The chatter about a possible Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities has become loud and dangerous.  At one point the Netanyahu government found the extensive discussion related to an imminent Israeli attack on Iran useful, as it expedited Western action against Iran in the form of tougher sanctions.  However, all this talk may now put Israel in a dangerous position wherein Iran may use it as a pretext to strike first.

A February 2 report in the Washington Post that stated “U.S. Secretary of Defense is concerned Israel will launch an attack before Iran enters so-called ‘immunity zone’ when military strike won’t bust Iran’s nuclear facilities.”  Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is reported as saying that he believes that Israel will attack Iran in April, May or June.  The Washington Post’s David Ignatius wrote that Panetta thinks that Israel will attack because after the ‘immunity zone’ expires the nuclear facilities will be heavily fortified and a military strike will no longer succeed.

On Sunday, February 5, 2012 President Obama was interviewed on NBC-TV during the Super Bowl pre-game show. In the interview, Obama contradicted his Defense Secretary, saying he “does not think Israel has decided whether to attack Iran over the disputed nuclear program.” The president added, “I don’t think Israel has made a decision on what they need to do, we are going to make sure that we work in lockstep, as we proceed to try to solve this – hopefully, diplomatically.”

In an Earlier NBC program top figures in the U.S. and Israeli defense establishments were interviewed and confirmed that Israel has long-range Jericho missiles whose warheads can penetrate Iran’s nuclear facilities.  According to these experts, while the warheads will be conventional and not nuclear, their accuracy can be depended upon. They further suggested that Israel would employ F-15i fighter planes along with the Jericho missiles that have a range of 2400 kilometers. In addition, they speculated, Israel would use its drones, and flight paths that would conserve fuel consumption.  The experts believe that Israel will not employ cruise missiles from its submarines since Israel does not have enough of them in its arsenal.

According to this same report, Israel would target only those facilities which are critical to Iran’s nuclear bomb weaponization strategy.  American military experts believe that such an attack would delay Iran’s nuclear development by at least two to four years.  Israeli experts however estimate that the attack will set back the Iranian plans three to five years, and that if Iran persists in its plans to acquire a bomb, Israel would then attack again in four years.

U.S. Intelligence assessments prepared in the summer of 2011 concluded that any Israeli attack on hardened nuclear sites in Iran would go far beyond airstrikes from F-15 and F-16 fighter planes and likely include electronic warfare against Iran’s electric grid, internet cables, cell phone network, and emergency frequencies for firemen and police officers.

Israel, according to these intelligence sources, has developed a weapon capable of mimicking a maintenance cell phone signal that commands a cell network to “sleep;” thus stopping transmissions.  The Israelis, they suggest, have jammers capable of creating interference within Iran’s emergency frequencies for first responders.

Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak, speaking at the Herzliya Conference on February 3, 2012, stated that “if sanctions don’t achieve the desired goal of stopping Iran’s military nuclear program, there will be a need to consider taking action.”  Barak views Iran as nearing the stage “which may render any physical strike as impractical,” and he said, “A nuclear Iran will be more complicated to deal with, more dangerous and more costly in blood then if it were stopped today.  In other words, he who says in English ‘later’ may find that later is too late.”

The deaths of the Iranian defence scientists have allowed the regime in Tehran to weep copious tears and sputter outrage about the inequity of assassination as a political tool.  One might think the more natural reaction there might be envy.  Assassination has been one of the outreach tools of the ayatollahs and their regime in Iran since the early days of the Revolution. When the Islamic Republic of Iran was established in 1979, it had two strategies to eliminate its opponents.  At home, it killed its internal opponents – killing 7,900 of them in its first five years alone using techniques many totalitarian regimes have employed, such as, mass executions, tortures, disappearances, and “accidents”. Abroad, it used its embassies and cultural offices to host killers and sent them out after prominent critics.  Many of these critics living overseas were Iranian intellectuals and activists who had escaped from Iran after the establishment of the regime.  In addition to employing terror against its own citizens and émigrés, the Iranian government has also claimed victims from other nationalities.  The Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the world’s most significant sponsors of terrorism.  During its 33 years of existence, it has continually instigated violence elsewhere and pursued indirect war through the use of terrorism throughout the Middle East, Africa, and both North and South America.

Although the Islamic Republic of Iran officials claim that terrorism is strange to them, an immense weight of evidence shows that orchestrated terrorism outside Iran is a major factor in practice of the regime.  The first victims of the Iranian government terrorism were Shahriar Shafigh, the Shah of Iran’s nephew who was assassinated in 1979 in Paris and Ali Akbar Tabatabai, the former press attaché of the Iranian embassy in the United States under the Shah of Iran who was assassinated in 1980 in Washington.  The assassination of Ali Akbar Tabatabai was committed by David Belfield or Dawud Salahuddin, an African-American who converted to Islam and after the assassination fled to Iran.  In 2001, Dawud Salahuddin acted as the major character of the movie Kandahar, directed by one of the Iranian regime’s filmmakers Mohsen Makhmalbaf.  After the first assassinations, many other Iranian dissidents were killed in different parts of the world.

Among the dead are, Dr. Shahpour Bakhtiar (the last Prime Minister of the Shah of Iran), Dr. Abdol Rahman Ghassemlou (the Leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran), General Gholam Ali Oveisi (Tehran military governor), Fereydoun Farrokhzad (the famous Iranian showman, singer, and poet), and many other.  One of the more notorious attacks by the agents of the Iranian government against its dissidents occurred in Mykonos restaurant in Berlin, Germany in 1992 that caused the murder of Sadegh Sharafkandi (the Secretary General of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran) and his representatives and translator, Fattah Abdoli, Homayoun Ardalan, and Nouri Dehkordi.  In April 10, 1997, the Berlin court announced that this assassination was plotted by Ali Khamenei (Iran Supreme Leader), Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (Iran former President), and Ali Fallahian (Iran former Minister of Intelligence).  Two of the terrorists were Kazem Darabi, an Iranian who lived in Berlin and Abbas Rhayel, a Lebanese terrorist and a member of the Hezballah organization.  Other Iranian and Lebanese terrorists were able to escape to Iran and Lebanon.

One of the most significant examples of the terrorist activities of the Iranian government against non-Iranians was the truck bombing of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994.  The Iranian government directed this terrorist activity through the terrorist group Hezballah.  This was one of the deadliest bombings to have ever occurred in Argentina, killing 85 people and injuring 300.  A major motive behind this atrocity seems to have been the suspension of a nuclear technology transfer agreement between Iran and Argentina.  According to Argentine judge Rodolfo Canicoba Corral, the terrorists who were involved in this act were six Iranians (including Ahmad Reza Asghari, the third Secretary of the Islamic Republic of Iran Embassy in Buenos Aires, who used to work for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard before being posted to Argentina) and one Lebanese man.  Evidence suggests that the terrorist attack was planned in 1993, when Ahmad Reza Asghari attended a meeting with the former President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and his deputies.

Amir Abbas Fakhravar, 35, is a “graduate” of the infamous Evin prison in Tehran.  His friendly and youthful exterior hides a painful period of torture and isolation for five years – including 8 months in solitary confinement. When you ask Amir about his state of mind following his harrowing experience, he shrugs his shoulders saying “they broke my wrist, my knee, and few bones, but never broke my spirit.”

Fakhravar arrived in the U.S. four years ago and found no coherent voices speaking for the Iranian opposition movement.  “I thought that the Iranian opposition had an organization here, but nothing existed in 2006.” And when he gathered some of the opposition figures, he quickly learned that they had little information about the real situation in Iran.  Even more dismaying, according to Fakhravar, was the ignorance of U.S. policy makers regarding Iran.

With mentoring from Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration (1981-1987), and currently a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and critical help from Philadelphia’s Craig Snider, who has dedicated himself to fight for freedom and democracy for the Iranian people, Fakhravar established the Iranian Freedom Institute (IFI).

The Iranian Freedom Institute – a Washington DC based think tank, has set its goal to inform and educate American policy-makers, and the public in general, on the real state-of-affairs inside Iran.  Utilizing the latest technology, the IFI hopes to influence U.S. policy towards Iran, and simultaneously, educate the freedom-loving people of Iran who are living under a brutal dictatorship.

Affiliated with the IFI is the Confederation of Iranian Students (CIS) – created by Fakhravar and Arzhang Davoodi, a teacher, writer and the co- founder of Confederation of Iranian Students (who also spent six years in Islamic Republic jails and still has nine more years to serve).  Earlier in 1994 while he was in medical school (he subsequently graduated from law school), Fakhravar helped in establishing the Independent Student movement in Tehran.  Fakhravar and Davoodi proceeded to form the nucleus of an independent worldwide student organization.  In 2002 they organized a student conference and three-years later, they launched CIS, which today has a membership of 6200 students.

The Confederation of Iranian Students should not be confused with the Islamic Republic’s student organization cautions Fakhravar, which was created by the mullah regime, paid for by them, and run by them, according to Fakhravar.

One of the CIS’s goals is to bring down the Islamic Republic dictatorship according to Fakhravar.  “We have a three step plan,” he says.  1. Show the Iranian people and the world that the ruling Iranian regime is not democratic but rather a brutal dictatorship.  “We have already succeeded on that part of the plan,” Fakhravar added.

The second goal is to “cut the lifeline of the mullahs in power” by pushing for a worldwide embargo on Iranian oil.  The $83 billion Iran earns from its oil sales is the only revenue that enables the Islamic Republic of Iran to pay for the nuclear program and provide the Revolutionary guards (RG) – the regime’s praetorian guards- with high incomes, which in turn insures their loyalty to the regime.

According to Fakhravar “if the regime fails to pay the RG salaries – which are three times the average, the RG, who have long lost their revolutionary fervor and have gotten used to the ‘good life,’ are more than likely to abandon the regime.”

Oil revenue is also used by the Islamic Republic to fund Hezbollah and Hamas operations against Israel, to subvert the Sunni-Arab Gulf regimes and, to build cells in Latin America. “Our aim is to request that the governments of the U.S. and Canada impose sanctions on North American and European companies who buy oil from the Iranian regime,” Fakhravar stated.  He added, “We also plan to present such proposals to the G-8 and the G-20 to place sanctions on their respective companies.”

The third part of the plan, as Fakhravar sees it, is to build a free, democratic, and secular Iran.  “We need in addition to our existing website to set up Internet, satellite TV, and radio stations in order to educate the Iranian people inside of Iran, and the opposition parties outside of Iran. “

According to Fakhravar, the Iranian opposition groups “are confused and they don’t know what they want.”  He quickly added, “We wrote a manifesto or call it a constitution for a new Iran.”  Fakhravar recruited lawyers from the Green movement as well as a number of judges to draft a new constitution for Iran.

The Green Movement in Iran brought 4.5 million demonstrators into the streets of Tehran last June and Fakhravar is confident that the people of Iran, especially the younger generation, want a change. He reminds those he speaks with that, “The Iranian people have been repressed for over 30 years, and they want freedom.”  Many of the young people in Iran are turned off by Islam as a result of the corruption and abuses by the Islamic regime.  In Iranian schools, Shiite-Islam is presented as superior to all other religions and they are taught that killing Jews, who are presented as sub-humans, is permitted.  Fakhravar has no doubt that the Khamenei/Ahmadinejad regime would test a nuclear bomb on Israel.

Iran is, however, a nation of young people.  70% of Iranians are under the age of 35 and these young people respect Israel and love America.   In recent demonstrations the young protesters used posters with a modification of the regime’s slogans – instead of “Down with Israel,” they crossed out the word Israel and replaced it with Russia.

During last year’s demonstrations in Tehran following the sham elections which gave Ahmadinejad a second term as President of Iran, the Green Youth shouted “Obama, are you with them (the regime) or with us.”  Obama’s decision to continue to negotiate with the Khamenei/Ahmadinejad Islamic regime gave this evil regime legitimacy, according to Fakhravar.

Asked about where he sees Iran in five years, Fakhravar replied, “We will have a free, democratic and secular Iran.  It will be a friend of Israel and an ally of the U.S. ”

Vice President Joe Biden, wrong on virtually every major foreign policy issue since his election to the Senate in 1972, nailed this one: He warned that actors on the international stage would test the new, inexperienced President.

He knew that President Barack Obama’s enemies would perceive his strength-through-peace (versus peace-through-strength) approach as weakness. They do and are acting accordingly.

Candidate Obama vowed to hold high-level talks with Iran and North Korea without “preconditions.” Obama promised a “reset” of all things President George W. Bush, with no more talk of “victory” in Iraq and Afghanistan. He reneged on the promised missile shield defense in Poland and the Czech Republic. He waits for countries like China and Russia, both of which have business interests in Iran, to agree to “tough, crippling” sanctions.

The President dropped the term “war on terror” and refuses to call Islamofascists “Islamofascists.” He apologetically says America is vital in maintaining world peace “whether we like it or not.” He sent a videotaped message to Iran telling of our willingness to re-engage the country — if only it would unclench its fist. It unclenched more time for Iran to pursue a nuclear bomb. The administration was painfully slow to acknowledge that the Times Square truck bomb attempt involved foreign Islamic terrorists.

The administration chastised Israel for settlement construction in an area of east Jerusalem that President Bill Clinton, President George W. Bush and even Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat assumed would be part of Israel in any peace agreement. During Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s state visit, Obama treated him worse than a White House dinner gate-crasher.

How’s the hope and change working out?

North Korea, in an act of war, sank a South Korean ship. Iran may now have sufficient materiel and technical knowledge to build a nuclear bomb. The Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah — under the nose of United Nations “peacekeepers” — continues to stock southern Lebanon with weapons that threaten Israel.

Now comes the anti-Israel “humanitarian” flotilla.

After Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, the terror group Hamas seized power. Israel and Egypt began a naval blockade of ships in and out of Gaza. Though Israel had uprooted every Israeli settler from Gaza, Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Israel, a bombardment that continues today.

Israel already sends humanitarian aid into Gaza and allows others to do so.

Israel even agreed to allow the supposed humanitarian flotilla cargo to enter, provided Israeli security could check it for weapons. And never mind that some of the flotilla’s “humanitarian activists” appear to have ties to terror organizations.

The flotilla’s attempt to run the blockade resulted in nine deaths when the Israeli military boarded ships to inspect the cargo. As Israel’s enemies hoped, Israel stands accused of a “disproportionate” response.

But why the flotilla now?

The most significant intervening event is the election of President Obama. Now Israel’s most important ally considers Israeli intransigence the principal obstacle to peace with the Palestinians in particular and in the Middle East in general. The activists got the message: Israel is on the defensive.

Israel, with good reason, feels alone.

Obama, like Bush in his second term, seems willing to accept a nuclear-armed Iran — even as Iran threatens Israel with annihilation. Obama apparently considers a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable, even if it ignites a regional nuclear arms race — since Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan fear Iran more than they do Israel.

Give Obama credit for continuing many of Bush’s policies. Gitmo remains open, the administration finally understanding that the prison exists for a reason. He continued rendition, the terror surveillance program and the increased use of drone predators in Pakistan. He used the same “state secrets” argument to fight courtroom disclosure of sources and methods. He increased troop strength in Afghanistan and continues the Bush “clear and hold” strategy for that country and Iraq.

But Jimmy Carter governed as a strength-through-peace president. He pressured the Shah of Iran to release “political prisoners.” The shah was toppled, only to be followed by the repressive and threatening Islamic Republic of Iran. Carter urged Americans to abandon their “inordinate fear of communism.” Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev considered Carter weak and rewarded him by invading Afghanistan. This triggered a chain reaction from which the world continues to suffer. The Arabs and Muslims who fought to expel the Soviet Union then turned on the United States and the West in a grand plan for an Islamic world.

Israel’s response to the flotilla was an act of self-defense. The Western world’s reaction has been shameful. Western countries once again fail to distinguish the arsonist from the firefighter.

In 1962, the United States imposed a naval blockade — a “quarantine” — on Cuba. What would we have done to a “humanitarian” flotilla determined to help Fidel Castro place Soviet missiles 90 miles from Florida?

Larry Elder is a syndicated radio talk show host and best-selling author. His latest book, “What’s Race Got to Do with It?” is available now. To find out more about Larry Elder, visit his Web page at www.WeveGotACountryToSave.com.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Lisa Daftari, a journalist specializing in Iranian affairs.  She is a guest contributor on Fox News and has been published in Frontpage Magazine, Washington Post, CBS.com, NBC, Voice of America, and PBS.  She communicates with individuals living in Iran and tells their stories.  In 2006, she was invited to show her documentary on bringing regime change to Iran to a subcommittee of Congress.

FP: Lisa Daftari, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Tell us about your work in regards to Iran and what inspires you to engage in it.

Daftari: As a journalist, I am drawn to human stories, particularly ones that demonstrate the effects that society and politics have on ordinary peoples’ lives. In the case of Iran, these stories are quite numerous and revealing. Whether it is a story about a young girl who was arrested for her voicing her political views or a father of two who is forced to work four jobs just to put food on the table, I think these stories are the best ways to understand the struggles of the Iran people right now.  It is a well-known fact that the Islamic Republic is a radical, fundamentalist and unjust government, but through talking to the Iranian people and understanding their lives can we better grasp how this regime plays a role in daily routine of the people.

FP: What has drawn you to Iran?

Daftari: Obviously my background, as an Iranian-American, has played a significant role in fostering my passion and interest in the area. Every time I had a research assignment or paper in school, I would find some way to do my project on Iran.  Growing up, I was incredibly cognizant of the Iranian Revolution of 1979, or the Enghelab, the word for revolution in Farsi. I knew that it had changed the fate of my family significantly and that is how we found ourselves living in this country.  My family, like many other Iranian families, shared these conversations and anecdotes at the dinner table. My siblings and I felt a deep nostalgia for a time period we did not live through and yearned to understand and experience that time for ourselves. Later when I became a journalist, I wanted to tell human stories in the backdrop of larger social, political and cultural issues. Clearly, starting with my own people felt most natural, particularly when the Iranian people experienced their most crucial historic moment only 30 years ago.

FP: Tell us a bit about the radical, fundamentalist and unjust government that rules over Iranians.

Daftari: The Iranian people see their government as an imported entity; a group of fundamentalists whose beliefs in radical Islam are stronger than their nationalistic ties to the country.  This clashes strongly against a large population of Iranians who consider themselves extremely patriotic. We also have to remember that Iran is made up of a rich cross section of various religions, cultures and dialects. Obviously there is no government that can represent them all, yet they share and celebrate the Iranian culture and old heritage they have in common.

Above all, this regime, cloaked in religious fundamentalism, angers the people with its hypocritical actions. They deny the people so many of their basic rights, yet we have extensive evidence of their own indulgent lifestyles. We know of their lavish vacations around the world, their lucrative real estate portfolios, their international bank accounts storing millions of dollars, and their access to some of the world’s best universities for their children.  The people of Iran are savvy and resent the double standards.

FP: You have researched the Iranian American community and its evolvement over the last 30 years. Can you enlighten us a bit on your findings and observations?

Daftari: The Iranian American community has developed an extremely unique dual identity. Over the last thirty years, many of these Iranians had lost hope in ever going back to their homeland, and likewise in ever seeing this government change. The result has been an Iranian American community that has emerged quite successfully. They are represented in all types of occupations and areas of business.  They have excelled in politics, music, film, fashion, real estate and technology.  They have raised their American born children to share an unwavering allegiance to the United States. In June however, it was remarkable to see how invested even American born Iranians were in the fate of their inherited homeland.  In large cities across the U.S., Iranians and Iranian Americans gathered by the thousands to stand in solidarity with the protestors in Iran.  They felt a real glimmer of hope with this political impetus that really moved the community.  They had been waiting for such a moment for a long time.

FP: We know of course that Iranians are still bravely protesting and being tortured every day. The fascists who rule the country are cracked down on the protests and continue to crack down viciously and sadistically. Your thoughts? What’s coming up?

Daftari: Many describe the Iranian people at the time of the protests as a pot that boiled over. The impetus, or better yet, the excuse, was frustration over a fraudulent election, but the reality was that the Iranian people, both in Iran and abroad, had been waiting three decades for such a moment. With every breach of justice, with every hanging, with every whip that slashed down on an innocent woman’s arm, for every stone that was violently hurled at a young Iranian’s head, the grievances had amassed.

Since last June, Iranians came out in protest during holidays and other commemorative days, particularly those momentous to the regime. They came out on these days to show that their grievances are directly against the regime.  By protesting on Islamic holidays and on days special to the Islamic Republic, they made a stand against the government and what it stands for. The people of Iran are incredibly nationalistic. They are patriotic and their Iranian heritage runs deeper and stronger than anything else.

We are coming up on the one-year anniversary of those protests, and Iranians are organizing for smaller demonstrations.  We are seeing an evolving Iranian force, partly as a result of the threats that the regime has made against those who come out and partly because the Iranians realize that to be shot at, beaten and rounded up and taken to prison is not going to be the avenue to freedom. The main issue for the protestors is and has been a lack of leadership and strategy.

FP: Why is it, in your perspective, important to talk about Iran in the context of its people and their experiences and disenchantment?

Daftari: In the case of Iran, it is imperative to get to know the people, their struggles, their experiences and what they really want going forward. The Iranian people are multi-faceted. Iran is such a vast country that has varying religions, dialects and sub-cultures that create a rich cross-section of Iranian culture. In the past, many would erroneously group together the Iranian people together with their regime, but since the elections, I think it has become quite clear that that is not the case.  The people of Iran have a 30-year-old story to tell. Everyone in Iran is and has been dramatically affected by the political landscape in the country; just as the lives of Iranian Americans and Iranians living anywhere else in the world have been remarkably shaped by the political on-goings of the last three decades.

FP: What are the chances that the Iranian people can overthrow the despots who have them imprisoned? How can we best help the Iranian people to do so?

Daftari: If we were to look at the Iranian dilemma as a social one in addition to a political one, it has become obvious that the people of Iran have and will continue to further out-grow their government. Although this regime has only been around for 30 years, as a result of the Ayatollah Khomeini-backed baby boom following the Iran Iraq War, almost 70% of Iran’s population was born under this regime. That is a very significant statistic. It means that an overwhelming majority of the country is young, modern, and under the age of 30. Even though living under the confines of a theocracy is the only life they know, many of these young people are overtly disenchanted with their government.  Overthrowing, or maybe better stated, shaking this government is inevitable. Their grievances are specific and prevent them from living a normal life on a daily basis.  They just want to live normal lives and be free to blog, to sign onto Yahoo or Google, to walk down the street with their boyfriends and girlfriends, to go to college despite not having any connections to the clergy, etc.

There is a lot of pressure on the youth of Iran, and that is what is propelling them to go out to the streets in demonstration. They want better, and they know it is out there. The Iranian people are smart, savvy, intellectual people who refuse to be represented by fundamentalist, tyrannical leaders who are holding them back. Whether it is through demonstrations or any other way they can voice their frustrations, they will continue to do so until change is brought about.  There’s a lot of hopelessness, and that’s what this struggle is about.

The question that is frequently asked of the Iranian people is: What can the rest of the world do to support them in this struggle? I think the answer has always been to unconditionally support them. It would mean to educate oneself about what is going on in the region, to ask for Iran stories when the subject suddenly escapes the media, to ask questions of elected government officials, and as taxpayers, to interrogate the United Nations on not taking a serious stance on Iran and its nuclear agenda.

FP: Lisa Daftari, thank you for joining us.

In this special edition of Frontpage Symposium, we have invited four distinguished guests to discuss the question: Is there a moderate Islam? Our guests today are:

Timothy Furnish, a former U.S. Army Arabic interrogator, he is a consultant and author with a Ph.D. in Islamic History. He is currently working on a book on modern Muslim plans to resurrect the caliphate. His website, dedicated to Islamic eschatology, is www.mahdiwatch.org

Tawfik Hamid, an Islamic thinker and reformer who is the author of Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam. A one-time Islamic extremist from Egypt, he was a member of Jemaah Islamiya, a terrorist Islamic organization, with Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who later became the second in command of al-Qaeda. He is currently a senior fellow and chairman of the study of Islamic radicalism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D. is the President and Founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). A devout Muslim, he served 11 years as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy. He is a nationally recognized expert in the contest of ideas against political Islam, American Islamist organizations, and the Muslim Brotherhood. He regularly briefs members of the House and Senate congressional anti-terror caucuses and has served as a guest lecturer on Islam to deploying officers at the Joint Forces Staff College.  Dr. Jasser was presented with the 2007 Director’s Community Leadership Award by the Phoenix office of the FBI and was recognized as a “Defender of the Home Front” by the Center for Security Policy. He recently narrated the documentary The Third Jihad, produced by PublicScope Films. His chapter, Americanism vs. Islamism is featured in the recently released book, The Other Muslims (Palgrave-Macmillan) edited by Zeyno Baran.

and

Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of ten books, eleven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, is available now from Regnery Publishing, and he is coauthor (with Pamela Geller) of the forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Simon and Schuster).

FP: Timothy Furnish, Tawfik Hamid, Dr.  M. Zuhdi Jasser and Robert Spencer, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Dr. Furnish, let me begin with you. Robert Spencer recently entered a debate at NewsReal Blog where he argued that there is no moderate Islam. What is your perspective on his argument?

Furnish: I find myself in the curious (and somewhat uncomfortable) position of disagreeing with my friend Robert Spencer, for whom I have the utmost respect and with whom I almost always totally agree. However, on this issue of whether moderate Islam exists, I think Robert may be missing something.

He is exactly right that Sunni Islam–whence comes directly Salafism, Wahhabism and jihadism–promotes violence against non-Muslims in order to make Islam paramount over the entire planet.  I have no quarrel with that stance. But I would argue that this is largely because within this majority branch of Islam the only acceptable exegetical paradigm regarding the Qur’an is a literalist one: and of course when passages such as “behead the unbeliever” [Suras 47:3 and 8:12] are read literally the good Muslim had better reach for his sword–or be rightly accused of infidelity to Allah’s Word.

However, perhaps because Robert is so well-versed in the theology of Islam, as opposed to the historical record of how that religious theory has been acted out on the stage of history, he seems to overlook the key fact on the ground that certain minorities within Islam have developed a non-literalist, even allegorical, approach to reading the Qur’an. Foremost among these moderates are the Isma`ilis, the Sevener Shi`is, whose global head is the philanthropical Aga Khan.  Isma’ilis may number only in the tens of millions (out of the total Muslim community of some 1.3 billion, second only to Christianity’s 2+ billion), but they do exist and they define, for example, jihad not as killing or conquering unbelievers, but as economic development and charity work.

In general, all branches of Shi`ism (which makes up perhaps 15% of the world’s Muslims), including the Twelvers of Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, allow the practice of ijtihad, “independent theological-legal judgment”–which is decidedly not the case for Sunnism. And while this has allowed for the ayatollahs to come up with negative novelties such as vilayet-i faqih (Khomeini’s “rule of the jurisconsult”), it also leaves the door open to non-literal exegesis of the anachronistic passages of the Qur’an.

Even within Sunnism, many of the Sufi (Islamic mystic) orders are more akin to the Shi`i than the woodenly literalist Sunnis in their exegesis. (Yet I would not go as far as Stephen Schwartz, who in his book The Other Islam: Sufism and the Road to Global Harmony thinks Sufis are basically “Quakers with beards” and sees them as the antidote to jihadists.  This rosy view overlooks the historical facts of the many jihads led by Sufi shaykhs and fought by Sufi adherents over the centuries.)

Today, many Sufis are non-literalists and focus on the batini, “inner” or “esoteric” meaning of the Qur’anic verses rather than on the zahiri, “outward” or “exoteric”–i.e., literal–meaning as Bin Ladin and his ilk do.  Another sect of Islam that is rather moderate in its approach to the Qur’an is the Barelwi (or Barelvi) one in India and the U.K.

In fact, the recent 600-page “anti-terrorism” fatwa that received much media adoration was written by Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri, a Barelwi.  As I observe in the “Washington Times” article, al-Qadri’s adherence to what is essentially a sect of Islam makes it very problematic that his fatwa will have any major effect on the jihadists in the short term–but, over time, if enough sectarian Muslims keep condemning the purely literalist approach to Islam’s holy book, perhaps Islam might enter into its own much needed Enlightenment, or at least Reformation.  But it’s clear from these examples that moderate Islam, not just moderate Muslims, truly does exist–even if often in a minority, often persecuted, status.”

Spencer: In all this my friend Timothy Furnish, whose work I admire, is entirely correct. That is why I am always careful to say that there is no “mainstream” sect of Islam, or one that is generally recognized as orthodox by Muslim sects in general, that does not teach the necessity to make war against and subjugate unbelievers. But I am not sure that the existence of Muslims who are generally considered heretics and persecuted for their heresy, which often consists precisely of their rejection or reconstitution of the jihad doctrine, constitutes the existence of a “moderate Islam” upon which Westerners should place any hope. The likelihood that these groups are going to stop being persecuted minorities and eventually attain mainstream status without abjuring exactly the elements of their beliefs that make them appealing to Westerners is slim at best.

FP: Dr. Jasser?

Jasser: Jamie. Thank you for including me. Let me start by addressing the premise of your initial question to Dr. Furnish regarding his opinion on Robert Spencer’s assertion that, “there is no moderate Islam.”

In my experience, there is a significant distinction globally between “Islam” as a personal spiritual faith (a personal submission to God, if you will), and the “House of Islam” which more broadly includes the entire human corpus of Islamic scholarship, knowledge (ilm) and jurisprudence (shar’iah) as espoused by leading global Islamic jurists and thought leaders (a ‘submission’ to the House of Islam if you will). As a devout Muslim I believe in the former in my personal relationship with God, but as an anti-Islamist I reject any “submission” to the latter which is human. Certainly, academe is central to understanding and effectively reforming Islamic thought against salafism. But my identification with the Islamic faith as a Muslim in no way obligates me or any Muslim to drink the Kool-aid of the Islamists even if they do control most Muslim institutions globally.

For those trying to pigeon-hole my Islamic philosophy, I am a devout Muslim raised in my youth in a conservative, orthodox, Sunni Muslim family in a small town in Wisconsin. I am neither an ideological mutation nor was I born in a vacuum. My parents escaped the despotic fascist regime of Syria in the mid-1960’s seeking the liberty and freedom of America. My grandparents were also conservative Muslims who raised their children to have a strong moral character and ethical upbringing free of corruption and grounded in Islam but not political Islam. Those values as a force for good, under God, were transmitted down our familial generations. While the specifics of our faith arose out of the Sunni tradition, the overarching ideas included some diverse Islamic  influences ranging from Sufi to orthodox to Quranist to name a few. Significant diversity existed within our family as it did among many other intellectuals from Syria. But there was also agreement on core moral principles and liberty. These modernists, moderates, and liberals have been lost in the intellectual wasteland of the battle between the likes of the secular thugs of the Assads of the world and the radical Islamists of the Ikhwan.

To pigeon-hole many Muslims into one theological construct is misleading given the lack of any Islamic mandate for a “Church” which communicates or excommunicates Sunni members. Many of the sects Tim describes have this type of regimented circumscribed Islam with fealty to their leaders that gives the sect’s thought leaders better control on the central message. However, most Sunnis I know (non-Islamists) do not have such a fealty to any specific imam or school and are profoundly decentralized.

Now certainly the Wahhabis and Salafists of the world practice takfir (defining who is and who is not Muslim) in an effort to control “membership” and ideology in the faith community. However, we, as anti-Islamists reject takfir and will not give up the domain of Islam to Islamists.

The reasons for the pre-Enlightenment fossilization of thought in Muslim majority countries are many. They include a need for deep generational reform of theology (Islamist foundations of Islam), education (illiteracy and lack of western influence),  economics (the lack of free markets), politics (the absence of democratic principles of real liberty with control by monarchs, theocrats, and autocrats), and culture (an endemic suffocating tribalism).

Many devout Muslims, like most youth, establish our moral compass of life under God within our superego long before we had the knowledge or the skill to investigate scriptural Qur’anic or Hadith exegesis. Thus, the moral lens through which we interpret our scripture is long established before we could ever fall prey to the fascist radical Islamic interpretations. But many are not immune to the supremacism of Islamism. There is a dire need for moderates to reinterpret the Qur’an and Hadith and dismiss ideas or sira not commensurate with modernity. (See Part I, Part II, Part III and Part IV)

I use the same non-political, anti-Islamist construct of Islam I learned from my parents to teach my own children about our faith while preserving conservative values not in conflict with American law or loyalty. That ultimately was why we formed our American Islamic Forum for Democracy in 2003 dedicated to defeating the root cause of terrorism- political Islam.

Tim and Robert and others may view this as heresy or marginal thought in Islam. I would disagree, but also admit that it is not predominant among the thought leaders of Sunni Islam. So the crux of the question is who and what defines Islam – all Muslims or only the subset of Muslims who are clerics? I do believe that it is a majority if not a significant plurality of Muslims that reject political Islam. We do obviously have a lot of work to prove this assertion. Our ideas are harder to find than those of the Islamists—so yes, ‘Houston, we do have a problem.’

But, our anti-Islamist reform can only happen against political Islam from a bottom up (lay to cleric) approach rather than the top down (cleric to lay) approach which Tim and Robert appear to be seeking. History shows that other reformation movements in Europe occurred that way when combined with a political liberty movement. Again, attempting to pigeon-hole the Muhammad Al-Qadri’s of the world as a ‘sect’ does not help their movements and rather makes their fate sealed as marginal within the ‘House of Islam’.

The majority of the ulemaa (scholars) of the “House of Islam” are controlled by Islamists who use an authoritative shar’iah which is incompatible with the ideas of liberty and the separation of mosque and state. This is especially true for the hubs of central influence in Sunni thought in Saudi Arabia and at Al-Azhar in Egypt. Anti-Islamist Muslims do know and understand our faith. But we are in dire need of developing new platforms to get our voices heard.

An intellectual civil war within the House of Islam will be the only way to figure out which Islam and whose Islam will ultimately prevail. To dismiss all of “Islam” as immoderate leaves without a platform your greatest allies for freedom– devotional anti-Islamist Muslims who worship God. We are the only ones I believe, with a tangible viable solution that will achieve the defeat of supremacist, radical Islamism. We are the only ones with a viable treatment to the ideological disease.

Hamid: Thanks Jamie for organizing this symposium.

If we defined Islam in terms of what is being taught and promoted in mainstream Islamic books such the Tafseers and Fiqh, then Robert Spencer is absolutely correct is saying that moderate Islam does not exist. The problem is that this form of Islamic teaching is not counterbalanced by a theologically based peaceful interpretation of the religion. Until today, all main schools of jurisprudence in Islam accept violence in some way or another.

Dr. Jasser is correct is stating that many of these interpretations and jurisprudence books or Sharia are manmade. However, the reality is that this manmade version of the understanding of Islam is currently the most dominant one in the Muslim world. I agree with Dr. Jasser that there is a need for a reformation but I disagree with him that the reformation needs to occur from the bottom-up. Based on my experience within Islam, waiting for this “bottom-up” approach is likely to fail, as any small group of Muslims that starts the think differently will be considered by the majority and by leading authorities in the Muslim world as non-Muslims.

This is simply because denying some traditional ways of teachings is considered denying “Maaloom Mina AldeenBildarora’ (a fundamental belief in the faith) which make a Muslim an apostate (non-Muslim) for denying it. The change in my view needs to occur “Up-Bottom,” not the other way around. This can occur by exerting more pressure and criticism for the violent teachings that exist in mainstream theological Islam. Dr. Jasser’s view to have Islam without these authorities is very revolutionary and difficult or impractical to achieve.

I agree with Dr. Furnish that there are some elements of reform that already exist in the Muslim world; however, these elements of reform do not have a complete theological interpretation or jurisprudence that can stand against the current and dominant Salafi teaching within Islam.

My main point is that, what people generally mean as Islam (Tafseer, Hadith, Sira, Jurisprudence, Sharia) is certainly not peaceful. However, peaceful understanding of the religion is possible. Moderate Muslims such as Jasser and others do exist because they do not practice the traditional dominant theology and alternatively they have developed their own personal interpretations for the religion. Until these personal interpretations become the mainstream type of teaching within Islam, I have to agree with Robert Spencer that moderate Islam does not exist. I will only change his phrase to be “moderate Islam does not currently exist.”

Furnish: Robert Spencer makes a good point that many Muslim sectarians are considered “heretics” but he paints with an overbroad brush.  Not all Islamic sects are persecuted minorities: the Ibadis run Oman and constitute 70% of its population; the Alawis, while a minority, still run Syria; the Isma’ili minorities are certainly not persecuted in India, Tanzania or Britiain (although they are in Saudi Arabia—but who isn’t, besides Wahhabis?); and Sufis, while often at loggerheads with Wahhabis and Salafis, are popular and powerful in places like Senegal, Sudan and Indonesia.   And while the Islamic sects in toto are certainly a minority, somewhere around  7-8%  of the world’s Muslim population, that still amounts to perhaps 100 million people—twice that many if the Twelver Shi`is are included.  Luther certainly started with far fewer Christians, and yet he sparked a Reformation.

While I admire Dr. Jasser’s personal revival of Mu`tazilism (a rationalist Islamic ideology that was snuffed out in the 10^th century AD), I fear his views are idiosyncratic within Sunni Islam—and my own research indicates that the closet analogs to what he preaches are found in those very sects whose degree of regimentation and cult-like devotion he somewhat overstates.  But even in those cases where a sect is at least partially predicated on charismatic leadership (the Isma’ilis; the Turkish Gülen movement; etc.), I would say that as long as the leader is telling his followers that jihad does NOT mean holy war—then that’s infinitely preferable to the “current and dominant Salafi teaching,” as Dr. Hamid so aptly puts it.

I agree with Dr. Hamid, regretfully, that Dr. Jasser’s hope for a grass-roots Islamic reformation from within Sunnism is very unlikely—another reason I favor putting our hope for such in sects. Dr. Jasser seems to forget that the Enlightenment could only take place after the Protestant Reformation had broken the monopoly of the Catholic hierarchy in Europe—and that the reformation of Christendom was in fact led by clerics (Luther, Calvin, Tyndale), NOT by layman. What Islam really needs right now are such reform-minded clerics, and these are found for the most part today among Islam’s sects, not its Sunni majority.

Spencer: There is a certain dancing-on-the-precipice feel to this entire symposium. Dr. Jasser rejects the contention that his views amount to “heresy or marginal thought in Islam,” but acknowledges that they are “not predominant among the thought leaders of Sunni Islam.” You can say that again – I would doubt that he would be able to name even one among the “thought leaders of Sunni Islam” who would accept that there is, as Dr. Jasser puts it, any “significant distinction globally between ‘Islam’ as a personal spiritual faith (a personal submission to God, if you will), and the ‘House of Islam’ which more broadly includes the entire human corpus of Islamic scholarship, knowledge (ilm) and jurisprudence (shar’iah) as espoused by leading global Islamic jurists and thought leaders (a ‘submission’ to the House of Islam if you will).” Indeed, he would be hard-pressed to find even one among those “thought leaders of Sunni Islam” who would not classify this as a heresy.

Dr. Hamid, in contrast to Dr. Jasser himself, notes correctly that interpretations of Islam such as Dr. Jasser’s are personal, idiosyncratic, and non-traditional – a fact that is all too often glossed over by his enthusiastic and well-heeled non-Muslim backers, who would prefer to pretend that he represents the dominant mainstream. Dr. Hamid is also quite correct that “Until these personal interpretations become the mainstream type of teaching within Islam, I have to agree with Robert Spencer that moderate Islam does not exist.” He remains optimistic, however, maintaining that “peaceful understanding of the religion is possible” and changing my phrase “moderate Islam does not exist” to “moderate Islam does not currently exist.”

I don’t claim to know the future, and history is full of events that would have been dismissed as impossible by people of previous centuries. I have never ruled out the possibility that some form of Islam could one day arise that teaches that Muslims must live together with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis in a state that does not establish a religion. I have simply tried to be realistic about the prospects of such an entity.

As Dr. Hamid notes, denying certain Islamic teachings makes one an apostate in the eyes of nearly every mainstream Islamic authority around the world today, and apostasy can bring a sentence of death. It was only after the prospect of such a death sentence was removed in Reformation Europe that Luther, Calvin, Tyndale and the rest were able to gain large followings and influence. But the theological foundations for such a death sentence are much stronger in Islam than they ever were in Christianity. Will, then, it one day become possible for genuine and sincere Islamic reformers to try to win over Muslims to their point of view without fear of violent reprisal? Perhaps it is already happening in the West – witness Dr. Jasser’s health and prosperity, although I daresay his influence is far larger among non-Muslims seeking reassurance than it is among his coreligionists. In any case, the murder of Rashad Khalifa in Tucson, Arizona in the early 1990s stands as a cautionary notice that the execution of those deemed heretics and apostates can and does happen even here.

Dr. Furnish, meanwhile, makes the leap from the numerical dominance of various Islamic sects in various areas to the idea that they will become the vanguard of a Luther-like Reformation. His demographic data is undeniable; however, the idea that these groups will become the leaders of a movement to create a truly peaceful theological and legal construction of Islam is belied by his willingness to include the Twelver Shias among them. Twelver Shi’ism is, of course, the official religion of the Islamic Republic of Iran – and yet the mullahs of Tehran are hardly paragons of Islamic moderation. His inclusion of the Turkish Gulen movement is also troubling: Fethullah Gulen may not wish to lead a violent jihad, but does he want to impose Sharia upon Turkey? That is undeniable. And Sharia, with its draconian punishments and institutionalized denial of rights to women and non-Muslims, is hardly “moderate.”

In any case, while I hope that truly reform-minded clerics do gain wide influence, I am afraid that the more influence they gain, and the more genuine reform they advocate, the more likely it will become that they will be labeled heretics and persecuted. I would be glad to be proven wrong in this. But I don’t think I will be.

Jasser: While I reserve disagreement on a number of the historical analogies and pigeon-holing made here about Muslims and Islam, let me address in the space I have how I believe Muslims can move forward. Let me emphasize- forward. One of the differences often between historians (agents of the past) and innovators (agents of change) is that innovators use the tools and lessons of history to think out of the box and create and promote a new and often unpopular paradigm. Often new paradigms that spend years floundering can all of a sudden propel into dominance. Some of the lessons of history are essential, but innovators refuse to pattern themselves after any previous human mindset. Today’s Islam needs innovators.

Groundbreaking innovation starts with a meme which leads to a tipping point that creates a new platform for those that share revolutionary ideas. My own lifetime has been filled with  experiences with thousands of pietistic Muslims from almost every sect of Islam who reject political Islam. But obviously key elements necessary for a palpable Muslim liberty movement to counter Islamism are missing.

To look toward any one sect and pigeon-hole any single moderate Muslim’s modernism as a product of only that particular sect belies the diversity needed for a successful global movement against political Islam. Each sect will always have its own internecine biases about the other sect. That is not the obstacle. Looking forward we must find some overriding memes necessary to defeat pervasive Islamist collectivism. Sectarianism is always trumped by Islamism. So, looking forward, a meme of liberty can rise above political Islam and sectarianism for Muslims.

My bulwark against political Islam has always been m belief in our inalienable rights, freedom of speech, the Establishment clause, classical liberalism, and especially the separation of mosque and state. Once devotional Muslim youth believe in this, many will take these foundational ideas and mature into theologians who transform Islam away from political Islam.

Hamid misunderstands me. I agree, Islam will always certainly need to be grounded in its own sound theological scholarship, but that is a late stage not the first phase in modernization and reform.

Religious teachings of today are molded by the environment. It took Christendom 1789 years until a government led by Christians had a document which was protected by an Establishment Clause and the separation of Church and State. And even that brilliantly codified Constitution and Bill of Rights took centuries, a Civil War, and a civil rights movement to effectuate its core principles in a way that truly respected the human rights of all its citizens as the founding fathers intended.

At this time, modernization of Islamic theology can become viral. But sadly so can the scourge of pan-Islamism. A top-down change would surely fail, as it has, because there is little popular respect for innovation, individualism, or liberty among most of the products of oppressive Muslim run institutions around the world.

In fact, Tim’s reference to the ruling Alawite minority in Syria as somehow exemplifying the hope for the rights of Muslim minorities is very concerning. It disregards the toxic environment which has put political Islam into overdrive. The Assad regimes have been some of the most despotic barbaric regimes of the last century. The only example Hafez and his son Bashar Assad provide is how to systematically and generationally destroy a nation and its people. No modern anything can come from that environment let alone an enlightened Islam. Thugs like Assad, Saddam, Qaddafi, Mubarak and others use religion as a tool for oppression. They fuel political Islam when it suits them while murdering Islamists when they threaten them. The moderates are lost in the middle between the secular fascists and theocratic fascists. This battle has created an untenable foundation of corruption, tribalism, ignorance, and fear.

Look at the Green revolution of Iran or the Cedars Revolution of Lebanon- all millions strong.  It is easier to find a desire for reformist anti-Islamist movements in many Muslim majority nations like Egypt, Lebanon, and Iran where the population knows what happens when the Islamists get control. Yet their environment is missing the empowering sustenance of western liberty.

The solution forward must come from America’s safer laboratory. Many American Muslims understand how a nation can be free and pious without theological coercion from government. The seeds of change forward can be found in some scholars who are looking to the west for innovation within Islam. Just look at some of the recent work on secularism by Abdullahi Al-Na’im, Muhammad al-Ashmawy, Alija Izetbegovic, or also many of the Sufi imams mentioned already like Al-Qadri’s recent work. This is not a blanket endorsement of any one of them. But much of their writings do point forward not backward.

In this wired viral planet, no longer is an ideology like political Islam hermetically sealed in its own history and aquarium. While Robert, Tim, and Hamid look into the aquarium of “an Islam” for the Muslims they study, they ignore a broad swath of westernized Muslims who read their Qur’an, pray, fast, give charity, and supplicate devotionally to God in a purpose-driven patriotic life dedicated to liberty and Americanism who hold another Islam.

The obstacles to the predominance of modern Islam over political Islam are many– frequent death threats, blind corruptive tribalism, societal and financial power of Islamists, and Muslim illiteracy. This is not to mention the facilitation by western media and government of Islamists due to political correctness.

Change cannot be imposed upon a rotten foundation. Lasting modernization will be generational and must be built on the ground first with Muslim institutions based in a liberal education, free markets, and universal human rights.

Hamid: I agree with Dr. Furnish that Luther started with far fewer Christians, and yet he sparked a Reformation. The dynamics, however, of reformation are different between Islam and Christianity. The concept of killing apostates is not an integral part of the Gospel of Jesus. On the contrary, Redda Law that allow killing apostates is a fundamental part of the Hadith of prophet Mohamed. For reformation to happen in Islam, Muslims need first to abandon some of the Sahih (accurate) hadith. The dilemma is that while Muslims can stop Redda Law as it is not part of the Quran, denying a Sahih hadith makes a person an apostate according to the traditional teachings in Islam. The Muslims need to stop this catch 22 situation to allow for reformation to occur.

Separating the Mosque from the state in Islam as Dr. Jasser suggests is certainly considered a form of heresy according to the standard Islamic theology as refusing to implement some Islamic laws and replacing them with secular laws is considered “Kufr” (act that makes a person an Infidel) according to traditional understanding of this Quranic verse (Al-Ma’idah [5:44]). Reinterpretation of this verse is needed first to allow for Jasser’s view to work. This is certainly possible since the verse was talking about the Jews who refused to apply the Torah.

I agree with Robert Spencer that the current situation in the Muslim world and the historical and theological depth of the problem in Islamic teaching should not make any person very “optimistic”. However, the use of the Internet and the speed of communications that we witness today gives me some hope that a change in the Muslim world can happen.

I can see the view of Dr. Jasser that the theological stage should not be the first phase in modernization and reform, but I have a completely different view about this issue. Any trial for modernity in Islam will always face resistance because of the current theology. For example, you cannot teach equality of women while the teaching in Islam teaches that women are half of a man as a witness or that men can beat their women. Removing the obstacle first is fundamental for making the change or in other words changing the theology is pivotal to facilitate the process of modernity itself.

I also disagree with Jasser’s view that “A top-down change would surely fail”. Generally speaking, Muslims feel much more comfortable to accept a change in religious theology when it is approved by the leading Islamic authorities such as Al-Azhar University. Accordingly, “A top-down change” is, in my view, imperative for a reformation in Islam to occur. Some elements of reformation can still happen at the grass root level but their impact and effect will be minimal compared to the top-down change.

FP: Ok, last round and final thoughts gentlemen.

Furnish: Again, I agree with Mr. Spencer regarding the inherent violent strain of mainstream, historical Sunni Islam (which, I must stress, stems from a literal reading of the violent passages of the Qur’an) regarding not just apostates but non-Muslims in general;  however, to equate “mainstream” with existence per se is ahistorical.   And of course sometimes, even today, Islam’s apostates and heretics are executed—the plight of Ahmadis in Pakistan and Indonesia is a case in point. But such persecution has not even come close to wiping out that group, and they stand as a living rebuke to those who would employ Qur’anic teachings to do so.

Mr. Spencer finds ironic (if not contradictory) my adducing of the Twelver Shi`is as reform-minded, based on the neo-fundamentalism fervor regnant in Tehran since 1979.  However, vilayet-i faqih, the “rule of the [Shi`i] jurisprudent” devised by Khomeini, is by no means universally accepted even within Twelver Shi`ism; in fact, the modern world’s two most prominent Shi`i ayatollahs—Iran’s recently-deceased Montazeri, and Iraq’s al-Sistani—both are on record as opposing the Khomeinist system and regime.  The salient point is that Shi`ism, unlike Sunnism, allows for ijtihad—and thus contains at least the seeds of new approaches to the Qur’an and Hadith.  And Robert and I simply disagree about Gülen and his movement—I think his neo-Sufism is truly moderate, not a shari`ah Trojan Horse.

I will reiterate my respect and support for Dr. Jasser in his efforts to drag the Islamic world kicking and screaming into the 21^st—or at least the 16^th—century.  But I simply disagree that “sectarianism is always trumped by Islamism.”  That may largely be true for parts of the Arab world, but it’s certainly not the case in Africa, where sects and Sufi orders are often more respected and more legitimate than the Wahhabis, Salafis and jihadists. As to my adducing of the Alawis of Syria: I was not referring to the undeniably brutal, repressive al-Assad family regime that runs the country, but to the theological beliefs of the neo-Shi`i sect that truly is Alawism, the syncretistic (and borderline Christian) teachings of which are far afield from strict, shari`ah-based Sunnism. Just as the Khomeinist regime does not represent the totality of Twelver Shi`i thought, neither does the Alawi clique in Damascus speak for all Alawis.

I totally agree with my friend Zuhdi that “change cannot be imposed upon a rotten foundation.” Yet many Muslims, Sunni and sectarian, blanch at rebuilding Islam upon a Western, especially American, foundation—which is why I propose that working with, and drawing ideas from, the Shi`is (Zaydis and Isma’ilis, as well as Twelvers), the Sufis, the Barelwis, et al., might very well provide a sounder, Islamic foundation, after which the rest of the revamped Islamic domicile could be built with more Western materials.

Dr. Hamid is entirely correct (as was Robert) that the New Testament does not promote killing apostates, and that this made a Christian Reformation markedly easier than would be the case in Islam, wherein Hadiths considered Muhammadan sanction such killing.  And in fact, I don’t think Dr. Hamid goes far enough—not just the traditions of Islam, but the Qur’an itself, justifies and indeed mandates killing of “unbelievers, as most famously in Sura al-Tawbah [IX]:5: “when the sacred months have passed, kill the unbelievers/idolaters wherever you find them…capture, besiege, ambush them….”  But, at the risk of redundancy, the problem here is reading the text literally, as mandated in Sunnism—and as NOT adhered to by, for a prominent example, the Isma’ilis.

Finally, I agree with Dr. Hamid, contra Dr. Jassser, that a top-down reforming of Islamic teachings could possibly work better than a grass-roots one.  Yet I disagree, based on a close reading of Islamic history, that this imposed (new) paradigm should be a Westernized, desacralized, frankly idiosyncratic “Sunnism Lite”—which would not only taste bad to most Muslims outside America, it would certainly be less filling than reformist ideas with legitimate Islamic ingredients, as is certainly the case with the Isma’ilis, Barelwis, Ibadis and Haqqani Sufis.

Spencer: I find the disagreements among the panel interesting. Dr. Jasser thinks “a top-down change would surely fail,” while Dr. Hamid believes that a “top-down change” is “imperative for a reformation in Islam.”

Dr. Jasser finds “concerning” Dr. Furnish’s “reference to the ruling Alawite minority in Syria as somehow exemplifying the hope for the rights of Muslim minorities.” Dr. Furnish defends his including the Twelver Shia as among the “reform-minded” in Islam, pointing to their acceptance of the concept of ijtihad, as opposed to the Sunnis who generally reject it. But the Twelver Shia, like the other sects mentioned in the course of this discussion, have been around for over a thousand years and yet with all that time to practice ijtihad they have not managed to come up with a version of Islam that is not supremacist and does not teach that unbelievers must be subjugated as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law.

This is not to say that nothing can happen except what has happened before. Islamic reform certainly could happen, and Dr. Hamid’s point about modern communications media making it more likely than ever before is well taken. But the disagreements among the most optimistic of the present panelists shows that Islamic reform circa 2010 remains largely an abstraction, a postulate, an intellectual construct. No one has ever actually seen it, and so everyone imagines it in a different way. Islam has been around for 1,400 years, and yet there is still no mainstream sect or school of jurisprudence that teaches the separation of mosque and state, the equality of rights of women with men, the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, or the equality of rights of unbelievers with believers.

Will such an Islam ultimately appear? I would never say that something could not happen; history is full of too many surprises for that. But so much of American foreign and domestic policy is based on the assumption that such an Islam not only will appear, but already exists, and is the Islam of the broad majority of Muslims. The consequences of investing so much in this erroneous assumption grow more apparent with every Nidal Hasan and Faisal Shahzad.

Dr. Jasser points optimistically to “a broad swath of westernized Muslims who read their Qur’an, pray, fast, give charity, and supplicate devotionally to God in a purpose-driven patriotic life dedicated to liberty and Americanism.” Great – but insofar as such Muslims actually reject the material in the Qur’an and Sunnah that forms the basis for political, supremacist, and violent Islam, they will find themselves under threat. It was again Dr. Jasser himself who summed this up: “The obstacles to the predominance of modern Islam over political Islam are many– frequent death threats, blind corruptive tribalism, societal and financial power of Islamists, and Muslim illiteracy.”

I wish that weren’t the case. I hope that some genuine Islamic reform ultimately succeeds. But let’s not kid ourselves as to its prospects, or about how much non-Muslims can or should actually depend upon it.

Jasser: In the end, Robert Spencer here seems to agree with me regarding the major obstacles I listed to genuine reform. Yet, he concludes a bit dismissively, “let’s not kid ourselves as to its prospects, or about how much non-Muslims can or should actually depend on it.” I can somewhat understand the sense of frustration- since that is my daily battle against the forces of political Islam. However, without a coordinated strategy to overcoming those obstacles to genuine Islamic reform, then what are we left to do as a nation? How do we, moving forward, sustain security against the growing militant Islamist threat? Is that not the purpose of this discourse? These discussions matter little in the absence of a strategy.

I do certainly part with Robert on many of his ideas (not covered in this symposium) with regards to accounts of the morality of the Prophet Muhammad and many conclusions about the faith, the Qur’an, and spiritual path of Islam I and my family have chosen to embrace.  However, ultimately, my deeper more relevant quarrel, is with my own coreligionists—and some of their ubiquitous Muslim sources that provide supremacist Islamist narratives.

I do believe as most Americans do, that all of us agree on the goal which is the intellectual neutralization of the supremacist agenda of Islamists and their political Islam. Simple kinetic neutralization alone against militants will never be enough. My strategy, our strategy, at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) is transparent and built upon a need forward for a liberty movement by devotional Muslims within Islam against Islamism. We must have a positive outlook for the victory of liberty rather than a pessimistic one basically based in a narrative of an impending global clash between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Even pessimists need to have a strategy. Disagreements on history matter a lot less than a discussion on strategy and where we think our nation and counter-radicalization work should head. In fact there are strong indications that the pessimistic narrative is fodder for radical Islamists and helps Islamists attract impressionable youth who want to believe that America is at war with Islam and Muslims. Rather, I believe the ideologies we promote at AIFD to be the type that ultimately can drive Muslim youth away from Islamism toward a modern Islam rooted in American nationalism and Constitutionalism toward a victory for freedom.

We will also need to breakdown walls of deep denial in the west rooted in political correctness if Muslims are going to get the long overdue major nudges toward modernity and reform. But, then what? Does Tim Furnish want us to believe that some of the more modernized minority sects or those more amenable to modernization will win out in the war of ideas? How would that happen and from which sect or sects? Does Dr. Hamid want us to be confident that there will be a post-modern imam or scholar who will arise to marginalize political Islam? How will that transpire in the current environment?

I do hope readers leave here, however, understanding that not only does the solution need to come from devout Muslims within the “House of Islam”, but we all desperately need to develop a coherent, cooridinated, and constructive domestic and international strategy to defeat political Islam- no different than we did in the Cold War against the global spread of communism. Therefore, it stands to reason that all intellectuals in the west should do whatever they can to facilitate the authentic and moderate Muslim allies of the United States who are working tirelessly to break down those obstacles.

That makes a lot more sense than sitting back and watching, like a car accident, the marginalization or demise of genuine, credible, and devotional Muslim reformists. Dr. Hamid and I agree on some but do disagree as to whether the reform will begin from the top or the grass roots. I have no faith at all in those “leading” inherently corrupt institutions like Al-Azhar University in Cairo or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ever completely purging themselves of their deep rooted intellectual and economic foundations in political Islam and salafism. The only solution I see lies in building new honest Muslim institutions founded in genuine classically liberal academics, free markets, and morally sound Islamic teachings. This reform will only be authentic if it remains separated from government and integration into national legal systems (shar’iah). Thus, the primary protection for Muslims against Islamist supremacism is a belief and enforcement of the same ideas that created the Establishment Clause of our Constitution. This new paradigm or meme –the separation of mosque and state– will need generational change just as the Muslim Brotherhood has spread its ideas in the last century. It is time for the ideas of liberty to take the offense! And we can do this neither alone, nor with those who firmly believe that there can be no modern Islam.

I and my family and many other Muslims have lived and believe in an Islam and modernization of the message of the Prophet Muhammad that is not in conflict with our oath to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that the only winning strategy is to develop those ideas of liberty within an Islamic consciousness through the separation of mosque and state – our Muslim Liberty Project. This project is the Muslim counter-narrative, the offensive for the ideas of liberty and against the ideas of the Brotherhood Project. While I may be proven wrong, and I have absorbed significant critique of my own lifetime of understanding of Islamic history, I do not believe I have heard here any other convincing alternative winning strategies in the long term against political Islam. After the critique of my vision or anyone’s vision, how do we move forward? That’s what we are doing every day. How are you providing alternative visions that can neutralize the ideas that threaten our security?

Hamid: It is good that Furnish mentioned the Ahmadeia example as the situation of Ahmadeia in the Muslim world illustrates the fact that one of the major problems that the Muslim world faces is that it cannot tolerate any new or different interpretations of its religious texts. This represents a major obstacle for reformation. Teaching the Muslim world the concept of tolerance to other views is vital to assist the reformation of Islam.

The verse that Furnish used to indicate that the Quran supports killing Apostates is not traditionally used to justify killing apostates. In most approved Tafseers and Interpretations the rule of killing apostates is based on the Hadith rather than the Quran. Recently, some Salafists tried to use this verse to justify killing apostates mainly to prove that the Quranic groups – who disagree with killing the apostates – are wrong. Traditionally, Redda Law is based only on the Sunna.

I may only partially agree with Furnish that in some areas in Africa, Sufi orders are often more respected and more legitimate than the Wahhabis, Salafis and jihadists. However, we have to admit that Salafies are gaining ground, e.g. in Somalia and Sharia-controlled parts of Nigeria. This is partially due to the lack of strong theological foundations for many of the Sufi practices and the tremendous support of Salafism by the wealthy Wahhabists.

I support the view of Mr. Spencer rather than Furnish that the Twelver Shi`is are not truly reform-minded – as their belief system still accepts the violent edicts of Sharia. However, I can say that this particular group has more potential to reform than Sunnis as they still allow Ijtihad.

I also agree with Mr. Spencer that the current situation of Islam is not very promising. Removing the obstacles to reformation such as lack of the separation of mosque and state, inequality of rights of women with men, religiously based suppression on the freedom of speech, lack of the equality of rights of unbelievers with believers may mean for some the end of Islam.  Despite this I still see hope that Non Literal teaching of Islam can make a real reformation within Islam.

The efforts of Dr. Jasser in American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) to promote a liberty movement by devotional Muslims within Islam against Islamism must be saluted. The concept is great and I will add only that giving a strong theological base to the views of this organization will be very helpful. Asking Muslims to separate between Mosque and Church and adopt secularism while traditional Islamic text teaches the opposite is a major obstacle to the progress of these secular views. Giving a theological base for secularism within Islam is needed.

FP: Timothy Furnish, Tawfik Hamid, Dr.  M. Zuhdi Jasser and Robert Spencer, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.

Both Turkey and Brazil have grown much closer to Iran in recent years and have voiced their opposition to further sanctions. So it is not surprising that they have now come to the Islamic Republic’s rescue, handing it a lifeline on its nuclear program just as the Obama administration, after a year of failed diplomacy, had begun to contemplate the possibility of new sanctions.

Acting more as Iran’s advocates than neutral brokers, Turkey and Brazil worked out a deal whereby Iran would ship low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for higher grade nuclear material. But the deal does little to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment activities, which are now approaching the 20 percent threshold that is considered the prelude to an operational nuclear weapon. A senior Israeli official has rightly called the deal “an Iranian trick,” as it will not end Iran’s own enrichment efforts and comes just as Secretary Clinton says the U.S., Russia and China have agreed on a draft resolution to impose sanctions.

The nuclear deal is just the latest sign of Turkey and Brazil’s newfound closeness with Iran. President Lula da Silva of Brazil reacted to the Ahmadinejad’s highly suspect “victory” in last year’s presidential elections by saying, “What right do I have, or any president, to question the election results in Iran. It would be overly arrogant for Brazil, 12,000 kilometers away, to pass judgment on Iran’s elections. Nor would I want them to judge ours.” A few months later, Ahmadinejad said that the ties between Iran and Brazil have “no limits.”

This deal comes just as Secretary of State Clinton announced that the U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China have finally agreed on the potential sanctions to be placed on Iran. The punishments include an arms embargo, freezing the assets of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, intercepting suspected WMD-related shipments, and other restrictions on dealing with the regime. This deal threatens to reset those negotiations.

China is reacting positively to the deal in the hopes of using it to justify the delay of further action. Iran provides China with 11.4 percent of its crude oil imports, and their overall trade has doubled since 2005. The Iranian refusal to budge made it difficult for China to stand by the Islamic Republic’s side in the United Nations, but this latest maneuver will give them the excuse to call for more diplomacy. Avoiding sanctions is clearly the goal of the Brazilian President, who boasted, “Diplomacy emerged victorious today.”

The Brazilian President is technically right. Diplomacy was indeed victorious—but it was a victory for Iran, and not for the U.S. or anyone threatened by Iranian nuclear weapons capabilities. Whereas Russia and China were in a tricky spot due to Iran’s blatant refusal to work with the international community, the role has been reversed and now the U.S. is the one in a tricky spot.

“But if he accepts it, many of the urgent issues he has said will have to be resolved with Iran in coming months—mostly over suspected weapons work—will be put on hold for a year or more.”

The New York Times perfectly frames America’s new position. “Mr. Obama now faces a vexing choice. If he walks away from this deal, it will look like he is rejecting an agreement similar to one he was willing to sign eight months ago,” the newspaper wrote.

Giving Iran another year will allow the regime to better prepare for the day when sanctions may finally be placed upon them. One of the regime’s key vulnerabilities is that it has to import petroleum-based products, including 30 percent of its gasoline. Iran is moving fast to expand ten of its current refineries and build seven more, allowing them to produce twice as much gasoline in 2012. The Iranians have struck a $6.5 billion deal with a Chinese company to help make this happen.

If Iran ships out a large part of its uranium to Turkey, it will not significantly delay its pursuit of the ability to create a nuclear arsenal. It is true that Iran will lose some of their uranium stock, which they are already short on. However, while international pressure is alleviated, Iran can work on other aspects of the weapons program such as the ability to mount a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile. In the meantime, Iran can work to replenish its uranium stockpile from places like Zimbabwe, Venezuela, North Korea, possibly Burma, and through expanding production from its own uranium mine near Bandar Abbas, which they are still refusing to give the IAEA access to.

It is also important to remember that the deal does not stop Iran from enriching the uranium it keeps to 20 percent. David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security says that it would only take about six months to enrich the uranium from 20 percent to the bomb-grade level of 90 percent using 500 to 1,000 centrifuges. Iran currently has about 9,000 centrifuges, but only about 60 percent are said to be operating due to technical difficulties, probably courtesy of Western intelligence agencies.

This means that if this deal is enacted, Iran will still be enriching uranium to a level that will allow them to quickly create the fuel necessary for a nuclear bomb. The Iranians are openly expanding the number of their nuclear facilities, and likely have undeclared enrichment sites and stockpiles of uranium. The Syrians’ own nuclear program, which should be seen as an extension of Iran’s, and the planned opening of the Bushehr nuclear reactor in August further highlight the foolishness of relying upon this agreement to stop a nuclear-armed Iran from becoming a reality.

The Iranians’ best weapon in fighting the West has been the illusion that they can be dealt with diplomatically. Brazilian and Turkey have made this farce a reality. If the United Nations uses this latest deal as an excuse for inaction, the U.S. must immediately create a coalition that will place sanctions on Iran outside of the toothless organization’s framework.

The Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) cannot act quick enough to thumb its nose at punitive measures, claiming they are illegitimate and will be ineffective. Tuesday was no exception. Just as the U.S. finally convinced Russia and China to pass a fourth round of sanctions, the IRI promptly and audaciously dismissed the initiative, stating that it would not be approved by the rest of the United Nations Security Council and even if passed, it would not hinder the Iranian economy.

Maybe the IRI didn’t expect to be cornered this soon after making its tactful move Monday, agreeing to ship some of its uranium to Turkey to be enriched and returned as fuel for Iran’s nuclear energy plants. The operative word being ‘some,’ and the obvious motive being to show a glimmer of good faith before serious energy and gasoline sanctions are imposed.

The new proposal reiterates the demand that Iran halt its nuclear program and further prohibits any entity from selling to or aiding Iran in its nuclear weapons ambitions. It also imposes certain travel bans and requires that all Iranian cargo ships are searched before touching Iran’s shore.

Although most sanction proponents were hoping for a hard hit on Iran’s gasoline and energy industry, this fourth round of sanctions, according to the U.S., is meant to further isolate the IRI and to influence other nations to implement strict measures against Iran on their own.

While a step in the right direction, will these particular sanctions deter the IRI from going on with their proliferation? No. Does the U.S. believe it will? No. So why is the U.S. treading so lightly? Once again, we are brought back to the drawing board on sanctions. The longer we take to impose those that will genuinely cripple the Iranian regime, the more tricks the IRI will pull out of its hat to buy time and to reposition international forces.

Over the course of the last year, Iranian politicians, scholars and pundits have drastically evolved their opinions, mirroring a quickly changing and ever more urgent political backdrop.  Last June, when Iranians courageously took to the streets in the aftermath of a fraudulent election, they were filled with hope that change was within their grasp. More recently, as Iranians prepare for the one year anniversary of those demonstrations, they are going forward more cautiously and entirely cognizant that it will take more than large-scale protests to change their bitter fate under this regime.

The central topic at the time of the first demonstrations was the disenchantment of millions of Iranians whose rights were being trampled on by a rogue and hardline regime. Now at center stage, is the IRI’s nuclear weapons ambition and how quickly it will fulfill those objectives.

Likewise, talk of sanctions divided scholars, politicians, Iranians and Iranian Americans who feared the repercussion on innocent civilians. Slowly, those fears were replaced by an understanding that sanctions might be the only way to stop this relentless regime.

As the IRI further isolated itself from the international community with outlandish rhetoric and flippant demeanor, we found that a stronger and louder majority from the left, right and center began standing in support of powerful, yet targeted sanctions.

And the question, as always, was how the people of Iran will be affected. Why punish the citizens? Particularly in the case of Iran, we know the answer plain and simple. The people of Iran differ greatly with their government.  Yet by pushing for sanctions, are we allowing the Iranian people to bear the reprimands of their government; the same government many of them oppose.

The argument against sanctions on the people of Iran hinges on the premise that they will further strain an already suffering economy in a country where unemployment has been in the double digits for years. Many of those who can feed their families have to work a handful of menial jobs to do so.  The rule of thumb for many in the case of Iran has been to refrain from taking any action that would hurt the people, economically or otherwise.

It is dangerous, however, to make such a categorical statement given Iran’s precarious state. It then becomes necessary to carefully examine all the other avenues that the Iranian people have taken and are willing to take, having risked both their lives and livelihoods quite often.

Take, for example, the 2009 demonstrations. If we calculate the number of Iranians who were out on the streets throughout this year, missing work and cutting back on productivity for days at a time and then multiply this number by the number of man hours that were lost over the course of the year, it amounts to a huge economic loss for the Iranian economy. Yet, many opponents of sanctions, both in Iran and abroad, advocated protests and large-scale organized protests. It is interesting how economic loss was never an issue then.

Juxtapose this number with the irreplaceable and invaluable individuals who were killed, detained, beaten and tortured over the last 30 years. When one considers how the Iranians were willing to send their children out onto the streets the day after the well-known young woman Neda was shot and killed and hundreds of their friends and neighbors were secretly, yet brutally rounded up by the Revolutionary Guard and Basiji militia men, then the argument against sanctions for the protection of the Iranian people becomes entirely moot.

The debate among Iran scholars and political and social activists at this point should not focus on whether sanctions are appropriate to impose, but rather how they should be implemented, and what type of restrictions would best choke this regime while having the most nominal effect on Iranians.

The best recipe for sanctions requires five essential ingredients. First, they should be properly implemented. This means that they are targeted and meant to pinpoint the regime and its extensions only. Next, they should be clearly defined. As we are seeing in the case of Iran, a lack of boundaries and barriers leaves room for games and evading authority. Third, sanctions should be linked to a particular behavior change or resolution of specific issues.  Very clearly, sanctions should be tied to a particular action or behavior and made very clear to the regime. Next, it should be explained well to the Iranian people. What the United States has missed time and again in the case of Iran is a transparent and honest dialogue with the Iranian people. Where sanctions could be misconstrued as action against the people of Iran, the United States and all cosignatories should make it abundantly clear to the people of Iran that the sanctions are meant against its defiant government. Lastly, the sanctions should be lifted after conditions are met, meaning it needs to be a punishment that leaves room for repentance.

Another important point that is scarcely mentioned in talks about sanctions is that they are not meant solely to deter the Iranian regime from fulfilling its nuclear weapons ambitions. They can and should also be used in human rights cases to deter the regime from stoning, hanging and executing innocent civilians such as the five innocent Iranians arrested during the demonstrations and executed on Mother’s Day.

Over the past decade, targeted and action-specific sanctions have been successful in deterring the Islamic Republic. Two instances that come to mind are the freeing of the 13 Iranian Jews from the city of Shiraz in 1999 who were being tried for espionage. The campaign to halt the use of cranes for hangings was successful in stopping public executions for over three years.

Even if we were to give credence to the economic argument against sanctions, there are various ways in which they can be implemented to help the Iranian people without costing them anything. There can be sanctions on diplomats and their families. There can be a restriction on the regime’s communication worldwide, which would prevent them from making sanctimonious speeches at the United Nations every few months or so. The personal accounts of government officials and their families should be frozen. Which raises an interesting question: if these individuals want so badly to hold onto Iran’s government and care for its economic state, then why don’t they invest their money into the country?

Government officials should also feel pressure when they travel, when they invest abroad, and when they send their children abroad. Often, we see the children of the Iranian officials studying at top ranked American universities, while the regime is busy ruining the lives of their compatriots back home. Maybe if these officials felt the same pressures other Iranians did, their own children and families could pressure them to let up their chokehold on the country.

So, despite the IRI’s three-decade-long crusade to steer the country elsewhere, the argument should not be whether or not to impose sanctions. The Iranian people are hurting more in the interim with a hard-line regime which turns a blind eye to its citizens’ needs while duping the international community to cover its illicit nuclear weapons agenda. The argument should only focus on how we can hit hardest at the regime’s lifeline through crippling regulations on their energy and gasoline sectors, for the sake of the Iranians and everyone else.

And of course, the leader of the Islamic world will then pursue jihad against the non-Muslim world, in order ultimately to incorporate the latter into the former. "Supreme Leader: Iran should turn to exemplary model for Muslim World," from IRNA, May 5:

Tehran, May 5, IRNA -- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday that the pious Iranian nation should attain their significant status and turn to an exemplary model for the Muslim World.

The Supreme Leader made the remarks in a meeting with thousands of enthusiastic teachers.

The Supreme Leader felicitated the teachers on 'Teacher's Day', and said that teachers have played a leading role in bringing up of men and women round the globe.

The Supreme Leader said that the Islamic Republic of Iran is willing to extend assistance to the Muslim World and share experience in economic development and science with them.

"Iranian nation should play its historical role through taking the lead in theoretical, scientific, political and social progress for the Muslim World."...

TEHRAN - An Iranian navy plane that came close to a US aircraft carrier in the Gulf was filming the vessel, the Fars news agency quoted Iran's naval chief as saying on Tuesday.

"The F27 plane of the navy flew above this aircraft carrier and took a thorough film. Despite the carrier's objection we insist that this is our right," the agency quoted Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayari as saying.

On April 21, the Iranian aircraft came as close as 1,000 yards (915 metres) to the USS Eisenhower in the international waters south of Iran, a senior US military officer said, adding that nothing had come of the incident.

The US commander, who requested anonymity, said the aircraft had stayed at that distance for about 20 minutes, but pointed out that "all interaction with the aircraft was routine and correct."

The incident happened on the eve of war games conducted by Iran's Revolutionary Guards in the Gulf and the strategic Strait of Hormuz oil route.

The American officer said US Navy ships operating in the Gulf region "routinely have Iranian maritime patrol aircraft fly by their positions -- almost on a daily basis."

Iran's air force chief said at the time that the Islamic Republic was entitled to conducting routine surveillance flights and "no one can object to this."...

No one will, whether or not they can.

Patron of world terrorism, financier of Hamas and Hizballah, accuses the U.S. of being a patron of world terrorism. "Ahmadinejad likely to stir sanctions debate with address at U.N. nuke summit," by Bridget Johnson for The Hill, May 2 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will stir the already stormy debate over sanctions on Iran's nuclear program when he pops in at the United Nations on Monday to address its nuclear nonproliferation conference.

Ahmadinejad's sudden intention to attend caught many by surprise, and comes on the heels of the Islamic Republic's vow last month to formally complain to the U.N. that President Barack Obama was threatening Iran.

What a ludicrous idea. I wonder if he himself believes it.

Before leaving Tehran on Sunday, Ahmadinejad gave a glimpse into the tone he would likely be taking into the U.N. "We have documents that prove [Washington] is the root of world terrorism," Ahmadinejad said in a speech Saturday, according to Iran's Press TV. "It has been aiding and abetting extremist groups over the past years."

Iranian media outlets reported Ahmadinejad saying that he was coming to the U.S. with the goal of global nuclear disarmament, criticizing the International Atomic Energy Agency for not reaching this goal and lamenting that nuclear weapons have posed "the single greatest threat" to the world for more than 60 years.

"I don't know what he's showing up for," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday on "Meet the Press."

"If Iran is coming to say we're willing to abide by the Non-Proliferation Treaty that would be very welcome news," Clinton said. "I have a feeling that's not what they're coming to do. I think they're coming to try to divert attention and confuse the issue."

What was your first clue?

Lawmakers had swiftly sounded off about the visit, admonishing Clinton to not allow Ahmadinejad in the country.

"This is preposterous, and allowing it to happen will make a mockery of the effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue states and terrorist groups," a group of 14 Republican senators led by John Cornyn (Texas) wrote to Clinton on Friday. "There is simply no compelling reason for Ahmadinejad to be allowed to enter the United States."

In the lower chamber, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) led a similar yet bipartisan letter.

"Make no mistake: Ahmadinejad's attendance will make a mockery of a conference meant to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons," the lawmakers wrote. "...The U.S. must not allow this dangerous tyrant to use our freedoms and our obligations as a host country for the UN to force himself upon our country to spread his message of hate and violence."...

Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.) sent a letter to Obama on April 19 with 366 House signatures calling on the president to "fulfill your June 2008 pledge that you would do 'everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon'" and urging Obama to use whatever presidential powers at his means to impose "punishing measures" on Tehran.

The letter, to which Obama has not yet issued a response, according to Jackson's office late Friday, also asks the president to "rapidly" implement the sanctions legislation -- passed in December by the House and the following month by the Senate -- when it comes out of conference....

Iran has warned suntanned women and girls who looked like "walking mannequins" will be arrested as part of a new drive to enforce the Islamic dress code.

Brig Hossien Sajedinia, Tehran's police chief, said a national crackdown on opposition sympathisers would be extended to women who have been deemed to be violating the spirit of Islamic laws. He said: "The public expects us to act firmly and swiftly if we see any social misbehaviour by women, and men, who defy our Islamic values. In some areas of north Tehran we can see many suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins.

"We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them."...

The announcement came shortly after Ayatollah Kazim Sadighi, a leading cleric, warned that women who dressed immodestly disturbed young men and the consequent agitation caused earthquakes.

Another preacher warned Tehran's citizens to flee before the inevitable punishment for flagrant behaviour was visited on the city.

"Go on the streets and repent for your sins," Ayatollah Aziz Khoshvaqt, one of the country's highest clerics, told worshippers during a recent sermon in northern Tehran. "A holy torment is upon us. Leave town."

Tehran (AsiaNews / Agencies) - The authorities of the Islamic Republic confirmed yesterday that they no longer wish to become members of the United Nations Council for Human Rights. Except that, at the same time, Tehran has proposed itself as a member of the Commission for the protection of women's rights. The news was greeted with relief by governments and activists that opposed the nomination of the regime, but also with some hilarity at the idea of its wanting to assume the role of a defender of women.

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Mehmanparast Ramin, , said the decision to withdraw from the Council for Human Rights was taken jointly with other Asian countries, thus presenting a single candidate. According to a western diplomat quoted by Reuters, Tehran backed down when it became clear it could not secure enough votes to get a seat.

The Council for Human Rights has 47 countries and has its headquarters in Geneva. Tehran is under fire from the international community for its systematic violation of fundamental human freedoms. American UN mission spokesman, Mark Kornblau, expressed satisfaction: "It 'a step in the right direction for the Council. The presence of countries like China and Saudi Arabia in it, has contributed over the years to discredit the image of the UN body.

The Islamic Republic had tried to join the Council in 2006. But its candidacy failed as a result of pressure from the United States.

However in a move that smacks of provocation, Iran has put itself forward as a candidate for the Commission to protect the rights of women. The mullahs' regime is one of the toughest in the world towards women, who live in a state of semi-segregation. The are daily arrests and violence against women who are not "adequately covered" or who act in "a non Islamic way". At Friday prayers April 16 last, the mullah of Tehran Sadigo Kazem said that women who do not wear the hijab are responsible for the spread of adultery and "increase the risk of earthquakes" ...

In a Washington Examiner op-ed, journalist Timothy Carney points out the eyebrow-raising ties between President Barack Obama’s team and GE’s leadership. According to Carney, “GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama.”

Immelts’s place on the board is concerning for a number of reasons. First and foremost, GE has been the recipient of bailout funds and stands to benefit from current and future contracts with the U.S. government. This may partly explain MSNBC’s highly favorable treatment of the Obama administration. With GE’s CEO sitting on Obama’s economic panel, it is no surprise that MSNBC rarely provides critical coverage of the administration. Furthermore, GE’s environmental business interests may explain why NBC recently joined Hollywood in inserting environmentally-friendly messaging into network programming. Furthermore, NBC promotes two annual campaigns — “Green Week” and “Earth Week” — that focus on environmentalism.

Media connections are just the tip of the iceberg. GE’s increased permeation into other sectors will have a more profound impact on policy and, in turn, Americans’ lives. A December 2009 Vanity Fair article points to what it calls suspicious “GE-friendly developments” that were spearheaded by the Obama administration. Following Immelt’s placement on Obama’s board, GE found a loophole and became the biggest benefactor of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, a federal bailout initiative. According to Jeff Gerth and Brady Dennis of ProPublica, GE appealed behind the scenes to secure the company’s ability to participate. Coincidently, Immelt was quoted in a November 2009 Wall Street Journal article boasting about $192 million that GE plans to secure in government-sponsored projects – an interesting development considering his close relationship with President Obama and the work being conducted through the Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Additionally, Vanity Fair reports that after months of the Obama administration claiming that the government would not allocate $1 billion for the Joint Strike Fighters program (a fighter engine in which GE is one of two main benefactors), Obama included the plan in the 2010 Defense Authorization Bill. One wonders what caused Obama to change course, considering his previous opposition to GE’s engine. In fact, Defense Secretary Robert Gates threatened to recommend a veto should funding for the engine be included in the bill. Somehow, perceptions changed quite fluidly.

As reported by Reuters, back in September 2009, President Obama decided to cancel plans to install “inceptor missiles” in Poland and a “radar complex” in the Czech Republic. Both of these security elements were intended to ward off missiles coming from rogue states. Perhaps most concerning was Russia’s response that immediately followed Obama’s announcement: “Shortly after the pullback on the shield program was announced, Russia’s government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives…from firms including General Electric, Morgan Stanley…”

As Megan Stack of the L.A. Times has noted, the U.S. needs Russian support to ensure that more viable action be taken against Iran. As a result, U.S. leaders have been pushing Moscow to take a tougher stance. On a recent trip to Russia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made clear U.S. opposition to a nuclear power plant that Russia is building and fueling in Iran – a plant that Clinton says the rogue nation is not entitled to until it can prove peaceful intent. Obama’s decision to change course on the missile program appeases Russia, while opening the door for GE and other U.S. businesses to more readily operate there.

While this may have some strategic benefits, the cost of abandoning security goals also poses its dangers. Obama’s decision to appease Russia may only embolden its government; this would be potentially dangerous to harmony and security in the region. Furthermore, given GE’s history of dealings with Iran, one has to wonder about GE’s willingness to work intensely with a nation that has such integral financial and energy sector connections with the Islamic Republic. Ultimately, the push to secure business for GE and other U.S.-based companies could imperil important security measures against rogue states like Iran.

If compromising media coverage, national security and economic interests were not enough, the energy sector is also at play. GE is looking to partner with the U.S. government in an effort to manage greenhouse gas credits. Tim Carney points out that GE has created a new “joint venture” called Greenhouse Gas Services (GGS).  GGS invests in and seeks to manage greenhouse gas credits, and without the government stepping in to restrict greenhouse gases, GGS cannot turn a profit.  Obama has answered this call by promising to create a greenhouse gas industry by 2012, providing yet another potentially lucrative opportunity for GE.

With new business on the horizon, Carney points out the potential ramifications of GE’s quest for greenhouse dominance. These potential downsides include: increased electricity and heating costs, increased manufactured and shipping goods costs and environmental costs as a result of Ethanol usage. Carney concludes: “When the lobbying fingerprints of GE and other well-connected firms are considered, it’s not hard to conclude that the policy that will finally emerge won’t be the one that is best for the planet and least bad for the economy, but the one that is best for General Electric.”

The buck does not stop there. Health care, an industry Obama has spent a substantial portion of the past 15 months pledging to reform, is also an area of interest for GE.  According to BNET’s Ken Terry, as the federal government began pushing for health care reform back in 2009, GE announced its own intent to invest $6 billion in a new “Healthymagination Initiative.” The overall goal, as Terry notes, is to increase GE’s standing in the health care industry. Perhaps most intriguing was Immelt’s pledge to influence consumers in their health behaviors as well as NBC and MSNBC’s commitment to begin airing more health-related stories and programming. It will become increasingly necessary to monitor and understand the role that GE will play once health care reform is more solidified. If recent history is any indication, GE will also have a major stake in the nation’s health care sector.

The U.S. government has always been, as Carney notes, a viable GE partner, but the changing political landscape is paving the way for the company to receive transformational benefits and control. Immelt realizes this, which is likely one reason that Obama was the top recipient of GE contributions during the 2008 presidential campaign (after all, Immelt is a Republican and a former McCain supporter who has no other reason apart from profits to partner with Obama). With such extensive reach into sectors that impact the daily lives of Americans and with international policy at stake, it is in the public’s best interest that close attention be paid to the alliance between GE and the Obama administration.

If any nation wants to attack the United States with chemical, biological or electromagnetic pulse weapons, it need not fear nuclear retaliation as long as it has no nuclear weapons and abides by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Obama has announced.

So, as New Yorkers are coughing their lungs out from mustard gas or .

In effect, Obama has said if you are a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and do not have nuclear weapons, we will not hit you with nuclear bombs even if you unleash poison gas or biological microbes in crowed American cities or cripple our economy by a massive electromagnetic pulse.

His incredible announcement amounts to a green light for anti-American nations to hit our cities with gas or poisons, resting secure in the knowledge that we will not use our nuclear arsenal to reply.

The Nuclear Policy Review, issued by the Pentagon yesterday, said that “the U.S. does not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states party to the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and (who are) meeting their obligations.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates went on to say that “there is a limited range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may have a role to stop an attack with conventional or chemical or biological weapons.”

He said that these contingencies only included countries “that possess nuclear weapons or that do not comply with their nonproliferation obligations.” In other words, if Iran, India, Pakistan or North Korea hits us with chemical weapons, we will reply with nuclear retaliation.

But if any other nation (like a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan) does so, we will only use conventional weapons to retaliate.

Republicans should reply by introducing a bill in the Senate committing the United States to a nuclear response should any nation attack us with biological, chemical or electromagnetic pulse weapons. Let the Democrats vote against it. Let them filibuster it. Let them explain why we will not use our strongest weapons to deter an attack that could kill millions of our citizens or immobilize our entire economy!

Obama’s motivations for this absurd policy are plain enough. He wants to up the ante for Iran and make it clear that the Islamic Republic can develop crippling weapons for use against the United States without going nuclear. He wants to invest chemical, biological and electromagnetic pulse weaponry with an impunity that can only be obtained at the price of nuclear virginity.

But think about the consequences of his policy! Are we really going to overlook so horrendous an attack and confine our response to cruise missiles with conventional warheads or a few divisions of American soldiers? Is it really material to our nation whether millions of our fellow citizens die of a nuclear bomb or are slain by chemical or biological weaponry?

Obama has violated the Ronald Reagan rule that a president must “never say never.” He has eliminated the ambiguity that has kept us safe for decades and made it clear that our nation will not use its full resources to defend its citizenry even if millions are obliterated by heinous biological or chemical weaponry.

He has made a big mistake, and the Republicans must pounce on it.

Visit Jihad Watch

Chicago Tribune reporter Manya Brachear has kindly written to me to alert me to this article. In her email to me she invited Jihad Watch readers to comment at her Tribune blog on this story, so have at it — why shouldn’t News Real readers join in the fun as well? Note her identification of Tariq Ramadan as a “religious scholar” in her parting question below. “Chicago welcomes once-banned Muslim scholar,” by Manya Brachear in the Chicago Tribune’s Seeker blog, April 5:

[...] Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Chicago chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, said he wasted no time inviting Ramadan to speak when the scholar’s rights to enter the U.S. were restored in January. He had last spoken with Ramadan in December when both of them spoke at the Parliament for the World’s Religions in Melbourne, Australia. Ramadan now has a 10-year visa.”We are all about reconciling Islam and the West,” Rehab said. “We challenge those who attempt to drive a wedge between Muslim and being American. That’s really the life cause of Tariq Ramadan as an academic and philosopher and media personality. He often says that he’s culturally Western, nationally Swiss, ethnically Egyptian and religiously Muslim. For him and for us as well, there is no inherent schism between being Muslim and being American.”…

Rehab said Ramadan’s visa was originally yanked by a “paranoid” Bush administration. He said Ramadan was, and still is, one of the most popular Muslim voices in the world. He is grateful that the Obama administration realized the absurdity of barring an intellectual to speak in the U.S.

But author Robert Spencer says that popularity is dangerous. In interviews, he has criticized Clinton for making an exception to U.S. law that prohibits supports of terrorist groups from entering the country. Spencer said Ramadan should still be barred for donating money to a group that funds Hamas.

Spencer contends that the scholar has the same goals as Osama bin Laden–to impose Shariah law in the West. While Ramadan paints himself as a moderate intellectual, Spencer said, he is actually a “stealth jihadist.”

What do you think? Is allowing a religious scholar to speak in the U.S. dangerous or democratic?

A “religious scholar”? Is that really all that Tariq Ramadan is? Ramadan is the grandson of Hasan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood — an international Islamic supremacist organization that is dedicated, in its own words (according to an internal Brotherhood document captured in a raid of the Holy Land Foundation), to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.” While he has alluded vaguely to disagreements with his grandfather, he has also lionized him, and has never repudiated the Brotherhood’s program.

The Trib article may give the impression that I am the originator of any suspicion of Ramadan’s reformist bona fides. In fact, that is not the case. French journalist Caroline Fourest, who has published a book-length study of Ramadan’s sly duplicity, Brother Tariq, concludes that this much-lionized putative Muslim Martin Luther is actually anything but a reformer: in reality, Ramadan is “remaining scrupulously faithful to the strategy mapped out by his grandfather, a strategy of advance stage by stage” toward the imposition of Islamic law in the West.

Ramadan, she explains, in his public lectures and writings invests words like “law” and “democracy” with subtle and carefully crafted new definitions, permitting him to engage in “an apparently inoffensive discourse while remaining faithful to an eminently Islamist message and without having to lie overtly — at least not in his eyes.” Ramadan, she said, “may have an influence on young Islamists and constitute a factor of incitement that could lead them to join the partisans of violence.”

Ramadan was barred from the country by the Bush Administration not for disagreeing with the Iraq war, as Brave Ahmed Rehab suggests here and as even the Obama Administration has irresponsibly claimed, but for contributing to an Islamic charity that funded Hamas. Ramadan has also recently been in the paid employ of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

[...] Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Chicago chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, said he wasted no time inviting Ramadan to speak when the scholar's rights to enter the U.S. were restored in January. He had last spoken with Ramadan in December when both of them spoke at the Parliament for the World's Religions in Melbourne, Australia. Ramadan now has a 10-year visa.

"We are all about reconciling Islam and the West," Rehab said. "We challenge those who attempt to drive a wedge between Muslim and being American. That's really the life cause of Tariq Ramadan as an academic and philosopher and media personality. He often says that he's culturally Western, nationally Swiss, ethnically Egyptian and religiously Muslim. For him and for us as well, there is no inherent schism between being Muslim and being American."...

Rehab said Ramadan's visa was originally yanked by a "paranoid" Bush administration. He said Ramadan was, and still is, one of the most popular Muslim voices in the world. He is grateful that the Obama administration realized the absurdity of barring an intellectual to speak in the U.S.

But author Robert Spencer says that popularity is dangerous. In interviews, he has criticized Clinton for making an exception to U.S. law that prohibits supports of terrorist groups from entering the country. Spencer said Ramadan should still be barred for donating money to a group that funds Hamas.

Spencer contends that the scholar has the same goals as Osama bin Laden--to impose Shariah law in the West. While Ramadan paints himself as a moderate intellectual, Spencer said, he is actually a "stealth jihadist."

What do you think? Is allowing a religious scholar to speak in the U.S. dangerous or democratic?

A "religious scholar"? Is that really all that Tariq Ramadan is? Ramadan is the grandson of Hasan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood -- an international Islamic supremacist organization that is dedicated, in its own words (according to an internal Brotherhood document captured in a raid of the Holy Land Foundation), to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house." While he has alluded vaguely to disagreements with his grandfather, he has also lionized him, and has never repudiated the Brotherhood's program.

The Trib article may give the impression that I am the originator of any suspicion of Ramadan's reformist bona fides. In fact, that is not the case. French journalist Caroline Fourest, who has published a book-length study of Ramadan's sly duplicity, Brother Tariq, concludes that this much-lionized putative Muslim Martin Luther is actually anything but a reformer: in reality, Ramadan is "remaining scrupulously faithful to the strategy mapped out by his grandfather, a strategy of advance stage by stage" toward the imposition of Islamic law in the West.

Ramadan, she explains, in his public lectures and writings invests words like "law" and "democracy" with subtle and carefully crafted new definitions, permitting him to engage in "an apparently inoffensive discourse while remaining faithful to an eminently Islamist message and without having to lie overtly -- at least not in his eyes." Ramadan, she said, "may have an influence on young Islamists and constitute a factor of incitement that could lead them to join the partisans of violence."

Ramadan was barred from the country by the Bush Administration not for disagreeing with the Iraq war, as Brave Ahmed Rehab suggests here and as even the Obama Administration has irresponsibly claimed, but for contributing to an Islamic charity that funded Hamas. Ramadan has also recently been in the paid employ of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

One more thing: Jihad Watch reader Steve has alerted me to an Islamic supremacist email campaign to the Tribune, criticizing them for quoting me and retailing the usual lies, half-truths, and distortions to try to portray me as an evil idiot (but one who, despite my alleged idiocy, they obviously fear enough to mount the campaign in the first place). They have no problem, of course, with Manya Brachear quoting Brave Ahmed Rehab of CAIR, despite the fact that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case -- so named by the Justice Department, and the fact that CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR's cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Honest Ibe Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements.

By contrast, I have led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community.

In light of all that, what might be the larger motive of a campaign to silence me but not Brave Ahmed, an open enemy of the freedom of speech and official of an unsavory Hamas-linked group?

Mind you, I am not saying that Ahmed Rehab should not have been quoted. Unlike him, I actually believe in free speech, free inquiry, free discussion. I am just grateful to Manya Brachear for allowing the other side to get a bit of a hearing -- a rarity in the mainstream media these days.

Anyway, leave a comment at the Trib blog, and if you're so inclined, write a polite and courteous note to Manya Brachear at mbrachear[at]tribune.com, thanking her for letting both sides of the debate on Tariq Ramadan to be heard, and asking her not to give in to the campaign of defamation from supporters of jihad terror out to smear and destroy those who are defending human rights against jihad and Islamic supremacism.

Three years ago, when thousands of Iranians gathered on Los Angeles’ Westwood Boulevard to celebrate their New Year, altercations broke out over the flags hanging from storefronts. Many expatriate Iranians show allegiance to the old Iranian flag, which is red, white and green with a golden lion and sun. To them, the old flag symbolizes an Iranian legacy that is thousands of years old. Others believe that hanging the old flag is a political statement, dismissive of the new government and its Islamic flag. Still others hold that the New Year is a cultural celebration and that arguments over politics should be avoided.

Every year, on the Sunday after the Iranian New Year, the city blocks off a section of Westwood Boulevard, the same area that is famous for its rows of Iranian book and music shops, restaurants, travel agencies and many other specialty stores. Thousands come from all over to see one another, to dance and listen to music and to welcome in the New Year with fellow Iranians.

As a result of the disagreements, and even physical assaults that occurred, the following year, in 2008, the annual New Year celebration was cancelled. It was blamed on those who wanted to control the event with their political agendas.

Then last year, festival coordinators agreed to bring back the event, but to make it a policy to leave politics out.  Memos spread throughout the community, particularly addressing storeowners, stating that no visible political statements could be made, with a flag or otherwise. And accordingly, Iranians draped the boulevard with flags that were red, white and green and blank in the middle.

This was before the June elections. It was a time when Los Angeles Iranians agreed to hide their political sentiments for fear of losing the only common ground they shared with fellow Iranians. They emphasized cultural aspects. They played up the customs, the food and the music.  They celebrated their New Year by buying the ingredients for their haft sin (seven S) table, where each item on the table begins with the letter S and is symbolic for the coming of the spring season.  They would gather annually on Westwood Boulevard to see one another and to hear dignitaries, including the mayor of Los Angeles, pay homage and extend New Year greetings to his large Iranian constituency.

This year everything was different. The Iranian New Year is the first day of spring and this year it was March 20. The same Iranian people who fought to de-politicize their New Year celebrations came out and made a conscious effort to have their voices and political opinions heard. An enormous sized Iranian flag adorning the old lion and shining sun hung in the center of Westwood Boulevard where no one could miss its presence.  The flag, that became a centerpiece for the day’s events, hung in front of carpet store, Damoka.

“We have always kept our flag with the lion and sun up and we always will,” Alex Helmi, owner of Damoka said. “Even last year (when lion and sun flags were banned) we put our flags up.”

Helmi formerly served as the president of the festival planning committee. He resigned and now sits on the board along with other Westwood Boulevard business owners.

As the old Iranian flag, in various sizes and forms, was waving throughout the street, with it wafted an air of optimism, hope and solidarity that was absent from these annual gatherings for years.

Most poignant was the irony in seeing the flag that had “Death to the Islamic Republic” written in its center, the same flag that ignited all the arguments years ago, hanging again.  This time, storeowner Roozbeh Farahanipour, owner of Delphi Greek, received dozens of compliments on his sign. Two years ago, he received a punch in the face.

“This is a victorious sign for us.  We are showing that the opposition against the Islamic regime is still strong in Los Angeles, Farahanipour said.  “The lion and sun flag is a national symbol. This flag is the one thing that unites all Iranians. Everyone accepts this flag so it has become the symbol of our country and the opposition.”

Around the corner from the festivities stands a striking billboard on Santa Monica Boulevard with a picture of Lady Liberty that reads, “Liberty, Free Iran, Eide Shoma Mobarak (Happy New Year!), The billboard was paid for up by Amir, an internationally acclaimed Iranian fashion designer.

Nowruz is a time of renewal for the Iranian people. It is a secular New Year that celebrates rebirth, nature, peace and oneness. It is neither a political celebration nor a religious one, but this year, the cultural and political have become one — as the minds and hearts of Los Angeles’ expatriate community are with their people back home.

The banned Jamaat-ut Dawah (JuD) organisation, along with other religious parties in Karachi, have prevented the holding of a promotion event organised by a leading multinational company for its shaving razors by ransacking the venue.

The competition, organised by Gillette Pakistan, was supposed to create a local record of number of people shaving at the same time.

Just as the event was about to get underway, JuD activists forcibly entered the Expo Centre and disrupted the proceedings. They then staged a protest outside the Expo Centre and shouted slogans against the company.

"Anything contradictory to the principles of Islam would not be accepted in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan," Qari Muhammad Usman told men who started converging at the centre. "It is blasphemous and the criminals should be punished."

He also called on people to boycott the MNC and its products. The event was a follow up to a competition held in Mumbai in which 1,700 people had participated, organisers said.

According to the organisers more than 2,600 participants had entered the hall and the shaving kits had been distributed when some police officials and expo centre administration first switched off the lights of the hall and then informed the organisers that they could not be allowed to carry on with their work as the centres administrators had been constantly receiving threats from some unknown people.