Price tag attack on J’lem church provokes religious condemnation.

Here is in excerpt from my latest article co-authored with Aziz Abu Sarah.

…So now we have Christian funds from the United States that have effectively supported the misguided second and third generation settler youth who are actively attacking churches and referring to Jesus as a son of a whore. If this is what Pastor John Hagee and other radical Christians intended, then it suggests a rather bizarre theology of interfaith love and care. It seems in reality that these funds are intended to foment conflict, to promote a confrontational, apocalyptic and messianic end to the State of Israel….

Dont trust the world – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

What will you do if we assume risks and sacrifice victims and put our trust in you – and then something goes wrong?

“What if the other side does not act as it is expected to, and instead hurls at us fire and plagues and poisons and possibly even nuclear weapons?

“What will you do then? Will you ask for forgiveness? Will you say ‘we were wrong’? Will you send us bandages? Will you open orphanages for the children who survived? Will you pray for our souls?”

Powerful persuasive words from Israel’s most recent rising politician. Imagine a family in Gaza who lost their children and entire neighborhood in 2008 giving the exact same speech, using exactly these words. Why should they not use these words?

Ok, now what? After all the emotions, if you want something more in life than a never ending cycle of revenge, you might want to ask, “Now what?” He caricatures compromise as only a manipulative politician would. And that is our curse on this planet today. We have achieved monumental things across the planet, every culture, but we are plagued by manipulative politicians who build their careers on terror, stimulating its emotions and imposing terror on others. And we must resist this. We must resist with every use of our reason and our creativity and our hearts that God or the universe has given us, and that has aided our ancestors so many times in the last few hundred years to fight for democracy, for basic freedoms, for the achievements of human rights and the valuation of every human life. We can do this, but the road is long and hard, and the supply of unscrupulous parasitical politicians endless in every single culture and region. It is a part of the human condition, not a unique problem in Syria or Israel or Iran or South Carolina. It is a stark choice in every breast at every breathing moment between reason and terror, between introspection and hate, between self-examination and scapegoating, between empathy and tyranny, between cautious and shared coexistence and genocidal fantasy and practice. All the great wisdom traditions and all the great scientific minds of the past have laid out the choices very clearly, and we need to study and practice as if each one of us were entirely responsible for the fate of the earth.

Al-Qaida calls on Muslim world to support Assad opposition forces – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

A senior Iraqi intelligence official says al-Qaida-linked fighters already are flowing from Iraq to Syria.

Human rights, human decency of the Syrian people, assaulted from all sides. But perhaps this has always been the challenge of constructing the good society, and we cannot shrink back from the challenge. It is the same now with the outrageous support of terrorists against Iran, for example, and Iranian regime’s active support for the killing machine in Syria. How to push back all tyrants who unleash forces that always destroy civilians first and last, and let the Syrian people, indeed all peoples of the region, build their own countries together.

Diplomats Discuss Bashar al-Assad’s Future as Syria Fights Rebels – NYTimes.com.

This is an important article on the stage we find ourselves in of the Syrian revolution. Russia’s defense to the last of the Assad regime is a significant political reality that points much more deeply to the problem and challenge of global, that is, Security Council consensus on matters of global governance when massive human rights abuses are occurring. We are still at a kind of Cold War impasse when it comes to the spheres of influence of the United States, Europe and Saudi Arabia on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other. The United States political narrative on such matters, and in such crunch times, runs something like this:

We the United States stand for human rights and democracy, and Russia and China only care about defending illiberal states and their sovereignty because they know that the increasing power of interference in the abuses inside states is an inherent threat to how they operate inside their own countries.

The Russian narrative runs like this: We are the champions against the hypocrites in the United States who claim to be championing human rights even as they provide all the machinery to keep the Gulf under the exclusive power of Sunni extremists, who by the way foment rebellions all over our border states and regions, not to mention their support for crushing the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. And we are sure that their increasing military support for Uzbekistan is due to the stellar human rights record there, not Exxon’s contracts, or the opportunity to invade our geopolitical spheres, as they have done throughout the Cold War. Now they want to crush our ally in Syria. We trained almost all their senior leaders, we have invested in that country for decades, and the West smells blood, actively foments rebellion, in order to destroy our client. They do not care a wit about the human rights abuses surely to come with the reign of the Muslim Brothers. If they want to make Syria a battle ground, then we can play that game also.

Here is my narrative:

The United States and the Western European powers should get off their high horses when it comes to human rights. Their interests have always been economic and spheres of influence and power, systems of enemies and allies. They are every bit as committed to covering up the human rights abuses of their allies as they are to self-righteously exposing the human rights abuses of their adversaries, notably Syria and Iran.

Here is the most important point: It is not helping human rights for there to continue to be a stand-off between United States and Russia on these matters of global governance. We have come very far toward increasing global governance and the rule of law as a human community, but this division of powers and especially the lack of honesty about the real interests at stake, and their cover by the self-righteous language of human rights and democracy, is actually getting many people killed in a number of countries while retarding the growth of human rights and democratic governance.

I heard from one wise political scientist at my university yesterday that what drives so much of Russian foreign policy is its sphere of influence. Correspondingly, I heard a wise comment from another university historian and colleague that there is no greater predictor of the downfall of regimes then the demoralization of its ruling elite. As long as they are not demoralized, as long as they have confidence, millions could die before they give up. That means, in real terms, that the lack of agreement between the U.S. and Russia on what to do with Syria is giving the regime its confidence, its hope and insistence on persisting in the killing spree. With agreement there would be global consensus and the increasing small elite in Damascus would be completely demoralized. This means that human rights is being hurt not helped, paradoxically by the U.S. appealing to human rights, and the ‘voice of the people’ ONLY when it would, in zero-sum terms, increase their sphere of influence, and push back Iran by defeating the Assad regime. In other words, in the name of human rights defense, this is actually a zero sum game of geopolitical struggle, once again between the United States and Russia.

I suggest a third way, for the sake of the Syrian people, and for the sake of the future of global governance that we want to nudge more and more toward rational cooperation, nonviolent integration and power sharing. The focus should not be on the United Nations vote and bullying Russia to buy in, as well as China. The focus should be on the great powers deciding how to divide up the spoils of Syria. I am being serious. What I aM saying is that honest conversations between great powers, a recognition of state and corporate interests, and a proper negotiation over those matters, may significantly increase the chances for human rights, for democracy, for nonviolence in Syria, but also in other countries in conflict right now. If the United States leaders are serious about human rights and democracy then they should actually stop talking about it so much and start doing something about it, and the best thing they can do for human rights is take off their self-righteous language and admit their interests, at the very least in terms of honest conversations and brokering between themselves, the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese, together with the new potential leaders of Syria. In other words, a way to move forward nonviolently to better futures for these countries in dispute is to acknowledge and accept current monopolies or spheres of influence that currently exist. If, for example, Russia’s interests in Syria represent right now a certain portion of the defense business of Syria, then future leaders should be working out with Russia a continuity of commitment. The United States and Europe, if they are serious about human rights and democracy, should be supporting that effort. The same goes for policies in other countries.

The institutions of international struggle for human rights must remain in place, including those at the United Nations. The human rights reports coming out of the State Department are a good contribution. But American leaders must stop brow beating everyone, especially the Russians, with self-righteous language and start bargaining chances on real matters of future governance and transitions of power.

What I am arguing for is a form of emerging global governance that strips away  self-righteous language from the negotiating state and focuses on ways to transition societies in peaceful and prosperous and more just directions, without using instability and revolution as an opportunity to shift the balance of power between the major global powers. This must be accomplished by the Security Council members and a shift in their public discourse with each other. We as analysts and activists must take the veil off of self-righteousness in order to induce more great power honest negotiations, and to more aggressively and quickly serve the human rights of populations in conflict zones around the world.

Seeing Both Sides of the Holy Land – Forward.com.

This is a great article in-depth on our success in creating a new for profit way to generate peace and prosperity, especially for our peace partners and honest businesses committed to equality of Israelis and Palestinians.

A group drives up to the Mount of Olives and takes in the vista below: the Old City of Jerusalem; the Dome of the Rock in the near distance; the modern city a bit farther off.

An Israeli tour guide begins to explain the importance of this spot to the Jewish people. “King David,” he might say, “walked here.” He will explain where Jews could go, and where they could not, before 1967, and what the city’s unification meant for Jews the world over.

And then he will step aside and a Palestinian tour guide will step forward and explain how his people see this spot, what this view means to them. “You see that flag in the distance?” he might say. “That is a small settlement.” And he will explain what that settlement means to the Palestinians, and how it got there; he will talk about how a family was removed from their home — tricked or forced into giving up their land.

The Israeli will interject and provide the settler perspective. But they will not argue. They will simply show the two narratives, running parallel but in competition, rarely intersecting. They will ask the group how to resolve the moment.

The following day, the group will go to Yad Vashem and then Ammunition Hill. They will learn about the origins of the State, they will travel to a village at the edge of Jerusalem that was once Palestinian and they will hear from soldiers who served on both sides of the 1948 War of Independence.

This is a dual narrative tour, run by a unique tour company called MEJDI (Middle East Justice and Development Initiative). The company’s founders work at the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy, and Conflict Resolution, at George Mason University in Virginia, which is dedicated to promoting peace and understanding in the Middle East. MEJDI was founded, fittingly, by a Palestinian — columnist and peace activist Aziz Abu Sarah — and two Jews — Marc Gopin, a rabbi and professor at George Mason, and Scott Cooper. The group takes school groups, synagogues, churches, social organizations and individuals on tours around Israel and the West Bank, challenging travelers and students to gain a deeper understanding of the underpinnings of the conflict.

At a moment when the peace process has frozen, MEJDI offers hope, if not an easy answer. It also provides a chance for Americans to study with Palestinians and Israelis together, something that has become increasingly rare since the second intifada, when Palestinians from the West Bank all but completely stopped working in Israel proper. Groups are taken into the West Bank, students see where tour guides from each side are allowed to go and where they aren’t; they meet real people, living in real places, under real conditions, from the settlers of Gush Etzion to the Palestinians in Hebron.

“The idea of MEJDI is that every person on our staff has to be in some way committed to recognizing the dual narrative-ness of this region,” said Shira Nesher, 24, one of the Israeli guides in Jerusalem. Nesher, whose grandparents are all Holocaust survivors, served as a military guide in the army. She now studies political science and history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. “One guide cannot be the whole Israeli narrative, and one guide cannot be the whole Palestinian narrative,” she said, explaining how the groups meet dozens of representatives from both worlds, something she had never done in her own youth. “People leave the tour very confused, and not pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, but pro-justice.”

Dave Schimdgall, 30, a pastor based in Washington, D.C., who has taken two tours with MEDJI, echoed those sentiments. “It’s kind of an alternative pilgrimage,” he said. “The goal is to get into the mess, embrace the tension and really learn about the conflict both past and present.”

Abu Sarah himself is a case study in the region’s complexities. When he was 9, the first intifada began, and his older brother was arrested and accused of stone throwing. His brother, Abu Sarah explained, was tortured and, eventually, confessed. He never came home. He was released from detention directly to the hospital, where he died of internal bleeding. Abu Sarah became radicalized, joining the youth wing of Fatah, the Palestinian political party. He was throwing stones at age 11 and distributing political pamphlets by 16, refusing to learn Hebrew as he studied. But at 18, he graduated from high school and realized life in Jerusalem without Hebrew was impossible.

So he enrolled in ulpan, or Hebrew language school. “That was my transformation moment.… I met Israelis for the first time in my life who talked about Palestinians’ freedom. When I grew up, I never saw Peace Now or any lefty Jewish organization. It was only when I was studying Hebrew that suddenly I realized there are Israelis who are not supportive of the occupation.”

Abu Sarah formed a Palestinian branch of the Israeli Bereaved Families Forum and began walking a path of nonviolence. He studied tourism and then religion and conflict resolution. “It started a process, a process of what to do with my anger about my brother’s death…. Working for peace became part of my mission,” he said. He worked on a joint Israeli-Palestinian radio show and began training Palestinian youth in nonviolent social action. Then, in 2008, he met Cooper, who invited him to meet the director of George Mason’s conflict resolution department, Gopin.

With Abu Sarah’s expertise in tourism in mind, the three formed MEJDI. Students eager to earn college credit and expand their understanding of regional problems quickly signed up, as did church and synagogue groups. The program has become so popular that today MEJDI also operates in Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, with the aim of expanding to Greece, Armenia, South Africa and Ireland.

So far 20 groups have gone on MEDJI tours to Israel and Palestine, and at least another 10 are planned for 2012 (two already left in January). It is not, the group emphasizes, just about left-wing groups; AIPAC hired MEJDI to spend a day with its youth leaders. They strive to be neither left nor right on the spectrum. Most trips are 8 to 10 days, but they are tailored to fit each group.

“It is difficult to see injustice, and it is also difficult to see blaming of those carrying out injustice. It is challenging to hold all the perspectives together. This trip has strengthened my intention to be able to support both peoples, and to be a dedicated Jew,” wrote Melanie Malka Landau, a lecturer at Monash University in Australia, on her blog after her experience with MEJDI.

Kathryn House, 30, a Ph.D. candidate in theology at Boston University, went on a MEJDI tour offered through the school the first week of January. “They really do a great job of complicating even the dual narrative,” she said. “We were left to say, ‘What will we do with those narratives?’”

In 2011, the group won the United Nations’ Alliance of Civilizations Intercultural Innovations Award in Doha, and Abu Sarah was named an “emerging explorer” by National Geographic, which now uses MEJDI as its tour operator in the region, with Abu Sarah as the host.

MEJDI has another mission: to pump money into the economies on either side. “We… realized that tourism was a potent force in the Holy Land… but that the conflict was hampering the access and even the enthusiasm for visiting the Holy Land, or Israel and Palestine. We figured that we could invite people into two narratives, the Jewish one and the Palestinian one, as a positive way to engage in tourism,” said Gopin.

Cooper agreed. “We thought it was an opportunity [to] make positive change and… do it in a sustainable way,” he said. “Many of our speakers are in the peace-building community; we pay them well. It’s a nice way to encourage collaboration.”

 

 

Field Notes Blog | National Geographic Expeditions ‘Holy Land’ Partner Scores Top UN Award – National Geographic Expeditions.

“In Israel with National Geographic,” Aziz continued, “we present a ‘Dual Narrative’ tour, looking at everything through the eyes of a Jewish and a Palestinian guide. In Egypt, we’ll be looking at Christian and Muslim perspectives, secular and religious, as well as the history and archaeology you’d see on a typical tour. In Turkey, there are Greeks, Kurds, and Turks, and the issues surrounding them. We’re hoping to do a trip where we can combine Turkey, Kurdistan, and Iraq together.

“Our narratives aren’t focused on conflict, but on peace, on building understanding between peoples. That’s our specialty.”

This is a great article on my company’s recent award from the United Nations and our deep collaboration now with National Geographic.

This article was originally published on January 18th here.

At the beginning of December 2011, the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy, and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University convened a meeting of over twenty world famous Islamic scholars and dignitaries together with over one hundred and twenty clerics from every province of Afghanistan. The event was unprecedented in the history of Afghan conflict resolution. Never before had anyone brought together the beleaguered Imams of the Afghan provinces, men who had stood up for peace and risked their lives to fight against the misuse of their religion. These men stood witness as colleagues, who dared stand up at Friday prayer and advocate for Islam’s commitment to nonviolence, for women’s rights, and for tolerance, were assassinated by radical forces in the region and neighboring states whose only purpose was to keep the war going and Afghanistan divided. Nevertheless, these men have remained committed to their work and unwavering in their dedication to create a better future for their country.

Along with colleagues and partners in different parts of the world, for the past twenty years, I have argued that religious values are not at the periphery, but rather are at the center, of political events. It is precisely because states and military entities are so adept at abusing religious beliefs and attitudes for self-interested reasons that religion has been at the forefront of contemporary history. Sadly, these courageous Afghan clerics were never considered terribly important by the occupying forces, diplomatic leaders, or military strategists.

At the Center for World Religions, we banded together with Afghans aiming to connect these courageous Imams with the global community of peaceful Muslim leaders and scholars, many of whom had wanted to embrace the Afghans for decades, but were hampered by the dangers of war. Traveling for several days, the Imams had a complicated, even perilous, journey. Three clerics were on crutches, having recently survived bomb attacks, but insisting nonetheless on attending our meeting.

Participating in the event were Muftis of great stature and Islamic thinkers of profound depth and courage, including a scholar with millions of followers who had written a massive fatwa (legal opinion), using the breadth of Islamic legal history to prove the unethical nature of suicide bombing. The exchanges between these religious scholars and clerics were profound, ranging from debates on women’s education and human rights to tolerance of minority traditions.

From my perspective, as an analyst and practitioner of conflict resolution, the conference’s most amazing moment came when an Afghan Imam asked quite bluntly, “You are telling us that suicide bombing is wrong, but the Imams in Pakistan are telling us something different. Why are you right?” This Imam did not believe the claims of these Pakistani Imams, as he was, in fact, against such a line of thinking. Rather, the Imam was challenging global Islamic scholars to squarely face the problems of foreign interference in religion, and the mixture of militancy and state influence that has adversely impacted Afghanistan.

Again and again, Afghan Imams expressed their frustration not just with extremists, but with corruption, and most importantly with the abuses of religion perpetrated by neighboring countries. The global scholars attending the conference were well versed in this reality. However, it was the solidarity that emerged between scholars and clerics that was most profound, a bond that came from the stories shared by the Afghan clerics, who had risked their lives day in and day out to stand for what is right.

From the beginning, it was important for the diplomats in attendance to understand that Afghanistan’s clerics should not be ignored, particularly given the risks they have taken to advocate for peace. Clerics, like these, are an asset to any intelligent diplomatic process and key to conflict management and resolution. In order to secure human rights as an inalienable and fundamental part of our global future, clerics must be an essential part of developing any civil society. We must forge deep alliances with these clerics of conscience, and support them as they risk their lives for peace, for the lives of women and children, and for a more tolerant society.

Inevitably, these religious leaders will adhere to different beliefs from their secular counterparts, and working with them will involve making tough compromises. But, based on my professional experience, traditional Afghan men and women, each through their own networks and institutions, are fighting a valiant nonviolent battle for the soul of their society and for a more peaceful future. It is time for the world to step up, and honor and protect them, as a part of any plan for the future of Afghanistan and the region as a whole.

We are facing the beginnings of a Cuban Missile Crisis moment in the Straits of Hormuz, and without the proper communications system to avoid a catastrophe, as David Ignatius has noted. Secret communications between President Obama and Khameini are an excellent idea right now, with the right back channels, but they should not be just about communicating red lines and threats directly and personally. They should also be about opportunities, and those opportunities must be kept the most secret of all, because of those who are breathing down Obama’s political neck, itching for war.

There is an ancient idea that if you want your enemy to make a move other than one that is suicidal that you must not surround him on all four sides, you must offer him a way out. If there is no way out, then the threats and aggressive maneuvers just escalate. There must be a clear set of de-escalating possibilities that give everyone room to maneuver.

There were supposed to be negotiations opening up in a matter of weeks, and it seems clear that the assassinations were timed to provoke a crisis before those meetings can take place. Obama should offer to move those meetings up if the Iranian leadership makes a public commitment to not block the Straits any time soon, and makes moves with its boats that make that clear. The United States in turn could agree to limit the number of boats streaming into the Persian Gulf right now. Also, the United States can make clear that its own harsh embargo laws are not set to go into effect for several months, and if in the interim there were significant progress on nuclear inspections then there would be room to delay that embargo.

One of the key ingredients that are motivating the Netanyahu/Barak wing of Israeli policy to provoke a war now in which America plays the central role is that they have calculated that an American-led operation will have a far better possibility of success, and that this can only do well for them domestically in Israel. The domestic popularity of this move is due to the President of Iran’s outrageous threats against Israel’s existence on repeated occasions. In Israel for many people this is 1938. Of course, the leading military thinkers in Israel think that this is an insane path that will bring a horrible missile war to both countries, not to mention a massive disruption in the Gulf of the world’s oil supply and stability. Obama should offer a further de-escalatory card to Khameini, if in turn Khameini distances himself from the position of his president regarding an attack on Israel. He could say quite clearly that Iran will never be the first to attack Israel and has no wish for war at this time. This will give Obama an opportunity to justify de-escalation steps of his own, and to emphasize the intelligence of his Defense Secretary that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.

Finally, from an Iranian point of view there is an increasing violation of its space through drones, assassinations and alliances with the dreaded MEK. Obama should emphasize that he will do his best to prevent further invasions of Iranian space if there are gestures in return on a positive willingness to negotiate with the United States on all outstanding issues. Khameini can in turn offer clemency for the man who has been given a death sentence as CIA, as a good will gesture in return for what Obama is offering.

These and other positive gestures should be developed very quickly by those in Washington, Jerusalem and other capitals who think that this war will only be destructive for all parties.

Just a few days ago was the longest night of the year. Another way of looking at is that this was night in which the tide of darkness began to turn back in favor of light. Bunched around this time are so many ancient holidays of lights and candles, of which Hanukah and Christmas are but two. Ancient rabbinic tradition suggests that the purpose of the small light at night is to teach that it takes only the light of one individual candle to illuminate the darkness of an entire room—or the world.

Peering at small lights at night, meditating on them, also has another interesting impact. It makes the blinding light of the morning sun feel almost miraculous. Indeed, many of the pre-monotheistic nighttime celebrations of light at this time of year are actually celebrations of the birth of light, and particularly sunlight. There is an inescapable reality to the absolute attachment of all of terrestrial life to our sun. We are racing through time and space with this glorious little star that is a small light in the dark of an endless universe, every bit as tiny, lonely, noble and courageous as a small candle in the dark.

This year Hanukkah coincided with Yalda, which is a major Iranian holiday going back thousands of years, well before Islam and Christianity. Yalda is celebrated by all the religious and ethnic groups of Iran, and, shockingly, the Islamic Republic of Iran, which places the word “Islamic” on just about everything, has allowed this holiday to be considered official, a national treasure of the country. Unlike in Saudi Arabia, where everything from a Christmas tree to Sufi Muslim holy sites and graves are repressed at best, here in Iran, the West’s enemy #1, a universal holiday of light has been allowed to persist. This is due to its massive popularity, and to the fact that throughout Iran the people made it clear that they would tolerate no removal of such a beloved experience.

Yalda celebrates rebirth in the midst of winter’s death, the victory of light over darkness, a victory on the very day in the calendar when at last light will once again begin a steady gain on darkness. There are bonfires, there are symbolic meals celebrating special dried and fresh fruits, there is great music and dance, there are special lights, of course, and there is family celebration. It is as beloved as Christmas, only universally celebrated by many ethnic and religious groups.

Yalda is a Syriac word meaning ‘birth’, but yalda is the Hebrew Biblical name for daughter, dating back to at least a thousand BCE.  The Hebrew ho’lid is ‘gave birth”. The later Aramaic word for the first appearance of the new moon is “molad”, the exact moment when the new moon appears, but literally, the birth every month of the new moon. This is precise moment that has been announced every month in traditional Jewish synagogues for thousands of years, and that is why every traditional Jew has grown up with the words resonating in his ears, “And the molad this month is….”

The more we delve into what connects us all on this planet the more eerie it gets, and the more absurd the pervasive extinction of war becomes. Imagine an exchange of chemical weapons between Iran and Israel–a distinctly possible result of the downward spiral of confrontations right now. Imagine this breaking out on Yalda and Hanukkah, while masses of families are gathered to celebrate the victory of the forces of light over darkness–in both places–even as their weapons systems destroy all those thousands of innocent families. This is the obscenity of war.

When will the intimate cultural, even mystical, ties of the Middle and Near East translate into real relationships that emerge victorious over the darkness of political, military and economic cannibalism? This is an open question that will only be answered by the future, a future that is being born every day inside the choices we each make to hide behind dubious military shields, or to engage in the arduous work of people-to-people relations, the only true source of an illuminated and enlightened world.

This article originally appeared on the Al Jazeeera English website on Dec. 12, 2011.  You can view it by clicking here .

Washington, DC - There is a long record of the grim effects of sanctions in international struggles against those states deemed as “rogue”. Sanctions are seen as righteous instruments, a non-violent way to pressure problematic regimes to change. But when you really don’t care about a country or its people, then your true attitudes emerge in the way in which you use the sanctions instrument of policy.

Let’s take Iraq. Based on estimates of the massive increase in child mortality rates through the years of the sanctions in the 1990s, anywhere from 300,000 to a million people lost their lives. But no one in Saddam’s inner circle, none of the wealthy, and none of the killers, died from those sanctions. Such sanctions were touted as an enlightened and liberal form of resistance to Saddam’s Iraq. But war kills the people with guns, whereas the sanctions – as they were done -killed the babies, tens of thousands. This is a strange reversal of the moral guidelines of war and peace that we have seen historically from most cultures, wherein innocent civilians were the most protected by law and conscience.

Now we find ourselves once again with choices regarding sanctions on the people of Iran. Every enlightened person knows who we support there. We know what a wealth of both secular and religious Persian culture resides right beneath the surface of some current aberrations. We know that, at least in part, the governments now imposing sanctions destroyed democracy in Iran in 1953, aided despotism for decades, which in turn gave rise to the unfortunate leadership of today. Should we now contemplate killing half a million Iranian babies as an enlightened form of resistance to bad leadership?

Here is what should be done instead of a spiral of confrontation that will surely end in the murderous effects of blunt sanctions and eventually, disastrous war:

1. Continue sanctions on only the most corrupt and dangerous elements within the Iranian Guard and top leadership. The world has grown very sophisticated with smarter, more targeted sanctions, and this will both pressure the corrupt, and endear you to the people, exactly what you want.

2. Offer what has never been offered before to Iran, full diplomatic relations and a non-aggression pact between the United States and Iran. In other words, diplomacy moves from threats of punishment to the lure of a completely new era in historical relations, something that will add enormous support for moderates in Iran, and pressure the reactionaries – exactly what you want.

3. Simultaneously, conduct secret understandings of non-aggression and non-interference between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The very act of pushing this as foreign policy could help defuse tensions in many countries teetering on the edge and caught between these two competing countries, including Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

4. Simultaneously, conduct secret understandings between Iran and Israel for non-aggression and non-interference. This will be embraced by the serious leaders of intelligence and military in Israel who understand that they cannot have any meaningful victory if there is a military exchange with Iran, but can benefit enormously if there is a new set of understandings with Iran regarding Hezbollah, as well as a kind of new mutually assured deterrence doctrine worked. It worked with the Soviets and Americans, and with some serious negotiations, it can work in this case also.

5. Follow the lead of Iranian civil society, which wants human rights and democracy. This can be done by highlighting their causes aggressively and giving them world-wide coverage. This will annoy the reactionaries, but be embraced by the people, exactly what you want.

6. Embrace the Islamic Republic of Iran, just as there has been an embrace of numerous Sunni Islamic republics far less democratic than Shia Iran, but with a clear commitment to the Islamic voices of Iran that have embraced international engagement, human rights and peace, including past presidents and major religious leaders far more moderate than the current regime.

All of this could be in exchange for acceptance of an open Iranian embrace of nuclear power together with destruction of any and all secret nuclear weapons programme, and subject to international monitoring.

These suggestions seem challenging in light of the current political realities in Washington, the intimate alliance with Israel and with Saudi Arabia, and their powerful lobbies. But if we do not even articulate what would make Washington a better international pioneer of stability and reduction in global tensions, then we do our imaginations a disservice. We at least need to acknowledge some realities before bowing to political imprisonment. It is a reality that Israel and Saudi Arabia will be far safer with the path outlined, but neither seems to have the vision or the political will to change course. It is a reality that generalized sanctions, and certainly, bombings will rally the Iranian people in the opposite direction from the progressive direction that they have been heading. It is a reality that when the US and other Western countries openly embrace the rights and needs of Muslim peoples, they immediately respond with support, but they do the opposite when shot at, even for legitimate reasons. Iranian Muslims know the difference between pressure that gets them killed and pressure that embraces their needs. So should we.