PUBLICATIONS - Dr. Ali Fathollah-Nejad • Official Website - Page 5
-1
archive,paged,category,category-publications,category-4,paged-5,category-paged-5,theme-stockholm,qode-social-login-1.1.3,stockholm-core-1.1,woocommerce-no-js,select-theme-ver-5.1.7,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.0.3,vc_responsive

Weil wir Frieden wollen, müssen wir die Politik in die eigenen Hände nehmen

Wir leben in einer Zeit größter Verunsicherung durch die dramatische weltweite Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise, verbunden mit Demokratieabbau und der Androhung neuer Kriege. Als Rechtfertigung für militärische Interventionen
werden humanitäre Ziele vorgeschoben.

Den wirtschaftlich und politisch Herrschenden müssen Kriegsabenteuer wie in Afghanistan, Irak und Libyen unmöglich gemacht werden. Militärischen Interventionen gegen Syrien und den Iran widersetzen wir uns.

Wir fordern den sofortigen und bedingungslosen Abzug der Bundeswehr aus Afghanistan und von allen anderen Auslandseinsätzen. Wa ffenexporte sind zu verbieten. Der konfliktreiche Nahe und Mittlere Osten ist in eine atomwaffenfenfreie Zone umzuwandeln. Atomwaffen müssen weltweit vernichtet werden.

Wir stellen uns dem Werben für Militär und Krieg entgegen. Es ist für uns unerträglich, dass Krieg wieder als Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln gelten soll. Wir bestehen auf der Einhaltung des Völkerrechts und der UNO-Charta mit ihrem strikten Gewaltverbot. Angesichts unserer Geschichte sehen wir uns in besonderem Maße zur Wachsamkeit verpflichtet. Das schließt den Kampf gegen Rassismus, Neonazismus, Antisemitismus und Islamfeindlichkeit mit ein. Wir wollen Frieden, Solidarität, soziale Gerechtigkeit, Demokratie und ökologische Vernunft
durchsetzen.

 

QUELLE

Frankfurter Rundschau, 24. Dezember 2011;

Neues Deutschland, 24. Dezember 2011;

junge Welt, 24. Dezember 2011.

 

Statement: Scholars, Academicians, Journalists, and Activists Condemn Murder of Iranian Technical and Scientific Experts

 

On January 12, 2012, a bomb ripped apart a car in Tehran, killing Iranian scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan and his driver, and injuring several others. In the past two years, four other Iranian scientists have been killed in a similar manner. By now, it is clear that this is a systematic campaign with political intentions. Media reports and political pundits attribute Mr. Ahmadi’s killing to targeted assassinations by those opposed to Iran’s nuclear program, both within and outside Iran, or internal factional fighting.

If public reports are true that these assassinations are orchestrated by foreign powers in order to prevent Iran’s ability to go forward with its nuclear capabilities, then we petition those powers to stop these assassinations – a tactic replacing political engagement with covert operations at the expense of innocent civilians. These assassinations provide the Iranian authorities with ample excuse to continue to suppress voices of dissent, even on the Iranian nuclear issue, to arrest and imprison political opposition, and to further curtail the activities of human rights activists.

As academicians, writers, human rights activists, and intellectuals, we condemn these attacks on civilian scientists. Such terrorist actions can only escalate the internal tension and regional conflicts toward a military clash or war. Regardless of where we stand on Iran’s nuclear program, we find these assassinations outrageous because they target technical or scientific elements of a society without due consideration for human rights, due process of international and national laws, and lives of innocent individuals caught in the crossfire.

These types of killings have to stop, not only because they harm a nation’s scientific community and its civilians, but also because they build a deep psychological scar on the nation’s public mind prompting it to ask for revenge in kind. We hope we are living in a better world than that. Killing innocent or even allegedly guilty people without consideration for their human rights and due process, by any force or government anywhere and anytime, is an outrageous act to be protested by all. If covert targeted assassinations of opponents become the order of the day, no one will be safe in this world.

 

01. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, SOAS, University of London
02. Masih Alinejad, Journalist
03. Asieh Amini, Journalist and Human Rights Activist
04. Fariba Amini, Independent Journalist and Writer
05. Hooshang Amirahmadi, Professor, Rutgers University
06. Richard P. Appelbaum, Professor of Sociology, University of California at Santa Barbara
07. Rahim Bajoghli, Human Rights Activist
08. Darioush Bayandor, historian, author
09. Asef Bayat, Professor, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
10. Iris Bazing, MD, Baltimore, Maryland
11. Maria Bennett, Poet, New Jersey, USA
12. Mohammad Borghei, Strayer University.
13. Mehrzad Boroujerdi, Professor, Syracuse University
14. Juan Cole, Professor, University of Michigan
15. Shirindokht Daghighian, Independent Scholar & Author
16. Mehrdad Darvishpour, Lecturer at the Malardalen University, Sweden
17. Lucia F. Dunn, Professor of Economics, Ohio State University
18. Goudarz Eghtedari, Ph.D., Voices of the Middle East
19. Mohammad Eghtedari, Economist, Washington, DC
20. Nader Entessar, Professor of Political Science, University of South Alabama
21. Amir Fassihi, Nowruz Foundation for Nonviolence, CA
22. John Foran, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara
23. Ali Fathollah-Nejad, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
24. Yoshie Furuhashi, Editor, MRZine
25. Alexandra Gallin-Parisi, Professor, Trinity University
26. Amir Hossein Ganjbakhsh, Senior Investigator, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD
27. Reza Goharzad, Journalist, Los Angeles
28. John L Graham, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Irvine
29. Hossein Hamedani, Professor, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI
30. Nader Hashemi, Professor, University of Denver
31. Esmail Hejazifar, Professor of Physics, Wilmington College, Ohio
32. Paula Hertel, Professor of Psychology, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX
33. Mohsen Heydareian, Ph. D, Political Science, Sweden
34. Fredun Hojabri, Retired Professor of Sharif (Aryamehr) Univeristy of Technology
35. Angie Hougas, Human Rights Activists, McFarland, WI
36. Noushin Izadifar Hart, M.D., Radiation Oncologist, Reston, Virginia
37. Azadeh Jahanbegloo, Sociologist, Wright State University, Ohio
38. Jahanshah Javid, Editor, Iranian.com
39. Hasan Javadi, Retired Professor of Persian Language, University of California, Berkeley
40. Mark C. Johnson, Executive Director, Fellowship of Reconciliation, NY
41. Yahya Kamalipour, Chair, Global Communication Association, Purdue University
42. Aziz Karamloo, MD, Faculty Member, University of California, Los Angeles
43. Mahmood Karimi-Hakak, Professor of Theatre and Film, Siena College, NY
44. Liam Kennedy, Community Board Member,CCPB, UC, Irvine
45. Fatemeh Keshavarz, Professor, Washington University, St. Louis
46. Nanette Le Coat, Associate Professor, Modern Languages and Literatures, Trinity University
47. Arturo Madrid, Professor, Trinity University
48. Ali Akbar Mahdi, Professor Emeritus, Ohio Wesleyan University
49. Azita Mashayekhi, Industrial Hygienist, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
50. Rudi Matthee, Distinguished Professor of Middle Eastern history, University of Delaware
51. Farzaneh Milani, Professor, University of Virginia
52. Yaser Mirdamadi, Independent Scholar
53. Ziba Mir-Hosseini, CMEIL, School of Oriental and African Studies
54. Ida Mirzaie, Ohio State University
55. Valentine M. Moghadam, Professor of Sociology, Northeastern University
56. Mahmood Monshipouri, Professor, San Francisco State University
57. Akbar Montaser, Professor, Department of Chemistry ,George Washington University
58. Reza Mousoli, Canterbury Christ Church University, UK
59. Baquer Namazi, Retired UNICEF Country Representative & Civil Society Activist
60. Arash Naraghi, Assistant Professor of Religion and Philosophy, Moravian College
61. Mohamad Navab, University of California, Los Angeles
62. Farrokh Negahdar, Political Analyst
63. Mohammad-Reza Nikfar, Independent Scholar and Philosopher
64. Azam Niroomand-Rad, Professor Emeritus, Georgetown University Medical Center
65. Farhad Nomani, Professor of Economics, American University of Paris
66. Mehdi Noorbaksh, Associate Professor, Harrisburg University of Science & Technology
67. Trita Parsi, President, National Iranian American Council, Washington, DC
68. Richard T. Peterson, Professor of Philosophy, Michigan State University
69. Davood Rahni, Professor of Chemistry, Pace University, New York
70. Farhang Rajaee, Professor, Carleton University
71. Asghar rastegar, MD, Professor of Medicine, Yale School of Medicinek
72. Thomas M. Ricks, Ph.D., Independent Scholar
73. Mahmoud Sadri, Professor of Sociology, Texas Woman’s University
74. Muhammad Sahimi, Professor, University of Southern California in Los Angeles
75. Hamid Salek, D.D.S. University of Southern California , Los Angeles
76. Reza Sarhangi, Professor, Department of Mathematics, Towson University
77. Mehrdad F. Samadzadeh, University of Toronto
78. Gabriel Sebastian, Author, Futurist
79. Ali Shakeri, Community Board Member, CCPB, UC, Irvine
80. Evan Siegel, Ph.D., Independent Researcher on Iran & Azerbaijan, Adj. Mathematics Prof., CUNY
81. Arman Shirazi, Senior Scientist, CSM North America
82. Sussan Siavoshi, Professor, Trinity University
83. Mark D. Stansbery, Iran Action Network
84. Sussan Tahmasebi, Women’s Rights Activist
85. Mohamad Tavakoli-Targhi, Univeristy of Toronto
86. Bahram Tavakolian, Willamette University
87. Farideh Tehrani, Ph.D., Middle Eastern Studies Librarian, Rutgers University, NJ
88. Mary Ann Tetreault, Cox Distinguished Professor of International Affairs, Trinity University
89. Nayereh Tohidi, Professor, California State University, Northridge
90. Patricia Trutty-Coohill, Professor of Art History, Siena College, NY
91. Farzin Vahdat, Research Associate at Vassar College
92. Bill Wolak, Poet, New Jersey, USA
93. Leila Zand, Program Director, Middle East Civilian Diplomacy, Fellowship of Reconciliation
94. Hamid Zangeneh, Professor, Widener University

 

SOURCE

The original English version [pdf]:

Translations in Persian:

  • Akhbare Rooz (Iranian Political Bulletin), 16 January 2012;
  • iran-emrooz.net, 16 January 2012;
  • Shahrgon (“the first and the largest publication for Persian speaking in western Canada”), 16 January 2012.

Translation in French:

 

Talks & Lectures

LAST UPDATE: 1 May 2012

 

9 May 2012 Der Konflikt zwischen dem Iran und dem Westen: Hintergründe und Perspektiven [The Conflict between Iran and the West: Backgrounds and Perpectives] | Studium Generale Lecture Series: »Die Entwicklungen in der islamischen Welt und die Rolle des Westens« [Developments in the Islamic World and the Role of the West] | Business and Information Technology School (BiTS), Iserlohn (Germany).

30 April 2012             Droht ein Krieg des Westens gegen den Iran? Was Deutschland und Europa für eine Deeskalation der angespannten Lage tun können | Discussant: Dr. Rolf Mützenich (German MP), Foreign Policy Spokesman of the Parliamentary Group of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), Co-Chair of the German–Iranian MP Group of the German Bundestag, Chair of the Socialist International (SI) Committee on Disarmament | Organized by the Cologne Forum for International Relations and Security Policy (KFIBS, Kölner Forum für Internationale Beziehungen und Sicherheitspolitik) | Chaired by Sepideh Parsa (KFIBS) | Institute of Oriental and Asian Studies (IOA), University of Bonn.

23 April 2012             Iran, Israel und der Westen: Gibt es einen Ausweg aus der Bedrohungsspirale? (Iran, Israel and the West: Is There a Way Out of the Crisis?) | Panel discussion with Hillel Schenker (Co-Editor, Palestine–Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture) | Moderated by: Peter Philipp (journalist, fmr. Chief Correspondent for DW-Radio/DW-World.de) | Organized by the German section of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) & the Friedrich Ebert Foundation | Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Berlin, 18 h.

23 April 2012             Iran, Israel und der Westen: Gibt es einen Ausweg aus der Bedrohungsspirale? (Iran, Israel and the West: Is There a Way Out of the Crisis?) | Press Conference with Hillel Schenker (Co-Editor, Palestine–Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture) & Dr. Jens Wagner (board member of IPPNW Germany) | Organized by the German section of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) | Office of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), Berlin, 11 h.

22 April 2012 Der Iran-Atomkonflikt: Gibt es einen Weg aus der Bedrohungsspirale? [The Iran Nuclear Conflict: Is There Way Out of the Spiral of Threats?] | Public symposium with Hillel Schenker (Co-Editor, Palestine–Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture) & Prof. Udo Steinbach (former Director, German Orient Institute [renamed as: German Institute of Global and Area Studies GIGA], 1976–2006) | Annual meeting of the German section of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), Braunschweig (Germany).

9 March 2012            Drohungen – Sanktionen – Krieg: Eskalationsstrategie gegen den Iran [Threats – Sanctions – War: Escalation Strategy against Iran | Podium discussion with Kuros Yalpani (Webmaster, politube.org) | Organized by Münchner Bündnis gegen Krieg und Rassismus, EineWeltHaus, Munich (Germany).

8 March 2012            Iran im Auge des Orkans [Iran in the Eye of Storm] | Podium discussion with Kuros Yalpani (Webmaster, politube.org), Moderator: Thomas Pany (Editor, Telepolis) | Import Export, Munich (Germany).

6 March 2012            10 Jahre Iran-Konflikt: Gibt es noch Hoffnung auf eine friedliche Lösung? [The Iran Conflict 10 Years On: Is There Still Hope for a Peaceful Resolution?] | Organized by Deutsche Friedensgesellschaft – Vereinigte KriegsdienstgegnerInnen (DFG-VK), Forum für gesellschaftlichen Frieden in Karlsruhe (FgF), Friedensbündnis Karlsruhe, Internationales Begegnungszentrum (ibz) | ibz, Karlsruhe (Germany).

7 Dec. 2011                Interest-Driven Policy Versus Human Rights To Be Continued? A Review of and Lessons from Western Policy towards Northern Africa and Western Asia [Weiterhin Interessenpolitik versus Menschenrechte? Rückblick und Lehren aus der westlichen Politik gegenüber Nordafrika und Westasien] | Organized by the Iran working group (AK Iran) of the Amnesty International Campus Group Bonn | Dies Academicus, University of Bonn.

30 Nov. 2011             Der Iran-Atomkonflikt und Europa: Eine vermeidbare Krise und Lösungsaussichten [The Iran Nuclear Conflict and Europe: A Preventable Crisis and the Prospects for a Settlement] | Conference on »Iran – als mögliche Atommacht eine Gefahr für Europa?« [Iran – As a Potential Nuclear Power a Threat to Europe?] | Europäische Akademie Nordrhein-Westfalen in cooperation with the Federal Agency for Civic Education (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung), Bonn (Germany), 27/11–02/12/2011.

30 Nov. 2011             Außenpolitische Zielsetzung Irans und Europa: Ein historischer Abriss [Iran’s Foreign-Policy Goals and Europe: A Historical Account] | Conference on »Iran – als mögliche Atommacht eine Gefahr für Europa?« [Iran – As a Potential Nuclear Power a Threat to Europe?] | Europäische Akademie Nordrhein-Westfalen in cooperation with the Federal Agency for Civic Education (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung), Bonn (Germany), 27/11–02/12/2011.

26 Nov. 2011 Iran und Israel: Auswirkungen der US-Iran-Krise und des »Arabischen Frühlings« [Iran and Israel: Consequences of the U.S.–Iran Crisis and of the »Arab Spring« | Israel und seine Nachbarn: Ressentiments – Feindschaften – Koalitionen [Israel and its Neighbors] | DIE HEGGE – Christliches Bildungswerk | Willebadessen-Niesen (Germany), 25–27/11/2011.

12 Nov. 2011             The Methodology of Citizens’ Panels and its Perspectives in Migration Matters | Keynote Speech in Part 1 “Migration and Citizens’ Panels” | International Workshop »Improving the Situation of Immigrants – Citizens and Experts Debate«, concluding the project GOAL (Granting Opportunities of Active Learning), led by ALDA (Association of Local Democracy Agencies) | Bucharest, 12–13 November 2011.

24 Oct. 2011              Chairing the panel discussion on »The Road to Regional Security and Cooperation in the Middle East« with Ziad AbuZayyad (Co-Editor & Co-Publisher, Palestine–Israel Journal [PIJ] & Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East [CSCME], Palestine), Hillel Schenker (Co-Editor, PIJ & CSCME, Israel), Gen. (rtd.) Mohammad K. Shiyyab (Founder & General Manager, Middle East Studies Center, Amman/Jordan), Prof. Mohssen Massarrat (CSCME, Germany/Iran) | 6th SOAS/British Pugwash London Conference on a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone | School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, 24/10/2011.

13 July 2011                Panel discussion on »The Challenge of Dealing With Iran« with Stephen Twigg MP (Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs & fmr. Director and currently Senior Research Associate, Foreign Policy Centre, London) & Mark Fitzpatrick (Director of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Programme, International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), London | Organized by the Young Fabians Middle Eastern Programme | House of Commons, London.

17 April 2011              The End of the American Empire? The Arab Revolutionary Process and the Threat to U.S.-Led Western Hegemony | Panel on “Structures of Power and Strategies of Resistance in North Africa and West Asia”, ‘Sunday of Resistance’ event, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.

27 Jan. 2011               Sanktionen und Kriegsdrohungen gegen Iran: Facetten eines globalen Konfliktes [Sanctions and Threats of War against Iran: Facets of a Global Conflict] | Organized by Münchner Bündnis gegen Krieg und Rassismus & Münchner Friedensbündnis | EineWeltHaus, Munich, Germany.

4 Dec. 2010                Friedens- und entwicklungspolitische Auswirkungen der Iran-Politik [Peace and Developmental Ramifications of the Iran Policy] | 17th nationwide and international »Friedenspolitischer Ratschlag 2010« [Federal Committee Peace Counsel]: Globaler Kampf um Rohstoffe, Wasser und Energie [Global Fight for Resources, Water and Energy] | University of Kassel (Germany), 4–5/12/2010.

30 June 2010              Iran und wir: Ein Blick hinter die Schlagzeilen [Iran and Us: Taking a Look Behind the Headlines] | LOGE | Essen (Germany).

25 June 2010             Iran im Visier: Sanktionen, Propaganda, Kriegsdrohungen [Targeting Iran: Sanctions, Propaganda, Threats of War] |  Organized by Heidelberg Forum gegen Militarismus und Krieg; DieLinke.SDS; Heidelberger Friedensratschlag; DIE LINKE HD-Rhein-Neckar; VVN/BdA Heidelberg (Vereinigung der Verfolgten des Naziregimes – Bund der Antifaschistinnen und Antifaschisten, Kreisvereinigung Heidelberg) |  University of Heidelberg (Germany).

13 Apr. 2010              Iran – demokratische Reform oder Krieg? Die innen- und aussenpolitischen Zukunftsperspektiven Teherans [Iran – Democratic Reform or War? Future Perspective of Tehran’s Domestic and Foreign Affairs] | Invited by & discussion with Andreas Zumach, Geneva-based UN correspondent & author | “Politik am Stehtisch” | Theater Winkelwiese, Zurich.

15 Feb. 2010              Iran in World Politics | Organized by Imperial College Union Political Philosophy Society (PPS) | Panel with Shirin Shafaie (PhD Candidate, School of Oriental and African Studies [SOAS], University of London) | Imperial College London.

3 Feb. 2010                What Lies Ahead? The Movement, Sanctions and the West | Organized by Campaign Iran | Panel with Prof. Ali Ansari (Director of the Institute for Iranian Studies, University of St. Andrews, Scotland & Associate Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House) and Lindsey German (Convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, UK) | Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church, London.

13 Jan. 2010               Panel discussion on »Iran – Revolution 2.0? Die Bewegung gegen Ahmadinedschad und die Rolle der neuen Medien« [Iran – Revolution 2.0? The Movement Against Ahmadinejad and the Role of New Media] with Yalda Zarbakhch (media researcher), Sara Dehkordi (Network of Young Iranians in Berlin), Sam T. Fard (Journalist, taz), Rüdiger Göbel (deputy editor-in-chief, junge Welt daily, Berlin) | Organized by Helle Panke, LiMA (Linke Medienakademie) and Die Tageszeitung (taz) | tazcafé, Berlin.

5 Dec. 2009               Die Obama-Administration und der Iran-Konflikt in einer multipolaren Welt [The Obama Administration and the Iran Conflict in a Multipolar World] | 16th nationwide and international »Friedenspolitischer Ratschlag 2009« [Federal Committee Peace Counsel]: Kapitalismus, Krise und Krieg [Capitalism, Crisis and War] | University of Kassel (Germany), 5–6/12/2009.

22 June 2009             Jenseits »kollektiver Konfusion«: Erklärungsmuster und Kontinuitäten iranischer Außenpolitik [Beyond »Collective Confusion«: Explanatory Patterns and Continuities of Iranian Foreign Policy] | Symposium on »Der Iran in der internationalen Politik: Internationale Krisen als Blockade regionaler Entwicklung« [Symposium: Iran in International Politics: International Crises as Blockade for Regional Development] | Österreichische Orient-Gesellschaft Hammer-Purgstall in cooperation with Österreichischen Institut für Internationale Politik (OIIP, Austrian Institute for International Affairs) | Diplomatische Akademie Wien (Diplomatic Academy of Vienna / Vienna School of International Studies).

18 June 2009             Der Iran-Konflikt und die Rolle Europas [The Iran Conflict and the Role of Europe] | Organized by Visions d’Europe | University of Münster (Germany).

30 Apr. 2009              The West–Iran Conflict and the Centrality of International Law | Debate on »Iran: Diplomacy and the Rule of Law« with Douglas Murray (Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, UK & author of Neoconservatism: Why We Need It [2006] | Organized by The Law and Justice Forum, College of Law The College of Law, London.

27 Apr. 2009              Obama and Iran | Panel discussion with Jon Snow (Channel 4 News journalist and presenter), Dr. Mehri Honarbin–Holliday (Canterbury Christ Church University & Campaign Iran leading member), John Rees (co-founder of the Stop the War Coalition), chaired by Baroness Prof. Haleh Afshar | Organized by Campaign Iran | School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.

17 Mar. 2009             A European Idea for Euro–Iranian Relations | Conference on »Iran and Europe: Green Visions for the Future« | Organized by The Greens / European Free Alliance (EFA) | European Parliament, Brussels.

4 Feb. 2009               Obama and Iran: What Policy Recommendations the New U.S. President Has On Offer | Discussant: Dr. Elaheh Rostami-Povey (SOAS) | Organized by SOAS Persian Society – School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London.

6 Dec. 2008               Kriegsgefahr gebannt? Die neue US-Administration und der Iran [Danger of War Averted? The New U.S. Administration and Iran] | 15th nationwide and international »Friedenspolitischer Ratschlag 2008« [Federal Committee Peace Counsel]: Die Welt nach Bush: Friedlicher? Gerechter? Ökologischer? [The World After Bush: More Peaceful? More Just? More Ecological?] | University of Kassel (Germany), 6–7/12/2008.

26 May 2008             Der Iran im Blickfang der Weltpolitik: Perspektiven von Krieg und Frieden in einer eskalierenden Situation [Iran in the Eye of World Politics: Perspectives on War and Peace in an Escalating Situation] | Katholische Studierenden- und Hochschulgemeinde (KSHG) Münster | Münster (Germany).

16 April 2008             Das Atomprogramm des Iran: Propaganda und Wirklichkeit [The Nuclear Program of Iran: Propaganda and Reality] | Essener Friedens-Forum (EFF) | Essen (Germany).

10 April 2008             Zwischen Kriegsdrohungen und Sanktionen: Die westliche Politik gegenüber Iran [Between the Threat of War and Sanctions: The West’s Policy vis-à-vis Iran] | Organized by Deutsche Friedensgesellschaft – Vereinigte KriegsdienstgegnerInnen (DFG–VK), Forum für gesellschaftlichen Frieden (FgF) in Karlsruhe, Friedensbündnis Karlsruhe | Karlsruhe (Germany).

3 March 2008            Droht mit einer Aggression der USA gegen den Iran der Dritte Weltkrieg? [Is the Third World War Impending With a U.S. Aggression against Iran?] | Organized by Linker Dialog Köln, Förderverein Kölner Friedensforum, Arbeitskreis Hiroshima-Nagasaki, Rosa Luxemburg Foundation North-Rhine-Westphalia | DGB-Haus, Cologne (Germany).

28 Feb. 2008             Iran im Fadenkreuz: Fragen zu Krieg und Frieden [Iran in the Crosshairs: Questions on War and Peace] | International Center, University of Münster (Germany).

4 Feb. 2008               The Iranian Science Community in the Crosshairs: An Action Against Whom? | CES Café | Centre for European Studies (CES), University of Twente (NL).

31 Aug. 2007              Die Iran-Krise [The Iran Crisis] | Evangelische Gemeinde zu Düren [Protestant Community of Düren] | Düren (Germany).

2 Oct. 2006                Konfliktherd Iran: Droht der Krieg? [Hot Spot Iran: On the Verge of War?] | Panel discussion with Senior Consistory Steinhäuser (Appointee of the Protestant Churches at the Parliament and Government of Saxony-Anhalt) | Organized by Magdeburger Bündnis 50 plus e.V. & Ökumenischer Friedensarbeitskreis | Magdeburg (Germany).

1 Sep. 2006                Iran, Libanon: Krisen und Kriege – Was sind die Alternativen? [Iran, Lebanon: Crises and Wars – What Alternatives?] | Anti-War Day event organized by ATTAC Rüsselsheim, DGB Rüsselsheim, Arbeit und Leben Starkenburg | Rüsselsheim (Germany).

31 Aug. 2006             Aktuelle Krisen im Nahen Osten [Current Crises in the Middle East] | Organized by WASG (Wahlalternative Arbeit & Soziale Gerechtigkeit) Groß-Gerau | Groß-Gerau (Germany).

29 May 2006             Krieg im Iran? Hintergründe und Einblicke [War on Iran? Backgrounds and Insights] | Organized by WASG (Wahlalternative Arbeit & Soziale Gerechtigkeit) Gütersloh | Gütersloh (Germany).

10 May 2006             Iran-Atomkonflikt und Perspektiven [Iran Nuclear Conflict and Perspectives] | Ringvorlesung: Umwelt, Entwicklung, Frieden [Lecture Series: Environment, Development, Peace], studium generale, SS06 | University of Osnabrück (Germany).

14 Feb. 2006             Iran in the Eye of Storm: The Nuclear Issue and Beyond | Institute of Political Science (IfPol), University of Münster (Germany).

20 Jan. 2006              Iran im Brennpunkt: Das Atomprogramm und der Westen [Iran in Focus: The Nuclear Program and the West] | Speaker’s Corner, Peperoni, Münster (Germany).

Comments (0)

A Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East

An Obligation Imposed by the »Arab Spring« and the Israel–Iran Conflict

 

With the war drums on Iran sounding again and the Arab Revolts following an arduous path, the question of a sustainable perspective for a conflict-ridden region remains to be dealt with. After all, the lack of both security and cooperation is an enduring malady plaguing the region.

Civil-society effort towards common security and regional cooperation

Some years ago a civil-society initiative for a Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East (CSCME) was spearheaded in Germany by peace and conflict researcher Prof. Mohssen Massarrat in collaboration with the German branches of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA). After decades of violent conflicts in the region, the initiators chose not to sit down and wait anymore, but decided to assemble civil-society actors from all countries concerned in order to promote a perspective for peace, security and cooperation – something state actors have carelessly neglected. One of its key aims is the creation of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

After a first workshop held in Germany in January 2011, a second took place by late October at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London in cooperation with its Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy (CISD). The meeting was linked to an annual CISD conference on a related subject, the 6th SOAS/British Pugwash London Conference on a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone.

So far civil-society forces from almost all countries of the region have been brought together. Unified in the desire to break out from the vicious cycle of regional militarization, they want to offer a vision for common security and regional cooperation. In addition to security policy, the CSCME process comprises a number of fields for cooperation, among others in the areas of socio-economic development, cross-border resource management, inter-religious and -cultural dialogue, and health. It is hoped that the next expert conference will take place in the region itself. All of that in view of holding a founding conference for the civil-society CSCME process in the near future.

For 2012 (perhaps more realistically for 2013), the first United Nations Middle East WMD-Free Zone Conference is planned, for which Finland has been chosen as host. Ideally, concrete steps towards the realization of that aim would be defined there and civil-society groups involved.

The “Arab Spring”: The necessity of a veritable regional security architecture

An important topic of the last workshop in London was the “Arab Spring” which demonstrated that the pejoratively dismissed “Arab Street” is not a passive object for authoritarian rule, but that societies can offensively fight for their own needs and interests, and eventually bring about change. This development has emboldened the initiative for a CSCME as it showed that civil-society pressure can indeed yield tangible results.

Importantly, if we comprehend the revolutionary process in the Arab world to be motivated by a triad of popular demands, namely the pursuit of socio-economic justice, political freedoms, and independence, what is intimately connected to the latter is the question of security, especially for those countries so far over-dependent on non-regional powers.

The Iran–Israel conundrum: A WMD-free zone as the only sustainable solution

Beyond that implicit demand inherent to the Arab uprisings for security and coexistence, there is another front which propels us to contemplate about new paths and solutions. The seemingly never-ending spectacle around the so-called Iran nuclear conflict, which is more often tilting towards war than a peaceful resolution, has again produced heated debates on its whereabouts. With the bulk of the policy debates endlessly vacillating between a rock (war) and a hard place (sanctions), it is clear that both options will not alleviate concerns for both nuclear proliferation and the Iranian civil society’s well-being. The only meaningful way forward would be to abandon such a bogus policy alternative which has proven counterproductive and will only push the conflict towards the brink of war, and instead striving for regional disarmament and eventually a WMD-free zone. In order to avoid a collision resulting from contentions over nuclear monopoly and deterrence, the creation of such a zone would arguably constitute the only meaningful exit. Hence, the desire to bring both Iran and Israel to the table at the above mentioned UN conference.

While there can be little doubt that civil societies across the region are in need of a prospect for common security and intra-regional cooperation, there can be no less doubt that the so-far preferred policies affecting the region have proven unsuccessful at best. Only in an overall Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East (CSCME) can the concatenation of multi-faceted conflicts in the region be addressed in a sustainable manner. Here, the continuing and increasing insistence from diverse civil society actors will be indispensable to encourage policy-makers to pave the way for bringing sustainable peace and security to the region.

 

SOURCE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2011) “A Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East“, Fair Observer, 2 December;

▪ slightly edited version published as “Security and Cooperation in the Middle East: Searching for a Solution“, openDemocracy,  1 December;

▪ published as “WMD Free Zone: Avoiding a Collision Over Nuclear Monopoly and Deterrence“, Iranian.com, 8 December;

▪ published as “A Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East: An Obligation Imposed by the “Arab Spring” and the Israel–Iran Conflict“, Payvand Iran News, 9 December;

▪ published as “A Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East: An Obligation Imposed by the Arab Spring and the Israel–Iran Conflict“, Foreign Policy Journal, 9 December ;

▪ published as “A Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East: An Obligation Imposed by the Arab Spring and the Israel–Iran Conflict“, Iran Review, 9 December;

▪ published as A Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East“, Atlantic Community, Berlin: Atlantische Initiative, 19 January;

▪ republished on Yahanestán: opinión y sociedad sobre Oriente Medio (Mexico), 21 January 2012.

 

Eine KSZE für den Nahen Osten? | A New Security Architecture for the Middle East?

For the English version, please scroll down.

»Arabischer Frühling« zeigt: Druck der Zivilgesellschaft wirkt

 

Ali Fathollah-Nejad von der School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) der Universität London ist Mitglied der Initiative für eine Konferenz über Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit im Mittleren und Nahen Osten (KSZMNO). Ein Hauptziel ist die Schaffung einer kernwaffenfreien Zone. Mit dem Politologen sprach für »nd« Thomas Kachel.

ND: Die KSZMNO ist eine Initiative für die Beförderung des Friedens in Nahmittelost durch zivilgesellschaftliche Akteure. Wie kam es dazu?

Fathollah-Nejad: Die Initiative wurde in Deutschland schon vor einigen Jahren vom Friedensforscher Mohssen Massarrat gemeinsam mit den deutschen Sektionen der IPPNW (Ärzte gegen den Atomkrieg) und IALANA (Rechtsanwälte gegen den Atomkrieg) angestoßen. Nach Jahrzehnten gewaltsamer Konflikte in der Region wollten die Initiatoren nicht länger warten und beschlossen, zivilgesellschaftliche Akteure aus allen betroffenen Ländern zusammenzuführen, um eine Perspektive in Frieden, Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit zu fördern – was die staatlichen Akteure bislang sträflich vernachlässigt haben. Nach einer ersten Tagung im Januar fand kürzlich an der Londoner SOAS eine zweite statt.

Wer nimmt daran teil und worin besteht ihr nächstes konkretes Ziel?

Wir haben bisher zivilgesellschaftliche Kräfte aus nahezu allen Ländern der Region versammeln können. Sie alle eint der Wunsch, aus dem Teufelskreis gegenseitiger rüstungsbasierter Abschreckung auszubrechen und stattdessen eine regionale Zusammenarbeit zu erreichen. Der KSZMNO-Prozess umfasst neben der Sicherheitspolitik eine Reihe weiterer Kooperationsfelder, unter anderem in den Bereichen sozio-ökonomische Entwicklung, grenzübergreifendes Ressourcenmanagement, interkultureller und interreligiöser Dialog und Gesundheit. Wir hoffen, dass die nächste Fachtagung in der Region selbst stattfindet. All dies mit der Aussicht, in naher Zukunft eine Gründungskonferenz des zivilgesellschaftlichen KSZMNO-Prozesses zu veranstalten.

Für 2012 ist eine erste UN-Konferenz zur Schaffung einer von Massenvernichtungswaffen freien Zone in Nahmittelost geplant. Wir wünschten, dass dort exakte Schritte zur Realisierung dieses Ziels bestimmt und zivilgesellschaftliche Gruppen einbezogen würden.

Was stand im Mittelpunkt der jüngsten Tagung?

Wichtigstes Thema war der »Arabische Frühling«, der gezeigt hat, dass die abwertend als »arabische Straße« abgetanen Gesellschaften nicht etwa passive Objekte autoritärer Herrschaft sind, sondern als Zivilgesellschaft offensiv für ihre Belange eintreten können. Diese Entwicklung gibt auch unserer Initiative Rückenwind, zumal deutlich wird, dass zivilgesellschaftlicher Druck fruchten kann.

Besorgnis rief vor dem Hintergrund des sogenannten Nuklearstreits ein etwaiger israelischer Angriff auf Iran hervor – ein Thema, das momentan wieder Schlagzeilen macht. Daher auch der Wunsch, beide Parteien im Rahmen der genannten UN-Konferenz an einen Tisch zu bekommen.

Im Westen werden Mahnungen zum friedlichen Umgang mit Iran oft gleichgesetzt mit Parteinahme für Mahmud Ahmadinedschad.

Ich denke, dass solch eine abenteuerliche Behauptung längst ihr Verfallsdatum erreicht hat. Friedliches und faires, am Völkerrecht orientiertes Handeln bedeutet ja nicht »Appeasement«, wie die Neokonservativen behaupten. Denn Fakt ist, dass Wirtschaftssanktionen und Kriegsdrohungen – also das Ausbleiben einer Konfliktlösung – der Zivilgesellschaft enorm geschadet haben, während die gegenwärtige Machtkonfiguration zementiert wurde. Vielmehr verspricht eine Kurskorrektur die Schwächung der Hardliner auf allen Seiten.

 

QUELLE

Fathollah-Nejad, Ali (2011) Eine KSZE für den Nahen Osten? »Arabischer Frühling« zeigt: Druck der Zivilgesellschaft wirkt, Interview durch Thomas Kachel, Neues Deutschland, 8. November, S. 8;

▪ wiederveröffentlicht auf ZNet Deutschland, 9. November;

wiederveröffentlicht auf blackandwhitenachrichten, 24. Januar 2013.

 

* * * * *

A Conference for Security and Cooperation for the Middle East?

»Arab Spring« demonstrates that civil-society yields results

Ali Fathollah-Nejad from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of the University of London is member of the initiative for a civil-society Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Middle East (CSCME). One of its key aims is the creation of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. Thomas Kachel spoke to the political scientist.

The CSCME is an initiative for the promotion of peace in the Middle East through civil-society actors. How did it come about?

The initiative was spearheaded some years ago in Germany by peace researcher Mohssen Massarrat in collaboration with the German branches of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA). After decades of violent conflicts in the region, the initiators chose not to sit down and wait anymore, rather decided to assemble civil-society actors from all countries concerned in order to promote the perspective for peace, security and cooperation – something state actors have carelessly neglected so far. After a first workshop in January, a second one has been held at SOAS in London by late October.

Who are the participants and what are their next concrete goals?

So far we have been able to bring together civil-society forces from almost all countries of the region. They are unified in the desire to break out from the vicious cycle of armament-based deterrence and instead bring about regional cooperation. In addition to security policy, the CSCME process comprises a number of fields for cooperation, among others in the areas socio-economic development, cross-border resource management, inter-religious and -cultural dialogue, and health. We hope that the next expert conference will be taking place in the region itself. All of that in view of holding a founding conference for the civil-society CSCME process in the near future.

For 2012, the first United Nations Middle East WMD-Free Zone Conference is planned. Our desire is that concrete steps towards the realization of that aim will be defined and civil-society groups involved.

What has been the focus of the recent workshop?

The most important topic was the “Arab Spring” which showed that the pejoratively dismissed “Arab Street” is not a passive object of authoritarian rule, but that civil societies can offensively fight for their own needs and interests. This development has also emboldened our initiative as it demonstrates that civil-society pressure can yield results.

Against the background of the so-called nuclear crisis, a potential Israeli attack on Iran raised concerns – a subject now again in the headlines. Hence, the desire to bring both parties to the table in the framework of the said UN conference.

In the West, appeals for a peaceful approach towards Iran are often equated with partisanship for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I believe such an adventurous claim has long exceeded its expiry date. A peaceful and fair approach, respecting international law, can of course not be put on the same level as “appeasement” as assumed by neoconservatives. The fact of the matter is that economic sanctions and the threat of war – in other words, the lack of conflict resolution – have enormously damaged civil society, while the current power configuration has been cemented. In fact, reversing such a course of action promises to weaken hardliners on all sides.

SOURCE

Fathollah-Nejad, Ali (2011) “A New Security Architecture for the Middle East?“,Fair Observer, 13 December;

▪ also published as “A Conference for Security and Cooperation for the Middle East?“, Monthly Review Webzine, 15 December;

republished on Europe’s World, 24 December.

[Translation from “Eine KSZE für den Nahen Osten? »Arabischer Frühling« zeigt: Druck der Zivilgesellschaft wirkt“, Interview by Thomas Kachel, Neues Deutschland (Germany), 8 November 2011, p. 8.]

Das Sanktionsregime gegen den Iran: Entstehungsgeschichte und Auswirkungen

Sanktionen, ob wirtschaftlicher und/oder politischer Natur, gelten als Instrument zur Erwirkung von Zugeständnissen beim politischen Opponenten. Zumeist wird versucht, dieses Ziel dadurch zu erreichen, dass dem sanktionierten Staat oder der jeweiligen tonangebenden Machtelite das Einkommen beschnitten wird. Um eben jenen Kurswechsel beim Adressaten herbeizuführen, werden Sanktionen im politischen Diskurs zudem als nachgerade gewaltloses, friedliches Mittel dargestellt. In Bezug auf Iran werden gegenwärtig folgende Ziele, die durch Sanktionen zu erreichen seien, proklamiert: Iran soll zu Zugeständnissen zu Gunsten der USA bzw. des Westens gezwungen werden, v.a. im Nuklearstreit, potentiell aber auch bei politischen Fragen in Südwestasien; Irans Atomwaffenfähigkeit soll verhindert werden; die iranische Führung soll geschwächt und die Zivilgesellschaft gestärkt werden.

[…]

 

QUELLE

Fathollah-Nejad, Ali (2010) Sanktionsregime gegen den Iran: Entstehung und Auswirkungen” [The Sanctions Regime on Iran: Its Formation and Impacts], inamo: Berichte und Analysen zu Politik und Gesellschaft des Nahen und Mittleren Ostens, Berlin: Informationsprojekt Naher und Mittlerer Osten (inamo), Jg. 16, Nr. 63 (Herbst), S. 33–39.

Das Verhältnis von Religion und Staat in Iran: Von den Safaviden bis heute

 

Der vorliegende Artikel befasst sich mit (1.) der tiefreichenden Verflechtung von Religion und Staat in Iran sowie (2.) der Entstehung einer schiitischen Theokratie sowohl als Ergebnis eines Zusammenstoßes von internen (d.h. politischen, ideologischen, sozialen und ökonomischen) und externen (Imperialismus) Strukturen als auch von kurzfristig zurückliegenden kontingenten historischen Umständen.

[…]

 

QUELLE

Fathollah-Nejad, Ali & Yazdani, Kaveh (2011) “Das Verhältnis von Religion und Staat in Iran: Von den Safaviden bis heute” [The Relationship between Religion and State in Iran: From the Safavids until Today], Zeitschrift für Religion und Gesellschaft, Köln: Forschungszentrum für Religion und Gesellschaft (forege), Jg. 1, Nr. 2 (Herbst), S. 298–312.

[Die Zeitschrift ist hier zu beziehen.]

 

REAKTIONEN

Die mit dem Düsseldorfer Friedenspreis 2010 ausgezeichnete FriedensTreiberAgentur (FTA) berichtet in ihrem Newsletter Nr. 270/2011 (03.11.2011) von diesem Artikel.

U.S. Policy on Iran under Bush II and Obama

Ali Fathollah-Nejad puts the Iran policy of Barack Obama in perspective by also discussing the ideas of U.S. think-tanks and George W. Bush. He elaborates on his book The Iran Conflict and the Obama Administration: Old Wine in New Skins? [in German], Potsdam University Press, 2010 & 2011 (reprint).

Praise for the book include:
“A detailed and utterly persuasive indictment of US policy towards Iran.”
Dr. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, author of Iran in World Politics: The Question of the Islamic Republic, Hurst 2007 and Columbia University Press 2008;
“[…] read with applause. A very thorough and succinct work. […] nothing important left out.”
Rudolph Chimelli, veteran journalist and Iran expert, Süddeutsche Zeitung (Germany largest daily newspaper).

 

U.S. policy towards Iran under George W. Bush

What were the main features of the Iran policy of U.S. President George W. Bush?

As we all know, the U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran was marked by a highly confrontational attitude. The very fact that the Bush/Cheney administration decided to “thank” the Iranian government for its crucial assistance in toppling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by autumn 2001, by naming Iran as part of an “axis of evil” in Bush’s State of the Union address in early 2002, has been a clear indication of the approach preferred towards Iran.

During the Bush II years (but already starting under the Clinton administration), there was tremendous pressure by neoconservative groups outside and inside the administration to effect a “regime change” in Tehran, even to the extent to ask the intelligence services to fabricate evidence for the alleged Iranian “nuclear threat” – stark efforts of political manipulation whose shadows still bear upon the current ties of those institutions as Seymour Hersh describes in his most recent piece on Iran policy for The New Yorker.

The neoconservatives who have been occupying the corridors of power in the first Bush II administration had been able to push through their ideas on how to cope with the Iran problem. These were centred around the principle of not talking to a “rogue state” (which in fact was the basis for the total dismissal of Iran’s “grand bargain” offer in the wake of the U.S.-led invasion o Iraq in spring 2003); an imperial posture that sought to impose a Diktat on Tehran on various topics ranging from the nuclear issue (encapsulated in the legally highly problematic and unrealistic demand for Iran to completely halt its nuclear programme) to regional ones (especially in the U.S. war theatres in Iraq and Afghanistan).

It was already during the second mandate of the Bush/Cheney administration that there was an awakening in some U.S. policy circles about the strategic deficiencies of the confrontational, if not belligerent, approach by Washington not only in the Iran question, but also in other theatres across West Asia. After all, the neoconservative-pushed invasions of Afghanistan (in October 2001) and Iraq (in March 2003) had eliminated Tehran’s immediate foes and thus paved the way for Iran’s increasing regional influence, particularly in post-Saddam Iraq and post-Taliban Afghanistan. Together with the deepening of the “Iraqi quagmire” – not least a result of the strength of the resistance there against the U.S.-led occupation –, by the mid-2000s Iran attained the status of an “indispensable nation” for any kind of strategic arrangements in the region – something the neo-cons in their obsession to aggressively confront Iran had been paradoxically the very enablers thereof. Of course, in the run-up to the war on Iraq, many U.S. Realists had warned about the geopolitical consequences of those invasions, but had been quite ignored.

Finally, the Realist camp’s comeback came with the December 2006 so-called Baker–Hamilton report, which being the first acknowledgement of U.S. policy failures in Iraq and beyond recommended a new approach involving diplomatic openings towards the formerly designated “rogue states” Iran and Syria in the effort to improve the U.S. status in the region.

In other words, before George W. Bush left office, it was clear that his administration’s neoconservative-influenced “don’t talk to Iran” stance has not been producing the desired results. Not only was Iran able – even enabled – to increase its regional standing, but its nuclear programme despite heavy pressures was not halted either. In the 2008 U.S. presidential elections, many presidential candidates tried to capitalize on that failure, among them Barack Obama who on some occasions talked about a new Iran policy approach, thus raising hopes of overcoming his predecessor’s sabre-rattling posture which pushed the world to the brink of another catastrophic war in that region.

However, it is too easily forgotten that the Bush/Cheney administration’s military offensive in the region had in fact enabled the U.S. to establish large, permanent military bases to the immediate east and west of Iran (but of course also in the “Greater Middle East”, in Afghanistan and Central Asia with a view on China), thus making Iran’s military encirclement by the U.S. complete. This situation, including the increasing militarization of the Persian Gulf, to this day nourishes Tehran’s sense of strategic insecurity.

Thus, in a nutshell, the best notion to describe George W. Bush’s Iran policy is “coercive diplomacy”, a term borrowed from Diplomatic Studies, which signals a policy that majorly relies on punitive measures (economic sanctions, political and military pressures) to force concessions from the other side. As such, the coercive strategy totally perverts the notion of diplomacy which only when exercised in “good faith” can bring about satisfying results to the parties involved.

Needless to say that legally this “coercive” approach is highly problematic – to say the least. Not only has the constant threat of war (being a clear violation of the UN Charter which in its Article 2(4) states that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state […]”) been an indispensable feature of the “coercive diplomacy” or “strategy”, but the covert operations in Iran, including acts of sabotage and targeted assassinations to put a brake on the nuclear programme need also mentioning, not least because they still go on.

Policy recommendations regarding Iran by U.S. think-tanks

What policy recommendations have leading think-tanks made regarding Iran?

Against that background, the chance of an Obama Administration formulating a much more even-handed approach towards Iran was the key question, also given the proclaimed need for a “course correction”. I hence studied the various policy recommendation papers being prepared by old and also newly found think-tanks on the Iran question in the transition period between the Bush II and Obama administrations. Here I tried to identify the most important U.S. think-tanks on Iran and wider Middle East issues, and categorize their recommendations, which led me to list them under the following rubrics:

(1) Neoconservatives and liberal hawks favoured the continuation of the “coercive strategy”. This group which among others include the U.S. “Israel Lobby”, with its think-tank The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), has de facto been advocating a “roadmap to war” – aptly described by Jim Lobe –, based on the motto of capitulation or war. Still making alarmist assumptions about the Iranian “nuclear threat” and Tehran’s foreign policy goals in general, they still insist that Iran give up nuclear enrichment within an ultimatum, whose ultimate aim would be to legitimize in the eyes of the public the recourse to war. The logic here is very simple: By making unrealistic demands, the failure of any negotiations is wilfully anticipated, which then, according to the BPC, shall open the way for illegal measures such as an economic blockade and a military attack.

WINEP’s Patrick Clawson has summarized the rationale of such an approach as follows: “The principal target with these offers [to Iran] is not Iran. […] The principal target of these offers is American public opinion and world public opinion.” In this context Dennis Ross plays a key role as he has been actively involved in, if not at the forefront of, many Iran policy papers. Ross who is known for his advocacy for Israeli interests in Mideast “peace process” negotiations during the Clinton administration, was in February 2009 first appointed “Special Advisor for the [Persian] Gulf and Southwest Asia” for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then only four months later joined the National Security Council staff as a Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the “Central Region” (including the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan and South Asia): Applied to the policy on Iran, his concept of “smart statecraft” stresses the need for “more carrots and more sticks”, very much echoing the approach preferred during the Bush II years, with the “carrots” remaining unspecified, while the “sticks” are being fully deployed. Of course, the Saudi lobby and the wider military-industrial complex ought to be located in this category as well, plus a considerable part of Obama’s administration, including UN Ambassador Susan Rice.

(2) The mainstream élite think-tanks (above all, the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) argued for a more (but not exclusively) Realpolitik-based strategy in order to serve U.S. interests in the region, which they believe have not been pursued adequately. They warn against a blind repetition of Bush’s Iran policy which they see as having failed. Instead the U.S. should be ready for engagement with Iran, knowing that this will be time-consuming and arduous. Generally, it is stressed that Iran could be contained, even as a nuclear state.

However, within these “centrist” circles there is a wide range of opinions, even including the “unattractive option” of a preventive strike on Iran, as formulated in an article in CFR’s Foreign Affairs by the Council’s President Richard Haass and the Director of Brookings’ Saban Center for Middle East Policy Martin Indyk.

(3) Moderate circles called for a whole new Iran policy embracing real diplomacy that would also take Iranian security and other interests into account. Countering existing myths about Iranian foreign-policy behaviour (especially when it comes to question of rationality in Tehran’s actions), they make the case for a serious diplomacy and a sustainable engagement with Iran. This group involves many Iran experts and long-standing U.S. diplomats (who e.g. gathered in the American Foreign Policy Project). Indeed they have drawn the right lessons of decades of misleading U.S. policy towards Iran and offer a viable strategy for the future.

U.S. policy towards Iran under Barack Obama

To what extent is President Barack Obama’s Iran policy in line with his predecessor’s policy and the advice of think-tanks?

The conclusion of my study was that it was unlikely to see a change in Washington’s Iran policy under Obama, mainly for the following reasons:

(1) Those advocating the continuation, even deepening of Bush’s “coercive strategy” were clearly very much present. During the Bush II years, neoconservative policy-advising circles had been firmly anchored in the policy debates, foremost when it came to the Iran question – an obsession they shared with the U.S. and Israeli governments – where they had acquired some expertise, albeit a very biased one. This sort of institutionalization in the policy-advising sphere has not disappeared with the new administration. In fact, most neocons and “liberal hawks” approved of Obama’s designations being a proof of his sense for “continuity”, as he not only chose the incumbent Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and his hawkish Democratic Party rival Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State (who during the presidential campaign had promised “tough diplomacy” towards Iran), but he also took over Stuart Levey in the Treasury Department, the man who since 2004 had been in charge of firmly internationalizing the sanctions regime, especially in the field of financial sanctions.

(2) The domestic blockade in the U.S. for a change in the Iran policy still remains intact and is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Of course, fundamental changes to the detriment of U.S. interests, above all a success of the Egyptian revolution or change within Saudi Arabia might trigger a radical new strategic thinking in Washington, which might be in line with what Stephen Kinzer is arguing in his Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America’s Future (New York: Times Books, 2010), i.e. a strategic reorientation of the U.S. towards Turkey and Iran, and to the detriment of Israel and Saudi Arabia. However, we are not likely to see the latter happening anytime soon, as the Israel Lobby, the military-industrial complex and the Saudi Lobby are all powerful and interconnected politico-economic alliances fighting any prospects for a U.S.–Iranian rapprochement, and more generally favouring a continuation of militaristic policies in the region.

As to how far Obama’s Iran policy is in line with the advice of think-tanks as discussed above, we can foremost mention the still dominant belief in the U.S. – shared by most think-tanks – that Iran must halt its nuclear programme and be deprived of nuclear material for building a bomb. When the nuclear talks were resumed by autumn 2009 around the issue of providing the Tehran Research Reactor with the needed 20% enriched uranium for medical purposes, such a stance informed Washington’s strategy aimed at preventing an Iranian nuclear break-out capability. This goal then failed in the face of Tehran’s insistence on a simultaneous swap of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) against that higher enriched one. In brief, the talks ultimately failed as a result of Washington’s miscalculated assumption that it could strike a deal which would ship the bulk of Iran’s nuclear material – in fact Tehran’s bargaining chip in its talks with great powers – outside the country.

(3) The more general point is the continuing reliance on the “coercive strategy” – or in the language of major powers, the “dual-track approach” – which is still heavily based on the imposition of punitive measures, above all economic and financial sanctions, in the case Iran does not comply with long-established demands such as the halt of the nuclear programme. Now with Russia and China also benefitting from the sanctions regime against Iran, the continuation of that strategy is being favoured. This was starkly witnessed in the negative reactions by all the UN veto powers to the Brazil- and Turkey-brokered deal with Iran on 17 May 2010, basically pointing out that the Iran issue had to be dealt with within the UN Security Council. Three weeks later, the latest round of tightened UN sanctions was imposed on Iran. Hence, for now we are still inside the vicious circle inherent to the “coercive strategy”, in which it seems more and more actors are finding their niches to profit from.

As a result, by June 2010, the Iran expert of the Council on Foreign Relations, Ray Takeyh, observed that “[…] the strategy has shifted from conciliation to coercion.” Given the improbability of that strategy to succeed, I think it is high time for the West to contemplate about an Iran policy beyond sanctions, which has not only cemented the positions of hardliners on all sides, but also block any advancement in the diplomatic stand-off and on wider regional issues of crucial importance to all parties involved.

 

SOURCE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2011) “U.S. Policy on Iran under Bush II and Obama”, Interview by Leonhardt van Efferink (Editor of ExploringGeopolitics), published on :

Iran Review, 20 September;

Global Research, Montreal: Centre for Research on Globalization, as “From Bush to Obama: US Policy Towards Iran“, 20 September;

Iranian Diplomacy, as “Iran: Barack Obama, Encirclement, Dual-Track Approach“, 25 September.

 

REACTIONS

Safdari, Cyrus (2011) “US Policy on Iran: The Truth is Emerging“, Iran Affairs: Iranian Foreign Policy and International Affairs, 5 October.

Nuclear Power: Iran Inaugurates Bushehr Plant (TV interview with Russia Today)

12 September 2011

Iran has celebrated the launch of the Bushehr nuclear power plant on Monday. The facility, which was completed with Russia’s help, came on line last year and has been connected to the national power grid in early September.

The facility, which was completed with Russia’s help, came on line last year.

The ceremony is attended by Russian Energy Minister Sergey Shmatko, head of the Rosatom nuclear agency Sergey Kirienko, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, and head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization Fereydoon Abbasi-Davani.

Sergey Shmatko praised the efforts in working together, and promised more similar projects in the future.

Together with our Iranian counterparts, we went through difficulties and problems building the Bushehr power plant. And today we can be proud of the results that are drawing the attention of the whole world. I’m sure our further co-operation in operating the station and developing other nuclear energy projects will be distinguished by the atmosphere we created while working together,” he said.

Iran expects that the Bushehr power plant will reach its planned capacity in two to three months, Salehi said on Sunday.

The construction of the power plant in Bushehr is viewed with suspicion by many nations, who believe that the entire Iranian nuclear program is aimed at creating a nuclear weapon.

To alleviate these fears, Russia is providing fuel rods for the plant and will return the spent fuel back for recycling.

“The Bushehr power plant project is exemplary in terms of observing non-proliferation regime. Over the whole its lifetime it will be supplied fuel by Russia on the condition of its return,” Russia’s Foreign Ministry stressed on Monday.

Tehran says its atomic ambitions are peaceful and have no military agenda.

­Ali Fathollah-Nejad, researcher at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London believes the opening of the plant bears special significance because it was brought into operation against the background of political interference from many outside powers.

“We have now a decades-long stand-off between Iran and the West over the Iranian nuclear program,” he told RT.  “The nuclear issue was recently hyped for political reasons, in order to be able to gain support to put pressure on Iran for achieving other political ends. So, I think the nuclear issue is still being hyped, but it loses much credibility against the evidence that we have.”

Fathollah-Nejad also stressed that the sanctions imposed on Iran over its nuclear program are more of a geo-political and geo-economic nature.

“If you cannot control or influence a country, you might go for isolation and weakening of the country. And the best way to do that is through economic sanctions. This is rational of sanctions,” he stated.

 

SOURCE

Nuclear Power: Iran Inaugurates Bushehr Plant“, Russia Today (RT), 12 September 2011.

Going Nuclear (Interview with The Majalla)


22 September 2011

By Maryam Ishani (Senior Editor of The Majalla)

The completion of the Bushehr nuclear plant has stirred up further controversy over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran continues to emphasize its entitlement to explore atomic energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, but the US remains skeptical while Russia attempts to seize the advantage.

Last week Iran celebrated the inauguration of its first operational nuclear power facility after long delays in construction and controversy over the aims of Iran’s nuclear program. The Bushehr plant, located on the Persian Gulf, is the first of what Iran hopes will be a network of similar facilities that will help reduce the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels.

The ceremony was attended by Russia’s Energy Minister, Sergei Shmatko, who praised the joint project as an understanding that “has come about after three years of cooperation between our experts” which will allow the Russia and Iran to “prepare the grounds for future cooperation in this field.” But the collaboration has been a far more complicated than the two governments have admitted to.

In a deal between Iran and Russia, Russia took over the completion of the plant after the German venture Kraftwerk Union AG pulled out under pressure from the US. However the agreement initially would have seen the plant completed in 2007 not 2011. According to Iran geopolitical expert, Ali Fathollah-Nejad, at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, the delays continued because of the introduction of Russia’s own objectives in the project. “There is a lot of frustration in Iran because of Russia beginning to play its own games as a sort of intermediary between the West and Iran.”

Most notably, the arrangement Iran has agreed to with Russia includes provisions for returning fuel that Iran has purchased for the operation of the plant back to Russia after processing. It cannot remain in Iran, despite the fact that Iran technically owns the fuel—making the program particularly costly and according to Fathollah-Nejad, makes Russia’s role as a broker between the West and Iran, a hypocritical one.

This is due in large part to the ongoing UN Security Council “Zero Enrichment” sanctions—renewed in June—that remain imposed upon Iran, which are aimed at barring Iran from enriching uranium regardless of the aim. Russia voted in favor of the resolution but later used the same resolution to bar Iran from joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in 2009, saying that Iran’s eventual membership could be “one of the carrots that is part of a larger deal” to resolve the nuclear crisis with Iran.

“Even though the facts have changed on the ground,” says Fathollah-Nejad, “the sanctions continue because of claims that the program is not transparent enough. The removal of the sanctions needs a whole re-thinking of the dialogue on Iran’s nuclear program. There is a new reality on the ground.”

Bushehr’s start-up comes after Iran declared its readiness to re-start talks on its nuclear project with major powers, in a letter to the European Union Foreign Affairs chief. But that dialogue seems out of reach. The inauguration of the plant only adds to what was already a very tense standoff between the United States and Iran over the intentions and capabilities of Iran’s program.

At the United Nations General Assembly on Monday, the two countries traded accusations at a meeting of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with US Energy Secretary Steven Chu accusing Iran of “a long-standing pattern of denial, deceit, and evasion, in violation of its non-proliferation obligations. Time and time again, Iran has refused to satisfy legitimate concerns about the nature of its nuclear programme—selectively rejecting IAEA requests for access to, and information about, its nuclear facilities.”

Iranian nuclear energy chief Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani rebuffed Chu’s comments with a reference to the recent murders of high-level nuclear scientists in Iran, placing the blame squarely on the West: “Some countries and their intelligence terrorist organisations have focused on assassinating our experts,” he said. His comments refer to the most recent murder of a University lecturer in July, Darioush Rezaie. His was the third murder since 2009 of a scientist with connections to Iran’s nuclear program. The first was killed by a car bomb, the second by a remotely detonated explosive device and Rezaie was killed by gunmen near his home.

Speaking to press after the meeting, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, who is Iran’s Vice President and head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency, said that the “hostile positions” of western states could only force countries like Iran to conduct their nuclear activities secretly or “underground,” according to translations of his comments at the UN. Abbasi-Davani has been subjected to UN sanctions because of his involvement with Iran’s nuclear program and was even wounded in a car bomb blast in 2010, an incident he has accused the West and even the IAEA of orchestrating.

Fathollah-Nejad sees the challenges of the last decade as an example to developing economies, “The fact that Bushehr has been finalized indicates to the success of Iran’s insistence to use its internationally legally recognized rights to develop a nuclear energy programme, despite heavy and continuous pressures from big powers. As such Iran can be seen as an example. Hopefully it will propel the West to abandon coercive diplomacy on Iran.”

Iran says the one billion US dollar, 1,000-megawatt Bushehr plant is part of a peaceful atomic program and will be enriching uranium only at levels suitable for medical and agricultural uses. The plant is not yet operating fully but is on track to be operating at maximum capacity within three months.

Still, Iran has begun moving uranium enrichment centrifuges to a bunker buried in the mountains near Qom as part of an effort to increase capacity and protect the equipment from a strike by foes of the nation’s nuclear program, namely Israel. Washington has denied involvement in the murder of the scientists and Israel has said that it is “increasingly concerned” with the Bushehr plant.

Fathollah-Nejad points out, “For almost a decade, the IAEA has been investigating if there is a weaponization element to Iran’s nuclear program, but has found no evidence,” making the official justification for sanctions illegitimate. “The dropping of sanctions,” according to Fathollah-Nejad, “would be the first indication that the policy on Iran is changing.”

 

SOURCE

Ishani, Maryam (2011) “Going Nuclear: Iran Completes Construction of Bushehr Nuclear Power Facility“, The Majalla: The Leading Arab Magazine (online), 22 September.

 

New Insights Into the Islamic Republic of Iran

 

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 is considered a defining moment because the Islamic Republic replaced an authoritarian monarchy that was friendly to the West. The revolution, moreover, linked religion to politics in an unprecedented way. Books by Hamid Dabashi, Elaheh Rostami-Povey and Arshin Adib-Moghaddam discuss the country’s history and its influence beyond its own borders.

Arguably the most important reason for the international interest in Iran is its strategically pivotal geography. Like some of its Muslim neighbours, it has tremendous oil and gas reserves. For the United States, the revolution in Iran was nothing less than a geopolitical shock.

Revolutionary dynamics in the Arab World have recently rekindled the debate in the West on “political Islam”. To get a good understanding of the phenomenon, however, it is necessary to define it properly – which, so far, has hardly been done.

The issue is generally approached from two directions. The cultural-essentialist or Orientalistic school holds that Islam determines political, economic and social realities. Orientalists argue that the entire Muslim world is not only somehow monolithic, but even downright resistant to change. Samuel Huntington’s book “The clash of civilizations” is a prominent expression of such thinking. This school is not alone in emphasising religion as the single most important defining feature of society, Islamist fundamentalists say so too.

The competing school emphasises structural aspects that have evolved in history. Its analyses take a wide range of factors into account, namely socio-economic conditions, political trends, historical change, class conflict and revolutions.

The current Arab Spring has dealt the Orientalist school a severe blow, and may yet discredit it once and for all. Obviously, there is a widespread desire in Muslim societies for change, and the revolutionary motivation is not primarily rooted in faith. Rather, the desire for universal freedoms and social justice is making itself heard in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere.

The books about Iran discussed here do not belong to the Orientalist camp. Nonetheless, each author assesses the topic from a different angle.

Struggle for democracy

In “Iran: a people interrupted” (2007), Hamid Dabashi analyses nearly 200 years of history from the literary-intellectual and political perspectives. The author takes his readers on a trip through time, revisiting major historical events. With unparalleled eloquence, he argues that Iranians have been fighting for democracy and against “foreign and domestic tyranny” for more than a century. Dabashi says the anti-colonial Tobacco Revolt at the end of the 19th century, the Constitutional Revolution at the beginning of the 20th, the nationalisation of the oil sector under Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in the 1950s and the “Islamic Revolution” at the end of the 1970s were the most important steps in this process.

He disagrees with the notion of Iran being caught between tradition and modernity, calling it a “fabricated paradox”. Instead, he argues that since the 19th century an “anti-colonial modernity” marked by the struggle against both domestic and foreign oppression has defined Iranians’ emancipatory experience.

Dabashi traces three major ideological formations back to the multicultural, pluralistic Constitutional Revolution of the early 20th century: liberal-democratic nationalism, social-democratic socialism and theocratic Islamism. In his view, these three ideological formations do not necessarily clash. Rather, they all have their roots in the anti-colonial struggle and serve as catalysts for one other.

In the early 20th century, the idea of the modern nation-state with the notion of citizenship took shape, including both women and religious minorities, with relevant roles for a free press and intellectuals. However, it was never fully realised because of the repression of a series of Shah regimes which were allied to colonial and imperial powers. These ideals have yet to materialise.

Dabashi sees Shia Islam as inherently oppositional in its political focus. Accordingly, a dilemma arises when Shia clerics assume state power and get corrupted by it – which is what happened in the Islamic Republic.

Dabashi assesses the role of Shia religious leaders in the context of Iran’s political development. He makes a distinction between progressive clerics who oppose unjust rule and conservative ones who are closely connected to power or strive for it. In doing so, he shows that Shia clerics in Iran do not form a monolithic block. As is evident today, some important leaders sympathise with the democracy movement, and many are not pleased with the increasingly militaristic system that was set up in the name of religion.

A wide range of voices

In “Iran’s influence: a religious-political state and society in its region” (2010), Elaheh Rostami-Povey quotes a wide range of contemporary voices – journalists, refugees, expatriates and researchers from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt. She conducted her interviews with Muslim modernists, secular leftists, nationalists and feminists from 2007 to 2009. She shows that all of them demand democracy and liberty.

Her book is an encyclopaedic discussion of the political dynamics within the religious-political state of Iran. She shows that its internal contradictions have fostered the growth of a new democratic movement, which calls the regime, but not religion as such, into question.

At the same time, she demonstrates why the Iranian state’s foreign policy has found approval in the region where a majority of the public identifies with Iran’s stance against the USA, Israel and the “war on terror”. One reason for the popularity of criticism voiced by Tehran is that many Arab autocracies cooperate with Washington, and open debate has been impossible so far.

Rostami-Povey emphasises the wide range of manifestations of “political Islam”, each of which has to be considered in its specific historical and socio-political context. She writes that Islamists in Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and its associated organisations or Hamas in Palestine are all quite different, and all are struggling with their own internal contradictions. However, all varieties of Islamism have one thing in common: they mobilise popular support by opposing imperialism and Zionism.

Rostami-Povey warns that the term “Islamic fundamentalism” prevents us from seeing the diversity of various Islamisms. As she puts it, “homogenisation and essentialism” make us blind to dynamics of change and thus promote Orientalism and Islamophobia. She argues that, ultimately, the West’s ongoing hostility towards Iran and Islamist movements only strengthens those conservative forces.

Arshin Adib-Moghaddam comes to similar conclusions in “Iran in world politics: the question of the Islamic Republic” (2007). He has worked up an intricate theory on the interaction between society, culture and state institutions. As he puts it, “counter-hegemonic utopias” – such as Marxism, Communism, Maoism and Islamism – radically changed Iran’s political culture in the 1960s. The revolution therefore pursued “utopian-romantic” ideals, which left their mark on the Islamic Republic’s institutionalised norms and still affect its approach to foreign policy.

He emphasises the constant possibility of change in the Islamic Republic as a result of an “active counterculture”. He shows that the picture US neo-conservatives paint of Iran is perverted and calls for “critical Iranian studies” which would pluralise the ways one sees Iran and dissect the international politics surrounding the country.

These three books by noted scholars lay the foundation for a better understanding of Iran and “political Islam”. They theoretically and empirically assess the context in its entire complexity. Without such comprehensive knowledge, Western understanding cannot add up to more than biased knee-jerk reactions. The books show that political trends do not come about in a vacuum, but rather are rooted in complex settings with domestic and foreign social, economic and political factors. The idea of a “monolithic Islam” is not only wrong – it is dangerous.

 

Books reviewed:

  • Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, Iran in World Politics: The Question of the Islamic Republic, London: Hurst 2007 & New York: Columbia University Press 2008.
  • Hamid Dabashi, Iran: A People Interrupted, New York: New Press 2007.
  • Elaheh Rostami-Povey, Iran’s Influence: A Religious–Political State and Society in its Region, London & New York: Zed Books 2010.

 

SOURCE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2011) “New Insights Into the Islamic Republic of Iran“, Development and Cooperation (D+C), Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit (German Society for International Cooperation, GIZ), Vol. 52, No. 5 (May), pp. 208–209.

▪ republished on Europe’s World, 22/05/2011;

▪ republished on Global Research, Montreal: Centre for Research on Globalization, 22/05/2011;

▪ republished on e-International Relations (e-IR), 22/02/2011;

▪ republished on Monthly Review Webzine, 23/05/2011;

▪ republished as Defining Moment on Iranian.com, 23/05/2011;

▪ republished on Atlantic-Community.org, 24/05/2011;

▪ republished on Humanitarian Texts: World-Wide Asian–Eurasian Human Rights Forum, 25/05/2011;

▪ republished on ZNet, 31/05/2011;

AUF DEUTSCH | “Neue Blicke auf die Islamische Republik Iran“, Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit (E+Z), Vol. 52, No. 5 (May), pp. 208–209;

▪ republished on ZNet Deutschland, 15/06/2011.

SLOVENČINA | “Čo je to politický islam?“, trans. Peter Nedoroščík, utopia, 01/07/2011.

CV

eng

1981

Born in Tabriz (Iran), raised in Ahvaz at the time of the Iraq–Iran War.

Late 1987

Parents emigrate to Germany (to the Ruhr Area) where he enters German elementary school, while simultaneously taking exams of Iranian elementary school at the embassy in Bonn.

2001

German high-school diploma (Abitur) in Essen, with the best grade within the bilingual German−French track.

1999–2008

Teaching English, French, and other subjects, at various education centers in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany), mainly with children and young adults of immigrant background.

2001–2008

University studies of political science, sociology and law in Lille (France), Münster (Germany), and Enschede/Twente (NL), with awarded degrees of Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, Master of Arts und Master of Science (both Master’s degrees with best possible marks).

2004–2007

Conception & presentation of the radio show “EleqtroGarde”, featuring electronic and urban music, on Radio Q. Conception and hosting of a documentary film on the electronic music scene, in cooperation with the artist collective “DerInnereKreis”.

2008–2014

Doctorate studies of International Relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.

Jan.–July 2010

Visiting Lecturer in Development and Globalization, Department of Social and Historical Studies, University of Westminster, London (UK).

Oct. 2010–July 2011

Graduate Teaching Assistant in Globalization and Development, Department of Development Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, London (UK).

since May 2013

Visiting Analyst at the futureorg Institute in Dortmund (Germany) – a think-tank concerned with societal transformations and diversity in 21st-century Europe – specializing on international relations, processes of change in the era of globalization, multiculturalization, and diversity.

since August 2014

Research Fellow at the German Orient Institute (Berlin) – “the oldest non-profit scientific institution devoted to Near and Middle East studies in Europe”.

* * *

dt

1981

Geboren in Tabriz (im Nordwesten Irans); aufgewachsen in Ahvaz (im Südwesten) zur Zeit des Iran-Irak-Kriegs.

Ende 1987

Eltern emigrieren nach Deutschland (ins Ruhrgebiet), wo er parallel zur deutschen Grundschule Prüfungen der iranischen an der damaligen Botschaft in Bonn ablegte.

2001

Gymnasial-Abitur an der Essener Luisenschule als Jahrgangsbester des deutsch-französischen bilingualen Zweiges.

1999–2008

Dozent für Englisch, Französisch u.a. Fächer in Bildungseinrichtungen in Nordrhein-Westfalen, überwiegend mit Kindern, Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen mit Migrationshintergrund.

2001–2008

Studium der Politikwissenschaft, Soziologie und Rechtswissenschaften in Lille (F), Münster (D) und Enschede/Twente (NL) mit den Abschlüssen Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, Master of Arts und Master of Science (Master-Abschlüsse mit der bestmöglichen Note).

2004–2007

Konzeption & Moderation der Radiosendung für elektronische und urbane Musik “EleqtroGarde” auf Radio Q. Konzeption und Host eines Dokumentarfilms zur elektronischen Musikszene, in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Künstlerkollektiv “DerInnereKreis” (NRW).

2008–2014

Promotionsstudium der Internationalen Beziehungen an der School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London – der weltweit führenden Forschungseinrichtung zu Afrika, dem Nahen/Mittleren Osten und Asien.

Jan.–Juli 2010

Gastdozent (Visiting Lecturer) für Entwicklung und Globalisierung (Schwerpunkt: Naher und Mittlerer Osten), Department of Social and Historical Studies, University of Westminster, London (GB).

Okt. 2010–Juli 2011

Graduate Teaching Assistant (wissenschaftliche Lehrkraft) für Globalisierung und Entwicklung, Department of Development Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, London (GB).

seit Mai 2013

Gast-Analyst am futureorg-Institut (Dortmund) zu den Themengebieten Internationale Beziehungen, Wandel in der Globalisierung, Multikulturalisierung und Diversität.

seit August 2014

Research Fellow am Deutschen Orient-Institut (DOI) in Berlin.

Ali Fathollah-Nejad: “Der Iran-Konflikt und die Obama-Regierung” [The Iran Conflict and the Obama Administration]

 
 

Research on this book began in 2008 during the transition period between the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, and by winter 2009 the book has been finalized.

  

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2010 & 2011) Der Iran-Konflikt und die Obama-Regierung: Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? [The Iran Conflict and the Obama Administration: Old Wine in New Skins?], Potsdam (Germany): Potsdam University Press (WeltTrends-Papiere, No. 12), 2010 (reprint in 2011) [ISSN 1864-0656 | ISBN 978-3-86956-042-7 | 5 € | hier bestellen].

 

ABSTRACT

 

Deutsch | Mit dem Amtsantritt Barack Obamas wurden nach Jahren schwelender Kriegsgefahr mit dem Iran große Hoffnungen verbunden. Das Papier analysiert die der US-Regierung vorgelegten Iran-Strategiepapiere im Hinblick auf eine Lösung im Iran-Konflikt. Das Spektrum der angedachten Politik reicht von Scheindiplomatie zur Kriegslegitimation bis hin zu Normalisierung der Beziehungen. Zum Schluss wird danach gefragt, ob tatsächlich eine Wende in der Iran-Politik Obamas zu erwarten ist.

English | With Barack Obama taking office as U.S. president, immense hopes have been raised after years of a lurking threat of war. The paper analyzes Iran strategy papers prepared for the new U.S. administration on how to solve the conflict with Iran. The specter of the proposed policies ranges from diplomacy as pretense for legitimating war to normalization of relations. Finally the question will be raised whether under Obama a change of the policy towards Iran can be expected or not.

Bulgarian |С влизането в длъжност на новия президент на САЩ Барак Обама бе свързана голямата надежда след години нарастваща опасност от война с Иран. Авторът анализира стратегически документи на САЩ относно възможно решение на Иранския конфликт- от дипломация за прикриване подготовка за война до селективно сближаване. Потърсен е отговор на въпроса, доколко може да се очаква обрат в политиката на президента Обама. [Source: Center for Strategic Research in the Field of Security and International Relations, Bulgaria]

 

BUCH-INHALT [BOOK CONTENT]

 

I. Obama for President! Alle für den „Wandel“ [Obama for President! Everybody for “Change”]

1. Mission: Führungsrolle wiederherstellen [Mission: Reestablishing Leadership]

2. Obamas „Clinton III“-Team [Obama’s “Clinton III” Team]

II. Wettlauf um Obamas Iran-Politik [The Race for Obama’s Iran Policy]

3 . Wieso die USA eine „Kurs-Korrektur“ in der Iran-Politik anstreben [Why the U.S. Seeks a “Course Correction” in its Iran Policy]

4. Neokonservative und liberale Falken – Zwangsdiplomatie als Kriegslegitimation [Neoconservatives and Liberal Hawks: Coercive Diplomacy as Legitimation for War]

5. Vorschläge der Elite-Think-Tanks – Realpolitische Strategien zur Durchsetzung amerikanischer Interessen [Recommendations by Elite Think-Tanks: Realpolitik Strategies for Asserting U.S. Interests]

6. Moderate Stimmen fordern Kurswechsel [Moderate Voices Demand Course Correction]

 

III. Im Bush-Modus verfangen? Neue Politik auf tönernen Füßen [Stuck in the Bush Mode? New Policy on Feet of Clay]

7. Von Bushs zu Obamas Kriegen im Irak und am Hindukusch – Auserwählt oder notwendig? [From Bush’s to Obama’s Wars in Iraq and in the Hindu-Kush: Chosen or Necessary?]

8. Neue alte Iran-Politik? [New Old Iran Policy?]

 

IV. Schlussfolgerungen [Conclusions]

 

 

LOB [PRAISE]

 

»Eine detaillierte und absolut überzeugende Kritik der US-amerikanischen Iran-Politik«

[»A detailed and utterly persuasive indictment of US policy towards Iran«]

Dr. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London & Autor von u.a. Iran in World Politics: The Question of the Islamic Republic (Hurst 2007 & Columbia University Press 2008)

 

»[…] mit Beifall gelesen. Eine sehr gründliche Arbeit auf knappem Platz. […] nichts Wichtiges weggelassen.«

[»[…] read with applause. A very thorough and succinct work. […] nothing important left out.«]

Rudolph Chimelli, Journalist & Iran-Experte, Süddeutsche Zeitung

 

»Ali Fathollah-Nejads Studie analysiert mit profundem Hintergrundwissen den aktuellen weltpolitischen Konflikt zwischen Iran und den USA. Dem Autor gelingt es dabei, Illusionen über einen kurzfristigen Strategiewechsel bezüglich des “war on terror” durch die aktuelle US-Regierung unter Führung des Friedensnobelpreisträgers Barack Obama zu zerstreuen – und gleichzeitig in seinen Schlussfolgerungen Chancen einer notwendigen konstruktiven Friedenspolitik aufzuzeigen. Ein äußerst hilfreiches Buch, dem eine große Rezeption zu wünschen ist.«

Clemens Ronnefeldt, Referent für Friedensfragen beim deutschen Zweig des Internationalen Versöhnungsbundes (Fellowship for Reconciliation)

 

»Vorweg: Der Untertitel “Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen?” wird der […] Arbeit nicht gerecht – sie ist zu inhaltsreich, differenziert, informativ, als dass sie sich auf diese Frage reduzieren ließe. Interessant ist sie zudem auch analytisch, v.a. wegen ihrer konstruktiven Ausrichtung: Fathollah-Nejad verharrt nicht bei einer Beleuchtung der bestehenden Politik, sondern er zeigt mögliche Ansätze und konkrete Schritte auf, die einen Weg aus der jahrelangen Sackgasse der westlichen Iran-Politik weisen könnten – eine Kurskorrektur, die nicht nur notwendig, sondern auch machbar wäre! Lesenswert ist die Analyse, für die der Autor auf 78 Seiten viel Information kondensiert und über 200 Quellen aus Politik, Wissenschaft und Medien ausgewertet hat, aber noch aus einem weiteren Grund: Sie liefert zugleich einen hoch-informativen Blick hinter die Kulissen der Obama-Regierung und beleuchtet viele der tatsächlichen Akteure aus beiden großen Parteien und ihren Einfluss auf die offizielle Politik. Ein Lehrstück über Triebkräfte und konkrete Mechanismen der US-Außenpolitik. […] Zu der o.g. Analyse finden sich ihr Inhaltsverzeichnis und eine Bestellmöglichkeit auf der insgesamt sehr interessanten Website des Autors: http://fathollah-nejad.com – von dem wir künftig sicher noch mehr hören werden!«

Christoph Krämer, stellv. Vorsitzender der deutschen Sektion von IPPNW (Internationale Ärzte für die Verhütung des Atomkrieges, Ärzte in sozialer Verantwortung), in der Mitgliederzeitschrift IPPNW-Forum, Nr. 127 (September 2011). [pdf]

 

»Dieses gelungene Buch ist für all jene empfehlenswert, die sich einen Überblick verschaffen wollen über die Diskussionen, Strategien und Hintergründe rund um den USA-Israel-Konflikt mit Iran, der schon seit langem für die Menschen im Iran verheerende Folgen hat und indirekt – aufgrund der Militärausgaben, für die Sozialausgaben geopfert werden – auch vielen Menschen in den USA und in Israel schadet.«

Luay Radhan, FriedensForum: Zeitschrift der Friedensbewegung, Jg. 23, Nr. 6/2010 (Dez. 2010–Jan. 2011). [pdf]

 

»Die Faktendichte der Studie ist beeindruckend […] interessante und auch entmutigende Fakten über Obamas Verhältnis zum ›Washington Establishment‹«

—Loren Balhorn, Die Achse des Barack, marx21: Magazin für internationalen Sozialismus, Nr. 17 (September/Oktober 2010), S. 80.

 

»Der wohlinformierte Politikwissenschaftler eröffnet solide Einblicke in Zusammenhänge, die die westliche Politik ignoriert. Er verdeutlicht – ohne die Realität im Iran zu beschönigen –, inwiefern der Westen seine eigenen Postulate von Frieden und Menschenrechten genauso verletzt, wie er sie kundtut. Wenn man Wasser jeden Tag ein Grad erhitzt, geht das bis zu 99 Tagen gut. Aber dann… Herrn Fathollah-Nejads Buch beunruhigt im besten Sinn qualifizierter Analysen eines Brennpunktes der internationalen Politik.«

—Bernhard Trautvetter, Essener Friedens-Forum.

 

»Das Buch kann ich wärmstens empfehlen.«

—Kamuran Sezer, Gründer und Leiter des futureorg-Instituts für angewandte Zukunfts- und Organisationsforschung.

 

»Sehr gute policy analysis: Das Buch ist eine sehr gute Übersicht über die Iran-Politik Obamas seit seinem Regierungsantritt. Der Autor beschränkt sich dabei auf eine policy analysis und drückt sich klar und deutlich aus – nicht der Regelfall bei Politikwissenschaftlern.«

Leserkommentar, amazon.de.

 

 

WEITERE REZENSIONEN [OTHER REVIEWS]

  • Christoph Krämer [Deputy Chairman, IPPNW Germany] (2011) in: IPPNWforum, Berlin: International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) Germany, No. 127 (September), p. 32.

 

ZITIERT IN [CITED IN]

Hermann, Isabella [Goethe University Frankfurt] (2010) ‘The Relevance of “Respect” within US-Iranian Negotiations on the Iranian Nuclear Programme during the Bush Administration‘, paper for the ECPR (European Consortium for Political Research) Graduate Conference Dublin 2010.

AUFGENOMMEN IN [INCLUDED IN]

Literaturdienst: Internationale Beziehungen und Länderkunde (Current Bibliography: International Relations and Area Studies), Vol. 19, No. 22 (16-30 November 2010), hg. vom Fachinformationsverbund Internationale Beziehungen und Länderkunde, Druck und Vertrieb seitens der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP).

The ‘Middle East’: From Past and Present Attributions to a Future Regional Identity?

ABSTRACT

The south-western part of the Asian continent, an area spanning from the Levant to the Hindu Kush and from the Caucasus to the Arabian Peninsula, is widely – in political, public and even academic discourses alike – referred to as the ‘Near and/or Middle East’. Such thetic denomination of that geographical space has been subjected to exogenous attributions based upon cultural, political and strategic considerations by colonial and imperial powers. Due to the interest-driven and hence arbitrary nature, its boundaries have constantly been altered in the colonial/imperial mind map. However superficial those outside markers are, they tend to shape the reality of that region – and thus to create a political geography. Through imperial incursions and on-going military presence the prescribed politico–strategic framework has imposed itself onto the region.

Beyond those representations, shared cultural values and historical experiences might provide a basis for an endogenously designed future, potentially able to overcome the partitions the region suffers from on multiple levels. Thus, besides tracing the changing ‘political geographies’, the paper proposes a realistic utopia. It aims to de-colonize the ‘Middle East’ through a critical history of the region and embraces a regionalization process. Thus it pro-actively engages with the challenges posed by the imperially designed past and present.

Read the whole document here (pdf).

 

SOURCE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2010) “The ‘Middle East’: From Past and Present Attributions to a Future Regional Identity?“, Polyvocia: SOAS Journal of Graduate Research, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, Vol. 2 (Spring), pp. 3–20.

Interview with Giovanni Arrighi (Berlin, 2005)


The interview with Giovanni Arrighi below was conducted on 12 November 2005, at the Kapitalismus Reloaded” international conference held in Berlin.  It is published in English here today to commemorate the one-year anniversary of Arrighi’s death.

A. Fathollah-Nejad (AFN): Does the West have to fear China?

G. Arrighi (GA): I don’t think so.  I mean I think that there is no question that the Chinese are sincere when they say that they are for a peaceful ascent, that they are against hegemony. [. . .]  I think that’s also part of the Chinese tradition. [. . .]  On the basis of a very simple calculation, China has nothing to gain by being militarily aggressive and everything to lose.  The only thing it [the West — AFN] has to fear is the redistribution of power, and there’s no reason why this should translate into an aggressive China.

AFN: What about the rest of the world?  Would it have a better outcome with a Far Eastern hegemony led by China?

GA: Well, the Chinese doesn’t want to talk about hegemony.  But let’s put it this way: I think that the rest of the world, particularly the South — but also the North — should be better off with a multipolar world, where economically there isn’t just one locomotive like the United States but there are more than one.  And at this moment, certainly in East Asia — including Japan — it is the Chinese who are driving the recovery and keeping the expansion going on.  So I think the rest of the world is probably better off.  But the qualification is that this would be more the case if the Chinese don’t imitate the energy-wasting and energy-consuming pattern of consumption of the West.  If they develop more or less a sort of energy-saving kind of techniques, then that would be the best.  Who knows!

AFN: The greatest obstacle to Far Eastern hegemony seems to be the absence of a Sino-Japanese partnership.  Is this realistic in the future?

GA: It’s very hard to tell.  I mean both the Chinese and the Japanese have always privileged a kind of alliance or relationship with the United States than one between each other.  But again, it depends on what the United States will do in the Far East. [. . .]  Japan will go along with an aggressive U.S. stance towards the continuing Chinese growth.  So it’s possible, but for now it’s not likely; maybe it can be more likely in the future.

AFN: What does the dispossessed South have to do to change its present situation?

GA: I think the most important thing is to create and strengthen South-South links.  They don’t need to de-link from the North, they just have to strengthen mutual links and go on operat[ing] — what they are already doing [. . .] more or less — and that will probably change the situation in the South.

AFN: Some say that now there are a lot of tensions among Western countries when it comes to imperialism.  Others say that imperialism is for the sake of stabilization of their joint world domination.  What is your favorite argument?

GA: I don’t think that they are any dangers of so-called inter-imperialist rivalries between the United States and Europe.  The question is really how Europe and the United States — jointly or separately — relate to the South and the East: whether they accommodate the emergence of new so-called poles and powers, or whether they want to keep things as they are.  Because that’s probably the most dangerous thing: the attempt to [. . .] prevent economic rise of China. [. . .]  This can only lead to military adventures worse than Iraq.

AFN: Thank you very much.

Giovanni Arrighi (7 July 1937 – 18 June 2009) was Professor of Sociology and Director of the Institute for Global Studies in Culture, Power and History at Johns Hopkins University.  Among his many publications are The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times; Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System (with Beverly J. Silver); The Resurgence of East Asia: 500, 150 And 50 Year Perspectives; Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century; “Hegemony Unraveling-I”; and “Hegemony Unraveling-II.”

SOURCE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2010) “Interview with Giovanni Arrighi (Berlin, 2005)“, Monthly Review Webzine, 18 June.