United States of America's role in world order: Leadership reflects intent for peace or disruption, destruction and wars?

In modern era, most of us are quite well informed and a large section knows but many still fall for propaganda, when it comes to understanding international affairs. '

The reason is that overwhelming influence of the dominant media from one or two countries, the strong control and also soft power of the global superpower.

Throughout 20th century, this super power toppled regimes or led wars, nuked Hiroshima & Nagasaki, caused deaths of millions in brutal invasions from wars in Vietnam to Iraq, Afghanistan to Libya, now Iran directly or through proxy or a rogue regime.  

Thousands of kids died in Gaza but no US' intervention or bid to save lives. Days turned into weeks, then months, a year and so on, but scale of destruction and killings were not stopped. One strong message and 50,000 lives could have been saved in Gaza.

Unfortunately, the global order is such that a veto or just one nation's support, can make such a big difference--lasting peace or constant chaos. Misusing media power to term X or Y country as demon, target, then other & other, still claim to be leader of the land of free world? 

If any nation allows atrocities, gives a complete free hand to a regime, remains more focused on geopolitics and sells weapons or ignore all international norms to act as they did in Guantanamo Bay, then where is the morality? 

Isn't weapon industry for this purpose! Never for peace, just a mask. The global super cop has its propaganda media that divides this world into--west and east, as if rule of law exists in one region and no rule of law in other. But how cleverly, this is engineered.

The World Wars that killed tens of millions were also fought in Europe, on Western soil, however, so easily the media dismissed and defames Asian or African nations. 

Create any story or use false claims to invade countries, directly, or through proxy or pet regime?

US needs to evaluate its role in the world, especially, when it comes to world peace. The Unipolar global leadership era when it was easy to get away by any weird claim or ruse, and commit atrocity and leave a trail of destruction, is over.

American Arrogance Vs Ahmedinejad: Insulting Iran prez at Columbia University

The discourteous reception given to the Iran president at the Columbia University where he was invited and the reaction of mainstream newspapers, has showed sections of American intelligentsia and their press in poor light.

Firstly, if they didn't like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they shouldn't have invited him for lecture at the University. And when he arrived there, the University president Lee Bollinger introduced the Iranian leader as 'a petty and cruel dictator' to the audience.

Bollinger's reportedly aggressive tone and the words he chose to describe Ahmadinejad were distasteful and beyond all civilised norms. If that was not enough, the newspaper reports reflected the feeling of concern that Bollinger's unwarranted aggression may help Ahmadinejad, who remained composed and reacted in a dignified way, earn brownie points.

Bollinger didn't stop at this and further said, When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous' and 'You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated'. The president of a leading University must know that you can't grow in stature by belittling somebody, especially your guest.

And when Ahmadinejad replied to a question on holocaust by saying that why should Palestinians pay for whatever happened in Europe, the audience applauded him. However, the newspapers were quick to write that 'they were a bunch of anti-Semites'. What a joke!

And what are they--Zionist stooges, those on the payroll of pro-Israel lobby! (I haven't used the Jew word yet). If Ahmadinejad is a dictator, what about American president? Who is responsible for killing millions in Iraq by telling the world blatant lies about Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction'.

Israel can disregard all UN resolutions but US foreign policy remains oblivious to everything. Anyway. I read many articles in American press online and there was a feeling of regret that maybe the insult thrown at him could bring more popularity and sympathy to Mahmoud Ahmadinijad [and more support to him back home]. Such is the American loyalty to the cause of Israel!

Do Americans have the right to take any moral high-ground, especially after the Iraq fiasco?
I am no fan of Ahmedjinejad but American arrogance perhaps need men like him, who can make them uncomfortable. And that's why a website report said, 'Ahmedinijad, the winner in the battle of nerves at Columbia university'.

[Photos on the top: Ahmadinejad on the left, Lee Bollinger on the right and the view of students on the campus listening to Iranian president on a big screen.]

The country that is an enigma for outsiders: Iran

Iran's stand on the nuclear issue has once again brought the attention of world on this gas-rich Shia Muslim country.

Iran remains a mystery to outsiders. In India the right wing often sees Iran---Shia republic amind the belligerent and majority Sunni nations--with sympathy.

The Sunni Muslims are also often in awe of this country where the revolution took place under Khomeini and which was the first to issue a fatwa on Rushdie issue.

Iran remains a country that does not allow itself to be dictated by any superpower and it is this aspect of the country that is contrary to position of most of the Muslim countries.

The rightwing activists often wonder why Shia Iran remains committed to the cause of Islam as strongly. This dilemma is seen when section of RSS-BJP ideologues on one hand show a sympathy for Iran's nuclear ambitions and charge America of bullying but the rest feel insecure and warn about another 'rogue' Muslim nuclear power in the world.

It is this independnce of Iran that is termed as roguish attitude which the West does not like. Generally a sensible man, Sudheendra Kulkarni, who was once a card carryin communist and eventurally wrote speaches for Advani before being shown the door, tried to unravel the puzzle that Iran, the fascinating country of contradictions as he puts its in Indian Express. Interesting artile indeed. The few excerpts:

1. Iran inherits a glorious civilisation and therefore has a narrative that is as mysterious as the poetry of Rumi the great poet of Sufi mysiticism (Our death is our wedding with eternity). Iran is as Islamic as one can get. Ye its strong Shia identity stands out as a quiet defiance of much of Sunni Islam.

Beauty and melancholy are twins in much of Iran's art and history. One of its greatest rulers, Shah Abbas I, who established the magnificent Isfahan, killed his eldest son and gouged eyes of second son, who in turn killed his daughter.

2. Is grief Iran's self-willed destiny? Collective grieving for Imam Husainis a finely choreographed ritual in Iran. Reading Christopher de Bellaigue's book ' In the rose garden of the martyrs' is to be reminded that martyrdom is both the leitmotif of Iran and also a pointer to its perennial search for its true harmonised identity.

3."Iran's sole perceptible gain of the past quarter of a century: the liberty to take important decisions without having to consult a superpower", quotes Kulkarni from the book.