Hooman Majd is a writer based in New York. He has written for 'Huffington Post', 'The New York Times', 'The New Yorker', 'The Financial Times', 'Newsweek' and is a contributing editor at 'Interview'.
As a freelance writer, Majd believes that the story of US attack which led to the death of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is true. 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 have befallen Bashar al-Assad in Syria and the Palestinians' pragmatism which are optimistic about their big step to the the Unity.
Born in 1957 in Tehran, Iran, Majd whose father was an Iranian diplomat, received his education in England and then United States where he settled after the Islamic revolution of 1979. His paternal great-great-grandfather Majd ol-Olama was a prominent Iranian cleric.
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 earlier 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.
His two books on Iran 'The Ayatollah Begs to Differ' and 'The Ayatollahs' Democracy' were respectively published in 2008 and 2010.
He also believes despite all setbacks, it's quite probable that Obama wins the next presidential election in the US and to be reinstated.
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 Israel regime was someone other than Benjamin Netanyahu?
Basically I don't accept such interpretation. Obama was annoyed by Israel for sure and such annoyance is rooted in the Israelis conduct during the visit of his Vice President Joe Biden to that land. Although they knew that Barack Obama's administration is against their development plans of settlements in Gaza and the West Bank and when Biden was in Bayt al-Moqaddas (Jerusalem), the Israelis announced that they will follow 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 that of a father and his son and ensuring the security of Israel is one of the constant priorities of Obama's government. So it wouldn't make a difference in the process of events.
Particularly I would say that unlike some past US administrations including that of Jimmy Carter or to some extent Bill Clinton, for Barack Obama the 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 of Obama. As he had promised people in the presidential campaign, his top priorities were basically related to internal affairs of the US and the issue of foreign policy was among his fourth rated set of priorities and even less.
If we believe that Bin Laden was killed, can we see that as a launching pad for the success of Obama at 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 claimed by the United States. Moreover I don't think Obama lied about throwing Bin Laden's body to the sea. However his death has been turned to an issue for the next presidential campaigns. On one hand Obama's administration and Democrats in general 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 at the time of presidential election is the issue of security. Their prime concern is terrorism. Obama announces that Bin Laden was killed one and a half year before the next US presidential election. During that time, the possibility of terrorist attacks to Europe and the United States is so high and people may not remember the death of Bin Laden by that time. The issue may bring a short term success for Obama as it's being said that his popularity has increased by 11 percent.
But his economic failures are still considerable. Nevertheless, the Democrats will make their utmost effort to take the best advantage of Bin Laden's death.
Unlike you some analysts, among them Americans say reports on Bin Laden 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'm against such idea. But even if some claim that his slaying had been planned earlier, we must admit that the Americans chose an absolutely inconvenient time. At the moment terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq are not the main concern of the US statesmen. 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 criticisms in the US, as some has called it an act of terrorism which is against the country's law. In many countries the death of Bin Laden was interpreted as the end of terrorism. But for the Americans that 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 closed a case called 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 second Al Qaeda man and the right hand of Bin Laden [Ayman al-Zavahri] once claimed that Shiites are even worse than Jews. But they cannot impress Iran, as one of the possible objectives of raid operation carried out against bin Laden's compound.
In the United States a number of politicians are so disappointed at following the white house policies toward Iran. Now these Americans prefer to keep away from the issue of Iran and monitor Islamic Republics' affairs. They say we made efforts to approach Iran but to no avail. Now we wait to see what Iran would do. The US statesmen adopted the policy of carrot and stick toward Iran and were led to believe that the carrot [economic incentives] they offered were not accepted by Islamic Republic and the only possible way is to follow the policy of stick.
When Israel regimes' Minister of Defense Ehud Barak claims that Iran is not 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 presidential term Obama won't play Iran card. The US officials Know during the next 18 months Iran will not achieve atomic bomb. I believe in the second round of his presidency, Obama will focus more on Iran nuclear case.
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 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 in a way that now even Israelis do not agree with the collapse of his regime since it may lead to the empowerment of a regime which could be much more threatening for them. An American proverb says better the devil you know than the one you don't. Based on such viewpoint, for Israelis and Americans Beshar al-Assad is much more better to be in power that the one they don't know who would be and what he would do. The Israelis argue that from 40 years ago when Assad family took power in Damascus, even a single shot ha snot 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 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 the Saudi Arabia which causes the US statesmen to turn a blind eye on 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 to 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 Arabian country Qatar where the headquarter of Al Jazeera is based enjoys a very good position in the ties between the United States and Arabian countries. Several analyses suggest that if it was not for the role of Al Jazeera, the events occurred in Tahrir Square would have not lead to a perfect revolution. Currently Al Jazeera is focusing on Syria turmoil. However we cannot claim that such revolutions are created by Qatar. A satellite TV news channel can play the role of the catalyst but is not able to determine its victory.
How do you observe the replacements made in 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]?
Probably one of the aims of Obama is to strengthen the intelligence division of the US Army since the intelligence agency of the US Army is much more expanded and powerful than CIA. The division tasked with collecting information and the intelligence organization of Pentagon is where the top-secret operations including raiding to Bin Ladan's compound and killing him are planned. Through these changes Obama reveals that he rather backs 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