World War III Has Already Started

"Mother and Daughter" by Käthe Kollwitz 1919, Private Collection

 

Lorie Byrd reminded me of that heart-wrenching movie from 1991 called 'Not Without My Daughter'.

I had not seen 'Not Without My Daughter' in some time, but it seems more timely than ever watching it now. The movie stars Sally Field and is based on the Pulitzer prize winning book [1987] by the same name, describing the ordeal of Betty Mahmoody, who was held against her will in Iran by her Iranian born husband. She spent two years in Iran before escaping with her daughter in a dangerous trip over the mountains to Turkey. If you have never seen the movie, rent it. It is hard to watch, but it really gives an insight into the way women are treated in Iran.

This year is the 20th anniversary of Betty's escape from her husband, a man rededicated to his Shiite Moslem faith, who kept both virtual prisoners in a land where women are near-slaves. "Betty and her daughter are happy now, although Mahtob still suffers some effects from the terrifying ordeal. They live in the U.S. under assumed names as Betty's husband still threatens to get Mahtob back. However, Betty is no longer afraid of him. "We have so much freedom. I want people to read this story and appreciate their freedom. When they see the American flag or the Statue of Liberty, I want those things to mean to everyone what they now mean to me."

Stories like Betty's give the horrendous suffering and hardship, experienced by millions of Muslim women all over the world, a relatable face, a familiar persona, thus countering an otherwise all too abstract and often far-removed comprehension. Without it, we 'digest' and forget far too quickly. We have a responsibility to keep her story fresh in our minds; not to stoke up hot-headed reactions, but so as to truly understand Amir Taheri's statement earlier today, that World War III "has already started."

Stuart Varney (for "The Journal Editorial Report"): A U.N. deadline for Iran to suspend its nuclear program came and went this week, with that country's president defiantly refusing to compromise, saying Tehran would not be bullied into giving up its right to that controversial technology. The IAEA said Iran showed no signs of stopping its work, beginning enrichment of a new batch of uranium as recently as last week.

Iranian author and journalist Amir Taheri joins me now from London. Amir, President Bush compares today's Islamists with the Nazis. And he's drawing a parallel, it seems, with the 1930s and, by implication, the suggestion is that we're headed towards World War III. Do you think we are headed that way?

Taheri: Well, the war has already started. In fact, it started in 1979 when the Khomeinists invaded the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and seized these diplomats hostage. But of course when we say war, we shouldn't think only of planes flying and huge armies with tanks and so on. This war has many different facets--ideological, low-intensity war, terrorism and so on. And this has been going on for nearly three decades now, and we are nowhere near seeing the end of it.

Varney: But do you think we are headed for the classic military confrontation as in World War II?

Taheri: The classic military confrontation has already also happened, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And I wouldn't exclude it in the case of Iran either, although this might not be necessary at this moment. The worst thing to do would be to launch a few missiles at Iran and leave it at that. Because what the present Iranian leadership wants now is a mini-showdown with the United States so that they can say, OK, we have had our showdown and we won, and we survived. You saw the similar case in Lebanon with Hezbollah recently. Hezbollah suffered very heavily, and Lebanon was damaged very heavily, and nevertheless they are claiming that they won. So one should not fall into that trap.

This is a war that requires patience and persistence. It has to be fought at many, many different levels. The military side of it should not be excluded. But there are lots of other things that could be done before we reach the military level of this war.

Varney: Like what, for example?

Taheri: Like, to start with, beginning to apply the sanctions that exist under the Nonproliferation Treaty. Like exposing the violations of human rights that the Iranian regime is doing. Like applying the sanctions under the Iran-Syria Act that the U.S. itself has passed and has not applied diligently. Like supporting the Iranian workers who are on strike, supporting Iranian student movements, Iranian liberal and democratic organizations, and the opposition inside and outside the country.

The Iranian economy is in shambles even right now. As you saw today, we had an air crash, which is becoming a frequent feature in Iran because the Iranian planes are not maintained. They can't have spare parts because of the sanctions and so on. A lot of money is leaving the country because of this uncertainty. And the continuation of this situation of uncertainty is very bad for the leadership. And--yes?

Varney: Amir, if Iran is bidding for leadership in the Muslim world, and if Ahmadinejad wants to strengthen his leadership domestically, it would seem almost impossible for Iran to retreat and walk away from its plans to acquire nuclear weapons. It's almost impossible, isn't it?

Taheri: Yes, but, you know, at the moment, the package offered to Iran--and this is very important for people to understand--nobody is asking Iran to give up nuclear technology at all. What they are asking is the suspension of uranium processing and enrichment maybe until next March. Anyway, Iran does not need to enrich uranium, because it doesn't have a single working nuclear power station. It is like, you know, somebody who buys gasoline but doesn't have a car, or a man who doesn't have a hair but wants to have a hair dryer.

So it is very easy for the present Iranian leadership to announce that we accept this package, we suspend uranium enrichment, which we don't need anyway, until next March when our first and only nuclear power station, built by the Russians, is supposed to start working, and then start negotiation. But they don't want negotiation. But they want confrontation. And they think because the West is weak, because the United States will soon be in retreat after President Bush has left office, they can push it and then say nuclear victory. They say, You see, we took up the infidel and the leader of the United States, and we have won.

Stuart Varney continues the panel discussion with Wall Street Journal columnist and editorial page deputy editor Dan Henninger, foreign-affairs columnist Bret Stephens and editorial features editor Tunku Varadarajan. Some excerpts:

Varney: [...] In the immediate future, the question is U.N. sanctions. Is there any chance that U.N. sanctions, if they were imposed, would have any effect at all?   [...]

Varadarajan: I'll make a bold assertion here. Sanctions don't work when they're imposed on countries that have something valuable to sell or that have regimes that don't care about their citizens.   [...]

Henninger: Well, in the immediate future, I think we go through this, basically, charade of discussing it in the Security Council, trying to impose sanctions on--restrictions on their travel, this sort of thing we're talking about right now. And this simply gives the Iranians time to push forward with the program, which clearly they've got under way.

I mean, it seems to me, there's one aspect of this that doesn't get enough attention, and that's the fact that Iran sits atop the Straits of Hormuz. And the Straits of Hormuz are this little narrow passage through which passes 20 percent of the world's oil. Now, if the West were going to be serious, they would move a military contingent of ships into the Gulf, explicitly telling Iran, we're going to protect the straits no matter what happens here. And that would at least give the Iranian leadership the sense that the West was going to get serious about protecting its own interests, which is what is at stake.   [...]

Varney: Bret, they are few and far between, but you, I believe, have a hit from Hollywood. What?

Stephens: Yes. Bruce Willis, Danny DeVito, Gary Sinise, James Wood, Nicole Kidman, Michael Douglas, Ridley Scott--they're among 84 people who signed a remarkable statement in the L.A. Times condemning terrorism and condemning Hezbollah and Hamas. And they wrote, in that ad, "If we do not succeed in stopping terrorism around the world, chaos will rule and innocent people will continue to die. We need to support democratic societies and stop terrorism at all costs." You know, we do a lot of carping about Hollywood lacking moral clarity. But I think this is a case of Hollywood showing its eloquence and truthfulness and real clarity and courage. And they ought to be congratulated.

Hear hear!

But then again:

Varney: OK. How about Ahmadinejad? He's portrayed as messianic, almost a nut, if I may use the expression. But Tunku, isn't he playing a rather shrewd diplomatic game?

Varadarajan: Yes. I think the biggest mistake people make is to treat Ahmadinejad--treat his theater as his reality. And I think the point that we're missing in all this is how astute Iranian diplomacy has been, and how much better than our own diplomacy it's been. Of course, our task is much harder. The United States needs to unite countries, effectively herding cats behind a sort of punitive goal. Iran's only aim is to divide countries. And it's always easier in diplomacy to divide than unite.   

The Mullahcracy has certainly run rings around the West, but precisely for that reason, many would argue, the biggest mistake people could make, is not to take Ahmadinejad's threats seriously.

Iran is a special case because, first, it is already an established menace. It has spent the past two decades consistently seeking to sabotage any prospect of a permanent peace settlement between Israel and its neighbours and it remains dedicated to that mission. It continues to sponsor extremist fanatics in the Palestinian Authority and Lebanon. It is behind much of the trouble that has tortured Iraq and it does not intend to stop pulling these strings once US and British troops have left. If it becomes a nuclear nation, it is likely to be emboldened in these deeds.

Iran is also distinct because this project is not merely about national symbolism, but also religious aspirations. It would not be an “Islamic” bomb but a “Shia Islamic” bomb, the most potent physical representation so far of a drive to seize command over a faith that was briefly, if tenuously, held and then lost in the 7th century. It would be in the hands of people whose interpretation of theology places a weight and value on the concept of martyrdom that the rest of us properly find alien, bizarre and chilling.

It's time to kick the Mullahcracy out and give Iran back to the Persian people (a must read!)

Comments

[Martin]

World war three has begun. The question is who's side are you on. Myself, I am on the side of justice and that makes it even more difficult because I see great injustices being committed on both sides. America with its allies the UK and parts of Europe are the world dominating force with China waiting in the wings for their chance to subvert the US away from its plot.

Unfortunately my own background in special forces has left me with a bitter taste from experience and knowledge gained over nearly a decade in the field. I have seen atrocities go unpunished for the greater geopolitical goal. I have witnessed the aftermath of Serbian bombardments on highly populated areas that have been left unreported in the news.

Most of us (but not all) live in microcosms seeing a hazy picture as drawn up by the world media, most of which is constructed around lies and the countries own political agenda. It is only when you travel to the countries in which the war is being fought and you talk to those living their can you truly appreciate what I am saying.

Most of us (but not all) are armchair analysts, never having witnessed any of what we have heard for ourselves. Our world is constructed around what they want us to listen to and what they want us to see.

Let us take for example the language of war. We see everyday on the news, in the papers, hear on the radio the "The War on Terror" most people are ignorant of what this war is (but not all). One mans ‘terrorist’ is another mans ‘freedom fighter’. It has took me many soul searching years to bring to life the reality of what I know and now I want you to realise the truth not my truth but the plain facts. The facts that point to, "There is no just war being fought by the aggressors."

What we are really in is a war that started decades ago against the forces of communism (coined the cold war) this war has not stopped. Imperialism and colonialism and the greed for the worlds resources has not stopped. This is the last war that we will face globally and you should all be aware that it is now building up to its climax.

China has still to enter the game fully, it is game but it is not funny. Why do they call it war games? War is death and destruction and the killing of the innocent is incidental and readily acceptable as collateral damage.

I am on the side of justice and justice has not entered the arena yet! Now, I am a civilian, but things are not any easier when I read how the Psyops war is being won by countries against their own people.

It is a well known fact if you tell someone enough times something in different ways they will begin to believe it, even if it is not totally true (Yes , I have studied Psychology). The way is simple you start with some truth then you mix the truth with some lies, then the lies with a little truth until the people are confused and begin to say well it must be true because the BBC reported or it was on Fox news etc....

The only truth is the real truth and that comes from being there and being a witness to it because reportable truths need a spin to make them attractive.

Let us return to the language of terror. Terror means a fear something that you fear. Before September 11th there was nothing to fear, but now lurking in every hotel, airport lobby or university hall is a potential terrorist not a freedom fighter, not an insurgent, not a guerrilla. However, our soldiers are fighters for truth and justice, infantry men, artillery operators, bomb controllers and commandos. Our agents are secret service, CIA, FBI, MI5 or SO13. Names, names how they use language to play games with the minds of the people.

What is dangerous is an out of touch free thinker who doesn't conform to the process of indoctrination. Who has managed to break out of the controlling forces and see the truth the reality of war and the lies that entrench the hearts and minds of the masses (but not all).

Ask the Palestine woman, what happened to your family. "They came at night and took away my sons". Ask the kossovian what happened to your house. "They blew it up". Ask the Iraqi woman (if you was alive) why did they rape and kill your family, "My daughter was taken into a separate room and her clothes ripped off and repeatedly raped then they killed her and burnt her body. How ugly is the reality for which many of us are subjugated to (but not all).

If you want to know the truth about this war the last of the wars. Then go to the places these wars are being fought and speak with the people who are enduring the suffering in the name of peace, democracy and freedom. My question is whose peace, democracy and freedom, one mans ‘terrorist’ is another mans ‘freedom fighter’ and the victor writes the history.

[joe]

A booklet entitled “Al-Jihad” (holy war) was found in the possession of Hezbollah operatives during the latest conflict in Lebanon and is most likely being used by other terrorists preparing for the next attack against us.
The booklet, presents the Islamic teachings of Khamenei, an ideology based on jihad and shahada...
Be sure to read it in The Terrorist's Nightmare blog and post your comments here.

[Liquid]

Thanks Alexandra for a good read today, since everyone is out on boats and playing big time, while I am hobbling around on crutches and spending most the day in bed! :(

What I really want to emphasize about what I just read here in your article today is ...

"It would not be an “Islamic” bomb but a “Shia Islamic” bomb, the most potent physical representation so far of a drive to seize command over a faith that was briefly, if tenuously, held and then lost in the 7th century. It would be in the hands of people whose interpretation of theology places a weight and value on the concept of martyrdom that the rest of us properly find alien, bizarre and chilling."

This is so spot on because so many don't understand why the Saud family is so paranoid about Iran getting the nukes! So many forget the shia vs sunni issue concerning Iran. I truly think as soon as Iran ever got the chance to pop Israel it would then inflict horrible terror on the House of Saud and demand controlling power over mecca! I feel Mecca is being eyeballed by Ahmadinejad as part of his diabolical plan to rule the Islamic world, starting with the middle east and then branching out as in his mind paving the way for the madhi. IMHO, I think Ahmadinejad wants his greedy hands on the neck of Mecca itself! I really think that he feels he will unite the shia and the sunni there by controlling Mecca, even with all their differences because it being part of their pilgrimage, Mecca is the center of their Islam. It would be a deceptive thing though, like controlling it by proxy, and then presenting it to the Islamic world as a free for all, dressing it up as a country within a city, kinda like the Vatican.