Rouhani told Curry, “From the viewpoint of the Islamic tenets and culture, killing an innocent people equals the killing of the whole humanity. And therefore, the killing and beheading of innocent people in fact is a matter of shame for them and it’s the matter of concern and sorrow for all the human and all the mankind.” This is exactly what Obama did in 2009 when he quoted
verse 5:32 and omitted verse 5:33.
Iranian President Hassan
Rouhani’s trip to New York next week will be a welcome relief for the Iranian
leader. Finally, he’ll be somewhere where he’s appreciated, even loved.
Ahead of his trip to America, the US media continued its practice of presenting Rouhani as a moderate, and a natural ally for the US.
NBC News’ Anne Curry interviewed Rouhani in Tehran, focusing her attention on his dim view of Islamic State.
Rouhani told Curry, “From the viewpoint of the Islamic tenets and culture, killing an innocent people equals the killing of the whole humanity. And therefore, the killing and beheading of innocent people in fact is a matter of shame for them and it’s the matter of concern and sorrow for all the human and all the mankind.”
The US media and political establishment’s willingness to take Rouhani at his word when he says that he’s a moderate is one of the reasons that Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz was in such a desolate mood on Wednesday.
During a briefing with the foreign media, Steinitz described the state of negotiations between the US and its negotiating partners – Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany – and Iran regarding its illicit nuclear weapons program.
The briefing followed the latest round of the biennial Israeli-US strategic dialogue. Steinitz led the Israeli delegation to the talks, which focused on Iran, the week before nuclear talks were scheduled to be renewed.
One of Steinitz’s chief concerns was the US’s insistence that Rouhani is a moderate.
In his words, “The only thing that has changed [since Rouhani replaced president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] is the tone. The only difference is that the world was unwilling to hear from Ahmadinejad and [his nuclear negotiator Saeed] Jalili, what it is willing to listen to from Rouhani and [Iranian Foreign Minister Javad] Zarif.”
Unlike the Americans, the Iranian people are through with the fiction that Rouhani is a moderate, which is why he no doubt will be happier in New York than in Tehran.
Rouhani’s trip to New York coincides with his one-year anniversary in office. Since he took power, a thousand Iranians have been executed by the regime.
Forty-five people were executed in just the past two weeks.
According to Iranian scholar Majid Rafizadeh, the public’s tolerance for regime violence has reached a breaking point.
In an article in the Frontpage Magazine online journal, Rafizadeh described how 3,000 people descended on regime executioners as they were poised to kill a youth in Mahmoudabad in northern Iran. The protest forced them to call off the show.
They murdered the young man the next day, when no one was looking.
As Iran scholar Dr. Michael Ledeen has explained, the rise in regime brutality is directly proportional to the threat it perceives from the public.
And the regime has good reason to be worried.
Anti-regime protests and strikes occur countrywide, every day.
For instance, from September 9-14, MEK, an Iranian opposition group, documented public protests against security forces and attacks on regime agents in Tehran, Zanzan, Bane, Qom, Karaj and Bandar Abbas.
These actions ran the gamut from a strike by a thousand gas workers in the Aslaviyah gas fields who protested searches of their dormitory rooms by regime agents, to two separate assaults on military vehicles in Zanzan, to youth responding violently in cities throughout the country when regime agents tried to enforce Islamic dress codes on women and girls.
Under the same Rouhani who waxed so poetically against beheadings when speaking to an overeager NBC reporter, not only have state executions have massively intensified. Public floggings, public hand amputations and other public demonstrations of regime brutality have also expanded to levels unseen in recent years.
Rouhani promised to protect women’s rights. Yet since he took office, women’s rights have been severely curtailed.
Last month, the Revolutionary Guards barred women from working as waitresses. In July, Tehran’s mayor barred women from sharing workspace with men. These moves and others like them, aimed at enforcing gender apartheid in all public places in the country, force millions of women into poverty. The official unemployment level for women is already hovering around 20 percent.
Then there are Iran’s other social ills, for instance drug addiction.
Iran has the highest level of drug addiction in the world. According to Babak Dinparast, a senior Iranian drug enforcement official, some 3.5 million Iranians, or 4.4% of the population, are drug users.
In April, Dinparast made the stunning claim that 53% of drug users are government employees.
According to the Iranian parliament’s research institute, the average productive hours of Iranian workers is 22 minutes a day.
In Transparency International’s ranking of administrative and economic corruption, Iran ranks 144th out of 177 countries.
In other words, Iran is coming apart at the seams. The people cannot stand the regime. The regime, incompetent and unwilling to tackle any of Iran’s problems, responds to the public’s outrage with massive, brutal repression.
If left to its own devices, in all likelihood, the Iranian regime would have been toppled five years ago when it falsified the results of the 2009 presidential elections, and so fomented the Green Revolution But the people of Iran didn’t bet on the regime’s ace in the hole: the Obama administration.
The same Obama administration that supported the overthrow of US allies in the war on Islamic jihad – Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi – stood by the Iranian regime as it massacred its people in the streets of Iranian cities for daring to demand their freedom.
If the 2009 Green Revolution was the gravest threat the regime had faced since the 1979 revolution brought it to power, today the regime is also imperiled.
On Monday, Iran’s dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was released from the hospital after undergoing prostate surgery. Several strategic analyses published since then claim that his days are numbered and that as a consequence, the regime faces a period of profound uncertainty and instability.
The Iranian people are watching all of this, and waiting.
As was the case in 2009, the disaffected Iranians, who hate their regime and want good relations with the US and the West, remain the greatest threat to the regime.
Beyond its borders, Iran is also under stress. With its Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah forces committed to Syria in defense of Bashar Assad, Iran finds its position in Iraq threatened by the rising power of Islamic State.
Yet, as happened in 2009, in the midst of this gathering storm, the Obama administration is rushing to the mullahs’ rescue, begging Iran to support US efforts to fight Islamic State, indeed claiming that securing Iran’s support and cooperation is a necessary precondition for the mission’s success.
To say that this US policy is madness is an understatement.
As Michael Weiss documented in Foreign Policy in June, Iran and its puppet, the Syrian regime, played central roles in facilitating the development and empowerment of Islamic State both in Syria and Iraq. A defector from the Syrian Military Intelligence Directorate reported in January that the regime helped form Islamic State.
First, it sprang Sunni jihadist leaders from Sednaya prison in 2011. Then, it facilitated in the creation of the armed brigades that became Islamic State.
The idea was that through Islamic State, it could tarnish the reputation of all of its opponents by claiming they were all jihadists.
US military officers with deep knowledge of Iran’s role in Iraq told Weiss that Islamic State’s leadership entered Iraq from Iran.
A key al-Qaida financier, Olimzhon Adkhamovich Sadikov, was charged in February by the US Treasury Department with “provid[ing] logistical support and funding to al-Qaida’s Iran-based network.”
US Army Col. Rick Welch, who served as the military liaison to both the Sunni tribes and the Shi’ite militia in Iraq during the 2007-2008 US military surge, told Weiss that the assessment of Iraqi Sunnis and Shi’ites alike was that “Iran was funding any group that would keep Iraq in chaos.”
Iran sought chaos in order to prevent the establishment of a stable Iraqi government allied with the US while incrementally establishing Iranian control over the country.
Iran’s actions in Iraq and Syria, in other words, have for the past decade been focused on expanding Iranian power at the expense of the US and the Iraqi and Syrian people.
This behavior of course is in line with Iran’s global strategy. From its support for Hamas to its control over Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, from developing a strategic alliance with Venezuela to expanding its presence throughout South and Central America, through its closely cultivated relationship with Russia, Iran’s every move involves expanding its power and influence at America’s expense.
And yet, despite this, the Obama administration has made strengthening the Iranian regime and appeasing it the centerpiece of its Middle East policy.
President Barack Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg in March that Iran is a rational actor that the US can do business with.
He said, “If you look at Iranian behavior, they are strategic, and they’re not impulsive. They have a worldview, and they see their interests, and they respond to costs and benefits.”
As Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry now perceive things, Iran opposes Islamic State, and therefore it will play a supportive role in the US campaign against Islamic State. Moreover, by participating in the campaign, Iran will demonstrate its good faith and so make it possible for the US to cut a deal with the mullahs that will legitimize their illicit uranium enrichment – because really, how big a threat can a country that opposes Islamic State be? As for Iran, it sees its interest as having the US destroy Islamic State, and if possible, having the US pay Iran for the privilege of fighting Iran’s war – against the foe Iran did so much to create.
And this brings us back to Steinitz’s gloomy assessment of the talks with Iran. Steinitz warned against the growing prospect of the US caving in to Iran’s nuclear demands as a payoff for Iranian support against Islamic State.
In his words, “Some people might think, ‘Let’s clean the table, let’s close the [nuclear] file,” in order to get Iran on board against Islamic State.
Unfortunately for Steinitz, and for the rest of the world, including the US, the Obama administration seems bent on proving him right.
Today the Iranian regime is weaker than it has been since it violently repressed the Green Revolution.
And that is why Rouhani is happy to be coming to New York.
He knows that now, as then, the Obama administration will save the regime. This, even as the mullahs advance their goal of becoming the hegemons of the Middle East at the US’s expense, and completing their nuclear weapons program, which will secure the regime for decades to come, and threaten America directly.
Caroline Glick is the author of The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.
June 4,
2009
Obama quotes verse 5:32, omits 5:33
President Obama in his speech said " The Holy Koran teaches that
whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever
saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind."
I really find it odd
that neither President Obama nor any of his advisors did not realize that the
meaning of verse 5:32 is not clear until it is quoted together
with verse 5:33 which follows it:
005.032
YUSUFALI: On that account: We ordained for the
Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or
for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people:
and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole
people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet,
even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land
005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war
against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief
through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and
feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in
this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
Update: Andrew Bostom
writes:
Immediately following the murderous acts of jihad terrorism committed on September 11, 2001, Ibn Warraq highlighted the tragic irony of many apologists quoting selectively from Qur'an 5:32-"whoso slays a soul . . . shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as if he has given life to mankind altogether"- attempting to demonstrate that the Qur'ran disapproved of violence and killing.
Firstly, these
wonderful sounding words come from a preexisting Jewish text (Mishnah,
IV Division 5, "Thus was created a single man, to teach us that
every person who loses a single soul, it shall be written about him as if he
has lost the entire world, and every person who sustains a single soul, it
shall be written about him as if he has sustained the entire world."
And apologists for
Islam-just like President Obama-quote the Koranic words out of context. For the
very next verse offers quite a different meaning from that of 5:32, which was
"laid...down for the Israelites," as stated in the next verse, 5:33,
continuing:
"...Our apostles
brought them [the Jews] veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of
them committed great evils in the land. Those that make war against Allah and
His apostle [Muhammad] and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified
or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from
the country. (Qur'an 5:33)"
The supposedly noble sentiments of the first
verse, taken from a Jewish source, are entirely undercut by the second verse,
which becomes a bloodthirsty menacing by Muhammad of the Jews. (And as an aside
the Muslim sources estimate Muhammad killed 24,000 Jews in his jihad campaigns
against them). Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively insist
that any who oppose the Muslim prophet will be killed, or crucified, mutilated,
and banished.
