America Bows to Unusual Depths for Islamic Tyrants
Published in Elsevier
(Netherlands) on 8 April 2009
by Afshin Ellian (link to original)
(Netherlands) on 8 April 2009
by Afshin Ellian (link to original)
Translated from
by Anne Hukkelhoven.
Edited by .
Last week there was quite a bit of laughter in Tehran. With enormous astonishment, the Islamic Iran has taken notice of the American desire to talk to the Iranian regime.
The American Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton, claimed that her delegation had spoken to an Iranian delegate in The Hague. It was a cordial conversation, according to Clinton. The next day, the Iranian delegate Akhoundzadeh denied that this conversation took place.
Stunt
On the question of who had come up with the stunt, Akhoundzadeh answered: “It was a political trick that was most likely thought out by the Dutch minister for Development Aid. He has spread the news.” After that, the Iranian media talked about that weird PvdA [Dutch Labor Party] minister. Did Bert Koenders come up with this? Poor Bert! Who needs whom? Do we need the ayatollahs? Yes, the West desperately needs the ayatollahs.
According to the BBC, talks have been held between Germany and Iran about the supply of troops via Iranian territory - via the port of Chabahar on the Gulf of Oman to Afghanistan. This is an option because supply via Pakistani territory is currently impossible. But what does Iran want in return for these services? Could it be concessions with regard to their nuclear program?
High Treason
The West bows incredibly deep for the Islamic world. Do they do this literally as well? Imagine if President George W. Bush had bowed for the hand of the Saudi king. This image would have been repeated thousands of times in all newscasts. Michael Moore would have seen this as evidence of high treason. But what happens when president Barack Obama does this? Nothing, it will not even be broadcast.
Unusual Depth
Indeed, President Obama bowed very deeply in London; and really very deeply, to an unusual depth, for the king of Saudi Arabia. Why did he not do this for the queen of England? In comparison, watch for yourself how Barack Obama bows with all his belongings for the Saudi king.
For whom does he bow? For the leader of a corrupt regime. For a tyrant in whose country women have no rights. For the head of a regime that applies the most inhuman punishments via Sharia. Since when does the president of the most powerful democracy on earth bow for a tyrant?
Kings
In any case, Americans presidents do not bow for kings. That has to do with the battle for independence. But Barack Obama bows deeply for the king of Mecca and Medina, for the chieftain of decadence and tyranny. In the same way, America also symbolically bows for the Islamic Iran: an anti-Semitic, totalitarian, and cruel regime. The bow is a simple reference to a new tradeoff: we sacrifice democracy and human rights for stability.
The American Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton, claimed that her delegation had spoken to an Iranian delegate in The Hague. It was a cordial conversation, according to Clinton. The next day, the Iranian delegate Akhoundzadeh denied that this conversation took place.
Stunt
On the question of who had come up with the stunt, Akhoundzadeh answered: “It was a political trick that was most likely thought out by the Dutch minister for Development Aid. He has spread the news.” After that, the Iranian media talked about that weird PvdA [Dutch Labor Party] minister. Did Bert Koenders come up with this? Poor Bert! Who needs whom? Do we need the ayatollahs? Yes, the West desperately needs the ayatollahs.
According to the BBC, talks have been held between Germany and Iran about the supply of troops via Iranian territory - via the port of Chabahar on the Gulf of Oman to Afghanistan. This is an option because supply via Pakistani territory is currently impossible. But what does Iran want in return for these services? Could it be concessions with regard to their nuclear program?
High Treason
The West bows incredibly deep for the Islamic world. Do they do this literally as well? Imagine if President George W. Bush had bowed for the hand of the Saudi king. This image would have been repeated thousands of times in all newscasts. Michael Moore would have seen this as evidence of high treason. But what happens when president Barack Obama does this? Nothing, it will not even be broadcast.
Unusual Depth
Indeed, President Obama bowed very deeply in London; and really very deeply, to an unusual depth, for the king of Saudi Arabia. Why did he not do this for the queen of England? In comparison, watch for yourself how Barack Obama bows with all his belongings for the Saudi king.
For whom does he bow? For the leader of a corrupt regime. For a tyrant in whose country women have no rights. For the head of a regime that applies the most inhuman punishments via Sharia. Since when does the president of the most powerful democracy on earth bow for a tyrant?
Kings
In any case, Americans presidents do not bow for kings. That has to do with the battle for independence. But Barack Obama bows deeply for the king of Mecca and Medina, for the chieftain of decadence and tyranny. In the same way, America also symbolically bows for the Islamic Iran: an anti-Semitic, totalitarian, and cruel regime. The bow is a simple reference to a new tradeoff: we sacrifice democracy and human rights for stability.
DISGUSTING
“America also symbolically bows for the Islamic Iran”
I’m sorry, but no, America does not.
Democracy isn’t one man telling the world how, and what we as Americans think and perceive; symbolically or not.
We’ve never had control over what they do or how they do it, what they say or whom they bow to, once in office.