When Hillary Clinton suggested recently that, were she president, an attack on Israel by Iran would result in the “total obliteration” of Iran, some recent visitors to that country cringed. As they did when President George W. Bush likened talking to Iran or Hamas with “appeasement.” Lynda Howland, Tom Moore and Judy Bello have all visited Iran within the last year — Howland, in March — under the auspices of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, one of the country’s oldest peace groups. “A lot of the American public sees Iran as primitive, terrorist and uncivilized,” says Howland, of Pittsford. But that’s not what visitors find in Iran, she says. Iranians are increasingly well-educated, respectful and eager to speak to Americans, she says. She showed me a photo of some soldiers smiling and flashing a peace sign when they learned the group in front of them were Americans.

Everyone knows that the United States would respond with force to any attack on Israel, and will do what it can to prevent Iran from aiding Iraqis who are trying to kill American troops. That doesn’t mean dialogue with Iran serves no purpose. Howland cites Iranian human rights activist Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner, who says, “Dialogue has to take place at three levels: at the level of people and civil society, among members of parliament of both countries, and by heads of government of both countries.” People-to-people conversation is part of the process of building (or rebuilding) bridges.

“There’s no way anyone in Iran wants to go to war with anyone,” says Bello, a computer programmer from Webster, who visited the country in December. Meeting with ordinary Iranians in the streets and shops of Tehran does not provide instant insight into what the government may do. But I do believe there is value in these people-to-people missions. They can help Americans understand that there is more to Iran than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The country is modern, with a growing professional class, including women. There is a blend of religious and secular culture. There is a deep appreciation for art, which is everywhere in public. “And they revere poets, not movie stars,” Bello says.

Indeed, says Howland, on any day, you can see Iranians visiting the tomb of Hafez, a legendary 14th-century Persian poet. “People gather every night,” she says, “and they read poetry and place flowers on the grave.” It is difficult to listen to people speak from the heart, to eat with them, to visit their homes, to hear them express their hopes for their children — and still see them as enemies. That’s what people-to-people missions are all about. Moore recalls a brief encounter with a man, perhaps a bit older than he, who could not speak English, although he tried to communicate with gestures. “I could see in his face that he wanted to reach out,” Moore says. “I tried to gesture that I understood.” It was a simple human exchange.

Similarly, Howland says, at the end of her visit, a few women went into a carpet shop and wanted to make purchases. “But we couldn’t use our credit cards because of the (U.S.) trade embargo. So he told us he has relatives in New Jersey and we could send the money to them. We left with $500 worth of rugs.” It was a simple expression of trust. It is a side to Iran few Americans have seen, but all – including our leaders – should be aware of.

Run Date: 04/24/08

By Soheila Vahdati

Iranian activists are bravely pushing for women’s rights. But Soheila Vahdati warns that an outbreak of an Iran-Israeli war that involves the Bush White House would fan the flames of fundamentalism and destroy the cause.Editor’s Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women’s eNews.

(WOMENSENEWS)–In case you missed it, here’s how a Reuters story started out on the day Pennsylvania Democrats were nominating deciding who they want as a presidential candidate.

“Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could ‘totally obliterate’ Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.”

While many American women may be measuring the next U.S. president for his or her policies on health care, gender pay equity and a struggling economy, women in Iran are looking for foreign policy approaches. More immediately, we’re also wary of what the remaining days of President Bush’s time in office might bring.

The possibility of U.S. military action against Iran has been rising this month along with the saber rattling between Israel and Iran.

Some analysts have speculated that Israel might attack Iran to stop its nuclear activities, which the West fears are a front for weapons development. Iran has responded by saying it will obliterate Israel if it comes under attack.

Amid this, female activists in Iran hope that war can be avoided, fearing the Iranian women’s movement would be among the first casualties.

This would be a major loss because the women’s movement is making progressive gains.

Last year, for instance, the fundamentalist daily newspaper Kayhan called upon lawmakers to disarm the movement by reforming the Islamic law in favor of women’s rights.

In this fashion, the women’s movement is chipping away at fundamentalism. And it is best that we continue doing it that way, within the context of peace. If bombs start falling we won’t have that chance. Nationalism and fundamentalism will rise to meet the external aggression and dissidents of every variety will be stifled.

Troubling Rhetoric

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israeli rhetoric along with the country’s nuclear program are of obvious concern to Israel, especially in the past few weeks as the war rhetoric has risen. Although Iranian officials have repeatedly claimed the nuclear program is for civilian purposes only, the United States and Israel are not yet convinced.

Following an April 16 meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, President Bush said it is “naive” to think Iran would not be able to transfer nuclear enrichment into a weapons program.

That same day, prominent Israeli newspaper Haaretz opened its editorial by reiterating: “Iran under the Islamic revolutionary government represents a serious security problem for Israel.” And to underscore the extent to which the U.S. military stands behind Israel in this matter it concluded: “Bush may not be the world’s police officer, but in the absence of any other cop on the horizon, he can be expected to make good on his promise to prevent Iran from acquiring the ability to destroy Israel.”

Meanwhile, at a joint congressional hearing, congressional members bluntly expressed their frustration at the lack of an effective U.S. policy toward Iran. “Having a policy of hope is horse dung,” is how Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, expressed it.

Diverting the Fifth Column

In the face of U.S.-Israel opposition the Iranian government is reacting by not only strengthening its military forces but also eliminating any potential “fifth column” recruits, including anybody who dares voice their criticism of the state.

The government strictly controls the media and has closed down magazines that it deems are unsupportive of the government or hold the slightest critical views and commentaries. Zanan, a monthly magazine and the only women’s independent publication in the country, became the latest victim of the government crackdown on media in January.

The state’s strict policies never allow the public to openly voice their opinions about negotiating peace with Israel. A few years ago, I had an interview with an Israeli peace activist, Ada Aharoni, about the joint efforts of some Israeli and Palestinian women for building peace. After the piece was published online, I received e-mails from women in Iran who wished they could join efforts to make Israel and Palestinians negotiate a peaceful solution, but no one was willing to be interviewed.

Yet, female activists have been among the most vocal critics of the Islamic regime, demanding an end to the systemic gender discrimination by the state-imposed Islamic laws. Consequently, they are the first to be oppressed.

Activist Attacked Every 4 Days

Scores of female activists face charges of acting “against national security” and for the first time they face sentences of flogging in addition to prison terms, though the sentences are mostly suspended. Women’s groups are tracking these cases online. During the past three months, on average, one female activist has been summoned, tried, sentenced or threatened every four days.

According to one prominent women’s rights activist, who does not want her name to be revealed, the fundamentalists have all activists and vocal dissidents, at most a few hundred, under surveillance.

“We know that we can work when there is peace,” she says. “But if there is any serious military threat, the regime will round us up and execute us immediately in order to make sure nobody thinks of a replacement for the current regime.”

Iran has made it clear that any military action against the country would lead to a full-scale war. As in any war, nationalism and patriotism will come to support the state, which in this case is in the hands of the fundamentalists. Furthermore, Iran plans to actively recruit its fundamentalist supporters from all over the world to target U.S. interests.

Such a scenario is the worst nightmare of Iranian women’s rights activists. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, women have successfully brought severe theoretical and practical challenges to the Islamic fundamentalism. Women have defied barriers set by the Islamic regime and found their way into nearly all aspects of social life. The headscarf has been no barrier for women to enjoy education and employment and now they are showing their presence in the fields of music and sports.

Women are continuously pushing for reforms to the state-imposed Islamic laws. The child custody law, for example, has been reformed to increase the mother’s share of child custody. The inheritance law was reformed to lessen discrimination against women. Last year, when the lawmakers were drafting the Islamic polygamy bill, women brought sharp criticism to it. Before it could reach the parliament the Supreme Leader–Iran’s highest-ranking religious and political authority–announced his opposition to the bill in a meeting with the 12 female members of the 281-seat parliament.

The Stop Stoning Forever campaign–initiated by women in August 2006 after activists learned of a case where a man and a woman had been stoned and another woman was sentenced–caused some of the prominent grand ayatollahs to distance themselves from the practice of stoning, a legal form of punishment for adultery prescribed under Iran’s Islamic Penal Code. When the campaign drew public attention to stoning, some prominent religious figures, including Ayatollah Montazeri and Ayatollah Mousavi Bojnordi, issued decrees allowing the state to bend the Islamic law and put an end to stoning.

Dr. Soheila Vahdati is an Iranian American human rights activist who has written many articles about women’s human rights and gender issues in Iranian journals. She is a coordinator of the Stop Stoning Forever campaign and is based in California.

Women’s eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org.

By Robert Scheer

How proud the Clintonistas must be. They have learned how to rival what Hillary once termed the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in the effort to destroy a viable Democratic leader who dares to stand in the way of their ambitions. The tactics used to kneecap Barack Obama are the same as had been turned on Bill Clinton in earlier times, from radical-baiting associates to challenging his resolve in protecting the nation from foreign enemies. Sen. Clinton’s eminently sensible and centrist—to a fault—opponent is now viewed as weak and even vaguely unpatriotic because he is thoughtful. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Morris could have done a better job.

On primary election day in Pennsylvania, even with polls showing her well ahead in that state, Hillary went lower in her grab for votes. Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran, which doesn’t have nuclear weapons, on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to “totally obliterate them,” in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale.

Shouldn’t the potential leader of a nation that used nuclear bombs to obliterate hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese employ extreme caution before making such a threat? Neither the Japanese then nor the Iranian people now were in a position to hold their leaders accountable, and to approve such collective punishment of innocents is to endorse terrorism. This from a candidate who attacked her opponent for suggesting targeted strikes against militants in Pakistan and derided his openness to negotiations with other national leaders as an irresponsible commitment on the part of a contender for the presidency.

Clearly the heat of a campaign is not the proper setting for consideration of a response to a threat from a nation that is a long way from developing nuclear weapons. Obviously the danger of Iran’s developing such weapons can be met with a range of alternatives, from the diplomatic to the military, that do not involve genocide and at any rate must be considered in moral and not solely political terms. Or is it base political ambition that would guide Clinton if she received that middle-of-the-night phone call?

If so, it cannot be assumed that Hillary Clinton as president would be less irrationally hawkish and more restrained in the unleashing of military force than John McCain. The latter, at least, has personal experience with the true, on-the-ground costs of militarism gone wild. Yes, I know that McCain still holds out the hope of winning the Iraq war that both he and Hillary originally endorsed, but for Clinton to raise the rhetoric against Iran in the midst of a campaign is hardly the path to Mideast peace, whether it concerns Israel or Iraq. It is bizarre that a politician who bought into the phony threat about Iraq’s nonexistent WMD arsenal now plays political games with the alleged threat posed by Iran.

The war has accomplished only one major change in the configuration of Mideast power: Iran now holds uncontested supremacy as the region’s key player. Whatever chance there is for stability in Iraq now depends on the blessings of the ayatollahs of Iran, whose surrogates were put in power in Baghdad as a consequence of the American invasion. It is totally hypocritical for Clinton or McCain to now talk about getting tough with Iran over the nuclear weapons issue, when both contributed so mightily to squandering U.S. leverage over Tehran.

To meet that potential nuclear weapons threat from Iran requires a serious, non-rhetorical, multinational response that makes clear that no nation has the right to obliterate the population of another, and that nations, even our own, that claim that right should be challenged as unacceptably barbaric. Instead, Clinton played into the thoughts of fanatics throughout the world who believe that might makes right and who take the United States—which spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined (including many billions on new sophisticated and “usable” nuclear weapons)—as both their enemy and an example to emulate.

What better argument do the ayatollahs need to justify their obtaining a nuclear “deterrent” than that the possible leader of the first nation to develop nuclear weapons, and the only one to ever use them to kill people, now threatens the people of Iran with obliteration?

Originally published by www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080422_robert_scheer_apr_23_clinton_and_iran