[home][about][contact] [getting involved] [Educational][Academic] [Media Watch][Views]
Video-Audio, Document, Website, Other Resource
A public service announcement featuring fifty Iranian Americans: who we are, what we believe in and why we're for peace. If you know an American who has never met anyone of Iranian origin, please share this site.
This special report by filmmaker James Longley focuses on the impact of the MEK on US–Iran Relations. Though the MEK, an exiled Iranian group, is listed on the State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, they continue to enjoy both the covert and overt support of some members of US Congress and the Bush Administration because of their opposition to the Iranian government.
This filmed report explores the history of the MEK, their ideology, their participation in the Iranian revolution and exile from Iran, and their collaboration with Saddam Hussein's regime. Using interviews with historians, journalists, and first-person accounts of former members of the MEK, their shifting role is tracked through to the present day, as they continue to play a central role in US-Iran relations and create sharply divided opinions between various branches of the US government.
CNN's Asieh Namdar reports on the August 2008 issue of the 'National Geographic' on "Ancient Persia":
Dr. Jürgen Todenhöfer, author of "Why do you kill, Zaid?", on the West's policies in the Muslim world
Islamic News Channel
25 April 2008
Jürgen Todenhöfer's book "Why do you kill, Zaid?" is an attempt to shed light on the other side of the story. It reports on how Iraqi people talk about the war, when there are no heavily-armed GIs in the vicinity. When neither helicopters nor humvees have been "cleansing" and securing the area for hours beforehand, for politicians and press convoys. "Why do you kill, Zaid?" gives a voice to those whom Pentagon press officers never take their visitor delegations to see - members of the Iraqi resistance. The book attempts to explain why this resistance is not only fighting against American troops, but also against Al Qaeda terrorists and the foreign-backed private militias of Iraqi politicians. It aims to clarify the fundamental differences between resistance fighters and terrorists.
More about Dr. Todenhöfer, his book and his ten theses you can find on his homepage:
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) prepares to begin a hearing on the "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations" at the Rayburn House Office Building on Captiol Hill July 25, 2008 in Washington, DC. Spearheaded by former Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the hearing included authors, former politicians, university professors and other opponents of the Bush Administration.
View the entire hearing on "Executive Power & the Bush Administration" here:
By David Hutchins
American News Project (ANP), 10 August 2008
Washington's neocons are alive and well, advising both John McCain and President Bush. Now many are saying Bush should permit Israel to attack Iran's nuclear sites after Election Day. ANP chases down John Bolton, Bill Kristol.
BREAKING THE US-IRAN STALEMATE
Reassessing the Nuclear Strategy in the Wake of the Majles Elections
Washington DC - Full transcripts of NIAC's Capitol Hill conference "Breaking the US-Iran Stalemate: Finding the Nuclear Fix in the Wake of the Majlis elections" with Senator Dianne Feinstein, Ambassador Tom Pickering and Dr. Hans Blix is now available for download. Video of the conference, which discussed extensively the Pickering-Luers-Walsh proposal for a multinational enrichment facility, is also available. A complimentary copy of the transcript has been mailed to all NIAC members in the Capitol Hill club and up.
The Israel Lobby (Marije Meerman, VPRO Backlight 2007)
The link is to a high-quality documentary produced in The Netherlands. It is in English with a few subtitles featuring interviews with Richard Perle, John Mearsheimer, Kenneth Roth, Daniel Levi, Lawrence Wilkerson, Toby Judt and others discussing the influence of the Israel Lobby on the US government.
Clips of George Bush, Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are interspersed with others of John Hagee and Dick Cheney. This documentary will be of great interest to Americans who are deprived of the right to see these sorts of productions in broadcast airspace due to the peculiar circumstances restricting the mainstream media in the USA.
Courtesy Michael Carmichael
Source: Global Research (www.globalresearch.ca)
For many years now the American foreign policy has been characterized by the strong tie between the United States and Israel. Does the United States in fact keep Israel on its feet? And how long will it continue to do so? In March 2006 the American political scientists John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and Steve Walt (Harvard) published the controversial article 'The Israel Lobby and US foreign policy'. In it they state that it is not, or no longer, expedient for the US to support and protect present-day Israel. The documentary sheds light on both parties involved in the discussion: those who wish to maintain the strong tie between the US and Israel, and those who were critical of it and not infrequently became 'victims' of the lobby. The question arises to what extend the pro-Israel lobby ultimately determines the military and political importance of Israel itself. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell's former chief-of-staff) explains how the lobby's influence affects the decision-making structure in the White House.
With political scientist John Mearsheimer, neocon Richard Perle, lobby organization AIPAC, televangelist John Hagee, historian Tony Judt, Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Democrat Earl Hilliard, Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy and investigative journalist Michael Massing.
Research: William de Bruijn
Director: Marije Meerman
Muhammad Sahimi is the NIOC Chair in petroleum engineering and professor of chemical engineering & materials science at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. In addition to his scientific research, which has resulted in over 270 published papers and five books, Muhammad has written extensively on Iran's political development and its nuclear program. In particular, Muhammad has concentrated on the legal and technical aspects of the dispute between Iran and the Western powers regarding Iran's nuclear energy program. He is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization dedicated to making the public aware of the dangers of weapons of mass destruction, as well as polluting the environment.
He spoke to The Real News about the current Iranian situation below.
The drumbeat to war with Iran is getting louder. With only a few months left in the Bush Presidency, it's tempting to sit back and wait until November. But belligerent rhetoric and fear mongering about Iran are on the rise. With piles of evidence pointing towards the same sort of fabrication that preceded the Iraq debacle and a thoroughly discredited administration at the helm, kids in the military forced to fight in wars of choice at the behest of powerful corporate interests, and economic problems at home, it's time to tell Washington "enough."
“Elections Under Threat” portrays the everyday people of Iran as well as the candidates running for Parliament as they debate and discuss the relevance of these elections, their economic conditions and the international pressures on their nation. The documentary offers a unique glimpse into the political dynamics of the struggles for participation and democracy in a nation facing increasing economic and military threats from the United States.
Senator Hillary Clinton stood by her threat this weekend to “totally obliterate” Tehran if Iran were to attack Israel in the next 10 years. We take a look at how such threats play out within Iran and limit the space for internal dissent.
Iranians went to the polls on April 25th to vote in the second round of parliamentary elections. The results were a victory for conservative candidates allied with President Ahmadinejad. They called for unity between the president and the parliament at a time of threats from the United States.
The President’s opponents emphasized the need to strengthen Iran’s democratic institutions and improve the country’s economy. Although the opposition groups won a minority of the seats their fight is far from over. This round of parliamentary elections had the lowest voter turnout in Iran’s history.
Kouross Esmaeli and Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films went to Iran to follow the campaign before the elections and filed this report from Tehran. It was produced for Al Jazeera English.
From Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Friday May 16, 2008.
From Bill Moyers interview with Leila Fadel on April 18, 2008.
BILL MOYERS: Welcome to THE JOURNAL.
You knew it was going to be a dismal night this Wednesday when just a few minutes into the debate, ABC interrupted the candidates for a long commercial break -- the first of many. By the time it was over, the audience had had enough.
Makes you think that if Lincoln and Douglas were around, they'd be sandwiched between a Viagra ad and Victoria's secret. In a real debate the candidates would face each other on the stage with no one but a timekeeper to enforce the clock. As it is, these 'debates' are commercially-staged press conferences about as connected to reality as an Elvis Presley sighting.
THE WASHINGTON POST's Tom Shales called the affair "shoddy" and "despicable." Greg Mitchell of EDITOR AND PUBLISHER said it was "perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years." And the historian and writer Eric Alterman said: "I don't like to speculate on people's motives. Just why ABC thinks that a presidential 'debate' should entirely ignore health care, environmental issues, science policy, our over-stretched and under-resourced military, an epidemic of people losing their homes, the bailing out of mega-banks, and our disappearing civil liberties… is a mystery to me.
Sadly, as the fantasy-inducing commercials and journalistic narcissism built through the evening, the most damning indictment of all came from facts on the ground, otherwise known as reality.
Just this week Iraq was struck by a fresh wave of violence. At least 50 people died from a bombing at a funeral - a funeral! Sixty people were killed earlier in the week, and 120 wounded.
It's difficult … but gruesome news doesn't go away because we look away. So consider these photos taken in Baquba, Ramadi, and Mosul -- victims of car bombs and suicide attacks.
Such scenes are routine for the people in Iraq and the journalists who still cover them. One of those journalists is Leila Fadel - the Baghdad bureau chief for the McClatchy Newspaper Group. She was born in Saudi Arabia of a Lebanese father and a mother from Michigan. The fact that she speaks Arabic may have saved her life when she was covering the war between Hezbollah and Israel.
She's reported on everything from Iran's relationship with Iraq… to the impact of war on families in ethnically torn neighborhoods …to the constant stress on US troops. And she does it all so well that this week she received a George Polk award for foreign reporting - an honor bestowed for courage under fire.
This is footage Fadel shot last weekend in Sadr City where she was embedded with US troops…quite literally under fire, in a rat-infested building, surviving on military rations. She left Sadr City last Sunday for her flight to New York on Monday, arriving in time for the Polk Awards - and to join me on THE JOURNAL.
BILL MOYERS: Leila Fadel, welcome.
LEILA FADEL: Thank you so much.
BILL MOYERS: Let's go back to some of that video that-- that you took when you were embedded with those troops in Sadr City.
LEILA FADEL: These are young guys from Tennessee and Texas, Illinois, Michigan. Young guys who joined the military because many of them didn't have other options and went from a semi-peaceful area north of Taji to a hostile environment in Sadr City, living in abandoned homes, abandoned buildings, where people view them as occupation forces, where people view them as the bad guys. And so they're holed up in these abandoned homes, told that they can't push further into Sadr City. And they have to wait to get shot at to shoot back. And so many of them said that they were playing a game of cat and mouse and they felt like the mice.
BILL MOYERS: So do these fellows know who they're shooting at when they're shooting there at in Sadr City?
LEILA FADEL: I asked them, "Who are you fighting?" And he said, "Anybody that shoots at us." "I don't know about the politics. All I know is I'm shooting at the people that shoot at me." And there were--
BILL MOYERS: Who is this talking to you?
LEILA FADEL: This is the platoon leader
BILL MOYERS: How old is he?
LEILA FADEL: He is 23. He was a chemical officer.
BILL MOYERS: He's younger than you.
LEILA FADEL: Yes, very young. Very young and expected to play this political game I mean, here they are in Sadr City. But they're not allowed to identify their enemy as this militia which they are fighting and is extremely organized in the way they're fighting. You know, they had a gaunt-- they went under an ambush in the end of March, March 31st, the height of the violence, the Shia violence. They were hit by two IEDs, a striker--
BILL MOYERS: An I-- which is a?
LEILA FADEL: An IED is a roadside bomb.
BILL MOYERS: Right.
LEILA FADEL: A striker was destroyed. They had to dismount and run to the other vehicles and have people come in to save them. And when they dismounted, there were men all over the rooftops shooting at them. They had sandbagged the windows. I mean, they were prepared to take on anybody who was trying to take back this area. And these guys said, "You know, in the movies when the bullets are flying and you're hitting around people's feet and you say, 'How do these people live?'" He said, "That's what happened to us and nobody died. It's a miracle."
BILL MOYERS: So what was it like for you to be there with him? You were under fire--
LEILA FADEL: Yeah. I had been in Sadr City five or six days earlier talking to the victims of air strikes, U.S. air strikes, who had so much anger towards what the U.S. military calls collateral damage. I mean, these people were angry. Angry, angry that their four year olds had shrapnel in their body, that there were soldiers shooting from abandoned buildings in their neighborhoods. They were extremely angry. And then to go into an embed and hang out with--
BILL MOYERS: An embed. That's your--
LEILA FADEL: An embed.
BILL MOYERS: --you're embedded with the troops.
LEILA FADEL: Yes, exactly, I mean, at one point I was walking into Sadr City covered, looking at the American--
BILL MOYERS: Covered in a?
LEILA FADEL: Covered in a scarf so that I wouldn't stand out in the neighborhood. I had to walk in 'cause there was a curfew. I had to take a taxi once I got inside with authorized vehicles. I had to go to the hospitals. And I was nervous. You know, I walked by one square at the entrance of Sadr City in the south. And the Iraqi residents in the area were telling me, "Oh, you gotta run through this area. There are American snipers on that roof."
And there were rumors that women and children were being killed. The U.S. military said that was not happening. Then I'm embedded with these guys. And they're in an abandoned house-- that they've never seen before. They're going through photo albums and trying to entertain themselves with air soft guns whenever they're not getting shot at. They were calling the little store that was this man's living, whoever lived there-- the Wal-Mart so that they could go in and get Lysol to try to clean the toilets that were no running water and no, you know, completely stopped up.
And I asked them what would you do if this guy comes home? What are you gonna do? And he said, "Oh, they won't come home." The platoon leader told me, "Oh, he won't come home. It's very dangerous." So a few hours later the man walks up to the door. And he says, "Excuse me, but, you know, I wanna move back into my house." They said, "No, not until it's safe here."
He said, "Well, can I have the books for my daughter so she can study?" And so they wouldn't let him in his house. And the translator, who they called Joe, a nickname and-- Joe, went around and got some books and handed it to him through a crack in the door of his own house. And he said, "Well, watch my cigarettes. I'm broke. I need to be able to sell those." And so it was telling. And I asked these men, you know, what would you do if there was a foreign army in your house?
BILL MOYERS: You asked the Americans?
LEILA FADEL: I asked the American soldiers. And one soldier told me he would blow up half the house to get back into it. And another said he would be a sniper on a rooftop and start taking people out. And I said, "Well, isn't that what this group is doing?" And one soldier told me-- he was from Athens, Tennessee, I think. And he said, "But we're trying to do something good for them."
BILL MOYERS: Are they frustrated?
LEILA FADEL: Very frustrated. I think they're very frustrated. I think they don't necessarily understand what they're fighting for anymore, what the exact cause is. I mean, right now they're in Sadr City, really caught in a political conflict between two Shia groups.
BILL MOYERS: What exactly is Sadr City?
LEILA FADEL: Sadr City is a district of Baghdad. It's a very poor Shia slum in northeast Baghdad. It was once known as Saddam City when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq. Sewage runs through the streets. Extremely crowded and urban and poor. Sadr City is said to have 2.5 million people in this crowded area. And it is the stronghold of Moqtada al Sadr and his militia, the Mahdi Army.
BILL MOYERS: Why is it so hostile to these American troops?
LEILA FADEL: Well, the Mahdi Army was founded in the early days of the war as a resistance movement against the United States and their occupation.
Moqtada Sadr, at the time that I first arrived in Iraq in 2005, was a loved figure by both Sunnis and Shias at that time. He was seen as the only legitimate national resistance leader. He didn't leave Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power. It's not like the rest of the government who fled to Syria or Iran or London and then came back to rule once everything was okay and Saddam Hussein was gone. But after 2005 the sectarian killings began, especially in 2006 following the bombing of a Shia shrine in Samarra, following intense bombings for two and a half years of Shia targets by Sunni insurgent groups.
LEILA FADEL: And in the early days of the war, the first two and a half years, the Shias were the American friends, the exiles who came back and took government positions. And the Sunnis were the resistance. They didn't wanna lose their power. And factories were disbanded. The Iraqi Army was disbanded. And they didn't have jobs. They didn't have anything to do. And so they became insurgents, what they call insurgents, and they saw themselves as resistance to a foreign army. And a lot of the attacks in the first two and a half years were on Shia-Iraqi targets. And so the Mahdi Army in late 2005 and especially in 2006 began to take revenge against Sunnis, all Sunnis.
BILL MOYERS: How do you know who the players are? You, as a reporter?
LEILA FADEL: Yeah. Well, you know who are the important people that you need to know and talk to and-- but it's so hard to tell when you're getting everybody has an agenda. And everything they tell you is going to go towards their cause, you know? The fact that the Maliki government is saying, "We're gonna disarm militias," I mean, that's a very empty thing to say because the Supreme Council has a militia which now is pretty much the national police.
The Kurdish parties have a militia, the Peshmerga. The head of the KDP, the Kurdish Democratic Party I think it stands for-- has a personal militia that was deployed when Turkey bombed the mountains of Kurdistan because of what they consider a terrorist organization, the PKK. A personal militia that has no--
BILL MOYERS: So every political faction has a militia.
LEILA FADEL: Has a militia.
BILL MOYERS: Like the Democrats have a militia here. The Republicans would have a militia here.
LEILA FADEL: That's right.
BILL MOYERS: The Secret Service would have a militia so when Maliki says he's gonna disband the militia, who's he talking to?
LEILA FADEL: Right, exactly. And that's what the Sadrists are saying. The Sadrists are saying, "Okay, fine, you're gonna disband our militia. What about the other militias? What about the illegal--" I mean, they often tell me that they are being detained illegally, that there are extra- judicial killings of their people. Now, the Mahdi Army is not an innocent group. They are--
BILL MOYERS: --anybody innocent?
LEILA FADEL: No. Nobody's innocent. And that's the difficult thing about this story is that, you know, right now the Mahdi Army is saying, "We're the victim of an offensive that is politically motivated" But they also have victimized so many people. I interviewed a commander in the Mahdi Army who was the most cold-blooded person I'd ever met.
I mean, I went to a neighborhood called Salaam, it means peace. And when I first went to Iraq I used to go there and do stories. I did a story there about just the beginnings of marriages falling apart because of the political situation and the Sunni and a Shia wife and a Sunni husband fighting over-- there used to be a show called Terrorism in the Grip of Justice. And they would put Sunni men on television.
Would put them on television visibly beaten. You would see, like, black eyes. And they would admit to everything. Like, "Oh, I bombed this. And I blew this up. And I blew this up." And they would fight over that, you know? The Shia wife would say, "Why are you killing Shias? And why are you killing people in the house of God, in mosques?" And the Sunni husband would say, "First of all, I'm not doing it. And why are they beating up these people and making them confess to things we don't know would happen?"
I went back in the summer of 2007. And I was very saddened. I had to sneak into the neighborhood with somebody who I knew in the neighborhood who brought me in. And we went to house after house after house to hear of the killings by the Mahdi Army. They had purged most Sunnis out of the neighborhood.
They had killed Shia women, Shia men who didn't agree with them. It was like Lord of the Flies. I mean, six really young guys, 17, 18, 19, 20, who were ruling with weapons. And if you didn't-- if you gave them a wrong look, they would shoot you. And we found one of the stories that we did was that I interviewed a woman about was-- her neighbor was shot in the back coming home from the bakery. And her son, he was seven, came out of the house and saw her bloody body on the ground.
And he went to her and he started hugging her. And nobody in the neighborhood would help him because they were scared that if they did then they would be seen as saying this was the wrong thing for the Mahdi Army to do. So this woman who I interviewed came home and saw him and took him. She was a Sunni woman across the street. And you could still see the blood on the pavement.
And she brought him in. And she said, "Let me clean you off. Let me put you in new clothes." And he said, "No. You'll see what I'm gonna do when I grow up. I need to stay with the blood of my mother." And you see that cycle of revenge that's plaguing Iraq. And I interviewed that man and he had no remorse. I mean, he talked about this woman who he said he killed. He talked about his brother who was killed in the Sunni neighborhood of Ahdamia and how the Sunnis need to be purged from Baghdad in order to keep it safe. And so that is the feeling of this constant revenge, constant violence.
BILL MOYERS: has the surge worked? We do read that the levels of violence are down. The President says the surge is working. General Petraeus said the surge is working, although he said it's very fragile. Is the surge working?
LEILA FADEL: Well, I don't think anybody can disagree that violence did drop in the last six months of 2007, that it did go back to levels of about 2005, that you could feel a change, that the bodies left in the street every day that are signs of sectarian assassinations did drop. But it's very reversible. And it's very-- a part of it also can be explained in other ways. I mean, when you have a capital, Baghdad, it's divided by sect.
And you've walled off certain neighborhoods to protect them. You know, the Sunnis sort of ghettos of Baghdad now that are walled off completely. No cars go in. And they have these U.S.-backed militias, U.S.-sponsored militias that are protecting the neighborhood. So now they can't--they're being protected from the outside world. And the outside world is being protected from them.
And so it's completely all these little fiefdoms, no central real power on any of them. And I think it's all extremely reversible. What happens to these 91,000 men who are on the U.S. payroll if they don't get absorbed into the government? What happens, as Basra and Sadr City have shown, if the militia decide, "I'm not standing down anymore. I'm not gonna get arrested," and in their eyes, "humiliated by the Iraqi government that's trying to take away my power"? What happens when-- people don't continue to be paid by the United States and maybe don't get absorbed into the Iraqi government? All these factors.
BILL MOYERS: That is so confusing. I mean, we read a lot about the thousand Iraqi soldiers who quit the fight in Basra, laid down their arms. And this week there were stories of more defectors in Sadr City. Are these people cowed? Are they afraid? What's happening?
LEILA FADEL: I think it's a combination of things. I think there are people who don't feel that they should be fighting the Mahdi Army, who don't feel that they should be killing their Shia brothers because most of the Iraqi security forces are Shia. And I think there is also threats. I mean, we had reports of the Mahdi Army going house to house in Sadr City and if they were Iraqi security forces, they would say, "We know where you live. We know where your family is. And if you fight us, we'll find you." And so I think it's a combination of the fear that their families will be killed and that they're being killed as well as a moral objection by some of them.
BILL MOYERS: Moral objection?
LEILA FADEL: I think so, yes.
BILL MOYERS: To?
LEILA FADEL: To fighting who the people they consider their brothers.
BILL MOYERS: You broke the story that it was an appeal to an Iranian source. You broke the story that the Iranians actually intervened to stop the fighting in Basra, right?
LEILA FADEL: That's right. Yeah, that's right.
BILL MOYERS: So there's real evidence on the ground that Iran is influential in Iraq.
LEILA FADEL: Yes. I mean, I don't think anybody questions that Iran is influential in Iraq. I don't know that all of Iran's influence in Iraq is bad influence. Iran has chips on every table, you know? They're betting on everybody. You'll talk to Iraqi officials who say that the Iranians are willing to give money to anybody. You have Sunni leaders going to meet with Iranian officials in Iran. The man who is the Iraqi affairs man is the head of the Qods force in Iraq in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who the United States says is a terrorist.
He is the man that deals with Iraqi affairs. He is the man that deals with Iraqi officials. He is the man that was involved when an Iraqi delegation went to Iran in March to stop the fighting in Basra and apparently was the one that was helping get Moqtada Sadr to say stand down. Now maybe it's a bad thing that the Iranians have so much influence, but what do we expect when we put a Shia government into power? These men took refuge and had funding in Iran.
BILL MOYERS: Let's listen to what President Bush said recently about Iran's influence in Iraq.
PRESIDENT BUSH:The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make. It can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties. Or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups, which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. If Iran makes the right choice, American will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops and our Iraqi partners.
BILL MOYERS: What's your reaction hearing the President talk that way?
LEILA FADEL: First of all, just in the practical sense, the American Army's tired. They're on third and fourth rotations in Iraq. Can they really go after Iran at this point? And secondly, what are we going to do if we go into Iran, the United States? They say that the Iranian government is bringing weapons into Iraq and funding and training the Shia militias. I don't know if the Iranian government is doing that.
I know that they say that the rockets hitting the Green Zone are 107-millimeter rockets that are made in Iran. I know they say the deadliest weapon used against U.S. troops are the EFPs, and those are deadly. But do you really go and invade the neighboring country of the unstable nation that you're already in?
BILL MOYERS: But do you, as a reporter, find evidence of mischief on the part of Iran?
LEILA FADEL: Oh, definitely. I don't think Iran is not mischievous. I don't think the United States is not mischievous in Iraq. I think Iran has a vested interest in having a weak Iraq next to them because they did have an eight-years war with Iraq. They did have a hostile environment between the two nations. And I think it's in their interest to have some control over that neighbor. And that's what they have. I mean, they have groups, the parties that are in power are the parties that were created in their area, are the parties that thrived and fought Saddam from Iran. And so when the best friend in the government of the United States, which I explain the Islamist Supreme Council of Iraq, when Hakim is coming to the White House and speaking to President Bush but also going to Iran and speaking to Ahmadinejad and is very, very much influenced by Iran, it's really unclear what we're complaining about. I mean, we should have expected that this government would be Iran friendly.
BILL MOYERS: Here's Senator Joe Lieberman speaking on this when General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were in town recently.
SENATOR LIEBERMAN: Let me ask you first, are the Iranians still training and equipping Iraqi extremists who are going back into Iraq and killing American soldiers?
GENERAL PETRAEUS: That is correct, Senator.
SENATOR LIEBERMAN: Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?
GENERAL PETRAEUS: It certainly is. I do believe that is correct. Again some of that also is militia elements who have then subsequently been trained by these individuals.
BILL MOYERS: What about that?
LEILA FADEL: Well, I don't, you know, the U.S. military says that they have people in detention that say they were trained and supplied in Iran and apparently have killed U.S. soldiers. I don't know. That's what they say. I don't know that it's true. They have-- and they also, you know, they're calling these Iranian-backed special groups. The entire Iraqi government is Iranian backed. You know, all these-- they say that if the United States pulls out, Iran says they can fill the security vacuum in Iraq. That's what Iran says. And Iran says, on their side of the story when they've never admitted to being involved in these things publicly. And when you ask them about it, they say, "Well, actually the problem is the United States. They want unrest in Iraq so they'll never leave."
BILL MOYERS: So, on the one hand, Iraq is working behind the scenes to broker a cease fire in Sadr City. And yet we're, again, making Iran out to be the one behind the violence. I mean, there's a paradox there, right?
LEILA FADEL: Right. Right. I don't think Iran is nothing's black and white. I don't think Iran is the white knight or the evil villain either. I think that Iran is playing a political game in Iraq.
BILL MOYERS: Was the battle in Basra a defining moment in the war, as Washington has been saying it is?
LEILA FADEL: Well, Washington has been talking about Basra as the defining moment for the Maliki government taking on the Shia militias. But a lot of people think Maliki made a big mistake. The U.S. was backing away from that battle. They were saying, "We weren't informed, and we had to get military power in last minute." The United States also, I think, is very afraid-- the U.S. military in Iraq, very afraid that what happened in Basra is gonna bring back this, what I described as a sleeping bear, up again. Because part of the success of what they call the success of the surge, one of the major factors was the freeze that Moqtada Sadr put on his militia. And now that's unraveling.
Washington's suddenly been talking lately about special groups, a term that we've never heard before. But suddenly almost every official and anonymous high-level source in Washington is talking about this special group, that special group. Who are they talking about, as you see it?
LEILA FADEL: Well, yeah. I'd like to know that, too. They have started-- they've coined this term "special groups." And what they say is special groups are Iranian-backed Shia militias. Iran's a Shia nation. Iran is very, very influential in Iraq. There's no question. They're a very powerful neighbor and it's in their interest to be influential in their neighbor who was once hostile.
But anytime you see any attacks by militias, the American military will say it's the Iranian-backed special groups. It's not Moqtada Sadr, who is the leader of this militia that's being fought right now. I mean, they can talk about Sadr City for the generals can talk about Sadr City for an hour and never mention Moqtada Sadr or the Mahdi Army because they're saying it's Iranian-backed special groups. But it-
BILL MOYERS: So they say Iran is behind everybody, right?
LEILA FADEL: Right.
BILL MOYERS: In effect, that's the line now.
LEILA FADEL: Right, right.
BILL MOYERS: Is al-Qaeda still a factor?
LEILA FADEL: Yes. I mean, I think the last two days showed that.
BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?
LEILA FADEL: The last two days 120 people died.
BILL MOYERS: You think that's from al-Qaeda?
LEILA FADEL: Yes, I do.
BILL MOYERS: Is al-Qaeda in Iraq indigenous to the country? Or do you have evidence, as a journalist, that al-Qaeda gets its orders from Osama bin Laden and that network?
LEILA FADEL: Well, you know, al-Qaeda was not a force to be reckoned with before 2003.
BILL MOYERS: Yeah, we learned that.
LEILA FADEL: It was not. Okay, yes, exactly. And so al-Qaeda was a very foreign idea. I think the rank and file al-Qaeda is Iraqi. But the leadership is foreign. And it's a foreign idea, and it's a foreign group. And I think it's easier for Iraqis to reject. Now, when it comes to groups like the Mahdi Army or the Islamic Army, which was a Sunni insurgent group that very much are now part of these awakening groups, those groups are much more difficult to reject. These are people's neighbors and fathers and brothers. So al-Qaeda in Iraq had more of a foreign leadership and is more acceptable to reject.
The question everyone's asking is what will victory look like in Iraq? It was the big topic when General Petraeus testified recently.
LEILA FADEL: There something one of my staff members always says.
BILL MOYERS: Iraqi?
LEILA FADEL: Iraqi staff member. He's from Fallujah. And he says that every time there's one step forward, it feels like they're making one step back to square one. A lot of what's being done today is fixing years of mistakes that we've made. And so what is victory? Is victory dealing with a terrorist organization that didn't really exist in Iraq before we invaded? Is victory dealing with an Iranian influence on the government that we invaded to put in power?
It's a very confusing thing. I would ask the generals, they describe something called irreversible momentum, a point where you get to where that's it. It's no longer reversible and fragile. It's real success. When that is, I don't know. What is an acceptable level of violence? They talk about acceptable level of violence. I don't know.
And so to define victory I don't even know what that is. Is victory that people are everybody's returning and there's electricity and water? Well, that's not happening. I mean, there are some people returning, yes. But you don't have four million people coming back home from internally and abroad. There's thousands of people.
BILL MOYERS: Four million refugees.
LEILA FADEL: Four million between--
BILL MOYERS: Displaced within the country and--
LEILA FADEL: And outside.
BILL MOYERS: --and outside the country.
LEILA FADEL: Four million.
BILL MOYERS: Are there any positive signs to a reporter?
LEILA FADEL: You know, I have to say that the last six months of 2007, there were positive signs. You could move around a bit more. I've been able to move around a bit more, you know? And I can't deny that that's happening. The issue is, is you don't know what's lasting and what's real and what's going to backfire in ten days. And, you know, this Basra situation, it was the symbol or the quantification of how quickly things can change.
And suddenly, you know, a year, a year ago, it was the Sunni neighborhoods I couldn't go to. They were the most difficult. And I was very fearful to go into these neighborhoods. Now it's different. It's the Sunni neighborhoods where I feel comfortable going into because they have the whole U.S. military around there anyways and they're being paid by them.
And so going in as an American isn't that dangerous anymore. Although I don't announce it, of course, and I still go with a scarf and try to blend. But going to the Shia neighborhoods are more difficult now and more frightening because they're the ones in the limelight and they're the ones fighting right now with both the Iraqi security forces and the U.S. military. So-
BILL MOYERS: Talk a little bit about how you do your job you have a staff of how many Iraqis working for you there?
LEILA FADEL: Well, I have five Iraqi translator-slash-reporter-slash-- fixers, like fixing appointments and things like that, who work with me in the bureau. They have grown into really wonderful reporters in their own right, two women and three men. I also have a staff of five drivers because we travel in two cars at all times for protection. And then we have stringers around the country who will feed us-- information from the provinces that we're not in, whether it be in the southern, northern western provinces. So that we can give a full picture to our to our readers--
BILL MOYERS: How do you keep the sectarian rivalries out of your own newsroom?
LEILA FADEL: Yeah. Well, you know, first of all, I have just amazing people in our bureau, very human, very wonderful. But it is hard to keep that hate out of the bureau. I mean, their lives are not being lived separately from what's happening in Iraq. So, you know, when I hired-- when I arrived there, many of the people that I had worked with over the year and a half, about two years before I became bureau chief were leaving. They were fleeing the country. And So I had to hire so many people and re-staff the bureau. And the first question I had to ask, and it's a shameful question in Iraq, was, "Are you Sunni or Shia?" Because I need to know so that I don't take them to a neighborhood where they'll be killed for being Shia or Sunni. I can't-- put their life at risk that way. And so-- and also they're gonna have a different perspective-- if I only have Shia on staff or only have Sunni on staff, I'll have one perspective of this war.
BILL MOYERS: What's the distinction between a Sunni and a Shia, from-- in-- in the practical working world?
LEILA FADEL: In the practical world. Well, basically it was a dispute on who was the leader of Islam following the Prophet Mohammad's death.
BILL MOYERS: Hundreds of years ago.
LEILA FADEL: Hundreds of years ago. Basically the Shias believe that the proper, the rightful leader of Islam following Mohammad's death was his son-in-law and his cousin, Ali. And the Sunnis believe that the four calista following Mohammad were the rightful leaders of Islam. And the split came after the after Ali's death. And so the Shia and Sunni, I mean, this is just a religious disagreement or a, really, I guess it's a bureaucratic disagreement from hundreds of years ago. But-
BILL MOYERS: It's hard to believe that people still fight and die over this, right?
LEILA FADEL: I mean, there isn't especially in Iraq, there isn't a huge, huge difference. I mean, there most of the tribes in Iraq are intermarried. It's not unheard of for Shias and Sunnis to be married and have children. And, of course, the religious line in Islam comes from the father. So if the father is Sunni or Shia then the children will likely be Sunni or Shia.
But now because of the practical problems of being married to a Sunni or a Shia, it has stopped. So when I say "practical problems," I interviewed a family who-- the daughter-- their daughter-- married a Sunni man-- after very, very-- after a lot of resistance from her father. And-- she finally agreed 'cause he was a good man. And-- and so they got married. And a few months after they got married, they got run out of their neighborhood as Sunnis in a Shia neighborhood and went to Amara, which was Sunni, completely Sunni neighborhood.
And so suddenly they could barely see their daughter. The Shia family could not go the Amara to visit them. And the Sunni husband couldn't come to their neighborhood to visit his in-laws. So they would come to a neutral point. The brothers would come pick up the sister. And the husband would go home. She would go visit her family. And then they would come back to the neutral point and go home.
BILL MOYERS: How old are you?
LEILA FADEL: I'm 26.
BILL MOYERS: And you've been in Iraq how long?
LEILA FADEL: I became bureau chief at 25. And I started at 24. So I turned both 25 and 26 in Iraq.
BILL MOYERS: So you have a lot in common with these soldiers and with the Iraqis. I mean, so many of them are young.
LEILA FADEL: Yeah. I mean, I think covering the story-- you have to be an empathetic person. You have to be able to put yourself in so many different people's shoes. And I try to do that with whoever I'm with at the time.
BILL MOYERS: Are you afraid? Do you think something could happen?
LEILA FADEL: No, not really. I mean, you can't think like that. You can't-- I mean, think every time you return to Iraq you-- in the beginning, first week, you might be a little more scared than you were when you left the last week. But by the middle of the rotation you're telling your staff, "We have to go here, and we have to go there." And they're telling you, "Are you crazy? You're a foreigner. What are you thinking?"
But you can't be afraid all the time. There are cases where you're afraid. I remember in 2005 when our hotel got attacked and we had a double truck bombing. And it was the end of 2005. And I couldn't sleep for a week because it had happened in the morning. And I'd been asleep when glass started coming in. So I was afraid to close my eyes because if I would open them, maybe it would be shaking-- maybe our hotel would be shaking again and the bombing would happen again.
But that goes away. And you have to work. And life goes on and just like Iraqis, they've-- I was telling somebody the other day, life adapts to the situation. You can't move around at night 'cause it's too dangerous then you have your wedding at 1:00 p.m. instead of a night/evening party. Oh, you can't celebrate New Year's at midnight 'cause you can't get home at midnight? Your New Year's party finishes at 8:00.
You can't get to a certain neighborhood because it's Shia and you're Sunni? You open grocery stores in your gardens. I mean, you just adapt. And some of that is changing for the better. And some is not.
BILL MOYERS: Your colleagues at the bureau do a blog every day, right? They're allowed to write what they're seeing and thinking?
LEILA FADEL: That's right. They do a blog. It's called Inside Iraq. And it's one of my favorite parts of what we do because it's so telling. It's things that we can't capture in a story, in an article that's gonna go into a newspaper. It's life. It's the checkpoints that take them three hours to get to work in the morning. It's the curfews that stop their life. It's that fear of a sniper on campus when your daughter's at the dentist.
It's the sudden human invasion. We had a blogger in one of my staffers, who's just amazing, a single mother, so brave, who lost her son in this war, caught in a crossfire. She's so strong, so strong. And she wrote a blog and it was called "Square Windows." And it was about the U.S. military, U.S. soldiers coming down the street. And she looked through the square windows of the Humvee, and she realized they were the age of her son who was killed.
And she wondered if any other time those boys would have been friends, if at any other time they would have had the same interests. And it made me so sad because it just tells the human toll, when you're not looking at the policy and when you're not looking at whether the U.S. military's doing the right thing or whether the Iraqis are-- it's just basic human.
BILL MOYERS: Leila Fadel, thank you very much for being with us on THE JOURNAL. And thank you for agreeing to go online, PBS.org, and answer questions from our viewers.
On the foreign stage, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made a reputation on combative rhetoric. At home...his reputation hinges on the economical situation.
The Bush Administration continues its rhetoric of confrontation against Iran, including the threat of military force based on dubious claims that echo those used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Despite the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons research in 2003, the White House continues to hype Iran as an imminent "danger". Just Foreign Policy has released a new Web video that shows the dangers of such armed U.S. intervention and the dire need for real diplomacy:
Conversations host Harry Kreisler welcomes Carnegie policy analyst Karim Sadjadpour for a discussion of Iran, its domestic politics and foreign policy. Questions addressed include: What are the dynamics of internal politics? What is the role of the Revolutionary Guard? What are Iran's regional goals? What are its goals in Iraq? Can its quest for nuclear weapons be halted? and How should the United States deal with this formidable power in the vital Middle East?
PART 1: Are assumptions about Iran wrong?
PART 2: Do the Democrats have a different answer on Iran?
Click here for Video & Transcript (also see below)
Noam Chomsky is a renowned professor of linguistics at MIT. He has authored over 30 political books dissecting U.S. interventionism in the developing world, the political economy of human rights and the propaganda role of corporate media.
PART 1 - Noam Chomsky on US policy towards Iran - Are assumptions about Iran wrong? - November 19, 2007
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR: ElBaradei, is the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, stated quite definitively there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. The recent resolution—the Kyle-Lieberman amendment—and the recent U.S. sanctions against Iran, which one of the charges is that Iran has been helping what they call insurgents in Iraq. There's practically no evidence of that either. Based on what we know as evidence, there's not a lot of reasons for U.S. policy to be as aggressive right now towards Iran as it is, certainly not for the stated reason. What really does motivate U.S. policy towards Iran?
NOAM CHOMSKY, PROFESSOR OF LINGUISTICS, MIT: Well, if I can make a comment about the stated reasons, the very fact that we're discussing them tells us a lot about the sort of intellectual culture and moral culture in the United States. I mean, suppose it was true that Iran is helping insurgents in Iraq. I mean, wasn’t the United States helping insurgents when the Russians invaded Afghanistan? Did we think there was anything wrong with that? I mean, Iraq's a country that was invaded and is under military occupation. You can't have a serious discussion about whether someone else is interfering in it. The basic assumption underlying the discussion is that we own the world. So if we invade and occupy another country, then it's a criminal act for anyone to interfere with it. What about the nuclear weapons? I mean, are there countries with nuclear weapons in the region? Israel has a couple of hundred nuclear weapons. The United States gives more support to it than any other country in the world. The Bush administration is trying very hard to push through an agreement that not only authorizes India's illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons but assists it. That's what the U.S.-Indo Nuclear Pact is about. And, furthermore, there happens to be an obligation of the states in the Security Council and elsewhere to move towards establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region. Now that would include Iran and Israel and any U.S. forces deployed there. That's part of Resolution 687. Now to your question. The real reasons for the attack on Iran, the sanctions, and so on go back into history. I mean, we like to forget the history; Iranians don't. In 1953, the United States and Britain overthrew the parliamentary government and installed a brutal dictator, the Shah, who ruled until 1979. And during his rule, incidentally, the United States was strongly supporting the same programs they're objecting to today. In 1979, the population overthrew the dictator, and since then the United States has been essentially torturing Iran. First it tried a military coup. Then it supported Saddam Hussein during Iraq's invasion of Iran, which killed hundreds of thousands of people. Then, after that was over, the United States started imposing harsh sanctions on Iran. And now it's escalating that. The point is: Iran is out of control. You know, it's supposed to be a U.S.-client state, as it was under the Shah, and it's refusing to play that role.
JAY: The sanctions that were just issued recently [are] the beginnings of a kind of act of war, this ratcheting up of the rhetoric right at a time when the IAEA is saying, in fact, Iran's cooperating in the process. But it's all coming down to this question of does Iran even have its right to enrich uranium for civilian nuclear, which in fact it has, under the non-proliferation treaty. But Bush in his last press conference, where he had his famous World War III warning, has said even the knowledge of having nuclear weapons we won't permit, never mind a civilian program. This puts U.S. policy on a collision course with the IAEA, with international law.
CHOMSKY: Just a couple of years ago, from 2004 through 2006, Iran did agree to suspend all uranium enrichment, halt even what everyone agrees they're legally entitled to. That was an agreement with the European Union. They agreed to suspend all uranium enrichment. And in return, the European Union was to provide what were called full guarantees on security issues—that means getting the United States to call off its threats to attack and destroy Iran. Well, the European Union didn't live up to its obligation, [as] they couldn't get the U.S. to stop it. So the Iranians then also pulled out and began to return to uranium enrichment. The way that's described here is-- the Iranians broke the agreement.
JAY: The experts are saying, including ElBaradei and others, that if you can enrich uranium to something just under 5%, which is apparently what's needed for civilian purposes, you're most of the way there towards the technology of having a bomb, that once you have that enrichment technology, you're not that much further towards a bomb.
CHOMSKY: Yeah, but that's true of every developed country in the world. Why pick out Iran? It's true of Japan, it's true of Brazil, it's true of Egypt. And in fact, one could say—here I tend to agree with the Bush administration. In the non-proliferation treaty, there's an article, Article 4, which says that countries signing the NPT are allowed to develop nuclear energy. Well, okay, that made some sense in 1970, but by now technology has developed enough so that it has reached the point that you describe. When you've developed nuclear energy, you're not that far from nuclear weapons. So, yeah, I think something should be done about that. But that has nothing special to do with Iran. In fact, it's a much more serious problem for those nuclear weapons states who are obligated under that same treaty to make good faith efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether. And, in fact, there are some solutions to that. ElBaradei had proposed a couple of years ago that no states should develop weapons-grade materials: all high enrichment should be done by an international agency, maybe the IAEA or something else, and then countries should apply to it. If they want enriched uranium for nuclear energy, the international agency should determine whether they're doing it for peaceful means. As far as I'm aware, there's only one country that formally agreed to ElBaradei's proposal. That was Iran. And there's more. I mean, there's an international treaty, called the Fissban, to ban production of fissile materials except under international control. The United States has been strongly opposed to that, to a verifiable treaty. Nevertheless, it did come to the General Assembly, the U.N. Disarmament Commission in the General Assembly, which overwhelmingly voted in favour of it. The disarmament commission vote was, I think, 147 to 1, the United States being the 1. Unless a verifiable fissile materials treaty is passed and implemented, the world very well may move towards nuclear disaster.
JAY: Do you think we're actually moving towards a military confrontation? Or are we seeing a game of brinksmanship?
CHOMSKY: Well, whether purposely or not, yes, we're moving towards a military confrontation.
PART 2 - Do the Democrats have a different answer on Iran? - Noam Chomsky on Democratic presidential race and Iran - November 29, 2007
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR: The vote over the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, the Senate resolution to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, essentially was followed up on by the administration when they did declare the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and issued sanctions against three major Iranian banks. The reaction in the Democratic Party was interesting, Senator Clinton being the only presidential candidate in the Senate that voted for the resolution. All the other candidates both in and out of the Senate opposed it—quite a significant split, I would say, with Joe Biden and Senator Webb, who were very, very vocal, vocally against the resolution. What do you make of what this next Democratic, well, I should say, between now and the election, the leadership of the Democratic Party? And if we are looking at Senator Clinton as the next president, which if all things remain the same we probably are, what do you make of the Democratic Party and Iran?
NOAM CHOMSKY, PROFESSOR OF LINGUISTICS, MIT: The Democratic Party is somewhere in between the administration and overwhelming world opinion. I mean, the world is just appalled at the thought that the United States might invade Iran, attack Iran. Now, even in the region, you know, where the countries don't like Iran at all—Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan hostile to Iran in many ways—but, nevertheless, the population in the region, which has been polled, prefers Iran to have nuclear weapons than to having any war, even though they definitely don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. When you go beyond, opposition is simply overwhelming. In fact, you can't find any corner of the world, I think, outside of Israel where there's any support for the U.S. policies. In fact, the American population is overwhelmingly opposed. About 75% of the population—at least a few months ago, before the huge propaganda offensive—75% of the population was against any threats against Iran. So the Democratic Party is sort of hovering in between almost universal world opposition to even the threats of war.
JAY: There seems to be a division amongst at least the leadership of the Democratic Party on this question. Webb, Biden on one side and some others, certainly, you know, Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, Gravel. But in terms of leadership there seems to be a serious split with Senator Clinton signing on to this resolution.
CHOMSKY: There's a split between Gravel, Kucinich, and others like them and the rest of the Democratic Party, and then there's a split between them and the extreme hawks like Lieberman. But the question is one of degree. I mean, every viable candidate—I'm not talking about Gravel and Kucinich or Ron Paul—every viable candidate has said we have to keep the options open, meaning they are continuing the threats of military action against Iran. I don't know if anybody cares, but there is something called the U.N. Charter, which is a valid treaty that we're committed to which bars the threat or use of force. So they're all in violation of the Charter and they don't seem to care. The media don't seem to care. I mean, the media and the political class are isolated from both world opinion and even domestic opinion. And, yes, there are some variations within the Democratic Party over this as to how extreme they are. But its, all, almost all of it is just kind of like off the wall from an international point of view, except for people like Gravel and Kucinich.
Dick Cheney, George Bush and Stephen Hadley are at the White House Press Court "defending" their acts and statements regarding threats to Iran despite their previous knowledge to the NIE.
To view the video click here.
Josh Marshall talks about the new NIE and President Bush's reaction.
Rethinking Global Sisterhood: Western Feminism and Iran .
The book makes the case that Western feminism has turned from “being the critic of the system of white male dominance to being its docile servant” in the Muslim world.