Common Ground News Service - 24 September - 01 October 2006
Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
for constructive & vibrant Muslim-Western relations
24 September - 01 October 2006
The Common Ground News Service – Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) aims to promote constructive perspectives and dialogue about Muslim–Western relations. CGNews-PiH is available in Arabic, English, French and Indonesian.
For an archive of past CGNews articles and other information, please visit our website at www.commongroundnews.org.
Unless otherwise noted, copyright permission has been obtained and articles may be reprinted by any news outlet or publication. Please acknowledge both the original source and the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Inside this edition
1) by Abbas Barzegar
In the third article in a series on religious revivalism and Muslim-Western relations, Abbas Barzegar, a graduate student at Emory University, considers the impact of militant Islam on Muslim societies and looks at existing resources that these communities and countries have developed to tackle it. “By recognising that Muslims the world over have strong and sincere ethical commitments toward the eradication of all forms of corruption, vice and extremism, Western leaders and thinkers might find successful partners in places they never imagined.”
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 26 September 2006)
2) by Steven Coulthart
Rather than focusing on the differences between Iran and the United States, Steven Coulthart, recent graduate of the State University of New York, looks at the similarities of both countries’ leaders. “The citizens of Iran and the US should recognise that they are not all that different, that they in many ways share the same aspirations and goals, and that while their cultures are quite different, they have leaders who share remarkably similar traits. It is this common ground that will open up dialogue and prevent the unthinkable.”
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 26 September 2006)
3) by John L. Esposito
University professor of religion & international affairs and director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, John L. Esposito, puts the recent comments made by the Pope as well as Muslim reaction to them in context. He goes on to suggest how Christians and Muslims can get harmoniously past this single issue, concluding: “It is now time to move on. The Pope has apologised and Muslims and Catholics (as indeed all Christians) must now get back on track, building on the significant accomplishments in inter-religious dialogue in recent decades. In the twenty-first century, critical to Catholic-Muslims relations will be how Benedict XVI’s papacy and Catholics work with their Muslim counterparts to overcome ignorance and hostility as well as the threat from violence and intolerance globally.”
(Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 26 September 2006)
4) by David Ignatius
Following on from his recent interview with U.S. President George W. Bush, Washington-based syndicated columnist, David Ignatius, recounts a subsequent meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Looking at the two meetings side-by-side, the common interests are clear: “Iran can't achieve its ambitions as a rising power without an accommodation with America. America can't achieve its interest in stabilising the Middle East without help from Iran. The potential for war is there, but so is the bedrock of mutual self-interest. The simple fact is that these two countries need each other.”
(Source: Daily Star, 26 September 2006)
5) by Abdel-Moneim Said
Director of Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, Abdel-Moneim Said, warns Middle Eastern leaders of the damaging implications of a lack of resources and volition to forecast crises and make forward-looking decisions in the region. “Reacting to developments without having a policy of our own is what we've been doing all along and you might say we're getting better at it. But to lack policy is costly, and the cost increases when more countries are involved and when those involved are bigger. So the next crisis is likely to involve stakes that are higher than anything we've seen so far.”
(Source: Al Ahram, 14 - 20 September 2006)
1) Muslims are paramount allies in fighting “jihadism”
Abbas Barzegar
Atlanta, Georgia - Last summer, following the London underground and bus attacks, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote in an op-ed piece: "If it's a Muslim problem, it needs a Muslim solution." Almost immediately, his call spread across the global media network. Muslim leaders were summoned to offer answers. Many leaders simply offered that "true Islam" does not stand for such acts of violence and cowardice. Many recognise that Friedman's call was not truly directed at a Muslim audience, but rather at a Western audience frustrated with what it saw as Muslim complacency with so-called jihadism. Such thinking neglected the fact that it was Muslim, not Western, societies that have been most adversely affected by Islamic radicalism, and failed to recognise the great efforts Muslims have taken to challenge these dangers.
While Western societies have only recently fallen victim to Islamic militancy, it has been Muslim families, schools, cities and cultures that have been dealing with the much more insidious day-to-day challenges of curbing the enticing persuasions of Islamic militant ideology. In the wake of Cold War policies where Muslim societies like those in Somalia, Afghanistan and Palestine were treated like pawns in a game of chess, trying to argue against an ideology that deceitfully promises empowerment, dignity and eternal reward has for decades been the courageous and consistent work of Muslim religious leaders and the overwhelming majority of their constituents. By recognising these efforts, the Western world might find allies in the fight against this perverted jihadism.
The first step in this direction is to recognise that Muslim societies have fought extremism in general within their tradition for centuries and have made such efforts central to the overall vision of creating a just and "God-conscious" social order. Enshrined in the ethical obligation to "enforce the good and eradicate the evil," Muslims in the founding days of Islam succeeded early on in overcoming extremist sects, such as the Kharijites, whose unbridled zealotry threatened the Prophet Muhammad's overall mission. In such cases, sincere Muslims combated these evils with both their hands and their pens. Many sections of the Muslim world today now stand poised to do the same: it is through this aspect of Muslim faith, accompanied by proper Western engagement, that Islamic radicalism will find its greatest threat.
In places as insular as Saudi Arabia, whose religious authorities produce some of the most myopic interpretations of Islam, the duty to stop extremist violence has been taken up with a noticeable degree of success. In 2004, the Saudi royal family, backed by the leading Islamic scholars in the kingdom, offered a month-long amnesty to terrorists to turn themselves in or thereafter suffer extermination. The effort led to the surrender of some of Osama bin Laden's top officials within days. What made the amnesty possible was the mediating role of Sheikh al-Hawali, a former senior-ranking theologian at one of the country's leading seminaries, Umm al-Qurra University, who was, ironically, also imprisoned for five years on account of his views against the U.S. military presence in the region. Militant extremists respected al-Hawali as a credible scholar whose words carried the weight of the hereafter.
Those regarded as the most authoritative curators of Islamic law - imams, mullahs, sheikhs and scholars - should be employed in the ideological struggle against terrorism, precisely because it is their voices that may be the only ones heard by renegades.
Al-Hawali's role might be compared to that of Ayatollah Ali Sistani’s in Iraq and his successful effort at defusing the Muqtada al-Sadr standoff in Najaf in 2004. The creation of a national Muslim council in France designed to codify Islamic law and hold French Muslim citizens accountable to it might serve as yet another example. These cases highlight the fact that the Muslim world has at its disposal institutional resources, the foremost being clerical and legal authority, to curb extremism. These should be considered by all parties concerned about preventing further violence. By recognising that Muslims the world over have strong and sincere ethical commitments toward the eradication of all forms of corruption, vice and extremism, Western leaders and thinkers might find successful partners in places they never imagined.
###
* Abbas Barzegar is a graduate student at Emory University. His research focuses on the complexity and cultural, religious, and political diversity of the American Muslim community. This is the third of six articles in a series on religious revivalism and Muslim-Western relations commissioned by the Common Ground News Service (www.commongroundnews.org).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 26 September 2006, www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org)
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
2) ~YOUTH VIEWS~ Ahmadinejad and Bush: more similar than different?
Steven Coulthart
Syracuse, New York - The speeches and interviews occurring this week at the United Nations general assembly have drawn global attention to the halls of the UN. But truly at the centre of the controversy are two men, Iranian President Ahmadinejad and U.S. President Bush. Both are highly controversial in their home countries and abroad, and would at first glance seem to be polar opposites. Yet, some common threads seem to link the two men – both in terms of their rise to power and their views on religion and the state.
Both men are leaders with shadowy pasts and a strong spiritual bent. To understand both Ahmadinejad’s and Bush's similarities, it is vital to analyse their rise to power. Both were outsiders on their respective national stages, and used this status to gain entrance into politics. As the former governor of Texas, Bush was a presidential underdog at first in the 2000 US election. Critics argued that his lack of foreign policy experience and relative obscurity to the American public were major handicaps to his campaign. However, the election’s result showed that Bush's reputation as an outsider enabled him to persuade socially conservative voters that he would restore morality to the scandal-ridden Presidency and would be able, because he was an outsider, to end Washington’s political gridlock.
Similarly, Ahmadinejad emerged in Iranian politics as an outsider coming from a lesser post as mayor of Tehran. In a strikingly similar tactic as Bush, Ahmadinejad used his outsider’s position to provide an alternative to frustrated voters. Election results from the US in 2004 revealed a country divided to the core and put the political divisions between rural and urban areas into focus. The Bush campaign was effective in appealing to red (rural) state voters who emphasised “moral values” deemed higher than their blue state counterparts’ when picking a candidate. Interestingly, Ahmadinejad appealed to a similar rural population of Iran just as Bush had to rural America through a mix of social conservatism and promises to improve the lot of Iran’s underclass.
In both the US’s 2004 and Iran’s 2005 elections, religion’s role in politics was greatly increased. Both Bush and Ahmadinejad were able to tap into feelings of marginalisation among conservative religious groups that were frustrated by liberal political forces in their countries. Even more interestingly, the percentages of both countries’ populations who would classify themselves as religiously conservative are roughly the same. According to estimates by Hadi Semati of the Woodrow Wilson International Center, approximately 35% of Iranians support religious conservative candidates. According to a 1993 Gallop poll of Americans, 33% of Americans agreed with the statement, "The Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word."
Once in office, these two leaders have also taken similar roads, particularly with regard to foreign policy. Ahmadinejad, only a year into his Presidency, has aggressively pursued a policy of developing nuclear technology, and has not shied away from confrontations with the United Nations and the world’s great powers. Ahmadinejad's strong anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric has persuaded many that moderation in Iran is truly dead and that Iran is a threat to the West. Similarly, Bush, who had campaigned as something of an isolationist, was able to use the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to launch an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, a policy whose self-stated aims are the democratisation of the Middle East and thus the elimination of threats to Israel and American interests.
Bush has also abandoned the US’s usual position of maintaining the moral high ground, and has used similar threatening, confrontational and aggressive rhetoric, stating that "You are either with us or against us" on fighting terrorism, and labelling North Korea, Iran and Iraq as an “axis of evil.” In both countries, this rhetoric serves to shore up their respective power bases, which are inclined to nationalism and viewing foreign policy issues in black and white.
Perhaps the greatest similarity between these two leaders is that their success or failure lies in the deserts of Arabia and the steppes of Asia. Both men know we are entering a new historical epoch, and both seem determined, however misguided their methodology, to put their country’s national interests above all else, whatever the risk to the rest of the world. Bush has continually rejected the notion of speaking with Iran's president and generally rejected the idea of negotiating with Iran over its nuclear aspirations. It is time for citizens of both countries to recognise how extremist their leaders have become, and what a danger to the world and to their own security such nationalism and extremism can be. The citizens of Iran and the US should recognise that they are not all that different, that they in many ways share the same aspirations and goals, and that while their cultures are quite different, they have leaders who share remarkably similar traits. It is this common ground that will open up dialogue and prevent the unthinkable.
###
* Stephen Coulthart is a recent graduate of the State University of New York, where he studied political science and public justice. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 26 September 2006, www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org)
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
3) Benedict XVI and Islam
John L. Esposito
Washington, D.C. - The primary purpose and message of Benedict XVI's address in Regensburg, Germany was not about Islam, referred to in only four paragraphs of his eight-page lecture. And yet, this papal address to a university audience turned into an occasion for an international protest across the Muslim world. Morocco withdrew its ambassador to the Vatican, heads of state from Turkey to Indonesia voiced criticism, the Sheikh of Al-Azhar commented on the Pope’s ignorance of Islam, and leaders of Muslim organisations called for a public apology. The incident has also triggered public demonstrations, the burning of the Pope in effigy in Pakistan and acts of violence against both Christians and churches.
The Pope clearly stated that his primary purpose was to discuss the issue of “faith and reason”. He did so reacting and responding to a major concern of his, the excesses of secularisation: the triumph of secularism and increased weakness of Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church in his homeland, Germany, and in Europe in general, and attempts to exclude religion from the realm of reason.
Although the Vatican stated that the Pope did not intend to offend, his remarks did in fact upset many Muslims. Particularly offensive to Muslims was his citation of a fourteenth century Byzantine emperor’s remarks about the Prophet Muhammad: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
Now, Muhammad is revered in Islam as the final Prophet of God and the model of Muslim life. Moreover, the remark that he commanded the spread of Islam by the sword is simply inaccurate, for what the Qur’an and Muhammad did was recognise the right to defend Islam and the Muslim community by fighting those Meccans who threatened and attacked Muslims.
Equally problematic is the Pope’s statement that the Qur’anic passage, “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256) was revealed in the early years of Muhammad’s prophethood in Mecca, a period “when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]” but was overtaken later when he ruled Medina by “instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran [Qur’an], concerning holy war.”Both these statements are incorrect. Qur’an 2:256 is not an early Meccan verse but is itself from the later Medinan period and the Qur’an does not equate jihad with holy war. This interpretation of jihad developed years later after Muhammad’s death when it came to be used by rulers (caliphs) to justify their wars of imperial expansion and rule in the name of Islam.
Benedict XVI is a distinguished Catholic theologian but he is not an expert on Islam. The Vatican in the recent past has had some first class scholars of Islam serving the papacy as advisers. The inappropriate references to Islam in the Regensburg address could easily have been averted. If the Pope’s primary purpose was to address the issue of the relationship between faith and compulsion on the one hand and faith and reason on the other, Christian history offers ample examples (the Inquisition, Galileo and other issues he mentions, violence and extremism, holy wars) without having recourse to passages drawn from mutual polemics.
Have Muslims over-reacted to the Pope’s statement? Their responses need to be understood in the context of our post 9/11 world with its greater polarisation and alarming increases in Islamophobia. Many Muslims feel under siege. A Gallup World Poll of some 800 million Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia indicates widespread resentment over what respondents see as the denigration of Islam, Arabs and Muslims in the West. The cartoon controversy in Europe demonstrated both the dangers of xenophobia and Islamophobia, and the depths of anger and outrage. Therefore, it is easy to understand why Muslims would express their disappointment and anger and call for an apology and dialogue much the same as Jewish leaders strongly urged meetings with the Pope or other Church leaders for offensive comments or actions. This was the case for American Jewish leaders before the papal visit of 1987, after Pope John Paul II had met with Kurt Waldheim. As prominent Muslim leaders noted during the European cartoon controversy and in the current situation, expressions of concern or outrage do not preclude discussion and dialogue and certainly never justify acts of violence.
Pope Benedict has now apologised, but more can be done. The Pope could invite Muslim religious leaders and scholars to meet and discuss the issues that his statement raised and hear their concerns and responses to his specific comments about Islam, the Prophet and jihad. He could invite them to join with him in mutually acceptable language to express concern about violence in the name of religion and the abuse of human rights. The Pope’s upcoming visit to Turkey could be an occasion to demonstrate in his public pronouncements his respect for Islam and Muslims and his desire to continue the major accomplishments that the Catholic Church has made since Vatican II in Catholic-Muslim dialogue.
It is now time to move on. The Pope has apologised and Muslims and Catholics (as indeed all Christians) must now get back on track, building on the significant accomplishments in inter-religious dialogue in recent decades. In the twenty-first century, critical to Catholic-Muslims relations will be how Benedict XVI’s papacy and Catholics work with their Muslim counterparts to overcome ignorance and hostility as well as the threat from violence and intolerance globally.
###
* John L. Esposito is University professor of religion & international affairs, director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University and author of What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam and Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 26 September 2006, www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org)
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
4) An hour with a confident Ahmadinejad
David Ignatius
Washington, D.C. - The most telling moment in a conversation I had in New York last week with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came when he was asked if America would attack Iran. He quickly answered "no", with a slight cock of his head as if he regarded the very idea of war between the two countries as preposterous.
Ahmadinejad's confidence was the overriding theme of his visit. He was like a picador, deftly sticking darts into a wounded bull. As he moved from event to event - TV and print interviews, a chat with the august Council on Foreign Relations, his lecture to the United Nations General Assembly - he displayed the same flinty composure. It sometimes seemed as if he owned New York, dispensing his radical bromides like a tidy, compact version of Fidel Castro. Underlying his performance, I sensed the same certainty that was expressed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini back when this confrontation began in the late 1970s: "America cannot do a damn thing."
Over the course of a week's time, I had an unusual chance to sit with both President George W. Bush and Ahmadinejad and hear their thoughts about Iran. The contrasts were striking: Bush is groping for answers to the Iran problem; you sense him struggling for a viable strategy. When I asked what message he wanted to send the Iranian people, Bush seemed eager for more contact: he spoke of Iran's importance, of its great history and culture, of its legitimate rights. He made similar comments in his speech Tuesday to the UN General Assembly.
Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, is sitting back and enjoying the attention. He's not groping for anything; he's waiting for the world to come to him. When you boil down his comments, the message is similar to Bush's: Iran wants a diplomatic solution to the nuclear impasse; Iran wants dialogue; Iran wants more cultural exchanges. At one point, Ahmadinejad even said that "under fair conditions," he would favour a resumption of diplomatic relations with the United States.
But if the words of accommodation are there, the music is not. Instead of sending a message to the administration that he is serious about negotiations, Ahmadinejad spent the week playing to the gallery of Third World activists and Muslim revolutionaries with his comments about Israel and the Holocaust. This audience hears the defiant message between the lines: America cannot do a damn thing.
Ahmadinejad is the calmest revolutionary I've ever seen. Sitting in a plush easy chair in his suite at the InterContinental Hotel, he barely moved a muscle as he made the most radical statements. His feet didn't jiggle, his hands didn't make gestures, his facial expression barely changed. His eyes were the most expressive part of his body - sparkling one moment, glowering the next, focusing down to dark points when he was angry.
An interview with Ahmadinejad is an intellectual ping-pong match. He bounces back each question with one of his own: Ask about Hizbullah's attacks and he asks about Israel's attacks. Question his defiance of the UN and he shifts to America's defiance of the world body. In more than an hour of conversation with me and Lally Weymouth of Newsweek, he didn't deviate from his script. Indeed, some of his comments in the interview were repeated almost word for word when he addressed the General Assembly a few hours later. This is a man who is adept at message control.
The common strand I take away from this week of Iranian-American conversation is that the two countries agree on one central fact: Iran is a powerful nation that should play an important role in the international system. Bush put it to me this way: "I would say to the Iranian people: we respect your history. We respect your culture ... I recognise the importance of your sovereignty." Here was Ahmadinejad's formulation when I asked how Iran could help stabilise Iraq: "A powerful Iran will benefit the region because Iran is a country with a deep culture and has always been a peaceful country."
That's the challenge: can America and Iran find a formula that will meet each side's security interests, and thereby allow Iran to return fully to the community of nations after 27 years? Iran can't achieve its ambitions as a rising power without an accommodation with America. America can't achieve its interest in stabilising the Middle East without help from Iran. The potential for war is there, but so is the bedrock of mutual self-interest. The simple fact is that these two countries need each other.
###
* David Ignatius is a syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org)
Source: Daily Star, 26 September 2006, www.dailystar.com.lb (http://www.dailystar.com.lb)
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
5) Crisis averse
Abdel-Moneim Said
Cairo - This region is stumbling from one crisis to another. Over the past few years, we've seen major wars, a spate of terrorist attacks, as well as an Intifada that has cost thousands of lives. We've seen countries fall apart, and we know that within a few years they will break up yet again into new countries we know nothing about. The ever-present Palestinian problem, that one problem that we've elevated into a cornerstone of our communal grievances, remains unresolved. Fifty-eight years after losing their homeland, the Palestinian people have yet to secure an independent state. Some territories were freed by the Oslo Accords, but these are now lost. As if this wasn't enough, the victory of Hamas in Palestinian general elections has bankrupted the Palestinian Authority and put the nation on the verge of civil war.
It is a sad scene indeed, even when you consider "lesser" problems. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Sudan, and think of the horrors unfolding there. In the middle of all that turmoil, some Arab countries have managed to keep their stability and a modicum of respectability intact. But even they cannot afford to sit on the fence. Whether you're talking of a central issue or a peripheral one, Arabs who may not want to get involved end up doing just that. With every crisis spiralling into greater horrors, aloofness comes at a price. When Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and other Arab countries recently criticised Hizbullah's behaviour, saying that the Shia group put an entire country at risk, acting irresponsibly, their remarks backfired. Domestic pressures were such that those who asked Hizbullah to put the genie back in the bottle opened their own Pandora's box, replete with regional and international demons. Arab honour, once again, was at stake.
What I am saying is that major Arab countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, cannot afford to ignore the perils stalking them every step of the way. Every crisis ignored tends to snowball. Every disaster ignored comes back to haunt them. The balance of power in the region keeps shifting with every crisis, and no country can afford to block off the world and enjoy a moment of peace. Sooner or later, one regional crisis or another will seep into the domestic situation of any given country.
What is remarkable, however, is that we have no mechanism of forecasting crises or nipping them in the bud. You can only manage a crisis if you predict with some accuracy the behaviour of its various players. In this region, this is not always possible. In the recent war in Lebanon, no one knew exactly what Hizbullah wanted, or even what Israel wished to achieve. As a result, the Arab world was engaged in a damage-limitation exercise. It got the Arab League involved somewhat, and promised material and moral assistance. While doing so, it didn't forget to denounce Israel and the United States for triggering the tragic situation.
Damage limitation can be expensive. In this case, things weren't so bad. Oil prices were at record highs, and Saudi Arabia was in a position to offer Lebanon $1 billion or so. And thanks to Egyptian and Saudi pressure, UN Resolution 1701 turned out slightly better than the original French-U.S. draft. Furthermore, Lebanon is a small country. Imagine what would happen should a full-fledged confrontation break out between Iran and the United States, or if Israel were to bomb Iranian nuclear installations. These scenarios cannot be ruled out completely. It is clear that Iran is playing its cards close to its chest, hoping to gain time and confront the world with a fait accompli in which it already has developed nuclear weapons. Iran is offering to negotiate with all major powers at one go, a matter that would elevate it to the position of being a regional superpower. Perhaps that's all Iran really wants. But the West doesn't seem to understand that, or is unwilling to give Iran what it wants. Reading reports from the United States and Israel, one detects the same mood that prevailed six months before the invasion of Iraq. No one in the West wants to let a fundamentalist state acquire nuclear weapons.
Sadly, our decision-making institutions have no independent information on the situation. There is no sign that our intelligence services are active in Iran in any significant manner. Relations between Washington on the one hand and Cairo and Riyadh on the other are rather strained. Washington is not discussing regional policy with Arab countries, not even those countries upholding peace treaties with Israel. As a result, in the next major crisis in this region we will still be looking for a black cat in a dark room. Reacting to developments without having a policy of our own is what we've been doing all along and you might say we're getting better at it. But to lack policy is costly, and the cost increases when more countries are involved and when those involved are bigger. So the next crisis is likely to involve stakes that are higher than anything we've seen so far.
We can always get lucky. Perhaps it's all one big Iranian bluff. Early in the summer, there was an indication that some people in Tehran were hoping for a deal with Washington. And already the United States, the EU, and other major countries have made Iran an offer, but Iran wants a better deal and is continuing to enrich uranium. Still, when the stakes are so high, luck is not enough. Leaders cannot make sound policy without having sufficient information and options. To this moment, we haven't decided whether Iranian nukes would be just as perilous to the region as Israel's nukes, or would ultimately reduce the Israeli threat. To my knowledge, Arab countries have not discussed this matter yet. They are worried, that much is clear. But more so, they are resigned to their fate.
###
* Abdel-Moneim Said is director of Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org)
Source: Al Ahram, 14 - 20 September 2006, www.ahram.org.eg/weekly (http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly)
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.
Youth Views
CGNews-PiH also regularly publishes the work of student leaders and journalists whose articles strengthen intercultural understanding and promote constructive perspectives and dialogue in their own communities. Student journalists and writers under the age of 27 are encouraged to write to Chris Binkley (cbinkley@sfcg.org) for more information on contributing.
About CGNews-PiH
The Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) provides news, op-eds, features and analysis by local and international experts on a broad range of issues affecting Muslim-Western relations. CGNews-PiH syndicates articles that are constructive, offer hope and promote dialogue and mutual understanding, to news outlets worldwide. With support from the Norwegian government and the United States Institute of Peace, this news service is a non-profit initiative of Search for Common Ground, an international NGO working in the field of conflict transformation.
This news service is one outcome of a set of working meetings held in partnership with His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan in June 2003.
The Common Ground News Service also commissions and distributes solution-oriented articles by local and international experts to promote constructive perspectives and encourage dialogue about current Middle East issues. This service, Common Ground News Service - Middle East (CGNews-ME), is available in Arabic, English, and Hebrew. To subscribe, click here. (http://www.sfcg.org/template/lists.cfm?list=cgnews)
The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors, not of CGNews or its affiliates.
Common Ground News Service
1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite #200
Washington, DC 20009 USA
Ph: +1(202) 265-4300
Fax: +1(202) 232-6718
Rue Belliard 205 Bte 13 B-1040
Brussels, Belgium
Ph: +32(02) 736-7262
Fax: +32(02) 732-3033
Email : cgnewspih@sfcg.org
Website : www.commongroundnews.org (http://www.commongroundnews.org/index.php?sid=1&lang=en)
Editors
Emad Khalil (Amman)
Juliette Schmidt (Beirut)
Chris Binkley (Dakar)
Emmanuelle Hazan (Geneva)
Medhy Hidayat (Jakarta)
Leena El-Ali (Washington)
Andrew Kessinger (Washington)
Translators
Olivia Qusaibaty (Washington)
Rio Rinaldo (Jakarta)
Zeina Safa (Beirut)
CGNews is a not-for-profit news service.
