Traditionally,
in order to justify US militarism and intervention, certain countries
and leaders have served the role of countries American pundits love to
hate, says Stephen Zunes.
[An interview with Stephen Zunes by Kourosh Ziabari]
In September 2007, Stephen
Zunes fell under the spotlight of the mass media following his meeting
with the controversial Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New
York during his third trip to the US to attend the 62nd session of the
United Nations General Assembly.
Dr. Stephen Zunes is a
Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of
San Francisco, where he serves as the chairman of Middle Eastern
Studies program.
His articles constantly
appear in the major media outlets and news websites including Common
Dreams, Tikkun Magazine, National Catholic Reporter, Foreign Policy In
Focus, Huffington Post, Open Democracy and AlterNet. Zunes also appears
on BBC, PBS, NPR and MSNBC as a Middle Eastern studies expert to
present his viewpoints, analyses and commentaries on the outstanding
issues of conflict in Israel, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey and Iran.
In accordance with many
independent intellectuals and rhetoricians, Prof. Zunes believes that
Iran has unfairly become a villain for the American corporate media and
certain political lobbies; a "rogue" to be attacked on a regular basis.
In an interview which I've
recently conducted with Stephen Zunes, he stressed the scope of this in
detail: “Traditionally, in order to justify US militarism and
intervention, certain countries and leaders have served the role of
countries American pundits love to hate. Often, including the case of
Iran, there are certain policies which are legitimate to criticize,” he
added. “However, also in the case of Iran, these policies are not
fundamentally worse than those of many US allies.”
I asked Zunes about the
reasons for his criticism of what he calls President Ahmadinejad's
“reflective superficiality” on religious matters. “My concern with
President Ahmadinejad,” he responded, “like that of President Bush, is
the use of religious principles which, while in themselves may be
legitimate testaments of faith, are used to justify policies which are
contrary to basic moral principles on which the faith tradition is
based.”
We continued our discussion
by switching to the long-term tedious nuclear dossier of Iran. “There
is no question there is a serious [American] double-standard, not just
in regard to Israel's nuclear program, but that of Pakistan and India
as well,” he observed. “Israel is required, under UNSC resolution 487
to put its unclear program under the trusteeship of the IAEA and both
Pakistan and India are obliged under UNSC resolution 1172 to eliminate
their nuclear weapons and long-range missiles altogether.”
Zunes criticized the G5+1
pressures on Iran to halt its nuclear activities: “the G5+1 has no
right to demand that Iran abide by its obligations to the UN Security
Council while allowing Israel, Pakistan and India to continue their
defiance of the UN Security Council.”
The author of “Tinderbox:
US Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism” is skeptical about a
recent CIA report that predicted the political annihilation of Israeli
regime within the next 20 years. “I assume Israel will continue to
exist as a Jewish state,” he said. “But unless it is willing to accept
a two-state solution along the lines of the Geneva Declaration of
December 2003 or the Arab Peace Plan, it will become increasingly
militarized, repressive, undemocratic, and bankrupt.”
The hypocritical approach
of the US and its western allies toward the human rights record of Iran
was our next topic for discussion. “While Iran deserves criticism for
its poor human rights record,” affirmed Zunes, “as long as the United
States remains the world's number one military, diplomatic and economic
supporter of autocratic regimes in the greater Middle East, the US
government has no moral standing to unfairly single out Iran.”
Stephen Zunes is an
associate editor of the “Peace Review” and has long commented on the
Israeli occupation of Palestine and its habitual aggression on the
Palestinian people. “Arab governments have long given lip service to
the Palestinian cause while doing little to actually support the
Palestinian people,” he said. “It should be remembered that it was the
Saudis and other Persian Gulf Arabs who were the primary supporters of
Hamas for many years, providing them with far more support than has
Iran more recently.”
In his spring 2009 article
for the Yes magazine, Stephen Zunes had praised the widespread support
of international human rights activists for the downtrodden
Palestinians who were subject to a 3-week long massacre by Israel
during December and January. “In the United States, which provides
Israel with most of its weaponry, an unprecedented number of peace and
human rights groups mobilized their memberships to challenge the Bush
administration and Congress in their support of the war.”
Speaking with Mr. Zunes
demonstrates that one may be critical of Iran while also rejecting US
unilateralism and interventionist policies in the tumultuous region,
including its support for Israel.
Kourosh Ziabari, a freelance journalist and reporter in Iran, works regularly with Tlaxcala and Foreign Policy Journal.
|