Tuesday marks the beginning of the show trial of the seven Iranian Baha'i community leaders, incarcerated in Tehran's infamous Evin Prison since 2008, for allegedly spying for Israel, spreading propaganda against the Islamic republic and committing religious offenses. Notwithstanding my open letters (see below) and personal e-mails to Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor of The New York Times, concerning the failure of The Times to provide op-ed space concerning Iran's brutal discrimination against its largest non-Muslim religious minority, Mr. Rosenthal chose not to respond.
Why the brutal discrimination against Iran's Baha'is? Simple. Iran's mullahs are incapable of tolerating devotion to any prophet born after Mohammed, who for the mullahs represents the final and ultimate revelation of divine truth. Anyone believing in a prophet who arrived after Mohammed is a "moharebeh", i.e. enemy of God.
Why has The Times provided Roger Cohen and Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett so much op-ed space to advocate, respectively, that "Iran is not totalitarian" and that the U.S. should seek "rapprochement" with Iran as it is presently constituted, without permitting rebuttal? Not so simple. In fact, this remains a mystery to me.
True, the Obama administration's foreign policy was initially characterized by an attempt to tame the world's most savage dictators with conciliatory gestures intended to inform foes that America sought a break from its hardline past. It took Obama nearly a year to comprehend that except in Disney movies, monsters do not respond to kindness, and after almost exactly a year, Mullen and Petraeus are making different noises, at least with respect to Iran.
The New York Times editorial position has been in lockstep with Obama throughout the year. Regarding Iran, is The Times simply slow to acknowledge this shift by the Obama administration away from what had been desired détente with the Islamic Republic of Iran, as advocated by Cohen, the Leveretts, Ray Takeyh, and others?
Whatever the reason for The New York Times providing so much space for calls for rapprochement with the Islamic Republic of Iran, I think it is horrifying that this newspaper, which some 70 years ago failed to provide adequate coverage of the Holocaust, now ignores the Baha'is on its op-ed page.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fascinating that a New York based newspaper should be so apologetic towards Iran. If my theory is correct that America is in fact a lot more vulnerable than many people know to an Iran sponsored nuclear 9/11 scenario because no functional balance of threat exists for such a scenario, the moment Iran goes nuclear would seem a very good time to sell your New York real estate...Hopefully they won't find out the hard way...
ReplyDeleteMarina Sapir: I guess ignorance really might be a bliss in this case (since it's going to happen whether you worry about or not)but one of the most important developments of our time is that Iran is in fact developing nuclear weapons and an IBM delivery capability to hit the US. It's expected to reach the nuclear threshold this year and testing of IBM's camouflaged as satellite launches seem to be successful. So yes in fact Iran will be able the US in the not so distant future. Not an IBM suicide mission though. A 9/11 style suitcase bomb scenario is more likely (Obama referred in fact to such a scenario in one of his election speeches) and like I argued before on this blog under the January 1 "will Iran attack Israel in 2010"entry I think Iran could pull it off without repercussions because no balance of terror exists for such an act of nuclear terrorism.
ReplyDeleteSo my point is: I think you, the people of America and the New York times need to be aware how dangerous a nuclear Iran really is for America. Don't buy into the Iranian suggestion it's "only" Israel they are after. A national suicide mission against Israel won't help Iran's Khomeiny doctrine based global Islamist agenda. Sending the US into turmoil and chaos however most definitely will.
Chris O: I guess, I now fall in the same category as NYTimes and all ignorant Americans.
ReplyDeleteIt is getting ugly here, in Jeffrey's blog.
Marina, I understand your sensitivity.
ReplyDeleteI ask all who post comments to be considerate of their "neighbors".
Yesterday, this blog had readers from Iran, Malaysia, Tanzania, Egypt, Russia, Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, U.K., U.S., Canada and Israel. I am hoping to preserve this blog as a peaceful, open forum for the exchange of thoughts.
Thanks to all in advance.
Jeffrey
Marina Sapir: Sorry about the ignorance allusion. It's just that the whole suitcase nuke concept is rather terrifying and I really feel people should not underestimate the danger a nuclear Iran poses in a situation in which a credible balance of deterrence doesn't seem to exist. Mind you if you see something wrong with my arguments feel free to point it out.
ReplyDelete