Posted on 09/14/2001 6:23:00 AM PDT by Deep_6
Terror attacks transform U.S. image in Iran's media
Dubai - Reuters - 14-09-2001
The deadly terror attacks in the United States
transformed the super power's image in Iran overnight,
with the official media providing a rare glimpse of the
enemy's human side after two decades of demonising it.
For the first time since the 1979 Islamic revolution,
Iranians are being offered a more realistic picture of
the United States, a country once depicted as the
"Great Satan," the "Great oppressor" and a "paragon of
pagan decadence".
State television, which in the past heavily distorted
news about the United States, has been giving full
coverage of the events in New York and Washington,
complete with details of human suffering.
Iranian leaders, from reformist to conservative, have
strongly condemned the attacks in an unprecedented
expression of sympathy for their long-time enemy, and
offered cooperation to fight terrorism.
"We condemn any act of terror and murder of innocent
people. No Muslim can be pleased about such a human
catastrophe," Hassan Rowhani, a top security official,
said on Wednesday.
Tehran and Washington broke off diplomatic relations
after the revolution which toppled the U.S.-allied
shah. They have since been at loggerheads and no senior
Iranian officials had previously expressed sympathy
openly for the United States.
Now the official media and politicians are breaking
long-held taboos, displaying uninhibited emotions and
using unconventional phrases to refer to the suicide
plane attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
"Human catastrophe", "enormous crime", "murderers" and
"terrorists," were terms once used against the United
States rather than in sympathy with it.
The about-face appears to be prompted by the enormity
of the tragedy and Iran's desire to shed its radical
image in the West. The Islamic republic is on the U.S.
State department list of states supporting
international terrorism, a charge Tehran has always
denied.
In their zeal to join the international condemnation,
Iranian politicians have avoided their habitual
double-language and flatly condemned the attacks. But
some also drew parallels with American actions
elsewhere in the world.
"Just as Iran is sad for America, the American
government too should put greater value on the lives of
people in other parts of world," Fatemeh Khatami, a
member of parliament, told Iran's student news agency
ISNA.
Parliamentary Speaker Mehdi Karroubi yesterday voiced
concern over negative sentiments against Muslims in the
United States, whipped up by the attacks.
"Any Muslim, any human being obviously denounces the
killing of innocent citizens but, unfortunately, a
poisonous climate has been created against Muslims.
This is not right," he said on television.
The Speaker said he was concerned that Israel could
exploit the situation to intensify the "repression" of
Palestinians.
Many have urged the United States not to jump to
conclusions and single out Muslim groups for blame.
"The Americans have done that before and then realised
it was a mistake," said former MP Mohammed Reza
Bahonar, referring to the Oklahoma city federal
building bombing. "There is a serious need to review
past attitudes so we can truly eradicate terrorism."
The shifting sands of the middle east continued to undermine the fragile but promising structure of the peace processes in 1996. After years of negotiation, trust was destroyed at the start of 1996 on January 5 in Palestine, rekindling blood-shed throughout the region. At the end of 1996, the Norwegian-constructed peace framework was under threat once again.
Northern Iraq, where the US thought it could glue together the warring Kurds into a cohesive front against Saddam's regime, came unstuck. The US CIA station in Salahaddin, Iraqi Kurdistan and 4,000 collaborators had to be evacuated after Saddam's forces assisted Massoud Barzani's KDP (Kurdish Democratic Party) to wrest Arbil, Kurdistan's capital, from Jalal Talabani's PUK (Patriotic Union of Kurdistan).
In Turkey the west became alarmed by the emergence of Necmettin Erbakan as prime minister and leader of the Islamist-based Refah Party. Fearful of its implications, US-dominated NATO and the EU began damage-limitation exercises. NATO renegotiated base rights and the EU raised its entry requirements to the EU and denied some funding. Ankara was obligated to publically confirm a military co-operation arrangement with Israel, a deal that was struck secretly ten years ago. If Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdish Turkish Workers Party (PKK), had hoped for a cancellation of this pact by Erbakan and better chances to negotiate with Ankara over the future of Turkish Kurdistan, he was disappointed.
In northern Iraq, the struggle between Jalal Talabani (PUK) and Massoud Barzani reached new proportions in late summer, resulting in 4,000 dead by early autumn. In Baghdad, Saddam Hussein did not take the hoped-for fall, but instead took action to flush Jalal Talabani from his lairs in Arbil and Sulaymaniyya. However, a few weeks later, Jalal Talabani returned with tacit assistance from Iran. Only the threat of further action stopped Jalal Talabani from recapturing Kurdish capital Arbil.
When Saddam's forces were invited to support Barzani and entered Arbil, the US mounted limited air strikes against Iraqi air defence targets in southern Iraq. The question raised by seasoned regional observers was why these targets were below the 34th parallel and against only air defence systems, when columns of Saddam's men took action above the 36th parallel. Some observers wondered whether Washington and London had given tacit approval to Saddam's support of the KDP, to dislodge Talabani and install Barzani as the paramount Kurdish leader.
The US repeatedly had warned that the involvement of Iran in northern Iraq posed a threat to the whole region, and in mid-October the KDP circulated captured PUK documents proving PUK's secret cooperation between its and Iran's intelligence services. Throughout the year the Americans put increasing pressure on Iran, including a Congressional ban on European trade and investments in Iran and Libya.
East of Iran, in Afganistan, all hell broke loose in 1996. The Talaban forces captured the capital Kabul and killed President Najibullah. Talaban forces destroyed the capital and much of the country's infrastructure.
Storm clouds continue to gather in the Middle East
Iran argued that the Talaban movement was supported by Pakistan, the US and Britain. Although this claim was not widely accepted in the west, in late October the International Herald Tribune reported that Pakistan and the US were trying to distance themselves from the Talaban. A senior Iranian official explained his understanding of the situation: "In Afganistan sixteen years ago, at the height of the Cold War, the west pitted the Islamic mujahadeen against Moscow's occupation troops. After the withdrawal of the Soviets and the consequent internal turmoil, the US and Pakistan supported another Islamic political extremist group against the warring mujahadeen, hoping to force the educated, nationalist and middle class to create a middle ground for rational politics." An Iranian conspiracy theory or American machiavellian politics?
At the epicentre of the traditional Middle East another earthquake was brewing. The long-eroded trust in American political and military power, prestige and fairness, crumbled further in 1996 and the election of Benjamin Natanyahu alienated all but a few Arab politicos.
Jordan found itself unable to consummate its marriage to Israel and instead courted Arafat's Palestine. At the end of 1996, the Israel, Jordan and Palestine trio was on the verge of a break up. Even Egypt, the most accommodating of middle eastern states, revealed its ire towards Israel's prime minister. After the regional economic conference in Cairo in November, President Mubarak warned Israel that the peace structure was likely to collapse.
Throughout the year reports from the region stated that Israel's and Syria's military forces were on heightened alert. Undoubtedly this was one of the reasons that Natanyahu called for a personal dialogue with Syria's President Hafiz Assad. Given the president's past record of sullen silence Natanyahu's appeal appeared more pathetic than sincere. Moreover, Natanyahu is not likely to find Assad in a reasonable mood when his Likud government refuses to move out of Hebron, expand settlements in the West Bank and hold on to the Golan Heights and South Lebanon.
In April, Israel's Defence Forces (IDF) launched Operation Grapes of Wrath against Hizbollah guerrilla forces. Although Prime Minister Peres' government was internationally condemned for the IDF's ill-fated attack on a UN post, Israel did gain an important Hizbollah concession; the latter would no longer attack from or near civilian settlements.
American bravado as the region's peace maker was further deflated when France's President Chirac arrived in the area and came to blows with Natanyahu and the US. His public pro-Arab sentiments, his critical stance towards Israel and the insinuation that Europe should replace the US as peace maker in the region caused Washington apoplexy.
In 1996, Morocco and Tunisia continued to plod on in spite of growing Islamist sentiments while in Libya a small Islamist rebellion took place in spring. After 28 years of rule Colonel Qaddafi handled the mutiny with ease. The Sudan has been long forgotten by international politics and is likely to be so long as the present regime is in power. At the other end of the continent, the Algerian government held its own although attacks increased in the second half of the year, especially by the Groupe Islamique Armée. In western Sahara, the Polisario struggle for independence has stalled. It is unlikely the small population will gain independence in this century.
The Middle East experienced several changes in 1996. The focus of attention shifted to the northern tier and the Palestine problems yet again were bogged down in religious politics. This has become a permanent feature of international conflict and the countries involved are worn out. Those who survive and retain their enthusiasm for conflict continue to arm themselves at enormous expense and those who cannot afford expensive weapon systems or who do not produce oil or gas appear not to be interesting to the international community.
[ref: http://www.global-defence.com/99/1998/97/MiddleEast.html ]
This is a bit backwards. The US did use an Aegis system to destroy an Iranian airliner some time back though. (It was a mistake and we did provide reparations.)
Exactly. Just as the Taliban's "Show us proof and we'll extradite Bin Laden." Or, Arafat "giving blood" and "denouncing terrorism". And, most likely, any other statement of U.S. "support" from ANY of the states that harbour terrorists.
Isn't the creation of confusion one of the weapons used by terrorists? Maybe that's one reason why, after an attack, there is many times more than one group that claims responsibility in the first few hours...then denies a short time later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.