Letters

November 2004
November 18 | November 17 | November 4 |


Sociological insights with a smile

In respose to Ahmad Sadri's "Roshanfekr-e dini 3-noqteh baayad gardad":

My friend, Sourena, emailed your article in Iranian.com on secular intellectuals. I enjoyed reading it. You have a very sharp sense of humor as well as a deep understanding of reform movement in Islam as manifested in Iran. As a sociologist, I particularly enjoyed the way in which you integrated sociological insights into your writing in Persian. This is a challenging task and I congratulate you on accomplishing it so well.

Elham Gheytanchi

Top


Articles like that are dangerous

In respose to Persia Lover's "Bad thoughts, bad words, bad deeds":

Let me tell you first that I have been an interested visitor of your website on a regular basis for many years now. I really appreciate the work you are doing. Thank you very much for taking all that time to create a lively magazine for us Iranians abroad.

However, today I came across an interesting article. It is called "Bad thoughts, bad words, bad deeds". I was utterly surprised to see it published on the frontsite of iranian.com. Let me tell you that I have been a scholar of Zoroastrian and Iranian studies almost my entire life and though we might never be able to find the final truth in any aspect of life, I can nevertheless say that I know my academic field.

This article is wrong. It is historically incorrect, philosophically incoherent, inconcise, false and misleading. But worst of all: it is a piece of heavy propaganda. Now do not misunderstand me, please, I am not another blind romantic nationalist, but I do apprieciate - in fact I insist on - scientific grounds for any discussion of such kind, whatever the outcome is. The author of the aforesaid article has no such insistence, he satisfies himself with mere propaganda. He uses false sources for false conclusions. Anyone with just a little knowledge of the Zoroastrian religion could very easily defeat the article's arguments. But as a matter of fact, enough Iranians today do not even have a clue about that ancient faith - apparently including your staff at the Iranian.com.

Dear Mr Javid, articles like that are dangerous. In todays times, where we have an autocratic regime in Iran that oppresses any sort of minorities, such piece of misleading propaganda can have a heavy and lasting impact on people's perceptions. It does not matter that the author can be proven wrong in the end, some bad taste will stay in the minds of people forever. As a journalist, you should know this better than I.

Being against any kind of censorship myself, I do have to recommend you to nevertheless prevent such articles from being published on your site - whether it be against Zoroastrianism, the Mullahs, Hitler or mice and tigers - for everything and everyone in the world deserves a truthful treatment. If you want to let that ominous article stay where it is, you must make that up with your mind. But I do not think you are doing Iranians in and outside of Iran good service in publishing propaganda.

" Nothing is sacred" - not even truth?

Yours sincerely,

Dr. A. Pakdin

REPLY: I saw my name in passing in the above letter. Is it anything serious? I have to get back to work.
-- Jahanshah Javid

Top


World's greatest conspiracy theorists

In respose to Moe's letter, "Soup hypocrite":

I read your comments I nominated Mr. Yaganeh, because as a big fan of Seinfeld TV series, I found it quite interesting that the Soup Nazi character (one of my favourites) was based on a fellow-compatriot.

His name came to my attention last weekend, when I saw him on a Canadian network news, stating that the famous Soup Nazi has started franchising and is considering to expand his business to Canada (Toronto as a starting point).

I don't know much about the good old Iranian debauchery and conniving characteristics, but for sure we are the world's greatest conspiracy theorists!

Parviz Hamrang
Montreal

Top


What are the writers real intentions?

In respose to Persia Lover's "Bad thoughts, bad words, bad deeds":

The article by Persia Lover in your religion section is factually flawed. Whereas there is some truth to what is written, in that the priesthood in Sassanian times had created a caste system which was oppressive and helped the populace welcome Islam when the Arabs invaded Iran. However, the movement that the author just witnessed wishes for Iranians to reach back before this era and wishes to embrace the teachings of Zartosht, and not the nonsensical dogma added to the Gathas by the power hungry Sassanian clergy.

The greatest king of Iran, Cyrus the Great (Kourosh-e-Kabir) the founder of the Persian Empire was Zorostrian. This following quotation from the book of The Iranians by Sandra Mackey might help the author better understand where this movement is going. "Zoroaster gave Cyrus's earthly realm a soul and Cyrus gave Zoroastrianism a body."

A study of the Gathas will help understand why so many philosophers and religious scholars believe Zoroaster's teachings are the basis for all the other religions that followed later. 

The author's reference to the Sad Dar is confusing to most Zoroastrians. The site refered to that defines it is clearly incorrect. The Sad Dar is NOT Zoroastrian scripture and is not taught to any modern Zoroastrian. To refer to some obscure internet link and defame an entire religion and philosophy begs the question: What are the writers real intentions?. Are you really a lover of Iran or a troll trying to stir contempt?

Armita

Top


American phenomenon

I see every day iranina.com becomes less of an Iranian and more of an American phenomenon. May I suggest to change the site from Iranian.com to that of American.com if the quick manuver for reversal  is impossible.

Doctor Danesh

Top


I wish!

In response to Quiz about Shahrzad Sepanlou: "1001 nights":

She's my wife - I wish!!

Saludos / Regards
Cyrus Forouhar

Top


His majesty, the village idiot

In response to Nader Davoodi's photo essay: "Sizdah":

Sizdah, a play in Tehran that is by Ms. Banafsheh Tavanaie shows the Iranian peoples view of monarchy. The play is based on a Shah's harem. Harem is an arabic term signifying that a man has more than 4 wives. Haram in arabic means an evil deed. The Shah in this play is viewed as evil. In the late 1970's Iranians abolished the monarchy for ever. To this day the Shahs when portrayed in films, books, plays in Iran are jesters. More or less, the average Iranian believes the office of the Shah in history was similar to that of the village idiot in ancient europe.

Mohammad Mecca

Top


What do you think SAVAK was supposed to do?

In response to Mohammad H. Eslami's "For the sake of our adopted & native lands":

Dear Dr. Eslami:

The essence of your letter proves that you simply have no clue as to what democracy really means. I researched your background, you are an accomplished physician earned degrees from Harvard and U. Chicago. That's it! Nothing less, nothing more! Keep performing operations in operating rooms and stay away from politics. Iranians were slugged in the ass 25 years ago by people such as yourself. I was there and I saw it.

The other day, on my way to work while listening to NPR, it was reported that there are 14 intelligence agencies in America (e.g, CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.) What do you think these agencies are supposed to do? They are supposed to protect America from domestic and foreign enemies! Similarly, SAVAK was supposed to protect Iran from domestic and foreign enemies (e.g., Communists, terrorists, etc.) And yes, sometimes they arrested and sometimes executed young idealistic students who used violence, terror, and assassination against the members of the armed forces, members of the government, and the Shah himself. I don't see anything wrong with that!

Why don't you try to use arms against the government of the United States or US military, or your local police for that matter and see what the they will do to you, your family, your friends, and your neighbors!? Please stop this old cliche of Mosadeq and SAVAK!!! If there is one criticism of the late late Shah of Iran is that he did not unleash his military might on the subversives and terrorists (e.g., Commies, MKOs, Mullahs, etc.) of the late 70's!?

If not convinced yet, I can certainly meet you on a bear in Fanual Hall in Downtown Boston and maybe I can inject some elementary democracy 101 in you?

Much obliged,

Rostam the Great and God Bless Bush and Shah

PS: Right around 1979 when I arrived in Boston, there were 5000 Iranian students studying at universities in the Boston area including MIT and Harvard all because the late Shah did care about Iranians and the progress of Iran. Please do some research before you state your opinions!!!???

Top


Hope for the future

In response to Roozbeh Shirazi's "The dangerous path ahead":

This is one of the most realistic, articulate and balanced articles on the future path of Iran. I hope he is involved in creating that future society.

Fatema Soudavar Farmanfarmaian

Top


Give us a break!

Everytime I read the letter section in Iranian.com, after reading a few letters I really get sick and tried of people giving "precriptions" for the whole Iranian society. This shows the radical mentality that has existed among Iranians for so long.

Everyone acts like he/she holds the excusivity of the ultimate truth, and arrogantly rejects every other view, and wants the whole society to be his/her way!!!! Everyone thinks he/she is a "Reza Shah" or something!!

Some want to wipe out all kinds of "religion" from the society and makes us all into "atheists"!! Some want to take the whole country back to 2500 years ago and make us all into "sassanids"!! Some want to make us into complete "Westerners" and forget about our old traditions!! Some want makes us all into practicing muslims!! Some want to makes us all into harcore communists!!

Give us a break!! There is such thing as pluralism!!!! Can't you just have an "opinion" without wanting to impose it as an idiology on the whole society?!

Ali NR

Top


Hocus pocus

As expected the Zoroastrian lobby is raging against ""Bad thoughts, bad words, bad deeds". After I saw the piece I knew that it was coming and given the rubbish that has been written against this piece leaves one with no other choice but to write in and expose this mindless defence of ancient hocus pocus.  The other idiotic thing is that Zoroastrianism has reinvented itself as a cult like movement along the lines of Bahais as evidenced by the number of Westerners writing in about something they don't know or understand.

Zoroastrianism has become fashionable as Iranians have become desperate to disassoicate and distance themselves of the Mullas and Arab Nationalism inherent in Islam but to find refuge in another religion is idiotic. It is impossible and idiotic for us to try and roll ourselves back to an ancient version.  But we absolutely must expose all this cultism so that we do not end up with another Khomeini.

It is fascinating as to why we have such a strong clerical class.  It is as though we have never been without the Magi which is why some are historically linking the Magi to the Mullahs.  So let's trace why religion was important in the power system in Iran and the empire.

Let's first destroy an Iranian myth, that somehow what went on in our past was perfect.  I can already see the fiery invectives coming. But there is a credible version of history and religion in Iran that we won't acknowledge either because of our sentimentalism or senseless pride.  

One of our loftiest claims is that  Cyrus made the fist charter of human rights. Be that as it may, there was very good cool calculating reasons for it: it was the best way to control distant lands and people with the minimum amount of effort. It seems that the ancient Iranians were very clever in exploiting religion.  They figured that the best way to control a conquered people was through their belief system (from Medes onwards). So what is written as a charter it is in fact a ruse, a way of pacifying the religious hierarchy and using them as conduits for maintaining a grip.

How did they lose the plot though? It is beyond this forum to recount all the reasons but it undeniable that as the empire peaked during the Sassanids and Zoroastrianism started to take on the role of a state religion that cruelty of the priestly caste became so infamous that is used to this day by Iranian Islamists in their propaganda which tries to maintain a myth that Iranians were so fed up with the cruelty of the Sassanid kings and Zoroastrian clergy that they welcomed the invaders with open arms.

Nonsense as that may be there is one undeniable fact: the cruelty and abuse of power by the Magi to destroy any form of religous expression considered as a threat and unify the Iranian society under one flag (as Romans had achieved with Catholism - a weird mixture of Christianity and Mitraism the religion popular in the Roman military). Or will the new Zoroastrian cultists deny the persecution of Iranian religious minorities or under the golden age of Zoroastrianism in Iran? How many examples such as Mani's story are required?

For those who wrote in with a childish disbelief saying that such things were not possible, let me say this, throughout our history we run into another recurring theme, namely, how cruel Iranians have been to each other.

I read in Gieve Mirfendereski's eulogy for his father [Rising sun] how much his father was against organised religion. I second that wholeheartedly (it would be infintely more preferrable to be flushed down the Senne rather than have a priest, any parasite priest recite mindless superstitious drivel over my dead body). Iranians, open your eyes!

Amir Rostam

Top


Grow up

In response to Setareh Sabety's "The anti-Shah":

My dear Ms. Sabety;

When are you going to be a grown up and mature?

Ahmad Anvari

Top


Less is more

In response to Setareh Sabety's "The anti-Shah":

This is a typical biased piece written by the Iranian Left, who had it been for the benefit of their education made possible by the Pahlavi's, would be serving as one the many wives of the harems of a mollah or Qajar prince (who nurtured the mollahs) or worse. The left in Iran has proved time and time again their readiness to sacrifice Iran to satisfy their single minded prejudice, to the point of cutting off its nose to spite its face. She is not even aware of what Arab Nationalism entails (subjugation of women, subordination all non Arab inhabitants and September 11 are some examples). Arab Nationalism is Arab Facism, judging by the drivel written by such Iranians it is sad that having gone through so much in our history they still do not see it for what it really stands for and they are so naive and blind as not to see what is happening now in places like Sudan.

Dear Editor, I love your slogan but "less is more". Do you have to publish such rubbish? You don't have to something new every day. Her references to how she suffered for the Palestinian cause in the American Community School (whose annual school fees were at least 10 times the average Iranian school I attended) frankly turn my stomach.

Amir Rostam

Top


How could 98.2% of Iranians be so dumb?

In response to London Daily Mirror's headline "How could 59 million people be so dumb?":

I could not stop myself from commenting about this. My answer to this question is please tell me, How could 98.2% of Iranians be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO dumb to vote YES to Islamic Republic of Iran in a referendum in 1979?

At least 59M Americans saw what W had been doing for 4 years before they voted for him. But the people of Iran did not know who Khomeini was back in 1978.

Shahrokh Talmoud

Top


All the credit we deserve?

In response to Sharif N Mafi's "Closet Bush supporter":

After reading your brief commentary on this site, about how close we have been in terms of our ideology and philosophy, with our current rulers on this side of the pond, without even realizing it, i felt as it was my duty to write you back and criticize you so rightfully, and as fervently as i could.

You consider yourself a real, hard-core democrat, or better yet even a progressive individual, judging based on the highly sophisticated characteristics that you described of yourself.

Participating in Howard Dean's rallies and reading Dowd's columns will indeed place one in the intellectual column after all. Yet at the same time, you create this entire notion of "Us the easterners" who have committed such ill-based acts thoroughout the history of the world, and that is one single, most important qualifying factor that put us on a par with these fellows?

Don't you even want to bother to apply the slightest bit of progressive logic to at least separate the people from those who represent them and are the real bastards who have perpetrated such acts of viciousness all along?

Is that all the credit we deserve, knowing that the majority of these "easterners" bother to read and do research to discover the truth on their own, and could care less to know who Britney Spears is and what daisy cutters are or how they function? Is that really true that we still hold the arranged marriage idea, so dearly close to our hearts? oh yea, and that ancient conflict of opinions on how to interpret and observe the traffic laws. That is really a terribly mind-boggling dilemma our people are grappling with back home!! don't let anyone tells you otherwise.

It is sad to see that you have gone through such rapid transformation process, from cheering and becoming ecstatic after the debates, and beginning a downward spiral to in making such an unjust and unfair comparisons.

It would be very wise, if i may suggest, that you would continue to take steps along the path intellectualism, and begin a more thorough and detailed analysis of what exactly are these elements that might put us on the same footing as our enemies and present a more accurate definition of your idea of who these "easterners" are.

Kyle Saghafi

Top


If Iranians were Americans

In response to Roozbeh Shirazi's "Tunnel vision":

Roozbeh,

You make a generalization about the Iranians that voted for Bush that is based on a theory fabricated in your head. What makes you thinks the Iranian Republicans are voting for the Republican Party because they think that the neo-cons will attack Iran to force a regime change? Maybe they vote republican because they identify with the U.S conservative platform, their values, and agenda (things like tort reform, lowering of the taxes, etc... ). Did you ever think about that?

Secondly, I am sure that Bush's plan for Iran does not include an attack such as what they did in Iraq's case. They may target and destroy the nuclear facilities (which I strongly support) and they will encourage and support the Iranians, particularly the youth to overthrow the government from the inside.

You suggest that Iranians should take their affairs into their own hands. I guess it is really easy to get pumped up in Iran and go in the streets and demonstrate only for you relatives to see your hanging dead body in some town square. Are you as naïve and stupid as to think the brutal regime of the Mullahs will even allow a regime change to take place from the inside? These scumbags are willing to kill and torture every single human being to remain in power.

And by the way, when ever did the Iranian community care so much about gay marriage that Bush is taking away from them (unless if you are gay and he just put a damper on your marriage plans). The last time I checked, Iranians as a whole are on the most racist group of people that exist. You don't agree? Then I ask the following question from most Iranians who live in the U.S: Do like to have a gay neighbor? Do you like your daughter marrying an African American? Or even have one as a neighbor? Talk about hypocrisy.

I'll tell you... If Iranians were Americans, they would find themselves embracing the Republican values over Liberal values. But somehow when they step into this country they see the conservatives as a threat to them. Why? Perhaps because a person such as yourself sees himself only as an Iranian - and not as an American. You therefore see the conservatives as a threat you (being a minority). So you embrace the Democrats, feeling a sense that they are much more open minded in accepting you into their culture. Well, that is your problems. Isn't it? If you would even consider yourself half American you wouldn't be thinking this way. Which makes me wonder why you are not living where you do feel more comfortable? Iran.

And you think this election was won on the basis of a neo-conservative propaganda staged by Bush? No my friend... It was lost by John Kerry who spoke on ten different sides of each issue. He lost because he displayed no convictions... or at least having the honesty and balls to tell the American people what those convictions were. He said what ever would get him elected. In other words, as smart as he may be, he had no character. And I don't know about you. But character and clear and resolute convictions count in my world (even if I disagree with all of them).

And by the way, Bush did not polarize the west against the middle east. Islamic fundamentalist, the likes of the one's who are supported and funded by the mullahs attacked this country first. So what was Bush supposed to do? Wait for another attack. Or, perhaps attack the rat infested country of Afghanistan where the Taliban were housing Al Quida. And yes... according to your rubbish, the Afghani people are so far worst to day than under the Taliban. You actually think Afghanistan was a "sovereign" country and was "raped" by the U.S? I mean... .talk about stupidity... .open your eyes you moron.  Would you even consider having your sister, mother, or daughter living under the Taliban regime and be treated like mules? (then again maybe you do... )

And in regards to Bush creating a division between the U.S and Europe. I guess Chirac and Schroeder and Putin wouldn't have been upset when Bush was threatening to remove their biggest client: Sadam Hussein. Do you even know about the corruption that was uncovered in the "Food for Oil" program, disclosing how these European countries where all "on the take" because Saddam Hussein was siphoning the food for oil money to their corrupt government officials and businesses. I guess a different leader like Kerry could have still disabled Saddam Hussein from the possibility of developing WMD without pissing off Sadam's clients while creating harmony with these leaders.

I am so happy that people like you were driven into depression on November 3rd. It is not the conservatives who have tunnel vision. They are really a lot smarted than people like you (FYI... the most hardworking and successful people in this country are Republicans). They saw America's future under Kerry and Bush and they chose Bush. Not because they agree with every thing that Bush has done... But because they saw the liberals as a bunch of hateful losers who where out of touch with the Americans' values, and whose vision for America they did not agree with.

B. Pezhman

Top


Mel Gibsonism

In response to Hossein Bagher Zadeh's "A Christian Revolution":

What you have written is so true. My daughter e-mailed it to me. When the Khomeini revolution took place, I told everyone who remarked on it that I could see it happening in the US streets at any time. And it well may get to that. Any study of history, particularly the Crusades, Witch Hunts, etc. would testify to this cycle.

I might think by now, Europe has this burned out of its system. But the "Great Awakening" in the US in the 19th century and the later rise of Pentacostalism, not to mention the increasing conservatism (reactionary) of the Catholic Church starting with doctrines of Infallability, etc.in the 19th century up to the Mel Gibsonism of today could only convince one of this. If anyone would notice, or care.

It is too scary and I have no idea what to do, besides gather with others of like mind.

Nancy A. Hanko

Top


Best thing I found

I was looking for something on internet that remined my remembrance from my choledhood in Iran, the best thing which I found was IRANIAN.COM.

I thank you on behalf all my friends who are the same age as I and have missed the same thaings. We found most of the things which we were looking for. Espesially the music is the best. Thanks to all of you.

khodavande bozorg negahdar va yavare shoma azizan bashad.

Abbas Mirza

Top


Objection to dialogue

In response to "American Iranian Council Congratulates Bush":

As an Iranian-American who voted for President Bush in 2004, I strongly object to any kind of dialogue between the government of America and the terrorist regime of the Islamic Republic of (Iran.) The message of "regime change" by President Bush has been loud and clear!

Iranian people reject any kind of a dialogue between America and the terrorist regime of the mullahs and will not accept anything less but a regime change like in Afghanistan and in Iraq! It is time for AIC and the rest of the terrorist appeasers to realize and recognize that fact and stop misrepresenting the desire of the majority of patriotic Iranians.

Yours Truly,
Siamak Dastangoo, D.Sc.
Scientist
Boeing Company
Anaheim, CA USA

Top


I have a question!

In response to Ghassem Namazi's "No friend":

I agree with most of what you say about Arafat; however I have a question! Since you are saying only through peaceful means one is able to get independence, do you think that China would ever return Tibet back to the most peaceful people Tibetans?

Jon Gol-dust

Top


Iranian.com not Arabian.com

In response to Setareh Sabety's "The anti-Shah":

Let me start out by saying that I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and can write what ever they want. That being said your article was one of the most idiotic comparison pieces of shit I have ever read. I don't know what camel caravan you just fell off, but please run to get back on it and ride it back to Palestine. This had to be one of the stupidest articles I have ever read. I don't even understand the premises of it It gave me a headache trying to see how or even why you would try to compare the Shah to Arafat......I mean, No shit that Arafat is the anti-Shah. It can be said that the Shah is the Anti-Arafat. That's because Arafat is a dirty stinking Arab aka terrorist, and possibly love child between a camel jockey and camel.

I mean some of your points were so pointless and moronic I wished that I had never taken the time to read your silly little easy. For example:

....He stood up, rather than try to imitate, the West. He did not try to speak English with an Oxford accent and French like a Parisian he spoke in the plain Arabic of his ancestors and that made us all proud.

Who is this "us" that you are talking about?? Arabs or Iranians??? The fact that the Shah didn't speak Arabic while Arafat spoke Arabic or English with an Arabic accent might be just because Arafat is an Arab and the Shah like the majority of us Iranians (with possibly the exception of you) are Persians. We don't speak Arabic...

In case if you didn't realize, we speak Farsi which is an Indo-European language, unlike Arabic. And this makes you proud of Arafat, for the fact that he spoke Arabic, while the Shah spoke like and educated person???? What nationality are you?? Do you have Arab envy or something??? In case if you didn't realize, but this site is the Iranian.com not the Arabian.com.

His contrast with the Shah, who was a puppet of the Americans, in the eyes of most of us, was enormous and what made him my hero. Even in appearance he stood out. Instead of the suits and military uniforms of the Shah and his ministers he wore khakis and his signature traditional headscarf. With his very person he seemed to be sticking his tongue out to the all-powerful West. He embodied a certain pride in ones origins that was so lacking in the Iranian leadership.

Arafat wasn't sticking out his tongue it was more like he was sticking out like a sore thumb....like when he signed the peace accord at Camp David. He looked like a fool. And that pride in his (Arabic) origin is fine for him and his Arab people, but I wouldn't want the leader of Iranians to be dressed like an Arab.

Oh those dumb M.F.s that are in charge right now in Iran do dress more like an Arab then your pathetic hero did. I bet you support those damn Arabs that are running our (when I say "our" it doesn't include you) country into the ground.

I think your Mom was a very intelligent woman. I recommend that you should do the same thing with this article that your Mom made you do with your your report in the 8th grade and burn it. Not for fear that someone would hurt you, but for fear of embarrassment of your stupidity.

Saeed
Philladelphia, PA

Top


Common thoughts

In response to Setareh Sabety's "The anti-Shah":

Dear Setareh,

What a wonderful article. You have no idea how much I share your thoughts about the Palestinian since my childhood. 

Thank you and keep up the good work.

RK

Top


Why fear Bush's uncompromising stance?

In response to Payam Ean's "Forward not backward":

The problem I have wiht Payam Ean and his cohorts is that they are caught between the self-deluding world of a dogmatic old left and the suppressed neo-liberal, capitalistic ambitions of the relics of a second generation leftists. In this twilight zone, they have nothing to hang on to except for wild speculations and conspiracy theories. Those who accuse others of ignorance should read a page from the shameful history of compromise and appeasement over the centuries of the alien occupation of Iran.

And compromise is what they love to carry on doing with the Islamic Republic. This is why they fear the uncompromising stance of the Bush's Republican administration and would have preferred a weak and vacillating Democratic candidate in its place. Sadly for them, their democratic pretensions didn't pay off and the same weapon, democracy, with which they had hoped to sabotage the move to the freedom of Iran blew away their house of cards on 2nd November 2004.

Parkhash

 

Top


What is wrong with France!

This week we saw in the news that Yasser Arafat, who apparently is seriously ill, was transfered to France, where his wife and child are living, for treatment. We should expect a big bang in the West Bank! I still remember when France transfered Ayatollah Khomeini from Iraq to France to be surrounded by Banisadre, Ghotbzadeh, and others, and later that year, an Air France transfered him and his group to Iran to ignite the 1979 revolution.

Despite her claim for being the founder and supporter of democracy and human rights, France has always put financial gains above human rights, in her foreign policy. France was so close to the Shah and Farah Pahlavi, that all the business contracts including those for the celebration of 2500 years of Persian history, were signed with France.

When all major countries of the world were competing for the construction of metro system in Iran, of course the winner was France. They got huge amount of money, dogged a couple of deep holes in major crowded squares over several years, and left Iran right before the revolution. Then they sued Iran for the interruption of their work, and got even more money for doing nothing!

In late 1980's, the truck drivers in France went on a long term strike. When interviewed by international reporters, among the reasons for strike, they mentioned because their government has lied to them, that for several years during the war between Iran and Iraq, they were sent in groups of hundreds to the the two countries in war, telling them that they are carrying food and medicine for humanitarian purposes. Only later they found out that they have been delivering weapons for the two countries in war, to kill each other.

After helping to establish IRI regime in Iran, France continued her profitable business deals with the IRI during the past 25 years, with no sympathy for human rights and democracy. Streets of Tehran are jammed with French cars. They have benefitted from hundreds of contracts with IRI during the past 26 years. Whenever the subject is nuclear weapons or human rights in Iran, France uses "carrot and stick policy" to increase her profit.

Kourosh Mahdavi

Top


November 18 | November 17 | November 4 |

Copyright 1995-2013, Iranian LLC.   |    User Agreement and Privacy Policy   |    Rights and Permissions