US Options on Iran - 2

Amir Taheri says, with unconcealed glee, that the US has many options with regard to Iran. So this is a message to the Shahadists (that group of Iranians who still dream of and work for the restoration of the Shah dynasty): Don’t lose heart, whatever may be the US difficulties in Iraq, there will be Part II of Operation Enduring Carnage.

Syed Muhammad, Riyadh, published 22 February 2007

US Options on Iran

Amir Taheri in his usual mischievous way (Feb. 16) poses the wrong question: “Has war between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran become inevitable?”

And he continues: “Like a pair of angry cats contesting the same space, Iran and the United States have been frowning and making warlike gestures over who should set the agenda for the Middle East for a quarter of a century.” This gives the impression that Iran is itching for a war with the mightiest military power in the world.

“The conventional wisdom is that with the US Army bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington cannot wage full-scale war against the Islamic republic.” This, Taheri says with evident satisfaction, “ignores the fact that the US Navy and Air Force remain fully free and ready for action.” The arrival of two naval battle groups in the Gulf represents, as he says, the biggest concentration of firepower there since 1990.

Taheri has proved more than once he is among the privileged who have full access to the Pentagon’s latest war plans. So we must believe him when he says, “These (the two naval battle groups) could take out the Islamic Revolutionary Guards positions close to or along the Gulf, including key strategic assets like the bases in Dezful, Bushehr, Bandar Abbas, the Jask Peninsula, and Konarak. Iran’s nuclear installations in Klardasht, Arak, Tehran, Natanz, and Isfahan, along with the uranium mines of Bafq and Sarcheshmeh could also be destroyed.”

But what is the other “angry cat” doing to confront the biggest concentration of firepower in the Gulf since 1990? What are this cat’s targets in the Gulf or American hinterland? Nothing. Not only that. He challenges the very premise on which he has based all his arguments by saying, toward the end of his article, “It is as if the mullahs (in Iran) are looking for a way to walk back from the edge of precipice without losing face.”

So there are cats and cats, right? Or is it the wolf and the lamb in Aesop’s fable in which the wolf, lapping at a spring on a hillside, calls out to the lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down, “How dare you muddy the water from which I am drinking?” and rushes upon the poor little lamb and eats her all up? In the Aesop fable, the wolf says to the lamb: “If you did not muddy the water, your father must have.” Of course at that time there were no neocons to argue that the ferocious wolf and the terrified lamb were “frowning and making warlike gestures over who should set the agenda” for the spring.

Ashraf Ali, Jeddah, published 22 February 2007

Why Walls Go Up?

Gwynne Dyer in the article (Feb. 13) poses the question: Why walls are going up all over the world? If we would just put criminals behind prison walls, we would not need all these ugly walls on earth. The problem is that criminals are no longer in jails and that is why good, law-abiding folks have to live behind walls.

Lea de Lange, United States, published 22 February 2007

Clash of Civilizations

Khaled Batarfi (Feb. 18) says: “Let’s teach each other. Come to us as educators and trainers, not as soldiers and occupiers, and learn more about our culture and ways of life. Explain your perspective and understand ours. Learn to speak our language and teach us to speak yours.”

Right. We’ll come to you as educators and trainers, merchants and traders, and you’ll come to us as jihadists and suicide bombers. What a deal — how could we possibly pass up such a proposal?

Nancy Gee, United States, published 22 February 2007

Alhasani’s Camera

This is regarding Roger Harrison’s “No Substitute for Knowing Your Camera, Says Alhasani” (Feb. 18). Very nice article. Best wishes for the exhibition’s success. I would be glad if the exhibition traveled to Riyadh.

M.C.M. Nair, Riyadh, published 22 February 2007

Saudi Stock Market

This refers to the report, “Saudi Stock Market Index Crosses 8,000 Mark” (Feb. 18)

Share markets have always been fluid. But the numbers of people who have lost money in the share market are more than the number of people who have made money. It is like one man’s meat is another man’s poison.

People have lost their hard earned money in the share market in the hope of making money. Many share brokers have become victims.

Speculative deals are prohibited in Islam. Hence one should tread very carefully in the share market.

Mohammed Sadullah Khan, Jeddah, published 22 February 2007

Kidnapped Girl

Apropos your report, “Kidnapped’ Girl’s Mother Seeks Govt Intervention” (Feb. 18), I would like to say that strange and peculiar things are happening, of all places, in this Muslim country. There are plenty of unjust and non-Islamic incidents but unfortunately no one is taking any action to stop them.

Pasha, Riyadh, published 22 February 2007

Al-Aqsa Attacks

When I read Hassan Tahsin’s latest piece (Feb. 16), I was at a loss to decide whether Tahsin was simply an incompetent journalist or an out-and-out fabricator. He refers to “Zionist designs” to burn down Al-Aqsa in 1969. The briefest Internet search would have informed him that the arsonist was Dennis Michael Rohan, an Australian adherent of an evangelical group called the Church of God. Rohan evidently hoped that the conflagration would hasten Armageddon and the coming of the Messiah.

Tahsin also claims that the present “dangerous diggings” represent the “118th attempt by the Israeli authorities to demolish the mosque since ... 1967.” Does he really believe this ludicrous claptrap or expect his readers to believe it?

Bill Corr, Hail, published 22 February 2007

Rewriting History

It seems you are just as guilty of rewriting history (Rewriting History, Feb. 18). There is no mention that many of the known/captured insurgents are Sunni Iraqis. Both your ostensible omission and the selective amnesia of the American politicians are proof of just how difficult is introspection.

It is unfair, however, to blame the Democrats for supporting the ill-fated Iraqi adventure by Bush and Co. Post-9/11, the patriotic fervor that swept the States (skillfully whipped up by the Bush administration’s spin machine) was such that even a courageous politician who dared to point out — what even then were — the obvious flaws of trying to exert a more direct control of the Middle East and its resources, would have been accused of being unpatriotic.

The latest rebuke by the Democrats seems to be their way of getting one back at Bush and Co. for tying their hands in the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion because, surely, even the Democrats must realize that the only way to prevent a disintegrated Iraq from destabilizing the entire region is by (America) committing to a long-term occupation and rehabilitation of that unfortunate country.

Kelechi Ogbuehi, Riyadh, published 22 February 2007

Rewriting History - 2

In your editorial you present an interesting but flawed viewpoint. The Democrats were duped into believing all the lies the Bush administration told about Iraq. They soon found out that they were not true and backed anti-war movements. There were more voices than the lone Barak Obama that stood against Bush on many issues in the US. It is unfair to blame it all on the Democrats today. The blame for the bloodbath in Iraq falls as much on the Muslim world as on the Americans. We Muslims sat and watched and ate our meals, watching news on TV and doing nothing!

Kazi Mahmood, Riyadh, published 22 February 2007