Worldfocus

11/23/2009 :: 10:53:50 AM
Jim Weekley Says:

No Iran cannot be trusted. They recently sentenced some of the leaders of the anti government rallies to death - what a cowardly act on Iran’s part. I’ve said before and will say over and over. Israel should attack them without warning with the our (the US) help. Yes, I’m sure that Israel have nuclear weapons - but they are a rational government and state with no ambitions to hurt anyone. Iran on the other hand is dangerous not only to it’s immediate neighbors but to the west (particularly the US)not to mention the blackmail we may receive in order for them to control the oil rich middle-east. My questions is why the west has not countered Russian and China - they are the two responsible for Iran’s Nuclear Weapons ability - is Russia and China hoping that Iran will do their dirty work with Nuclear weapons so they can look nice and clean - when their dirty up to their ears in this thing. A nuclear attack on the west ought to be considered the same as an attack by Russia and China and a response in kind ought to be forthcoming from the west with the old Mutually Assured Destruction concept. JIM @ USA

11/23/2009 :: 08:36:53 AM
Neolithic Cave Painter Says:

So, Fundamentalist nut cases don’t mind Science when it come to nuke physics. Interesting. I would say that we need to take away all nukes and nuke potential in Middle East (including Israel), however the scriptural clashes between the major religions pose a greater overall threat to humanity. That will be a hard ‘nut’ to crack. :)

11/22/2009 :: 11:35:01 PM
jgarbuz Says:

The reason why Israel never declared itself a nuclear state, or publicly tested a nuclear weapon is simple. Under the NPT, a signatory may NOT withdraw from the treaty UNLESS it is actually threatened by a nuclear power. North Korea’s excuse for withdrawing from the NPT is that it CLAIMS that the US is always preparing a nuclear attack on it. Technically, the US and North Korea are still in a state of war. Technically, Israel is still at war with most of the Arab countries. If Israel tested a weapon or officially declared itself, that would give Egypt, Syria, Jordan, IRaq, Lebanon, Libya and all Muslim states still technically at war, or still hostile to Israel, to withdraw from the treaty and pursue their own. So by never testing and by never declaring, there is not legal PROOF that Israel is a nuclear state. But as nonsignatories to the NPT, Israel, India and Pakistan have the right to build bombs. But Israel is the only one whose policy is never to even talk about it. It is official policy and treasonous to do otherwise in Israel.

11/22/2009 :: 01:18:33 PM
Matha Goram Says:

Iran has had issues with the neighbors to its west for nearly five thousand years. The current regime is perhaps a little more irrational than the one it replaced. But are all these challenges worth sending our sons and daughters in harm’s way? Iran is no threat to the U.S. (Straights of Hormuz notwithstanding) and the Iranian people can benefit greatly from the friendship of Americans. If they cannot make the sacrifices to attain this friendship then it is their loss not ours. Why must the “elephant in the room” metaphor be our guiding principle in our relations with Iran?

11/22/2009 :: 05:28:28 AM
john smith Says:

Israel has every right to their nuclear weapons facing threats from the Arab world to be wiped off the map isn’t that scary? Imagine if say Iran did attack? Nuclear war is what will happen? Do you want to take that risk? If nuclear war occurs, it involves everyone. Millions of innocent lives could be destroyed by Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons!!!

11/22/2009 :: 03:00:01 AM
Jim Versteeg Says:

Why does no one talk about the nuclear arms that Israel has? Is that country privilaged? Are the people of Iran considered second class citizens and have no right to nuclear weapons? Did Isreal obtain these nuclear weapons with US help and assistence?

11/21/2009 :: 07:04:16 PM
Dionicio Says:

OOOOPS! Recently, World Focus let slip a picture of Israel’s latest submarine armed, it said, with “nuclear-tipped missiles.” Could this possibly be a reason for Iran to arm itself with the same sort of weaponry? Surely not. How could any state possibly feel threatened by a nuclear-armed neighbor?

11/21/2009 :: 06:54:00 PM
Carmen Says:

Iran has NOT threatened Israel. Iran has said Israel will self destruct. There is a huge difference. Zionist spinmasters are pushing lies to make sure there is no muslim nation that’s militarily and economically powerful. Iran developing nukes may be a good thing since Israel is totally out of control and is now defying the entire western world with its land grabbing. If you read jewish papers, they shamelessly talk about parts of Jordan and Lebanon being ancient jewish lands. Never mind that there isn’t an iota of archeological evidence of King David and all the other nonsense they have come up with the so-called Bible they wrote themselves.

11/21/2009 :: 06:26:31 PM
B. Kelly Says:

As President Reagan said, trust but verify.

11/21/2009 :: 04:25:30 PM
earle,florida Says:

America’s democracy,or republic is whatever the “commercialized journalist” of today refer to calling it,…sadly only in past reference. All the insane rhetoric of the voter’s rights to elect a free,and socially responsible society is nothing more than a slippery slope being greased by Israel’s(middle-east),Britain(European community)United States(the America’s)hegemony collective! Think about what just happened in Afghanistan’s elections,and yet the world powers turn a blind-eye excepting the atrocity with a best-of-the-worst philosophical cant! Next we turn to Iran…the only true democratic government in the region,…but the war cries of the western worlds political pundits scream bruiting the injustice of it all,…how predictable. Let us not forget the free,and open elections the Palestinian people had electing Hamas members to run their government,unfortunately,…but as usual the United States failed to recognize them as a legitimate entity,therefore no ally of ours. Ironically,…most, if not all of our middle-east allies adammantly oppose the anti-apotheosis democratic thesis,in any way, shape,or form,period! Most if not all of the Gulf States,including Egypt,Saudi Arabia,etc.,etc,.prefer their timeless authoritarian political rule with little more than a whispers disagreement by the Western Democracies elitist,…funny isn’t it how double-standars have a unique multiplier effect when there’s money to be made on exported capitalism. Lastly ,..I’d be remiss not to mention Venezuela’s oil rich country under the democratically elected president Hugo Chavez whom the imperialist (actually it’s a laughable situation,if not for all the horror?) seem unable to dispose for his independent arrogant thinking ,… trying to make a better life for the people whom seem to keep electing him back in office,…he’s got to be doing something right? Bottom line,…Iran will not be a lap dog to the west,so I guess another twenty-years of sanction’s should pacify the impasse?

11/21/2009 :: 02:17:54 PM
HD Says:

Who care if Iran come clean or not .
Why all those contys have it ?
The world better without that . Why they are picking on Iran ? When Isreail .Russia . Frensh . USA . India . Pakistan and more having it .

11/21/2009 :: 12:55:41 PM
ROBERT Says:

FIRST OF ALL,THEREIS NO PROOF THAT IRAN IS STRIVING TO DEVELOP A NUCLEAR BOMB.ALSO, WHY SHOULDN’T THEY HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON-IT IS A MATTER OF SELF DEFENSE AS ISRAEL HAS 200 HUNDRED MIN NUCLEAR BOMBS AND THE WORLD KNOWS IT BUT NOTHING (SANCTIONS EMBARGO) )IS DONE ABOUT IT . THE UNITED STATES, A SUBSERVIENT SATELLITE OF ISRAEL,AND ISRAEL AS WELL AS THE OTHERS ARE THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITES WHILE THEY SIT THERE CONDEMNING IRAN FOR HAVING A NUCLEAR PROGRAM WHEN ISRAEL CONSTANTLY THREATENS TO ATTACK IRAN AS THEY DID SADDAM HUSSEIN IN 1980. THE MOST LIKELY COUNTRY TO USE A NUCLEAR WEAPON IS ISRAEL–THEY HAVE USED NAPALM(INITIALLY IN THE ILLEGAL INVASION OF LEBANON IN1982)CLUSTER BOMBS,PHOSPHOROUS BOMBS ,ETC RESULTING IN MANY CIVILIAN DEATHS ANDIF THEY WERE UNDER A FURIOUS ATTACK, THEY WOULD DEFINITELY USE IT.

11/21/2009 :: 11:44:59 AM
James Lesley Says:

Since many years, Iran rejected Western Corporate Imperialism and is hated by Capitalist. Similar Cuba. Never will Capitalist forgive the loss of a franchise.

11/21/2009 :: 09:17:09 AM
karl kettler Says:

The question should be can Iran trust the West? After all it was Eisenhower who overthrew the Mossadeg government and imposed upon them the Shah. It was America that supported Saddam, (whom they later double crossed)in his unprovoked aggression against Iran. It was the West that helped create Israel’s nuclear arsenal. And the West wants Iran to trust them? No one can be that stupid. Iran has seen this theatrical production before.

11/21/2009 :: 08:40:20 AM
Bradley Says:

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allows inspectors in. Israel REFUSES to sign, and REFUSES inspections. When is the US going to show some OBJECTIVITY and EVEN-handedness?
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive,acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections.]

11/21/2009 :: 08:14:14 AM
Bob Bobic Says:

I doubt that the Palestinians believe that Israel does not intend to destroy another nation. They suffer under the Israeli ethnic cleansing and genocide every day. My country used those pretenses to invade and destroy Jugoslavia, but look the other way when it comes to Israel. We have surrounded Iran with puppet states or occupied states. Why should Iran not want the security that nukes would give them?

11/21/2009 :: 02:41:44 AM
Mike Says:

Why should Iran “come clean” with their nuclear program? The US doesn’t own the world, neither does the UN or the “Western World”. If we are serious about freedom, let Iran build the nukes and suffer the same responsibilities the rest of the countries, that have nukes have to deal with. They are no more a threat than the H1N1 is.

11/20/2009 :: 10:54:32 PM
vetruz Says:

No. Iran won’t give up its quest to become a nuclear power unless it faces a credible threat to prevent it.

That would mean either crippling economic sanctions, endorsed by Russia and China, as well as the U.S. and Western Europe or a grave and credible military threat from Israel and/or NATO members.

Israel doesn’t rule out the possible use of military force to prevent Iran from nuking it first.

The west has unilaterally ruled out military force. And, Russia and China would not support really tough economic sanctions against Iran.

So, Iran has nothing to worry about.

By the way, I strongly disagree with your guest on the program Friday night. He thinks Obama’s soft approach toward Iran needs more time. I think Iran’s refusal to cooperate is clear. The Iranian leadership knows that Obama is a pushover.

11/20/2009 :: 09:31:54 PM
michael Says:

Why should they. When Israel comes clean on their nuclear weapons then we can insist that both contries abandon there nuclear weapons program.

11/20/2009 :: 09:24:28 PM
Dave Says:

The Jews possess nuclear weapons, as well as biological and chemical weapons. How long will the mainstream media, WorldFocus included, remain in denial on this topic? The BBC, in 2003, produced and aired globally a fifty-minute documentary titled, “Israel’s Secret Weapons.” In 1976, Carl Duckett, then CIA’s deputy director of science and technology, commented publicly that Israel possessed operational nukes. In April, 1976, Time magazine published an article stating that Israel had the bomb. In 1986, the Sunday Times of London published revelations from Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu that Israel had over 100 nukes. Then there is information published in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the authoritative Jane’s Intelligence Review that Israel possesses as many as 500 nuclear weapons.
Shouldn’t WorldForum rephrase the question and ask “Why hasn’t the mainstream American media discussed Israel’s stranglehold on WMDs in the Mid-East in the same breath as Iran’s purported attempt to enrich nuclear materials to bomb-grade fissile strength?” It’s been 33 years since the CIA and Time magazine revelations. Isn’t it about time you folks come clean on the topic and to hell with Israel and its policy of deception where WMDs are concerned? You are journalists, aren’t you?

11/20/2009 :: 09:02:09 PM
John Says:

Why should Iran be required to submit to nuclear inspection when our policy towards Israel in this regard is “Don’t ask - Don’t tell”. Isn’t this a double standard?

11/20/2009 :: 08:01:14 PM
Michael Allenz Says:

I thought World Focus was viewed by people of measureable intelligence??
The authors of the above comments must all be either muslim, evangelicals or just plain Israel Haters.
All of you fools are forgetting One Major Point, Israel and it’s government has Never Proclaimed the destruction of Another Soverign State.
That is an offense under UN rules, but those threats are Ignored. Would the US ignore direct threats from Other UN members???

The weapons of Israel are purely defensive!
The weapons that Iran wishes to develop are for Purely Destructive means.
It’s only a matter of time before Israeli F-16’s blow up nuclear plants in Iran because Obama wishes to play the time game.
Wake up and get real, Iran doesn’t know anything but Hatred and destruction. Your support for Iranian nuclear development will only cause more pain for the Iranian people.
Learn how to tolerate and accept!!

11/20/2009 :: 07:53:49 PM
Joseph Says:

Iran is a two face clown. Ask yourself, which face do you trust?

11/20/2009 :: 07:50:02 PM
Cher Bouzar Says:

Iran will not stop its nuclear program, and can not be trusted. Iran is the chief sponsors of terrorist, like Hezbollah, and Al-Qaida. These groups are very dangerous, and the world peace is in danger. Instead of nonsense sanctions, the world must seriously consider to destablilize the Islamic Regime and overthrow this Barbaric government. For those people that think to leave Iran alone, think twice, and take a trip to Iran see how much the Iranian people are suffering and how much they hate this brutal regime. Iran has no human right, and Neda who was killed on the street, was a small sample. Iranian regime is corrupted. Regime change is the only way.

11/20/2009 :: 07:45:56 PM
dan dankoff Says:

Israel has never thratend to wipe out any country
from the world map.Iran is commited to start a second holocaust.

11/20/2009 :: 07:17:55 PM
Larry Hoffner Says:

There is an intelligent, educated, and progressive class within Iran that is not comfortable with the confrontational approach of the present regime. Time and patience will bring about reform in Iran. Hopefull, I am correct!

11/20/2009 :: 07:14:47 PM
Hugh Says:

What about Israel coming clean about its nuclear program? I don’t understand why the United States and the former western colonial powers can demand that Israel be given total hegemony in the Middle East. It would advance peace much further if we insisted upon equity in the region. This includes a decent deal for the Palestinians. Why should we demand that the Muslim countries countenance the extermination of the Palestinians, and every other muslim country that threatens Israel.

11/20/2009 :: 06:51:29 PM
earle,florida Says:

If not for Iran’s president blowing off steam in public about …”wiping Israel off the face of the world”,…the situation would probably be more amicable. What Iran’s leader has said publicly,…is only mirrored silently by the Israelites. The fact that Iran has a more formidable military presence in the middle-east has hog-tied Israel,and the British, United States from an earlier pre-ordained invasion. Believe it…or not,the Iranian people political idiologies are not so different than our democracy,…yes, it’s predicated on a wobbly at best Theocracy,…but doesn’t the Vatican control the unmentional idealistic philosophies layered in our wonderful pacifist Christian Society? Are not both theocracies,…?

11/20/2009 :: 06:51:19 PM
LG Says:

Why should Iran “come clean”? Supported by their American lap-dogs, do you think Isreal will come clean about their nukes or sign a non-proliforation treaty?

11/20/2009 :: 06:37:18 PM
Rev. Alvin Cordes Says:

When have Muslim leaders ever told the truth unless it was to their advantage? They have never been obligated to tell the truth to any except a Muslim. And they do not trust each other.

11/20/2009 :: 06:35:38 PM
john lees Says:

It is no longer a secret that Israel has nuclear weapons aso if Iran is forced to “come clean” so should Israel, why do they have immunity and special priviliges? this in my view makes Iran adopt an intransigent attitude, what is good for Israel is good for Iran also the Arabs believe there is a need for a balance of power in that region, so do I. To answer your question it is not a question of trust anymore but a matter of survival for Iran, Allah willing.

11/20/2009 :: 06:28:22 PM
johnrp4 Says:

Matthew and Alan (comments 1 and 2) say it as well as I can - I echo their expressed sentiments. the rest of the world bugger off and leave Iran to develop its sciences..even if some pursuits are nuclear. Who are we to dictate to anyone considering the mess we (in my case North Americans) have made of everything. Have a great weekend everyone, and don’t spend any time at work - turn of the electronic leashes and put your feet up.

11/20/2009 :: 06:04:13 PM
arian ashkenazi Says:

I have dealt with the subject of “trust,” “nuclear program” and “Iran” consistently in a paper that I would like to share it with you in the following.
[[Political Illness of Today’s Iran & the Concept of Citizenship
By:Arian Ashkenazi
Brookline, Massachusetts

To: Neda AgaSoltan

In the following statements I shall try, as briefly as possible, to demonstrate the nature of politics and citizenship in today’s Iran. The goal of this paper is for the cause of international understanding, because I believe the posterity will read these lines with this in their mind that in how unfortunate a nation had a man found himself that it could not provide him with basic elements of human rights; It is not about the limits of my possibilities, but about my rational expectations.

I agree that all administrative authorities expect and sometimes require a minimal level of inter-group responsibilities and participation from the members, but in Iran, today, they impose greater restrictions on the liberty of the citizens. It is one thing to require people to do civil conduct, and quite another to compel them to attend a particular religious practice or to follow traditional gender rules. The former is intended to promote liberal rights. The latter demotes these rights in the name of cultural tradition or religious faith.

It has been held among the “advanced” minds of Iran that belief should be spread increasingly and a political system, which is not rest on belief, is evil, and as such has to be opposed. According to this notion, the sole function of religion is to open the way to civilization, and the mosque, as the outstanding organ for the people’s religion, must serve that end exclusively. One will probably find, but rarely, if at all, a political standpoint expressed in such insensitive form, for any sensible man would see at once how narrow-minded is such a statement of the position.

It is true that conviction can be applied to our daily experiences, but those convictions, which are necessary and determinant for our conducts and judgment, cannot be denied along this political way. For it is clear that concept of ought to does not open the door directly to that of is.

The administrations imply that religious teachings are sufficient and suited to afford guidance in human affairs, and accordingly have managed to raise the suspicion of public toward a danger that only comes from without. A catch-all category contains larger variations. “Anti-westernization,” the cheapest means employed by the selfish legislators for deceiving people, is the psychical attitude of the rulers, on which Iranians’ destiny relies. A tyranny based on such attitude and carried on by terror generates injustice and contaminates public moral life.

They imply that religious teachings are sufficient and suited to afford guidance in human affairs. But the position of scattered Iranian community all over the world is a political index to the country’s disrespect for justice and an evidence of surly oppressed nation.

Today, the rulers of Iran are participating in forging the most dangerous weapon without any feeling of responsibility and guilt. They are provoking an unspeakable disaster to the nations of the world, and specially the citizens of Iran. They cannot be trusted, because so far they failed to sustain freedom from fear, but in fact fear has increased exceedingly since the termination of the royal regime. The nation was promised liberation and justice, but we have witnessed and are witnessing even now that the forces and vigilantes are firing into the people, who want their independence and civil equality.

Culture, like a delicate plant, will not flourish unless a habit of respect for cultural values is provided. During three decades, the damage, done by the Islamic Republic of Iran, to the development of Iranian culture has caused the valuable Persian tradition to be gone and with the collapse of the tradition, the rich culture is going to turn to wilderness.

The problem with which the country is confronted is very critical. A social body can become psychically unbalanced, just as any individual can. For a country that is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on international relationships, with innumerous harm to national progress.

It is shameful for a citizen to submit to an aggressive state, which violates the spirit of the Human Rights. Religious passion cannot be allowed to go to such lengths. How long shall we tolerate that totalitarianism, all those noisy and incoherent promises, the impractical plans, and the tyranny that cares neither for truth nor justice, and tries to stay in power in such a way no matter how? What must one do against this evil? Gandhi, the greatest politician of our time, has pointed the way. He has vividly proved that a well skilled will is capable of a sacrifice much greater than a seemingly material power. The pursuit of political aims, detached from the interest of everyday life, should be treated as sacred duty by every citizen; having this in mind that in the service of free life, death becomes joy.

We have heard that it was said to the people of nations, you should protect the individual against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. But I say to you that against such oppressor there is only one remedy: preferring death to submission. It was also said, you should not engage in any activity, aimed at the destruction of the rights set forth the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But I say to you that everyone who negotiates with such an evildoer partakes in its corruption. And if you yield an activity that you consider wrong, at least, do not cooperate with it. Again you have heard that, you should discuss your thoughts and opinions freely, receive and impart information through any media, and express your ideas regardless of frontiers. But I say to you, till you are free to fully express yourselves, you are slave.

In my whole life I have put all my efforts into grasping an insight (gnome) that lies behind the natural phenomena. Never have I made any attempt to impose violence upon injustice forces, and to put the barbarous way of thinking back on track. The only thing I did was an expression of the gnome upon the customary issues that appeared to me so shameful that submitting to them would have made me feel guilty of complicity.

As long as I live, I am strongly bound to condemn a country, whose citizens obey and co-operate with the state’s corruption. Citizens cannot get away from their responsibilities to next generation simply by the justification of being under irresistible compulsion, and thus not taking any action against administrations’ or society’s attitude and demands which they consider ethically or politically wrong.

The primary sign of an unhealthy community depends not on individual’s lack of social qualities, but on their not being creative, and thus not able to think and judge independently. The lack of creative figures and leading individuals is obviously striking in today’s politics of Iran, and it has declined the sense of dignity, and of justice of the citizens and consequently has increased dictatorship together with Eros for terrorism and murder. This tyranny is leading to an eclipse of individual security and leaves no hope but an everlasting life in fear and terror.

Any study of the social patterns in primitive cultures proves that any community under the hardest living conditions has accomplished the difficult task of delivering the people from the external and internal pressures by the means of creative figures. It is the creative thoughts that tune the scale in the political life of a nation. The political existence of Iranian nation depends less on external factors than on internal creative individuals.

In the formation of a goal and its ethical judgments it is the pure thinking and its instruments that play a part. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means are necessarily required, the means itself becomes thus an end. Mere thinking thereby gives us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental goals. To make clear these fundamental goals and valuations and to set them in the social life of the individuals seem to me precisely and primarily the most important function which politics has to take into consideration. In a healthy society these fundamental goals exist, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into existence not through revelation but through the speculation of powerful personalities. If one holds these high principles clearly before one’s eyes, s/he finds them destroyed under the savage feet of the tyrannical rulers of Iran. In the totalitarian ruling system of Iran it is rulers themselves who strive to destroy the principles, the most precious traditions that have been handed over through generations.

The free exchange of ideas and just reconciliation of different opinions are necessary for the form development of politics, as it is in all areas of social life. There is no doubt, I believe, that the intervention of piled up Islamic dogmas of the country in the exchange and reconciliation of creative thoughts among intellectuals have significantly had catastrophic effects. The intrusion into the intellectual life of the country is specially evident in traveling the intellectuals and creative minds out from the country. Such sad event is just the tip of an iceberg, which is rooted in cultural isolation, prodigious police organization, and social psychopathic of individuals- all these are signs of an ill (if not lacking) political system.

During politics’ childhood it was human rationality that set the foundation of later politics, and not religious notions, which were active during the pre-political stage, a non-rational politics. Religion developed from the primitive stage of fear (of hunger, wild beasts, death, etc.) to morality.

Politics, on the other hand, according to great Aristotle , is an aggregate of many members, it then arises not from a single group, tribe, or religion, but from accepting the co-existence of different groups, within a regional unit, and entitled to a common rule. The political relationship, as Aristotle puts it, harmonizes and ties to elevate differences of opinions and interests that naturally exist within any state. This is the basic proposition of political theory. And in almost nothing is totalitarian doctrine remarkable than in its hatred of diversifying group and institutions. Nothing aggravates tyranny so much as contumely, says Edmond Burke.

Politics resembles love, both are the only possible forms of motivation between free people. A political system provides its members with meaningful ways of life through the range of human activities, including social, educational, cultural, recreational, and economic life, encompassing both politics and private spheres. In politics exists no fixed principle, but a sociological activity, with anthropological function for the reconciliation of various groups. Politics reconciles differences as far as possible and gives them freedom (of speech) with a sense of security; an attempt to make the chaos of our social ideas corresponds to a logically uniform thought. Political doctrine, then, are the attempt to find practicable and applicable solutions to the different problems in conciliation, to strike harmony in an actual political situation, one harmony out of many possible (temporary) resolutions of the basic problem of unity and diversity in a society with complex interests and values. Social unity, consequently, depends on shared values and identity. Citizens may not share common conceptions of the good life, but they do share certain social values, resided in collective conscience.

In the evolution of political science, through the centuries, the individuals’ conscience has remained intact but always decisive in the course of the evolution. National conscience is based not on democratic civil liberties and popular sovereignty, but on the passionately inspired nation, defined by its culture. A nation, in addition, to a named human population sharing a historic territory, common myth, a historical memories, a mass, public culture, a common economy and common legal rights and duties for all members, holds a shared conscience.

The essence of national conscience is the institution of citizenship: the demur integration of all the inhabitants of a territory into the political community, and then political equality and freedom of individual citizens. Citizen, accordingly, is the effective citizenship.

Answer to the question of what it means to be a citizen, is only found through understanding what citizenship has always concerned. Instead of asking who a citizen is, I should prefer to ask what characterizes a person who gives me the impression of being a citizen: a person who is civically involved appears to me to be one who has, to the best of one’s ability, liberated oneself from the fetters of one’s own egocentric tendencies and is preoccupied with others’ economy, culture, justice and values to which s/he clings in order to make reconciliation among them. It seems to me that what is important is the balance of values and establishment of justice, while reconciling the values. In this sense citizenship, as well as politics, is the endeavor of mankind to, an optional point, reconcile values.

The institution of citizenship, thus, deals only with reconciliation of values: it cannot speak of values per se. According to this explanation, the conflicts among political groups must all be described to a misapprehension of the description that has been notified above. For instance, a conflict arises when a political group insists on the absolute applicability of all values and statements recorded in their chart, regardless of any attempt to unite their statements with others. A liberal politics, in the same way, not only allows people to pursue their current way of life, but also gives them access to information about other ways of life, and makes it possible for people to engage in radical revision of their ends.

For achieving a global society, citizenship, on the other hand, should not be connected to nationality (that is, to the idea of being one people with common cultural characteristics): citizenship should be a political community without any claim to common cultural identity. A theory of citizenship, after all, must be based on the separation between nation and state. Such a theory must, in other words, evacuate the nation part of the concept of nation-state. This means a new type of state that is not constituted exclusively or mainly around the nexus of territoriality and belonging. In a global society, a sad citizenship within a politically ill nation, found in today’s Iran, is incapable of healthy relationship and life.

June 2009
Arian Ashkenazi
Brookline, Massachusetts

11/20/2009 :: 05:46:58 PM
Matthew Says:

This question you are asking is a charade. Iran, as all nations, is free to research and develop without outside scrutiny. The US Government is not the ruler of the world. The USG and European powers have no right to dictate the internal sciences and industries of Iran, and should leave them alone.

11/20/2009 :: 05:32:26 PM
Bradley Says:

If they start treating Israel and Iran EQUALLY you might get more cooperation from Iran. When is the USA going to DEMAND Israel open Dimona up for inspection? When is the USA going to DEMAND Israel dismantle the 300WARHEADS they have? When is the USA going to DEMAND Israel return the nuclear materials they STOLE from the USA?
Cut off the WELFARE CHECKS to Israel. Israel is not a Nation or a STATE, just a WELFARE CLIENT.
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment
(Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military
assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive,
acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not
comply with IAEA regulations and inspections.]

11/20/2009 :: 05:13:46 PM
Micheal Muhammad Says:

The way things are going we will always have thrnot threats of the fools in charge of the world will one day push the button. For What? EGO’s and the devil.

11/20/2009 :: 04:20:00 PM
alan klein Says:

Why do we have nuclear weapons at all? Will Israel, considered to have two hundred or so nuclear weapons, permit inspection? And what of the other two non-signatories to the non-proliferation treaty, India and Pakistan? Instead of the current phrase “come clean” we might consider substituting “come sensible” as in, When will we with serious intention ask ourselves if we can and will be”come sensible” and eliminate all nuclear armaments…and then conventional ones, and go beyond the insanity of War?