Far away from the corporate course of managed information and at a distance from the bromide cliches being spouted by a network of America-centered Iranians who lost in Iran 30 years ago and will lose again today, take a look at Islamic Iran from another, quite different angle.
There are many possible explanations for the unrest that has broken out in Iran since the presidential elections last month. One thing that has become quite clear is that there was a pre-existing plan by enemies of the Islamic State to exploit the political uncertainty of the election period for their own purposes, regardless of the results; now perhaps we can see where the resources that the Bush administration had committed to destabilising Iran have been used.
Despite US President Barack Obama’s claims of non-involvement in Iran’s affairs, few people believe that the US was an innocent bystander in the recent riots in Tehran.The US not only has a long history of interfering in Iran’s internal affairs, these intensified during former President George Bush’s era.
By Tahir Mahmoud On July 20, 1988 when Iran accepted a ceasefire in the Iraqi-imposed war that was backed and financed by the US and Arab regimes, most people assumed that the war had ended. The shooting may have stopped but the war against
Iran’s June 12 presidential elections in which the incumbent, President Mah-moud Ahmedinejad, retained his post by a wide margin over his nearest rival Mir Hussain Mousavi has provided the Muslim-hating West another opportunity to spout its anti-Islamic venom. Through its media mouthpieces, they had already declared Mousavi the winner even before the people of Iran had had an opportunity to cast their vote. When the result turned out against their wishes, it was immediately denounced as “rigged”. It seems even Mousavi had fallen for this propaganda because he, too, prior to polls closing, told a Tehran press conference that he had “won”.
The Islamic Republic’s successful test in late May of a medium-range, solid-fuel missile diminishes Tel Aviv’s potential threat to the Islamic East. This should be the conviction of all Islamic observers, whether they are totally involved in or opera
The Islamic Republic of Iran, government and people, are gearing up for presidential elections that are scheduled for the first half of June 2009. There appear to be two prime candidates for the presidency: Mr. Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Mr. Mir HosseinMoussavi. Both fine men are qualified beyond doubt to lead the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Movement of the world during the coming four-year term, which will probably be the most challenging time in the history of the Islamic Movement and state.
US President Barack Obama’s Nowruz video message to “the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” on March 20 created quite a stir globally but it did not impress Iran’s leadership, its intended audience. The reasons are clear but first let us look at some of the positive aspects of Obama’s message. He is perhaps the first US president to address the country by its correct name: the Islamic Republic of Iran.
If it were another government it would have caved in by now, but the heavenward Islamic government in the world has survived. The Islamic Republic of Iran, whatever one’s view of it, has weathered political pandemonium, economic earthquakes, and media twisters the likes of which we have not witnessed. This is a government and leadership with a people and population extending beyond its geographical frontiers.
Elections in Iran, whether local, parliamentary or presidential, are never dull but this year’s presidential elections are beginning to take on a decidedly more exciting tone. In addition to the incumbent, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, being in the race, two other leading figures have indicated they will contest the polls: Ayatullah Mehdi Karoubi, and Mir Husain Mousavi.
When Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as president of the United States of America in January 1981, Iran and its recent Islamic Revolution was an obsession for the US and all in it. Almost 30 years later, little has changed in that regard.
The arrogant powers’ apparatus, which does not believe in any human principles, wishes to dominate the sensitive Middle East region that has enormous wealth and is situated in a strategic geographical area and enjoys great economic advantages. The way they want to achieve that objective is through the usurper zionist Israel that occupies Palestine.
As an Islamic state, Iran’s policies — both domestic and foreign — are based on certain fundamental principles. The guidelines for these policies were laid down by Imam Khomeini during his lifetime. After he passed away in June 1989, his successor, the Rahbar Imam Seyyed Ali Khamenei has adhered to these policies closely.
Speculation abounds about why, after years of threatening to attack Iran, the US suddenly decided to send William J. Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs, the third-highest-ranking US state department official, to Geneva to attend a meeting with Iran over its nuclear program.
In the early years of Muslim history we had most of the political pulses that we have today. Not many Muslims, not even many intellectual Muslims, are willing to examine human nature, cultural influences, social trends and political priorities fourteen hundred years ago as well as today.
On March 14 Iranians in overwhelming numbers participated in the country’s 28th elections since the Islamic Revolution (1979) to elect members of the eighth Majlis (parliament). At least 25 million people, constituting more than 60 percent of the electorate, cast their ballots to choose 290 members from a field of 4,225 candidates.
One of the most common strategies used against Islamic Iran in the Arab world is to accuse it of Persian nationalist ambitions over the Arab Middle East. This is often linked with direct or indirect sectarianism, and is known as the “Safavid enterprise”. DR MAZIN AL-NAJJAR discusses this myth.
One feature of current events in the Middle East is that the three Islamic movements that perhaps deserve the greatest respect and recognition from the global Ummah are standing together against the onslaught from the West.
Some clear truths are too serious for diplomatic dissemblers to acknowledge. One of these it the clear reality of the nature of theWashington regime's foreign policy. For at least half a century, American foreign policy has matched Israel's in its hostility to the self-determination of Muslims.
Since the death of Imam Khomeini (ra), a group of parasitical politicians have worked their way into position to influence the policies of government of the Islamic State of Iran. They may not hold the highest offices in the government, but they appear to hold sway over some of those offices.
