Yesterday, I analyzed the Arabs' problem with Iran and its meddling in their countries, and the Far East, South America and the United States itself, not to mention Europe, and perhaps even the Arctic, even if the news from there did not reach us yet. I said that while the Arabs are indeed concerned about Iran's aspirations and ambitions, this is not disturbing their sleep. Such apprehensions do not constitute a policy, while denying that there is a problem is the worst policy. Furthermore, confrontation in our own countries seems to be an ineffective deterrent, and as such, I suggest today that we move the problem to within Iran, and instead of them interfering in our affairs, we would interfere in theirs, and an eye for an eye... To be precise, I propose that we should encourage the separatist movements in Arabistan, or Khuzestan, a purely Arab land, whose people have been under occupation since 1925, two decades before the occupation of Palestine. A few days ago, the Persian-language book “Five Hundred Years of Khuzestan's [South West Iran] History” was published in Tehran. This province was an Arab land ruled by Sheikh Jaber Al Khaz`al-Kaabi until 1925, when the British colonials forged an alliance with the King of Iran Reza Shah, and abducted Sheikh Khaz`al, who was handed over to the Iranians. The latter then took him to Tehran where he was killed. Sources from Khaz`al family say that his heir was also killed in Iran, and that his family members were expulsed, and that they sought refuge in Kuwait, and what has later on become the United Arab Emirates and other regions. This new book about Khuzestan was written by Abdel-Nabi Abboud al-Qayyem, who is of Arab descent and was born in Abadan. The book is 512 pages long, and deals with the history of the Arabs living in the province from the beginning and until the ninth Hijri century; as for the modern history narrated in the book, it covers the period up until Sheikh Khaz`al became the region's emir in 1897. There are many other books that establish the Arab identity of Khuzestan, written by foreign authors including Britons, Frenchmen and Spaniards, and are available for anyone who is interested. Then there are the letters written by the British Woman Gertrude Bell, a live witness of history. However, I am not writing today in order to affirm or deny anything, but to simply say that responding to aggression cannot be done by sleeping, or by confronting the aggressor in the place that he chose for it; rather, it should be moved to his own territories, along the lines of the noble [Quranic] advice: “Who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you.” {2:194}. Nonetheless, I should be clear in that I am not calling for the secession of Khuzestan, but rather to use this issue as leverage in confronting the many Iranian cards. I feel that I have delved into platitudes by suggesting that Iran's neighbouring countries deal with Iran in the same manner that the latter deals with them, since there is nothing easier than supporting rebels and separatists in Khuzestan to distract Iran from getting involved in any foreign adventures. I am raising this use because when I went over the news items collected for me about Iran in the last two weeks, I found that many platitudes such as the intervention that I proposed, deserved a quick word: -The United Nations criticized Iran for violations of human rights, in particular since the recent presidential elections. What made me pause as I read this subject was that the United Nations has been issuing such reports against Iran every year, for the last 15 years. Moreover, the last report recorded “an increase in human rights violations”; apparently, no one noticed that such international resolutions mean nothing as long as Iran has been continuously ignoring them for the last 15 years, and then only increase its violations. Is it not obvious that the United Nations should try a different approach after 15 resolutions that were completely discarded by Iran? Or are the resolutions being taken for their own sake, and not for being implemented? -The Iranian General Ahmad Mighani threatened that Iran will launch missiles at the heart of Tel Aviv should Iran be attacked. Meanwhile, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, an Iranian legislator, threatened that Iran may manufacture S-300 missiles itself, if Russia did not deliver this missile defence system soon. This reminds me of the threats made by the Palestinian resistance, following every Israeli terrorist operation where a freedom fighter is killed, or when women and children die along with them, when we hear threats of a devastating or awesome response. The obvious thing to do in such a situation is for the targeted party to build up its ability to respond, and not just threaten that. If Iran is to be attacked, then it has every right to strike back at Israel, and similarly, the Palestinians have the same right as long as the occupation is still standing. Thus, I argue here that responding to aggression is such a platitude that it does not require threats; rather, what is necessary is to build the ability to respond, and as they say, be discrete in all your endeavours. -Finally, IAEA's inspectors said that they fear that Iran may be concealing other nuclear facilities, which is something that I am aware of without the need for any inspections. This is not hard to believe given Iran's announcement that it will build ten new reactors, which I hope that the IAEA will not find. I also hope that Iran will build the nuclear bomb; while I oppose Iran and its meddling in the affairs of its Arab neighbours, I always support Iran against Israel and call on all Arab countries to seek nuclear weapons, since these, in confronting Israel, constitute another platitude. [email protected]
