TO IRAN'S MULLAHS!

                                                                Jiri & Leni Friedman Valenta,

                                                        January 14, 2016

 Extremely painful for every patriotic American, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslims or Agnostic in 1978-81, was viewing U.S. hostages of Iran marching with their hands on their heads.  Teaching at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA at that time, I recall the horrific pain of my officers while watching their agonized commander-in-chief, Jimmy Carter.

Yes, the taking of the present 10 hostages by Iran was a very short affair, and the White House minimized the damage as usual.  But this recent, brief humiliation is going to again embolden the mullahs, aiming at regional supremacy,  international terrorism and above all, like North Korea earlier, testing missiles for eventually carrying nuclear warheads.


President Obama is inclined to pass this off as a non-incident since the hostages were freed.  But he does not understand international politics.  Here national pride and honor are indispensable factors. 


Henry Kissinger taught us that to maintain world order, the use of our hard and soft powers during such crises speak volumes about the spirit, determination and national will of our nation.  Let us remind ourselves that we are the indispensable power in maintaining world order.  What America does is essential for the unity of the Western world and even mankind’s survival.


The effect on this nation and on the world of the Iran hostage crisis in 1978-81 was enormous, and not just because, as President Carter rightly believes, it cost him the 1980 election.  The White House focus on the Iran hostage crisis diverted our nation from Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev’s almost simultaneous preparations to invade Afghanistan.


 Take Brezhnev’s latest successor, Vladimir Putin; whatever you may think about him, he puts a premium on national pride, honor and avoidance of humiliation and that’s why he “voted” for Trump in our primaries. He must know that Russo-American relations were at their best after WWII when  tough but flexible deal makers like JFK, Richard Nixon before Watergate, and Ronald Reagan served in the White House. That’s why Putin already “voted” in our primaries praising only one candidate Donald Trump. 

Much of our past problem with Putin was not comprehending Russia’s and Putin’s feelings of humiliation following the 1991 fall of the USSR. He recently admitted that Russia, under his predecessors, Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin, then going through revolutionary change and retreat, did not sufficiently defend her vital national interests.  

Albeit brief, yet our recent national humiliation by Iran -mullahs is viewed again in the Kremlin as additional proof that America has lost not only its international clout as a Great Power, but above all its pride.

Also to be considered is that Hassan Rouhani’s Iranian faction, which negotiated the nuclear deal, faces a challenge next month in elections to Iran’s parliament. Just as the election of a new president next year may change the fate of the nuclear agreement, so may the next election in Iran,

Let us hope that Donald Trump, Ted Cruze, Rubio and the rest will not engage in repeated  bickering.  Neither New York nor Texas values but American values and national interests are at stake.  Ditto for Bernie Sanders and Hillary, agonizing over her e-mail server and possible serving of an indictment. 

Disagreements within the nation, is what the mullahs enjoy most. They loved the recriminations of the 1980 primaries and then those between Reagan and Carter in the general elections.  The presidential candidates should demand that our still jailed hostages are released before we engage in any progress on U.S.-Iranian relations.  Bernie who finally showed some teeth, should not only speak about Bill, but also Hillary’s national security server problem. Above all, he should say more about the Hydra of international terrorism.

It is said that Sanders had a honeymoon in the USSR and never came back, But it is often forgotten that some of his relatives, like those of these two writers, died in the holocaust.   He spent a year on a kibbutz in Israel and must know enough about Islamic terrorism.   Bernie supported the U.S. nucler agreement with the anti-Semitic mullahs.  Does he know they are in denial of the holocaust?  If we continue to dither as our president has in the last few years, we will  become beleaguered like the Jews in Israel and threatened by terrorism like the Christians in Lebanon and Syria. 

The candidates are hopefully aware that there is presently legislation in the Senate aimed at bringing new sanctions for all of Iran’s recent human rights and missile testing violations.  It has bi-partisan support and is backed by most of the American people.

America is facing the double-headed Hydra of international terrorism.  1.   ISIS Sunni extremists and affiliates, e.g. the bombings of Istanbul and Jakarta. 2.  The Shiite-sponsored state terrorism of Iran. 

We must engage both of them to prevent future national humiliations and the presidential candidates should focus on the means to accomplish this.   We succeeded in defeating fascism and communism.  Our nation must rise to the once occasion again.

Dr. Jiri Valenta is President of the Institute of Post-Communist Studies and Terrorism, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and author/editor of many books.  He has also contributed hundreds of article to the New York Times, Miami Herald, Baltimore Sun, Washington Times and many other newspapers as well as scholarly journals.  Leni is CEO and editor-in-chief of the couple's institute and a published writer in her own right.

In January and July of 2015, we published interviews in Terhan with an Iranian journalist, Hamid Bayati.  The first was heavily censored.  We have reproduced both the Farsi version and the English one below and are wondering if they correspond.  Please contact us @JiriLeniValenta or on Linkedin,


 Editor's Note:

Dr. Valenta´s interview  on terrorism and Islam with Iranian reporter Hamid Bayati  was  published by "The Teheran Times"  (English) and Tasnim News Agency (Persian), 1/28. For the censored versión

Kudo to prominent Iranian jouranlist Bayati who managed to convince censors to publish much of his requested interview.

For the uncensored version, see below or  .

                                                                   Iran’s Satanic Mullahs Use Religion

                                                     By William Holland

                                                                                         Posted on March 11, 2017

There are a handful of Persian specialists who truly understand the theocratic, political nature of the Iranian regime.  Amir Taheri is one of them.  Abbas Milani at Hoover is another.  Both men understand the relation between expressed autocratic power and the need for legitimacy, for the social, geopolitical undercurrent of the Iranian regime is permanently weak.  The west struggles with these admonitions, for we’re constantly seeking to validate an illusive, non-existent reality in Iranian political life:  moderates.

The regime, by its very nature has executed any/all counter-revolutionary classes.  There aren’t any moderates left.  Why is the term used?  Its sole criteria is discerned from the animus of propaganda Tehran weaves as it engages those outside its orbit; its a measuring tool the Mullahs use to gauge favorable sycophants that reside throughout the west.  Anyone with real knowledge of Iran knows just how Satanic these clowns are.

With the death of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in January, Khamenei (the Supreme autocratic ruler) is seeking to paper over Iran’s Constitutional mechanism for choosing a successor.  What the west refuses to acknowledge is that the Assembly of Experts has never really been responsible for choosing the Supreme Guide.  Let’s review.

Iran’s previous leader Seyyed Mohammed Katami claimed for years that the regime in Tehran never used the Assembly of Experts to choose Iranian leadership.

By any measure, Iran’s first Supreme Guide was Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini, but he was never voted in by the Assembly of Experts, he simply overwhelmed all opposition, murdering everyone who challenged him.  Khomeini declared himself Imam and acted as if he had divine mandate.  Historically, the Iranian regime is secular that uses a religious mandate.  For the Mullahs in Iran, the mosque has been annexed by the State and those that wish to rule autocratically.  Logically, the Supreme Guide isn’t the top Mullah either.

Even the Ayatollah Khomeini had extremely limited, cursory understanding of Persian and Arabic, meaning he never attained any rank within the Shi’ite clerical hierarchy.  He simply arrived and set up a theocratic regime resembling Stalin.

The race is on to choose Iran’s current leader.  By any measure, the regime in Iran is weak, divided and Satanic; something that happened 100 years ago in Russia.

We’re failing if we don’t take the fight to these clowns.

                                     JVLV.NET: INTERVIEW OF DR. JIRI VALENTA


                               BY IRANIAN   REPORTER HAMID BAYATI
                                                                                 January 28, 2015                     

Bayati:   As you know France in early days of this month experienced terrorist attacks carried out by extremists, why some do some currently use the incident to pursue Islamophobia?

Valenta:  First, most people understand that there are moderate, peace loving Muslims and they are in the majority. Surely one of the heroes of the day was a Muslim worker in the Paris Kosher supermarket that ushered shoppers into a freezer so that they could not be killed. “Je suis Muslim.” No one is trying to foment “Islamophobia,” as you call it. The anger is directed not towards all Muslims, but only towards the terrorists. They are the people who believe that only they have the right to inhabit this planet and that everybody else deserves to be shot, beheaded, crucified, raped, enslaved or mutilated. Like our president (Obama), you refer to them as “extremists,” but the proper term in use is Islamist (Omitted) “terrorists.”
How can you expect us not to despise and fear groups like al-Qaeda, ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant), and Boko Haram that financially support and encourage acts of terror by sleeper cells in Europe and perhaps America? We do question why moderate and peace-loving Muslims are not speaking out more loudly against the radicals and organizing large demonstrations against them. One must assume they are frightened of them.
Bayati:   In past years western countries made it easy for extremists to join terrorist groups in the Middle East and supplied these groups with arms and money. Does such behavior in support of extremist groups, effect on improving their activities in west? 

If I understood you correctly this is a good question. Thirty years ago, traveling to the Khyber Pass and Peshawar in Pakistan, I was outspoken in my criticism of the Soviet intervention and occupation of Afghanistan. My country also helped the Mujahedeen with arms and supplies. My articles were published in Turkish and Arabic. I had very good ties with the moderate Mujahedeen’s who saw Soviet imperialism as the main threat. I even invited one leader to lecture at the University of Miami. His visit was supported by the Jewish community, concerned then about Soviet expansionism.
Things changed – and the Mujahedeens turned against us as we learned in the September 11, 2001 attack on our homeland. Naturally, the subsequent U.S. Intervention and victory against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was justifiable punishment and self-defense. But now, my wife, Leni, and I, in a major study, are re-evaluating the impact of other U.S. military interventionism in the Middle East. We view both Democratic and Republican presidents as responsible for misguided policies in Iraq, Libya and Syria that encouraged the rise of ISIL.
Without going into details, our analysts and leaders believed these countries were ready for “Arab Spring” (Islamic Awakening) democratic transformation. Mea Culpa! I plead guilty too, as in the Washington Times; I was perhaps the first to use the term “de-Bathization” for Iraq.  But Iraq was more complex than we anticipated. Creating this country, Churchill put together Shias, Sunnis and Kurds figuring perhaps that they could live and work together like the Christians and Protestants who once were at each other´s throats. But it was naïve to think we could imbue the Iraqis with our values and political culture.  Thus it would have been better to overthrow Saddam Hussein with a small force and then withdraw at the earliest convenience. We should have helped to replace him with an enlightened and strong military figure presiding over a junta consisting of senior representatives of all three ethnic groups. Such a leader could have possibly established law and order. De-Nazification and nation-building were good policies to pursue in a European country like Germany, with some Western values. It was unworkable in Iraq.
The terrorists were encouraged by our mistakes and misunderstandings.  Brent Scowcroft, President George H Bush’s former National Security Advisor, warned us not to engage in nation building and he was right. ISIL is a partly a product of this misguided policy. Then, Obama went to another extreme. He pulled out of Iraq without leaving any small force that would train native troops and help maintain stability.
Gaddafi in Libya supported terrorists and ordered the bombing of a Pan Am flight. Nevertheless, he gave up his nuclear program fearing a U.S. military invasion. On balance, we should have not led from behind. But in front of the coalition that intervened. Here too, we should have tried to install an enlightened military leader who would not tolerate the terrorists´ militia now running the country.
Bayati:  The entire world condemned Paris attacks, but as you know the Charlie Hebdo attack was because of the magazine’s insulting cartoons; however the French satirical weekly published them again. How do you evaluate this event?

I am not in favor of religious provocation of any kind. I do not believe in insulting heads of foreign states or religious figures. One should use civility and not hurt national pride. However, there is no way for us to look at the massacres of the Charlie Hebdo editorial board and the Kosher supermarket shoppers as anything but deplorable and shocking murders. They were counterproductive and hurt the Muslim cause in the world. Charlie Hebdo was a small, satirical journal with 20,000 copies weekly. It was not a threat.

Valenta:  You also have to understand that in the West talk show hosts and comedians routinely strive to make people laugh by making fun of their overlords, be they the President, religious figures, politicians, or anybody powerful. Something has to be really tasteless and offensive to turn people off and unless there is a hate crime involved, nobody gets arrested.  A better policy than murder for the handling offensive material in our view is to write nasty letters to the offender, skewer them in the social media, picket in front of their office or sue, but killing somebody is unthinkable. The murders reminded people of the Hitler era. Le Monde published a piece entitled, “Let us not give this posthumous victory to Hitler.”
You also have to understand the founding principle of America as granting four freedoms – Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble.   The West has adopted these values as their own. Thus, the attempt to quash freedom of the press was met with such defiance that three million copies of Charlie Hebdo were subsequently sold. Our political culture is based on equality – that of men and women and all ethnic groups and religions. Violence is not a solution for resolving regional issues and disputes. Moderate Islam understands this. May it prevail in this Titanic struggle.
Bayati:  After Paris attacks some officials said these events are not Islam so what is your Idea about the Real Islam and extremism?


Valenta: There is a struggle within Islam. It behooves us in the West to support the moderate Muslimswho oppose medieval methods of treating women and punishments like stonings , beheadings, amputations, crucifixions and even using children to assassinate infidels. I hope your country, with its rich cultural tradition and powerful history will turn in support of the positive side of the Koran and give up the support for terrorist groups. I hope they will eventually work with us. The military solution of disagreements between Iran and the U.S. would have terrible consequences for both of us. The Sunni nations, above all Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, would want the bomb as well.
I take seriously your attempts to cooperate with our government against ISIS. Unfortunately, the horrific, anti-Semitic remarks and threats against Israel of President Ahmadinejad hurt your country and reputation. So does the support for Hezbollah in Lebanon. The U.S. Congress is mistrusting of President Rouhani’s real intentions.

Finally, the nuclear program is really not in the interests of your country as it would lead to a de-stabilizing arms race with other countries in the region. The Sunni states would acquire nukes as well. I frankly wish your leaders would consider giving up on the nukes . A de-nuclearized Iran, would not only benefit from the lifting of sanctions, but could even become our ally in Syria in support of yet another Shi-ite successor to Assad. Unfortunately, President Putin understood the Syrian situation and the threat of the rise of Islamist terrorists better than our leaders. 
I was fortunate to learn about the positive side of Islam from two of my colleagues at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Professor, Kamal Said of Baghdad and one of the best experts on Afghanistan, Professor Ralph Magnus. I studied the holy Quran with Said and I recognized that you can find the message of peace and tranquility in it. The Quran can be interpreted in different ways and so can the principle contact of “Jihad.” It has different meanings – Holy war, but also spiritual renewal.



                                                                    PUBLISHED VERSION

صفحه اصلی > بین الملل 

سرویس: بین الملل ، تاریخ: ۰۶/بهمن/۱۳۹۳ - ۱۱:۲۸ ، شناسه خبر: ۶۳۰۷۷۳

مشاور ۴ رئیس‌جمهور آمریکا در گفت‌وگو با تسنیم:

اشتباهات رؤسای جمهور آمریکا موجب پیدایش و رشد داعش شد

خبرگزاری تسنیم: مدیر مؤسسه مطالعات پس از کمونیست که سابقه ارائه مشاوره به چهار تن از رؤسای جمهور سابق آمریکا را دارد، اشتباهات پی‌درپی رؤسای جمهور ایالات متحده در عراق را موجب پیدایش و گسترش گروه‌هایی همچون داعش می‌داند.

نسخه قابل چاپ

از تاریخ 17 دی ماه یعنی زمان وقوع حادثه شارلی ابدو کشورهای غربی به‌ویژه اروپایی در جوی از وحشت و فضای امنیتی فرو رفته‌اند و در این میان برخی افراد و گروه‌ها دانسته و به‌گونه‌ای که نشان می‌دهد از جانب گروهی خاص تحریک شده‌اند وقایع پاریس را به‌عنوان عاملی برای افزایش اسلام ستیزی استفاده می‌کنند، برای تحلیل بهتر آنچه در غرب در حال جریان است و اینکه هدف سیاست گذاران غربی از دامن زدن به اسلام هراسی چیست با دکتر «جیری والنتا» به گفتگو نشستیم.

متن مصاحبه با رئیس مؤسسه مطالعات دوران پس از کمونیست به‌شرح زیر است:

ــ همان‌طور که می‌دانید فرانسه در تاریخ هفتم ژانویه (17 دی ماه) و حتی روز بعد از آن شاهد حوادث خونینی بود که توسط افراطیون انجام شد، چرا برخی از این حوادث برای رواج اسلام هراسی استفاده می‌کنند؟

در پاسخ به این پرسش باید بگویم که اغلب مردم جهان می‌دانند که در میان مسلمانان افرادی که دوستدار صلح بوده و به میانه‌روی اعتقاد دارند وجود دارند و افراد میانه‌روی صلح‌طلب اکثریت جمعیت مسلمانان را تشکیل می‌دهند. در این میان مطمئناً یکی از قهرمانان این روزهای فرانسه کارگر مسلمانی است که در فروشگاه کوشر با هدایت کردن مشتریان فروشگاه به سردخانه از کشته شدن آنها جلوگیری کرد. بنابراین می‌گویم که "من مسلمانم». من با نظر شما مبنی بر اینکه در غرب برخی مقامات در پی افزایش اسلام هراسی هستند مخالفم و اینجا کسی به‌دنبال تشویق اسلام ستیزی نیست. آنچه ما با آن مخالفیم افراط گرایی است و عصبانیت غرب از اسلام واقعی نیست بلکه از افراط گرایی و تروریسم است. افراط گرایان افرادی هستند که فکر می‌کنند این جهان فقط متعلق به آنهاست و هر کسی که با این نظر مخالف باشد یا کشته شده، یا سر بریده شده یا مورد تجاوز قرار می گیرد و یا آنکه بدن او را تکه تکه می‌کنند بنابراین چرا ما نباید از گروه‌هایی همچون بوکو حرام، القاعده و داعش بترسیم، گروه‌هایی که به‌صراحت از گروه‌هایی که در اروپا و حتی آمریکا دست به اقدامات تروریستی می‌زنند حمایت و آنها را تشویق می‌کنند؟ در این رابطه ما از مسلمانان صلح‌طلب و میانه‌رو می‌خواهیم که با صدای رساتری علیه این گروه‌های افراطی و تروریستی صحبت کنند.

ــ شما به موضوع ترس غرب از گروه‌هایی همچون بوکوحرام و القاعده اشاره کردید، برخی کارشناسان معتقدند که غرب این گروه‌ها را برای پیشبرد برنامه‌های خود و تغییر خاورمیانه بر اساس خواست خود تشکیل داده، نظر شما در این مورد چیست؟

به‌نظر من مدرکی در این رابطه وجود ندارد که غرب گروه‌های تروریستی را برای ایجاد تغییر در خاورمیانه به وجود آورده است. آنچه من در این رابطه نتیجه گیری می‌کنم این است که حمله گسترده به عراق، ایده ساده‌لوحانه ایجاد یک کشور جدید، تلاش برای ایجاد تغییر در فرهنگی که ریشه‌هایی قدیمی دارد و همچنین شکنجه بدون مجوز زندانیان شرایطی را به وجود آورد که این شرایط به به وجود آمدن گروه‌های افراطی که در نهایت تبدیل به داعش شدند کمک کرد.

آمریکا اقدام کافی علیه بوکوحرام انجام نمی‌دهد

متأسفانه آمریکا اقدام کافی را در حمایت از ارتش نیجریه در برابر گروه بوکوحرام انجام نمی‌دهد، گروهی که جنایات زیادی را انجام می‌دهد به‌طوری که اقدامات آن با اقدامات نازی‌ها در جنگ دوم جهانی قابل مقایسه است. اوباما قول داد که دختران ربوده شده توسط بوکوحرام را آزاد می‌کند اما به نظر می‌رسد که وی این موضوع را فراموش کرده است. مجدداً تکرار می‌کنم که اشتباهات سیاسی پیامدهای تأسف‌بار و غیرعمدی به‌همراه دارد.

تجربیات مداخله در لیبی، عراق و حتی سوریه می‌گوید که فقط یک رهبر قوی، کسی که مورد احترام تمامی گروه‌های کشور باشد می‌تواند به‌طور مؤثری به ثبات کشورها کمک کند. آمریکا باید اقدامات ضد تروریستی خود را افزایش داده و از گروه‌هایی همچون ایزدی‌ها حمایت کند.

ــ در سالهای گذشته کشورهای غربی امر انتقال تروریست‌ها و افراطیون را به خاورمیانه و پیوستن آنها به گروه‌های تروریستی حاضر در منطقه از جمله عراق و سوریه را تسهیل و اقدام به تسلیح این گروه‌ها و حمایت مالی از آنها کردند، آیا سیاست حمایت از گروه‌های افراطی در خاورمیانه موجب افزایش فعالیت‌های تروریستی در غرب نشده است؟

این سؤال خوبی است. 30 سال قبل من سفری به گذرگاه خیبر و پیشاور در پاکستان داشتم. در آن زمان من انتقاد زیادی از اقدام اتحاد جماهیر شوروی در حمله به افغانستان و اشغال این کشور می‌کردم. در آن زمان کشور من (آمریکا) با ارسال تجهیزات نظامی و دیگر موارد از مجاهدین افغان حمایت می‌کرد. در آن زمان مقاله‌ای در این رابطه نوشتم که به زبان‌های ترکی استانبولی و عربی منتشر شد. در آن زمان من رابطه بسیار خوبی با مجاهدین میانه‌رو داشتم، مجاهدینی که شوروی را مهمترین تهدید آن زمان می‌دانستند. در آن زمان من حتی یکی از رهبران مجاهدین را برای سخنرانی به دانشگاه میامی دعوت کردم، البته باید بگویم که جامعه یهودیان آمریکا از سفر این فرد به آمریکا و سخنرانی وی در دانشگاه که در مورد فعالیت‌های توسعه طلبانه اتحاد جماهیر شوروی بود حمایت می‌کرد.

اما بعد از چند سال همه چیز عوض شد و مجاهدین تبدیل به دشمنان آمریکا شده از ما رو گرداندند و همان‌طور که در 11 سپتامبر 2001 دیدیم به آمریکا حمله کردند. از همین رو طبیعی است که حمله آمریکا به افغانستان برای دفاع از خود یک تنبیه توجیه پذیر باشد. اما اکنون من و همسرم لنی، در یک تحقیق دقیق و اساسی که در مورد تأثیرات مداخله نظامی آمریکا در خاورمیانه مطالعه می‌کنیم مشاهده کرده‌ایم که هم رؤسای جمهور جمهوری‌خواه و هم دموکرات آمریکا مسئول سیاست‌های اشتباهی بوده‌اند که در عراق، لیبی و سوریه پیاده شده و موجب شکل‌گیری و رشد داعش گردیده است.

سران آمریکا درباره خاورمیانه اشتباه کردند

بدون اینکه بخواهم به‌سراغ جزئیات بروم می‌گویم که تحلیلگران و و رهبران ما (آمریکا) معتقد بودند که این کشورها (کشورهای خاورمیانه) برای تغییرات دموکراتیک آماده هستند اما خوب در این راه اشتباهاتی انجام گرفت، من تقریباً اولین نفری بودم که در مورد لزوم بعثی‌زدایی در ارتش عراق صحبت کردم و ممکن است در مورد اشتباهاتی که در عراق انجام گرفت من نیز مقصر باشم. عراق پیچیده‌تر از آن چیزی بود که ما تصور می‌کردیم. چرچیل (نخست وزیر اسبق انگلیس) در زمان تشکیل این کشور فکر می‌کرد که با قرار دادن کردها، شیعیان و اهل سنت در کنار هم آنها می‌توانند در کنار هم زندگی کنند اما این تفکر اشتباهی بود زیرا امکان اینکه عراق با ارزش‌ها و فرهنگ مورد نظر ما شکل بگیرد امری غلط بود. به‌واسطه این اشتباه بود که فکر شد شاید بهتر باشد که صدام حسین را با استفاده از یک نیروی کوچک برکنار کرده و سپس وقتی از وضعیت این کشور مطمئن شدیم از آن خارج شویم. ما باید کمک می‌کردیم تا صدام با یک چهره روشنفکر و قوی نظامی که نماینده هر سه گروه جمعیتی این کشور (شیعیان، کردها و سنیان) باشد عوض شود. چنین رهبری می‌توانست نظم و قانون را در عراق پیاده کند. نازی‌زدایی و تشکیل ملت با توجه به برخی ارزش‌های غربی، سیاستی خوب در کشوری اروپایی همچون آلمان بود اما این سیاست در عراق کارساز نبود و مؤثر واقع نشد.

درک نادرستی که گروه‌های افراطی را به وجود آورد

اشتباهات و درک نادرست ما باعث به وجود آمدن گروه‌های افراطی دینی شد. «برنت اسکوکرافت» مشاور امنیت ملی جرج بوش پدر، به آمریکا هشدار داده بود که به‌دنبال ایجاد کشور و یا ملت جدید نباشیم و باید بگویم که او درست می‌گفت. بخشی از دلایل به وجود آمدن داعش به‌دلیل اتخاذ این سیاست اشتباه (تلاش برای تشکیل کشور ــ ملت جدید) است. اوباما یک اشتباه دیگر نیز انجام داد و آن اینکه عراق را بدون اینکه نیرویی را برای آموزش نظامیان عراقی باقی بگذارد ترک کرد.

قذافی در لیبی از تروریست‌ها حمایت می‌کرد و دستور بمب‌گذاری پرواز پان‌آمریکن را داده بود. با این وجود وی به‌دلیل ترس از حمله آمریکا برنامه هسته‌ای خود را متوقف کرد. به‌ازای آن آمریکا نباید در حمله به لیبی در پس همه قرار می‌گرفت بلکه باید رهبری ائتلاف حمله کننده به لیبی را به‌عهده می‌گرفتیم. در لیبی نیز ما (آمریکا) باید به روی کار آمدن رهبری قدرتمند که مخالف گروه‌های افراطی باشد کمک می‌کردیم، گروه‌هایی که هم اکنون این کشور را اداره می‌کنند.

در مورد سوریه نیز باید بگویم که هم اکنون دیگر برای مداخله نظامی در این کشور دیر شده و خطر اسد برای غرب به‌مراتب کمتر از داعش است.

ــ هرچند اعلام شد که ممکن است دلیل حمله به شارلی ابدو توهین این هفته‌نامه به پیامر اسلام(ص) بوده اما همان‌طور که شاهد بودید پس از وقایع پاریس تمامی جهان این اقدام افراطی را محکوم کردند، با این وجود شاهد بودیم که این مجله مجدداً تصاویر موهنی را منتشر کرد که موجب خشم مسلمانان شد، شما این جریان را چطور ارزیابی می‌ک