RUTHFULLY YOURS

The political authority of the unelected Supreme Leader and his personally selected Guardian Council to veto bills and choose presidential candidates makes a mockery of Iran’s supposed ‘democracy’. For those who might criticise such a system, a mandatory seventy-four lashes await.

In his 1689 publication A Letter Concerning Toleration, the English philosopher John Locke recommended that the institutions of religion and state be made into totally separate entities, because such a separation would lead to a high level of social stability. Locke’s ideas were considered revolutionary at the time, but the notion of a separation of religion and state has long been a staple of developed nations. However, numerous countries, especially in the Middle East, still implement a form of government where religion and state are intertwined. Iran is one such nation.

Iran’s theocratic ruler, the “Supreme Leader”, is a clear representative of the interests of the dominant Shia Islam in the nation’s political sphere, and has a stranglehold over matters pertaining to the Iranian state. This situation has resulted in internal lawmaking that negatively affects the lives of Iranians, and a political structure that denigrates the country’s democracy.

Iran used to have a form of more democratic governance promoting the separation of religion and state until the 1979 uprising that led to the establishment of the Islamic Republic. The uprising was led by the nation’s first Supreme Leader, Ruhollah Khomeini, and was supported by many of the older, more religiously fanatical citizens who were against the rapid modernisation and Westernisation of Iran by the then government. With this new political order came a new constitution, stating that “All civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Shia Islamic criteria.” This constitutional basis for the authority of the dominant Shia Islam over matters of state is politically and practically manifest in the role of Supreme Leader.

The current Supreme Leader of Iran is Ali Khamenei. Elected to this position not by popular vote, but by decree of the Assembly of Religious Experts, Khamenei was chosen as a “suitable cleric” to uphold the beliefs of Shia Islam in Iranian politics. The members of the Assembly of Religious Experts are also strict followers of Shia Islam and experts in the Koran and sharia law. The Supreme Leader they elect is guaranteed to be of a similar hardline Shia conviction, which Khamenei is, and act on behalf of Shia interests and principles, which Khamenei does.

The Supreme Leader operates both within and above a largely impotent publicly elected civil government and President, and has powers over matters of state that are far-reaching, controlling, and near absolute. In the Iranian constitution, the Supreme Leader’s role is defined as to “determine the interests of Islam in Iran”, and to “guide” and “supervise” the nation. This was included in the constitution by Iran’s original Islamic revolutionaries in order to assuage fears that a more moderate, democratic and Westernised government would regain power.

The Supreme Leader has far-reaching control over jurisdictions typically considered matters of state in the West. While the elected President of Iran does handle matters of small civil legislation, the theocratic Supreme Leader is totally responsible for control of the armed forces and defence, and can “dictate general guidelines of Iranian foreign and domestic policy”. The Supreme Leader also has the authority to appoint military commanders, the director of national radio and television networks, members of the national security council, the chief judge and prosecutor, and mosque leaders in all of Iran’s major cities.

Is someone in the White House colluding with China? The Trump administration’s decision to impose tariffs on imported aluminum and steel lets China off the hook for its chronic and deliberate overproduction. Worse, it sets the stage for a trade war that would rob U.S. manufacturers of the advantages stemming from America’s recent transformation into the world’s hydrocarbon superpower.

From lifting restrictions on offshore drilling to ending the Obama administration’s war on coal, Mr. Trump’s robustly pro-growth energy policies have so far delighted American industry. Energy Secretary Rick Perry told an audience at February’s Conservative Political Action Conference that America has finally turned the page on the Jimmy Carter era of resource pessimism and energy shortages. Forecasters expect U.S. oil production to surpass Saudi Arabia’s output in 2018. Last year the U.S. produced 19.4% more natural gas than Russia.

Having freed itself from the Paris climate agreement and dumped the Clean Power Plan, the U.S. now has easy access to more low-cost energy than almost any other industrialized nation. American coal production, exports and employment rose in 2017 after years of decline. Thanks to technological innovations such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, the U.S. is awash in cheap, domestically produced natural gas. No other industrial nation comes close to matching America’s energy exceptionalism.

Normally all this would be great news for domestic manufacturers, which rely on energy-intensive aluminum and steel as inputs. In Europe, where green policies have pushed up energy costs, natural-gas and electricity prices are roughly double those in the U.S. Yet despite the low cost of domestic natural gas, U.S. primary production of aluminum has fallen by more than half since 2015.

The reason is simple: China. In 2000 China produced about 11% of primary aluminum; now Chinese aluminum accounts for more than half of world output. After the 2016 election, the Aluminum Association urged President-elect Trump to make China’s aluminum sector a top trade priority and force Beijing to the negotiating table. By adopting National Trade Council director Peter Navarro’s aluminum tariffs this month, the White House effectively kicked over the table instead. CONTINUE AT SITE

Recent analyses by experts on religious freedom cite the continued prejudicial declarations against Christians, Jews, and Western Civilization in Saudi educational textbooks as evidence that Saudi Arabia still bears ill will against the “infidel” West.

Saudi Arabia has failed to meet agreed-upon deadlines to remove objectionable language from educational texts.

The current Saudi Foreign Minister, Adel bin Ahmed al-Jubeir, seemed falsely to imply that hateful language appears only in past, discontinued textbooks and that current textbooks are being purged of any offensive language.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s May, 2017 Saudi Arabia trip and his address to leaders of Islamic nations may open a new era of cooperation between the United States and the world’s leading conservative Sunni Muslim states. Trump’s trip, along with reported warming relations between Israel and some Arab states, may suggest that the initial stages of an anti-Iranian, anti-terrorist alliance is in the offing.

In Saudi Arabia, Trump forcefully denounced Iran’s support for terrorism. This speech was welcomed especially by Arabian Peninsula Sunni state leaders, who could well be threatened by the aggressive policies of Shia Iran in the Persian Gulf and the Levant.

Unfortunately, however, the Saudi educational system’s textbooks, at least as of a year ago, remain rife with anti-Christian and anti-Jewish statements, as well as criticism of other Muslim sects. Perhaps one of the real litmus tests of the viability of a new era in relations between the United States and conservative Sunni Arab states will be whether the latter totally purge their abusive denunciations of peoples of other religious faiths.

If the gang members were “Asian,” records were not kept. Such is the cowardice and criminal negligence of the police involved.

These Sharia courts mean that the legal system of a foreign political ideology, Islam, has created a parallel legal system in which Sharia is placed above English common law. It is thought that some 30 to 85 Sharia courts are operating in England and Wales alone.

“The Muslim Brotherhood’s foundational texts call for the progressive moral purification of individuals and Muslim societies and their eventual political unification in a Caliphate under Sharia law. To this day the Muslim Brotherhood characterises Western societies and liberal Muslims as decadent and immoral. It can be seen primarily as a political project.” — Prime Minister David Cameron, 2014, regarding a report withheld from the public [Emphases added].

The United Kingdom, once an imperial power, now sounds more like a colonial vassal. The actions of British government officials suggest that the will of the government has collapsed in the face of terrorist and ideological assaults by the forces of political Islam. The ideology is being spread by, among others, the Muslims Brotherhood, according to a major report of the British government itself. A number of Muslim Brotherhood front groups have been identified as such by government reports such as those of the United Arab Emirates. These include the UK based Cordoba Foundation, the Muslim Association of Britain, and Islamic Relief UK. All three of these organization are listed as terrorist entities in the United Arab Emirates as well.