pressure by spearheading the de-dollarization of its oil trade in 2007, setting in motion an international wave of dissent against the American-dominated financial framework. Consequently, the once-dominant petrodollar rapidly ceded its hegemony, with BRICS nations, Venezuela, and other states eagerly following suit. There are some hints that even Saudi Arabia, a staunch ally of the US, may be succumbing to this paradigm shift. Recent discussions between China and Malaysia in early April concerning the establishment of an “Asian Fund” aimed at diminishing reliance on the US dollar further underscore the momentum of this trend.

Alas, the response from the US to this trend has been disconcerting. Instead of absorbing the lessons and altering its course, the US harbors animosity towards Iran for catalyzing the decline of the almighty dollar. In times to come, impartial historians will undoubtedly highlight Washington’s susceptibility to manipulation by Iran’s diaspora, Israel’s influential lobby, and other anti-Iran factions as contributing factors to the gradual erosion of American hegemony.

Have the BRICs Hit a Wall? The Next Emerging Markets

What You Probably Need to Know About Iran Under the Mullahs

Despite the persistent hostility spearheaded by the US and its western allies, Iran’s mullahs have propelled it forward on several fronts.

Contrary to the portrayal of Iran as a dictatorial regime, the Islamic Republic operates as a theo-democracy, as affirmed by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, who stated, “Islam does not permit us to establish a dictatorship. We follow our nation’s votes and act according to their views.”

My visits and observations have convinced me that Iran’s leadership is committed to the democratic process. I have witnessed heated debates in Iran’s Majlis, its parliamentary chamber. They exemplify a passion for the vibrant exchange of ideas. Perusing the newspapers, I have noted that some regularly support the government, while others criticize it. In buses, parks, and other public areas, I have listened to common people expressing their thoughts, for or against the government, without being reprimanded or arrested.

On the other hand, I found it perplexing to note the level of sensitivity of some security personnel to the wearing of the hijab in numerous localities. This stringent enforcement has continued to provoke discontent among many young Iranians, who find themselves increasingly aggrieved by such measures.

Iran’s progress under the leadership of the mullahs has been nothing short of remarkable, catapulting the nation to an impressive position in global intellectual achievements. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Iran boasts the second-highest number of engineering graduates per capita on a global scale. Iran’s engineers and scientific researchers are making great strides in areas from autism research, to pharmaceuticals—of which 96% are now produced locally—to cutting-edge nanotechnology.

Quality of life has surged since the revolution. Between 1976 and 2021, the literacy rate experienced a remarkable surge, soaring from a mere 36.5% to an impressive nearly 89%. Likewise, life expectancy witnessed a substantial upswing, climbing from less than 55 years in 1976 to a commendable nearly 77 years in 2021.

Today, over 90% of the population is covered by free health insurance, ensuring access to essential medical services. In rural areas, health houses have been established to cater to the needs of approximately 1,200 residents per facility, bringing healthcare closer to remote communities. Moreover, Iran’s commitment to healthcare extends to refugees, with accessible services provided to these vulnerable populations.

The quality of healthcare in Iran has become so reputable that many people now visit Iran to benefit from advanced and affordable medical treatment, positioning the country as a destination of choice. Iran has introduced impressive innovations in areas such as addressing autism, offering valuable lessons and insights that can benefit not only the US but also other nations grappling with similar challenges.

Iran is a Beneficial Regional Leader

Iran’s military leaders have left a positive mark on the Islamic world. The revered Qassim Soleimani has left an indelible impression on hearts and minds across the region, and also instills a sense of awe in the hearts of Iran’s adversaries, attesting to the nation’s capacity to nurture exceptional military leaders. Iranian officers are not a gang of thugs, as western propagandists would like to portray them, but competent, professional, and honorable leaders making an impact on the world stage.

In recent memory, General Soleimani, with the help of Russian air power, played a pivotal role in urging Iraqis to liberate their land from the clutches of the terrorist organization ISIS. In Syria, Soleimani’s influence extended to inspiring the local population to push back against ISIS, bolstering the resistance against this extremist group. In Lebanon, he inspired a robust response to Israeli aerial bombings. Furthermore, the Iranian general motivated Yemenis to forge a united front against the Saudi-led coalition’s aggressive actions.

Iran has demonstrated its ability to use diplomacy just as well as warfare to build connections and foster stability in the region. President Ebrahim Raisi’s administration has actively sought to bolster diplomatic ties with key global players, most notably China and Russia, among other nations. Impressively, his efforts have yielded significant progress in normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. These constructive engagements have the potential to initiate a much-needed environment of peace and stability in this turbulent part of the world.

Why Saudi Arabia and Iran Are Making Out Now

In stark contrast to the US-led western powers, the mullahs of Iran have demonstrated a clear objective of fostering stability and peaceful coexistence among regional countries. Their unwavering commitment to this vision is exemplified by their endeavors to share Iran’s resources and inspire neighboring nations. The influence of the mullahs has been particularly notable in countries such as Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and others, where they have been instrumental in galvanizing these nations to assert their independence and stand united against acts of aggression.

Time for a New US Iran Policy

Iran’s strategic maneuvers in forging key partnerships are poised to reshape regional dynamics, inviting the West to reevaluate its approach towards the nation.

Recently, Iran awarded India a contract to develop the Chabahar Port, in a move that holds immense potential for enhancing connectivity and trade. Complementing this development is the planned construction of a railway network linking Iran’s Shahid Rajaee port on the Persian Gulf to southern Russia. Upon completion, this ambitious infrastructure project will revolutionize transportation between East Asia and Russia, with far-reaching implications.

The significance of these initiatives cannot be overstated. For India, the railway and port development will dramatically reduce transportation time, with the current 45-day journey reduced to a mere 14 days, a savings that will translate into substantial cost reduction, amounting to millions of dollars for the Indian economy. Equally consequential is the impact on Europe, as it stands to benefit from an expeditious and cost-effective cargo route between the continent and East Asia via Iran. This newfound advantage is bound to incentivize European nations to reassess their stance on sanctions and explore collaborative opportunities with Iran.

It is not just economic policy that is giving the West reason to reevaluate. The stance adopted by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, against weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) has posed a formidable challenge to world powers. Khamenei’s moral stand categorically forbidding the production of WMDs is informed Iran’s own history during the protracted and devastating eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s. The repercussions of Iraq’s chemical attacks persist to this day. Tragically, I recently received news of the passing of one of my relatives in Iran, a victim of the chemical injuries sustained during that period, whose years of suffering have finally come to an end. Despite the suffering that thousands of Iranians have likewise endured, the nation’s moral conviction stands as a rebuke to a Western global order predicated on mutually assured nuclear destruction.

Negotiate With Russia and Let Ukraine Have Peace

The Iranian revolution has triggered a profound realignment that continues to shape the contemporary global landscape. By asserting its own distinct worldview and challenging western preeminence, Iran has engendered an ongoing dialogue on the nature and distribution of power in the international arena, posing questions that demand thoughtful consideration. Despite these signals, however, the US persists in its efforts to meddle in the affairs of Iran and other nations. Instead of embracing a more diplomatic approach, the US clings to its reliance on punitive sanctions, invasions, and interventions, which have become all too familiar hallmarks of its foreign policy. The recent Russo-Ukrainian War serves as a stark and regrettable illustration of the US’s propensity for favoring military action over constructive dialogue and negotiation. It is imperative that the US awaken to the realities of our changing world.

Under the leadership of its mullahs, Iran has demonstrated an exceptional ability to forge its own path and shape its own destiny. While the hostility exhibited by the US may prove to be transient, one aspect of Iran’s trajectory endures steadfastly: its commitment to de-dollarization. The US must recognize the significance of this development and disregard the influence of affluent and divisive diaspora groups and anti-Iran factions. Instead, a fresh, astute, and equitable policy towards Iran must be crafted—one that embraces peaceful negotiations marked with wisdom and balance, fostering a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship.

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post How Good Is the US Policy on Iran, Really? appeared first on Fair Observer.

The US Congress has also become weak because of the influence of money in politics. Members of Congress spend more and more of their time fundraising, diminishing their ability to legislate. Increasingly, Congresswomen and Congressmen represent their donors more than their constituents. Open Secrets tells us that Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy raised over $27 million and the former speaker Nancy Pelosi raised over $25 million in 2021-22.

Because of this influence of money in politics, Congress is increasingly under the thumb of interest groups. Some of these groups are beholden to foreign states. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is infamous for its hold on Congress. AIPAC has poured millions of dollars to defeat progressive pro-Palestinian candidates in Democrat congressional primaries. On rare occasions that members of Congress speak out against Israel’s influence, such as Representative Ilhan Omar in 2019, they are quickly ostracized. 

Is the US Presidency Actually a Powerful Dictatorship?

AIPAC has also opposed Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran as the former president has admitted in his memoirs. Sadly, the Congress sometimes puts foreign interests above American ones, endangering peace, prosperity and national security itself. 

Other ills afflict the Congress as well. Pork-barrel projects, earmarks and poison bills, often referred to as “legislative extortion,” interfere with legislation. The Congress has failed to deliver for the people. They have not drafted laws for a healthy economy. Over 32% of the wealth is owned by 1-percent of the wealthiest Americans. Over 11% of Americans live below the poverty level and 60% “live pay-check-to-paycheck.” At such a time, the Congress is deeply divided. Both Republicans and Democrats care more about hurting the other in an adversarial system than acting together in national interest.

What do you really know about Congress?

Even both parties themselves are deeply divided. It took 15 rounds of voting for Republicans to elect Kevin McCarthy as the speaker of the House. The Congress only unites to pass things in the interest of their donors. The Congress has drafted tax bills, which give tax cuts to the rich and pass on the tax burden to the middle class. 

There are representational issues too. The District of Columbia with a population just short of 700,000, far more than Wyoming, and Puerto Rico with a population of nearly 3,200,000, greater than 21 states, have no voice on the House’s bills. The same is true for Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, and other US territories. 

In 1789, the first House had 65 members serving 3.9 million people, one for every 60,000 persons. Now, 435 members serve 334 million, one for every 767,816 persons. It is now difficult for one person to represent so many different and varied constituents.

It is not just the president who dominates the House. Today, the Senate has grown in power too. It dictates terms and conditions. In reality, this has turned the bicameral legislature into a unicameral one. The House now has to either ignore or “rubber-stamp Senate bills”.

The Truth About US Democracy

The US Senate is not exactly democratic. Every state gets two senators. This means that Wyoming with the population of less than 583,279 has the same representation, privilege, and vote as California with a population of about 39 million. In the US Senate, the vote of a resident of Wyoming equals the votes of 69 Californians. The consecrated tradition of Senate filibuster speeches designed to postpone or neuter legislative action illustrate the principle of the tyranny of a minority over the majority.

As of 2023, according to the World Population Review, the 50 states have a combined population of about 334 million. Mathematical logic tells us that the 26 states with the smallest populations collectively send 52 senators to Congress. Those 26 states wield a simple majority in the Senate, although they only represent 58.7 million citizens or 17.6% of the entire population. That means that the remaining minority of 48 senators represents over 82.4% of the US population. If you were to remove the eight most populated states from a Senate vote, it would take 42 states (84 senators) to represent a simple majority of the US population (52%). In other words, the will of a small minority of the US population represented in the Senate is always likely to prevail over the needs and wishes of all US citizens.

Like the House, the Senate leaves a significant portion of American citizens unrepresented. The constitution excludes from the federal electoral system the entire population of the District of Columbia (DC), Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and other US territories, despite the fact that they collectively have a population greater than that of some states. 

The US Constitution, ratified in 1788, gave state legislatures the right to elect senators. Over time, this corrupted the process of selecting senators. Hence, the 17^th Amendment was ratified in 1913 and, since then, senators have been elected by popular vote. Unfortunately, that amendment failed to solve the problem of corruption for senatorial elections. Today the average cost of running for senate runs into millions of dollars. This funding is usually provided “openly and directly” by the wealthy through PACs and lobbying groups. 

The Colossal Corruption of the Two-Party System

When elected, a senator’s loyalty is first to the rich who bankrolled their election. That is why legislators vote to spend funds lavishly on dubious projects in the service of the wealthy and their corporations, with little or no consideration of the needs of the common people. This produces volumes of legislation whose logic most Americans simply cannot fathom. The Senate consistently fails to represent the people’s needs, interests, concerns, or welfare. 

The various ills of the US Congress have been steadily growing. It is now deeply corrupt and highly undemocratic. Before lecturing the rest of the world on adopting democratic norms, the US must put its own house in order and reform its Congress.

[Hannah Gage edited this piece.] 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post What You Need to Know About the US Congress appeared first on Fair Observer.

America’s founding fathers feared the evolution of the presidency into an imperial office. In fact, that fear was the driving force behind the separation of powers into three distinct branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.

What You Need to Know About the US Presidency

We traditionally call this the “checks and balances” system. Each branch of government can challenge the actions of another branch. For example, the judiciary has the power to overturn unconstitutional laws drafted by the legislature or overrule acts contravening the law by the executive. This can happen both at the state and the federal levels.

In Washington, the president can veto legislation proposed by the Congress. At the same time, the Congress has the power to override presidential vetoes and confirm or reject presidential nominations. At first sight, the checks and balances system appears to be an effective way to maintain democracy. However, the system doesn’t always work out the way it was originally intended. In recent years, it has led to partisan division and logjam.

The Most Powerful Man in the World

Despite the fact that they are not exactly elected directly by the people, US presidents have the power to make critical decisions via executive orders. On August 24, 2022, President Joe Biden signed an executive order “to cancel $10,000 of student debt for low- to middle-income borrowers.”  This cost of Biden’s plan is estimated to be $400 billion for US taxpayers. 

Executive orders are sometimes called “instant laws.” They do not need Congressional approval. The Supreme Court has the power to overturn them if they are found unconstitutional. However, this is a high bar and presidents have been usurping the power of Congress.

During his time in the White House, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a record number of 3,721 executive orders. Only five of them were overturned by the Supreme Court. More recently, Donald Trump made executive orders infamous by announcing big policy changes without Congressional approval.

Even more alarming are the president’s nuclear powers. As commander-in-chief of all the US armed forces, the president has exclusive access to the nuclear codes. With the push of a button, he can cause a nuclear holocaust. Should a single human being have the power to destroy the world?

As I have pointed out repeatedly in my past articles, the US has an aggressive foreign policy. It meddles in the affairs of other countries. This leads to tensions and even standoffs with other powers such as Iran, Russia and China. An American president could blunder into nuclear war in a crisis. In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated this danger. 

The Biden-led NATO supports Ukraine against Russia. This is part of a longstanding American policy. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO has expanded east. The “deep state” has taken charge of American foreign policy. Presidents have to do the bidding of the military-industrial complex. In 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against this phenomenon in his parting presidential address. In the context of the Russia-Ukraine War, the US president’s nuclear powers have become dangerous.

Negotiate With Russia and Let Ukraine Have Peace

A Rapidly Deteriorating System

A key reason why the office of the president has become all powerful is because the Congress has become dysfunctional. The incessant squabbling between the two political parties makes passing of laws extremely difficult. The parties themselves are increasingly divided. It took a historic 15 rounds of voting for Kevin McCarthy to be elected speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Republican lawmakers are so divided right now that it will be difficult for them to push through any legislation despite their majority. Even if they do, Democrats have a wafer-thin majority in the Senate and can block them. The Democrats are divided themselves and are unlikely to push through significant bills in the Senate. This leaves the White House a clear field for executive orders.

In this way, the US presidential power and prestige are the envy of dictators. Presidents enjoy unprecedented autocracy and imperial power under the guise of democracy. The president appoints thousands of delegates, who often lack the qualifications necessary for the political positions they are assuming.

The president nominates federal judges, which makes the office extremely powerful. The nomination process has become increasingly political, especially for the Supreme Court. Presidents have been appointing party loyalists to top positions. This is not a new phenomenon. In 1991, George H.W. Bush nominated the infamous Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed his nomination, despite attorney Anita Hill’s extensive testimony of Thomas’s sexual misconduct. Now, Thomas is in hot water for violating the Court’s own judicial ethics. Trump sparked outrage when he nominated Brett Kavanaugh who was accused of attempted rape.

Presidents have not only been appointing shady judges but they have also been benefiting family members. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, profited immensely from dealings with the Saudis. This might not have been illegal but was certainly immoral. Such is the power of the president that Trump and Kushner were never held to account.

Today, the presidency is too powerful and not accountable to the people. Reforms to the system are long overdue. Otherwise, troubles lie ahead. An unrestrained, all-powerful presidency is not sustainable long term. 

[Hannah Gage edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Is the US Presidency Actually a Powerful Dictatorship? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Since 1979, Iran has challenged the US-led Western countries across the world. For instance, Iran opposed apartheid in South Africa at a time when the US supported the racist regime. In 1992, Nelson Mandela visited Iran and thanked “the Iranian government and nation for their support in the black people’s struggle against apartheid.″ 

In contrast, the US and its Western allies have supported freedom for white Europeans globally while quietly enslaving or subjugating all others. Popular Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba was eliminated through a 1960 coup supported by Belgium and the US. Washington has historically stood by its European allies when they conducted ethnic cleansing and genocide against Africans. American collaboration with Britain is well known, particularly the British suppression of Kenya’s Mau Mau movement in the 1950s that sought self-determination. 

British Genocide in Kenya: Time for a Reckoning

The destructive meddling in affairs of the other countries by the US was formalized with the founding of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 1947. In June 1948, the CIA was authorized to carry out covert operations in “support of US foreign policy.” Its first and most successful operation was jointly with MI6 in 1953 when it masterminded a coup against Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran’s first-ever democratically elected prime minister. In the years to come, the US used lessons learned from 1953 to overthrow governments in other countries. Vietnam and Chile are perhaps the two most spectacular examples.

A Tale of Neocolonization and Hypocrisy

After World War II, the Americans have always championed the 1941 Atlantic Charter, a joint US and British declaration, to portray themselves as great supporters of freedom. Its most important features included recognizing the right of people to choose their own form of government, removing trade restrictions, improving labor standards, expanding social programs, renouncing use of force, and reducing armament. The Atlantic Charter deeply influenced the UN Charter that followed after the war.

After the devastation of World War II, the UN was founded in 1945 to save the world from the “scourge of war,” to strengthen “human rights,” to promote “justice,” reinforce “international law” and promote social well-being. Yet the US and Britain have never really honored their commitment to the UN Charter just as they once ignored the Atlantic Charter after the war was over. Just as Britain and the US once promoted the interests of the East India Company and the United Fruit Company (UFC) through their foreign policy, they now support today’s big corporations.

Scary CIA-MI6 Coup Destroyed Iran and Damaged the World

The example of the US acting to support the UFC has become infamous in history. Less than 11 months after the 1953 Iran coup, the CIA-sponsored deposed the democratically elected Guatemalan government. Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán was ousted in a June 1954 coup because, like Mosaddegh, he refused to play ball with a foreign corporation exploiting his country. This coup gave birth to a new word in international politics: “banana republic.”

The same year the US turned Guatemala into a banana republic, the Vietnamese crushed the French at Dien Bien Phu. This triggered American intervention under the guise of the Cold War. The stated aim was to keep out communism. The real goal was to ensure white domination of another non-white country. The US kept its forces in Vietnam for the next 20 years, brutally causing nearly 4 million casualties. American casualties were a relatively low 58,000 but many veterans who served in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos are still suffering from physical and emotional trauma. The populations of these three countries are still dealing with the consequences of napalm bombing and the use of Agent Orange, which were both forbidden by the Geneva Convention.

Latin America Gets Special Attention

The US has dominated Latin America and treated the region as an informal colony. In 1964, the US and the British supported a military coup in Brazil that deposed the democratically elected Brazilian president Joao Goulart.

In Chile, the US followed the 1954 Guatemala template. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger mounted major clandestine operations against Chilean President Salvador Allende. Eventually, the US backed the 1973 coup and Allende was executed. This US conducted this coup for the Anaconda Copper Company which was a major donor of the Republican party.

No mercy shown even to Cuba, a small Caribbean country. In the 1960s, the CIA attempted to assassinate Fidel Castro numerous times through many means, including the use of organized crime syndicate. The US even tried an invasion at the Bay of Pigs but it turned out to be a disaster. 

The World This Week: Obama Visits Cuba to Salsa With Castro

The failure of its anti-Castro machinations did not stop US operations in Latin America though. In the 1980s, the US supported the military junta in El Salvador with $6 billion to annihilate the insurgency and their supporters. That led to a civil war that lasted 12 years, causing many deaths and destruction. In the 1980s, the Irangate scandal hit the Reagan administration. Congressional inquiries revealed that the US had illegally sold weapons to Iran and used the profit to fund Contra rebels against Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

The Contras’ story becomes even more interesting. In 1981, the US backed Manuel Noriega who became the military dictator of Panama. Noriega was a conduit of money and weapons to the Contras. When Noriega was no longer useful, the US cut him off its payroll in 1988 and overthrew him in 1989. 

The US Record Elsewhere

As for Asia, nobody should be surprised that the US supported Pakistan against India in the 1971 India-Pakistan War. Kissinger covered up the Pakistani mass rape, murders and other atrocities in East Pakistan, which is now Bangladesh. The ruthless American diplomat justified support for Pakistan as essential for better relations with China. He also justified bombing Cambodia and Laos for pressuring North Vietnam. Remember Kissinger also caused Allende’s execution. Yet the Nobel Committee gave such a megalomaniac and international criminal the Peace Prize in 1973.

From 1945 to 1990, the CIA backed anti-communists to go on a rampage and kill communists in at least 22 countries. It began in Indonesia in 1965. The military killed a million Indonesians on the mere suspicion of being communists or left-wing. After the bloodbath, General Suharto emerged as the country’s leader and became president in 1967.

Today, we vividly remember 9/11. Yet few question the US role in creating those terrorists. The US wanted Afghanistan to be the Vietnam for the Soviets. In the 1980s, the US backed the most violent Muslims from around the world who flocked to fight a jihad in Afghanistan. They became known as the mujahideen and delivered a crushing defeat to the Soviets. President Ronald Reagan met with them in the Oval Office. Later, these jihadis formed al-Qaeda, al-Nusrat, ISIS, and other terrorist groups who have been causing deaths and destruction since. 

In January 2020, the US killed Iranian General Qassim Soleimani when he was on his way to meet the Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi. Soleimani had helped defeat ISIS and his execution triggered anger in the Middle East. Additionally, it also set a precedent for killing diplomats and has put in danger US diplomats around the world. From the days of the 2003 Iraq War, US actions have often been reckless, endangering peace consistently.

In the case of Iran, the US has acted most unwisely. For decades, it has been trying to initiate “regime change.” The US has imposed draconian sanctions on the country and caused untold suffering. Few Americans realize that over 98% of Iranians voted to create an Islamic republic in 1979.

The US supports Ukraine in the name of freedom and democracy. Yet the key reason for this support to do so is to weaken Russia. The US has imposed sanctions against Russia and supplied weapons to Ukraine to weaken Russian President Vladimir Putin. Yet Putin’s popularity reached 81% at the end of last year while US President Joe Biden’s approval rating dropped to 44%.

The US funds that have been spent on regime change and military operations have caused economic pain, violence and suffering around the world. These funds could have been used to eliminate poverty and improve infrastructure at home. 

Negotiate With Russia and Let Ukraine Have Peace

Over the years, these policies have taken a toll on the reputation of the US. Ayatollah Khamenei once referred to the US as the Great Satan. Many others around the world may not agree with that description but share the ayatollah’s anti-American sentiment. To improve its global standing, the US must stop meddling in other countries or invading them. It could begin with mending relations with Iran and apologizing for the 1953 coup. Instead of acting as a domineering hegemon, the US must work with other nations to enhance freedom and peace for all humanity.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post US Neocolonial Era Began in 1953: Even Now it Continues appeared first on Fair Observer.

In my previous article, I discussed how the two domineering political parties enjoy overweening perks and privileges. This two-party duopoly over power undermines democratic ideals. In a supposedly representative democracy, people’s elected officials are supposed to consider people’s ideas, interests, concerns and welfare. Instead, US elected officials are indebted to megadoners who finance their elections. So, they serve those who pay for their election campaigns, not the people who vote for them.

The Colossal Corruption of the Two-Party System

In my other article, I evaluated the ways in which the rich and the “deep state” have manipulated US elections. They have brought politicians under their thumbs, and the American two-party system—which George Washington famously warned against—is now more corrupt than ever before. This system is unlikely to last very long and the 2021 insurrection that stormed the US Capitol is proof of the fragility of American democracy.

The Truth About US Democracy

In this article, I shine the light on the problems with the US presidency and why its selection process is affront to democracy. The president is not elected by the popular votes but chosen by electors whose royalties are to the two political parties and not the people. 

Over the years, the presidential electoral process has become incorrigibly corrupt. The 2010 Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has made money critical to campaigns. Since that infamous decision, corporate entities and wealthy institutions/people can donate unlimited money to elections. The presidential campaign has become so expensive that the candidates compete to please the rich. Without enough finance, no politician can run a campaign and win. Candidates with low ethical values willing to sell their royalty to the rich end up pursuing the presidency. Those with the most money usually win. This is catastrophic.

It is clear, the presidency needs major reforms. The public agrees: in a 2020 Pew survey, two-thirds of American adults took this view.

Do You Understand Presidential Election Process

The US president is chosen by the Electoral College (EC) whose members are chosen by the Democratic and Republican political parties. All other political parties are left out. The EC was not in the 1788 US Constitution, but the concept was ratified in the 12th Amendment under “electors” in 1804. To chiefly address the issues arising from that amendment, the 20th Amendment also known as “Lame Duck Amendment” was ratified 1933. This second amendment let the vice president-elect to rise to presidency if the president-elect dies before taking the office. In case both president and vice president are found unfit, it also gives the US Congress authority to select an acting president until a president or vice president can be selected.

Unfortunately, the 1804 election process is still continuing. The mere fact that Donald Trump became the US president-elect in 2016 despite getting substantially less popular votes than Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that getting the majority of the votes does not matter. To win, a candidate needs a majority in the EC. Trump was chosen to be the US president by the EC whose members’ first loyalty is to the two political parties, which depend on the support from the rich. What is true for Trump is also true for George W. Bush. In 2000, he became president even though Al Gore won more votes.

Given such results, you may even wonder why we have presidential elections. The pseudo-elections remain because the rich, the “deep state,” want them to legitimize the process in the eye of the voters and delude them into thinking they are participating in a democratic process. However, the rich are selective in choosing and financing candidates. To ensure high return on their investments, they seek the candidates based on their charisma and cunning to entertain and excite people. Unfortunately, they do not give much attention to the candidates’ qualifications, experience, expertise, management skills or sometimes even physical and mental health to lead the nation for a better future for all Americans. In recent years, the US has had presidents like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, none of whom had met those requirements. 

Increasingly, candidates depend on money to win elections, particularly after the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in favor of the rich. In the 2016 elections, Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump spent a combined sum of over one billion dollars on their political campaigns. Candidates do not spend such a large sum from their personal funds. They depend on donors to back them. Few Americans donate to political campaigns and less than 1% donate over $200. Thus, the candidates are left at the mercy of the rich.

Elections Have Turned Sordid

These elections have degenerated into a celebrity competition. They attract narcissistic individuals who often lack a moral compass. There is no process to filter out undesirable candidates. In fact, the process is so corrupt that political, in particular presidential, candidates feel desperate to win favor from the rich. They even forsake their countries’ interests to please the rich. 

Sometimes, one wonders if the candidates are running for elections in another country. In 2007, Joe Biden declared, “I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.” He did so to please the Zionist rich after Obama chose Biden as his running mate. As a presidential candidate in 2020, Biden wooed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) by declaring his loyalty to Israel. As president, Trump made Israel the foundation of his foreign policy decisions. He bent over backwards to please Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire who backs Israel and Jewish causes. To both Biden and Trump, Israel came first because they needed money from Jewish donors. Like prostitutes, US presidents now serve the highest bidders.

Furthermore, the rich also do not like to see certain citizens participate in these elections. So, they have their lackeys to prevent some territories from becoming states, leaving them out of the elections. According to the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, much of its population living in Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, and other US territories are not qualified to vote in the presidential election. An example is Puerto Rico, which has a population of over 3.2 million, which is greater than any of the 21 states.

Another problem with the 20th Amendment is that it gives authority to the US Congress to elect president or vice president if either of them is found unfit for office. Rather, that election should be left to the people.

Thankfully, Americans are wising up. In 1981, 75% of Americans favored abolishing the EC system. In 1987, the American Bar Association called the EC “archaic” and “ambiguous.”

Reform Presidential Elections

The US presidency must be democratized. Otherwise, troubles lie ahead. In the long term, such a flawed process to elect presidents will cause a loss of faith in the office and in democracy itself. I recommend three key reforms.

First, the popular ballot must decide who becomes president. The EC must go. That requires amending the 12th Amendment and the 20th Amendment.

Second, the media must provide free “equal air time” for all presidential candidates. This will take away the advantage candidates with more money have in the current process.

Third, we must limit contributions from all sources to any candidate. There has to be a cap on the amount individuals can donate and the amount any candidate can raise. That will take away the disproportionate power of the wealthy in deciding US elections and hand back power to the people.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post What You Need to Know About the US Presidency appeared first on Fair Observer.

In my previous article, I evaluated the ways in which the rich have US politicians under their thumbs, and how the American two-party system—which George Washington famously warned would become problematic—is more corrupt than ever before.

The Truth About US Democracy

A Two-Horse Race

The mere fact that these two political parties enjoy many perks and privileges undermines democratic ideals. Democracy requires all parties to be treated equally. Democratic and Republican parties are funded generously by public, government, government political action committees (PACs), labor unions, corporations, and other associations. Other political parties, such as the Libertarian, Green, Reform, Constitution and Natural Law parties all struggle for recognition. These less powerful parties face many obstacles, including lack of attention by the media, minimal federal campaign financing, and a shortage in government funding.

Oftentimes, US elected officials dishonor their commitments and promises to their constituents, which has led to voter apathy. The presidential elections draw the most voters to the polls, but still fall short of obtaining popular eligible voter participation. From 1904-2016, voter turnouts have varied from 66% to less than 50%. Midterm turnouts are substantially worse. In 2022, the voter turnout was less than 46% in Texas, despite the mail ballot option. Apparently, many Americans are unhappy with the two-party political system and feel that their votes do not amount to anything. The US public is waking up to the realities of its corrupted government. According to a 2022 Pew survey, only 32% of American adults feel that the two primary political parties adequately align with their views. That means that an overwhelming majority of Americans are not happy with the current government and election process. To become democratic, the US political system must reform.

In a truly representative democracy, the people’s elected officials should be obligated to consider their constituents’ ideas, interests, concerns and welfare in rendering political decisions. In the US, the situation is totally different. Americans’ choices are chiefly limited to the candidates from two political parties who, at least superficially, represent completely opposite views. Many American voters are frustrated that there is no middle ground. To make matters worse, the champions of these polarizing elections are then indebted to the rich who funded their campaigns, rather than to the constituents they were elected to represent.

Hostility, Not Rivalry, Between the Parties

From the start, the two-party system was condemned at the highest level. “The alternate domination of one faction over another…is itself a frightful despotism,” warned the first US president, George Washington.

The French philosopher Voltaire held a similar view, stating that “If one religion only were allowed in England, the Government would very possibly become arbitrary; if there were but two, the people would cut one another’s throats; but as there are such a multitude, they all live happy and in peace”. 

The same is true concerning a regime with two political parties. This limiting of political debate to a binary opposition encourages extremism from both sides and leads to the dangerous polarization of the public. In recent decades, tensions and violence have risen across the country. Both parties continue to adopt harmful tactics in an attempt to cut the other down and gain supremacy. The American public suffers as a result.As observed during the January 6 insurrection, when thousands of angry constituents stormed the capitol building in Washington, DC, the incessant bickering between the Democrats and Republicans has fragmented the nation and heightened the risk of dissolving the union.

The Worrying Consequences of the January 6 Insurrection

The recent election of the US House speaker is a perfect example of the conflict and corruption that plagues the current government. It is an event that will go down in history as one of the most notorious examples of the inefficiency of American politics — a direct result of a system confined to  only two polarizing political parties. 

It took 15 rounds of voting to elect Republican Kevin McCarthy speaker of the House of Representatives. In a very contentious election, McCarthy won with less than half of the House participation. Many officials abstained from the vote, including six of McCarthy’s fellow members of the Republican party. He was finally elected thanks to his endorsing the concession that any member of the House could call for his removal at any time. This  was similar to what happened during the House election in 1859 before the Civil War. The event demonstrated the deep dysfunctionality of the two political parties in the US Congress. Their continuous bickering makes it impossible to pass meaningful bills in a timely manner. However, these competitors are united in their habit of catering to megadonors in the support of the military-industrial complex, despite the fact that president Dwight Eisenhower warned against it in his 1961 farewell speech.

Negotiate With Russia and Let Ukraine Have Peace

As seen in the election of McCarthy as House speaker, America is run by two squabbling political parties. These politicians are more focused on shaming one another than addressing the overwhelming national problems that plague the country. 

A Dangerously Divided Nation

It is not surprising that the nation is divided, and so many Americans are living every day in desperation and anger. Economic disparity and discrimination are national issues which are particularly oppressive to minority groups including Native Americans, blacks, Latinos, and Muslims. The gap between the rich and the poor is deep and ever-widening. Approximately 32% of all wealth in the US is held by only 1% of the population, an alarmingly disproportionate statistic. Even more concerning is that at the same time, over 11% of Americans live below poverty level. American politicians have not done nearly enough to address these issues.

The two-party animosity of the federal government has spilled over into the states. State level politicians often engage in a manipulative practice called “gerrymandering”, a redistricting scheme that intentionally marginalizes minorities, the poor and the least-educated citizens.

This endless bipartisan frustration leads to hostility between citizens, families, and friends. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that “72% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats” consider the other party to be more dishonest.

While many Americans abhor the two-party system, some fear that having more than two parties could result in a coalition, making the country even more unstable than it already is. However, this fear is unsubstantiated. Many Americans will continue voting as their parents had, and will remain loyal to one of the two major political parties that currently dominate. Furthermore, competition will force the Republican and Democratic parties to become more centrist in their policies, as extremism will no longer be advantageous. Investing in lesser known political parties would benefit the US immensely. If this is not accomplished soon, the US is at risk for the first ever global social progress recession.

Crisis Demands Reforms

Most of the US’ infrastructure was built after World War II, and is rapidly deteriorating. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) rates US infrastructure near failing with D+ grade. Across the country, highways, bridges, tunnels, railways, clean water, electricity and other public services are either in complete ruin or are insufficient to accommodate population growth. Despite this undeniable infrastructure crisis, US politicians continue to overspend on the military.

In 2021, the US military spent a whopping  $801 billion while its top adversaries, China, Russia and Iran, spent $293 billion, $65.9 billion, and $24.6 billion respectively. Thus, the US spent more than double on its military than the combined spendings of its global competitors. 

To break it down, US military spending was around three times higher than China’s, over 12 times more than Russia’s and 32 times more than Iran’s. This unnecessary spending could have been better spent to help the poor, increase domestic production, and improve America’s dilapidated infrastructure.

Will American Democracy Perish Like Rome’s?

Without standards in place to ensure equal opportunity and constitutional rights for all American citizens, democracy can easily be transformed into what John Adams called, “the tyranny of the majority.” Thomas Jefferson also purportedly claimed that democracy can often resemble mob rule, and in the case of America’s current political sphere, this saying has a ring of truth.

The biased and corrupt two-party system is not sustainable long-term. It is time to challenge the power of bipartisanism. To begin, I recommend the following steps:

1. Provide sufficient funding to less extreme political parties, to allow them to finally break through onto the political stage and permit them to have actual influence on elections. 
2. Cut all federal campaign financing and government funding. When the government has such a powerful monetary hand in elections, corruption is inevitable.  
3. Provide free “equal air time” in broadcasting for all election candidates, not just the ones who can shell out the most money. Many quality candidates become overshadowed by wealthy extremists who can afford to disseminate more political advertising and propaganda.
4. Limit contributions from all sources to that which is equal to what the average American is willing to contribute to a candidate. PACs, unions and other associations can multiply that amount by the number of their active members. However, no member should be allowed to double-dip, individually or as a group.
5. Dismantle the “winner-take-all” electoral system, which has been rejected by many emerging democracies. Nebraska and Maine have already vowed to dismantle this system and allocate results proportionately instead.
6. Enforce the “Code of Official Conduct” in both government chambers. Insert a paragraph to ensure that members of Congress, their family members, close friends, and associates are unable to practice nepotism to accumulate wealth and power, or be favored for high political positions. 

Only when the United States takes steps to implement these changes will the nation begin its ascension to true democracy. 

[Hannah Gage edited this piece.]

[We updated this article on Wednesday, 1 March 2023.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Colossal Corruption of the Two-Party System appeared first on Fair Observer.

During these protests, some have chanted slogans in favor of the Pahlavi dynasty. Sadly, these protesters do not realize that both father Reza Shah and son Mohammad Reza Shah would have shot them dead or arrested and tortured if they were in power.

Why are Young People Protesting in Iran?

In our previous article, we analyzed Mohammad Mosaddegh and the golden age of Iranian democracy. For a 12-year spell from 1941 to 1953, Iran experienced freedom, reforms and the exercise of popular sovereignty. Mosaddegh cleaned up corruption and improved the economy. He invested in health, unemployment insurance and infrastructure. Mosaddegh also initiated programs to address women’s rights. However, this Iranian statesman is most noted for leading the nationalization of the oil industry.

The British Strike Back

The British had a monopoly over Iran’s oil since its discovery in 1908. Nationalization of the oil industry made Mosaddegh their worst enemy and British agents began working to oust him. They used every possible means to undermine his policies and question his competence. They resorted to disinformation, bribery, blackmail, murder and riots.

In June 1953, the British succeeded in winning over American support by painting Mosaddegh to be a socialist. By now, the US was paranoid about the spread of communism. The British also promised Americans a share of the oil. Nationalization was also a bad precedent for other countries and went against the interests of American oil companies. The US was also disappointed that Mosaddegh did not show any interest in the formation of the Baghdad Pact, yet another anti-Soviet military alliance of the Cold War.

Hence, the US agreed with the British to launch “Operation Ajax.” Its goal: remove Mosaddegh from power. Now, the CIA dispatched one of its stars to Tehran. This swashbuckler was Kermit Roosevelt and he worked with close coordination with MI6 for regime change in Iran. 

Together, the Americans and the British bribed politicians, military officers, government officials, warlords, and reporters. They also hired mobsters and hoodlums to pretend to be communists. These fake communists attacked people, broke into stores, torched buildings and used profanity as part of their shock and awe tactics to discredit Mosaddegh.

These tactics did not quite work. Mosaddegh remained wildly popular. When this Iranian statesman called for a referendum to dissolve the Majles (the Iranian parliament), he got 99% of the vote. However, the British and the Americans were infiltrating many powerful interest groups in Iran. The plot against Mosaddegh was thickening. In August 1953, even as Mosaddegh remained immensely popular, he was unaware that many of his enemies, including some in his own party, were conspiring with the British and the Americans to oust him. 

Revolution Erupted in Iran Because of Mohammad Reza Shah

One Coup Fails but the Second Succeeds

On August 16, 1953, the Shah dismissed Mosaddegh. He appointed General Fazlollah Zahedi, a CIA agent, as prime minister. Some close associates of the Shah have taken the view that this was unnecessary. Mosaddegh would have resigned had the Shah asked him to do so.

Zahedi and his cronies began arresting Mosaddegh’s top aides. Mosaddegh saw Zahedi’s appointment as a military coup and refused to step down. The prime minister summoned loyal military officers to his defense. They arrested the party Zahedi had sent to capture Mosaddegh.

The Shah fled the country and Zahedi took refuge with the CIA. The CIA-led, MI6 first coup attempt miserably failed. Mosaddegh felt so confident that he did not take the opportunity to speak to the nation about the coup. This turned out to be a historic blunder.

The CIA and MI6 did not give up. They carried on their anti-government activities and instigated violence in the streets. Fearing communist attacks, Iranians withdrew to their homes. After three days of rioting, Ayatollah Abul-Qasem Kashani reportedly warned Mosaddegh about a coup attempt to oust him.  Mosaddegh dismissed the warning with his aloof reply, “I am supported by the Iranian nation.”

The very next day, large crowds suddenly appeared in the streets in support of the Shah. On this historic day of August 19, 1953, Mosaddegh was caught unawares. The second coup attempt succeeded. Zahedi came out of hiding and arrested Mosaddegh. On hearing about Mosaddegh’s fall, the then British prime minister Anthony Eden said that after a long time he finally slept well.

After the coup, Mosaddegh was put on trial as a traitor in a military court. Fearing popular reaction, Mosaddegh’s statements in his defense were all censored. Mosaddegh was sentenced to solitary confinement to begin with and then house arrest for the remainder of his life. At the age of 84, he died in 1967 while still in house arrest. 

In the court, he said, “Yes, my sin – my greater sin – and even my greatest sin is that I nationalized Iran’s oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world’s greatest empire…. This at the cost to myself, my family; and the risk of losing my life, my honor, and my property.” Then, he continued, “I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle East in breaking the chain of slavery and servitude to colonial interests.”

After the coup, the weak, narcissist and debauched Shah returned to Iran. From now on, he wielded absolute power. Tutored by US advisers, he became a cruel despot just like his father. He crushed all political movements. The opposition went underground, discontent simmered and eventually led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Personal Memories and Consequences of the Coup

One of the co-authors still remembers the day of the coup. He was with his father running errands in central Tehran. At midday, everything seemed peaceful. Suddenly, all hell broke loose. People appeared in trucks chanting, “Death to Mosaddegh, long live the Shah.” The co-author’s father instinctively cursed the British for engineering this ruckus. The very next day, Iranians such as the co-author’s father, friends and family knew that the CIA and MI6 had engineered the coup because Zahedi thanked the US for its support.

In the US and in Britain, the people did not realize the role the CIA and MI6 had played for years. They assumed that organic street protests led to Mosaddegh’s fall. One co-author has been in the US since 1965. He is married to an American. He has had numerous discussions with fellow Americans who resolutely believed that the US could never do as dastardly a deed as overthrow a democratically elected government through a coup.

The US mass media took the same line as uninformed American citizens. In 2003, The New York Times supported the Iraq War. In 1953, this venerable publication supported the coup against Mosaddegh. Time Magazine went further and claimed that “this was no military coup, but a spontaneous popular uprising.” 

In 2013, such claims were proved patently false. The CIA admitted that it carried out the 1953 coup with the approval of the highest levels of the US government. The British have yet to issue a mea culpa but numerous retired MI6 and CIA officers have remarked to the other co-author that this coup turned out to be a historic blunder. These officers maintain that this 1953 coup had unintended consequences and led directly to the 1979 revolution.

It turns out that the coup was planned, coordinated and directed by Cyprus-based MI6 agent Norman Darbyshire. The CIA’s Roosevelt merely executed Darbyshire’s plans. The 1953 coup was the CIA’s first exposure to covert operations that caused regime change. Since then, the CIA has replicated it in numerous other countries.

The dissolute Shah rewarded the US generously for installing him on the throne. In October 1954, Iran signed the Consortium Agreement, giving the “US, British, and French oil companies” 40% ownership of its nationalized oil industry. The management of the consortium was led by American oil companies for 25 years and many consider it to be “the largest commercial deal ever put together.”

Surprisingly, the Islamic Revolution took over the country in February 1979 about 7 months before the agreement was due to expire. In January 1979, one of the major concerns of the world leaders at the Guadeloupe summit was the flow of oil from Iran as revolution erupted in the country. The US and Britain had profited handsomely from the 1953 coup and the 1979 revolution was an unnecessary headache.

Why MI6 and the CIA Succeeded

Given Mosaddegh’s popularity, a question recurs repeatedly: why did the coup succeed?

Mosaddegh was unlucky. The communist Tudeh Party was at least as powerful as Mosaddegh’s National Front. Tudeh could have come out on the streets to prevent the unrest and the coup. However, Joseph Stalin’s death in March 1953 left Tudeh in disarray. Just as the Shah was the lackey of the West, the Tudeh Party was controlled directly by Stalin. With the Soviet strongman dead, Tudeh was rudderless and useless.

In addition to bad fortune, Mosaddegh himself was to blame. He was an idealist who could be exceedingly naïve when it came to realpolitik. Mosaddegh believed deeply in democracy but failed to realize that many of his enemies did not. When he was informed about legislators, officials and military officers plotting a coup, Mosaddegh’s reaction was to ask for proof. Naturally, such proof was hard to come, which lulled this venerable Iranian statesman into a false sense of complacency.

Mosaddegh’s championing of freedom of religion annoyed many conservatives. In particular, it strained relations with his most powerful religious and patriotic supporter Kashani. This support was crucial for Mosaddegh because Kashani commanded a powerful base that could have countered those plotting a coup. To make matters worse, Mosaddegh ignored Kashani’s warning a day before the coup.

Mosaddegh lost some of his secular supporters because they feared communism. Furthermore, some parliamentarians were upset with the prime minister for dissolving the Majles. A few switched sides and supported the coup.

Mosaddegh fatally did not seize the moment after the first coup. This attempt was reported on the radio but the prime minister did not give a public address disclosing all the facts. He did not summon the masses to his defense. Mosaddegh was a sick man during much of his premiership and, particularly, at the time of the coup. He had lost touch with the masses, key interest groups and many members of his own party. Mosaddegh also failed to realize that success today gives no guarantee of success tomorrow.

Mosaddegh was a touch too credulous in trusting the US. He expected Uncle Sam to be an honest broker between Iran and Britain. During his visit to the US, the then president Harry Truman arranged for Mosaddegh’s medical care. Relations between the US and Iran continued to be cordial even when Dwight D. Eisenhower became president. 

As fear of communism rose in the US, Eisenhower turned against Iran. The sweet prospects of access to Iranian oil also facilitated this change of heart. Given the US stress on capitalism and securing oil for its energy-hungry economy, it was inevitable that Washington would look extremely unfavorably upon nationalization of the oil industry. Mosaddegh did not realize the stakes on the geopolitical chessboard and was unprepared to counter the foreign powers.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Scary CIA-MI6 Coup Destroyed Iran and Damaged the World appeared first on Fair Observer.

The US claims to be a representative democracy, meaning the people’s elected officials are obligated to consider their constituents’ ideas, interests, concerns, and welfare in making political decisions. However, the reality is that US politicians feel indebted to the megadonors who finance their elections, and as a result, choose to serve not the people who voted them into power, but the financiers who made their election to office a reality. 

Will American Democracy Perish Like Rome’s?

The rich have US politicians on a leash. In 2017, the then president, Donald Trump, was accused of meeting with his 2016 campaign megadonor, Sheldon Adelson, for counsel on how to address the mass shooting in Las Vegas, a horrific attack that killed 59 people and injured over 500 at a country music festival. That was two days before Trump finally arrived in Las Vegas to meet with the surviving victims and the families mourning the dead. Trump has denied these allegations, claiming that the timing of his meeting with Adelson was purely coincidental, and had nothing to do with the fact that Adelson had major investments in Las Vegas.

The US electoral system is incredibly corrupt, as demonstrated by its recent election of the House Speaker, an event that will go down in history as one of the most notorious examples of the inefficiency of American politics. The country seems to be exclusively  run by two conflicting political parties: the Democrats and the Republicans. Consequently, the nation has become extremely politically polarized, and many Americans experience daily frustration and anger over conflicting political beliefs. 

Economic disparity and discrimination are particularly oppressive to minority groups including Native Americans, blacks, Latinos, and now Muslims. The gap between the rich and the poor is deep and ever-widening. Approximately 32% of all wealth in the US is held by only 1% of the population, an alarmingly disproportionate statistic. Even more concerning is that at the same time, over 11% of Americans live below poverty level.

A 2020 article by The New York Times described the economic disparities in the United States quite accurately, stating that, “Americans may be equal, but some are more equal than others.” Even when the US is in a deep deficit, the government tax policy consistently favors the rich, despite the fact that 60% of Americans believe the nation’s wealthiest should pay more taxes.

The Trump Dynasty is as Dysfunctional as the Windsors

The United States government (USG) is entangled with the rich, the “deep state” of America. By definition, any  government whose power, either overtly or covertly, is controlled by a small group of wealthy constituents, is called plutocracy. Former US president Jimmy Carter once alluded to the plutocracy of the US political system, describing it as, “an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery.”

The Incentive for Corruption

Because political candidates in America require substantial funding to run their campaigns, they become obliged to the rich. To win a Senate seat, a candidate spends an average of over $10 million. According to The Washington Post, the 2016 presidential candidates, Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump, spent a combined sum of over one billion dollars on their political campaigns.

The wealthy also use their power to manipulate the media, flooding broadcasting platforms with polarizing advertisements and persuading the American public that the only votes that count are votes for either the Democratic or Republican parties. 

This sort of propaganda makes many Americans feel overwhelmed and confused about  which candidate they  should be voting for, and some even choose to abstain from voting at all because they don’t support either candidate. Many Americans are ignorant that the elections are a scheme to make them think about having a voice in the government. However, the choice of who ultimately becomes president, congressman, or other official is usually left to the two political parties at the mercy of the rich. 

Even at the state level, wealthy Americans control political candidates and elected officials by donating to their campaigns. The rich also use their financial power to marginalize certain communities through a process called gerrymandering, in which the boundaries of electoral districts are strategically drawn in a way which favors one political party over the other. . Minorities, the poor, and the least educated are usually the victims of this unethical practice.

Understanding Racial and Partisan Gerrymandering

A Call For Reform

Without ethical standards in place to ensure equal opportunity and constitutional rights for all citizens, democracy can easily become what John Adams called, “the tyranny of the majority.” Thomas Jefferson also purportedly claimed that democracy can often resemble mob rule, and this comparison has a ring of truth.

The USG must reform.The country’s current system is riddled with corruption and will not be sustainable long term, as evidenced by the 2021 insurrection at the U.S. capitol building. At the very least, steps must be taken to make sure that campaign funding is democratic and fair first by cutting all  government funding to individual campaigns and political parties, and instead requiring the media to allocate “equal air time” at no cost to candidates. Second, the USG must create and enforce regulations to limit campaign funding and prevent “megadonors” from manipulating elections and government policy.

To alleviate the megadonors’ influence, the USG could limit all contributions from all sources equal to what an average-income American is willing to contribute to a candidate. PACs, unions and other associations can multiply that amount by the number of their active members. However, no member can be allowed to double-dip, individual and in group.

Only when the United States takes steps to implement these changes will the nation begin its ascension to true democracy. 
[Hannah Gage edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Truth About US Democracy appeared first on Fair Observer.

From 1941 to 1953, Iran experienced a golden period of freedom. During this era, seven political parties emerged in the Iranian parliament Majles. Mohammad Mosaddegh emerged as the most important leader during this period. He became prime minister in 1951 and initiated significant reforms.

The Dirty Secrets About How Reza Shah Destroyed Iran

Before 1941, Reza Shah ruled Iran with an iron hand. If people dared to protest, they were shot on the spot or tortured to death or whisked away to a brutal prison. From 1941 to 1953, free speech, democracy and rule of law emerged in Iran. Mosaddegh was a key figure in democratizing Iran. 

The Brief Story of Iranian Democracy

Educated in France and Switzerland, Mosaddegh came from a patrician family. However, he was a reformer who believed in democracy. In 1925, Mosaddegh voted against Reza Khan taking over as the Shah. Once in power as Reza Shah, the monarch exiled him from public office. With Reza Shah out of power in 1941, Mosaddegh emerged from the shadows to play a key role in Iranian history.

In 1944, Mosaddegh was re-elected to the Iranian parliament, the Majles. As a patriot, he wanted a strong Iran. Mosaddegh aimed to build an Iran with rule of law, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, parliamentary democracy and a strong economy. Above all, this Iranian leader opposed foreign interference in the internal affairs of Iran. In particular, he did not want the British to exploit Iranian oil for London’s imperial benefit. He was also against concessions to the Soviets in northern Iran.

Mohammad Reza, the new Shah, and Iran’s comprador elite were beholden to the British for their hold on power. So, they did not take kindly to the rise of Mosaddegh. This corrupt and absolutist elite was also against democracy because they would have lost power. They tried the age old trick of rigging elections.

As a result, protests erupted in 1949. People came out into the streets to rally against voter fraud. Mosaddegh led a group of delegates to the Shah’s to protest the “lack of free elections.” That forced Mohammad Reza to promise “fair and honest” elections. Mosaddegh and some other leaders founded a party named Jebhe Melli, which literally translates to National Front, to contest the elections.

Once the Majles convened after the elections, Mossadegh emerged as the most powerful parliamentarian. As leader of Jebhe Melli, Mossadegh pushed for major reforms. The Majles approved a development plan with agricultural and industrial reforms. The plan required financing, which was only possible through oil revenues. Sadly for Iran, most of these revenues were going to Britain.

Oil Catches Fire

Unsurprisingly, oil revenues were a hot button issue in the 1949 elections. Once the Majles assembled, many of its members were duty bound to renegotiate the patently unfair agreement imperial Britain had forced a subservient Iran to conclude. In the words of the fictional character Michael Corleone, made famous by the 1972 movie The Godfather, the British had made the Iranians an offer they couldn’t refuse. Led by Mosaddegh, Iranians now mustered the gumption to reject that British offer.

Mosaddegh promised to end the British control of Iran’s oil industry. He demanded renegotiation with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), the British oil giant now known as BP. Note that the AIOC was supposed to pay a mere 17.5% of oil revenues to Iran. In contrast, its American counterpart was paying Saudi Arabia 50% of oil revenues in 1950. To rub salt in Iranian wounds, AIOC practiced creative accounting and did not even pay the 17.5% it owed Iran. In fact, they paid more in taxes to London on their profits from Iranian oil than to Tehran. Led by Mosaddegh, Iranian patriots resolved to get Iran’s fair share from AIOC.

Iranian pressure made the British offer slightly better terms in 1950. Mosaddegh was key in rejecting this unfair offer and demanded a 50-50 split, the same enjoyed by Saudi Arabia. Naturally, the British opposed Mosaddegh tooth and nail. They claimed that revision of their agreement with Iran would amount to a breach of contract. The British very conveniently ignored their own common law idea of duress as grounds for invalidating a contract. Simply put: if Winston puts a gun to Rumi’s head to get his signature on a contract, that legal document is null and void. Such legal principles were moot for AIOC, which tried every trick in the book to safeguard its extortionate illegitimate profits.

British intransigence fueled Iranian patriotism on oil revenues. The public swung behind nationalization of AIOC. By the time the British belatedly agreed to a 50-50 split in February 1951, the ship for renegotiation had sailed. In March, the Majles passed legislation to nationalize the oil industry. True to form, the Shah did not sign this bill. This British lackey stayed loyal to his imperial masters, not the Iranian people.

By not signing the nationalization bill, the Shah frustrated the Majles and the Iranian people. In April, the Majles made Mosaddegh prime minister, with around 90% voting for him. A few months earlier, Mosaddegh had turned down the prime ministerial position. This time, he took charge with a single-point agenda: cut out foreign powers from Iran’s oil industry. 

With Mosaddegh in-charge, the Shah reluctantly signed the nationalization bill. This dramatically changed Britain-Iran dynamics. The AIOC left Iran, dismantling even the massive Abadan Refinery and associated facilities. For the first time in two centuries, Britain was on the backfoot. Unsurprisingly, this mighty imperial power fought back. It went to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to appeal against Iranian nationalization. Mosaddegh cannily disputed the court’s jurisdiction. Months later, the ICJ decided in favor of Iran.

The Empire Strikes Back

The British did not just resort to legal measures though. Their fabled intelligence agencies started conspiring to oust Mosaddegh through hook or crook. The British courted American support to do so. Their task was not easy. After World War II, the US had been siding with Iran on the oil issue. It had its own strategic interest to break into the Iranian oil market. Mosaddegh was well aware of the importance of the US. In November 1951, the Iranian prime minister visited Washington to meet President Harry Truman. Mosaddegh had a good reception and returned to Iran positive that the US would act as an honest mediator between Iran and Britain.

Mosaddegh’s successful US trip and rising international popularity unsettled the Shah. Vainglorious and insecure, the Shah resented Mosaddegh. When the prime minister appointed a minister of war, the Shah vetoed him. In response, Mosaddegh resigned.

This act in July 1952 led countrywide protests. People poured into the streets, chanting “Give me death or give me Mosaddegh.” Hasht Subh, a leading Iranian newspaper, published the headline: “Salaam to Hero Mosaddegh, We Swear That We Stand by You to Our Death.” In keeping with the tradition established by his brutal father, the Shah ordered a crackdown. On July 21 — 30 Tir in the Iranian calendar — the Shah’s forces killed hundreds of people. This bloody day in 1952 is still remembered as the 30 Tir Uprising.

The very next day, on July 22, the ICJ decided in favor of Iran. This fueled popular support for Mosaddegh. Despite his brutal actions, the Shah was unable to establish control over Iran. He was forced to recall Mosaddegh. The Majles now firmly backed the prime minister. Iranians were euphoric. They believed that they could now move forward towards a new future.

The British had other plans. They refused to accept the ICJ decision. They saw Iranian insubordination as a danger to the British Empire and imposed a worldwide embargo against Iranian oil. They froze Iranian assets and banned exports of all goods to Iran. Britain acted against Iran in much the same way as the US is doing today. Like the US today, Britain planned a regime change in Tehran: Mosaddegh had to go.

British covert operations against Mosaddegh were savage and sophisticated. Misinformation, bribery, blackmail, murder and riots were all part of the toolkit. On April 20, 1953, news broke out that General Mahmood Afshar Tus, Mosaddegh’s chief of police, had been kidnapped and killed. Investigations revealed that generals sidelined by Mosaddegh were responsible for this brutal killing.

By now, the British had Americans on their side. The zeitgeist in the US had changed. Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, Richard Nixon was vice president and Joseph McCarthy was the most powerful voice on Capitol Hill. McCarthy saw a communist under every bush and feared the Soviet Union would take over the world. The British found US paranoia against communism fertile ground to sow seeds of doubt about Mosaddegh. Bit by bit, they convinced Washington to join them in their conspiracy to overthrow Mosaddegh.

British and American efforts in weaning support away from Mosaddegh in the Majles forced the prime minister’s hand. Mosaddegh asked the Shah to dissolve the Majles. Now both a British and an American lackey, this weak ruler declined. Mosaddegh called for a referendum on the dissolution of the Majles. Over 99% of Iranian voters supported him. On August 15, 1953, Mossadegh dissolved the Majles. 

This proved to be the highpoint of Mossadegh’s power. Events would soon overwhelm him. His political enemies were now conspiring with the British and the Americans to get rid of him. Yet Mosaddegh had changed history. He had challenged autocratic rule at home and deepened democracy. At the same time, he had taken on imperial powers and won back Iranian sovereignty.

Why Mosaddegh Matters

Mosaddegh was a great statesman. He was honest, hardworking, idealistic and resolute. He made immense personal sacrifices in his political life. Mosaddegh steered Iran in a new direction despite the odds. In 27 months as prime minister, he achieved more than any other Iranian leader in the last two centuries.

In the land of absolutist Shahs, Mosaddegh championed rule of law, creating an independent judiciary to check the powers of the executive. Mosaddegh also supported freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. An ardent democrat, he tried to increase political participation and organize free elections.

Revolution Erupted in Iran Because of Mohammad Reza Shah

Mosaddegh’s economic reforms were significant and are often overlooked. A frugal man, he balanced the budget and focused on increasing Iran’s economic output. The tiff with the British was as much about economics as politics. Mosaddegh invested in health, unemployment insurance and infrastructure. Unlike the Shah who believed in ostentatious consumption, Mosaddegh was a believer in long term investments that would have a major multiplier effect.

Mosaddegh curtailed the culture of corruption fostered by the Shahs. He removed corrupt ministers and appointed honest ones. He got rid of generals who served British interests. He redistributed lands illegally seized by Reza Shah. 

One of Mosaddegh’s last attempts in power was to give women the right to vote in municipal councils. He also wanted to provide women maternity leaves and give them the same rights as men in social insurance, benefit, and disability allowances. He had little success but that was not for lack of trying.

In 1952, Mosaddegh was named Time Magazine’s Man of the Year. As American media often does, they painted this unfamiliar foreign figure as a villain. In contrast, Mosaddegh was hailed in colonies and newly independent colonies. In Yugoslavia, Egypt and India, he was hailed as a liberating hero. Remember, this was a time when almost all of Africa was still under European rule and the US still practiced race segregation. In his far-sighted reforms, Mosaddegh was far ahead of his time. Noted American diplomat Henry F. Grady called Mosaddegh “a man of great intelligence, wit and education—a cultured Persian gentleman.”  To Grady, the Iranian leader reminded him “of the late Mahatma Gandhi.”

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Why Do You Need to Know About Mohammad Mosaddegh? appeared first on Fair Observer.

To be fair, the British have apologized for one of their darkest acts in Kenya. In 2013, the government “finalized an out-of-court settlement with thousands of Kenyans who were tortured in detention camps during the end of the British colonial reign.” The British were crushing the Mau Mau — Kenyan rebels from the Kikuyu tribe — who fought in the 1950s and 1960s. It took years before the historic apology and the unprecedented settlement was finalized in 2013.

In 2022, Kenya is back in the news for seeking justice for another brutal British act. With nearly 56 million, Kenya is a dynamic East African country. It now has a literacy rate of 78% but its per capita income is barely $1,879, ranking lowly 144 in the world. Many argue that many of Kenya’s current problems are a legacy of British colonialism.

British Colonization

For millennia before British colonization, the people we now call Kenyans comprised many tribes. There was sporadic violence but these tribes lived in relative peace and harmony. Some communities farmed, others raised livestock, while others practiced a combination of both activities. Some were hunters and those by Lake Victoria fished. Production served the needs of communal survival. Family and clans shared ownership and cooperated in production as well as distribution. These communitarian societies ensured that no one fell into abject poverty. Boundaries between different ethnic groups were fluid. Trade and intermarriage were prevalent. Notably, communities generally operated without the modern version of the chief.

British colonization ripped apart the social fabric of the communities who now live in Kenya. British rule kicked off with the 1884/85 Berlin Conference, which deprived Kenyans of their natural, territorial, and political rights. In 1894, Britain declared  Kenya a protectorate of the Crown. Its officials created Kenya and drew the nation’s boundaries without ever consulting the Kenyans themselves. These new boundaries divided existing communities and brought disparate ethnic groups into a new country. The British created an atmosphere in which communities had to compete for resources and survival. They ruled over the communities with an iron hand. Their military expeditions stole people’s lands and forced many to migrate in a genocidal campaign.

Beware of Dying Empires, an African Warns

READ MORE

The British confiscated the land they coveted. They instituted forced labor, turning Kenyans into the property of the British settlers. In 1902, they inaugurated the hut tax, which forced the natives to work for the British to pay the tax or be forced to serve the British settlers. In 1913, they introduced the land bill. This gave British settlers a 999-year lease and effectively confiscated nearly all Kenyan land. In 1919. they required all native men to wear identity discs, more than a decade before the Nazis adopted the same policy with the Jews. In the 1920s, natives were forced to live on reservations and subjected to flogging, much as the British had done to the indigenous peoples from North America to Australia.

Mau Mau Uprising

After World War II, India gained independence in 1947. This inspired the African independence movements. In 1952, the Mau Mau movement for self-determination began. When Princess Elizabeth and her husband Prince Philip visited Kenya that year, Elizabeth reportedly went up into a treehouse as a princess and came down as Queen Elizabeth II. 

Whilst the royals were putting up a pretty face, British forces were planning one of the world’s worst ethnic cleansing operations. They went on to smash the Mau Mau through brutal methods. When Kenya achieved independence in 1963, the British destroyed all their official records. In this Cold War era, the US was aware of British atrocities but looked the other way.

Supported at the “highest levels”, the British purged the capital city Nairobi of Kikuyu people, placing them in “barbed-wire enclosures”. They interrogated thousands of detainees. Their interrogators resorted to all types of torture, including forced labor, beatings, starvation, and sexual abuse. Records show that one of those “tortured was the grandfather of former US President Barack Obama”.  

In a span of 18 months, the British dropped “6 million bombs into Kenya’s forests to disrupt guerrilla activity.” Then, the British “dusted Kikuyu areas with photographs of mutilated women to intimidate the populace.” 

In her book, Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya, Caroline Elkins observes that thousands of Kenyans  fought alongside British forces against Germany in World War II. The British repaid the Kenyans with barbarism, not gratitude. They locked up around 1.5 million Kenyans in detention camps and barbed-wired townships in response and killed thousands.

In her 70-year reign, Elizabeth never acknowledged or apologized for British atrocities. Neither did any prime minister. Winston Churchill was then prime minister. Lionized in the UK even today for taking on Adolf Hitler, Churchill escapes scrutiny for his racist, imperialist and ruthless actions in the colonies. In 1919, he wrote that he was “strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.” He ordered that British forces put down the 1920 Iraqi rebellion with an iron hand. Churchill advocated spreading “a lively terror” among the natives so that they would come to heel. In Iraq, the Royal Air Force flew missions for 4,008 hours, dropped 97 tons of bombs and fired 183,861 rounds. They used chemical weapons on Iraqis, over 60 years before Saddam Hussein who targeted Iranians, Shia Arabs and Iraqi Kurds. Under Churchill, the British government unleashed similar brutality upon the Kenyans.

US Foreign Policy in the Middle East Needs a Rethink

The British forced the natives away from their ancestral lands and into reservations. Only a few years after the Holocaust, the British locked up 1.5 Kikuyu people in concentration camps, torturing, beating, and starving them to death in large numbers. This was an egregious act amounting to naked genocide. Their signature on the UN Charter did not hold them back.

An example of British brutality was revealed in court in 2012. Four Kenyan victims appeared before the High Court in London. Jane Mara, one of the victims, was 15-years-old at the time. She was repeatedly beaten by the interrogators. They pinned her down on her back while four guards held her thighs wide open and kicked a heated glass bottle into her vagina. After that excruciating pain, she witnessed the same torture inflicted on three other young women. Men were not spared either. The British designed pliers to squeeze male testicles. 

The US Supported the UK

After World War II, the US became top dog. The Cold War began. The UK was now a trusted ally. Therefore, the US overlooked British atrocities in Kenya. Washington was well aware of the British conducting genocide in Kenya. Just as in the Congo and in Vietnam, the US sided with the white imperial powers against the colored peoples of the colonies. Remember this was still a time when the US itself was segregated along racial lines. The US wanted to free Eastern Europe from Soviet rule but it wanted to perpetuate British, French or Belgian rule elsewhere.

Belgium’s Regrets Not Enough: Congo Deserves Apology and Reparations for War Crimes

READ MORE

In the first half of the 20th century, Vanderbilt University scholar Juan M. Floyd-Thomas observed in the Journal of American History that Americans thought of East Africa as “a real white man’s country.” They believed that Kenya deserved Western imperialism and white supremacy. Over centuries, the US practiced ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, enslaved African Americans and subjugated ethnic minorities. These races were deemed biologically and intellectually inferior to the white race.

As is their habit, the US mainstream media, including The New York Times, followed the official US narrative. They painted a picture of the African continent described as  “synonymous with terror, hopelessness, and conflict.” The media represented the Mau Mau fighters as terrorists and criminals with communist connections. They failed to recognize that Kenyans were involved in a liberation movement. Just like George Washinton and Thomas Jefferson, they too were fighting for independence.

A Kenyan Journey Through Slums to Posh Places

READ MORE

UN Failure and Case for Reparations

After World War II, the UN has consistently failed to stop genocide, prevent ethnic cleansing or rescue victims. It has been unable to bring the guilty to justice. The UN has failed all around the world from Cambodia to Sudan.

The UN represents the interests of powerful nations. Five of them have veto power in the Security Council. Naturally, the Peace Worldwide Organization considers the UN a failed institution, and gives it a mere 12 out of 100.

The UN has failed to deliver justice to the Kenyans too. Despite British denials and cover-ups, evidence of their atrocities is overwhelming. So, an International Court of Tribunal for Kenya (ICTK) would be a good first start. Just as Holocaust victims have been compensated, their properties restituted, Kenyans must also get compensation and restitution.

The British must acknowledge, apologize and make reparations for the genocide and atrocities they committed during colonial times. Importantly, reparation payments should go directly to victims and their descendants, not into the coffers of Kenya’s corrupt government. A sum must be set aside for education and infrastructure to compensate for the ravages of colonization.

What’s Holding Kenya Back?

READ MORE

No sum can ever wipe out the suffering of the Keynan people. However, reparations are important for three reasons. First, victims get justice. Second, poor countries and poor victims get valuable financial support. Third, they set an important precedent of imperial masters being held accountable. Germany paid compensation to Jews who suffered unspeakable tragedy during the Holocaust, This has made the country less likely to repeat the atrocities of the past. The UK must be held to account so that the British do not repeat the colonial misadventures of Kenya and India in places like Iraq and Libya.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Will you support FO’s journalism?

We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.

Donation Cycle

One Time Monthly Yearly

Donation Amount

$5 $9 Other

$

The IRS recognizes Fair Observer as a section 501(c)(3) registered public charity (EIN: 46-4070943), enabling you to claim a tax deduction.

You can also contribute via

X

$5.00

Per Month

Already have an account? Sign in

Payment information

Card number

Expiration

CVC

The post British Genocide in Kenya: Time for a Reckoning appeared first on Fair Observer.

In contrast to popular belief, life in the US is not as rosy as it may appear in the popular media. Americans suffer from inequality in gender, income, and wealth. They receive poor healthcare and face frequent violence. Minority groups are routinely subjected to cultural and racial discrimination. Poverty and homelessness are visibly growing. Minorities and the poor disproportionately die from the COVID-19 and its variants.

Will American Democracy Perish Like Rome’s?

READ MORE

In the US, human rights have deteriorated. Nepotism, corruption, racism, and impunity of much of the criminal class persist. Former US President Donald Trump retained his immediate family members among his top advisors. He threatened and harassed political opponents, whistleblowers, and others. He pardoned criminal associates and friends. His administration continued promoting discrimination and xenophobic nationalism. US President Joe Biden is still unable to explain how his son Hunter secured a high paying directorship in Ukraine’s largest privately owned gas producer Burisma Holdings Ltd when his father was the White House’s  point man for that country. US presidents often enjoy impunity with regard to such arrangements.

The list of human rights’ concerns is impressive in a nation that accuses other nations of not living up to the highest standards. It includes violence against women and girls, an increasing number of hate crimes, the tolerance of gun violence and mass shootings, abuse of Native American women and girls, permitting an environment of Islamophobia, a carceral system that reduces 1.3-percent of the population to modern-day slavery, and international trafficking of women and children.

In particular, the judicial system rather than reducing injustice perpetuates it. 

The US possesses the world’s highest criminal incarceration rate, disproportionately imprisoning Native Americans and blacks. The justice system routinely excuses law enforcement guilty of excessive force employed against minorities, protesters, detainees, and prisoners. The US by far leads all other democracies in “police killings”. A high number of detainees die in custody and abuse of migrant workers and asylum seekers is rampant. In 2022, a major blow to women’s rights was especially initiated by the US Supreme Court’s reversing the 1973 Roe v. Wade, which gave rights to abortion for nearly 50 years.

January 6 Insurrection

Many of the problems derive from the competitive political rivalries between the two dominant parties. Both have developed the reflex of serving the rich at the expense of other segments of the population. The bickering between Democrats and Republicans peaked on January 6, 2021 in the attack on the US Capital in Washington, D.C.. That assault could only be compared with the 1814 British attack on Washington DC when they set the White House on fire.

Time for Americans to Stand for a New Moral Core

READ MORE

On January 6, 2021, the US President Donald Trump gave a speech before a large crowd of his supporters in Washington, D.C.. He persisted in  promoting his conspiracy theory claiming that Democrats had stolen the presidential election. He repeatedly asserted that Democrats rigged the Presidential election in favor of their candidate. This inspired his supporters to march to the Capitol to threaten the US Congress as it was about to certify the election of Democratic candidate Joe Biden’s victory. “All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats,” said Mr. Trump. He urged the supporters to take action. “Together, we will drain the Washington swamp and we will clean up the corruption in our nation’s capital,” he said.

Inspired by Trump’s bombastic rhetoric, his supporters broke into the Capitol and rampaged through its corridors, forcing the US Vice President Mike Pence and the members of the US Congress to flee to save their lives. Several people died before it was brought under control. That assault on the Capitol did not make Mr. Trump damp down his rhetoric. Instead, it impelled him to repeat that the election was fraud and rigged by the Democrats. His position fortified his standing among Republicans, many of whom question the validity of the 2020 election results and demand for more restrictions on voting rights.

The insurrection could have turned into a revolution, and proved fatal to American democracy.

Power of the people

We must not underestimate the power people have to change things. We should remember, for example, that the Soviet Union headquarters in Moscow was not attacked by resurrectionists but fell apart under pressure from generally peaceful nationalist protesters. The Soviet fall simply began when some small nationalist groups in Latvia and Lithuania demanded independence for their republics. Other republics gradually joined the movement with similar demands, leading, within 2 years,  to the fall of the Soviet Union in December 1991.

In the case of the January 6 resurrection, we might imagine what would have happened if the police had faced an aggressive confrontation from the insurrectionists. Camouflaged  federal police might have responded heavy-handedly in Humvees as the local police had done in the 2014 Ferguson crisis. The assembled crowds were protesting the killing by a white police officer of an unarmed African-American 18-year-old, Michael Brown., At the moment the fatal shots were fired, the teenager was reportedly “trying to surrender”. As the protests grew, the police didn’t hesitate to greet the crowd with “teargas and stun grenades.” 

If Trump had ordered something similar by calling out the National Guard, it would have resulted in a large number of the insurrectionists being brutally killed. That in turn would have incited large numbers of people across the country to come out in support of the insurrectionists. Trump would then have been in a position to declare a national emergency. That would then serve as an excuse for  remaining in the White House and canceling Mr. Biden’s coming inauguration. Protest movements would have expanded and intensified, pitching Democrats against Republicans. General mayhem would have followed and the US and its famed constitution , could have become history.

Superpowers  are not invincible

In 1985, people assumed that the Soviet Union, the other superpower that shared a claim to global domination, was invincible. In March of that year, Mikhail Gorbachev was elected General Secretary of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. A year later in February 1986, he introduced a policy orientation known as glasnost (“openness”) and perestroika (“restructuring”).

Media Freedom in the Former Soviet Union

READ MORE

Focused on opening the prospects for world peace, Gorbachev enthusiastically proposed the concept of a new world order at the UN General Assembly in December 1988. His initiative played out in unanticipated ways. In November 1989, the Soviets under Gorbachev allowed the Berlin Wall to fall. That would eventually lead to the unification of East and West Germany in October 1990.

In March 1990, the Soviet Union’s Congress of the People’s Deputies elected Gorbachev as its president. He pushed for an amendment to the Soviet constitution intended to strengthen his position as president. That month, Lithuania declared its independence, and Latvia followed in May.

By November 1991, nationalists in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kirgizia Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and other Soviet republics arose to declare their independence from the Soviet Union. To Gorbachev’s credit, in contrast with his predecessors, he refrained from using brutal force to restore the dying order.

In December 1991, to the disbelief of even the foreign policy experts in the US, the Soviet Union, a global superpower collapsed. Much of the old Soviet world collapsed with it.

The US World’s Superpower

With the fall of the Soviet Union, the US emerged as the world’s unique superpower. With such power goes immense ethical responsibility. It creates the opportunity to collaborate with other nations in enhancing human rights, freedom from oppression, and global peace.

The US Tries to Make a Fine Distinction in Afghanistan

READ MORE

The US found itself with a chance to redefine its role in the world. The most obvious urgency was to fill the void that the Soviets had left behind by saving the former republics of the Soviet bloc from falling into economic collapse, ethnic tension, and political instability. This would have played a major role in leading the world towards the ideals of freedom and peace. 

President George H. W. Bush hadn’t forgotten Gorbachev’s call for a “new world order.” Appropriating it for his own purposes, he referred to it over forty times thereafter, turning it into a personal slogan. But like most slogans, the repeated declarations were little more than talk. Since then, the US has persistently  contributed to global conflicts by venturing military into various countries and threatening others with either invasion or sanctions. Instead of becoming a global peacemaker, the US has become the world’s worst troublemaker.

Following the US invasion of Iraq and the fiasco of Afghanistan, the standing of the US even among its allies has reached an historic low. Furthermore, the position of the US as the world’s unique superpower is being challenged by its adversaries, most notably China, Iran, and Russia. If the US intends to remain a major player in international affairs, it will need to change its course. To start, it must first clean up its house.

An action plan

“The time is always right to do the right thing,” said Martin Luther King. The US should learn the major lesson from the fall of the Soviet Union: being a superpower is no guarantee for survival when people begin to rise and challenge its authority. As January 6 has shown, the biggest threat to the US appears to be domestic. For its own good, the US must seriously address its own internal issues.

Biden’s Hyperbolic Fawning Before the CIA

READ MORE

To carry out its ethical responsibilities, the US could start with two important steps. The first would be to give opportunities to more than the two established parties that function as a permanent duopoly. So long as there are only two favored parties, the rivalries between them to govern the nation will continue, polarizing the electorate with the risk of dissolving an ever more fragile  union.

The second would be to reverse the trend of outrageously funding the military and spend more generously to improve domestic prosperity. Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were built on strong, advanced military forces. People thought both of them were unbeatable, yet neither exists today.

But there is more to do. To ensure domestic tranquility the US should provide more opportunity to nearly 35 million Americans who live in poverty.  It should begin to implement programs to elevate women and halt widespread and alarming violence against women and girls. It should have the honesty to refrain from labeling — on the basis of ethnicity, race, and religion — some crimes as terrorism while dismissing others simply as a personal psychological disorder.

It is also time to make right certain obvious historical wrongs by addressing the question of persistent cultural and racial injustice against Native Americans, African-Americans, and other minorities. And for a country that claims to believe in human rights, the US should make a real effort to provide intensive training for judicial and law enforcement personnel on how human rights play out, notably by respecting fellow human beings regardless of gender, race, religion, and ethnicity. 

As for US citizens, to function in an increasingly complex world, instead of hiding behind a superficial idea of “exceptionalism,” you should take seriously the responsibility leadership implies. What are the buzzwords and propaganda patterns of your news station, your peers, your president? Instead of repeating them blind, try another approach. Think. Reason. Criticize. Elect ethical people who truly represent your interests. It is only then that you can bring to overcome inequalities, to prosper, and go boldly forward on the world stage in unison. Then, you can proudly say, “America is great”.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Worrying Consequences of the January 6 Insurrection appeared first on Fair Observer.

Currently, Iran is ruled by mullahs. Iran’s theocratic regime is disliked, if not despised, by the US and its allies. Many, including prominent Iranians, blame the mullahs for all of Iran’s ills. However, few are aware of an inconvenient truth. It was the British who paved the path to power for the mullahs with the Americans constructing the mile.

Over the years, the mullahs have faced many protests. In the current wave, protesters have attacked government officials such as the police, ambulance attendants  and bank officials. They have also targeted mosques, clerics and religious people. Many protesters chant “marq bar dictaator,” a phrase that literally translates as “death to the dictator.” Some of them have a soft spot for Mohammad Reza Shah whom we will subsequently refer to as the Shah.

Sadly, the Shah so beloved by some Iranians was an oppressive dictator. His secret police SAVAK kept an eye on the people. Hence, a famous proverb was born: divar mush dare, musham gush dare — the wall has a mouse, the mouse has ears. Under the Shah, Iran was a surveillance state much like the Soviet Union and East Germany. If you said the wrong thing to the wrong people, SAVAK would throw you into prisons like Evin and Qasr. You also faced the risk of torture and murder. After all, the US had taught SAVAK the tricks of the trade.

Young women who wish for a return to the halcyon days of absolute monarchical rule do not know that the Shah was deeply sexist. He believed that women were less intelligent than men. In his interview with Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, the Shah remarked, “You may be equal in the eyes of the law, but not, I beg your pardon for saying so, in ability.” Hence, it is unsurprising that the Shah objectified women and saw them purely through the lens of sexual pleasure.

A Classic Comprador

When the Portuguese pioneered European colonization of the colored peoples, a term came into being. A comprador or compradore came to signify a “person who acts as an agent for foreign organizations engaged in investment, trade, or economic or political exploitation.” The Shah was a comprador who ruled Iran first as a British vassal and then as an American one.

The circumstances of the Shah’s accession to the throne are most instructive. The British deposed Reza Shah for cozying up with the Germans in 1941. After sending the father packing, they placed the weak, callow 22-year-old son on the throne. They chose the young Shah precisely because they were convinced that he would do their bidding.

The Shah proved to be a good pick. The British and the Soviets occupied Iran. The British used Iran’s north-south railroad to supply the Soviets against Germany. In 1942, both promised that they would withdraw their forces within six months of the end of the war. This promise was intended to appease Iranian nationalists. In 1943, American troops arrived in Iran too. When the war ended, the Soviets troops failed to leave the country as per their promise. Only American pressure made them leave by May 1946. Iranians were appreciative of American commitment to the integrity of Iran and its right to self-determination.

Foreign occupation fuelled national pride and democratic discourse in Iran. Once foreign troops left, this continued. While foreign troops left, foreign influence did not stop. The British continued to extract and export oil from Iran for a pittance. They treated Iran as a de facto colony and the Shah acted as their comprador.

Naturally, dissent emerged. Mohammad Mosaddegh emerged as the key leader. Reza Shah had put him under house arrest. Once the bloodthirsty ruler was deposed in 1941, Mosaddegh returned to public life and was elected to parliament. Protests in 1949 against fake elections led to the founding of Jebhe Melli, which literally translates as National Front. As its leader, Mosaddegh promised to end the British control of Iran’s oil industry. He demanded that the British share profits equally with Iran. At the time, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) was paying more money to Britain as taxes than to Iran as a share of the proceeds.

The British opposed Mosaddegh tooth and nail. They refused to share profits equally with the Iranians, claiming it would be a breach of contract. The very British idea of duress invalidating a contract did not apply to Iran. The Iranians had signed a deal that gave them 17.5% of AIOC’s profits when the British held a gun to their head. The AIOC cooked its books and Iran never really got the promised 17.5% either.

The Dirty Secrets About How Reza Shah Destroyed Iran

READ MORE

In late December 1950, the American-owned Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco) agreed to share profits with Saudi Arabia on a 50-50 basis. The British rejected the idea of any similar agreement for AIOC with Iran. This left the Iranian parliament with no choice but to pass a bill nationalizing the oil industry in March 1951. The Shah did not sign the bill. Mosaddegh was elected prime minister in April and the Shah was now forced to sign the nationalization bill.

The British responded by manipulating the Americans to conduct a military coup in 1953. The Cold War was on and the Americans were turning paranoid about communism. Nationalization allowed the British to paint Mosaddegh as a potential Soviet ally. Like a wily old uncle manipulating a sinewy nephew, the British got the Americans to do their dirty work for them. Mosaddegh was packed off to prison and the Shah emerged as an absolute ruler just like his father.

Until the 1953 coup, the Shah had one master: the British. From now on, he had two masters: the British and the US. As the American star rose, they came to dominate Iran. The British debacle in the 1956 Suez Crisis strengthened the American hand. As part of the Cold War, the US began beefing up the Shah’s regime. Washington provided the regime with military advisers, intelligence agents, and arms and ammunition worth millions of dollars. The Iranian taxpayer paid for such help most generously. American oil companies got a share of the Iranian oil pie.

The Shah’s Oppressive Police State

After 1953, life in Iran deteriorated. For Washington, the Shah was a key Cold War ally. Iran was a frontline state against the Soviet Union. So, in 1957, CIA and FBI helped the Shah’s regime to set up the dreaded Sazman-e Etelaat Va Amniat Keshvar (SAVAK), a secret police to cow his people into submission. The US and, later, Israel coached Iranian military, police and intelligence officials in the arts of surveillance, coercion and torture.

By 1960, the Shah had a vise-like grip on the country. He had eliminated, imprisoned, and silenced the opposition. Nobody dared to protest. SAVAK routinely scrutinized students, civil service employees and industrial workers. It censored and controlled all forms of media and professional associations. SAVAK also monitored Iranian communities abroad. It had over 5,000 full-time employees and many part-time agents around the world.  SAVAK used all forms of torture necessary to extract information and punish dissenters. Nobody felt safe in Iran.

Such was the brutality of SAVAK that American public opinion began to turn. The US put pressure on the Shah to reform. In 1963, the Shah announced a plebiscite for an ambitious program of social, political and economic reform that has come to be known as the White Revolution. The most important element of this revolution was land reform. He broke down large land holdings to give away land to poor cultivators. In theory, this sounds like a good egalitarian measure. In reality, it led to disaster.

Poor cultivators did not have money to run their small farms. The government gave them land but did not give them farming implements, seeds, fertilizers, irrigation and funds. Unsurprisingly, they abandoned their farms to become landless laborers in cities, particularly Tehran. The urban population exploded and, in due course, so did discontent.

It was in 1963 that the then relatively obscure Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini spoke out against the White Revolution. Khomeini was teaching at the prestigious Fayẕiyyeh Madrasah in Qom. He was already a prominent ayatollah. The Shah arrested Khomeini and killed many students at Fayẕiyyeh. Luckily for Khomeini, the Shah did not kill him or confine him to an Iranian prison. In 1964, Khomeini publicly criticized the Shah for awarding the US capitulation and called him a lackey of US and Israel. The Shah first arrested Khomeini but, after 19 days in Qasr and a another few days in a military base, packed off the ayatollah into exile who ended up living in Turkey, Iraq, and, eventually, France.

Extravagant Opulence by Foreign Lackey

When the Shah was not oppressing his people, torturing dissidents or locking up his opponents, he was lavishly blowing up Iranian tax money on obscenely extravagant events. In 1967, the Shah crowned himself in an occasion that still lives on in Iranian memory. This American lackey assumed the resonant but meaningless title, “His Imperial Majesty The Shāhanshāh of Iran,” and wore a crown that was studded with a mere 3,380 diamonds. He gave his wife Farah the title, “the Empress of Iran,” an unprecedented act in Iranian 2,500-year history. 

In most monarchies, coronation is held soon after the king or queen ascends to the throne, as the coronation of Charles II in the UK demonstrates. In the case of Iran, the coronation ceremony was a reflection of the Shah’s perverted narcissism. He wanted the world to see him as a secular reformer, a great modernizer, a savior of an ancient civilization, the resuscitator of ancient Persia and a historic emperor beloved by his people. Four years later, he threw what has come to be known as “the world’s greatest party” to celebrate 2,500 years of Iranian monarchy.

In 1971, the Shah held this party in the ancient ruins of Persepolis, which now lies in the middle of a desert. An airport, a highway and an entire tent city were built for the occasion. This “billion-dollar party” has come to be known as “the Devil’s Feast.” As his people toiled in poverty, the Shah and his foreign guests were quaffing the fanciest of champagnes and gorging on caviar. 

Many kings and queens, presidents and prime ministers were impressed by this ostentatious desert party. However, canny observers were not entirely convinced. The most memorable of these was US diplomat George Ball who attended this party and saw the spectacle of the crowning of the “Sun of the Aryans.” His words sum up this 1971 incongruous big bash: 

“What an absurd, bathetic spectacle! The son of a colonel in a Persian Cossack regiment play-acting as the emperor of a country with an average per capita income of $250 per year, proclaiming his achievements in modernizing his nation while accoutred in the raiment and symbols of ancient despotism.”

While the Shah was good at throwing lavish parties, he was not as savvy at retaining Iranian territory. Bahrain had been overwhelmingly Shia and was under Iranian suzerainty before the British took over. The British were supposed to return this island to Iran. Instead, the British pressured the Shah to let Bahrain become an independent state in 1970. They had installed a comprador Wahhabi Sunni dynasty just as they had installed the Pahlavis in Iran. This Wahhabi dynasty still rules over Bahraini Shias with an iron hand.

While the Shah projected himself as a mighty emperor, in reality, he was the gendarme of the Persian Gulf for Uncle Sam. The US relied on Iran as its leading security partner in the Gulf. Iranian oil revenues were spent to protect American interests in the region. The Shah also supported the US in the Vietnam War.

A Sordid and Dissolute Despot

Today, many Iranians see the Shah as a liberator of women. During his time, glamorous women in elegant dresses sashayed down his red carpets. This is in stark contrast to the current regime of mullahs that imposes draconian dress codes on women. The nostalgia for the more permissive pre-1979 era obscures the fact that the Shah did not really see women as equals. He made his wife regent but did not think she would be able to rule as well as him.

The Shah led a famously dissolute life, visiting nightclubs across Europe and chasing beautiful actresses. One of them was Grace Kelly who became the Princess Grace of Monaco in 1956. The Shah spent millions on Kelly. He gifted her “three pieces of Van Cleef & Arpels jewelry: a gold birdcage housing a diamond and sapphire bird, all fashioned into a perfect pin; a gold vanity case with a clasp set with thirty-two diamonds; and a gold bracelet with an intricate pearl and diamond face.” He gifted others ancient jewelry from the treasury. Tragically, the poor, toiling Iranian taxpayers funded this libertine lifestyle. They also paid for the Shah’s gambling addiction. This magnificent emperor often lost about 50 million tomans ($42 million) in a single night as peasants went hungry in his homeland.

More importantly, the Shah was the Harvey Weinstein of his day. In fact, he was much worse than Weinstein. Not only pimps but also government officials were supposed to procure beautiful women for the Shah. Some of these women were underaged. The Shah was a serial sexual offender who preyed on vulnerable women and got away with it.

Given the Shah’s lack of loyalty to his nation, his excessive ostentation, brutal oppression and moral turpitude, a revolution was inevitable. Monarchs cannot eat cakes forever when their people struggle for bread. Even though SAVAK had imprisoned, tortured or killed opposition leaders like Mosaddegh, the Iranian people were seething in rage against their “Playboy Shah.” Iranians revolted in 1979, exactly 190 years after the 1789 French Revolution. Once the dust settled, the mullahs led by Khomeini took charge.

Today, the Shah’s eldest son Reza lives in the US and continues the family tradition. Reza dreams of the restoration of the Pahlavi dynasty and a return to good times for his family. He has been financed not only by the CIA but also the Saudis. Like his grandfather and father, Reza is also a lackey. The apple has not fallen far from the tree.

Today, people are out on the streets protesting against the mullahs who run a theological state. Most of them are very young with some barely 15. Some of them are vulnerable to myths about a glorious past and look favorably upon the Shah. Even in 2022, there are Iranians who glorify and glamorize the Shah. They must remember that he was a corrupt tyrant who stole from his people, gave territories away, helped foreigners destroy Iranian democracy, killed innocents and sexually abused innumerable women. The Shah belongs to the dustbin of history. Iran’s future has to be about liberty, equality, human rights, freedom and democracy.

[The authors corrected and updated this article on November 9, 2022.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Revolution Erupted in Iran Because of Mohammad Reza Shah appeared first on Fair Observer.

In the recent protests, unknown assailants have attacked banks, police, ambulances, other government officials, mosques, clerics and religious people. During their attacks, protesters often yell, “Reza Shah ruhat shad,” a phrase that literally translates to “Reza Shah, may your soul be happy.” These protesters are totally ignorant about the fact that, if Reza Shah was in power, he would have all of them killed. History tells us that Reza Shah dealt brutally with his opponents and crushed any sign of dissent.

British Domination and Exploitation

The British began interfering in Iran as early as the late 18th century. At that time, Persia, as Iran was then called, was under pressure from the Ottomans and the Russians. To Persians, the British seemed a countervailing power. To Britain, Persia was like Egypt, a buffer state to protect the jewel in the crown: India. The British did not rule Iran directly but dominated the country through bribery and intimidation. A cadre of collaborators helped the British Empire to run Persia as an informal colony. The British drained the Persian bullion to support their Indian ventures. Unlike Egypt though, Persia never became a protectorate thanks to the resistance of Shia religious leaders.

Why are Young People Protesting in Iran?

READ MORE

Persia became increasingly important to British interests in the early 20th century. While Egypt had the Suez Canal, Persia had oil. In 1914, before World War I broke out, the House of Commons backed Winston Churchill’s proposal for the British government to acquire 51% of the shares of Anglo-Persian. Churchill was determined to keep Anglo-Persian an absolutely “all British Company” and spent a then princely sum of £2.2 million to do so. The goal was to ensure energy security for Great Britain where the Royal Navy switched from coal to oil to compete against the fast-rising German navy.

After World War I broke out, Persia remained neutral but supplied oil to Britain. In fact, Persian oil arguably led to Allied victory. The “conversion of the British fleet to oil… [gave them] advantages over the German fleet powered by coal–greater range and speed and faster refueling.” In keeping with their imperial tradition, Britain paid a pittance to Persia for oil.

Britain not only exploited Persia for oil but also grain. This led to the 1917-18 famine. About nine million Persians died, an estimated 40% of the population. Scholars have called this a genocide and, arguably, it was the biggest tragedy of World War I, exceeding the loss of life in Somme and Verdun. The British skilfully blamed the Russians and the Turks, and the genocide remained unknown for nearly a century.

The British Enthrone Ruthless Reza Mirpanj

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Persia became a frontline state for the British Empire to counter the Bolshevik menace. As in other countries, the Soviets tried to foment trouble in Persia. Britain countered by propping up Reza Mirpanj, an officer in the Persian Cossack Brigade. He went on to depose the Qajar dynasty in 1925 and declare himself shah. The rubber stamp parliament approved Reza Mirpanj’s power grab. 

Once he became shah, this opportunistic officer changed his name to Reza Shah Pahlavi. Importantly, the Persian language was called Pahlavi during the Sasanian Empire. The Sasanian dynasty centralized Persia and made it a great power. Choosing Pahlavi was a very clever public relations stunt. Not everyone bought into Reza Shah’s sham. Four courageous legislators opposed the new shah. One of them was Mohammad Mosaddegh who would go on to become prime minister years later. The British managed Reza Shah’s coronation using the coronation of George V as their guide. 

Reza Shah presided over the greatest loot of Iranian historical and cultural relics. In 1931, he allowed foreign archaeologists to explore Iran and excavate Persepolis, the capital of the ancient Persian Achaemenid empire founded by Darius the Great in the 6th century BCE. His regime looked the other way as they loaded invaluable ancient artifacts onto big trucks. Then these trucks made their way from Persepolis to the Persian Gulf. Eventually, these artifacts ended up in the US and other prosperous countries of the West. Many relics ended up at the University of Chicago where they are housed in the appositely colonial sounding Oriental Institute.

The new shah turned out to be a classic British lackey. He stamped out Soviet influence and built the Trans-Iranian Railway connecting the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf. Built at ruinous cost to the Iranian taxpayer, this allowed British troops to deploy faster to counter the Soviets. Most importantly, the shah increased oil concessions to the British. The British increased their oil production in Persia from around 5 million tons (37 million barrels, equivalent) in 1932 to 10 million tons (over 74  million barrels, equivalent) in 1938. Note that very little of this old money trickled down to the Persian treasury and oil revenue comprised merely 10% of the budget.

In 1936, protests against Reza Shah’s policies erupted in Mashhad. The security forces cracked down the protesters. The protesters sought sanctuary in the holiest place in Iran: Imam Reza’s mausoleum. On the shah’s order, security forces entered the mausoleum and viciously massacred people. After that slaughter, Reza Shah became damned to eternity to most Iranians. After that incident, many people feared to even say his name, but referred to him as sag, which means dog—considered the most derogative of abuses in the Farsi language.

For increasing military might and expensive projects, Reza Shah had to increase the tax burden on the people. He also pursued a policy of centralization and Persianization. This meant ethnic minorities had no place in Persia, which he named Iran — the name used by natives of the land. Reza Shah’s detribalization and Persianization led to ethnic cleansing and genocide. William Douglas, a noted American judge, had the following to note about one community that fell foul of Reza Shah:

“Lur after Lur was beheaded. Again and again, the plate was heated red hot and slapped on the stub of a neck….The colonel started betting on how far these headless men could run…. Every man, woman, and child had been killed. Not a living soul was left.”

Overall, Reza Shah was a disaster for Iran. He banned all newspapers, organizations, and any opposition. Intellectual and political expression was censored. This undid the remnant of reformist efforts kicked off by Amir Kabir, the remarkable modernizer of the mid-19th century. who preceded him about 80 years earlier. This reformer had started Vaqaye Etefaqieh, Iran’s first newspaper whose name literally translates as “The Happened Events.”

The Iran Nuclear Deal is Dead: R.I.P. JCPOA?

READ MORE

İnspired by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk of Turkey, Reza Shah banned Iranian traditional dress. Both men and women now had to wear Western clothing. If they did not do so, they were beaten and even taken into custody. This policy caused a massive rupture with tradition. In small towns and villages, people ignored the shah’s edict. In cities, people suffered, especially the women. Many women stopped going to public places to avoid harassment and became involuntary prisoners within their own homes. Like many other policies, the shah’s policy on clothing was an unmitigated disaster. It led to resentment across the country and had unintended consequences. Today, the mullahs enforce rigid rules of dress on women in much the same way as the shah. Then too, women protested as they are protesting today.

Bloodthirsty at Home, Weak Abroad

Reza Shah might have been ruthless to ethnic minorities and desenters but he was always subservient to the great powers. He gave away many parts of Iran to buy peace. Scared of the Soviets, he gifted them the Firoze region, which lies today in Turkmenistan and is home to its capital Ashgabat, in 1933. Later, Reza Shah succumbed to British pressure and parted with more land. In 1937, the wily Brits convened a meeting to unite Muslims against the Bolsheviks. The Saadabad Treaty was signed. As per this treaty, Reza Shah gave  the Helmand wetland to Afghanistan, full rights of Shatt al-Arab to Iraq and the strategic Ararat Mountain to Turkey. This Iranian that Reza Shah gave to Turkey allows Turkish troops access to the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan, which is an enclave of Azerbaijan within Armenia. Consequently, Turkey has replaced Iran as the natural ally of Azerbaijan even though the country is 85% Shia and Azeri culture has been deeply influenced by its Iranian counterpart. 

Han and Hindu Nationalism Come Face to Face

READ MORE

In World War II, Reza Shah overplayed his hand. The rise of Nazi Germany swayed his head. By engaging with the Nazis, he began playing a dangerous game. Once the Germans invaded Russia in 1941, the British and the Soviets invaded Iran to secure oil supplies and continued access to warm waters. Reza Shah’s troops capitulated. The reason was simple. Reza Shah had started as a cavalry gendarme. These gendarmes were backed by landlords and their main job was to keep the peasants in check. They were bullies who lived off the fat of the land and not patriots who were serving to fight for their country. When the British and the Soviets invaded, most of Reza Shah’s top officers simply fled. Reza Shah himself proved to be a coward who did not resist the invading powers in the slightest. The military historian Robert Lyman observed that the British victory was, “one of the fastest capitulations in history.”

Part of the reason Reza Shah lost was because he was a corrupt, cruel and incompetent autocrat. He was a lowly cavalry officer who was part of a coup and then conducted a coronation. Once on the throne, this autocrat engaged in a massive land grab across the country. By the time the British packed him off to exile in 1941, Reza Shah had become Iran’s largest landowner. He also deposited a fair bit of cash at British Barclays Bank. The money that should have been used to build roads, schools and hospitals became the private property of a bloodthirsty upstart.

Fundamentally, Reza Shah was a narcissist, not a patriot. When the British took over Iran, he was more worried about preserving his private wealth instead of fighting for his country. By this time, this king had lost the trust of his people. The canny British had been keeping an eye on him. About 15 years ago, the imperial diplomat Harold Nicholson observed, “He [Reza] is secretive, suspicious, and ignorant; he appears wholly unable to grasp the realities of the situation or to realize the force of the hostility he has aroused.” Nicholson proved prophetic.

The Modern Reza Shah Myth is a Lie

When Reza Shah and his son Mohammad Reza Shah ruled, writers and teachers lied to survive. Flattery was the order of the day. Reza Shah was glorified as a “social, economic, and political” reformer who laid the foundation for modern Iran. He was even given credit for reforms instituted by Amir Kabir. The regime kept Iranians in the dark about Reza Shah’s paranoid, violent and oppressive rule. Iranians did not realize how this corrupt king betrayed Iran to the British and stole from the exchequer. 

Apologists for the Pahlavis claim that Reza Shah brought modern medicine to Iran. The truth is that the Pasteur Institute of Iran had begun in 1919, many years before he seized power. It was the first public health institution in the Middle East, producing vaccines for the region. Hospitals existed even in ancient Iran. Reza Shah was not the first to build hospitals in the country. To be fair, he did build a few but so did almost every colony from Nigeria to Vietnam.

The most incongruous myth pervasive in the Iranian diaspora is that Reza Shah ended capitulation and expelled foreign forces from Iran. History tells us that Iranians had always opposed foreign troops. Amir Kabir had called for their expulsion 80 years ago. The British saw the writing on the wall, withdrew their troops but exercised power behind the scenes. British troops did not march down streets in Tehran in contrast to New Delhi. Instead the British used Reza Shah to do their dirty work in Iran.

Some give credit for railways, roads, industries and instituting a civil registry in Iran. The railways were for British strategic interest and cost the Iranian taxpayer a fortune. The roads were few and terrible. Industries came because Iranians have traded for centuries. Entrepreneurs learnt from Europeans and set up factories. Besides, Iranians had been producing sugar and textiles, two industries showcased by his supporters, for centuries. The registry was demanded by the parliament five years before Reza became shah.

Reza Shah’s regime failed to serve Iran. At the moment of reckoning, he and his troops just ran away. He was a thug in uniform who looted the country and killed innocents. He served imperial powers, not his people. Ayatollah Khomeini was not wrong when he said, “The Pahlavi monarchy was against the law from the day it was established. They formed a fake Constituent Assembly and forcefully made him [Reza Khan] the ruler over Iran. ”Today, protesters in Iran chanting “Reza Shah ruhat shad” need to study their history. Iran needs freedom, democracy and equality, not the glamorization of a paranoiac, cowardly, murderous, and traitorous shah.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Dirty Secrets About How Reza Shah Destroyed Iran appeared first on Fair Observer.

The BBC tells us that women around the world are now cutting their hair to show their solidarity with their Iranian counterparts. Abir Al-Sahlani, a Swedish Member of the European Parliament, cut her hair in the midst of her speech, giving a rallying cry: “women, life, freedom.”

Why are women protesting?

Since 1979, Shia clerics have ruled Iran. They have imposed strict moral codes and restrictive rules on society. Women are supposed to dress modestly and cover their hair in accordance with clerics’ strict interpretations of Islam. As education levels increase, Iranian women are increasingly unwilling to play by such rules.

Irshad can stop and intimidate any woman for the most arbitrary of reasons. Over the years, Iranian women have become highly educated. The percentage of females in higher education increased from 3% in 1978 to 59% in 2018. Women have entered almost all professions now. Their expectations have risen similarly. Even when there have been no protests, there is a simmering discontent among women about the restrictions they face on a daily basis. Many women hate the morality police. 

So unpopular is irshad that conservative president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposed to parliament to get rid of this morality police but he was shot down by those far more conservative than him, led by Parliament’s members Mutahari and Pizishkiyan. He explained that the police are also young people and they cannot make a correct diagnosis. Overall, Ahmadinejad opposed forcing people to observe the hijab rule. He held that people had rights to choose and they must be given choices so he was accused by ultra-conservatives of supporting indecency. 

While women may have done well in gaining an education, jobs have been hard to find. Glass ceilings remain thick and strong. Few women make it to top positions. They also find it difficult to get married because educated men with good jobs are in short supply. Furthermore, strict rules make it difficult for women and men to socialize. Like women elsewhere, Iranian women want some choice when it comes to their life partners.

Last year, Ebrahim Raisi was elected president. He is a conservative cleric who has sought to reinvigorate the old cultural revolution. Irshad have stepped up patrols and taken women away for “re-education” because of their supposedly improper dress. A hijab-and-chastity decree bans women without headscarves from posting pictures of themselves on social media. Naturally, women are dissatisfied with the tightening of restrictions and Amini’s death has set off a powder keg.

Why are men protesting?

Not only women but also men have taken to the streets. If Iranian women are dissatisfied, so are the men. They are really frustrated with the lack of opportunities. Many have lost hope in the future. In particular, educated men are most discontented. They are unable to get decent well-paying jobs. This restricts their marriage opportunities.

Young people are increasingly influenced by western media. They think of the US as a land of milk and honey. Alumni of the elite Sharif University of Technology leave the country in the search of a better life. Those who remain behind are frustrated by the lack of jobs in Iran. They access western media and want similar lifestyles to what they see on screen. This exacerbates their discontent.

American sanctions have taken their toll on the Iranian economy. Since 2012, per capita income has stagnated. After the Russia-Ukraine War, inflation has further soared. To make matters worse, Iran is facing an environmental crisis. Rivers have run dry, groundwater is falling, lakes are drying up and farmland is parched. A growing population has led to wanton felling of forests. In turn, deforestation has exacerbated desertification. As in India and China, pollution is choking cities. Young men find it very difficult to be hopeful about the future.

Over 60% of Iran’s 84 million population is under 30. Historically, young single men have been a source of instability in any society. Iran has millions of discontented young men. During the recent protests, unknown assailants have attacked banks, police, ambulances, other government officials, mosques, clerics and religious people. The 1979 revolution may not yet be at risk but Iranian society is volatile and could erupt in a volcanic eruption given the slightest provocation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Why Are Young People Protesting in Iran? appeared first on Fair Observer.

The DRC, a territory 76 times bigger than Belgium, is the second largest country after Algeria in Africa and the 11^th largest in the world. Today, it is torn by conflicts between armed groups that recruit children as soldiers. To make matters worse, DRC’s security forces operate with impunity. They continue harassing, threatening, attacking, arresting and murdering human rights defenders, journalists and members of the political opposition. Civilians are arbitrarily killed and abducted. Women and girls are systematically raped and subjected to other forms of violence. Communal violence and ethnic cleansing are widespread. Most minorities including Hutu, Tutsi, Hema, Lendu, Lunda, Luba, Mbororo, and Batwa live under continuous threat. The country remains the source and destination point for trafficking in children and women for prostitution. The country desperately needs humanitarian assistance.

The DRC’s problems are not entirely the fault of the Congolese people. Their roots can be traced back to Belgian King Leopold II and successive Belgian governments.

The Belgian King belatedly expresses regrets

Before his recent admission, Philippe denied Belgian atrocities and made excuses for Leopold II and Belgium for years. Despite pressure from his own country’s people along with that of the international community who were inspired by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, Philippe hesitated to take any action other than offer excuses for the last two years.

On May 27, 2021, French President Emmanuel Macron spoke at the genocide memorial in Rwanda’s capital Kigali where many victims were buried. He asked Rwandans to forgive France for its role in the 1994 genocide. On May 28, 2021, Germany apologized for its genocide against Herero and Nema tribal people in Namibia and offered to launch “projects over a billion euros” as compensation. Even those apologies did not inspire Philippe to admit Belgian atrocities in the Congo.

For Emmanuel Macron, Is Africa Just PR?

READ MORE

Over a year later, increased Belgian and international pressures finally forced Philippe to face reality. When he finally spoke out, the Belgian king just expressed regrets. Philippe stopped short of formally apologizing for Belgian atrocities during the colonial period. “This [Belgian] regime was one of unequal relations, unjustifiable in itself, marked by paternalism, discrimination and racism,” he said before a joint session of parliament in the DNC capital Kinshasa, He want to state: “I wish to reaffirm my deepest regrets for those wounds of the past.”

The toxic legacy of the past

Leopold II was a tyrant who pursued a brutal pogrom that resulted in the deaths of millions. His policies also led to the destruction of the livelihoods and cultures of the people of the Congo. Leopold II came to power in 1865 and was determined to build an empire. Authorized by the 1885 Berlin Conference, he formed the Congo Free State, separate from Belgium but privately owned and controlled by himself. Leopold II knew evangelization was the most effective way to dominate people. He took the view that, if the Congolese converted to Christianity, they would become more subservient. This would allow Leopold II to plunder Congo’s valuable resources. So, this ruthless Belgian king brought in missionaries to convert the Congolese people to Christianity. He issued and enforced inhumane decrees that not only caused misery and death but also pushed the Congolese to convert to and practice Christianity.

To extract ivory, rubber, and minerals, Leopold’s men viciously used whipping, wounding, enslaving, beheading and severing body parts, including the penis. They routinely resorted to sexual violence against the Congolese people. They treated the Congolese as animals, exhibiting them in their zoos in Belgium. Their atrocities are estimated to have caused the deaths of around 10 million, then 50% of the Congolese population. This led to international scandal and outrage, forcing the Belgian government to take over the colony.

In 1908, under immense international pressure the Belgian government took over Leopold II’s private estate and made it a Belgian colony, christening it Belgian Congo. After 23 years of Leopold II’s rule, the Belgian government ruled Belgian Congo for another 52 years. The colony only gained its independence in 1960.

Under Belgian rule, genocidal actions reduced in number and severity but persecution and forced labor continued. The racism initiated by Leopold II continued though. Africans were excluded from education, employment and other opportunities. Children of mixed race were abducted and sent to orphanages in Belgium.

After World War I, European and US companies moved in and used the Congolese as indentured laborers to produce cotton, coffee, cacao, palm oil, rubber, copper, gold, diamond, cobalt, tin, zinc, uranium and other raw materials. They used forced labor to develop roads, railroads, utility stations, and other public facilities in Belgian Congo. During World War II, the US was heavily involved in mining uranium in the Congo. When postwar decolonization began, Belgium insisted that the Congolese were not mature enough to run their own country. So, Belgium stood firm on retaining its Belgian Colony, forgetting that the Belgians had wanted freedom from Nazi Germany themselves.

Under Belgian annexation, Congolese education undermined critical thinking and ripped up the social fabric. Only a very few were allowed to get basic education by the government-paid Christian missionaries whose primary goal was to advance colonization and conversion to Christianity. Only in 1954, a Congolese was first admitted to a Belgian university to study a subject other than Christian religion. To this day, the DRC is hobbled by its toxic colonial legacy.

Independence is snuffed out, exploitation continues

Starting from 1919, the Congolese began fighting for their independence. Their revolts were regularly suppressed by the Belgian authorities. In 1958, the Congolese formed their first political party. Riots broke out in 1959 with mobs demanding independence. A year later, Belgium capitulated, granting its huge colony independence. On June 30, 1960, the nationalist leader Patrice Lumumba became the prime minister and Joseph Kasavubu president. They put Colonel Joseph Mobutu in charge of the defense. Backed by Colonel Joseph Mobutu, Kasa-Vubu soon removed Lumumba. In January 1961, the US and Belgium backed a military coup. Mobutu murdered Lumumba. Mobutu went on to take over the presidency from Kasavubu in 1965. Backed by the US, he ran the DRC as a brutal dictator for 32 years, embezzling government funds at a gargantuan scale.

In 1997 backed by Rwanda and Uganda, Laurent Kabila took over the presidency and ruled for 4 years, causing over 3 million deaths. In 2001, he was killed and his son Joseph Kabila took over the presidency and ruled until late 2018 when opposition leader Felix Tshisekedi supposedly won an election that did not meet international expectations and was contested by the country’s dominant Catholic Church. He has remained in power as president to the present time.

In the 1880s, the US was becoming a world power. Leopold II used the services of an American to survey the Congo. He also sought American recognition of his personal rule over Congo. Some Americans were fearful of the power of American blacks who were demanding equality and liberty. They saw Leopold II’s  request as an opportunity to cleanse the US of its black population by sending them to the Congo. In exchange for the favor, Leopold assured the US that its citizens could buy lands in Congo and US imports would be exempt from all customs duties. Leopold received recognition of his rule in Congo by the US, paving the way for him to earn recognition from European powers. Leopold II’s deal with Uncle Sam also opened the gate for the US to plunder Congo”s wealth.

The US emulated Leopold II’s egregious abuses in minute detail, including displaying Congolese people in zoos in numerous cities across the country. As late as 1906, New Yorkers would rush to see a Congolese in the Monkey House at Bronx Zoo. This led to protests by American blacks and became a national scandal.

Suffice to say, the US has been exploiting Congo since Leopold II’s days. In particular, the US has been extracting uranium from Shinkolobwe mine since the 1930s. This small mine in the southern province of Katanga provided most of the uranium used in the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today, US mining companies backed by the American military continue taking cobalt, copper, zinc and other minerals from the DRC, giving the country peanuts in return. 

The Belgian role in the Rwandan genocide

After World War I, the League of Nations transferred Rwanda and Burundi from Germany to Belgium. Taking a leaf out of its Congo playbook. Belgium yet again resorted to Christian evangelization and appointed white agents to dominate and control the new colonies. It also implemented a caste system, decreeing the minority Tutsis, a cattle-herding people, as superior to the majority Hutus, a farming people, and the native Twa, a pygmy people.   

In Rwanda, the Hutu king was removed for refusing to convert to Christianity. Then, the religion was forcefully imposed on the masses. Imana, the local monotheistic religion, was wiped out. For centuries, it had been the cultural force unifying the community. To dominate Rwanda, Belgium offered the Tutsis access to education and designated them as superior to others. The Tutsis became subordinate agents of Belgian colonial administration.

Those Responsible for the 1994 Rwandan Genocide Must Be Brought to Justice

READ MORE

Belgium authorized the Tutsis to impose forced labor and punishments on other communities. Belgian policies imposed by Tutsis caused several famines. Later, Belgian colonial authorities took the administrative step of issuing identification cards for each ethnicity. That racial segregation policy along with the removal of their king angered the majority Hutus. To the Hutus, the Tutsis became known as “invaders”. In the late 1950s, the Hutu movement began to organize to oppose the Tutsis and expel Belgium. The Hutus also finally  began to earn some sympathy from Belgians.

When Rwanda won independence in 1962, a Hutu campaign to incinerate Tutsi huts sent many Tutsis fleeing into exile. The Hutu president Juvénal Habyarimana, known for his anti-Tutsi rhetoric, maintained a good relationship with Belgian King Baudouin. On April 6, 1994, a plane carrying Habyarimana, Burundian President Cyprien Ntarvamira, and other high-ranking officials was shot down, killing all on board. Blaming the rebel Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), Hutu extremists began the slaughter of Tutsis and their Hutu sympathizers. On April 7, 1994, Rwandan forces killed 10 Belgian officers. They threatened Belgium not intervene in the ongoing genocide against the Tutsis. Belgium dutifully abandoned Rwanda to the Hutu killers. In April 2000, Guy Verhofstadt, the Belgian prime minister, went to Rwanda and said, “In the name of my country and of my people, I beg your forgiveness.”

French forces were also present in Rwanda during the genocide. They watched the massacres, but did nothing. The French government persistently denied this until recently. After 27 years of denial, France was finally forced by its own government commission to officially admit its complicity in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. As stated earlier, Macron asked Rwandans for forgiveness in May this year. He said, “Only those who went through that night can perhaps forgive, and in doing so give the gift of forgiveness.”. 

As in Rwanda, Belgium divided Burundi people into Tutsis and Hutus, which led to ethnic conflicts and civil war, causing the deaths of 300,000 people. In 2009, Belgium officially apologized for its atrocities. 

Imperial powers must compensate their victims

In 2022, the time for reparations has come. So far, the UN proved impotent in the face of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The oppressed people of the Congo are still waiting for justice and reparations for Belgian atrocities that still haunt them. It is for good reason that  Human Rights Watch observed, “Belgium cannot undo its colonial past but it’s not too late to redress its contemporary fallouts to build a future based on justice and equality.”

Fortunately, many Belgians today recognize that apology must be accompanied by reparations. Patrick Dewael, the speaker of the Belgian federal parliament, said: “apart from any apologies or excuses … anyone who makes a mistake, says our legal code, must compensate for the damage.” In 2001, the Belgian Parliament found the nation morally responsible for the assassination of Lumumba and apologized for its role. Belgium has yet to make any reparations though.

The “Belgium’s Colonial Past” commission, founded in 2020, is still working on issues related to the pre-independence history of the country’s three former colonies: Belgian Congo, Burundi, and Rwanda. To address the crimes of the past, Belgium must take these actions:

1. Acknowledge all the past abuses that include genoide and crimes against human rights.
2. Bring to justice all those individuals, living and dead, who perpetrated those egregious abuses.
3. Make reparations to all three former colonies based on the harm done to the Congolese people from Leopold II’s personal rule as well as Belgian colonial exploitation. The reparations must meet the following criteria:
   
   • correlate directly with all the economic profits Belgium earned from Congo, and
   • ensure that reparations do not go to the coffers of DRC’s corrupt government but are spent to improve education and infrastructure, bringing them to Belgian standards within 10 years.

As we have seen above, the US was Belgium’s accomplice in colonization of the Congolese people. Therefore, the US must take the following actions.

1. Acknowledge its collaboration with the Belgian authorities in the Congo regarding human rights abuses, including violence and genocide, and economic exploitation..
2. Form a committee that brings to justice US officials, living or dead, who abetted Belgian atrocities in the Congo.
3. Make reparations to remedy the harms done to the Congolese people. The reparations must meet the following criteria:
   • include a bipartisan committee to evaluate all the economic profits earned by the US from the Congo, starting 1885 to today, and
   • ensure that reparations do not go to the coffers of DRC’s corrupt government but are spent to improve education and infrastructure, bringing them to Belgian standards within 10 years.
4. Emulate Belgium and apologize for assassinating the nationalist leader Lumumba,

None of these actions can destroy the hurt and pain from the past but they will make our world a kinder, gentler and more just place.

*[Dr. Mehdi Alavi is the founder and president of Peace Worldwide Organization, a non-religious, non-partisan and charitable organization in the United States that promotes freedom and peace for all. It recently released its Civility Report 2022, which can be downloaded here.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Belgium’s Regrets Not Enough: Congo Deserves Apology and Reparations for War Crimes appeared first on Fair Observer.

According to the Peace Worldwide Organization’s Civility Report 2022, Ukraine has a population of about 44 million. It has a reputation for being racist and widely corrupt. It faces internal armed conflict for suppressing the people of Donbas (Donetsk and Luhansk regions), a fact that has resulted in many civilian injuries, deaths, and displacements. Torture and other forms of human rights abuses are widely used. Human rights defenders and independent journalists risk being attacked. Harassment and suppression of non-Slavic ethnic minorities, especially the Roma, Tartars, Jews, and political asylum seekers continue. Violence against women and girls remains widespread. 

Ukraine has a short history relative to its powerful neighbor Russia. Although people lived there for centuries, as Ali Rogin, a foreign affairs producer at the PBS Newshour, explains, the region was often ruled by Austria-Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, or Russia. The end of World War I inspired an independence movement that led to the birth of the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic in 1922. Ukrainians nevertheless remained divided. Some favored Nazi occupation before World War II. 

The territory we now know as Ukraine was finalized when the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev took Crimea away from Russia and gave it to Ukraine. In 1991 when the Soviet Union fell, Ukraine declared independence. In 2004, Ukrainians elected Vikto Yanukovych, a pro-Russian prime-minister, to lead the country, though the election failed to meet international standards.   

A Free Election, Status of Russian and Crimea

In 2010 in a fair and free election in Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych was elected president of Ukraine. The new president favored better relations with neighboring Russia. In 2013, a pro-European Union uprising broke out in Ukraine. Ukrainian security forces over-reacted, shooting and killing numerous people, which led to much wider protests against Yanukovych. Instead of an official impeachment, the Verkhovna Rada Committee, composed of experts advising the Ukrainian parliament, declared that Mr. Yanukovych should be removed from office on February 22, 2014. The large Russian ethnic minority in Ukraine rejected that declaration and generally remained loyal to Mr. Yanukovych.  

On February 23, the Ukrainian parliament passed a bill that repealed Russian language as an official status. That further angered the pro-Russians in Ukraine. Their protests intensified causing a rebellion to emerge against the Ukrainian forces. Russians formed about 90 cent of Crimea’s population and overwhelmingly voted in a referendum to leave Ukraine and become a part of Russia. Days later, In March 2014, the Russo-Ukrainian War began with Russia lending its support to pro-Russian separatist forces in Crimea. 

Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, a territory that Russia had previously received from the Ottomans in the 1774 Treaty of Kucuk Kaynarca, at a time when it was fully inhabited by ethnic Tatars. Crimea remained a part of Russia for 180 years until 1954 when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev assigned it to Ukraine. Prior to 1954, Crimea had been inhabited by Russians and persecuted Tatars. 

It was only on May 25 of that year that President Yanukovych was officially impeached and removed from office by the Ukrainian Parliament.

A History of Cold War and More

Russia and Ukraine have deep cultural, economic, familial, and political ties, going back for centuries. Millions of Russians live in Ukraine and have family ties with other Ukrainians. Furthermore, Russia and Ukraine were the two original members of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that was formed in 1922, eventually consisting of 15 republics, including Russia and Ukraine.

The US, the Soviet Union, and a number of other countries allied to defeat the Nazi Germany in the Second World War that was followed by the Cold War, a political rivalry began between the US and the Soviet Union. They emerged as the world’s two superpowers, competing for political influence and access to resources. They waged proxy wars throughout the world, producing many bloody conflicts across the globe.

In 1949, the US led the move to create the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), specifically designed to resist Soviet aggression. Paradoxically, the US-led NATO has been amongst the first to violate its commitments to the UN, leading to its perception by some  as the world’s leading troublemaker since its inception. According to the previously cited Civility Report 2022, NATO has continued “stockpiling as offensive; conventional, biological, radiological, chemical, and nuclear weaponry as well as arming other nations or groups, having a military presence in other nations, giving military aid to belligerent nations, participating in military alliances,” actions that “would increase tension worldwide and violate the commitments to the UN for working towards peace and security.” NATO countries are responsible for over 75% of global arms exports. Among  the recipients are some of the world’s most repressive regimes, such as “Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE.”

In 1955, the Soviet Union led the formation of the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO), also known as the Warsaw Pact, as a balance of power to NATO to resist NATO’s aggression. The Korean War and the Vietnam War are just two examples where the two fought proxy wars, wasting millions of lives.

In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, the US and Russia agreed that NATO would not expand beyond East Germany after its reunion with Germany. This was confirmed by NATO’s secretary. That set the stage for the unification of East Germany and West Germany later that year.

In 1991, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact fell. However, NATO did not dissolve, but continued. Despite the assurances from the US and the NATO’s Secretary that NATO would not go beyond the former East Germany into the former republics of the Soviet Union, they did not live up to their promises. On the initiative of the US,  NATO moved eastward, taking in former Soviet republics. In 1994 as a response to NATO, Russia persuaded  Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan to sign a defense treaty – the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), similar to the NATO – stipulating that aggression against any signatory is to be seen as aggression against all. 

Russian Invasion a Reaction to NATO Expansion

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has persistently expressed its disapproval of NATO expansion into the former Soviet states. The last official warning to NATO was given in December 2021. The US has consistently ignored those warnings, including the latest one. In its 2021 draft agreements with NATO, Russia demanded, among other things, that NATO bar any military activity in Ukraine. NATO ignored the warnings.

To stop the NATO aggression, Russia deemed itself forced to invade Ukraine. The invasion kicked off on February 24, 2022. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine could be seen as an escalation of the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian War.

For Americans to understand why Russia believes that Ukraine must not be a member of NATO they might see a parallel with the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when the Soviets installed some of their offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba. If the Soviets had not  withdrawn those missiles, it could have resulted in another world war. If Ukraine joins NATO, Russia could have the US offensive nuclear missiles at its borders. 

It has now become apparent that most nations representing a majority of the world’s population do not support the US-led NATO’s action against Russia and reject the US effort to isolate Russia.

The US political leaders should learn lessons from their past mistakes. Sanctions are counterproductive. The US has imposed particularly hard sanctions on Iran with no effect on the Iranian government’s behavior. Rather, Iran turned to developing its own military capabilities and becoming a far stronger adversary to the US hegemony in the region. US sanctions have caused price increases on many goods and services across the world, resulting in more poverty and destruction worldwide. If US sanctions against Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and other countries continue, it may have the effect of leading the world into a deep recession, where the American people themselves would be among the victims..

Negotiating Peace Is the Right Thing to Do

“We seek peace, knowing that peace is the climate of freedom,” said Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States. Instead of pouring fuel on fire by arming Ukraine in the war, the US should take the lead negotiating with Russia. If the war continues, both the US and Russia will lose.

Just as in the Cuban Missile Crisis, negotiation is the only path for resolving the issues. Escalation may ultimately lead to a nuclear war, threatening the existence not only of the US and Russia, but the entire world. 

Most of the world’s population is sympathetic to Russian security concerns and fears NATO’s aggression. Regional powers like China, India, and Iran would like to see a ceasefire and negotiations to address the Russian issues. Former U.S. secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger, who has blood on his hands for the US interventions in other countries, has come to the realization that NATO’s aggressive stance is counterproductive. Kissinger has urged NATO to negotiate and give up territory to Russia to stop the war.

It is now time for the US to act. On behalf of NATO, the US should negotiate directly with Russia, addressing its security concerns. The US must be willing to let Ukraine remain a neutral country. If that does not mitigate the Russian security concerns, the US may have to consider letting Estonia’s, Latvia’s and Lithuania’s membership be withdrawn from NATO to become neutral countries as well. Once the negotiation is completed, the UN Security Council would have to guarantee the neutrality of those countries.

Yet, far better would be an initiative of the US to prepare the  dissolution of NATO, an organization  that has brought about so much pain and suffering across the world. This would be the first step in working towards a world free from armaments.

As for Russia, it should make reparations for the loss of lives, injuries, human displacement, and property destruction inflicted on Tatars and Native Crimeans, since taking over from the Ottomans in 1774.

The path to peace can only be achieved by everyone coming to the negotiating table, giving up something they want and atoning for past wrongs. With 250 million people on the verge of starvation, that time has come.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Negotiate With Russia and Let Ukraine Have Peace appeared first on Fair Observer.

Rwanda has a tragic past. For 100 days in 1994, around 800,000 Rwandans were massacred in Rwanda by the ethnic Hutus in what has become known as the Rwanda genocide. Once, the country was run by the ethnic minority Tutsis. In 1959, they were overthrown by the ethnic majority Hutus. Thousands of Tutsis escaped to neighboring countries. Some of the Tutsis in exile united to set up the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which began fighting against the Hutu government until a peace treaty was signed in 1993. In April 1994, a plane carrying Rwanda’s Hutu president and high-ranking officials was shot down, killing all on board. Blaming the RPF, Hutu extremists began the slaughters of the Tutsis and their Hutu sympathizers. 

The RPF maintained that the plane was shot by the Hutu extremists in order to blame the RPF and rationalize genocide. Meanwhile, French forces present in Rwanda watched the massacres, but did nothing. The French government has denied this persistently until recently. After 27 years of denial, France was finally forced by its own government commission to officially admit its complicity in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. In May 2021, French President Emmanuel Macron, spoke at the genocide memorial in Rwanda’s capital Kigali, where many of the victims were buried. He asked Rwandans to forgive France for its role in the 1994 genocide. “Only those who went through that night can perhaps forgive, and in doing so give the gift of forgiveness,” Macron said. 

United Nations Measures to Prevent Genocide

The United Nations (UN) Article 1 clearly states that the countries are bound to suppress “acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means,” a “settlement of international disputes” or resolution of situations that could lead to violence. In 1946, the UN General Assembly in its Resolution 96 (I) defined genocide and considered it an international crime. 

In 1948, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, defined genocide as, “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.” In the case of disputes, the convention made the International Court of Justice (ICJ) the final legal authority on genocide. In 1949, the Geneva Convention prohibited willful killings, torture, property destruction, unlawful deportation or confinement, and the taking of civilians as hostages.

More recently, international law has sought to prevent genocide. In May 1993, a Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established. The ICTY indicted a number of the perpetrators of the Bosnian genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Those indicted include Radovan Karadzic and Slobodan Milosevic for crimes against humanity.

In August 1993, the Rwanda government signed a peace treaty with RPF, known as “Arusha Accords.” In October, the UN Security Council (UNSC) established the UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) to assist the parties executing the peace agreement. The UNAMIR was supposed to monitor the progress in the peace process and help form the transitional government.

As mentioned earlier, the plane carrying the Rwandan Hutu President was shot down in 1994 and the Hutu government blamed the RPF. The next day, on April 7, 1994, government forces and Hutu militia began killing Tutsis, moderate Hutus and the UNAMIR peacekeepers who were among their first victims.

On June 22, 1994, after two and a half months of killings, the UN finally authorized a French-led multinational operation, “Operation Turquoise”, which set a protection zone in Rwanda to help victims and refugees. On July 15, 1994, RPF took over the country and stopped the 100 days of killings. In August 1994, whatever was left of the UNAMIR took over the French-led multinational operation and provided shelter to thousands of refugees.

In November 1994, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was established. Headquartered in Arusha, Tanzania, the ICTR was supposed to “prosecute persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda and neighboring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994.” So far, ICTR has brought to justice 93 persons “responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in Rwanda in 1994.” 

French Support of Genocidal Hutu-led Regime

In April 2019, the US law firm Levy Firestone Muse released A Foreseeable Genocide, a report based on million pages of documents after years of interviews and investigation. The report found France to be a “collaborator” of the Hutu government in the genocide. The French were aware that the regime planned to exterminate the Tutsis. 

As per the report, the “French government was unwavering in its support for its Rwandan allies even when their genocidal intentions became clear, and only the French government was an indispensable collaborator in building the institutions that would become instruments of the Genocide.” The report concluded that “the Government of France bears significant responsibility for having enabled a foreseeable genocide.”

In March 2021, a French commission found that France bore “heavy and overwhelming responsibility” for the Rwanda genocide. After this finding, the French government could no longer deny its involvement in the genocide. Under international pressure, the French president was finally forced to apologize for supporting the Hutu-led genocidal regime in Rwanda in 1994.

US Support for RPF

Even as the French backed a genocidal regime, the US supported the rebel RPF. Helen C Epstein, a visiting professor at Bard College, chronicled the secret role of the US in the Rwandan genocide in a tour de force in The Guardian. Rwandan President Paul Kagame was “then a senior officer in both the Ugandan army and the RPF, was in Kansas at the United States Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, studying field tactics and psyops, propaganda techniques to win hearts and minds.” He flew back to lead Uganda-backed RPF against the genocidal Hutu regime.

Kagame and the RPF were not blameless either. Epstein tells us that Robert Flaten, the then US ambassador to Rwanda, witnessed the terror caused by the RPF invasion of Rwanda. Apparently, “hundreds of thousands of mostly Hutu villagers fled RPF-held areas, saying they had seen abductions and killings.” Flaten urged the George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush Senior) administration “to impose sanctions on Uganda, as it had on Iraq after the Kuwait invasion earlier that year.” Instead, the US and its allies doubled aid to Yoweri Museveni’s government. Uganda’s defense spending ballooned to 48% of the budget. Strongman Museveni allocated a mere 13% for education and 5% for health, even as AIDS was ravaging the country and killing thousands.

In 2022, Museveni continues to rule Uganda while Kagame is the big boss of Rwanda. There has been relative peace in the region but both regimes are based on the barrel of the gun. Under the Belgians, the Tutsis “formed an elite minority caste in Rwanda” and “treated the Hutu peasants like serfs, forcing them to work on their land and sometimes beating them like donkeys.” Today, the Tutsis continue to occupy the top echelons of the Rwandan state. The Hutus may be better treated than a few decades ago but they are clearly second class citizens in their own land.

Time for Action

Like many other countries, Rwanda is still waiting for justice. It is another example of the failure of the UN to stop genocide, save victims, and bring to justice all guilty parties. In 1994, the UN only acted after 75 days of killings. Even then, it chose France, a biased party, to lead the operation. The UN has acted belatedly, inadequately and irresponsibly repeatedly. Genocides in Cambodia, the Balkans and other places are proof of that fact.

The UN usually serves the interests of the powerful and ignores the poor. Thus, we cannot rely on the UN to prevent genocides, crimes against humanity and other atrocities. It is we the people who must assume responsibility and support political leaders who strive for global peace and harmony.

In the hope of avoiding another genocide, we must demand that our political leaders take the following actions:

First, ICTR must continue its work until all individuals, Rwandan or not, are brought to justice. Its mandate must be expanded to include the forces of other countries who watched but chose not to take any action to stop the ongoing killings.

Second, France, which has already appointed a commission, must now form a criminal tribunal to investigate those who collaborated with the genocidal Hutu government in 1994. French troops who watched the killings, but chose not to act, should also be brought to justice. The French cannot be tried by the ICTR because France is a permanent member of the UNSC and will veto any such proposal. So, we must put pressure on France to bring its citizens to justice.

Third, France must make reparations for the loss of lives, injuries, human displacements, and property destruction caused by its illegal collaboration and complicity with the Hutu government. France has a GDP of over $2.7 trillion compared with Rwanda’s $10.4 billion. France must put its money where its mouth is and allocate at least $20 billion, amounting to less than 1% of its GDP, to compensate the victims of the genocide.

Fourth, the US must form a bipartisan committee to investigate its officials who played a dubious role in Rwanda or Uganda in the 1990s. Those who knew about killings and did nothing to prevent them must be brought to justice just like their French counterparts. Like France, the US is a member of the UNSC and its citizens cannot be tried by ICTR. So, it is up to American citizens to demand a reckoning of the dark days of the 1990s.

Fifth, the US must also pay reparations for the loss of lives, injuries, people displacements, and property destruction that occurred during the genocide. The US GDP is much larger than France and the US could easily give Rwanda $20 billion, about 1% of its GDP.  If the bipartisan committee discovers systemic support of genocide, then this amount should be higher. This money should be spent to build infrastructure, educate people, improve healthcare, create means of production and much more.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Those Responsible for the 1994 Rwandan Genocide Must Be Brought to Justice appeared first on Fair Observer.

Biden’s New Culture of Brinkmanship

READ MORE

Carter considers his time in office to be peaceful, but his record says otherwise. Under his one term as president from 1977 to 1981, the US was still instigating conflicts across the world. The most notable was the Iran-Iraq War, which the US, the Soviet Union and their allies were heavily involved in by supporting the Iraqis.

Causing Trouble

The Civility Report 2021, a publication of the Peace Worldwide Organization, labels the US the world’s worst troublemaker. The evidence for this is clear.

First, the US maintains at least 750 military bases in around 80 countries. It also has more than 170,000 troops stationed in 159 countries. Second, in 2016, The Washington Post reported that the US has tried 72 times to overthrow governments of sovereign nations between 1947 and 1989. These actions were in clear violation of the UN Charter. Third, the US continues using economic sanctions against numerous countries to force their leadership to bow to Washington’s demands.

The worst example is Iran, which the US has sought to use a policy of “maximum pressure” against. Sanctions are also in clear violation of the UN Charter and affect civilians more than the political leaders they seek to squeeze. These unwarranted interventions in Iran have brought pain and suffering to people in a country that is not known for its human rights.

The US, meanwhile, is known well as a country that pays lip service to human rights, democracy and peace. It talks about a lack of democracy in some nations but favors tyrannical rulers in others. This includes countries like Bahrain, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

The US today is the world’s only superpower, and with such power comes great responsibility. If the US is truly interested in human rights, democracy and peace, then it too must change its actions. It must begin by complying with the UN Charter and respecting international law. Washington must right its many wrongs — particularly in the Middle East — not because it is forced to do so, but because it is the right thing for a world in which peace can prosper. For this to become a reality, there are a number of areas for the US to consider.

Never Forgotten

The first area is addressing the US relationship with Iran. In the 1980s, in violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, the United States and its European allies provided assistance to Iraq when it leader, Saddam Hussein, ordered the use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops. Most victims of that attack in 1988 died instantly, while many others are still suffering from the consequences. Some survivors of the chemical warfare now struggle to find inhalers in Iran, which is scarred by sanctions. The US should acknowledge the role it played in the war and provide reparations for the injuries and damage it caused. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from Fair Observer. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Today, the draconian sanctions the US has placed on Iran has deepened a rift with the European Union, Russia and China, all of which signed a nuclear agreement with Tehran in 2015. The US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 under US President Donald Trump led to the reintroduction of crippling sanctions that have hurt the Iranian middle class and the poor, causing hardship and death.

Washington must lift its unlawful sanctions, which Trump introduced to bring Iran to its knees. The US thinks that Iran is meddling in the affairs of countries like Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, and that a policy of “maximum pressure” will force it to rethink its foreign policy. The Trump administration used this as an excuse to pull out of the nuclear deal, despite the Iranians complying with all of its obligations under the JCPOA. The US under President Joe Biden should also comply with the JCPOA by rejoining the agreement and lifting sanctions.

In the long term, a détente between the US and Iran could pave the way for the Iranians to forgive the 1953 coup d’état against the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh. During the Cold War, a US-orchestrated campaign led to the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadegh. He was replaced with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the brutal last shah of Iran, who himself was overthrown in the 1979 Revolution. In a country struggling under US sanctions, memories of the coup have never been forgotten.

Lies Over Iraq

Iraq is another country where US actions have not been forgotten. If you attack anyone without being provoked, any court with an ounce of justice would require you to repair the inflicted damage. Relations between nations work in the same way. If a nation harms another without provocation, the aggressor is expected to repair the damage caused.

In 2003, under the false pretext that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ties with al-Qaeda, the US under President George W. Bush invaded Iraq. The result was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his government, the destruction of infrastructure, the death of hundreds of thousands in the years to come and the displacement of 9.2 million Iraqis.

The US invasion inevitably led to the rise of radical groups like the Islamic State (IS), which in 2014 seized territory in Iraq and Syria. The trillions that American taxpayers paid for the Iraq War could have been well spent in the US on addressing poverty, building high-speed rail networks or repairing infrastructure. Instead, the dollars were spent on bombs and bullets to counter insurgents like IS.

When Iraqis led by Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Mahdi al-Muhandis formed a resistance against IS militants and expelled them from Iraq, many people were jubilant that their country was freed. Instead of congratulating Soleimani and Muhandis for the role they played, the US violated Iraq’s territorial integrity. In a US drone strike at Baghdad airport in January 2020, both men were assassinated in violation of international law. The US action was not only unlawful, but it also puts all foreign diplomats in danger by setting a precedent for other countries to assassinate enemies.

There are two ways the US can make up for its illegal actions of 2003. First, holding those responsible to account for the invasion and human rights violations would show the world that the US is serious about the rule of law. That includes the likes of Bush and his accomplices, who lied and betrayed the trust of the American people, as well as security and military personnel who went beyond the rules of war. Holding such persons to account would restore respect for the US across the world by demonstrating that no one, not even the president or American soldiers, is above the law. Second, providing reparations for the loss of Iraqi and American lives, the injuries caused, the people displaced and the property destroyed is essential.

Famine in Yemen

Yemen is another place where bombs have destroyed the country under the watchful eye of the Americans. In 2015, a Saudi-led coalition supported and armed by the United States, Britain and France began indiscriminatingly bombing Yemen in response to a takeover by Iran-backed Houthi rebels. The destruction of Yemen has led to accusations of war crimes by all parties involved. It has also resulted in 5 million people being on the brink of famine and millions more facing starvation.

The US must promptly stop all military and intelligence support to the coalition. As the one nation with such political power, the US must work on bringing the combatants together by implementing the UN Charter that calls for respecting “the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”

As citizens in a free world, we must assume responsibility for our political leaders’ actions. First, as a bare minimum, we should realize that the problems we cause for others, sooner or later, will come back to haunt us. The example of US support for the mujahideen during the 1980s in Afghanistan is well known. Second, electing the right political leaders who strive for freedom and peace will not only benefit people in faraway lands, but also in the US itself. Instead of taxpayer dollars being spent on weapons, cash can be reinvested into our society to educate children, improve access to health care and do much more.  

United, we can put “maximum pressure” on the US to become a leader in creating a world free from war, oppression and persecution.

*[The author is the founder and president of Peace Worldwide Organization, a non-religious, non-partisan and charitable organization in the United States that promotes freedom and peace for all. It recently released its Civility Report 2021, which can be downloaded here.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post US Foreign Policy in the Middle East Needs a Rethink appeared first on Fair Observer.

The plights of indigenous people in other places are, in many ways, similar with those in the Americas. To this day, they still face challenges every day.

The Meaning and Taste of Thanksgiving

READ MORE

According to Amnesty International, 370 million indigenous people across the world constitute about 5% of the global population, living in more than 90 countries and speaking over 4,000 languages. Wherever they live, they often face discrimination, oppression, exploitation, eviction and other human rights abuses. As expected, the COVID-19 pandemic has particularly impacted them due to poverty, lack of clean water and access to health services.

In much of the world, indigenous people suffer from high unemployment, poor education and domestic violence. They are often targeted for mistreatment and abuse and have the least access to health services compared with other groups. They are usually imprisoned disproportionately and some die in custody.

Around the World

In Australia, indigenous people constitute around 3% of the population, but they form more than a quarter of the prison population. Their children are 17 times more likely to be incarcerated than non-indigenous children.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from Fair Observer. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

In the Americas, indigenous people are subjected to discrimination, harassment and violence, particularly in countries like Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Nicaragua, among others. They may also face unsubstantiated charges that include sabotage, terrorism and murder and are particularly, vulnerable to human trafficking. In Argentina, indigenous people are further deprived of their rights to ancestral lands. In Paraguay, they continue being evicted and denied their lands. In Peru, the killers of indigenous people are often not brought to justice.

Similarly, Canada and the United States have discriminated, mistreated and manipulated their indigenous people. Both of these nations have exploited and mismanaged the assets of the native population. Canada has continued oppressing its indigenous people, confiscating their lands and eliminating their cultures.

In June, more than 600 unmarked graves were discovered in Canada at a Catholic-run school for indigenous children that operated from 1899 to 1997. This followed a previous report of 215 bodies at another Catholic school that was open from the late 19^th century to 1969.

The Contributions of Native Americans

The contributions of indigenous peoples to the world are countless. Native Americans alone brought us many plants from beans and peanuts to pineapple and herbal medicines. They also greatly contributed to our democracy, inspiring the Founding Fathers in fashioning the US government. The Six Nations, known by the French as the Iroquois, provided a great example of participatory democracy where the government was truly founded on the consent of the governed.

The delegates from the 13 English colonies were inspired by the Native Americans who were endowed with a rich heritage over thousands of years that included counseling among the elders in the affairs of the tribes. As early as 1744, Canasatego, the Iroquois Confederation’s spokesman, advised the colonists on how to form a union in order to become a powerful confederation. The colonists listened to his advice in forming what became the United States of America.  

In 1751, Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter inspiring the 13 colonies to follow the Iroquois Confederacy in forming a union. John Hancock, speaking on behalf of the 1775 Continental Congress, expressed it well when he said “the Six Nations are wise people. Let us harken to their Council and teach our children to follow it.” In 1988, the US Senate finally paid tribute to the Native Americans by saying that the “confederation of the original Thirteen Colonies into one republic was influenced by the political system developed by the Iroquois Confederacy as were many of the democratic principles which were incorporated into the Constitution itself.”

Giving Thanks

Those who live in democracies today, including the United States, owe a lot to Native Americans for their freedom. Indigenous peoples have served us well and deserve to be treated with respect, provided with the same opportunities and appreciated for their contributions to the world. We should work to ensure they have equal rights where they live and raise them out of poverty, enabling them to have access to clean water, hygiene and health services.

In the US, let us make this Thanksgiving Day special by embracing our Native Americans, paving the way to remedy some of their wounds. As Amnesty International recommends, we should follow other countries in the Americas by replacing Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples Day in recognition of their contributions to the United States of America.

*[Dr. Mehdi Alavi is the founder and president of Peace Worldwide Organization, a non-religious, non-partisan and charitable organization in the United States that promotes freedom and peace for all. It recently released its Civility Report 2021, which can be downloaded here.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Giving Thanks to Indigenous People appeared first on Fair Observer.