US Responds to Alleged Iran Assassination Plot with Military Action

I’m sorry Levi but I completely disagree. The plot is not some part of an Iranian scheme to usher in an armageddon and a messiah. Analyzing issues in this manner is unfounded and troublesome. This is just like the ‘clash of civilization’ rhetoric that was used to justify the neoconservatives “war on terror”. You’re making way to many false generalizations, and false interpretations.

I could say the same thing about the neoconservative evangelicals in the US that support Zionism because they believe the establishing of a Jewish state is a step towards the return of Christ. But such an explanation of the US’s Middle East foreign policy won’t get me anywhere and would cause me to miss all the points.

As for your generalization about Shiite Muslims, I don’t know where to begin. There is no collective Shiite culture. Shiites, like all people, differ from nation to nation, neighborhood to neighborhood, class to class, and individual to individual. There can be a common element among the differing Shiite narratives that we can point out and that would be resistance to oppression, most of the times Sunni oppression, however contemporary political conditions have merged that resistance with resistance to Zionism. But even such a claim is shaky and I know several people that would throw a fit if I was to make such a simplification to their face. However, to say Shiites want to destroy the world so the Twelfth Imam will return is similar to saying US politicians that are Christian orient all thier decisions to the return of Christ. Also, you shouldn’t forget that a majority of the people involved in the uprisings of the Arab Spring are Shiites. That fact alone has disproved so many bogus analyses and “scientific” studies of Shiite (and Muslim, well even Arab culture) that claimed Arabs/Muslims/Shiites/Orientals are not only incapable of comprehending/achieving democracy but despise the very idea of freedom and “American values”. It’s the Shiites that have been most violently suppressed and least supported by external powers throughout these uprisings.

I just want to emphasis the point that an analysis like the one you used creates its own idea of what “Shiite culture” is, and so its own “Shiite culture” that serves, whether intentionally or not, to spur antagonism, misunderstanding, fear and hate in the minds of people. Such analyses are the ones coloring peoples worlds in harmful ways.

The first point I have to make is that the understanding of the 12th imam provided in the article you posted is an interpretation. This is the difficulty in using religious texts to debate especially when placing them in a political environment. There are other interpretations of the 12th imam that attribute to him a more peaceful nature. And we can’t say all Shiites believe in the same interpretation. However, this is small stuff. What I really want to look at is the significance of such analyses and what’s behind this interpretation.

After 9/11, there was an incredible increase in western studies of the Koran and the Muslim religion. There were sources everywhere interpreting, and “studying” the Koran. These ventures were an attempt to understand the enemy and how a terrorist thinks. Meaning these interpretations stem from the desire/need to make sense of a reality that was shaken by murder, destruction, fear, horrific violence, suicide, “terrorism”. As a result, Islam was molded by this context in order to make sense of the context itself. And so you had people saying Islam encourages death, hatred and violence. Islam was rendered into an embodiment of the “anti-West”. Muslims, according to a snip of a text interpreted in a certain way, hate freedom, democracy, American values, and well Americans themselves just cause. However, all this was serving the need to simplify reality into the “rational us” verse the “irrational enemy”. In order to alleviate the fear of the unknown, to make sense of a post-9/11 reality, Islam was made to be source of the problem.

This brings me to the notion of the Shiite culture. It is quite difficult to truly understand what “culture” is and the debate on it has no end in sight. There is agreement, to some wide-spread degree, that culture is a network of meaning, a lens through which meaning is derived. When studying a culture two main problems arise. First, it’s difficult to take a study of a culture as a valid understanding of the culture because of the several fallacies that can be pointed out in the research’s theoretical premises, methodology, and implementation. Second, it is often falsely and naively assumed that a member of a culture is aware of his culture and has internalized, consciously or not, that network of meaning and view of reality. Taking these two problems together we get the bigger problem of a researcher identifying a culture to be of such a nature that differs greatly from the actual nature of that culture (whatever that may be) and then generalizing that people have internalized that false understanding of the culture.

To make this a little more concrete, let’s return to “Shiite culture” and we’ll see how out of hand things can get. We cannot ignore the fact that the researcher himself has a network of meanings and is constantly understanding his reality through the use of set constructs and creation of newer ones. When we come to speak of a “Shiite culture” we are referring to a construct we have in our minds that is not necessarily the representation of the true “Shiite culture” (whatever that maybe). When we consider the fact that the construction of the term was ignited by and took place within the political context we discussed above we really have to question how accurate this construct is. The term “Shiite culture” thus becomes a construct through which the individual comes to understand his reality in manner that corresponds to his network of meaning. Since this construct cannot exist on its own, but only within a network of meaning, the “Shiite culture” construct is thus not an accurate identification of Shiite culture (whatever that is) but instead an understanding shaped by the individual’s network of meaning itself to fit into that network of meaning. Simplified, we see it in a way that “makes sense” to us. I hope now you can see how misplaced it is to say that Shiite Muslims have internalized and consciously behave in accordance to the nature of the “Shiite culture” advanced by the article and your earlier post.

To make some points that are less up in the clouds, I cannot deny that Iranian politicians have made some aggressive statements. First it must be clarified, that Ahmadinajad said “wipe Israel from the history books”. He has often been misquoted. What he originally meant is a rewriting of the history of Israel and it’s establishment in the Middle East. Not that I’m defending the man. It is true that he and other Iranian politician do charge their rhetoric with Islamic references but in the end this is just rhetoric. As I mentioned before, the narrative of Shiite oppression has been intertwined with the narrative of Palestinian oppression. The reason for this is simple. By advocating the rights of the Palestinians and opposing Israel Iran hopes to come closer to its Arab neighbors and foster support among them. Also, religion is an easy medium to manipulate and build support with. By utilizing both narratives Iran is trying to increase its strength in the Middle East. These are political tactics used by all politicians, all over the world. You might be surprised to see how much opposition there is coming from the Iranian middle class against the financial support given to Hezbollah. Not because of ideological or religious reasons. Just simply because middle class Iranians prefer to have their taxes spent on local services.

I wish i can help you with the picture problem but im new here and am still figuring out how to use the website.

me3zzeyi, summing up your writing I think I may almost say that culture is the cup, and what is contained therein may or may not be to each individual's liking, and indeed may be of differing character and quality, while the cup remains the same. I like lattes, and someone likes mochas. They all come in the same cup, but we cannot say that every cup is a mocha, or a latte. I know that's simplistic, but there you have it.

I know that Ahmadinejad has been misquoted. I cannot speak to specifics, however I am confident that where there is smoke, there's fire. I know that Israel...indeed all the world...is justified in their concern over uranium enrichment...so concerned as to consider military strikes against the Iranian facilities, which would neccesarily be considered an act of war by Iran.

What I am trying to communicate isn't so much that the view of the 12th Imam is true or that the 12th Imam will be as Ahmadinejad say's he is. I do find it compelling when comparing the synopsis of "Twelver" belief with the writings of the Biblical prophets. However, here, as well as to those who state with a certainty that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians must neccesarily be devoid of any religious inference, that will never be. We may sit here in our secular society and bemoan the role of adherence to religion, as both sides claim God is with them, has played in conflicts around the globe, but the fact is, we fail to understand that we are viewed as ineffective, bumbling, misbegotten fools, laughed at behind the back by those who have a firm conviction that Allah, or God, or Jehovah, or Whoever, will grant them ultimate success and guides their way. Who is more willing to be the suicide bomber? The atheist or the jihadist who believes heaven awaits him? We sit in our secular society and think that if only the jihadist could embrace the irreligious political, then peace could be achieved, and we fail to understand that the jihadist never will. As such, we are foolish if we do not concede that it does not matter if we believe it. What matters is that THEY believe it, and are willing to do what is neccesary to bring it to pass...even global war. The question is therefore, not the fabric of Shiite culture only, but rather what is truly believed by Islam in all it's various sects. These drive the adherents more devoutly than atheism drives that atheist, even if the views are false. Does Islam have a "messiah" that is awaited? If indeed the awaiting stays the hand, what will happen should one determined to be that messiah suddenly arrive?

Sorry I took so long to reply.

There is no cup. I’m not arguing with you about how you fill the cup, my argument is that you have created a fictional cup and filled it with whatever drink you like. Read over the second to last large paragraph in my last post again. You have created an idea of Islam and of an Islamic culture internalized and mobilizing an entire population that is unfounded, based on the reasons I discussed earlier.

Without a doubt the Israeli-Palestinian issue has religious dimensions, after all the establishment of Israel was a Zionist movement. But these dimensions have little influence compared to much more significant factors influencing the situation. For you to assume that religion is the sole, or most critical, factor deludes you from what is actually going on in the area and what are the actual causes and influences on the situation. You no longer see the economic, social, political, power, historical, and etc. relations influencing individuals.

The term “THEY” can only exist in relation to “US”. You see Levi your understanding of Shiites, and all Muslims I’m assuming, cannot be separated from YOUR view of your reality. You have fashioned Shiites into the opposite of “You”, and so necessarily regarded them as immoral, irrational, suicide bombers.

Hello Me3zzeyi... I read your response with a certain degree of sadness. Once again I find myself falsely accused and my words misread and taken wrongly. But still, let's take part of your comment, that politics and culture are mainly the driving force behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Well, I suppose "Allahu Akbar!" means "shut up and pass the bullets." And who do you suppose the Jews say gave them the land? The British?

"You no longer see the economic, social, political, power, historical, and etc. relations influencing individuals"

That's just irresponsible. Please do not bother replying. You really have nothing else to say of value. Your'e only repeating the same old tired mantra, and should anyone do anything but agree with you and praise your comments, you cannot dialogue with them, but must disagree and resort to irresponsible finger-pointing.

Hahahah, you realize of course that regarding your last paragraph I can say the same things at you. Also, being as immature as I am, I have to reply now that you told me not to.

I repeated the same points, in a simplified manner, because you did not understand them, or at least did not dispute them. I’m not saying culture is the driving force, I’m saying the attempt to determine “culture” in the way you have is fallible. I gave a discussion that covered vital issues in political theory, anthropology, current events, and even specific although simple references to on-the-ground sentiments. I can’t blame you if you believe that has no value. In response you gave me generalizations, stereotypes, the typical “us vs them” and mostly implying questions.

“But still, let’s take part of you….The British?”

I told you yes, religion has an influence but it’s not the primary influence, decision-maker, variable, etc. You response is religion has an influence. Assuming by your questions, that you regard that as the vital influence. But you don’t provide an argument to support that. Levi, “you’re only repeating the same old mantra.”

I understand how you may take my earlier comments as personal attacks or finger-pointing. My intention was to discuss the manner in which we come to understand such concepts as “culture” and the “other”. I was criticizing your method, not you.

Jokes and snubby remarks aside (I really didn’t want to degenerate the discussion to this point), take it from a guy for who the Israeli-Palestinian issue is an everyday issue, religion is not the core of the problem. Believing so implies there can be no solution. As I mentioned before, the major role religion plays is within the domain of rhetoric, and well rhetoric is rhetoric.

thanks for writing such an informative post. i honestly learned a lot by reading through it, and i completely follow your logic. i think that this is the kind of analytical eye that everyone needs to use to view world politics today. its really not enough to just get angry and make generalizing statements about the US or other countries for that matter. there is a lot more to it than meets the eye...

im curious, where do you get your news/information?

ill write you a longer response later today, i dont have time at the moment but thanks again.

thanks for your comment, you're too kind :D

i agree with you, we have to dig deeper in order to understand whats happening around us and what we can do about it.

as for my info, i actually live in Lebanon so it tends to come from everyday sources in a sense. If you're interested in an online source, however, there's a Lebanese daily newspaper that publishes in english. although it focuses on local issues, it does report extensively on Middle Eastern issues. It has a slight pro-US bias at times but its still a good source: www.dailystar.com.lb

It'll be interesting to see what the US will do now that Ghaddafi's dead. I'm waiting for Obama's speech. I'm expecting him to up the pressure now on Bashar Al-Assad. I think he might mention Iran as well. If Obama does mention Iran it will definitly help clarify how the plot fits in to all this and how accurate or inaccurate my post is.

I'm looking forward to your response.

Amen to that. Moral bankruptcy was the phrase Nixon used. That always
preceeds fiscal bankruptcy. After 40 years of the U.S. sliding down that
long slippery slope, it's so far past fiscal bankruptcy now, that we have
a Prison Industrial Complex and a Military Industrial Complex out of control.
It's Banksters that are fomenting this military madness. That's also the title
of Graham Nash's song from the early 1970s. People are finaly waking up
to the black hole connection between the Bankster's debt based " money "
and the military aggression it takes to procure what they can't trade for.
When the Oil & Water finaly run out, the shit will realy hit the fan. The
Earth has 5 Billion more souls in it than it ever has in world history than
can ever be sustained. I hope it won't take another world war to restore
the balance. But if it does, I pity the survivors who'll be in the stone age.

we are never nice and diplomatic unless we know we will get what we want...war is our game and we've forgotten how to live without it

I appreciate your point, military action does not always mean war--true. But San Diego is a US city so that's not really a great argument.

That is my gut reaction as well,.....but I plan to dig around and see if their is anything more substantial to this. +^d

The United States is one of the most evil, brutal governments still in power! How many millions do you suppose this Government is responsible for killing? The U.S. has done the same to many other Countries. It's sickening to think about...

Thanks David_H! I thought the video was good because it gives the history between the US and Iran in simple terms. Something everyone can wrap their head around.

brilliant, thank you.

You're welcome, graysea.

"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be." ~Thomas Jefferson

i am a citizen who protested all these stupid wars , blame the oligarchs who dominate the governments of the world ... not all of us are like that .