- (March 2007)
Islamic justice.
On april 18 an Iranian court sent free six men who committed murders
in the name of Islam (in Kerman in 2002). In practice, they were serial killers.
Two of the victims were a couple of lovers who were guilty of walking together in public before the wedding.
A little known fact is that Islamic law allows men (only men) to carry out
"moral murders", i.e. to kill people who are suspected of behaving immorally.
Note that the only requirement is the "suspicion". The killer does not need
to prove that his suspicion is correct. If his suspicion turns out to be
correct, the Islamic court sends him free. If his suspicion turns out to be
incorrect, but he convinces the Islamic court that he acted in good faith,
the court still sends him free but pays some compensation to the family (if the innocent victim was a man, the compensation is twice the amount than if it was
a woman).
Adultery and insults to Mohammed (whom Muslims believe to be a prophet sent by their god) are examples of cases in which a man is allowed under Islamic law
to kill.
This is not the first case, just the most shocking for non-Muslims who are not
used to the brutality of Islam.
In 2005 a police officer shot dead a man on the subway (in Karaj) because he thought the man was behaving immorally. A 16 year old girl was hanged in 2004 (in Neka) because she had lost her virginity. In all these cases the killers are routinely sent home after a review of the evidence not of their actions but of the
actions of the victims.
The Islamic Republic is an insult to the great civilization of Iran, the mother of Western civilization.
TM, ®, Copyright © 2007 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
Back to the world news | Top of this page
- (March 2007)
What the hostages mean.
Out of the blue, Iran seized 15 British sailors and claimed that they had
crossed into Iranian waters. Nothing would surprise the world more than
the news that some sailors have made a mistake in one of the messiest parts
of the world, but Iran's actions (keeping the sailors prisoners for days and
days, publicizing the event, forcing them to confess, showing images on world
television, attacking Britain as if these were 15 veteran spies) obviously
prove that Iran has a motive behind this charade.
That this happens at the peak of the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme
cannot be a complete coincidence.
It is unlikely that Iranian officials are so naive to think that holding 15
British citizens hostage would be enough to convince the United Nations (and
particularly the USA) to drop the nuclear issue.
One is tempted to think that Iran simply wants to distract the world's opinions
and their governments from the real issue. The more they talk about the
15 sailors (that the entire world is calling "hostages" and not "prisoners"),
the less they talk about Iran's nuclear programme.
But this too would be naive: the world's media may talk less about the nuclear
issue, but the concern about Iran's nuclear programme is simply heightened by
episodes like this one that show Iran's erratic behavior.
There can be another reading of this episode: that Iran is testing the West's
willingness to use force. Britain could have launched a blockade of Iranian
ports, or at least demanded that the European Union severe all ties with
Iran.
Instead, Britain (led by the same Tony Blair who declared war on
Saddam Hussein) has chosen to use quiet diplimacy.
The USA sent warships to stage "manouvres" in front of Iran's coast, but that
too sends the same message: the West has lots of weapons, but is not willing
to use them for the real thing. What's the point of piling up so many carriers
if they can't even prevent a small country like Iran from kidnapping Western
sailors at will?
When Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers, Israel launched a massive invasion
of Lebanon. Its goal was to eliminate Hezbollah. Israel failed badly to achieve
that goal and was widely regarded by the Arab public opinion has being less
dangerous than advertised. Iran emerged more confident than ever, as the
most immediate threat to its nuclear program came from Israel (that bombed
Saddam Hussein's nuclear plant and could have been tempted to do the same
to Iran).
Now the crisis with Britain is eliminating the other suspects: the Coalition
that is fighting in Iraq and has 150,000 soldiers stationed next door to
Iran. The crisis is proving to the leaders of Iran that these Coalition
countries have no desire for another military confrontation.
There could be three consequences. One is that Iran will be even less interested
in hearing what the United Nations has to say about its nuclear program.
Sanctions alone rarely intimidate dictatorships.
The second consequence is that Iran will simply proceed to the next step
of confrontation with the West. It doesn't have to be something spectacular.
Iran is not interested in escalating tensions, but in humiliating the West.
Knowing that the West will not use force, Iran will continue to provoke
while steering away from violent acts. This attitude can only gain Iran
a lot of sympathy across the Islamic world, while continuously diminishing
the prestige of the Western "powers".
The third consequence is that Iran (and everybody else) will be even less
willing to behave in Iraq. Iran can kidnap Western soldiers, and the Iraqi
insurgents kill a few of them every day. There is hardly any reason to be
afraid of these Western powers.
TM, ®, Copyright © 2007 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
Back to the world news | Top of this page
- Articles on Iran before 2007
|