IRANIAN LABYRINTH: AUTHOR DILIP HIRO TALKS ABOUT THE U.S. THREATS TOWARDS TEHRAN

Democracy Now!
March 3, 2005

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/03/1524211

The Bush administration has adopted a hard-line stance against Iran, repeatedly accusing President Khatami's government of trying to develop nuclear weapons and refusing to hold direct talks. We speak with veteran journalist Dilip Hiro, author of the forthcoming book, Iranian Labyrinth, about the U.S. threats towards Tehran.

Since the January elections in Iraq, the Bush administration has been touting what it calls its success in beginning the process of democratizing Iraq. And officials have said that an era of sweeping change is hitting the Middle East. Supporters of the administration have celebrated the recent events in Lebanon that brought down the country's government following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Anti-government demonstrations have also taken place in Egypt for the first time in years. Meanwhile, Washington continues to amplify its rhetoric against Syria and Iran. In the coming weeks on Democracy Now!, we will be taking a close look at the Bush administrations claim that it is bringing democracy to the region. Later in this program, we will be joined by the famed Egyptian feminist Nawal al Sadaawi. We will also look at recent developments in Syria with two leading Syrian human rights activists. But first, we begin with Iran. The White House has repeatedly accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons and has so far refused to hold direct talks. European countries on the other hand, have been engaged in dialogue with President Khatami's government and have stressed diplomacy. In what seemed to be a contradiction of U.S. policy, the Russian government agreed a few days ago to supply spent nuclear fuel for an Iranian nuclear reactor. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke about the move in an interview on Britain's ITN News. [Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, March 1, 2005.]

Throughout the process, Iran has denied it is developing a nuclear arms program and says it is within its legal right to pursue peaceful programs for nuclear energy. This is Sirus Nasseri, the head of the Iranian delegation to the IAEA. [Sirus Nasseri, head of the Iranian delegation to the IAEA, March 2, 2005.]

While the Bush administration has been urging the UN nuclear watchdog group to refer Iran to the Security Council for possible sanctions, the IAEA has maintained a focus on dialogue. This is what the head of the IAEA, Mohamed El-Baradei, had to say. [Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, March 2, 2005.]

We turn now to Dilip Hiro. He is a veteran journalist on the Middle East. His trilogy of books on Iraq and Iran are considered some of the most definitive histories of the wars in the Persian Gulf. His forthcoming book is called "Iranian Labyrinth." He joins us on the line from Britan. [Dilip Hiro]

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

--This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Dilip Hiro. He is a veteran journalist on the Middle East. His trilogy of books on Iraq and Iran are considered some of the most definitive histories of the wars in the Persian Gulf. His forthcoming book is called Iranian Labyrinth. He joins us on the phone from Britain. Welcome to Democracy Now!

DILIP HIRO: Thank you. Good morning.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Can you talk about the latest situation with Iran?

DILIP HIRO: Yeah. I think two things have happened. The International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, issued a statement on Tuesday pointing out that there are certain questions which Iran has not clarified, and that's one. The second point they have made is that there’s one specific military base called Parchin, and Iran has denied them access to all parts of that particular base. They had been there once before in January. They wanted to go again, and that has not happened. Then, of course, the following day, which is, of course, Wednesday, two statements were issued, one by the U.S. representative on the Board of Governors of the IAEA, Jackie Sanders, and the other statement was issued by the European Union trial court of Britain, Germany and France. And a summary of that, of course, has appeared in the New York Times, and, of course, the Americans have said Iran is not complying with the Non-nuclear Proliferation Treaty, NPT, and they have broken this treaty, and they should be taken to the U.N. Security Council, whereas the European statement says that whatever happened, they deeply regret that, but, of course, they're continuing to talk with Iran to come up with an agreement. The agreement would be basically -- has two parts. One is that the Iranians would give up (in quote) “voluntarily,” their right to enrich uranium, which is allowed under the nuclear NPT, and in return, the Europeans will help the Iranians with the civilian nuclear technology and other economic concessions, like making them most favored nation for the European Union trade and cooperation. And those talks are still going on. And, of course, there is, you know, on the Mar. 25, there is the meeting of the 35-member Board of Governors in Vienna, in which, of course, they meet every quarter, and so Iran will be at the top of their agenda.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Sirus Nasseri, head of the Iranian delegation to the International Atomic Energy Agency?

SIRUS NASSERI: Nuclear fuel production is a part of a new created market in the very near future. Within a decade or so, there will be a much stronger demand for nuclear energy, in accordance to all forecasts, and therefore, a much stronger demand for nuclear fuel. We have the technology. We have the facilities. And we will produce nuclear fuel for our own consumption first, and hopefully one day, for making it available in a competitive manner to others who would require it. This is a position which is supported by law, and it is also a matter of common sense. Just as no other country who has such facilities is prepared to give up such capacity and capability, it would be entirely wrong and misguided to ask Iran to give this capability up.

AMY GOODMAN: Sirus Nasseri, the head of the Iranian delegation to the IAEA. While the Bush administration has been urging the nuclear watchgroup to refer Iran to the Security Council for possible sanctions, the IAEA has maintained a focus on dialogue. This is what the head of the IAEA, Mohamed El-Baradei had to say.

MOHAMED EL-BARADEI: If I say there are three more important things Iran needs to do, I should say transparency, transparency and more transparency. And that's exactly where we are. We had a good meeting today with Iranian colleagues, and again I explained to them that it really is in their interest to make everything possible for us to speed up the process and conclude our investigation on the past program. That's part of our work, which I think also will help in the dialogue that Iran is having now with the Europeans, because the more confidence it created with regard to their past program, the more easily the Europeans and Iran will be able to focus on the future normalization of relations, in areas of economic relations, trade, technology and securities.

AMY GOODMAN: Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA. When we come back from our break we'll get the response from Dilip Hiro, who wrote a piece in the New York Times on Wednesday called “Allah and Democracy Can Get Along Fine.” Then we'll be joined by the famed Egyptian feminist, Nawal El Saadawi. And finally, we'll speak about Syria with Syrians. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We continue with Dilip Hiro, who wrote a piece in the New York Times, "Allah and Democracy Can Get Along Fine." There is a big discussion going on in the United States right now, maybe in Britain, as well, Dilip Hiro, that Bush is bringing democracy to the Middle East. Your response.

DILIP HIRO: Yeah. I think actually, I would say in part it's a spin because, of course, we know about the disaster the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq has caused, and so they aren’t latching on to what happened in Iraq. The important point to remember about election in Iraq is that it -- whatever happened, the credit for that goes to a gentleman or I should say an ayatollah, a Grand Ayatollah, Ali Sistani. He is, in my view, the most powerful person in Iraq today, and I have been saying this for the past two years. And there’s quite a lot about him in my book, Secrets and Lies. He issued a statement calling on all believing Muslims, the believers, that voting is a religious duty, a religious duty. And that is the reason why, you know, millions of Iraqis actually went to the polling stations and voted. And of course, at the same time, we have to see that when it comes to interpretation of Islam, those militants and insurgents who were against elections and did a lot of terrorist actions in that case were also quoting the Koran and Islam and saying that participating in this election will be un-Islamic. So whatever happened in Iraq, I would say 85% credit goes to Ayatollah Sistani. If Sistani had not issued the statement, if there would not have been tens of thousands of posters in which you see his bearded face and his Islamic decree in Arabic, that result would not have happened. Then, of course, we talk about the Palestinian Authority thing happened. Of course, the point about the Palestinian thing is that there was election, first time in -- among -- for the Palestinians since January 1996. At that time, the voter turnout was 88%, and Arafat won 87% of the vote. He had opposition. This time, in the wave of democracy that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are drumming up, only about 65% of the people went to vote in Palestinian elections, and of that, less than 60% voted for Mr. Abbas. So, overall, Mr. Abbas had about 40% of the total vote. So it is not something which has happened because of what Bush and Blair have done in Iraq, as I explained, these two particular examples, and if you want more specifically, you mentioned my op-ed piece in the New York Times written from Doha in Qatar. I was in Doha in Qatar where, of course, there is Al-Jazeera television. There also is the forward base of the CENTCOM, on the outskirts of Doha. Now, there, the emir of Qatar, Emir Hamad Al-Thani, he actually abolished censorship in 1998. 1998. So, this has nothing to do with Bush and his invasion of Iraq, and in fact, he abolished the censorship because he abolished the Ministry of Information, and Al-Jazeera had been there since November 1996, and whenever such stalwarts of democracy like Colin Powell, like Donald Rumsfeld, turned to emir of Qatar and said, ‘Mr. Emir, Mr. Emir, Mr. Hamad Al-Thani, you must curb Al-Jazeera. They're anti-American.’ So the man, this Emir, would turn around and say, ‘Excuse me, sir, I abolished censorship in my country in 1998. Here is the Constitution.’ That Constitution has 148 articles, and one of the articles specifically says -- I have the actual Constitution, which I have quoted in the op-ed in the New York Times on Tuesday -- it says, there’s freedom of the press and expression in Qatar. So he said, ‘Why are you -- you are asking me, (in quotes) “advising me” that I should curb Al-Jazeera, impose censorship in a country where there is no censorship?’ Now, is anybody going to explain to me that this emir did all of this in 1998, March 1998, to be specific, just because it’s the way of democracy?

As far as Lebanon is concerned, let me say something very quickly and specifically. You know, this is again from a dictionary of the Middle East, The Essential Middle East, that in Lebanon, the implantation of democracy was done by the French. Then they had the mandate in Lebanon, they created the Republic of Lebanon, and the Constitution of Lebanon was done by the French. They have elections in Lebanon since 1927. There were no elections during the Civil War from 1975-1990. So it isn't that Mr. Bush and Dr. Rice came along and gave this, you know, go ahead to democracy in Lebanon. It's been going on much longer than that. And finally, of course, Iran -- let me just, because my next book is on Iran, and I wish Dr. Rice would pick up the copy and read Chapter Two of that, which is that since Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, there have been seven parliamentary elections. There have been eight presidential elections. There have been two local elections. There have been three elections to the Assembly of Experts. If you add them all up, you get 20 elections in Iran over the past 24 years, and have we heard Dr. Rice or Colin Powell or Mr. Bush saying, ‘Hurrah-hurrah-hurrah’? And where they are going ‘hurrah-hurrah-hurrah’ is this election, so-called election, in Saudi Arabia. Now, Saudi Arabia, the elections were promised in Saudi Arabia in 1962. You heard me right, 1962. So, after 42 years, elections were held, local elections, and in that election, only half of the members elected, and even then the Saudi citizens were so cynical about the whole thing that only one quarter of the Saudi men -- only men are allowed to vote -- bothered to register, and when elections came, only two-thirds of them bothered to go to the polling stations. So now, that particular election, if you were to read Mr. Bush's speeches, especially the one he delivered at the American Enterprise Institute last year, that great democracy is coming in Saudi Arabia because they have held these elections, which, you know, is a bit of a joke. I happened to be in Doha when these elections were held, and the people in Qatar were just, you know, snickering at this. What? We had our local national elections in 1999, and there were women candidates, and then we had another election in 2003. There were women candidates. One of them won, and in that country of Doha in Qatar there is a minister of education who is a woman. So is somebody telling me that it was Mr. Bush, that he is stoking the fires of democracy?

AMY GOODMAN: Dilip Hiro, we’re going to have to leave it there.

DILIP HIRO: Okay.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us. Dilip Hiro is author of The Essential Middle East: A Comprehensive Guide [Carrol & Graf, 1996; rev. ed. 2003], forthcoming book is Iranian Labyrinth [Nation Books; release date: July 10, 2005].

2.

Opinion

Op-Ed

DEMOCRACY AND ALLAH CAN GET ALONG JUST FINE
By Dilip Hiro

New York Times
March 1, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/opinion/01hiro.html

DOHA, Qatar -- With the emergence of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance as the majority party in Iraq's National Assembly, the scene is set for the drafting of a permanent constitution that will specify the Shariah, or Islamic law, as the main source of Iraqi legislation. This prospect is sending a chill down the spines of many Westerners, who see it as a preamble to the rise of a theocratic regime in Baghdad that would be a far cry from the liberal, secular Iraq envisioned by the Bush administration.

But such concerns are unwarranted. Just as in the West there are many constitutions based in varying ways on Christian morality, there are several models of an Islamic state. Instead of fretting, Americans and other Westerners would do better to examine how Iraq's neighbors have melded religion and government, and how well or badly they have succeeded in joining the modern world.

Obviously, the greatest worry is that Iraq will follow in the footsteps of Iran. Tehran's theocracy is based on an idea called "the rule of the jurisprudent," a concept that was developed in its modern form by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 revolution. Under the rule, clerics participate in the day-to-day running of the country, and have the power to ensure that all laws and regulations conform with Islam and the country's constitution.

It is highly unlikely, however, that Iraq will choose this path. Sunnis do not subscribe to the doctrine of rule of the jurisprudent, which is rooted in Shiite history and ideology. And while Iran is 90 percent Shiite, at least 35 percent of Iraqis are Sunnis, including both Arabs and Kurds. Since the interim constitution gives the Sunni Arabs and Kurds veto power over the permanent constitution when it is put to a public referendum, there is no chance that a Shiite legal concept will become the foundation of the country's law.

What Westerners tend to forget is that Iran is not the only Persian Gulf state to mix elements of Islam and democracy. Consider, for example, Iraq's neighbor Saudi Arabia and the small state of Qatar.

Last month Saudi Arabia held elections for seats in local councils for the first time in its 73-year history, a step that Qatar had taken six years earlier. The Saudi government made a great show of heralding the vote as historic, and cleverly sponsored an international antiterrorism conference in Riyadh, the capital, on the eve of the poll to attract foreign journalists who might otherwise not have bothered to cover the local elections.

But this official enthusiasm cannot hide the fact that the Saudi regime first promised political reform -- including a written constitution and a largely elected national "consultative council" -- in 1962. Thirty years passed before King Fahd issued the country's Basic Law; and he did so by royal decree rather than through any legislative process. When the long-promised consultative council was created in 1993, its members were chosen by the king rather than elected, and authorized merely to question cabinet ministers' decisions.

This helps explain why Saudis were so distrustful of their government's promise of taking a first step toward democracy that only a quarter of eligible voters registered, and only two-thirds of those went to the polls. And, of course, women were not allowed to vote, just as they are not allowed to drive and are required to veil themselves from head to toe. The religious police, armed with canes, often hit the ankles of those women who dare to show them in public.

In addition, alcohol, movies and dancing in public are banned. There is strict censorship of the news media and of books, whether published domestically or imported. Only Muslims are allowed to worship. Christians are not even permitted to wear jewelry containing a cross.

Islam is the state religion of Saudi Arabia, and all legislation is derived exclusively from the Shariah. Members of the governing House of Saud belong to the puritanical Wahhabi sect within Sunni Islam, and the religious legitimacy of the royal household is underwritten by the Supreme Religious Council, nominated by the king.

Things are quite different in Qatar. As the Saudi men went to the polls, officials and the news media here watched with a mix of quiet approval at the idea and regret at the disenfranchisement of women. Most of all, it made Qataris feel proud of their own political system. After all, they had their first local elections, based on universal franchise, in March 1999.

As in Saudi Arabia, the ruling family of Qatar is Wahhabi. And, here too, the Islamic Shariah is the main source of legislation -- it states in Article 1 of the Qatari Constitution, which was ratified by referendum in 2003, that "Islam is the state's religion and the Islamic Shariah is the main source of its legislations."

Nonetheless, Qatar has a relatively democratic political system. The Constitution created a 45-member Parliament, called the Advisory Council, with 30 elected members. It may not be a full legislature by Western standards, but it is authorized to approve the state budget and monitor the executive authority, which rests with the ruler, called the emir.

Article 50 of the Constitution, which assures the freedom to worship, applies to all. The Anglican archdeacon for the Persian Gulf region is based in Doha. Christian groups can congregate in halls or private villas, where ministers, priests or pious laymen can conduct worship.

Equally important is Article 48 of the Constitution, assuring freedom of the press. In March 1998 the emir, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani, abolished the Ministry of Information, thus ending censorship of print and broadcast media. The state-owned news media entities became independent public institutions. And, of course, the law widened the horizons of the most prominent Arab news source, Al Jazeera, which was established in 1996.

Women in Qatar are free to drive and wear jeans and blouses; you even see them in bikinis at the beaches and swimming pools. Women have the same political rights as men. In the first local elections more women voted than men; in 2003 a woman won a seat on the 29-member Municipal Council. The minister of education is a woman. Alcohol is served in the guest rooms of all 5-star and 4-star hotels. In my 4-star hotel, there is a bar and a disco. Such an arrangement would be unthinkable in Saudi Arabia.

Not that Qatar is perfect by any means. But if two homogenous Sunni nations, both with rulers belonging to the Wahhabi sect, can be so different, it is unlikely that Iraq, with its unique mix of religious and ethnic groups, will emulate an existing fundamentalist republic or monarchy. Instead of worrying about the mixing of faith and law, let us see how the emergent Islamic Republic of Iraq creates a category by itself among democratic yet religious states of the Persian Gulf.

--Dilip Hiro is the author of The Essential Middle East: A Comprehensive Guide and the forthcoming Iranian Labyrinth.