I don't think I have anything more now than what these people have expressed in BBC's Have Your Say:
If Iranian sailors entered British waters, the British would arrest the Iranians. The Iranians would then protest that they had not been in British waters; but the British public would not believe that.
That is exactly what has happened but in reverse.
-- E Taylor, PARIS
If the UK soldiers detained by Iran should be returned, then so should the Iranian liaison employees detained by the US on Jan 11th this year, whose fate still remains unknown. Bet then again, recent events have shown that there are two sets of laws, one of which applies to people we like, and the other which applies to those we don't.
-- Martin, England, UK
Imagine a situation whereby Iran had invaded and occupied France and routinely sent patrols into the English Channel to search for "smuggled cars" on ships. Would that be tolerable to the UK? If not, why not? The converse situation is a reality with the British occupation of Iraq and Royal Naval presence and activity in the Persian Gulf.
-- M. M. Zaman, UK/Canada
Tony Blair said ..."In the end, it is a question really for the Iranian government as to whether they want to abide by international law or not". I assume that he dare not ask himself this question as the answer is all too apparent. Last time our troops were held by Iran the same denials and accusations were made by the British govt. They were in fact in Iranian territory violating international law. Our govt lies to do what it wants. Time for a regime to change - ours, not theirs
-- Richard, London
Will the U.K. now seize Irananian naval vesels patroling off Cardiff in the Bristol channel? The absurdity of the Western military presence in the 'Persian' Gulf heralds back to the days of White Man's Burden. The hyopocrisy of western outrage is comical. Exactly why is a British ship within a thousand miles of the Persian gulf?
-- Bill wontanabee, Canada
The UK must keep its nose out of other peoples affairs. What sanctions are in place against the military ruler of Pakistan who has atomic weapons, overthrew a democratically elected government and refuses to allow elections in his country. Mugabe has slaughtered hundreds of thousands and no one even talks about invading Zimbabwe. Iran wants nuclear weapons, the UK says these are necessary for security in a modern world.
It is the hypocrisy of the Western powers that really annoys.-- Arthur, Derby
The capture of 15 British sailors is the Iranian response to the UK / the US cat and mouse game against Iran. The UK / the US are testing Iranian response and determination in their preparation for strike against Iran.
The Iranian rapid response was to send a signal to Blair to stop illegally entering Iranian territorial waters on Arvandrud in the Persian Gulf.
-- Azar, Wheaton, IL , USA
Happy Norooz, the Persian new year, to everyone. (What is Norooz anyway?)
I'm actually not sure what to call the new year: Persian, Iranian, or what?
Using Persian to refer to a specific race excludes millions of people, even with Iranian nationality, who are already celebrating Noorooz. Azeris, Baluchs, Turks, Tukmens, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Tajiks, etc.
Using the word Iranian would also exclude a lot of people from Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey from the tradition.
What is the single word that can cover all these people who celebrate Norooz?
This is an important question that comes to your mind these days, especially if you are reading a book like Iran: A People Interrupted.
I've long wanted to write something about the suspicious biased documentaries aganst Iran that the BBC Two has aired recently. Until I finally sit down and write about one or two of them in detail, here is a rough list:
Three hour-long documentaries in one year on one single country is quite amazing. I hope I can get a chance soon and write about at least one of them.
I know, I haven't written here for a while. I've been focusing on a widely engaging debate on Women's rights activists and the recent wave of crack down on them. It's a very sensitive topic and has taken a lot of time and energy from me, especially since as you open your mouth talking about these things you are being accused to be an agent of the Islamic Republic and blah, blah, blah.
I've also been writing for the Guardian's Comment is Free section which is the best of its kind and I invite everyone to take part in its debate.
So I finally had a chance to write something in English about how Dutch government's careless (or maybe intentional, who knows) decision to fund a neo-conservative 'pro-democracy' organisation (Freedom House) as part of its media diversity project has convinced the Iranian government that any organisation that is funded by the Dutch government or foundations has, in fact, ties with American regime change plans and therefore it is a threat to the national security.
So please read the following article and leave your comments at the Guardian website (and I should prepare myself to get a lot of nasty personal attacks as well):
Iran awakening? (The Guardian)
The Iranian women's movement is caught between foreign funders and a government crackdown. What should it do?
ٔNoam Chomsky: "By an accident of geography, the world's major oil resources are in largely Shia areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent regions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, with some of the major reserves of natural gas as well. Washington's worst nightmare would be a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world's oil and independent of the US."
Washington's escalation of threats against Iran is driven by a determination to secure control of the region's energy resources
Noam Chomsky
Friday March 9, 2007
In the energy-rich Middle East, only two countries have failed to subordinate themselves to Washington's basic demands: Iran and Syria. Accordingly both are enemies, Iran by far the more important. As was the norm during the cold war, resort to violence is regularly justified as a reaction to the malign influence of the main enemy, often on the flimsiest of pretexts. Unsurprisingly, as Bush sends more troops to Iraq, tales surface of Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Iraq - a country otherwise free from any foreign interference - on the tacit assumption that Washington rules the world.
In the cold war-like mentality in Washington, Tehran is portrayed as the pinnacle in the so-called Shia crescent that stretches from Iran to Hizbullah in Lebanon, through Shia southern Iraq and Syria. And again unsurprisingly, the "surge" in Iraq and escalation of threats and accusations against Iran is accompanied by grudging willingness to attend a conference of regional powers, with the agenda limited to Iraq.
Presumably this minimal gesture toward diplomacy is intended to allay the growing fears and anger elicited by Washington's heightened aggressiveness. These concerns are given new substance in a detailed study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism experts Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, revealing that the Iraq war "has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide". An "Iran effect" could be even more severe.
For the US, the primary issue in the Middle East has been, and remains, effective control of its unparalleled energy resources. Access is a secondary matter. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. Control is understood to be an instrument of global dominance. Iranian influence in the "crescent" challenges US control. By an accident of geography, the world's major oil resources are in largely Shia areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent regions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, with some of the major reserves of natural gas as well. Washington's worst nightmare would be a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world's oil and independent of the US.
Such a bloc, if it emerges, might even join the Asian Energy Security Grid based in China. Iran could be a lynchpin. If the Bush planners bring that about, they will have seriously undermined the US position of power in the world.
To Washington, Tehran's principal offence has been its defiance, going back to the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and the hostage crisis at the US embassy. In retribution, Washington turned to support Saddam Hussein's aggression against Iran, which left hundreds of thousands dead. Then came murderous sanctions and, under Bush, rejection of Iranian diplomatic efforts.
Last July, Israel invaded Lebanon, the fifth invasion since 1978. As before, US support was a critical factor, the pretexts quickly collapse on inspection, and the consequences for the people of Lebanon are severe. Among the reasons for the US-Israel invasion is that Hizbullah's rockets could be a deterrent to a US-Israeli attack on Iran. Despite the sabre-rattling it is, I suspect, unlikely that the Bush administration will attack Iran. Public opinion in the US and around the world is overwhelmingly opposed. It appears that the US military and intelligence community is also opposed. Iran cannot defend itself against US attack, but it can respond in other ways, among them by inciting even more havoc in Iraq. Some issue warnings that are far more grave, among them the British military historian Corelli Barnett, who writes that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch world war three".
Then again, a predator becomes even more dangerous, and less predictable, when wounded. In desperation to salvage something, the administration might risk even greater disasters. The Bush administration has created an unimaginable catastrophe in Iraq. It has been unable to establish a reliable client state within, and cannot withdraw without facing the possible loss of control of the Middle East's energy resources.
Meanwhile Washington may be seeking to destabilise Iran from within. The ethnic mix in Iran is complex; much of the population isn't Persian. There are secessionist tendencies and it is likely that Washington is trying to stir them up - in Khuzestan on the Gulf, for example, where Iran's oil is concentrated, a region that is largely Arab, not Persian.
Threat escalation also serves to pressure others to join US efforts to strangle Iran economically, with predictable success in Europe. Another predictable consequence, presumably intended, is to induce the Iranian leadership to be as repressive as possible, fomenting disorder while undermining reformers.
It is also necessary to demonise the leadership. In the west, any wild statement by President Ahmadinejad is circulated in headlines, dubiously translated. But Ahmadinejad has no control over foreign policy, which is in the hands of his superior, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US media tend to ignore Khamenei's statements, especially if they are conciliatory. It's widely reported when Ahmadinejad says Israel shouldn't exist - but there is silence when Khamenei says that Iran supports the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine, calling for normalisation of relations with Israel if it accepts the international consensus of a two-state settlement.
The US invasion of Iraq virtually instructed Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. The message was that the US attacks at will, as long as the target is defenceless. Now Iran is ringed by US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf, and close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and Israel, the regional superpower, thanks to US support.
In 2003, Iran offered negotiations on all outstanding issues, including nuclear policies and Israel-Palestine relations. Washington's response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer. The following year, the EU and Iran reached an agreement that Iran would suspend enriching uranium; in return the EU would provide "firm guarantees on security issues" - code for US-Israeli threats to bomb Iran.
Apparently under US pressure, Europe did not live up to the bargain. Iran then resumed uranium enrichment. A genuine interest in preventing the development of nuclear weapons in Iran would lead Washington to implement the EU bargain, agree to meaningful negotiations and join with others to move toward integrating Iran into the international economic system.
· Noam Chomsky is co-author, with Gilbert Achcar, of Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy