Facebook Feed

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
US-sponsored anti-Israel UN Security Council statement - acumen: bit.ly/3lVqpCM ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

Iran’s Ayatollahs’ war on women

                                                                                                                                                             (part 6 on Iran’s rogue regime)

US policy toward Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran

President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken are recalibrating, reassessing and reviewing military cooperation (including sale of arms) with pro-US Saudi Arabia and Egypt.  The latter are lethally threatened by the anti-US Iranian Ayatollahs and the pan-Islamic, transnational, anti-US Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest Sunni terror organization in the world, operating from Indonesia, through the Middle East, Europe and Africa to the American continent.

The US is urging its two Arab allies to make “tangible and lasting improvements” on human rights, referring specifically to the manner they fight Muslim Brotherhood terrorists (Egypt) and the Iran-supported, rogue Houthis of Yemen (Saudi Arabia).  In 2011, the US opposed the way that Qadhafi fought Islamic terrorists in Libya and led a NATO military offensive against the Libyan despot, which toppled Qadhafi and transformed Libya into an uncontrollable country, a major platform of civil wars and global Islamic terrorism.

The change of US policy toward Riyadh and Cairo – as it was in 2011 – has been triggered by the decision to put human rights, democracy and multilateralism (alignment with Europe and the UN) at the center of foreign and national security policy.

At the same time, while pressure is imposed on Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the anti-US Iranian Ayatollahs are offered a lavish diplomatic and economic bonanza in return for another nuclear accord. This generous US offer is extended irrespective of the Ayatollahs’ systematic track record of anti-US subversion, terrorism, war mongering, drug and human trafficking and money laundering, in addition to their history of horrendous violations of human rights, in general, and women’s rights, in particular.

Iran’s track record on women/human rights

Germany-based The Green Political Foundation noted on March 16, 2021: “The 1985 compulsory hijab law states that all women in Iran, regardless of their religious beliefs, must dress in accordance with Islamic teachings…. Every year in Iran, thousands of women are prosecuted for having a ‘loose’ hijab. Teenagers have been arrested by ‘morality police’ at private, mixed-gender parties for failing to wear a hijab. The law is also used to prohibit young men from wearing shorts or brand-name shirts that sport a Western look…. The women who peacefully protested against mandatory veiling in 2017 and 2018 were charged with prostitution…. In 1936, Reza Shah issued and strictly enforced a decree banning all forms of hijab in a bid to Westernize the country. In 1979, in order to Islamize that same country, Ayatollah Khomeini announced that women should observe an Islamic dress code….

The 3rd quarter, 2020, issue of The Indonesia-based Jurnal Cita Hukum reported: “[In Iran], violence against women is a common phenomenon …. Many women have traditionally been subjected to violence…. The law does not criminalize it and has religious support to legitimize it…. Criminal regulations and laws exacerbate violence against women…. Iranian law emphasizes the power of men and the powerlessness of women…. Women are allowed to participate in some public areas, subject to the husband’s permission…. Serial killings of women [wives, daughters and sisters] by men, who believe that the women prostitute themselves…. Light [if any] punishment of such behaviors is a stimulus to increase violence in society and the family….”

According to the 2019 State Department Iran Country Report on Human
Rights Practices (issued before the current reassessment of US policy toward Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt): “Significant human rights issues [in Iran] included executions for crimes not meeting the international legal standard of ‘most serious crimes’ and without fair trials of individuals; numerous reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings, forced disappearance, and torture by government agents, as well as systematic use of arbitrary detention and imprisonment; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; severe restrictions on free expression, the press, and the internet, including violence, threats of violence, and unjustified arrests and prosecutions against journalists, censorship, site blocking, and criminalization of libel; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; severe restrictions of religious freedom; widespread government corruption; unlawful recruitment of child soldiers by government actors to support the Assad regime in Syria; trafficking in persons; violence against ethnic minorities [Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Lurs , Mazandaranis and Gilakis, Arabs, Balochis, Turkmens, etc.]; violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) persons; criminalization of LGBTI status or conduct; outlawing of independent trade unions; harsh governmental restrictions on the rights of women and minorities….;

“Most rape victims feared official retaliation or punishment for having been raped, including charges of indecency, immoral behavior, or adultery, the last of which carries the death penalty. Rape victims also feared societal reprisal or ostracism…. [Iranian] law does not prohibit domestic violence…. The law permits a man to have as many as four wives and an unlimited number of sigheh (temporary wives), based on a Shia’ custom under which couples may enter into a limited-time civil and religious contract, which outlines the union’s conditions…. Women sometimes received disproportionate punishment for crimes such as adultery, including death sentences. Islamic law retains provisions that equate a woman’s testimony in a court of law to one-half that of a man’s and value a woman’s life as one-half that of a man’s…. In cases of inheritance, male heirs receive twice the inheritance of their female counterparts…. The law provides that a woman who appears in public without appropriate attire, such as a cloth scarf veil (hijab) over the head and a long jacket (manteau), or a large full-length cloth covering (chador), may be sentenced to flogging and fined….

The March 8, 2021 report by the UN Human Rights Commission states that “women and girls continue to be treated as second class citizens in Iran, citing domestic violence, thousands of marriages of girls aged between 10 and 14 each year and continuing entrenched discrimination in law and practice…. By law, a girl as young as 13 years can marry, while girls even younger can legally marry with judicial and paternal consent. In the first half of the current Iranian calendar year, over 16,000 girls aged between 10 and 14 years have married, according to official Government figures….”

In conclusion

Is it logical to assume that such an abhorrent and intrinsic track record of human rights – in addition to a consistent regional and global track record of terrorism, wars, proliferation of ballistic technologies and drug trafficking – makes the Iranian Ayatollahs amenable to good-faith negotiation, peaceful-coexistence and departure from a 1,400-year-old fanatically imperialistic vision?  In fact, Iran’s Ayatollahs, on the one hand, and good-faith negotiation and peaceful coexistence, on the other hand, constitute a classic oxymoron.

Moreover, Middle East reality has demonstrated that – when it comes to US policy toward Saudi Arabia and Egypt – the US does not face a choice between human rights-abiding Muslim regimes and human rights-violating Muslim regimes, but between pro-US human rights-violating Muslim regimes and anti-US human rights-violating Muslim regimes.

Support Appreciated

 

 

 

 




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

The Abraham Accords – the US, Arab interests and Israel

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan believe that the expansion of the Abraham Accords, the enhancement of Israel-Saudi defense and commercial cooperation and the conclusion of an Israel-Saudi Arabia peace accord are preconditioned upon major Israeli concessions to the Palestinian Authority.

Is such a belief consistent with Middle East reality?

Arab interests

*The signing of the Abraham Accords, and the role played by Saudi Arabia as a critical engine of the accords, were driven by the national security, economic and diplomatic interests of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan.

*The Arab interest in peace accords with Israel was not triggered by the realization that the Jewish State was genuinely seeking peaceful-coexistence, nor by a departure from the fundamental tenets of Islam. It was motivated by the assessment that critical concerns of the respective Arab countries would be effectively-served by Israel’s advanced military (Qualitative Military Edge), technological and diplomatic capabilities in the face of mutual and lethal enemies, such as Iran’s Ayatollahs and Muslim Brotherhood terrorism.

*Saudi Arabia and the six Arab peace partners of Israel (including Egypt and Jordan) are aware that the Middle East resembles a volcano, which occasionally releases explosive lava – domestically and/or regionally – in an unpredictable manner, as evidenced by the 1,400-year-old stormy intra-Arab/Muslim relations, and recently demonstrated by the Arab Tsunami, which erupted in 2011 and still rages.

They wish to minimize the impact of rogue regimes, and therefore are apprehensive about the nature of the proposed Palestinian state, in view of the rogue Palestinian inter-Arab track record, which has transformed Palestinians into an intra-Arab role model of subversion, terrorism, treachery and ingratitude.

*They are anxious about the erosion of the US posture of deterrence, which is their most critical component of national security, and alarmed about the 43-year-old US diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs, which has bolstered the Ayatollahs’ terroristic, drug trafficking and ballistic capabilities. They are also concerned about the US’ embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest Sunni terrorist entity with religious, educational, welfare and political branches. And, they are aware of the ineffectiveness of NATO (No Action Talk Only?), the European vacillation, and the vulnerability of all other Arab countries.

Israel’s role

*Saudi Arabia and the Arab partners to peace accords with Israel feel the machetes of the Ayatollahs and the Moslem Brotherhood at their throats. They consider Israel as the most reliable “life insurance agent” in the region.  They view Israel as the most effective US force-multiplier in the Middle East, and appreciate Israel’s proven posture of deterrence; flexing its military muscles against Iran’s Ayatollahs in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran itself and against Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorism. They respect Israel’s unique counter-terrorism intelligence and training capabilities, and its game-changing military and counter-terrorism battle tactics and technologies.

*The Arab view of Israel as a reliable partner on “a rainy day” has been bolstered by Israel’s willingness to defy US pressure, when it comes to Israel’s most critical national security and historic credos (e.g., Iran, Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria).  In addition, Saudi Arabia and Israel’s peace-partners aim to leverage Israel’s good-standing among most Americans – and therefore among most Senators and House Representatives – as a venue to enhance their military, commercial and diplomatic ties with the US.

*Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are preoccupied with the challenge of economic diversification, realizing that they are overly-reliant on oil and natural gas, which are exposed to price-volatility, depletion and could be replaced by emerging cleaner and more cost-effective energy.

Thus, they consider Israel’s ground-breaking technologies as a most effective vehicle to diversify their economy, create more jobs in non-energy sectors, and establish a base for alternative sources of national income, while bolstering homeland and national security.

*The Abraham Accords – as well as Israel’s peace accords with Egypt and Jordan – and the unprecedented expansion of defense and commercial cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel, demonstrate that critical Arab national security interests may supersede fundamental tenets of Islam, such as the 1,400-year-old rejection of any “infidel” sovereignty in “the abode of Islam.”  Moreover, critical national security interests may lead to a dramatic moderation of the (Arab) education system, which is the most authentic reflection of one’s vision and policies.

Thus, contrary to the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates has uprooted hate-education curriculum, replacing it with pro-Israel/Jewish curriculum.

Abraham Accords’ durability

*The success of the Abraham Accords was a result of avoiding the systematic mistakes committed by the US State Department. The latter has produced a litany of failed peace proposals, centered on the Palestinian issue, while the Abraham accords bypassed the Palestinian issue, avoiding a Palestinian veto, and focusing on Arab interests. Therefore, the durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the interests of the respective Arab countries, and not on the Palestinian issue, which is not a top priority for any Arab country.

*The durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the stability of the individual Arab countries and the Middle East at-large.

*The Abraham Accord have yielded initial and unprecedented signs of moderation, modernity and peaceful coexistence, which requires the US to support the respective pro-US Arab regimes, rather than pressuring them (e.g., Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

*However, one should not ignore the grave threats to the durability of the accords, posed by the volcanic nature of the unstable, highly-fragmented, unpredictable, violently intolerant, non-democratic and tenuous Middle East (as related to intra-Arab relations!).  These inherent threats would be dramatically alleviated by a resolute US support.

*A major threat to the Abraham Accord is the tenuous nature of most Arab regimes in the Middle East, which yields tenuous policies and tenuous accords. For example, in addition to the Arab Tsunami of 2010 (which is still raging on the Arab Street), non-ballot regime-change occurred (with a dramatic change of policy) in Egypt (2013, 2012, 1952), Iran (1979, 1953), Iraq (2003, 1968, 1963-twice, 1958), Libya (2011, 1969), Yemen (a civil war since the ’90s, 1990, 1962), etc.

*Regional stability, the Abraham Accords and US interests would be undermined by the proposed Palestinian state west of the Jordan River (bearing in mind the intra-Arab Palestinian track record). It would topple the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River; transforming Jordan into another platform of regional and global Islamic terrorism, similar to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen; triggering a domino scenario, which would threaten every pro-US Arab oil-producing country in the Arabian Peninsula; yielding a robust tailwind to Iran’s Ayatollahs, Russia and China and a major headwind to the US.

*While Middle East reality defines policies and accords as variable components of national security, the topography and geography of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights are fixed components of Israel’s minimal security requirements in the reality of the non-Western Middle East. Israel’s fixed components of national security have secured its survival, and have dramatically enhanced its posture of deterrence. They transformed the Jewish State into a unique force and dollar multiplier for the US.

*The more durable the Abraham Accords and the more robust Israel’s posture of deterrence, the more stable the pro-US Arab regimes and the Middle East at-large; the more deterred are anti-US rogue regimes; the less potent are Middle Eastern epicenters of anti-US terrorism and drug trafficking; the more bolstered is the US global posture and the weaker is the posture of the US’ enemies and adversaries.

*Would the Arab regimes of the Abraham Accords precondition their critical ties with Israel upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, which they view as a rogue element? Would they sacrifice their national security and economic interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue? Would they cut off their nose to spite their face?

The fact that these Arab regimes concluded the Abraham Accords without preconditioning it upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, and that they limit their support of the Palestinians to talk, rather than walk, provides an answer to these three questions.

Support Appreciated

 

 

 

 




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb