At Georgetown University he studied modern European intellectual history under the Palestinian ex-patriot Professor Hisham Sharabi. Sharabi and Davidson subsequently became close friends and one can date his interest in Palestinian, as well as Jewish and Zionist, issues from this time.

Dr. Davidson writes regularly on the Middle East affairs, Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S. foreign policy.

He has written several books of which "America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood" by the University Press of Florida is a prominent example.

Dr. Davidson joined me in an exclusive interview to discuss the latest developments in the Middle East, the collective uprising of the Arab world, Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions of 2011, the humanitarian crisis in Libya, the prospect of anti-government protests in Saudi Arabia and the fate of Israeli regime in the wake of growing international isolation.

What follows is the complete text of my interview with Dr. Lawrence Davidson.

Kourosh Ziabari: Everything started when a simple, unostentatious street vendor committed an act of self-immolation before a municipal office in the suburbs of Tunis in protest to the humiliation and persecution which was inflicted on him. How this apparently trivial incident led to the unprecedented wave of protests which encompassed the whole Arab world in a matter of days? Do you consider the suicide of Mohamed Bouazizi the cause of this turmoil or did the Arab world revolutions have their roots in other factors which we might be unaware of?

Lawrence Davidson: The conditions which made the uprisings in the Middle East possible have been with us for a very long time. Economic deprivation, repression and corruption were constants throughout the reigns of Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt. They also exist in Yemen. Different variations on these themes can be found in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and many other countries of the region as well. So revolt was and is always a possibility. The much harder question to answer is, why now? For instance, why did the steps taken by Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia act as a successful trigger?

We know that the default position of most people living under repressive regimes is fear and passivity. At some point an exceptional occurrence (it can be negative or positive) will bring a small and brave element of the population into the streets. If they are not suppressed quickly by the regime, their actions might encourage others to join them and then you have a snowballing effect. At that point the regime either negotiates or brings in the tanks. Negotiating often risks the complete unraveling of an authoritarian regime. That is why you most often get the tanks.

In the case of Tunisia, the military seems to have backed off shooting its own people. In Egypt I think the Obama administration played a role by telling the Egyptian military that they were not to use American weapons to shoot Egyptian protesters. That seemed to have had a real impact. Washington ought to tell the Israelis the same thing.

KZ: It's undeniable that the United States and its European allies are dithering over how to deal with Libya's dictator Muammar Gaddafi, refusing to take a practical, decisive step to tackle the deplorable situation in the war-hit country. It's estimated that the Libyan butcher has so called massacred more than 6,500 people and the UN, UNSC, the US and its allies haven't made any decision to stop him. What's the reason behind the West's indecisiveness over the situation in Libya?

LD: Well, it would appear that the Western powers have overcome their indecisiveness as far as Libya is concerned. I wrote a recent blog piece which points out that the American rationale for this intervention, the protection of civilians, is just sheer hypocrisy. It is simply impossible to believe that Washington has any real concern for civilians in Libya given the U.S. history of slaughter of civilians in Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan, as well as its protection of Israel as that country ethnically cleanses Palestine. No, the issue of civilians is just an excuse for the Americans.

The U.S. government, after some hesitancy over the Islamic makeup of a number of Libya's rebelling elements, has decided to go for regime change in that country. The on-going civil war is a good opportunity for Washington to do this. Most of the NATO allies were quickly brought into agreement and the Gulf oil sheiks, who never liked Gadhafi, soon joined the chorus. The next step was a bit more difficult. Intervening in someone else's civil war is easy for Washington. The Americans do this all the time, particularly in South America. However, it is the sort of thing that does undermine the principle of national sovereignty, and countries such as China and Russia have always been very wary of creating precedents along this line. That is why I was surprised when these countries abstained in the Security Council vote on Libya rather than casting a veto. One wonders what they got in return from Washington.

The passage of the Security Council resolution means that Muammar Gadhafi is probably finished. Whatever one might think of his regime, I do not believe that it is going to be easy to put Libya back together again once you have helped take the country apart. But then, maybe the Western powers don't care if this basically tribal society falls apart. A dismembered Libya is an inherently weaker Libya. All they care about is that the oil keeps flowing.

KZ: What's your estimation of the military presence of Saudi Arabia and UAE in Bahrain? It seems that the United States has showed the green light to Saudi Arabia and UAE to invade Bahrain and suppress the anti-government protestors. What are the impacts of this invasion on the Persian Gulf security and the implications thereof for the regional countries?

LD: When one compares American policy in Libya with the policy in Bahrain it becomes pretty clear that neither the protection of civilians, nor the cause of democracy and freedom espoused by the protesters, is a motivator of U.S. policy. In Libya the issue is oil and getting rid of a leader who is obviously beyond Western control. In Bahrain the issue is, as it was in Egypt, finding a way to bring about a modicum of reform that maintains stability. Washington has a major naval base in Bahrain as well as oil interests. Optimally, Obama would have liked to see the ruling Sunni elements in that country come to some compromise with the majority Shiite citizenry. The Obama administration sees (with more clarity than most U.S. administrations) that outright suppression of the Bahraini Shiites only postpones the day of reckoning. And so they have counseled both the Bahrainis and the Saudis to move in the direction of compromise reforms. After all, the next time you get protests in Bahrain, and there will be a next time, things might be much more violent and you run the risk of getting a pro Iranian takeover in that country.

Unfortunately, neither the Bahraini government nor the Saudis feel confident enough to compromise with their Shiite populations. So, they decided to settle the matter through repression. The distractions provided by the Libyan situation provided the moment to do so and the Americans made the decision to stand aside in these cases. Solving the problems that brought on protests in Bahrain, and also in the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia, is therefore postponed to an unspecified later time.

KZ: It's been a longstanding American tradition to help foster, back and encourage dictators and dismantle them consequently. We know of Saddam Hussein's fate who was unconditionally backed and supported by the United States during the 8-year war with Iran. 20 years later, the same United States captures and kills Saddam Hussein. The same goes about Osama Bin Laden, whom we know that was promoted by the United States. Ben Ali and Mubarak are also the same. At first, President Obama urged them to remain in power and implement the changes which the angry people demanded, but when he saw that the implementation of changes without a regime change would be impossible, he softened his tone and called on them to step down. You may remember that the same happened with the Shah of Iran. What's your opinion about this?

LD: When it comes to American foreign policy you have the war hawks such as the neo-conservatives, and then you have the more flexible and diplomatic elements like Jimmy Carter and now Barak Obama. The two groups have the same ends, the maintenance of U.S. domination and the satisfying of various powerful domestic interest groups, but their tactics can be quite different. From the point of view of the latter group, the Shah of Iran self-destructed. In other words, he brought himself down by not knowing how and when to adjust to changing conditions. Thus, when Mubarak got into trouble he was told by Washington to adjust to the new conditions and meet the protesters half way. If it had been George W. Bush in office he might have gotten quite different advice.

The willingness of Washington to support an ally and then abandon him is an indicator that (outside of traditional alliances like that with Great Britain) individual loyalty has nothing to do with anything. The Saudi royal house may have been shocked and unsettled when Washington let Mubarak go, but what is really surprising is that they had not yet learned that international relations as played by the Western powers is not at all about personal relationships and loyalties, its about the satisfaction of special interests embedded in the domestic politics of the Western nations. If Mubarak, Saddam Hussein, Osma bin Laden, or anyone else behaves in ways deemed really incompatible with those interests they will be pushed aside, or worse.

KZ: What's your prediction for the outcome of anti-government protests in Saudi Arabia and Yemen which have not borne fruits so far? It seems quite unlikely that Saudi Arabia which enjoys the all-out backing of the United States will bow down to the demands of its people regarding the expansion of social and political freedoms. The sames goes with Yemen where the uncompromising Ali Abdullah Saleh has shown no signal of willingness to reconcile with the revolutionaries. What do you think about this?

LD: The answer to this question has been given, pretty definitively, by events in Bahrain over the last couple of days. The Obama administration, though they would have like to see reform, have acquiesced in the suppression tactics of the Bahrainis and Saudis. Such tactics are not deemed long term solutions, but they do maintain stability for the immediate future. Yemen is not a very strategic place for Washington. And so the Americans will go along with whoever comes out on top as long as that party keeps Al Qaida out and does not interfere in Saudi Arabia.

KZ: Some thinkers believe that the recent developments in the Middle East will jeopardize the interests of Israel on one hand and empower the Islamic Republic of Iran on the other hand. They believe that a democratic government in Egypt which is led by a moderate Islamist such as Mohamed ElBradei will be quite intolerable and bitter for Israel while being a good news to the Iranians. The same would be applicable to the other U.S.-backed tyrannical regimes of the region such as Bahrain, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen and Jordan. What's you viewpoint in this regard?

LD: Washington had much more leverage in Egypt than in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain. The U.S. supplies Egypt's weapons, spare parts, and practically pays the salaries of the officer corp. It sends tons of free surplus wheat to Egypt to help moderate food prices. The Obama administration made a strategic decision that having Egyptians, protesting for democratic reform, shot down with American weapons would be disastrous and so it decided that Mubarak would compromise or he would be pushed out.

The Obama administration relationship with Israel is barely cordial. While Obama will retreat before Zionist pressure, particularly as exercised through Congress, he seems to have drawn the line when it came to Egypt and Mubarak. His arguments must have won the day with the Congress because the Zionist lobbies went largely mute on this issue even as the Israeli government was screaming and throwing temper tantrums. If nothing else all this goes to prove that the Zionists in the U.S. are not invincible.

This being said, the Israeli influence in the U.S. is still very great and, as we have seen with the recent U.S. veto of a Security Council resolution on illegal West Bank settlements, Obama will still play along with the Zionists on most issues. However, the Israelis will just have to learn to live with the new Egypt. They will have no choice as long as Obama is president. After that, who knows? The amount of influence Iran will have in the new Egypt will almost certainly be very small. After all, the U.S. still has its leverage.

KZ: It's widely believed that the Israeli lobby controls the majority of mainstream media in the United States and Europe and hence impedes the publication of any report, commentary, feature story, article or news in which Tel Aviv is criticized or its illegal, unjustifiable policies and actions are exposed. How has the Israeli lobby acquired such an immense power and how does it control the mass media in the United States? What is the source of Israeli lobby's influence and power?

LD: The answer to this question has to do with the nature of American domestic politics, which is driven by special interests and lobbies. Here is how it works in terms of Israel. The Zionist lobby is one of the best organized and funded special interests in the country. It is allied to the Christian fundamentalist lobby which represents one of the country's largest voting constituencies. The two allies go to each of the American Senators and Congressmen and offer them support. The support comes in the form of mobilizing Jewish and Chr. fundamentalists voters in their areas to vote for them, and also in terms of financial contributions to their campaigns. What they want in return is a consistent pro-Israel voting record which, of course, includes voting for generous foreign aid to Israel. Since the vast majority of Senators and Congressmen come from areas where their general constituency is either indifferent or favorable to Israel, it is easy to see how they would go along with the Zionist and Christian fundamentalist lobbies. On those rare occasions when an American legislator refuses to play along, the Zionists financially back his or her opponent both in the primaries and the general election. Eventually they are able to help defeat him. The opponent whom they backed is now beholden to the Zionists who helped get him elected. It is a rather simple strategy.

In addition both political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, receive money from the Zionist lobby and so both parties try to keep the Zionists happy. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the American Congress, both House and Senate, have become agents of a foreign power when it comes to the question of Israel/Palestine.

When it comes to the media it has to be kept in mind that these are mostly for profit companies. They are not in business to supply the "truth" or even accurate reporting. They are in business to sell newspaper and television advertising. That is where they make their money. Under the circumstances, the Zionists, or "the Jews," do not have to own or control these businesses, and in most cases they do not. All they have do is be able to organize subscription and advertising boycotts, and this they can do. So most media outlets are simply going to stay away from any sort of consistent reporting that will result in loss of revenue.

KZ: Many political academicians have openly suggested that the life of Israel is approaching an end and it will have the destiny of the former Soviet Union. A report which is attributed to CIA says that Israel will decline in 20 years. What's your prediction for the future of Israel? Do you cast the same doubts regarding the survival of Israel? Is it capable of standing on its own feet should the United States lift its support for Tel Aviv?

LD: I think it is premature to start predicting the demise of Zionist Israel. What we have here is a fully industrialized, high technology economy that is now fairly well integrated into equivalent high tech and military production in the United States and Europe. In other words, to a certain extent these economies are now tied together. Therefore, Western support for Israel is not going to evaporate by magic in the foreseeable future. In Israel we also have a population that is fully indoctrinated into a racist ideology. They already feel abandoned by most of the world and so most Israelis (who do not simply pick up and leave the country) are fanatically holding own to their Zionist ideology and state.

My feeling is that the only thing that can eventually erode this Israeli fanaticism is a worldwide campaign of boycott, sanctions and divestment similar to the one that finally brought down the regime in South Africa. And, of course, that campaign is underway and growing steadily. Still, in will be a long struggle, perhaps another fifty to seventy five years. It is a shame, but I will probably not live to see it.

Since the wave of protests at the dictatorial regimes of the Middle East began in late 2010, hundreds of people including pro-freedom revolutionaries, activists, bloggers and journalists have been killed by the dictators who have shown that they have no respect for the most essential rights of their people, including their right for peaceful demonstrations and protests and constructive criticism of the government.

Unofficial statistics have recently revealed that more than 10,000 protestors were killed by the mercenaries of the Moammar Gaddafi regime since the beginning of protests in Libya, and this figure is astounding enough to convince us that an all-out, real genocide has taken place in Libya where a delirious dictator has been ruling for more than 42 years.

Since the United Nations Security Council authorized the use of a no-fly zone over Libya "with the explicit task of protecting the civilian population" in its resolution 1973, nothing has changed significantly and the NATO forces who dispatched their troop with the proclaimed intention of saving the life of unarmed civilians who were being massacred by the Gaddafi regime achieved nothing special in their military intervention in the Northern African country.

So far, a block of NATO member states mainly shaped of European countries such as Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, UK, Spain and Sweden along with the United States, Canada and some Arab countries of the Persian Gulf have taken part in the military expedition to Libya; however, the only result of their massive operation was the carnage of innocent civilians and an enormous waste of money which should be paid by the European and American taxpayers.

American military Journalist Francis Tusa who is the editor of "Defence Analysis" magazine, estimated that flying a Tornado GR4 would cost about £35,000 an hour, so the cost of patrolling one sector of Libyan airspace would cost £2M to £3M per day.

The former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans who works with the Council on Foreign Relations think-tank which is notorious for its hawkish and warmongering stance considers the international military intervention in Libya a movement which is aimed at saving the lives of the civilians: "the international military intervention (SMH) in Libya is not about bombing for democracy or Muammar Qaddafi's head. Legally, morally, politically, and militarily it has only one justification: protecting the country's people"; however, he and those who think like him have credulously forgotten the fact that 114 civilians have been killed as a result of the military operation of NATO and its allies in Libya. If the NATO member states, mainly consisted of European countries who conventionally boast of their commitment to human rights, were really concerned for the lives of the Libyan people, they wouldn't have killed 114 civilians. Maybe one may say that 114 is an insignificant number compared with more than 10,000 people whom the Gaddafi regime massacred; however, one should not forget that the life of each human being is precious and valuable and those who introduce themselves as the defenders of human rights should know this better than anyone else.

Now, Libya is entangled in a state of civil war and nobody can predict the future of popular uprising in this African country. The United Nations Security Council has frozen the assets of Moammar Gaddafi and imposed travel bans on the members of his family. So, are these measures adequate to respond to the felonies which the old dictator of Libya is committing? Is the international community genuinely willing to draw to an end the crisis in Libya and hold Gaddafi accountable for his crimes? The International Criminal Court has warned that Gaddafi and the members of his inner circle "may" have committed crimes against humanity. Are these flat accusations enough to put on trial a dictator who relentlessly kills his people and calls them "rebels", "addicts" and "drug smugglers"? What is the reason behind the silence of international community over the humanitarian disaster occurring in Libya? Is it because the United States and its European friends cannot turn a blind eye to the countless barrels of oil awaiting them in Libya? Is it because the gigantic investment of the United States and its European allies depends on Gaddafi's remaining in power? If the international community has come to the conclusion that Gaddafi is a terrorist, so why doesn't it take essential and effective steps to help the Libyan people depose him?

The situation in Bahrain isn't much better. The dictatorial regime of Al Khalifa has invited Saudi and Emirati forces to come to its help in quenching the protests of the angry revolutionaries who cannot tolerate the discriminatory treatment of the government with the Shiite majority. The defenders of human rights have apathetically neglected the massacre of Bahraini protesters, the widespread arrest of political activists and even the destruction of the Pearl Roundabout which the Bahraini government feared might become the symbol of Bahraini people's revolution like Egypt's Al-Tahrir Square.

The mainstream media in the West, run by the well-of Zionists who control the majority of media conglomerates in the world, have flagrantly ignored the abuses of human rights in Bahrain during the 2011 protests and boycotted the news of the massacre of Bahraini people by the Al Khalifa regime. This clearly shows that what is not of any importance to them is the issue of human rights, at least in the Middle East and Bahrain which is host to the U.S. Fifth Fleet.

Overall, the performance of the European governments, international organizations and the mainstream media has indicated that it's usual and customary for them to exercise double standards wherever needed. The reaction of the international community to the Middle East uprisings has been a clear exercise of double standards which we are now quite familiar with.

Today, more than 300 million people around the world celebrate Nowruz and hold festivals and ceremonies to glorify this invaluable historical tradition.

People in the Persian-speaking countries of Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan celebrate Nowruz along with some groups of people in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Syria, Iraq, Kosovo, Kazakhstan, Albania, Macedonia and Georgia.

On February 23, 2010, the United Nations General Assembly recognized March 21st as the International Day of Nowruz and called for increased international attention to this ancient Persian tradition which is now encompassing the whole Middle East, Central Asia, Caucasus and Black Sea Basin.

The UN General Assembly "called on Member States that celebrate the festival to study its history and traditions with a view to disseminating that knowledge among the international community and organizing annual commemoration events."

Prior to the recognition of March 21st as the International Day of Nowruz, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) had included this ancient Persian festival in its Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity upon the submission of a proposal by Iran and its neighboring countries to the organization.

Nowruz is a festival which is celebrated during 13 days. According to the Jalali Calendar which was devised and designed by Omar Khayyam, the renowned Iranian philosopher, polymath and mathematician, the first day of Nowruz is coincided with the moment of the transition of the year or the commencement of vernal equinox in which the sun is observed to be directly over the equator, and the north and south poles of the Earth lie along the solar terminator; sunlight is equally divided between the north and south hemispheres

The moment of the transition of the year has been symbolically and traditionally dear and cherished to the Iranian people. They believe that at this moment, the old year comes to an end and the New Year begins, so all of the improper habits, bad memories, animosities and enmities should disappear and be replaced by happiness, goodwill, friendship and benevolence.

A few hours prior to the beginning of the New Year, Iranians spread a table setting called Haft Seen. On this table setting, Iranians put seven items and materials whose names begin with the Persian letter "Seen" or the English "S" and represent a certain quality which is beloved by the people.

Some of the most popular items of Haft Seen table include "Samanu" which is a sweet pudding made from wheat germ and characterizes cheerfulness, rejuvenation and affluence, "Sib" or apple which symbolizes rebirth, health and well-being, "Sekkeh" or coins which represent wealth and richness, "Sonbol" or the fragrant hyacinth flower which announces the beginning of the new year and "Somaq" or sumac which stands for sunrise and power.

One of the most popular customs which is conventionally observed by the Iranians during the 13 days of Nowruz is family gatherings. Children of any age go to visit their parents and grandparents and get holiday gifts from them. The grandmothers and grandfathers retell ancient stories, tales and fables for the youngsters. Fathers and mothers bring dry nuts, sweetmeat, eggs and clothes for the newly-married couples.

The housewives and mothers usually grow wheat, barley or lentil sprouts in dishes and place them on the Haft Seen table. On the 13th day of Nowruz which is called Sizdah Bedar or the Day of Nature and is believed to be a day of blessing and bounty for the people, all of the families leave their homes, go out and camp in the groves or prairies and also throw their dishes of wheat, barely or lentil sprouts in the rivers so that the potential bad omen, immorality and evilness of the coming year disappear with the dish.

However, Iranians have rightfully mixed their ancient national traditions with religious symbols to make Nowruz an opportunity for moral and spiritual revitalization along with recreation and amusement.

Since the emergence of Islam in Iran, the people of Iran merged Nowruz with Islamic customs and used the opportunity of the New Year festivals to approach the Almighty God and enshrine their traditional religious beliefs. For the Muslim nation of Iran, Quran is the paramount component of the Haft Seen table which is put on the most elevated position of the table setting.

During the last moments of the old year in which all of the family members gather around the Haft Seen table and wait for the transition of the New Year, Iranians pray for the wellbeing of the patients, the improvement and progress of their country and propagation of goodwill and benevolence to all over the world.

Nowruz is a festival for peace and purity. You can find in it both enjoyment and spirituality. Terrestrial and divine beauties can be seen in Nowruz simultaneously. Nowruz is an opportunity for the enrichment of the self and integration and solidarity of those who celebrate it all around the world.

Katsiaficas has a Ph.D. of sociology from the University of California, San Diego. Since 1990, he has taught sociology at the Wentworth Institute of Technology's Department of Humanities and Social Sciences. During the period between 2006 and 2008, he was an Associate in Research at the Harvard University and Korea Institute.

He specializes in social movements, Asian politics, the U.S. foreign policy, comparative and historical studies and has written numerous books in these fields.

In 2003, he won the American Political Science Association's Special Award for Outstanding Service and in 2008, received the Fulbright Senior Scholar Research Fellowship.

Among his major books are "The Battle of Seattle" by the New York's Soft Skull Press, "Liberation, Imagination and the Black Panther Party" by New York's Routledge Press and "South Korean Democracy: Legacy of the Gwangju Uprising" by London's Routledge Press.

What follows is the complete text of interview with Dr. George Katsiaficas on the recent uprising in the Arab world, its impacts on the international developments and its implications for the United States and its European allies.

Kourosh Ziabari: After Tunisia and Egypt in which the revolutionary forces and people on the ground succeeded in ousting the U.S.-backed puppets, several other Arab nations joined them and staged massive street demonstrations to call for civil liberties, improved living conditions, freedom and democratic governments. Now the whole Arab world is in a state of turmoil and unrest and the U.S.-backed dictators are facing the bitter reality that their autocracies are about to fail and collapse. What factors led to the extension of anti-government protests to the whole Arab world? Can we interpret this collective uprising a result of the explosion of strong pan-Arabist sentiments?

George Katsiaficas: No one could have predicted that the suicide of a vegetable vendor in rural Tunisia would unleash long pent-up frustrations on such a scale. If we take a long historical view, the Arab world went into a steep decline after Europeans discovered how to round Africa and established direct trade with the East. While oil has provided a huge stimulus for recovery in the 20th century, its effects have been drastically mitigated by elite corruption. The Arab people are finally awakening from a long slumber. The masses of ordinary Arabs today know in their hearts that they are more intelligent than their rulers. They know that they could all live better lives if they could get rid of the corrupt and often stupid elites trampling on their freedoms and hogging the money that rightfully belongs to everybody.

The phenomenon of uprisings spreading from place to another and drawing in ever more sectors of the population is one that I first uncovered when I studied the global movement of 1968. Unlike armed insurrections of the early part of the 20th century, the New Left involved a rapid proliferation of popular unarmed revolts--historically a new phenomenon. As I pulled together my empirical studies, I was stunned by the spontaneous spread of revolutionary aspirations in a chain reaction of uprisings and the massive occupation of public space--the sudden entry into history of millions of ordinary people who acted in a unified fashion, intuitively believing that they could change the direction of their society. Although they were not united by any centralized organization or even loosely tied together by any coordinating body, everyone was inspired by the heroic struggle of Vietnam. All over the world--from Paris to Prague, Chicago to Mexico City, and Dhaka to Beijing--people's revolutionary aspirations and actions were not only synchronized, but they were also remarkably similar to each other in their international solidarity and desire for self-government.

After analyzing the proliferation of the global movement, especially the strikes of May 1968 in France and May 1970 in the US, I coined the term the "eros effect" to explain the rapid emergence of global solidarity and love. From my case studies, I came to understand how in moments of the eros effect, universal interests become generalized at the same time as the dominant values of society are negated (such as national chauvinism, hierarchy, and individualism). At that time, for example, opinion polls consistently showed that Ho Chi-minh was more popular than Richard Nixon on American college campuses. See The Imagination of the New Left: A Global Analysis of 1968 (Boston: South End Press, 1987.)

At first glance, the current revolt appears to be confined to the Arab world, but in fact, it has already had a much wider effect: Gabon, Iran, and China have all felt the tremors from the rising in Egypt. Even workers in Wisconsin, who are fighting cutbacks in their standard of living, expressed admiration for, and inspiration from, the Egyptian uprising. Certainly pan-Arab sentiments are a driving force, yet they are not essential. People feel in their bones that change is possible--and not only in the Arab world.

KZ: Many Iranians believe that the uprisings of Tunisia and Egypt have been inspired by Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979. They compare the overthrowing of U.S.-backed Mubarak and Ben Ali to the dissolution of Mohammad Reza Shah's government which was unconditionally supported by the United States and its European allies. Do you find such a relationship between these revolutions which took place during an interval of 32 years?

GK: Revolutions and popular uprisings have unexpected results--and not necessarily immediate ones. Even generations later, people's memories and psyches assimilate lessons from previous eaves of struggles. The courage of Iranians in 1979, their withstanding of ferocious repression by the Shah and his forces, was evident for people all over the world, and inspired Haitians and Filipinos to overthrow their dictators. In 1987, I wrote that, "In the epoch after 1968, popular movements have internalized the New Left tactic of the occupation of public space as means of social transformation, and this tactic's international diffusion led to the downfall of the Shah, Duvalier, and Marcos...the significance of the eros effect and the importance of synchronized world-historical movements will only increase."

KZ: In your recent article, you've compared the new Middle East revolutions to the Korea's 1987 June Uprising when after 19 consecutive days of massive street demonstrations, people could finally bring down the 26-year autonomy of military forces and hold direct presidential elections. In what ways are these movements similar to each other?

GK: In both cases, people basically fought with bare hands against mighty police forces and defeated them. Thousands of ordinary citizens claimed the right to remain together in public and refused to go home when ordered to do so. Small informal leadership circles emerged in the course of popular struggles, drawn initially from extant activist circles but also porous enough to admit many newcomers from a variety of constituencies. Most significantly, both revolts were quickly ended by the peaceful retirement of the incumbent president and vague promises made by the military--which in both cases remained in power as the uprising subsided. It took South Koreans another five years of struggle before the first civilian was elected president, and it took until 1996 to put the previous dictators in prison. While one agreed to the order to return some US$300 million that he had stolen from the public, Chun Doo-hwan famously testified he had less than $100 to his name--thereby losing his honor but keeping a fortune of perhaps $700 million. Both sums pale in comparison to the estimated fortune amassed by Mubarek. It remains to be seen how much of the Mubarek family holdings will be recovered--or, more importantly, whether or not Egypt will move toward substantive democracy. The longer people adopt a "wait and see" attitude, the less chance there is of change. Millennia of pharonic rule and dictatorships are not easily undone.

KZ: The Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi is said to have deposited $90 billion in Italian and other European banks. Since 1990s, the European states moved towards normalizing their ties with the dictator and supported him both politically and financially. Now, these Western states with which the Libyan dictator was once a close friend are calling for a unified international action against him. The old friend has now become a bitter enemy. Isn't this an exercise of double standards by the Western governments?

GK: This double standard is nothing new. The US has a long history of riding on the backs of dictators in Third World countries and then tossing them away like a used car once they have outlived their usefulness. Longtime Philippines president Ferdinand Marcos was ousted with US approval in 1986; the CIA maintained real time connection to the rebels and provided them with invaluable intelligence information. Much earlier, in 1961, Rafael Trujillo, who had ruled the Dominican Republic with an iron fist for decades, was assassinated. Many people suspect the CIA provided the assassins with the weapons they used. In 1963, Ngo Dinh Diem, who had faithfully served US interests in South Vietnam from 1956 to 1963, was overthrown in a military coup about which the US had advance knowledge, and US refusal to assist him led to his assassination. Many people believe long-time US ally Park Chung-hee, ruler of South Korea from 1961 to 1979, was killed with advance US approval.

KZ: The media have reported that the mercenaries of Colonel Gaddafi have so far killed more than 6,000 protesters in Tripoli and other cities of Libya. What's your prediction for the political future of Libya? Gaddafi has vowed to remain in power and "die as a martyr"; however, the protesters, despite the large-scale crackdown by the government haven't retracted from their stance and are still calling for the ouster of the old dictator. What will be the outcome of these tumultuous clashes in Libya? Will the revolution finally end in the overthrowing of Muammar Gaddafi?

KZ: That is a life and death question for thousands of Libyans. It is too early for us to tell whether or not the armed revolt will prevail. With the US and NATO already overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Joints Chiefs are resisting the call by conservatives here to implement a no-fly zone and come to the assistance of the rebels. We should not forget that Gaddafi has played ball with the US in recent years, and he is certainly calling in every favor he is owed. In 1980, the US encouraged Korean General Chun Doo-hwan to suppress the democratic popular uprising in Gwangju. There can be no doubt that it may well stand by and watch as Gaddafi crushes those opposed to his rule.

KZ: Prof. Rashid Khalidi believes that the recent uprisings in the Arab countries have transformed and changed the mainstream media's portrayal of the Muslim world. The people that were once introduced as fanatic terrorists and extremists are now being called freemen who sacrifice their lives for the sake of achieving freedom and liberty. Do you agree with this viewpoint? Has the communal uprising of the Arab world changed the public's viewpoint regarding the Arabs and Muslims?

GK: In my view, US public opinion has not really shifted much. The self-organization of armed resistance to Gaddafi astounds American journalists. American young people note with amusement that soccer and dating web sites were used by young Libyans to organize their uprising, but my students complain that they feel burdened by the region's peoples looking to the US for help.

I suspect the change in Arabs' own self-understanding is far more significant. For too long, the role of public opinion and the importance of ordinary people has been disregarded in the region, especially by insurgencies, which instead of seeking to stimulate popular movements and raise consciousness, instead pinned their hopes on elites or organized armed commando actions. The first and most influential shift occurred with the first Palestinian intifada in the late 1980s. The people's uprising was ruthlessly crushed--remember Yitzhak Rabin's orders to break bones of unarmed children--but the spirit of popular resistance was kindled throughout the region.

KZ: We already know that the authoritarian regimes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain and Libya are among the major human rights violators in the world; however, the United States and its European cronies who frequently boast of their concerns about the preservation of human rights and freedom have been long indifferent to the persecution of political activists, incarceration of journalists and bloggers and other abuses of human rights in these countries. On the other hand, the superpowers have always employed the excuse of human rights for pressuring the independent and non-aligned nations such as Iran. What do you think about this dualistic approach?

KZ: From the very beginning, US human rights policy has been self-serving and duplicitous. In the name of democracy and enlightenment, the US exterminated millions of Native Americans. The US government broke nearly every treaty it ever signed with native peoples, a sad history known as the "Trail of Broken Treaties." It would be laughable if it were not so tragic that a country based upon enslavement and murder of millions of Africans and genocide against Native Americans, a country that killed at least three million Koreans and more than two million Indochinese, a country that today is massacring thousands more in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, could seek to instruct anyone on "human rights." Yet it is precisely a self-righteous belief in American freedom and superiority that motivates continuing genocide.

President Jimmy Carter, with whom the modern version of human rights policy is thought to originate, collaborated with Indonesian generals in the bloody invasion of East Timor. Carter approved the suppression of the Gwangju Uprising at the cost of hundreds of lives. Years later, when evidence of his actions could be assembled, a Peoples Tribunal found Carter and 7 other high US officials guilty of "crimes against humanity for violation of the civil rights of the people of Gwangju." Five months afterwards, Carter was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. The hypocrisy continues unabated. Obama enlarges the war in Afghanistan and attacks Pakistan, and he, too, is awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Should we be surprised that an award named after the inventor of dynamite provides international legitimation of Western imperialism and aggression?

KZ: As my final question, what's your prediction for the future of Arab countries which have been engulfed by the waves of popular upsurge in the recent weeks? Will the autocratic regimes of the Persian Gulf region finally yield to the demands of the protesting revolutionaries?

Unfortunately, my prognosis is that the region will continue to be burdened by corrupt elites, but also that existing rulers will have to permit larger circles of economic innovators to emerge and grant people a wider range of civil liberties. With a population of 90 million, Egypt barely managed to manufacture what Costa Rica (population 900,000) could produce. Historically speaking, uprisings have opened the doors to subsequent economic development, as we readily see today in East Asia.

I suspect that substantive democracy in the Arab world (nor practically anywhere else for that matter) is not in the cards--at least for now. Elections may well be permitted but, as in the US, candidates will reflect the dominant parties, not any meaningful alternative. Military spending will continue to be lavish and result in enormous waste of resources. Militarized nation-states armed with weapons of mass destruction, although widely understood as historical anachronisms, will continue to reign supreme. Ordinary people's dreams of a world at peace reveals a wisdom that far surpasses their rulers' capacity to think, yet the resultant contradiction requires a globally synchronized effort to result in real change.

In my view, the synchronicity of revolts and occupation of public space that began in 1968 is continually widening its circles. Besides the overthrow of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, we saw a wave of uprisings after Gwangju that spread in six years from 1986 to 1992 through the Philippines, Burma, Tibet, China, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Thailand. This most recent emergence of the eros effect in the Arab world indicates that popular movements are building to an even more intense climax, to a global uprising that might finally bring an end to the scandalous control of humanity's collective wealth by a handful of billionaires.

According to Forbes magazine, he is the 74th richest man in the world with a net worth of $9 billion. Being the third richest man in Italy, Berlusconi owns assets in the fields of television, newspapers, publishing, cinema, finance, banking, insurance and sports. His main business is Mediaset which comprises three national television channels that collectively cover a half of the national television sector. Italy's largest publishing house, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore also belongs to him. Before entering the world of politics, he managed several successful business projects including Milano 2, a huge residential project of about 10,500 apartments. In 1978 he established his first media group Fininvest and earned up to €58.3 million through this enterprise.

But this prosperous and well-off man who is considered to be the longest-serving head of G8 group has irrefutable criminal offenses which have blackened his performance sheet incorrigibly.

There are evidences which indicate that Berlusconi has had close relations with the Sicilian Mafia, known as Cosa Nostra, which is a criminal syndicate that emerged in mid 19th century in Sicily. According to the UK's Daily Telegraph, the allegations of Berlusconi's connection with mafia intensified when he entered politics in the early 1990s and became Prime Minister for the first time in 1994. In an in-depth report which elaborately discussed Berlusconi's underground relations with mafia, Daily Telegraph wrote: "[In 1974] Mr. Berlusconi lays the foundations for what will become a multi-billion pound fortune by building a housing development called Milano II on the outskirts of Milan. [There were] claims that Sicily's "Cosa Nostra" invested heavily in the project. The allegation was most recently repeated in a court in Sicily in February this year when Massimo Ciancimino, the son of a Mafia don, said the mob gave Mr Berlusconi the huge amount of capital he needed to build the complex, by laundering dirty money through a series of front companies."

Daily Telegraph's report added that Berlusconi struck a financial deal with Cosa Nostra one year before entering politics and becoming Prime Minister. "The allegations were again aired in a maximum security court in Turin in Dec 2009, by Gaspare Spatuzza, a mafia pentito, or turncoat.

He also made the incendiary claim that Mr. Berlusconi had provided support for a spate of deadly bombings by the mafia in 1993, in return for political support."

According to Daily Telegraph, in 2004, a founding member of Berlusconi's Forza Italia party named Marcello Dell'Utri was convicted of complicity with mafia and condemned to 9 years in prison. Although his imprisonment was later reduced to seven years, the court of appeal verified the assertions that Mr. Dell'Utri arranged for mafia protection for several companies run by Silvio Berlusconi.

However, cooperation with mafia and terrorist groups is a simple instance of Berlusconi's scandals. His extensive record of false accounting, tax fraud, corruption and bribery of police officers and judges are almost known to everyone in Italy.

He was summoned to court hearings several times after the Constitutional Court of Italy ruled in October 2009 that a law which Berlusconi had pushed through parliament after coming to power giving himself immunity from prosecution was invalid and unacceptable.

According to a report published by The Sunday Times on October 27, 2009, Berlusconi was accused of tax fraud and false accounting over the acquisition of TV rights by Mediaset, the television company which he owns, and should have attended a trial over the allegations which were directed at him; however, he evaded the court hearings several times, claiming that he was busy with "constitutional duties". As said by The Sunday Times, Berlusconi had offered $600,000 in bribes to an English tax layer named David Mills to give false testimony on his behalf in corruption trials in the 1990s. Following the revelation of this unprecedented debacle, David Mills was sentenced to 4 years and six months in prison while Berlusconi survived imprisonment thanks to the impunity law.

Berlusconi has declared himself "the most persecuted man in the world". Who knows, maybe the more correct explanations could have been "the most prosecuted man in the world!"

Lo and behold, Mr. Berlusconi who is turning into a man of scandals was scolded last week as a number of Milan prosecutors submitted to the Italian parliament a dossier containing statements, reports and wiretap transcripts which depicted extravagantly sordid scenes of Berlusconi's immoral affairs with Italian girls. The Economist reported on January 20th that the documents gathered by the Italian lawyers portrayed "orgiastic parties staged at the home of Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, involving more than 20 half-naked women, and a room for what are known to participants as "Bunga Bunga" sessions, equipped for pole-dancing, with wardrobes full of skimpy nurses' and policewomen's uniforms."

As the Italian parliament has recently abolished the law of immunity for the Prime Minister, it can be expected that Silvio Berlusconi may stand trial and be held responsible over his countless crimes and wrongdoings.

Berlusconi who is known for his reckless and unfounded remarks about the internal affairs of other countries is now at the verge of losing his political, social and international credibility and his recent sex scandal shows that he lacks the proper prestige and decency to assume the office of a Prime Minister.

Although it is arguable that the 9/11 attacks played in the hands of the United States and its European cronies to spread an all-encompassing wave of Islamophobic sentiments in the world and introduce the Muslims as the number one threat to the global peace and security, one should bear in mind that Muslims have been conventionally considered as the villains of the fables of the Western governments and despite their unquestionable and treasured services to the world, they never received a fair, justifiable and humane treatment by the superpowers, either from the deceitful, fraudulent and warmonger Russia that massacred some 50,000 innocent Muslims in Chechnya, or from the arrogant, bullying United States that incarcerated scores of innocent Muslims in its illegal, underground detention centers in Guantanamo bay and Abu Ghraib following the 9/11 attacks.

Corporate mainstream media have been the most effectual and trenchant wing of the Western governments in their crusade against the Muslims and the Islamic world. When it was needed to conceal the most conspicuous realities which would attest to the righteousness of the Muslims, the mainstream media did their best: Marwa El-Sherbini was flagrantly murdered in a courtroom in Germany, and the Western media outlets unanimously kept silent, turning a blind eye against one of the most heartrending instances of the violation of human rights before the eyes of a judge and his colleagues. When it was needed to sabotage the reality, the Western media showed off perfectly: the Freedom Flotilla was brutally attacked by the commandos of Israel Defense Forces and 9 of its passengers were massacred viciously; the massacre was justified as an act of self defense. Nobody asked the Western media that how it would be possible to justify the killing of defenseless civilians as an act of self defense while they even lacked a knife to defend their lives against the rifles of the Israeli commandos. When it was needed to downgrade the depth of the truth, the mainstream media scored the best goal: 3,500 guiltless Gazans were massacred in a short period of less than 3 weeks, and the Western media acted so indifferently that one might have felt as if nothing had really taken place!

Western media have demonstrated their unequivocal and unambiguous animosity with the Muslims. Their antagonism emanates from the hostility of the Western governments with Muslims. But what's behind this hostility? What drives the Western governments to adopt such inhumane and unfair policies against the Muslims that constitute one forth of the world population and have always lived a peaceful and friendly life with the followers of other religions all around the world? What takes the Western governments, and consequently the Western media to enmity with the Muslims?

The answers can be different. One simple answer might be that the empowerment of Muslims may potentially endanger the interests of the Western world. There are 57 Islamic countries in the world and if these countries turn from impoverished, underprivileged and underdeveloped nations into major superpowers, then who may take care of the Western hegemony? The first example which pops into mind is Turkey; a developing, flourishing and promising Muslim nation that is traversing the path of progress and improvement in all fields of science, technology, culture and economy. They don't give Turkey accession to EU because they know that the addition of a Muslim nation to the non-Muslim members of European Union may punctuate the commencement of an Islamic upheaval which has already indicated signs of dynamicity in European nations such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Albania.

There can be alternative answers to this question; however, the overall conclusion is that the West doesn't tolerate the progress and achievement of the Muslim world. A simple instance is the obstacles which it puts on the way of Iran's nuclear program. Although the European and American politicians and statesmen have undisputedly admitted that Israel is the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, they have never made any effort to investigate Israel's nuclear arsenal which contains up to 200 atomic warheads; however, they have lethally put an ever-increasing pressure on Iran to relinquish its nuclear rights and put an end to its nuclear program which the International Atomic Energy Agency has affirmed as peaceful and unthreatening.

In line with their antagonistic policies with regards to the Islamic world, the Western governments push their affiliated media to portray a lopsided and biased image of Islam and propagate this fallacious belief that Muslims are dangerous creatures which pose a serious danger to the peace and security of the Europeans and Americans.

They intentionally introduce Muslims as terrorists and try to institutionalize the belief that Muslims are always inclined to carry out extreme actions such as killing the other people or persecuting the followers of other religions and forcing them to convert to Islam. They misuse some pillars and principals of Islam to portray their desired image of this religion and its followers and hence spread fear and awe among the Europeans and Americans.

The Western media outlets never show the real image of Islam to their audiences and tell them that the essence of this religion is based on mutual respect, benevolence, peace, love and human dignity. They never allude to the fact that the Prophet of Islam Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) was one of the pioneers of human rights in his time and emphasized on preserving and respecting the human dignity immensely. They never reveal the verses of Holy Quran in which it is declared that killing one person is tantamount to killing all of the persons in the view of Islam. They never tell their audiences that in the view of Prophet Muhammad, it was even unlawful to kill a sparrow for the sake of entertainment.

Unfortunately, the public opinion in the West is unaware of the realities of Islam and Muslims. It's my responsibility to invite you to take a deeper look into the realities of Islam, and if you want to figure out the realities, it's your responsibility to research and devote your time to a quest of truth.

Historically, Iran has been known as a cradle of civilization and home to a number of leading scientists and scholars in various fields of knowledge and academic endeavor. Many of the world's prominent scientific accomplishments and discoveries were first brainstormed, proposed and realized in Iran and the international community owes to the Iranian scientists its familiarity and acquaintance with a number of outstanding scientific achievements.

In the contemporary age and since the victory of Islamic Revolution in 1979, a growing tendency towards scientific activities and scholarly research began to appear in Iran and the country's scientific developments attracted international attention ever more. Since the victory of Islamic Revolution, a number of high-ranking, prestigious universities were established in Iran and the number of university students increased dramatically. According to the statistics, the number of university students in the year 1978 would not exceed 150,000; however, as of 2009, there are more than 2.5 million students studying in the universities of Iran.

The statistics released by the researchers who investigated Iran's scientific developments over the past 30 years also indicate that the country has seen an unbelievable advancement in terms of producing knowledge and scientific data. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) has announced that Iranian scholars and researchers have published a total of 60,979 scientific papers in major international journals during the past 19 years.

Mohammad-Hassan Aboutorabi Fard, the First Deputy Speaker of the Parliament of Iran has announced that the total number of scientific articles published by the Iranian scientists in the international journals during the first 50 days of the current Iranian year (starting March 21, 2010) outnumbers the total scientific articles published in Iran over the years leading up to the Islamic Revolution.

Iran's advancements in science and technology have been so notable and outstanding that even the most hostile enemies of the Islamic Republic have admitted the country's prominent position as a scientific hub in the Middle East and Persian Gulf region.

In terms of motor vehicle production and nationalized automobile industry, the statistic of the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers indicate that Iran is currently the 12th largest automaker in the world, surpassing powerful economic and industrial powers such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, Russia and Australia. This simply shows that Iran is currently the largest automaker among 57 Islamic countries.

In terms of aeronautic capabilities, Iran is among the world's 9 countries which are scientifically capable of placing satellites into orbit and have the independent capacity to produce the necessary launching vehicle for it. Powerful economies such as Germany, Canada, Italy and Australia are not among these 9 countries.

In terms of scientific knowledge production, Iran has made dazzling breakthroughs in the recent years and in some cases, surpassed its most powerful rivals to the surprise of international community.

According to Ja'far Mehrad, the President of the Islamic World Science Citation Center, Iran is among the world's top 25 countries in term of science production. According to Mehrad, Iran qualified to the 22nd rank in the year 2009 and surpassed countries such as Scotland, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Finland, Mexico and Norway and snatched the first berth among the Islamic countries in term of scientific papers published in the international journals.

As to the production of medicines and drugs for the chronic diseases, Iran ranks the first among the Middle Eastern countries, the Minister of Health and Medical Education says.

Overall, Iran is currently competing with the world's most powerful countries in terms of scientific activities and is not far from becoming an incontestable scientific hub in Asia.

Iran's nuclear program is in line with the country's long-term objectives for becoming a scientific superpower in the world and this is what the Western countries cannot tolerate. Nuclear energy is the only arena in which the bullying powers can employ political leverages to pressure an independent nation such as Iran to hinder its scientific progress. If Iran achieves the complete cycle of nuclear energy production, it can meet its needs in electricity, medicine and agriculture and then will be needless of Western states, so this self-sufficiency will be harmful to the long-run interests of the West and that's why they try restlessly to prevent Iran from fulfilling its nuclear program.

However and so forth, the world should accept that Iran is a new scientific power which has the capability to stand on its own feet and even help the other independent nations of the world in their scientific projects. Nuclear energy, Information and Communication Technology, nanotechnology and all of these areas of scientific endeavor are today dominated by the Iranian researchers and scientists and nobody can put a barricade on this path toward progression and supremacy.

Psychiatrists in Iran have prescribed several drugs for my friend and he has been taking them over the past years; however, when I met him a few weeks ago, he informed me of a shocking, unanticipated incident which I'm still unable to believe. My friend told me that the Canadian and Italian manufacturers of his medicines have ceased exporting their products to Iran following the imposition of United Nations Security Council's fourth round of sanctions against Iran and it's possible that they refuse to export their other pharmaceutical products to the country as a result of the sanctions, as well. He told me that his psychiatrists are not able to prescribe the high-quality, original medicines for him anymore and this may seriously jeopardize his mental health and even put his family life into risk.

My instinctive reaction to what my friend told me was nothing but perplexity and confusion. I couldn't understand the relationship between a set of sanctions which are aimed at what is claimed to be Iran's "controversial" nuclear program and the mental health of thousands of patients who are suffering from different kinds of psychoses all around the country.

At the first glance, what should be noted is that the four rounds of sanctions which were imposed on Iran by the UNSC so far are entirely illegal, unfounded and baseless as the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly pointed out in its reports that Iran has never diverted toward enriching uranium to the extent that is utilizable in the atomic weapons;. The reports of intelligence services in the United States also confirm that Iran has never had the intention of producing nuclear weapons and thus should not be penalized with sanctions and other punitive measures. The National Intelligence Estimate report of the November 2007 has clearly expressed that Iran does not have a nuclear arsenal and is not moving towards producing nuclear weapons; therefore, bringing up Iran's nuclear dossier in Security Council and imposing several rounds of crippling sanctions against its people has been merely politicizing Iran's case which should have been investigated from a legal and scientific viewpoint, not a political one.

However, what is of high importance is the hypocritical and inhuman approach of the United States and its allies concerning Iran's nuclear program which is turned into an opportunity to confront with the Iranian nation and curb its scientific and political developments.

We have been witness to the fact that, under the pretext of abiding by the UNSC sanctions, several countries in Europe, Asia and Northern America have adopted a counterproductive stance toward Iran and ceased their ordinary financial transactions with Tehran.

Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea and EU member states are among the countries which imposed unilateral, extra-resolution sanctions against Iran and caused several problems for the Iranian nation. Refusing to refuel the Iranian planes in the European airports, suspending the accounts of Iranians in foreign banks and financial institutions, delaying the issuance of visas for the Iranians who want to travel abroad, banning the Iranian students from studying certain fields in the foreign universities and ceasing the exportation of vital goods including foodstuff, medical facilities, fruits and medicines to Iran are among the belligerent policies which these countries have adopted against the people of Iran.

With this unconstructive approach, however, the belligerent countries who have stood against the nation of Iran demonstrated their dishonesty and proved that are not worthy of being trusted. First and foremost, they showed that their claims of being a friend of Iranian nation are entirely futile and pointless. They demonstrated that their "Nowrouz" greeting messages and stretched hands are fake and deceitful. They can not come to terms with the Iranian nation and are fated to be the enemies of Iran, because it's in their interests to spread animosity and hostility to retain their influence and power.

Secondly, these countries have clearly demonstrated that they have the least respect for human rights and what they claim to be their exclusive realm. A country that deprives the mental patients of another country, which is in dire need of high-quality medication to meet its pharmaceutical needs, of its medical products cannot be called a defender of human rights. Thousands of innocent civilians are suffering here in Iran, and they should be punished by the supercilious, arrogant powers simply because these powers favor being at odds with the independent and self-determining nations.

Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon regularly lashes out at other countries for what he claims to be their abuses of human rights; however, his own country, with a long period of abusing the rights of its ethnic minorities, refuses to export medicines to Iran because it wants to "abide by the UNSC resolutions". It might be interesting to know Mr. Cannon's viewpoints regarding human rights and the way his country glorifies the humankind. Thousands of mental patients are suffering in a remote country and those who promote themselves as the harbingers of human rights, deprive these "humans" from their most essential right which is a proper medication. How is it possible to justify the Canadian style of respecting the human rights, we don't know!

This was only a simple instance of how the pioneers of human rights fail to respect and venerate what they consider to be their first and foremost social value. Who knows about the real, on-the-ground abuses of human rights by them?

Maidhc joined me in an exclusive interview and responded to my questions about the 9/11 attacks, the influence of Israeli lobby over the U.S. administration, the prospect of Israeli - Palestinian conflict, the prolonged controversy over Iran's nuclear program and the freedom of press in the United States.

Kourosh Ziabari: The Iranian President's recent proposal for the establishment of a fact-finding group to probe into the 9/11 attacks stirred up widespread controversy in the United States. American politicians reacted to Mr. Ahmadinejad's plan with frustration. Is it because they are aware of some evidence which suggests that Israel was behind the attacks?

Maidhc Ó Cathail: I would say that most American politicians are totally unaware of the Israeli "art students," the so-called "dancing Israelis," the Odigo warnings and other facts that point to Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, they probably considered Ahmadinejad's questioning of the official 9/11 narrative to be yet another unwarranted provocation of the United States by the Iranian leader. 

KZ: You've recently written an article about the bill proposed by Senator Joe Lieberman which claims the entire internet and the whole global computer network and everything on it as a "national asset" of the United States, thus giving the power to the U.S. President to kill the internet in the event of a national cyber-emergency. How does this bill, as you've put it precisely, kill the internet? In what ways is this proposal contradictory to American freedoms and incongruous with international law?

MÓC: Titled "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010," the bill stipulates any internet firms and providers must "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the "National Centre for Cybersecurity and Communications," a new section of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. If the bill becomes law, not only American citizens but people everywhere could have their right to access and share information cut off at any time by this increasingly powerful government department.  

Interestingly, the Department of Homeland Security owes its origins to a bill co-sponsored by two of Israel's biggest supporters on Capitol Hill: Senator Lieberman and Senator Arlen Specter, who was seen as "the go-to guy for the Jewish community on Israel." As I wrote in an article entitled "The Merchants of Fear," Israel has profited enormously from "homeland insecurity" in the United States and elsewhere since 9/11. It's hardly a coincidence that the source of this latest expansion of Homeland Security at the expense of civil liberties is "the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress."  

KZ: In your articles, you've alluded to some facts which American citizens might be unaware of. Israel is claimed to be the "staunchest ally" of the United States, but as you've mentioned in your articles, it frequently and inexcusably undermined the strategic interests of the U.S. Why does the U.S. government continue to offer its unconditional support for Israel while there are influential voices within the U.S. administration who acknowledge that Israel will betray the United States after all?

MÓC: On this issue, domestic politics invariably trumps the national interest. Any president who offers anything less than unconditional support for Israel will be immediately reprimanded in an AIPAC-drafted letter signed by 76 senators, whose overriding desire to be re-elected apparently blinds them to the incalculable damage Israel is doing to American interests. 

I'm not sure if there are "influential voices" within the administration who question Israel's value to the United States. Those who hold such heretical views as Charles Freeman, Admiral Blair's nominee for chairman of the National Intelligence Council, are generally kept out of government by the Lobby.  

KZ: Controversy over Iran's nuclear program has spanned more than six years and we're witness to erosive, unfruitful and unconstructive approaches to this issue. What do you think about this standoff? Don't you believe that Iran has become the subject of an unfair, unjustifiable exercise of double standards while Israel, a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads and is immune to any kind of investigation or accountability before the international community? 

MÓC: It beggars belief that no sooner than Iraq had been invaded over non-existent WMDs, the so-called "international community" began falling for the same lies - from the same source - about Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons programme. We are also supposed to believe that Israel's massive nuclear arsenal is justified by what Obama called its "unique security requirements," whereas "evil" Iran must want them to "wipe Israel off the map." Of course, in the real world, the "Iranian nuclear threat" is all about Israel's fear of having its regional hegemony challenged. And that's why, as Marsha B. Cohen expertly documented in a recent article, "In the wake of 9/11, Israel put Iran into 'Axis of Evil.'"   

KZ: The mainstream media in the United States frequently boast of their independence and professionalism and usually lash out at the media in developing, non-aligned countries by labeling them state-run and state-controlled. The unanticipated expulsion of Rick Sanchez from CNN over his remarks about the dominance of Jews in the U.S. media demonstrated that the media in the United States are not as free and self-determining as they claim. Is it practically possible to dissolve the Israeli lobby's stranglehold over the U.S. media? If not, what are the reasons for that?

MÓC: As Helen Thomas, the 89-year-old victim of a vindictive Lobby, recently observed, "You cannot criticize Israel in this country and survive." That's because there are very few major U.S. media that are not owned and run by pro-Israelis. I can't see that changing anytime soon. However, the internet is, as John Mearsheimer put it, a game changer. Perhaps that's why Joe Lieberman seems so eager to "kill" it. It may be that he is less afraid of "cyberterrorism" than he is of the truth.  

KZ: Let's switch to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What is, in your view, the prospect for this erosive and unremitting war? Will the U.S.-brokered peace negotiations bear any fruit and bring about peace between the two sides? Is Israel capable of keeping up its aggressive attitude towards the Palestinian nation? Will it submit to international pressure to lift the blockade of Gaza? Above all, will Israel succeed in surviving politically with its shaky, unsteady foundation? 

MÓC: As Charles Freeman recently stated, "Only a peace process that is protected from Israel's ability to manipulate American politics can succeed." So, to paraphrase the neocons, the road to Jerusalem leads through Washington. As long as the Lobby holds sway inside the Beltway, Israel can do what it likes in the West Bank and Gaza. 

Unless the Palestinians can be forced to accept a series of disjointed Bantustans and call it a "Palestinian state," there is going to be a single apartheid state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean which would be difficult to sustain over the long term. In order to forestall that threat to its vision of a "Jewish and democratic state," Israel may be about to embark on another wave of the ethnic cleansing it began in 1947-49. 

KZ: A brief review of the contemporary history of international relations reveals that the United States has never been faithful and loyal to its stooges. It held up Saddam Hussein, unconditionally aided him, supported him, funded him and persuaded him to invade Iran in the 1980s and executed him 20 years later. It backed and sponsored the House of Saud and Bin Laden family until an international terrorist gang was framed out of it, and now is bombarding Northern Pakistan in an attempt to kill Osama Bin Laden, the man whose relationship with the Bush family is known to almost everyone. So can we conclude that a similar destiny is awaiting the state of Israel?

MÓC: First of all, Israel has never been a "stooge" of the United States. If there is any stooge in this relationship, it is America. After all, it is the U.S. that has been fighting and paying for Israel's wars, not the other way around. However, if enough Americans ever learn about the well-documented examples of Israeli treachery, the Lavon Affair, the USS Liberty, Operation Trojan and Jonathan Pollard come to mind, the Jewish state may be left to fight its own wars. Perhaps then, as Ahmadinejad really said, the occupation regime over Jerusalem will "vanish from the page of time."

Pakistani journalist and former Air Force employee Shahid R. Siddiqi joined me in an interview to discuss the aftermaths of the unprecedented flood which encompassed the whole Pakistan in a matter of days and caused serious damages to the country's agriculture, industry, energy sector, infrastructures and even politics. Mr. Siddiqi answered my questions about the government's management of the flood and the distribution of humanitarian aid sent by different countries to the flood-hit regions. He explained that how the unanticipated disaster paralyzed Pakistan in an astonishing way and surprised the unprepared government which failed to manage the crisis appropriately. In this interview, I also seized the opportunity to ask Mr. Siddiqi some questions about the prospect of Iran - Pakistan relations and Pakistan's stance on Iran's nuclear program.

Shahid R. Siddiqi has been a broadcaster with the Radio Pakistan and the Islamabad bureau chief of the "Pakistan and Gulf Economist". His articles and political commentaries appear in the Pakistani newspapers such as Dawan, The Nation and Pakistan Herald. He is also the founder of Asian American Republican Club. Siddiqi is a frequent contributor to Foreign Policy Journal, Middle East Times and Axis of Logic.

Kourosh Ziabari: How did the government of Pakistan manage the aftermaths of the recent devastative flood? Has it succeeded in preventing a humanitarian disaster from taking place in the flood-hit regions?

Shahid R. Siddiqi: The floods caught the Government of Pakistan totally unawares. Unfortunately, civilian governments in Pakistan have historically failed to comprehend the importance of preparedness for disaster and relief management. This is exactly what happened with the present government. This happened in spite the fact that an organization, Disaster Management Cell, was in place with very adequate experience of handling the massive earthquake that hit the Northern Areas of Pakistan in 2005. This lack of preparedness was a direct consequence of general mismanagement at the top levels of the government.

These were the most widespread and disastrous floods, the like of which had never before been witnessed in this region. The scale of destruction did not dawn upon the government until much later, until after the waters had inundated Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and hit Punjab. And by the time the government began to respond, millions had been uprooted and tremendous losses had occurred. According to one estimate these floods have caused a disaster bigger than Haiti and Tsunami combined.

The losses were colossal. Twenty million people were affected. 20% of the country, mostly the farmland, went under water. Millions of cattle heads died, standing crops of rice, cereals and vegetables were destroyed, enormous quantities of stored wheat grain was lost to flood waters and the agricultural infrastructure crumbled. Breakdown in transportation caused food shortages all over the country resulting in prohibitively high prices.

The humanitarian disaster was humongous and beyond the capacity of the civil administration to handle. The military did a commendable job of rescue and relief. It quietly moved in to fill the void due to the absence of the civil administration and worked tirelessly round the clock with heads down. Had it not been for it, the humanitarian disaster would have been much greater.

The flood waters originated in the mountainous catchment areas in the north and flowed south overflowing the banks of several smaller rivers to eventually join the River Indus, overflowing it and causing all adjoining areas to come under water. The flood has now subsided in the north - in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, and the water is now passing through the southern province of Sindh to drain into the Arabian Sea. Hopefully by the middle of October the waters would recede in the South too.

As life in the north returns to normal and people return to their devastated towns, villages and homes, the more difficult and capital intensive phase of rehabilitation begins. The government is short of funds. Aid is coming in but is not enough. The UN is trying to raise funds for rehabilitation but the response is slow. The economic situation in the country is bad. People struggle to keep their body and soul together and raise a shelter over their heads to resume their lives.

KZ: Many countries have dispatched convoys of humanitarian aid containing foodstuff, medicine, clothing and other basic necessities to be distributed among the flood-hit families. Has the process of distribution been satisfactory?

SS: The distribution of relief goods was undertaken mainly by the military and the NGOs. The civil administration joined in later. Although the distribution was handled quite efficiently, the aid supplies were found inadequate at times. The very scale of disaster, very large areas involved, difficulties of transportation and distribution issues due to inaccessibility of marooned populations, complicated the relief work. There was acute shortage of helicopters, which were eventually diverted by the Americans from Afghanistan and which came very handy in search, rescue and supply droppings.

KZ: Which countries provided the most help to Pakistan? Has the extent of international aid been sufficiently helpful to the families grappled with the flood?

SS: The largest chunk of aid in dollar terms came form the U.S. The UN has also launched a big effort at raising funds to help out in the rehabilitation phase but the response of the international community is slow. It is gratifying to see that India also contributed to the UN fund. The European Union has also made a sizable donation.

Given the scale of destruction, it is beyond the capacity of Pakistan to help rehabilitate the affected people in their homes and enable them to make a new beginning. International assistance is critically important.

KZ: So far, Iran has dispatched 13 convoys of humanitarian aid to Pakistan. How do you estimate Iran's assistance to Pakistan? What's the general viewpoint of the people with regards to Iran's helps?

SS: Iranian aid convoys were much appreciated at the government level as well as by the people. They came very handy in meeting the needs of the affectees. The consignment was handed over to the military for distribution.

Pakistanis have great deal of emotional attachment with the Iranian people and they also hold the Ummah in very high regard. From the days of former King Reza Shah, although not for the love of the Shah himself, Pakistan had very close bilateral relations both at the government and the people's level. Even a small gesture from Iran, whether by the government or the people, is therefore much appreciated.

A point to note is the close historical ties that existed between Iran and the India much before the British colonized India. Substantial migration took place from Iran into India and even today such old migratees keep their ancestral identities alive by using surnames such as Mashhadi, Isfahani, Tabrezi, etc. Persian remained the official language in India at one time and every Urdu poet or scholar worth his name thought his work to be incomplete unless he had a book or two in Persian language to his credit. There was a tremendous influence of Persian culture in the Moghul court. This brought Pakistanis very close to the Iranians.

KZ: What's your prediction for the prospect of Iran - Pakistan relations? How can these two neighboring countries contribute to the empowerment of Islamic solidarity? How can the bilateral relations between Iran and Pakistan serve the interests of the regional countries?

SS: Neither Pakistan nor Iran can change the geography of the region. Both of these people have been neighbors always and will always be, till the end of times. Over centuries they have been influenced by each other's culture, language and life style. They share the same religion and about 15% population of Pakistan is of Shia denomination, which is the official religion of Iran and which therefore looks up to Iranian Shia leadership for guidance. This explains the cultural, social and religious affinity between the two people.

On the political front, the two countries have enjoyed very close relations in the past. They were part of the SEATO and CENTO, the two U.S. sponsored military pacts, along with Iraq and Turkey back in the 1960s. The Shah was very supportive of Pakistan and when in 1965 war broke out between Pakistan and India, he opened his armory gates to Pakistan. Pakistan was able to purchase some tanks and F-86 aircraft from Iran during that period when it could not get these from other sources.

Unfortunately, relations between President General Zia and the Khomeini regime became sour. The Iranian revolutionary leadership went to the extent of refusing to receive President Zia at the head of a Muslim delegation that wanted to help negotiate a ceasefire and reconciliation between Iran and Iraq when they were at war. Although the official relations have gradually improved ever since, they could not be restored to the same level of cordiality as during the Shah and a certain distance remains. I think this is not in the interest of any of the two countries.

One reason for this lack of warmth on the part of Iran towards Pakistan is Pakistan's vey close relations with Saudi Arabia, which is obviously not to the liking of the Iranian regime. Then Pakistan has been closely allied to the U.S. on account of political, economic and strategic compulsions of its various regimes. Another factor that contributed to this state of relations is Pakistan's support to the Sunni Mujahedeen groups during their war against Soviet Union and later to the Saudi backed Taliban, the followers of Salafi sect.

But all said and done, it is in the interest of the two neighbors to forge a very close alliance by showing an understanding and tolerance for each other's national interests and policies. In practical terms it not possible for either country to make an about turn and reconcile and realign its policies with the other. In an environment where the West is forging its own alliances with a view to strategically dominate this region and control and harness energy resources of the Caspian Sea Basin and Central Asia, it is imperative for Iran and Pakistan, and other Islamic countries of the Middle East, to see through the game plan, shun their differences, show tolerance and forge a broader alliance in their own good.

At a time when the world is moving towards regional unions and trading blocs, why should Muslim governments of the region display a myopic approach towards safeguarding and promoting long term Muslim interests and fritter away their energies and resources in squabbling with each other and trying to pull each other down.

For the moment this seems to be a tall order. This cannot be done unless the Shia-Sunni divide among Muslim states of the region is not bridged, unless the rulers give up their petty differences, overcome their suspicions of each other, stop playing in the hands of big powers and show statesmanship. But, unfortunately, this element is entirely missing from the present crop of Muslim rulers of this region.

In the present scenario the Islamic countries of the Middle East and South West Asia are drifting apart along the Shia-Sunni divide. The Sunni Arab States do not want to see a nuclear armed Shia Iran, particularly after the fall of the Sunni government in Iraq, which could potentially lead to the creation of a pro-Iran Shia regime in Iraq right in their midst, which they fear will create a strong and aggressive bloc that could destabilize them. This fear among Arab states will not serve the interests of Iran at all. The Arabs are bound to join hands with Iran's enemies to weaken it. That explains the news report that Saudi Arabia agreed to allow Israel to use its air space to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

This acrimony between Iran and Arab states places Pakistan in a difficult situation. Pakistan does not want to see Iran attacked or be engulfed in war. It cannot also afford to give up its relations with Arab states due to the economic and political support it gets from them, which Iran will not provide.

But Pakistan is in a unique position to play an important role in bridging the gulf between Iran and the Arab world. It can help reconcile differences and allay each others' fears. Before this can happen, Pak-Iran relations will have to be brought on solid footing and Iran will need to soften its rhetoric and aggressive posture to create an environment of reassurance in the Arab world.

KZ: Over the past years, Iran has been constantly exposed to the threat of a military strike on its nuclear facilities by the United States and Israel. What's the stance of Pakistani people and government in this regard?

SS: The Western threat of military strike against Iran has been a matter of great concern for an average Pakistani. He believes that not only would this cause death and destruction in a neighboring Islamic country, but it would engulf the whole region in a cycle of violence. There is also a likelihood of serious environmental disaster due to release of radioactive materials over the skies of Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Pakistanis believe that Iran has the right to pursue development of nuclear energy for legitimate and peaceful purposes and that any doubt or dispute in the matter should be resolved through dialogue rather than arm twisting.

The general impression in Pakistan is that the aggressive American posture towards Iran arises out of Israeli pressure that has been brought upon the US and European allies. Israel has always been paranoid with those Muslim states that either have developed or are developing military capability to challenge Israel's might and domination, even if it is in conventional terms. It attacked and destroyed the Iraqi reactor as a preemptive action. In subsequent years it planned similar attacks against Pakistan's nuclear facilities in collusion with India, which were thwarted by Pakistan's military. And now it targets Iran because of Iran's ability to defeat Israeli aggression in the region directly and indirectly, e.g. through Shia groups in Lebanon.

The Pakistan government clearly favors dialogue and not armed confrontation as means of resolving this dispute.

KZ: United States and its allies around the world have imposed several rounds of unilateral sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. What's your idea about this? While Israel possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads, it's Iran which is under international pressure to halt its nuclear program. What do you think about the international pressures imposed on Iran over its nuclear program?

SS: Pakistanis know very well that the U.S. does not act evenhandedly when it comes to favoring Israel. The world knows about Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal. But neither the U.S. and nor Europe are willing to acknowledge this fact. Israel happens to be a major nuclear threat to its neighbors, yet the U.S. behaves as if neither Israel has any nuclear weapons nor does the U.S. know anything about them. When it suits the US it does not shy away from practicing double standards.

The U.S. did not act the same way with Pakistan. Pakistan was subjected to all kinds of sanctions after it exploded its bomb in response to the Indian explosion. It was only when the U.S. desperately needed Pakistan's support to fight the Taliban after 9/11 that the sanctions simply evaporated overnight.

I believe, and so do the Pakistanis generally, that the U.S. has shown indecent haste in imposing sanctions against Iran. Quite clearly diplomacy has not been given a chance. China did resist the U.S. pressure but Russia readily capitulated and voted with the U.S., which came as a surprise. Russia was supplying nuclear reactor to Iran and as an emerging power it was expected to show some spine. The others have been forced to fall in line.

With the U.S. having donned the mantle of the sole super power, it is in a position to twist the tail of most countries which either fall in its sphere of influence or need its support in one form or the other. It utilizes this advantage to the hilt and forces its will down everyone's throat. Turkey and Mexico played a positive role and America should have given their effort a chance.

However, the U.S. involvement in Afghan imbroglio and the economic melt down it faces at home makes it difficult for it to open a new front against Iran as of now. It has been holding Israel back for this reason. But once US withdrawal from Afghanistan begins and the economy shows signs of improvement, the threat could revive.

It goes to the credit of Iran to have withstood these sanctions and is resisting the American, European and Israeli pressure with determination.

The expansionistic ambitions of the beloved puppet of the White House who was granted the honorary citizenship of Detroit as a reward for his unconditional subservience to the United States, transpired to be a deadly pandemic which claimed the lives of more than 400,000 innocent Iranians who witnessed the most breathtaking years the country had experienced contemporarily.

With the intention of revitalizing the forgotten pan-Arabist sentiments of the 1950s, confronting an emerging Shiite power in the Persian Gulf region and taking over some of the strategic parts of Iran including the Arab-speaking province of Khuzestan and the triple islands of Abu Musa, Lesser Tunb and Greater Tunb which were handed over to Iran 9 years earlier in a trilateral agreement between Iran, the protectorate of Ras Al-Khaimah and the representatives of British forces in the Persian Gulf, Saddam Hussein unilaterally nullified the 1975 Algiers Agreement in 1980 and attacked Iran.

At that time, he was enormously supported by the United States and its European allies who had seen the post-revolutionary Iran an ideological threat to their liberal democratic values and feared of the growing embrace of Islam by the international community that was inspired and attracted by the charisma of Iran's revolutionary leader, Imam Khomeini.

Following the victory of 1979 Islamic Revolution which put an end to the era of U.S.-backed monarchy in Iran, White House frantically realized that it had lost its stooge in the Middle East, so it should have replaced Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi with an ambitious leader whose greed for power could serve the interests of Washington in the region. Consequently, the United States backed Saddam Hussein in bringing down President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, as it had done the same in coup against Abd al-Karim Qasim by entrusting Hussein the mission to assassinate the Iraqi Prime Minister. The assassination plan was designed with the cooperation of the CIA and Egyptian intelligence. Although the 22-year-old Saddam failed to kill the Prime Minister on October 7, 1959, he was killed in a February 1963 Baath Party coup.

In the case of confrontation with Iran, Washington did not spare any effort to support the Iraqi dictator who was armed by the United States to the teeth. In order to strengthen Saddam Hussein in war with Iran which started in 1980, the U.S. State Department first removed the name of Iraq from its list of state sponsors of international terrorism in February 1982.

From this point onward, United States took several steps to normalize its already strained relations with Iraq. One of these steps was pressuring the Export-Import Bank of the United States to provide Iraq with financing, enhancing its credit standing and enabling Baqdad to obtain loans from other international financial institutions.

Although the United States had publicly promulgated that it would take neither sides in the Iran - Iraq war, it was revealed later that Saddam Hussein pulled the first trigger with the direct support and encouragement of the United States. United States officially announced the normalization of its ties with Iraq in November 1984, the fourth year of Iran - Iraq war, while the U.S. had previously begun providing Iraq with military support and intelligence training in accordance with the directives personally issued by President Ronald Reagan, pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum in which a revision of U.S. Middle East policies was sought.

In the summer of 1983, Iran lodged a set of complaints against Iraq to the United Nations, informing the international body of Iraq's employment of chemical weapons against the Iranian civilians in violation of Geneva Convention. Influenced by the United States and its European allies, the United Nations did not heed the calls, but the secret documents of the U.S. Department of State confirmed Iran's allegations against Iraq. Intelligence documents revealed that Iraq had used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and Kurdish insurgents as well.

In a U.S. Department of State Information Memorandum dated November 1, 1983 signed by the United States Navy Admiral addressed to the Secretary of State, it was clearly stated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranians: "we also know that Iraq has acquired a Chemical Weapon production capability, primarily from Western firms, including possibly a U.S. foreign subsidiary."

Another U.S. Department of State unclassified document, an Action Memorandum signed by Jonathan T. Howe and Richard W. Murphy, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, addressed to the Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger, shows that the two high-ranking U.S. officials demand a serious and immediate action on the side of State Department with regards to the possibility of Iran's complaint being raised in the United Nations and the Security Council. They confirm that some of the European firms are selling Chemical Weapons to Iraq and this issue should be discussed with the European governments: "In October (1983) Iran accused Iraq of using CW and on November 8, it required the UNSYG to investigate. Iran also stated it would soon submit a report providing information and evidence on Iraqi CW use, but has not yet done so. We do not know whether or when this issue will develop further at the UN. It is important to make our approach to the Iraqis on this issue as early as possible, in order to deter further Iraqi use of CW, as well as to avoid unpleasantly surprising Iraq through public positions we may have to take on this issue."

The extent of U.S. support for Iraq during the war was so broad that needs an all-encompassing investigative research to be explained. On May 25, 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee published a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (disease producing), toxigenic (poisonous), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce."

The Iraqgate scandal revealed that an Atlanta-based branch of Italy's largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, which was predominantly reliant on the United States for its funding and budget, transferred over US$ 5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989.

As said by the German newspaper "Die Tageszeitung", more than 150 foreign companies, including American firms, supported Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction program during the 8-year war with Iran. Saudi Arabia dispatched hundreds of U.S.-manufactured Mark 84 general purpose bombs which entered the global service since Vietnam War.

President Reagan assigned Donald Rumsfeld as his special emissary to Saddam and conveyed to him America's willingness and decisiveness in supporting Iraq in war with Iran. In a nutshell, the United States and its cronies all around the world came together to support Saddam and defeat the independent Iran which was defiantly resisting the arrogant powers.

Now, 20 years have gone since those bitter days and Iran is marking the conclusion of 8-year war with Iraq from September 22 for one week. This week is named the Week of Holy Defense in honor of the magnanimous, righteous and praiseworthy resistance of Iranians against a congregation of bullying powers who supported a bullying dictator to dissolve the manifestation of Iranian nation's will. Iranians defended themselves nobly and their moral resistance against the coalition of global tyrants deserves to be called a holy defense.

It was also reported that the American protesters objecting to the construction of an Islamic center and a mosque adjacent to the Ground Zero site tore pages from the Holy Quran and set them alight. Reuters also dispatched reports from the similar abuses to the Holy Quran in Lower Manhattan.

The terrifying plan of burning the holy book of Muslims was initially proposed by the pastor of an obscure, small, non-denominational church in Gainesville who had announced that he would be burning copies of the Holy Quran on the anniversary of 9/11 attacks. The plan was described by the global media as a publicity stunt by someone whose desire for gaining some reputation and attention by the international media propelled him towards thinking of such an evil action.

Although a global wave of protests which erupted immediately after Pastor Jones announced his plan for burning the Holy Quran on September 11 dissuaded the attention-seeking preacher from realizing his mischievous intention, he inspired other people to go ahead with the plan and abuse a Holy Book which is venerated and adored by millions of people in the four corners of the world.

Insulting the holy book of Muslims in the United States put an emphasis on the fact that those who consider themselves the harbingers of mutual understanding, religious toleration, peaceful coexistence and freedom of expression are merely making unfounded and baseless claims which they perpetually fail to adhere to in practice. These are only claims which are designed to portray an idealistic image of the United States and its culture. Burning a holy book is the clear manifestation of an uncivilized and barbaric action for which there can't be any justification or explanation.

Muslims around the world are subject to the most unfair convictions and unjustifiable discriminations. They're usually labeled as extremists, fundamentalists and radicals. They're always judged with pessimism and negativity. Every terrorist operation is attributed to them and the most offensive charges are leveled against them as unjustly as possible. So, what's the reality of Islam? Is it a religion of violence and barbarism, as the Americans claim? Does it further and spread terrorism and extremism? Is Islam a "false religion", as the evangelical pastor has claimed? A general investigation of the Islamic scriptures and Quran can provide the response to all of these questions. There are numerous indications that Muslims are among the most pacifist and peace-lover people in the world. Islam has categorically rebuffed violence and aggression towards the people and condemned those who use force against others and undermine their esteem.

The most fundamental pillar of Islam is based on sociability, interaction with the other people and respecting their prestige and stature. The Holy Quran on several occasions has underlined the importance of revering the humankind as the most prestigious and valuable creature of the Almighty God. In the verse 70 of the chapter Al-Isra', the Almighty God introduces the man as His most admirable and brilliant creature, saying that he is superior than all of the other beings on the Earth: "It is a favor that We have honored the sons of Adam and blessed them with conveyances on land and sea and provided them with good and pure things and exalted them above many of Our other creatures."

As a vanguard ideology, Islam has always emphasized the essentiality of behaving with the followers of other religions with respect and admiration. It was once asked from Imam Reza, the eighth Twelver Shiite Imam and the seventh descendant of Prophet Muhammad that how should one pay tribute to the Jews and Christians who don't follow the religion of Islam? He answered: "tell them may the Almighty God bless the world for you."

Those who claim to be the guardians of human rights have so far killed more than 1 million innocent civilians in Iraq since they launched their so-called War on Terror. One may wonder whether these 1 million people have been human or not. Islam has never claimed to be a charter of human rights, but in actuality, it is the most comprehensive and all-inclusive declaration of human rights. It pays attention to each and every aspect of human's dignity and disallows the destabilization of man's decorum. In the verse 12 of the chapter Al-Hujuraat, the Almighty God prevents the believers from backbiting, being suspicious about the others and spying: "Believers, avoid being excessively suspicious, for some suspicion is a sin. Do not spy, nor backbite one another. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? (by backbiting) You would surely detest it. Have fear of Allah. Surely Allah is much prone to accept repentance, is Most Compassionate."

In the verse 13 of the same chapter, the Almighty God has highlighted the fact that the most venerable and esteemed people are the ones who fear Him the most and do good deeds as a result of this fear. This shows that people, regardless of their religion, ethnicity, gender and language, are equal in Islam and their decency is the basis of judging their actions: "Verily the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is the most God-fearing of you."

Islam has also stressed the importance of respecting the followers of other religions and called the holy books of Jews and Christians divine revelations which should be treated with esteem and respect. In the verse 46 of the chapter Al-Ma'idah, we read: "And We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, after those Prophets, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, and which confirms the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah, and a guidance and admonition for the God-fearing."

With these descriptions, it will become clear that Islam is a religion of toleration, peace and friendship. It pays tribute to all of the religions which had preceded it and obliges the Muslims to live along with the followers of other religions peacefully. Islam confirms and verifies the authenticity of previous holy books and asks the Muslims to be benevolent and compassionate with the "people of faith".

Burning a holy book which is full of instructions for a peaceful, serene, pure and happy life indicates nothing but ignorance and animosity. More than 1.5 billion people around the world read the Holy Quran to learn from its insights and teachings. Burning such a book simply indicates the lack of tolerance and freedom in a country which considers itself a beacon of freedom.

Thanks God, Muslims have always treated with the followers of other religions respectfully. They never drew insulting cartoons of Prophet Jesus nor did they desecrate the Bible and Torah. The mainstream media in the West portray the Muslims as terrorists and extremists, but the Muslims around the world have righteously demonstrated that they are worthy of praise and admiration for their excellent demeanor and their peaceful disposition.

The 1979 revolution which put an end to 2,500 years of imperial monarchy in Iran was pivoted on theocratic and ideological values which the sumptuous, thrilling West usually tends to dislike and rebuff. Under the spiritual leadership of Imam Khomeini, Iranians declared that they wouldn't need the support of Western and Eastern superpowers, will stand on their own feet and only seek to realize a political regime which establishes its bases and principles in accordance with morality and Islamic solidarity.

Iran's ideological disagreement with the West and its efforts to fulfill independence as an Islamic state, however, cost for the Iranian people heavily. First of all, the United States spurred its regional puppet, the late dictator Saddam Hussein, on to launch a massive, crushing war against Iran so as to push the country's newly-established political regime to annihilation. The 8-year war demolished Iran's infrastructures irreversibly, caused irreparable damages to country's economy and left more than 350,000 Iranians dead.

The 8-year resistance of the Iranian people, however, rendered the plans of the U.S. and its Baathist ally futile. Iran rose from the rubbles of 8-year war with Iraq and set out to emerge as a regional superpower gradually. Iranians recreated the country's war-torn economy once again, renewed the obliterated infrastructures, appeased the pains of the families of 350,000 martyrs with compassion and brought hopes to the hearts of those who had come to think that a political state with the ideological pillars of Islam would be impossible to survive.

The animosity of the United States and its cronies, however, didn't seem to be ending. In 1984, the United States approved its first set of sanctions against Iran which would prohibit Washington from selling American weapons to Tehran. During the presidency of Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, the sanctions got tougher and broader. In April 1995, President Bill Clinton issued a total embargo on U.S. dealings with Iran, banning every kind of financial transaction with the war-hit country. In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act under which all the foreign firms and companies that provide investments over $20 million for the development of petrochemical projects in Iran would be penalized. The most inequitable and unreasonable sanctions against Iran, however, were those which would were endorsed in 1995 and disallowed the aviation companies around the world to sell aircrafts and repair parts to the Iranian airlines directly.

Iran's aviation fleet which is chiefly comprised of Russian low-quality Tupelov and outdated Airbus and Fokker planes is one of the most vulnerable fleets in the world which suffers from increasing dilapidation and is considered to be highly at risk due to the unjust sanctions which are imposed against the country.

In December 2005, BBC World published a report in which it was expressively stated that Iran's civil and military aviation fleet is undergoing intense safety setbacks. The report came after an Iranian Air Force C-130E military transport aircraft crashed into a residential complex in Tehran, killing 128 people including 68 reporters and journalists that were supposed to cover a military drill off the country's southern coast on the Persian Gulf.

Two years earlier, a Russian-manufactured Ilyushin Il-76 transporter plane crashed in southeastern Iran, killing 302 passengers and cabin crew.

Iran has experienced several deadly air accidents in which hundreds of innocent civilians lost their lives. On July 15, 2009, the Caspian Airlines Flight 7908 heading from Tehran to Yerevan crashed near the village of Jannatabad in northern Iran, killing 168 passengers and cabin crews. Among the dead were all members of Iran's national youth judo team members and several other prominent persons including a former parliament member and the wife of Georgian Ambassador to Tehran.

On July 24, 2009, another deadly plane crash happened in Iran which cost the life of 16 people. While attempting to land, the plane skidded off the runway and broke into a wall, killing 16 out of 153 passengers and crew members who were aboard the plane.

Unfortunately, the frequency of deadly plane crashes in Iran has been so high that made Iran's aviation fleets one of the most insecure and unsafe ones in the world. Tens of people die each year as a result of a childish altercation which seems to have no rational basis. The United States has failed to dictate its political will to Iran and resorts to this failure as a pretext for punishing its people.

The United States and its European allies who boast of themselves as being the harbingers of human rights and liberty have obliviously forgotten that they are simply human beings who lose their lives as a result of the sanctions which they've devised. The civilian passengers who are destined to die in the insecure flights of Iran's aviation fleet are the victims of those who have long trumpeted in our ears that they're the sole defenders of human rights. If the life of each human being is respectable, then who is responsible for the lives of these hundreds of people who pass away before the eyes of the so-called international community which is always alert to caution about the violation of human rights in Iran and other independent countries? Isn't the life of these people who get in the dilapidated Russian planes of Iran's fleet and embrace death to the most extreme point of imagination respectable that you've deprived them of having the opportunity to experience a safe and secure trip? If you're at loggerheads with the government of Iran, what's the fault of its innocent civilians whom you're punishing collectively?

At the same time, Tel Aviv has renewed its war threats against Tehran, cautioning that it might use the Saudi Arabia's airspace to launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities; however, the war of words and struggle over dominance and superiority between the governments does nothing but costing the daily life of ordinary Iranians who has been already entangled in a 30-year-long embargo by the United States.

"Sanctions rarely accomplish what they are intended to do, or what they are claimed to intend to do. They usually hurt the poor and middle class the most," says Eric Garris, the prominent American peace activist and the founder of Antiwar website.

"The Iraq sanctions are an excellent example. Sanctions are nothing more than a form of collective punishment and a step toward war," he adds.

According to Garris, the United States has resorted to the exercise of double standards by putting a lethal pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program while neglecting the atomic arsenal of Israel that has threatened Iran with a nuclear strike several times: "Of course these double standards are not justifiable. But it is not just Israel. The U.S. and several Western nations have threatened Iran with nuclear weapons, yet they deny the right of Iran to possess the same sorts of weapons."

"It would not be surprising if Iran was trying to obtain nuclear weapons, although there is no evidence that they are trying to obtain them, given the number of countries threatening them with the same. The U.S. should begin disarmament of its own nukes and encourage others to do the same," stressed Garris.

Eric Garris believes that the obligations of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are being imposed on Iran discriminatorily: "The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has become a farce. Nations like Israel, Pakistan, and India are not pressured to sign or submit to inspections, while Iran is forced to comply with even more inspections than are required by the treaty. The treaty can only work if it is applied equally across the board."

The co-founder of Antiwar website also believes that the United States has labeled Iran a "state sponsor of terrorism" fallaciously: "Iran is no more a state sponsor of terrorism than the U.S. is. By labeling a nation this way, the West is able to deny it basic respect and rights and to paint it as some sort of backward nation of thugs. Americans need to learn the recent history of Iran, including the US-backed overthrow of the democratic regime in 1953 and US support for Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War."

Responding to my question about the prospect of Israel without the unconditional sponsorship of the United States, Garris stated that it would be so effortful for Israel to survive politically should the White House lifts its support for Tel Aviv: "Israel would have a hard time sustaining their warfare, welfare state without the billions of U.S. aid and its unconditional diplomatic support. Americans need to kick the ultimate welfare queen, Israel, off the dole and cut off all foreign aid."

And the final word of Eric Garris was about the recent Freedom Flotilla massacre: "The international community, by and large, let Israel get away with an act of piracy on the high seas. They also continue to let Israel get away with turning the Gaza Strip into a giant prison camp, using collective punishment as the only rule of law."

- Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist and media correspondent. His articles and interviews have appeared on Tehran Times, Press TV, Global Research and Foreign Policy Journal. He has interviewed Noam Chomsky, Vicente Fox, Peter D. Feaver, Theodoros Pangalos, Joshua Frank and Gilad Atzmon.

Since Israel raided the Gaza Freedom Flotilla on May 31, the flimsy existence of Tel Aviv began to splinter as the world nations collectively and categorically reacted to the atrocious mass killing of 9 peace activists in the international waters by the Israel Defense Forces.

Israel's unlawful, brutal killing of the unarmed civilians aboard the Freedom Flotilla sparked such a remarkable international condemnation that even the most stalwart allies of Tel Aviv in the EU zone recalled their ambassadors from Israel and called for a thorough, detailed investigation of the incident which they described as offensive and violent. The international condemnations were so extensive and intensive that even the most pessimistic Israeli politicians couldn't envisage. Four countries downgraded their diplomatic relations with Israel - in addition to the four countries that had cut their diplomatic ties with Israel during the 22-day Gaza war of 2008-2009, Twelve Latin American countries condemned the Israeli actions, Twenty-one European countries protested Israel and Twelve non-Arab Asian countries officially disapproved Tel Aviv.

The precursor of global protests to Israel was Turkey which had lost 9 of its citizens in the raid. In an insightful, thought-provoking and appreciable statement before his country's parliament, the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan strongly questioned Israel's impunity from the international laws and called for a decisive end to the illegal actions of this regime: "It is no longer possible to cover up or ignore Israel's lawlessness. The international community must from now on say 'enough is enough'. Dry statements of condemnation are not enough ... There should be results."

At the beginning and when the first news was released, the extent of Israel's violence had not become clear to the public opinion; however, as the international peace activists began retelling the stories of their ordeal upon being deported by Tel Aviv to their respective countries, the world realized that a great calamity had taken place.

Upon his extradition to Istanbul, the Irish historian and activist Dr. Fintan Lane told the media about his terrible experience on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla which was unjustifiably attacked by the Israeli commandos on May 31: "when they boarded our boat, we resisted entirely peacefully. I sat on the floor and tried to reason with them, but the Israeli commandos physically attacked us. Fiachra (one of the Irish passengers aboard the flotilla) was dragged around the ground and I had a gun pointed in my face by a screaming commando. His mania was so intense that I genuinely feared for my life. Others received beatings."

The American peace activist and anti-imperialist speaker Kenneth O'Keefe was another passenger on board the Gaza aid convoy. He witnessed the death of two of his Turkish colleagues in person and was brutally harassed, tortured by the Israeli forces: "while in Israeli custody I, along with everyone else was subjected to endless abuse and flagrant acts of disrespect. Women and elderly were physically and mentally assaulted... in stress positions while hand cuffed to the point of losing circulation of blood in our hands. We were lied to incessantly, in fact I am awed at the routineness and comfort in their ability to lie, it is remarkable really. We were abused in just about every way imaginable and I myself was beaten and choked to the point of blacking out... and I was beaten again while in my cell."

Hassan Ghani, the 25-year-old Scottish journalist and media correspondent of the Press TV was also among the flotilla travelers. He was ruthlessly punished by the Israeli commandos in what he described as the "brutal Israeli assault" on the flotilla: "we didn't expect a ship with 32 different nationalities on board, with aid from 50 different countries on board, would be attacked in such a brutal manner... They began by throwing stun grenades on to the deck of the ship when people were in the middle of morning prayers. Then they began using rubber bullets, they tried to come aboard the ship from the side. People repelled the commandos with water cannons they had set up on the side of the ship. Then the Israelis used helicopters to drop people onto roof and there was scuffles on the roof. The Israeli solders had already opened fire on the ship, so people were grabbing anything they could to stop the attack in international waters."

Another painful account of the flotilla raid was retold by the prominent Swedish author Henning Mankell who described the Israeli actions as "committing murder": "they got very aggressive and ordered us to come down. There was one older man who was a little slow, so the Israelis attacked him with an electric stun gun. He was in a lot of pain. So was another passenger who was covered in paint after being hit with a paint ball missile. The commandos searched the ship thoroughly and emerged waving a razor and a metal-box cutting tool, which they claimed were "weapons" intended to be used against them. All the passengers were then herded into a group, with armed guards standing watch as the ship was taken to Israel When we got off... we were made to walk down a corridor of armed commandos who filmed all of us with cameras. They stole my mobile phone, my money, my clothes and my credit cards." Mankell said that he was held in a cell for 24 hours along with a Swedish Member of Parliament and then deported even "without his socks".

All of these accounts attest to the fact that Israel is being reprimanded by people from the four corners of the world who object to the inhuman policies and actions of Tel Aviv regardless of the nationality they belong to and the political stance they champion.

Today, it's known to everyone that Israel is a political entity which the United States supports in order to maintain its interests in the Middle East and subject the region's nations. In the other words, Israel plays the role of America's permanent representative in the Middle East and is entitled to resort to every possible mean to intimidate and bring under control the independent nations in the region. The fact is that Israel is a fragile and unstable political regime and every day of its shaky survival is hinged on the exertion of force and violating the rights of other nations. As the Iranian journalist Mohieddin Sajedi once noted, Israel cannot live without creating troubles. From mass killing to occupation, from assassination to the construction of illegal settlements, Israel continues to exist with illegal actions and this is what keeps them alive.

The main adversary of Israel is Iran. Israel has repeatedly warned Iran against the use of force and launch of a military strike on its nuclear facilities. The reason is clear. Iran is turning into an inspiring model for the independent nations around the world. Iran's 30-year-long resistance against imperialism and its courageous confrontation with the bullying superpowers has made it an example of victorious struggle with political arrogance and many independent nations on the face of world see Iran on the frontline of battle with the United States and its colonies such as Israel.

Iran is winning international popularity because it has demonstrated the effectiveness of self-sufficiency in nationalizing the nuclear energy. While Israel possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads in flagrant violation of the international law and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has made striking advancements in taking over the nuclear power and excelling in using it for peaceful purposes. The fact that Iran has succeeded in nationalizing the nuclear energy without the assistance of Western superpowers is indigestible for Israel which is the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East; that's why it has warned Iran against a preemptive military strike; however, the reality is that a 70-million-strong army stands by the resistance movement of Iran and a coalition of powerful troops consisted of the independent nations around the world, stand by Iran against the collapsing Israel forever.

Over the past five years, Iran has been recurrently under the threat of an imminent war which the mainstream media have overwhelmingly talked of; a war against Tehran to overthrow the Islamic Republic and bring to power a "democratic" regime which the "international community" favors.

Since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assumed office in 2005 as the Iranian head of state, he made attempts to reverse the passive, submissive stance of Iran towards the Eastern and Western superpowers and proposed new theories for an innovative international order. He accelerated Iran's nuclear program and made remarkable advancements in nationalizing the peaceful use of nuclear energy in Iran. He put forward insightful and astute questions: "why should Israel possess nuclear weapons in violation of the international law", "why should Israel occupy the lands which don't belong to it", "why should Israel repeatedly threaten its neighbors and wage wars against them", "why should Holocaust be used as a pretext to suppress the Palestinian nation?", "why should Iran be deprived of the peaceful uses of nuclear power while the United States, Russia, France, United Kingdom and China have thousands of nuclear weapons?"

These questions were not digestible for the United States and its stalwart allies around the world; therefore, some measures should be adopted to suffocate this man and the people he represents internationally. The reason was simple. Ahmadinejad and Iran would not make concessions and thus should be silenced at any cost. So, who is going to pay the price for silencing Iran? Are the military options plausible?

The answer is simply "no". Iran is different from Iraq, Afghanistan and all of the countries which Israel attacked during its period of existence in the Middle East. The people of Iran have demonstrated that they react to the aggressive powers categorically. So, the best option would be to stage an all-out psychological operation in which the means of coercion, falsification, distortion, fabrication and intimidation might be used.

The project was set off almost five years ago, when the U.S. and European mainstream media gradually began trumpeting for an imaginative war against Iran. The first man to set in motion the project was Scott Ritter, the former chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. He told the media on February 19, 2005 that George Bush is laying the groundwork for an all-out attack against Iran: "President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons." With what was described as Ritter's "greatest skepticism", he also talked of the possibility of a regime change in Iran, pushed by the neoconservatives who were trying to persuade the ex-President Bush to broaden the extents of war to topple the Islamic Republic.

The primary threats looked so realistic and actual that even deceived the veteran investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, who wrote in a January 24, 2005 article in the New Yorker that U.S. is getting prepared to launch a military strike against Iran. He quoted a high-ranking intelligence official as telling him: Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah--we've got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism."

In 2006, the gossips were strongly suggesting that there'll be an attack against Iran, either by Israel or the United States. In August 2006, the former chief of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Major General Hamid Gul emphatically proclaimed that Iran will be attacked by the United States. Interestingly, he also specified the exact time of the attack. Talking to the Pakistani Parliament, he predicted that "America would definitely attack Iran and Syria simultaneously in October."

Along with the previous predictions, however, General Gul's prediction about an imminent assault on Iran transpired to be futile.

The same events continued to happen in 2007; futile predictions and empty threats, either by those who were involved in the conflict with Iran or those who did not have a role.

On January 24, 2007, the Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa told Reuters on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum that there's a possibility of U.S. attacking Iran: "It's a 50/50 proposition, and we hope that it won't happen. Attacking Iran would be counterproductive.

The atmosphere created by the United States and its allies was so imposing and impressive that had influenced everyone, from the most pragmatic, down-to-earth journalists to the most adventurous, overconfident politicians. Quoting the Kuwaiti paper Arab Times, John Pilger wrote in a "New Statesman" article dated February 5, 2007 that Bush will attack Iran, and also gave the military details of the attack according to the statements of a Russian military official: "The well-informed Arab Times in Kuwait says that Bush will attack Iran before the end of April. One of Russia's most senior military strategists, General Leonid Ivashov, says the U.S. will use nuclear munitions delivered by cruise missiles launched from the Mediterranean."

Untruthfulness and falsehood had pervaded the mainstream media and they had simply failed to take seriously the possibility of losing their reputation as a result of proposing unrealistic, improbable and pointless predictions. They were only after serving the interests of their governmental owners and trumpeting for a non-existing war which was about to be waged against Iran.

On March 5, 2007, the Reuters AlterNet quoted analysts that there could be a chance for a possible military strike against Iran. This time, the attacker was destined to remain unspecified: "Risk analysts say there could be an up to one-in-three chance that the United States or Israel will attack Iran by the end of this year, and markets may not be doing enough to hedge against the impact." This employment of the "United States or Israel" was the newest psychological operation tactic; spreading uncertainty and ambiguity to overawe and subdue Iran.

In 2008, the most entertaining charade of the game was initiated by John Bolton, a politician who seemed to be enormously interested in playing the role of a new Nostradamus. His prophecy was that Israel would attack Iran before the new U.S. President swears in. The magnificent foretelling by Mr. Bolton was grandiloquently featured by the Daily Telegraph in a report titled: "Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts".

Anyway, the new U.S. President swore in and nobody attacked Iran.

The war threats against Iran have been renewed several times since John Bolton publicized his prediction. The famous "proverb" of "all options are on the table" was uttered by the successor of George W. Bush; the same man whom we trusted in once for good and deceived all of us with his promise of change. Mr. Bolton's newest forecast has been released recently: Israel has until week's end to strike Iran's nuclear facility. The psychological warfare machinery is being activated again as each newspaper and website represents one arsenal. Jeffrey Goldberg is taking steps to become the Judith Miller of war against Iran and the world once again watches the funny advertisement of human rights by those who are terrifically massacring "humans" in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, getting prepared for a new bloodshed in Iran. The thing is not that Israel will attack Iran. The thing is that Israel won't dare attack Iran, but its unremitting propaganda won't cease. The thing is that we should hear these sentences incessantly: "Israel will attack Iran... will Israel attack Iran?"

The people of Afghanistan and Tajikistan, whose countries were parts of the Greater Persia in ancient times, consider Iran as their cultural homeland and believe that the Iranian nation is the inheritor of their paternal legacy, the Persian civilization.

I had the opportunity to conduct an exclusive interview with the Tajikistan ambassador in Tehran for the local weekly magazine last month in which I discovered for the first time that the roots of cordiality and affinity between Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan are so deep and robust that one can hardly imagine. The Tajikistani ambassador Ramadan Mirza talked of Iran so enthusiastically and passionately that I felt for a while that he is in actuality more Iranian than I am. He called Iran a brother nation several times, talked of Tehran as an ancient and respectable city, paid homage to the antiquity and preciousness of Persian language as the common heritage of Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan and told me of his early childhood's aspiration of visiting Iran. He told me that when, under the soviet dominance, he was attending the high school in Tajikistan, he read about the historical sites of Iran such as the mausoleum of Persian poet Saadi, the tomb of Cyrus the Great or the ancient site of Persepolis in his school textbooks and since then, it became his ambition to visit these sites one day. He said that when he was selected to his mission as the Tajikistan ambassador in Tehran, his 50-year-long dream came true and he finally succeeded in visiting the sites which seemed to him unreachable and inaccessible long ago. Mr. Mirza told me that it is his honor to serve as his country's ambassador in Tehran where he can freely visit the four corners of Iran whenever he likes.

It was in this interview that Mr. Mirza revealed for the first time that the Tajikistani President Emomali Rahmon has formally asked his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Nowrouz festival of 2011 be held in Persepolis which is actually the native soil of Nowrouz.
Nowrouz is a set of ancient festivities held at the beginning of vernal equinox to mark the commencement of new solar year.

He also pointed to the fact the despite the longstanding dominance of Russia over the newly-established state of Tajikistan, the Tajik people has never forgotten their maternal Persian language. It's noteworthy that since Tajikistan was separated from the Greater Persia during the Russo-Persian wars of 1860s, the Soviet rulers launched a de-Persianization project in Tajikistan where almost everyone would speak Persian and write in the Iranian alphabet. The history of Russia's relations with Iran narrates the bitter story that the Eastern superpower never dealt with Iran in a sincere, truthful and loyal manner. Traditionally, the Iranian nation thinks of Russia as a betraying, hypocritical and oppressive state which has shown its hostility towards the Southern neighbor on various occasions. One clear instance is the de-Persianization project in which the national media outlets, schools, public offices and universities of Tajikistan were banned from using the Persian alphabet and forced to employ Cyrillic alphabet instead. This was an artificial and uninteresting incorporation of the Russian culture into Tajikistan which had been an inseparable constituent of Iran's large puzzle of cultural heritage since the establishment of Achaemenid dynasty 2500 years ago.

Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan have the capability to form a powerful political coalition. They share the same language, religion and cultural background and this is something which is a rarity in the contemporary world. They have common ideological objectives and since they've historically suffered from the subjugation of the superpowers, they seek independence and freedom. The closeness of the three countries is evident in their broad collaborations in various fields including academic exchanges, agricultural cooperation, military ties, financial relations and cultural collaborations. The three countries are slated to launch a trilateral Persian-language TV channel which is based in Dushanbe and will be broadcasting programs produced by each party. A long railway will be connecting the three countries in near future. All of them are the members of Organization of Islamic Conference and Non-Aligned Movement. They also sit at the same table in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as member states.

The joint declaration of the fourth summit of the heads of states of Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and Republic of Tajikistan was compiled in 14 articles and signed by the three presidents who have planned to hold the fifth joint meeting in Afghanistan in 2011.

In the 5th article, the three brother countries emphasized the importance of trilateral financial relations and highlighted the expansion of economic transactions through empowering and assisting the merchants and investors of each country.

In the 7th article, the three parties supported the development of cultural, scientific and educational cooperation and underscored the significance of joint planning for collaboration in the fields of culture, literature, history, common cultural heritage and sports.

In the 9th article, they announced their complete readiness to combat extremism, terrorism, organized crimes and drug trafficking which pose serious threats to the security and stability of the three countries.

In the 11th article, the three countries stressed the importance of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and underlined the inalienable right of the NPT member states to use the nuclear power for peaceful purposes under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The fifth joint summit of the presidents of Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan will be held next year and its date will be announced very soon.

Overall, it seems that the expansion of relations between the three Persian-speaking countries who are bound together through ancient cultural ties will serve to meet the interests of the Central Asian and Middle Eastern nations and contribute to the sustainable and durable stability and development in the region.

Although the International Atomic Energy Agency and the G5+1 have so far failed to put forward hard evidence that demonstrates the deviation of Iran in its nuclear activities towards military purposes, the fourth round of United Nations Security Council sanctions was agreed on June 9, 2010, targeting a number of Iranian companies and individuals who have allegedly participated in Iran's nuclear and missile program.

The Iranian people still remember the painful days of war with Iraq under the late dictator Saddam Hussein who was armed and equipped by the United States and 14 European countries. The First Persian Gulf War cost the lives of more than 500,000 Iranians and imposed some US $500 billion damage on Iran.

On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline program that Saddam Hussein received much of its financing, intelligence and military help from the United States and the administration of George H. Bush. In 1982, Iraq was removed from the U.S. list of State Sponsors of Terrorism and this enabled the Reagan Administration to transfer a huge amount of dual-use technology to Iraq. According to a May 1994 report by the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, pathogenic (disease producing), toxigenic (poisonous), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq [during the 8-year war with Iran] pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The United Kingdom, Soviet Union, Netherlands, Italy, France and Germany also played their own role in helping Saddam massacre and slaughter the Iranian people. Britain was said to have exported thiodiglycol (a mustard gas precursor) and thionyl chloride (a nerve gas precursor) to Iraq in 1988 and 1989. France sold first-line Mirage F-1 fighter-bombers to Iraq, as well as providing Super Etendard attack aircraft. Between 1977 and 1987, Paris contracted to sell a total of 133 Mirage F-1 fighters to Iraq. In 1984, Italy's state-owned Agusta helicopter manufacturer sold $164 million worth of helicopters to Iraq. In early 1987, Moscow delivered a squadron of twenty-four MiG-29 Fulcrums to Baghdad. Soviet Union also helped train the Iraq's infantry and delivered a number of surface-to-air missiles, air-to-air missiles, helicopters and interceptors to Baghdad.

The erosive war was claimed to be a counterbalance to the post-revolutionary Iran which was experiencing the first years of extrication from the monarchy of a U.S.-backed Shah. It was declared to be a battle against the newly-established government; however, it paralyzed the economy of the country, killed thousands of innocent civilians, immersed the nation into a long period of social crisis and aggravated the daily lives of ordinary people.

Seemingly, the history is being repeated once again. The western leaders send sympathetic messages to the Iranian people and declare that they want the well-being of our nation. They express their understanding of the status of Iranian people and assert that they want to empower the "subjugated" and "oppressed" Iranians. In a March 2010 televised message directed at Iran, the U.S. President Barack Obama stated the willingness of his country to provide the Iranians with the facilities of a more hopeful future. He said that his country believes in the dignity of every human being. He vowed the pursuance of diplomatic efforts to incorporate Iran into the international community and expressed hopes that his country can reach out to the Iranian people in peaceful, constructive ways.

"Our offer of comprehensive diplomatic contacts and dialogue stands," Mr. Obama said in the video. "Indeed, over the course of the last year, it is the Iranian government that has chosen to isolate itself and to choose a self-defeating focus on the past over a commitment to build a better future.

However, the United States and its European allies, in long with their past trajectory, are recurrently failing to practice what they preach. The financial sanctions which have been imposed on Iran by the UNSC, U.S. and EU tend to worsen the daily life of ordinary Iranians whose are inextricably dependent on the state revenues of oil and gas industry. Already stricken with the consequences of continued domestic failures in economy and growing inflation, the new sanctions will harm the Iranians by doubling the prices and reducing their purchasing power.

The new sanctions against Iran have nothing to do with the government of Iran which the western leaders are entangled in a tedious and uninteresting conflict with. These sanctions, and any kind of unpremeditated actions like this, will only injure the ordinary people of Iran who should suffer from the effects of power game between the governments.

- Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist and media correspondent. His articles and interviews have appeared on Tehran Times, Press TV, Foreign Policy Journal and Global Research. He has interviewed Noam Chomsky, Vicente Fox, Peter D. Feaver, Gilad Atzmon, Carlos Latuff, Antony Loewenstein and Stephen Zunes.