Hooman Majd is a writer based in New York. He has written for 'The New York Times', 'The New Yorker', 'The Financial Times', 'The New Republic', 'Foreign Policy', and 'Newsweek' among others, and has been a contributing editor at 'Interview'. He is also the author of two books on Iran, 'The Ayatollah Begs to Differ' and 'The Ayatollahs' Democracy', which were published in 2008 and 2010 respectively.
As a freelance writer, Majd believes the story of the US attack which led to the death of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. He also regards the uprising of Arab nations in the Middle East and the North Africa as an original movement which is not provoked by the United States. From his viewpoint, the reconciliation of Fatah and Hamas is due to the collapse of Hosni Mubarak's regime in Egypt, the problems that have befallen Bashar al-Assad in Syria and the Palestinians' pragmatism which is optimistic about their big step toward unity.
Born in 1957 in Tehran, Iran, Majd, whose father was an Iranian diplomat, received his education in England and then the United States where he settled after the Islamic revolution of 1979. His paternal great-great-grandfather Majd ol-Olama was a prominent Iranian cleric, and his maternal grandfather, Alemeh Kazem Assar, was a renowned Shiite theologian and thinker.
Before devoting himself to writing and journalism full-time, Majd had a long career in the entertainment business. He worked at Island Records and Polygram Records for many years with a diverse ensemble of artists and later was the head of film and music at Palm Pictures.
He often writes on Iranian affairs and travels regularly to Iran. Majd has also served as an advisor and translator for two Iranian presidents, Mohammad Khatami and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on their trips to the United States and the United Nations and has written about those experiences.
He also believes despite all the setbacks, it's probable that Obama will win the next presidential election in the US, and will serve a second term.
Let's begin the discussion with the United States foreign policy. Despite what was expected, Obama could not implement his peace plan in the Middle East. Would he face such difficulties if the prime minister of the Israeli regime was someone other than Benjamin Netanyahu?
Basically, I don't accept such an interpretation. Obama has been annoyed by Israel, for sure, and the annoyance is rooted in the Israelis' conduct during the visit of Vice President Joe Biden there a while ago. Although the Israelis knew that Barack Obama's administration is against their development plans for settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, just when Biden was in Bayt al-Moqaddas (Jerusalem), the Israelis announced that they will continue their development plans. But it wouldn't be that much different for Obama if someone other than Netanyahu had assumed power in Tel Aviv.
The relationship between the United States and Israel is like that of a father and son, and ensuring the security of Israel is one of the constant priorities of Obama's government as it has been for every U.S. administration since the birth of Israel. So it ultimately wouldn't make much of a difference in the process of events if someone else had been elected Prime Minister.
I should say that unlike some past US administrations, including that of Jimmy Carter or to some extent Bill Clinton, for Barack Obama his first priority was not the issue of establishing peace in the Middle East. Let me say that actually the issue of foreign policy in general was not among the main priorities for Obama. As he had promised in his presidential campaign, his top priorities were basically related to the internal affairs of the US and the issue of foreign policy was among his fourth-rated set of priorities, perhaps even lower. Except, of course, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which relate to domestic policy anyway.
If we believe that Bin Laden was killed, can we see that as a launching pad for the success of Obama as the 44th US President? How do you evaluate his chance for winning the next presidential election?
Firstly, as it was admitted by Al Qaeda website, I do not suppose that the death of bin Laden is a lie propagated by the United States, as some in the Middle East think. Moreover I don't think the Obama administration lied about burying Bin Laden's body at sea. However, his death has been turned into an issue for the next presidential campaign. On one hand Obama's administration and the Democrats in general will try to aggrandize their success and the Republicans will try to showcase their weak points. But in terms of foreign policy, the sole important thing for the American people (in terms of foreign policy) at the time of the presidential election is the issue of security. Their prime concern is terrorism. Obama can only claim that Bin Laden was killed one and a half years before the US presidential election. During that time, the possibility of terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States is quite high, and people may not remember the death of Bin Laden by that time. The issue may bring short-term success for Obama, as evidenced by the fact that his popularity has increased by 11 percent.
But his economic failures, as judged by some people, are still considerable. Nevertheless, the Democrats will make their utmost effort to take advantage of Bin Laden's killing.
Unlike you, some analysts, among them Americans, say reports on Bin Laden's slaying was nothing more than a show, that he died long time ago or at least the US officials knew where he was but postponed his death.
I just don't think that's true. Even if some claim that his killing had been planned earlier, we must admit that the Americans then chose an absolutely inconvenient time. At the moment terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq are not the main concern of US statesmen, or even the populaion. In his confrontation with the Republicans, Barack Obama has no weakness in terms of handling Afghanistan or Iraq affairs. On the other hand, the way Bin Laden was attacked and killed has provoked criticism in the US, as some have called it an act of terrorism or extra-judicial killing, which is against the law. In many countries the death of Bin Laden was interpreted as the end of terrorism. But for many Americans it was simply an act of revenge. A man who had caused the death of more than 3000 people almost 10 years ago was finally killed. For Americans the death of Bin Laden is not synonymous with putting an end to war in Afghanistan, but simply closing a case; the case of the event of September 11, 2001.
How do you consider the effect of Bin Laden's death on policies toward Iran?
It will be very advantageous for Iran. The Al Qaeda number two man and the right hand of Bin Laden [Ayman al-Zavahri] once claimed that Shiites are even worse than Jews. But the US cannot impress or inspire awe in Iran, as one of the possible objectives of the raid operation carried out against bin Laden's compound.
In the United States a number of politicians are disappointed in the failure of the White House's policy toward Iran. Now they might prefer to keep away from the issue of Iran, and simply monitor the Islamic Republics' affairs. Administration officials often say we made efforts to approach Iran but to no avail. Now we'll have to wait to see what Iran might do under pressure. The US adopted the carrot and stick policy toward Iran and was led to believe that the carrot [economic incentives] they offered were not accepted by the Islamic Republic, and thus the only possible way forward is to wield the stick.
When the Israeli regime's Minister of Defense Ehud Barak claims that Iran is not going to launch a nuclear attack against Israel, it actually means that at the moment Iran's nuclear program is not a great concern for Washington and Tel Aviv. During the last 18 months of his first presidential term Obama won't play the Iran card, as there is no upside for him. US officials know that during the next 18 months Iran will not build an atomic bomb. But I believe in the second term of his presidency, Obama will focus more on the Iran nuclear issue.
What about the US strategy toward Syria?
The analysts who exaggerate the role played by Iran in Syria are not few, as some other analysts exaggerate about the power and influence of the United States. They say Iran plays an active role in the developments of the Middle East or even say that if Beshar al-Assad in Syria is overthrown, Iran would still be able to reach an agreement with his successor.
But the problem is no successor is conceivable for Beshar al-Assad. His conduct has been such that now even the Israelis do not agree with the collapse of his regime, since it may lead to the empowerment of a regime that could be much more threatening for them. There's an English saying, "better the devil you know than the one you don't." Based on that, for Israelis and Americans, Beshar al-Assad is much better to be than someone they don't know, and what that person could do. The Israelis can argue that from 40 years ago when the Assad family took power in Damascus, not even a single shot has been fired from Syria at Israeli territory, and they deem it a positive point.
How do you consider the Islamic Republic of Iran and the US conflict on the issue of Bahrain?
The only Tehran and Washington difference on the Bahrain crisis is the support US is giving to Saudi Arabia. Undoubtedly If Iran could replace Saudi Arabia as the ally of the United States in the region, the White House wouldn't tolerate the monarchist regime of Al Saud (House of Saud) for a single day, and would do its level best to overthrow it. However, at this moment the interests of the United States are entangled with those of Saudi Arabia, which causes US officials to turn a blind eye to their atrocities in Bahrain.
What's your analysis of the reconciliation deal signed between Fatah and Hamas?
Obviously such national reconciliation was influenced by recent developments in the Middle East and North Africa (from September until now). The issue at stake both for Fatah and Hamas was choosing a convenient time, which was provided by the latest events in the region.
On the other hand measures taken by Netanyahu helped the agreement be reached. When Mahmoud Abbas (the president of the Palestinian Authority and the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation [PLO]) is confronted by the hard-line leader Netanyahu, he, Abu Mazen (the kunya of Abbas) prefers to reconcile with Hamas. Currently both Fatah and Hamas are in weak positions. (They both agreed on forming an interim government and determining a date for a general election).
In your view what role Qatar and Al Jazeera satellite news channel are playing in the developments of the region?
As an Arab country Qatar, where Al Jazeera is based, enjoys a very good position in the ties between the United States and Arab countries. Several analyses suggest that if it was not for the role of Al Jazeera, the events that occurred in Tahrir Square would have not led to a revolution. Currently, Al Jazeera is focusing on Syrian turmoil. However, we cannot claim that revolutions are created by Qatar. A satellite TV news channel can play the role of a catalyst, but is not able to determine the outcome of a revolution.
How do you observe the replacements made in the Obama cabinet, as he named current CIA director Leon Panetta as the replacement for Defense Secretary Robert Gates? He'd also make General David Patreaeus Panetta's replacement at the CIA.
Perhaps one of the aims of the Obama administration is to strengthen the intelligence division of the US military, since it is much more expansive and powerful than CIA, at a time of war. The division tasked with collecting information and the intelligence organization of the Pentagon is where the top-secret operations, including the raid on Bin Ladan's compound and killing him are planned. Through these changes Obama perhaps shows that he would rather back cleverly designed intelligence operations than dispatching military forces to a particular region [The changes are expected to take effect this summer, after a Senate confirmation].
نظر شما