Originally published in Jaam-e Jam in Persian on Monday, 30 Ordebehesht, 1387 AP/19 May, 2008 AD
A few weeks ago, I came across an article on Tajikistan from the New York Times, which was published in 1993 AD. The article talked about the Tajikistan civil war. After I read the article, a feeling of interest appeared in me, and I was interested to see what the newspaper has written about Tajikistan since independence and during the civil war. After seeing the articles, I came to a conclusion that it is not far fetched if the United States has also played a role in the imposed Tajik civil war.
On February 7, 1992, the newspaper reports that the Bush administration (Bush senior) wants to speed up the process of appointing ambassadors to the Caucasus and Central Asia, in order to block Iranian “ambitions” in the region. The article notes that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism in the world, and is a danger to the world. According to the United States government information, Iran is shopping for missiles and nuclear bombs in the area, where there are left over ones from the Soviet Union. The article also mentions that it is fortunate that most of these countries are linguistically and culturally Turkic, and not Persian; and from the religious perspective they are Sunni and not Shi’a. Approximately a week later, on February 13, President Bush meets with the Turkish Prime Minister, Süleyman Demirel, to discuss Iraq and the regime of Saddam Hussein. During this meeting, the sides also discuss Central Asia. The United States wants to promote Turkey as a model of development to Central Asia. Mr. Demirel says that Central Asia will not turn to Islamic fundamentalism, because “They are Turkic-speaking countries. Historically, culturally, they see Turkey as an example.” He also views the decision by some of these countries to go to Latin script as an important step.
A day before this article, a report is published about Secretary of State, James Baker’s trip to Tajikistan. Based on this report, the United States is worried that Tajikistan may sell its uranium to Iran. President Rahman Nabiev assures that Tajikistan will not sell its uranium to any country. Mr. Baker also declares his worry about the relations between Tajikistan and Iran, and says that creation of an Islamic state would be a great mistake. Mr. Nabiev assures Mr. Baker that Iran’s geographical proximity to Tajikistan demands good relations with them. However, neither him, nor the mostly Russian-speaking élites like the fundamentalist message. Mr. Baker is also pleased to see that despite independence, the business language remains Russian, and not Persian. On February 22, an article is published in the newspaper, which states that it would be better if Saudi Arabia has influence in Central Asia, as opposed to Iran. It is interesting that today the Wahhabis are a danger to the world, who are supported by the Saudis. Such anti-Iranian sentiment is felt in all the New York Times articles. After a few more articles we see that the war has broken out in Tajikistan. Finally, a letter to the editor is published December 1, from Dr. Richard N. Frye, from Harvard, who is one of the greatest Iranologists. A part of the letter says, “I am dismayed by the constant refrain of the great danger that Iran and Islam pose for the world, especially now in articles on Afghanistan and Central Asia, particularly Tajikistan. Having lived for years in all of these countries, I believe that neither the peoples nor the governments wish to spread their influence or that of Islam. What they want, above all, is peace and stability, and Shiite Persians are not about to convert Sunni Muslims in Central Asia. …rather than indict Muslims or Iranians, we should cooperate…”
Another letter to the editor is written by a Ralph Groves, which is published on February 1, 1993. The author says that he has studied Afghanistan in Columbia University, and is not only worried about Iran getting influence among the Farsiwans, Hazaras, and the Tajiks, but even on the other side of the river – in the former Soviet Republic of Tajikistan. He says that this Iranian chain can go from Iran to the west and north-east of Afghanistan, and up to Tajikistan. It can create a cultural, social, and political coöperation. On November 7, an article is published – “THE WORLD: Playing Dominoes in Central Asia; Why All Eyes Are on a Place Called Tajikistan.” The article notes that Islamism in this country is worrisome for the whole world. The United States is also worried about Iran’s influence in this country, according to the article.
These articles showed once more that the superpowers are after Iran’s destruction. The United States knew from the beginning that Tajikistan has Iranian language, culture, and ethnicity. The United States and the West are worried about Iran, because they know that Iran has the ability to become a power. Iran today is the only country in the Middle East that has an independent policy and the close relations of such a country as Tajikistan to Iran is worrisome for the United States.
A few weeks ago, I came across an article on Tajikistan from the New York Times, which was published in 1993 AD. The article talked about the Tajikistan civil war. After I read the article, a feeling of interest appeared in me, and I was interested to see what the newspaper has written about Tajikistan since independence and during the civil war. After seeing the articles, I came to a conclusion that it is not far fetched if the United States has also played a role in the imposed Tajik civil war.
On February 7, 1992, the newspaper reports that the Bush administration (Bush senior) wants to speed up the process of appointing ambassadors to the Caucasus and Central Asia, in order to block Iranian “ambitions” in the region. The article notes that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism in the world, and is a danger to the world. According to the United States government information, Iran is shopping for missiles and nuclear bombs in the area, where there are left over ones from the Soviet Union. The article also mentions that it is fortunate that most of these countries are linguistically and culturally Turkic, and not Persian; and from the religious perspective they are Sunni and not Shi’a. Approximately a week later, on February 13, President Bush meets with the Turkish Prime Minister, Süleyman Demirel, to discuss Iraq and the regime of Saddam Hussein. During this meeting, the sides also discuss Central Asia. The United States wants to promote Turkey as a model of development to Central Asia. Mr. Demirel says that Central Asia will not turn to Islamic fundamentalism, because “They are Turkic-speaking countries. Historically, culturally, they see Turkey as an example.” He also views the decision by some of these countries to go to Latin script as an important step.
A day before this article, a report is published about Secretary of State, James Baker’s trip to Tajikistan. Based on this report, the United States is worried that Tajikistan may sell its uranium to Iran. President Rahman Nabiev assures that Tajikistan will not sell its uranium to any country. Mr. Baker also declares his worry about the relations between Tajikistan and Iran, and says that creation of an Islamic state would be a great mistake. Mr. Nabiev assures Mr. Baker that Iran’s geographical proximity to Tajikistan demands good relations with them. However, neither him, nor the mostly Russian-speaking élites like the fundamentalist message. Mr. Baker is also pleased to see that despite independence, the business language remains Russian, and not Persian. On February 22, an article is published in the newspaper, which states that it would be better if Saudi Arabia has influence in Central Asia, as opposed to Iran. It is interesting that today the Wahhabis are a danger to the world, who are supported by the Saudis. Such anti-Iranian sentiment is felt in all the New York Times articles. After a few more articles we see that the war has broken out in Tajikistan. Finally, a letter to the editor is published December 1, from Dr. Richard N. Frye, from Harvard, who is one of the greatest Iranologists. A part of the letter says, “I am dismayed by the constant refrain of the great danger that Iran and Islam pose for the world, especially now in articles on Afghanistan and Central Asia, particularly Tajikistan. Having lived for years in all of these countries, I believe that neither the peoples nor the governments wish to spread their influence or that of Islam. What they want, above all, is peace and stability, and Shiite Persians are not about to convert Sunni Muslims in Central Asia. …rather than indict Muslims or Iranians, we should cooperate…”
Another letter to the editor is written by a Ralph Groves, which is published on February 1, 1993. The author says that he has studied Afghanistan in Columbia University, and is not only worried about Iran getting influence among the Farsiwans, Hazaras, and the Tajiks, but even on the other side of the river – in the former Soviet Republic of Tajikistan. He says that this Iranian chain can go from Iran to the west and north-east of Afghanistan, and up to Tajikistan. It can create a cultural, social, and political coöperation. On November 7, an article is published – “THE WORLD: Playing Dominoes in Central Asia; Why All Eyes Are on a Place Called Tajikistan.” The article notes that Islamism in this country is worrisome for the whole world. The United States is also worried about Iran’s influence in this country, according to the article.
These articles showed once more that the superpowers are after Iran’s destruction. The United States knew from the beginning that Tajikistan has Iranian language, culture, and ethnicity. The United States and the West are worried about Iran, because they know that Iran has the ability to become a power. Iran today is the only country in the Middle East that has an independent policy and the close relations of such a country as Tajikistan to Iran is worrisome for the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment