For all of the ongoing press woes in the Islamic Republic of Iran, commentaries in Iranian papers can still be extraordinarily boisterous — too lively at times for Iran’s neighbors.
A loud case in point is an editorial by Hoseyn Shari’atmadari in Iran’s hardline Keyhan newspaper. (The entire editorial is appended in the continuation; translation by the US taxpayer funded OSC service) It seems Keyhan has less interest in defending fellow hardliners under siege at home, than picking a fuss with foreign bogeys.
The Keyhan editorial touched off a firestorm of condemnations from the southern Arab side of the Persian Gulf. No wonder, as in “point ten,” Shari’atmadari provocatively raises the old Iranian claim to Bahrain:
“…Bahrain was once part of Iran’s soil. In the process of an illegal collusion between the doomed shah and the Governments of America and Britain, it was separated from Iran. Today, the most important demand of the people of Bahrain is that this province separated from Iran be returned to its main motherland: Islamic Iran. Obviously, this absolute right of Iran and the people of its separated province cannot and should not be ignored.”
Such exaggerated bluster is about as helpful as President Ahmadinejad’s incendiary comments about the Holocaust, Israel, and map-wiping.
All too predictably, this editorial segment inspired a unified chorus of condemnations from the Bahraini press and elsewhere on the Arabian Peninsula, with different writers now one-upping each other in demands for the “official” to be removed or contradicted by the Iranian foreign ministry. Some papers are dredging up claims about southwestern Iran having once been Arab controlled.
While Shari’atmadari, as head of the Keyhan Foundation, technically serves at the pleasure of Iran’s Supreme Leader, it should be recognized that Keyhan editorials are anything but an authoritative voice for Iranian foreign policy. (far less than The Weekly Standard in the US is an authoritative voice for neocon elements within the Bush-Cheney Administration)
Of course, Shari’atmadari’s July 10th controversial essay has a context, as he was but one of many Iranian writers reacting to the routine reiteration by the Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council on July 5th in support of the claim by the United Arab Emirates to the disputed Islands of Abu Musa and the two Tunbs.
On July 7th, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, Ali Hosseini reiterated Iran’s standard statement that these Islands “are and will remain inseparable and integral parts of Iranian territory” while also complaining (in standard form) that the “repetition of the baseless stance… is surprising give that fact that Iran and the UAE enjoy enhanced contacts and relations.”
Nothing in the official statements about Bahrain, nor any nasty comments about the legitimacy of governments among the Arab Sheikhdoms.
Of course, the modern dispute over the Islands predates the Iranian Revolution and instead is rooted in Britain’s withdrawal of its forces from the Persian Gulf in the early 1970’s. Iran enforced its claims over these 3 islands, while at the same time forgoing its claim to the island of Bahrain. Iranians of most stripes still view the dispute with the UAE in nationalistic terms, and from time to time this or that Iranian hardliner will trot out variations on the theme that the Shah (& his American “bosses”) betrayed Iran in giving up Bahrain.
Not the stuff of diplomacy, to be sure. For those seeking to maintain American domination over the Gulf, this latest media stoking of residual sectarian, ethnic, and territorial tensions will be music to their ears. Divide & conquer.
I expect the “grown-ups” in the foreign policy establishments in Iran and in the neighboring Arab states will work to keep a lid on this sort of heat.
Speaking of which, we’re encouraged by communications efforts between American and Iranian naval commanders in the Persian Gulf, as revealed in an excellent report in the Los Angeles Times. Not quite the top-level hot-line and “deconflict” mechanism that Helena Cobban and Pat Lang have been proposing, but such “professionalism” between commanders in dangerously crowded waters is not what those looking to provoke a war would wish to see.
Persian Press: Daily Warns GCC Aids UAE on Islands as Anti-Iran Hostility Policy
Editorial by Hoseyn Shari’atmadari from the “Note of the Day” column: “Whistle in Dark!”
Keyhan
Tuesday, July 10, 2007 T19:16:57Z
OSC Translated Text
“Whistling in the dark” is a common idiomatic expression from Tehran’s old culture that has been used as a maxim in some cases. People from the older generations, not so many of who still are alive nowadays, state that Tehran was not a crowded city in the old days and there was silence everywhere shortly after nightfall. People who had to pass through the dark and narrow alleys for any reason would sing loudly to overcome their fear, as they were afraid of the dark probably. This kind of singing was referred to as singing in garden alleys. When a passerby would sing this way and his voice would echo in the air, some of the people in the neighborhood who were more zestful and were familiar with the motive of the signing passerby would pop out of their windows and cheer him with words of encouragement such as “nice voice!” and so on. In reality, this meant “do not be afraid,” or “everything is alright,” and so on.
Last Thursday (5 July), the ministers of foreign affairs, defense, and security of the countries of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council issued a statement at the end of their three-day conference in Riyadh. In line with their usual procedure over the past few years, they supported the United Arab Emirates’ claim of sovereignty over the three Iranian islands of Big Tunb, Little Tunb, and Abu Musa, demanding that the Islamic Republic of Iran put an end to the dispute over these three islands through negotiations once and for all!
The countries of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, and Oman, none of which have a history longer than 100 years. They are well aware of Iran’s absolute sovereignty over these three islands and the incontrovertible documents for this. Even in their wildest imaginations, they possibly never could think that this sovereignty would be changed in any way some day. Hence, whatever their motive for repeating this pointless and groundless claim might be, it cannot be the possibility of separating these three islands from Iran’s soil. Hence, what is the story?
To answer this question, first we should take a look at the documents that prove Iran’s absolute sovereignty over these islands.
First, the many maps that remain from the time of ancient Greece, before the birth of Christ, depict all of the Persian Gulf islands as part of Iran’s territory. In addition to this, all of the maps that were made by countries like Britain, France, Russia, Portugal, Spain, and so on in recent centuries and are kept as official documents also consider the Persian Gulf islands, including Big Tunb, Little Tunb, and Abu Musa as part of Iran’s soil. For example, the British Government, which has been present in the region for more than two centuries and even had conflicts with Iranian Governments at certain junctures, has made 23 official maps of this region. Unexceptionally, all of them confirm that these three islands belong to Iran.
Second, in 1830, Captain G. B. Brucks of the East India Company, which was affiliated with the British colonial government, made a color map of the Persian Gulf. In this map, copies of which are kept in the British Foreign Ministry and the United Nations’ archives, the three islands of Big Tunb, Little Tunb, and Abu Musa are illustrated with the same color as Iran’s soil. Captain Brucks spent nearly 12 years in the Persian Gulf region in order to prepare this map.
Third, in 1835, Samuel Henel was appointed by the British Government to outline the boundaries of the countries in the Persian Gulf. In his maps, Henel draws a horizontal line in the Persian Gulf waters, and the three islands located on the upper, or northern, side of this line are considered as part of Iran’s territory.
Fourth, in January 1836, Morison continues Samuel Henel’s mission. After negotiations with the shaykhs of the Persian Gulf, he makes a map of the region with their approval. In this map, the three islands are depicted even deeper in Iran’s territory.
Fifth, in 1881, the British Royal Navy again makes another map of the Persian Gulf region, in which the three islands and the rest of Iran’s territory are demonstrated with the same color.
Sixth, in 1886, the intelligence center of the British Government prepares another map demonstrating the three islands and the rest of Iran’s territory in the same color. On 12 June of the same year, the British government’s plenipotentiary in Tehran submits this map to Nasereddin Shah.
Seventh, in 1908, when the Iranian Government transfers the rights to extract the ironstone on Abu Musa to the German Vanghavas, the British Government objects to Iran’s decision due to its dark relations with Germany. It demands the rights to extract ironstone for British companies, which again confirms Iran’s sovereignty over the islands.
We will not mention the tens of other documents, including the decrees of Iranian Governments at different junctures, to appoint rulers, or provincial governors, in Bandar Lengeh, under which jurisdiction the three islands fell.
Eight, the most important and the only document that the UAE presents to substantiate its claim is a letter that Shaykh Yusef, the Iranian governor of Bandar Lengeh, wrote to Sheikh Hamid al-Qasemi, the ruler of Ra’s al-Khaymah, in 1882. In that letter, as a form of ceremony and an expression of politeness that was very common at that time and we can see in many other similar letters, he wrote: “Abu Musa is yours” (which actually means: we are at your service)! The interesting point is that, in another part of the same letter, Shaykh Yusef writes to the ruler of Ra’s al-Khaymah: “The City of Bandar Lengeh is also your own city.” The surprising thing is that the UAE authorities leave out the latter sentence when they refer to this letter; clearly, this shows the former is merely a ceremonial expression!
Ninth, according to international law and the regulations on borders and territories, there are a number of ways to prove a country’s sovereignty over a region, such as historical ownership, effective sovereignty (which means raising a country’s flag in a region), appointing rulers, the presence of military forces, and so on. All of these legal factors and criteria confirm Iran’s absolute sovereignty over these three islands.
Tenth, among all of the countries of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council, the cooperation of Bahrain with the other member countries has a different story, because Bahrain was once part of Iran’s soil. In the process of an illegal collusion between the doomed shah and the Governments of America and Britain, it was separated from Iran. Today, the most important demand of the people of Bahrain is that this province separated from Iran be returned to its main motherland: Islamic Iran. Obviously, this absolute right of Iran and the people of its separated province cannot and should not be ignored.
Eleventh, in view of the above mentioned documents that prove Iran’s absolute and undisputable sovereignty over the three islands, we should return to the question as to why the members of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council are supporting the UAE’s baseless claim over these three islands. Can this claim have any reason other than their fear of the Islamic revolution’s earthquake and its impact on their unlawful and medieval regimes? All of the mentioned governments have taken shape with the direct intervention of the arrogant powers, and the peoples of these countries have not had any role whatsoever in establishing their governments or in forming their policies and decisions. On the other hand, among their own people all of these governments are accused of cooperating with the Zionist regime, or at least being indifferent about the atrocities of that regime against the oppressed Palestinian people. The rulers of these countries know very well that, in the age of Islamic awareness with the model of the Islamic revolution, it is not possible for a single dynasty to control the people’s destiny and plunder their national resources any longer. Since they consider the model of the Islamic Republic of Iran as the cause of the shocks that will bring down their unlawful regimes eventually, and in this they happen to be right, they have chosen hostility toward Islamic Iran as one of their strategic objectives. What a dangerous choice, not for Iran, but for the continuance of their own rule.
(Description of Source: Tehran Keyhan in Persian — conservative Tehran evening daily. Published by the Keyhan Institute and edited by Hoseyn Shari’atmadari, Leader Khamene’i’s representative at the institute)
Although Iran still looks to others land as a Persian heritage, but the history similar to other area and land like Al-Ahwas (Arabstain) which was belong to Iraq and Sheikh Khza’al Al-Qa’abi was the tribe leader on that city But Britt’s gave it to Iran.
And more similar to Iraq Kuwait subject also in matter of pre-map and changing.
But This bring important issue here as some reports put it, is to spread fear between Arab Sheikhdoms in the region who all have very shaky power without heavy support from US and UK for more that 100 years they were gone for long time but the US/UK interest in Oil and the creation and security of Israel make them main factor in that area.
We can say this case is as Saddam after 1991 war kept in power after that with heavy sanction in same them US used his as fear factor for those Arab Sheikhdoms.
Back to Iran this looks a new game between US and Iran to scare those shaky Arab Sheikhdoms
“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s anti-American and anti-Israeli tirade masks a tough counter offer. He recalled that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Iranian revolutionary leader, was “buying arms from Israel” that were made in the United States while breathing fire at Israel and America.
The animosity between “the Great Satan” and the member of “the Axis of Evil” will eventually give way to the new realities. Washington needs Iranian cooperation to end its disastrous occupation of Iraq, and Iran can’t afford further economic sanctions, which U.S. opposition to its nuclear program would entail.
“Such exaggerated bluster is about as helpful as President Ahmadinejad’s incendiary comments about the Holocaust, Israel, and map-wiping.”
The “map-wiping” has long ago been dismissed as a mistranslation made from a pro-Israeli and anti-muslim institute, the MEMRI.
The recycle of this misinformation is as helpful to peace as the claims of Saddam Hussein’s WMD.
Andrew, you’re absolutely right, and you should also understand that many of us wish the the reactionary regime of the Mullahs in Iran will disappear from the page of history. Does that make things better?
JES: Fine, but to repeat this sensationalistic crap won’t help. All the lies around Saddam Hussein WMD just gave more arguments to his backers; repeat the same script with Iran, you’ll have the same result. To topple a regime with lies is not a good way to begin the struggle.
I wish all those who want to use violence, particularly air bombing, would “disappear from the page of history” hopefully in a jail cell somewhere.
As expected, the “grown-ups” in both Iran and Bahrain, specifically the foreign ministers, have already met and made the required reassuring comments.
http://www.payvand.com/news/07/jul/1158.html
Notice too the pointed reference to the press as not being representative of either country’s disposition.
PS: Try not to laugh at the picture…. :-}
And to Andrew — I fully recognize the reference to the likely intentional mistranslating of the “infamous” AN comments. That’s partly why I didn’t use any of his supposed comments. “Map-wiping” was a generic reference to the controversy.
However, even if a “bad translation,” AN’s coments were decidely “not helpful” to Iran’s interests, in being a pronounced departure from a 16 year tendency on the part of Iranian presidents, Leaders, and foreign policy figures to lower the temperature re. Iran’s own preferred outcomes towards Palestinians. (e.g., the oft-missed, yet nonenessless important and recurrent line about “not being more Palestinian than the Palestinians”)
Scott, you know the truth so hard to swallow, keep deleting my posts.
Look, it’s regrettably that one like you hold his academics level of knowledge refusing to listening the other side views.
Keep your propaganda as other US
Good on you
Note:
Feel free to delete this, but before you deleted consider what you said about other people how funny some one like you put things like this.
Salah, your 2 posts were deleted for being flagrantly at odds with the very minimal standards of this forum, threw in flaglantly false and personal attacks aimed at me and my son. You accused him first of being a US solider in Iraq (which he isn’t, if you ever bothered to read my cautious posts where he’s mentioned)and then you labelled all of the US soldiers, my son included, as “murderers.”
Now as serious readers and friends of this forum may know, my son and I have many serious disagreements, and I, for one, hope he continues his civilian work as an engineer building bridges (literally – his training) while I figure out how on earth to build human bridges with people like you. If you could get off your horse of trying to blame me (or Iran) for every ill that has befallen Iraq, perhaps you might realize that there is much we might well agree on….
I want American forces out of Iraq – sooner rather than later. Don’t you? Or are you now saying you want them (the “murderers”) to stay to keep out the Iranians? (and the Turks & all the others that likely will be drawn into to the pandora’s box – now openened0
I’m more than happy to engage in serious debate about Iranian intentions and activities, and look forward to learning from such comments. But it seems to me that most of the time you’re not interested in exploration of complex issues and debate. You instead avoid serious discussion of facts and throw out ad hominem personal attacks and blind, racist rage aimed at anyone you apparently deem as having become “more Iranian than the Iranians.”
(Quite a personal attack there too…. and quite ignorant of my complex background and consulting track record — which I’m not about to advertise here.)
So let me guess, are you now going to accuse the Los Angeles Times of the same for having the nerve to publish a major story pointing out (as has been widely known, but rarely in the press) that half or more of the foreign jihadis being found in Iraq happen to hail from Saudi Arabia….
Now that deserves some serious comment and discussion.
So sure, if you wish to continue to contribute to the comments here, great — IF you can keep them “fresh, courteous, and to the point.” Coherent english is also helpful too, as alas, not all of us are fluent in Arabic (or Persian or Turkic for that matter)
Speaking of “fresh” perspective, Juan Cole had an interesting take on the issue of the matter raised in the LATimes: (his links are at his original post, here:
http://www.juancole.com/2007/07/egyptian-sudanese-jihadi-volunteers.html
Note especially JC’s interpretation in the last paragraph….
Egyptian, Sudanese Jihadi Volunteers Suspected by Iraq?
This wire service compilation done by the Daily Star adds more information on foreign detainees in Iraq. As I read it, in addition to the over 160 suspected foreign fighters held by the US, the Iraqi Ministry of Interior is holding another 560 such foreigners. They had arrested 4 times that number in recent months but appear to have cleared the others. Although they briefly detained some 461 Iranians, they let all of them go. Presumably these were pilgrims to the Shiite shrines who for one reason or another fell under suspicion. The LA Times reported yesterday that nearly half of the detainees in US military custody are Saudis. Not so for the suspected jihadis held by the Iraqis. They have only 9 Saudis. About half of their detainees are Egyptian, and a fifth are Sudanese. The Iraqi security services clearly think their biggest problem is jihadi volunteers from the Nile Valley. But the picture emerging from the two sets of detainees is that the publics of the two main US allies in the Middle East, Saudia and Egypt, are the most likely to fall under suspicion of supporting the insurgency. While suspicion falls on some Iranians, they appear to be cleared quickly and released. The Daily Star writes:
“He reports that among those still being questioned, “11 were Jordanians; 64 Syrians; nine Saudis; two Algerians; six Moroccans; six Yemenis; two Libyans; 57 Palestinians; 284 Egyptians; 113 Sudanese, two Emiratis; three Lebanese and one Somali.”
All these statistics that are coming out completely undermine the discourse in Washington, DC, about the war. The Iranian and Syrian governments are not the problem. Osama Bin Laden is not the problem. Sunni Arabs, mainly Iraqis, objecting to American and Shiite and Kurdish dominance is the problem. The foreign detainees are a miniscule group compared to the 19,000 detainees in Multinational Force prisons.
But it shows no signs of settling, not even in the midst of the present Baghdad Security Plan and the surge of 20,000 extra US troops. How did this happen? How did the hubristic experiment of Tony Blair and George W Bush to bring democracy forcefully to the Middle East fail quite so wholly. Instead of acting as a ‘beacon’ to the region, it has dangerously destabilised it. As America’s weakness in the Middle East has manifested itself, Shia Iran has asserted itself in Iraq and throughout the region, setting the scene for a power struggle with Sunni Saudi Arabia.
How the good land turned bad
Peter Beaumont
Sunday March 18, 2007
The Observer
A Must Read! Amazing how desperate some folks are-
Two Israeli journalists scrap ethics for scoop
Jewish reporters endanger lives of lebanese citizens interviewed under false pretenses
By Nour Samaha
Daily Star staff
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
BEIRUT: When two Israeli re-porters entered Lebanon under false pretenses last week to conduct reports on Lebanese life a year after the summer 2006 war with Israel, they not only broke Lebanese law, but also violated codes of ethics in journalism and endangered the lives of those they interviewed, according to professors and residents who spoke to The Daily Star Monday.
Lisa Goldman and Rinat Malkes flew into Lebanon from Amman on their respective Canadian and Brazilian passports. Both Israeli citizens, both working on reports to be published in Israel – a country officially in a state of war with Lebanon – they embarked on deceiving Lebanese officials and the general public in order to get their exclusive scoops.
“The word Israel must not be mentioned in Lebanon,” said Malkes in her article in the right-wing Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot, describing how the two journalists cut out the labels from their clothes before arriving in Beirut to hide any Hebrew inscription that may reveal their true identities.
Once in Lebanon, the two went their separate ways – Malkes traveled to the South, while Goldman remained in Beirut.
In footage aired on Israel’s Channel 10 news, Goldman showed snippets of interviews she conducted with local residents and misinformed viewers that only one small section of the southern suburbs was hit by Israel. “I particularly remember the BBC’s hourly reports during the war, each one beginning with the following [paraphrased] sentence: ‘As Israel continues its relentless pounding of southern Beirut …’ But according to several residents … the Israeli air strikes were actually very much pinpointed on an area in the center of the Dahiyeh called the ‘security square’ – the area where senior Hizbullah leaders lived,” she said on Pajamas Media.
Yet Goldman, who admitted that she never went to the southern suburbs of Beirut, failed to mention the surrounding areas that were affected, such as the bridges in the Dahiyeh that are still being repaired, local media stations, Chiyah and other neighborhoods further away from the “security square” – areas that are not known to host Hizbullah leaders.
One Lebanese who grew up in Dahiyeh and was interviewed by Goldman stated that she not only misquoted him, but deceived him from the start, supplying him with a false name and misinforming him that she was writing for a European paper as a Canadian. “She completely hid her Israeli nationality, saying she was from Vancouver, and gave me a different name from Lisa Goldman … she also said she was writing for a European paper,” he said on Monday.
The Beirut resident, who asked to remain anonymous, added: “When she wrote about me she said I had told her Israel only bombed the security square, which is wrong – I said they were hitting everything … She also gave the impression that I talked of Israel in a good light, which is certainly not the case.”
“If I’d known she was Israeli, I would’ve had her arrested,” he added. “What she did was extremely wrong, and it could get me into a lot of trouble – she has me doing an interview on camera … my family are extremely worried about repercussions from officials for talking to her … But I didn’t know she was Israeli.”
According to Magda Abu-Fadil, the director of the journalism training program at the American University of Beirut, the mere fact that a journalist would misidentify herself or conduct an interview under false pretenses, is in itself unethical.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
“In general terms, I don’t think you should assume a false identity unless something like national security is involved or the public good is at stake, like saving someone’s life,” she said. “But this is not the case here – this situation does not fall under the category.”
This point was also reiterated by Ramez Maluf, a professor of journalism at the Lebanese American University. “It is common practice for standards of journalism, where they exist, to state that reporters should not obtain information under false pretense,” he said. “But that rule is broken all the time, often by invoking some higher moral objective.”
“If you believe that your job is to inform your public about vital issues of interest and importance to them as best you can, then you may excuse yourself from breaking any rules,” he continued. “The important issue then is whether you can actually report fairly when you do so under false pretense.”
Yet the deception may have serious repercussions on those who were unwittingly taken in under false pretenses by the two Israeli journalists. “You have to ask, how did they represent themselves, and did they endanger anyone locally?” Abu-Fadil asked. “Suspicions may arise and people may not want to deal with those that were interviewed if they think they are in contact with Israelis.”
Malkes’ report on the South of the country painted an image of a Hizbullah-controlled area that has achieved little in terms of reconstruction since the end of the war. She begins by incorrectly stating that Hizbullah’s approval was necessary to visit villages in the South, when in fact approval to visit areas in the South is not obtained through Hizbullah, but through the Lebanese Army, who have maintained control of the area since the end of the war last August.
In addition, Malkes gave the false impression that Hizbullah is in charge of the reconstruction effort in the South, citing Bint Jbeil as an example of how little had been done over the past year. “Life has not yet returned to normal,” she wrote. But the Qatari mission in Lebanon is tasked with the reconstruction effort in Bint Jbeil.
“The power supply is also interrupted,” she added, apparently unaware that the power cuts in the South are unrelated to the war, and have long plagued that part of the country.
The question on everybody’s lips now, however, is what can be done to ensure this does not happen again? Abu-Fadil suggested a system for monitoring foreign journalists who enter Lebanon to check their backgrounds. “We don’t want a police state, but by the same token, is there anything than can keep track of who these people are?” she asked. “It is much harder to do these days with new technology, but we need to be more vigilant and organized on how to deal with journalists.”
Maluf added that monitoring all foreign journalists may not be necessary, but because Lebanon is currently in a state of war with Israel, there should be a monitoring system of “any and all Israeli incursions of any kind into our country,” he said.
“Let them rely on the wire services” to get news from Lebanon, he added.
“He reports that among those still being questioned, “11 were Jordanians; 64 Syrians; nine Saudis; two Algerians; six Moroccans; six Yemenis; two Libyans; 57 Palestinians; 284 Egyptians; 113 Sudanese, two Emiratis; three Lebanese and one Somali.”
How many Iranians? None hard to believed this,…
Look Scott, its looks very odd and unjustified to delete my comment in replay to your insulting comment here in this space, leaving yours and deleting mine it’s a deliberate, more insulting of this very unacceptable behaviour.
You either put back my reply or delete yours comment also as its looks there is no need for it.
KDJ, since you posted that Daily Star article, you might be interested in Lisa’s responses here and here. For what it’s worth, Lisa has written sympathetically about Lebanon for a long time, Yediot isn’t a particularly right-wing paper, and it isn’t exactly unusual for journalists to go undercover.
Is the United States Killing 10,000 Iraqis (“murderers”.your quote, not mine)”Every
Month? Or Is It More?
By Michael Schwartz,Michael Schwartz is a professor of sociology and faculty director of
the Undergraduate College of Global Studies at Stony Brook University.
http://www.al68ternet.org/waroniraq/56124/
The Killers Scott, (“murderers”.your quote, not mine”)
الأمم المتحدة تتعقب شركات أميركية ترسـل مرتزقـة لاتينيين إلى العـراق
http://www.assafir.com/Windows/ArticlePrintFriendly.aspx?ArticleId=2100&ChannelId=15320
Jonathan:
The Lebanese do not think that this is unproblematic. I believe that they did much more than go undercover-I cannot support such unethical tactics. The history in Lebanon of the mossad operating there is significant-not the way to go about it. If they want to learn about Lebanon, why can they not read the BBC or the Daily Star? It is likely they were doing more than just reporting on Lebanon…if they were simply reporting on Lebanon, they would have had an entirely different tactic.
And back to the original catalyst for this thread, the ruckus started by the Keyhan editorial, here’s a quite helpful report from IPS:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38578
I found this comment particularly interesting (and well-illustrating classic shifts and pulls among Iran’s still “fluid” press situation.
“Criticising Keyhan editor’s “injudicious and irresponsible” comments, Mashalah Shamsolvaezin, a prominent reformist journalist and former editor of Kayhan himself, in an editorial in reformist ‘Shargh’ daily praised the foreign minister’s swift reaction and his visit to Bahrain to contain the crisis, noting that Iran has over the past two decades based its foreign policy on establishing good neighbourly relations and the need for cleansing the region of foreign influence. ”
Also, I wonder how many US MSM reports on this spat even bothered to mention, much less analyze, the quite real (if sensitive) matter of internal Bahrain sectarian sensitivities:
“Expectedly, Shariatmadari’s comments ran along the faultline between Bahrain’s Sunni rulers and the country’s majority Shia population. Protests mounted at the Iranian embassy in Bahrain, before Mottaki’s arrival, were carried out largely by Sunni clerics and lawmakers.”
In short, this is a helpful update report to the original topic here. Kudos to IPS