Greetings to all friends, The recent abhorrent developments in Syria once again highlight the fundamental legal, political and moral question on the utility and effectiveness of the use or threat of force to advance humanitarian causes or even national policies. This has been a constant intellectual and practical concern for me over the past three decades. A few thoughts on the current issue and wider implications: 1- Any use of chemical weapons must be condemned, regardless of its victims or culprits. This is Iran's unambiguous position as a victim of chemical warfare. But has it always been the position of those who are now talking about punishing their presumed culprit? How did they react when civilians in Iran and Iraq were victims of independently established massive and systematic use of advanced chemical weapons by their then-friend Saddam Hussein? So, it is prudent to take their assertions at face value now, particularly since the circumstances and available evidence indicate the likelihood of the use of chemical agents by extremist groups. 2-Violence, repression, killing and extremism are repugnant crimes and every actor with influence in Syria must compel the parties to come to the negotiating table. But is a threat to use force the solution? Or does it represent the paradigm and the mentality that have helped to create this humanitarian tragedy and political catastrophe? 3- Are all options really on the table as the US president repeatedly declares? Is every nation with military might allowed to resort to war or constantly threaten to do so against one or another adversary? Isn't the inadmissibility of resort to force or threat of force a peremptory norm of international law? Is there any place for international law and the UN Charter at least in words if not deeds? 4- Can one violate a peremptory norm of international law in order to punish - taking the claim at face value - a violation of law or even a crime? 5- Why in fact has the UN Charter -- and other sources of international law dating back to the 1928 Paris Accord - have prohibited the use or threat of force? Is this a wishful idealism of a bunch of lawyers? Or is it in fact a legal reflection of a political reality? In other words, is war a useful instrument to advance foreign policy or humanitarian responsibilities in the 20th and 21st centuries? Or have war and the use of force been prohibited because they lost their practical utility? 6-Have those who maintain "all options on the table" noticed what these options have brought them and others in the past 100 years? Have they examined empirical evidence of the outcome of wars in the 20th and 21st century, all of which were initiated by those who were assured that their military might will lead to "shock and awe" and a quick victory? Have they not examined the fact that initiators of wars were totally annihilated or failed to achieve their objectives in 85% of the cases? and ... Let us hope that we can avert another catastrophic adventurism. From Dr. Javad Zarif/Iranian Foreign Minister https://www.facebook.com/jzarif/posts/659580264053425
Hate to say it but Obama stuck his foot in his mouth when he drew the red line a year ago. I'd say pay him no mind but an attack to keep his political credibility might be coming down the pipe regardless of international law and the UN Charter.
First - Let us know, are Iran's leaders under pressure ?? due to the fact that Assad's region will be bombed .. & Hezbollah the Kalbs will no longer get weapons from Iran ( passing through Syria ).. What's your opinion ??
Not sure but think this was for Ahmed but allow me to take a stab at it. I'd say they might get pissed but are not under pressure per say but rather wondering how they can take advantage of this as they have nothing to lose whatsoever and much to gain. And, they are master players as they have a lot of options to play with as well as the will to use all of them. Iran is a mid level nation who has clandestine assets in every western nation that can attack choice dignitaries or, simply place pressure on same through implied violence or blackmail in order to influence policy of particular nations, it also has funding, weapons it can supply and terrorist connections the world over not to mention the ability to ferment immense turmoil in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and, if successful in achieving a nuclear weapon make all other considerations in the ME moot as it would then have the ability to threaten and apply ratcheting power to an already stressed region via sabre rattling with Saudi Arabia as well as gain favors from smaller entities and state by doing same to Israel. It also has some big players backing it up as it has extensive oil supplies hence, while the west concentrates on US super power, great powers such as Russia and China fill the void in routes that go North and East just as Saudi Arabia fills it going west with the financial and goods going back in return. In all, Iran is in an enviable position, more-so than any other nation in the ME and, it's leaders have much wiggle room, far more than western nations do and certainly, far more than any of the other regional players in the ME do. Their problems are few but, to be brief, they are how to keep hold of Syria and Hezbollah and, how to placate the Iranian people with the latter being the only threat to their authority and power.
There are several issues between traditionally established governments [ruled by permanent for life councils of some sort] and quasi-democracies 'guided' by a slate of periodically changing faces. There is also a difference in perception by the different populations inhabiting those different types of nations. In stable ruled nation [those ruled by a permanent for life council of some sort] there is such a thing as both political and policy memory going back for decades, and that memory legitimately describes the overall mindset and ongoing policies of that particular government. It also accurately reflects what the population as a whole will think regarding their own nation. But semi-democracies are not similarly stable. Let's put it this way, the U.S. governments that cynically turned a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons by other nations in the past is not the same U.S. government that exists today and indeed the government of the future will not be the same government that today has 'discovered' the knack of being morally outraged over the 'unprecedented' use of WMDs by a certain foreign government of today. That's because it's not [on the whole] operated by the same people nor even by different people with the same ideologies or perspectives. Whether you are talking about [for instance] Great Britain or the United States these are not the same nations that existed even a decade ago because a large number of the players have changed. The citizens are not altogether the same citizens as before either -- not psychologically that is. Consider this, today many of the citizens calmly sanctioning both Gay Marriages and the use of Marijuana as both a health and a recreation drug of choice would have been some of the most ardent anti-gay marriage and anti-marijuana people imaginable only a decade ago. In many of the more dynamic nations of the West change -- from technology to perspective -- is routine. Then, finally, the citizens of the Western World [even with the Internet] tend to know only what they learn in [socially engineered] schooling or via a media that tends to present slanted perspectives as the end-all and be-all of reality. In a very real way this nation recreates itself in both foreign policy and cultural overlays between every four to eight years . . . and that's not superficial in nature. Those are real changes in regards to how this nation as a whole thinks about things and acts or reacts to events.
Dude.... It's just "last word" to Israel that should confront rain of ballistic missiles before what you plan to stop resistance axis against colonization and state terrorism of Israel and its west backs. Further, It's some word for those seek for peace and ready to answer to their superego... Reminding basis of dignity and human relationship is a good deed. Don't be worry and think of it. If Israel and supporters, does not have to think of above points, and just rely on arms... and not human relations, we have no choice else than defending our rights by arm.
You didn't answer my question - Are Iran's leaders under pressure ?? due to the fact that Assad's region will be bombed .. & Hezbollah the Kalbs will no longer get weapons from Iran ( passing through Syria )..What's your opinion ??
Much truth here, particularly in your comments on political memory. Iran most definitely has not forgotten the CIA-led overthrow of their democracy, under Mossadegh, which did not suit American and British self-interest. From that action in 1953 directly stem all the issues America now faces in the region-and yet we are told that Iran is the evil actor! It's a pity that American memories are as selective as they appear to be.
You must be joking... Democracy under Mossadegh????????????? Where do you get that? Please enlighten the readers... I will not even rebut you. Hey BTW I am still waiting for you to post all the lies I have posted... I hope you are man enough to do so.
I agree that our foreign policy would seem to be less like it was the drunken concoction of an Alzheimer's patient and more like what a sober adult of sound mind would manufacture were our nation's political, ideological, or general memory-sets things that extended much past a half decade into the past. On the other hand were the memories of nations composed of quasi-permanent leadership less embedded in concrete then perhaps there would be a bit more flexibility in times of trouble on their end of things. There is danger in both inflexibility and in too much flexibility.
Coup against Mossadegh legitimate government is just one example. There are many other examples which prove the US evil policy against Iran. Now they are planning to attack Syria while they don't have a proved reason for that but nobody in west remembers how did they help Saddam regime to attack Iran by chemical weapons: http://theweek.com/article/index/24...dam-hussein-use-chemical-weapons-against-iran
