6 November - 12 November 2017 - 16-min

2
6 - 12 November, 2017
Editorial
Haley’s remarks on Iran escalates
NEW DELHI TIMES
T
◆◆By NDT Iran Bureau
@NewDelhiTimes
info@newdelhitimes.com
he US ambassador to UN Nikki Haley
demanded in United Nations Security
Council to punish the Iranian government
for its ‘outlaw behavior’ across the Middle
East. American ambassador’s comment has
further escalated the confrontation with Iran.
‘The United States will not turn a blind eye
to these violations,’ UN ambassador Haley
told a Security Council meeting deliberating
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Her strident denunciation of Iran was
a response to international criticism of
Trump’s hostility to Iran nuclear deal
and came within a week of Trump’ noncertification
of the deal. Trump’s decision
has deeply angered Iran and raised alarms
among American allies namely, Britain,
France and Germany who were also parties
to the agreement.
European allies have exhorted Congress
to preserve the deal as it has successfully
thwarted Iran’s ability to attain a nuclear
weapon. Any dithering, they warn, will risk
Photo Credit : Shutterstock
Washington’s isolation, loss of credibility
and increased global insecurity.
Haley feels that the nuclear agreement was
an insufficient instrument to measure Iran’s
relations with the world. She accused Iran
of having violated at least four Security
Council resolutions with impunity adding
that ‘nearly every threat to peace and
security in the Middle East is connected to
confrontation
Iran’s outlaw behaviour.’
“Iran hides behind its assertion of technical
compliance with the nuclear deal while
it brazenly violates the other limits on its
behaviour, and we have allowed them to get
away with it. This must stop” Haley said.
She demanded the Council action on Iran’s
‘most threatening act’ i.e. ballistic missile
launchings.
The Security Council resolution that put the
nuclear agreement into effect merely asks
Iran to refrain from ballistic missile tests but
does not prohibit them.
Iran views its missiles as defence to deter
hostile neighbours, notably Israel and
Saudi Arabia. Washington lacks support as
veto-wielding China and Russia, are strong
supporters of the deal they are part of and
oppose the Trump administration’s efforts to
ostracize Teheran.
European leaders, disarmament advocates
and diplomats including the European
Union’s top foreign policy official, Federica
Mogherini who helped negotiate the nuclear
agreement have publicly defended the
agreement, urging American lawmakers to
preserve it.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, denounced Trump’s remarks,
calling it ‘a waste of time to respond to such
blathering and nonsensical remarks by the
foul-mouthed U.S. president.’ Iran would
not renounce the nuclear agreement as long
as the United States does not. ‘But if it does,
we will shred it to bits,’ he said. Khamenei’s
remarks suggested that Iran would interpret
the re-imposition of sanctions as an
American withdrawal from the accord.
Iran insists that no country has done more
than it in fighting Middle East terrorism,
most notably the Islamic State.
If it had hegemonic ambitions, the nuclear
deal would never have been reached. It
deplored that Trump’s approach ‘toward
the deal and Iran run counter to all of these
efforts and intend to add another crisis to the
regional issues.’
Around 25 former foreign ministers and
dignitaries from Europe and elsewhere
have written to congressional leaders
stating that a unilateral withdrawal from the
agreement would have far-reaching adverse
consequences for the security, the credibility
and standing of the United States in the
world.
The United States must live up to its
commitments as losing credibility could have
disastrous consequences for Washington and
its allies. They appreciated Haley’s concerns
about Iran’s ‘counterproductive and
dangerous’ activities but regarded deal as a
good example of multilateral cooperation.
Haley’s remark sums it up all: “Everything
would be more serious if they had a nuclear
weapon. You’re safer if they don’t have
one.”
D
U.S. Muslim leader warns Canadian MPs not to use the term ‘Islamophobia’
www.NewDelhiTimes.com
◆◆
By Tarek Fatah
Author & Columnist, Canada
@TarekFatah
tarek.fatah@gmail.com
r. Zuhdi Jasser is a former U.S. Navy
Lt. Cmdr., and since 9/11, one of the
few obstacles in the path of the international
Islamism in North America that is led by
admirers of the radical Muslim Brotherhood
of the Arab World and the Jamaat-e-Islami in
the Indian subcontinent.
On Monday, Dr. Jasser, who heads the
American Islamic Forum for Democracy
(AIFD), appeared before the Heritage
Committee of the House of Commons
to share his views on the supposed anti-
Islamophobia Motion 103 tabled by Liberal
MP Iqra Khalid.
Jasser told the Canadian MPs, “I am here to
tell you that by simply even using that term
and referring to it as ‘Islamophobia’ and
getting the government into the business of
monitoring any form of speech will end up
paradoxically heightening societal divisions.
“Trying to suppress what can be painful
speech about Islam at society’s fringes will
actually paradoxically feed an unintended
consequence of fomenting non-Muslim
fears of Islam,” he added.
He warned that non-Muslim Canadians
and Americans “who cannot have their real
fears heard and their speech exercised will
be stifled from the public sector and push
resentment underground where it will only
foment.”
Jasser requested Canadian politicians and
opinion leaders “stop engaging [with]
Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups in
government and media and recognize their
misogynist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and
anti-American ideological underpinnings.”
The AIFD chair pressed on Canadian MPs
to make sure they understood that the advice
they received “from ideological Islamists
is compromised by their fealty to [Islamic]
clerics, and the tribal construct of Islamic
states from Muslim majority nations.”
He could have added that leaders of some
Islamic sects, who live outside Canada, yet
determine what their followers do or say,
even in legislatures.
Most presenters at the hearings get a chance
to answer questions from MPs on both sides
of the house. But as I experienced myself,
along with other Muslim opponents of
M103, such as columnist Farzana Hassan
and activist Raheel Raza, the Liberals and
the NDP use this time to attack us or simply
refuse to engage with us.
Jasser’s presentation was no exception.
Despite taking time out of his schedule and
speaking from Phoenix, Arizona, he ended
up being scolded and mocked by Liberal MP
Arif Virani who used his designated seven
minutes berating the American guest and
running out the clock, leaving little time for
Jasser to respond.
Committee chair Hedy Fry and Liberal MP
Arif Virani seem to have a well-coordinated
plan on how to humiliate Muslims who do
not fit their stereotype of who we are.
What happened when I testified was Fry
allowed Virani to stage an attack on me right
at the end and then when it came time for
me to respond, Fry said, “Sorry, time is up.”
This time David Anderson, a Conservative
MP from from Saskatchewan, would not
have it any more. He approached Fry: “I am
bit concerned and I don’t know if Mr Virani
is deliberately doing this, but it amounts
to bullying witnesses by using his time to
lecture them when they have come here at
their time and effort.”
Fry relented and gave Jasser one minute
to respond, before cutting him off midsentence.
Monday also saw Balpreet
Singh, representative of the World Sikh
Organisation (WSO) claim that “opposition
Photo Credit : Shutterstock
to M103 was based on anti-Muslim animus,
not on logical and principled position”
Thank you, Mr. Singh, for basically assisting
in the dirty work of Mullahs who have
already designated Farzana Hassan,
Ensaf Haider, Raif Badawi, Raheel
Raza and, of course, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and
myself as apostates to Islam deserving
of death.