Axis of change

Open letter to Obama


Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Axis of change
by Bob Petrusak
07-Jul-2008
 

Dear Senator Obama:

With Israel rehearsing an attack on Iran and the Bush administration considering the alternative of a low-level diplomatic mission in Tehran, it is necessary to revisit your June 4th speech to the AIPAC convention in Washington. In that address, you denounced the Iraq War as a conflict which strengthened Iran and asserted that Iran has always constituted a greater threat to Israel than Iraq. You stated that Iran now constitutes the greatest challenge in the region. You even asserted that Iran is part of a “tyranny of oil” in which the high price of oil is “one of the most dangerous weapons in the world” because petro-dollars abet the killing of Israeli civilians and American soldiers. In so doing, you are taking an easy road to “toughness” on national security issues that still allows you to trumpet your opposition to a war that is now overwhelmingly unpopular. This road may follow the footsteps of Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson, Democratic Party candidates who talked peace only to lead our people deeper into war.

Your AIPAC speech represents a refusal to acknowledge the fundamental problem in American-Iranian relations. This is the fact that we are still dealing with the revolutionaries who overthrew the repressive Shah installed by the United States at the expense of an elected government. This nascent democracy led by Mohammed Mossadegh, struggled against a “tyranny of oil” very different from the one you constructed to inflame sentiment against Iran. Your so-called “tyranny” wields a high-priced “weapon” forged through the wasteful consumption of its victims. The tyranny faced by Mossadegh involved a British multi-national, the forerunner of today’s “British Petroleum,” backed by every other major oil company on the planet. This tyranny sought to perpetuate a concession system originally granted by a corrupt, foreign-influenced monarchy, which denied Iran’s people a fair share of their most important resource. This tyranny would also include the British navy which helped enforce a world-wide boycott of Iranian oil, and our C.I.A. which orchestrated the violent military coup that overthrew Mossadegh in August, 1953.

Apologists for the coup unabashedly claimed that it saved an unstable Mossadegh government from a Soviet takeover. However, any alleged instability was the obvious result of a grossly unfair and patently illegal boycott of Iran’s largest export. Moreover, the Soviets were in no position to attempt a takeover of Iran a few months after Stalin’s death and in fact, Mossadegh’s government was finding ways to survive the boycott. The coup thus stands as a very sordid “regime change” that crushed a secular Third World democracy which sought to reclaim national resources from a colonial arrangement. Similarly, the quarter-century from the 1953 coup to the 1978-79 Islamic Revolution saw U.S. support for the Shah’s military and secret police and corrupt, multi-billion dollar arms deals which offset efforts by the Shah to look “tough” on Western oil companies. In many Iranian eyes, the passage of these 25 years only aggravated the coup of ’53.

For Iran, this was the second time within 42 years that a representative government had been destroyed by foreign intervention. Iran’s Constitutional Revolution begun in 1905, had struggled to create a parliament, a free press and a rule of law to control a corrupt monarchy that sold national resources to foreign interests on generous terms. This struggle even produced an American hero, Howard Baskerville who died leading a Constitutionalist attack on Monarchist forces, and is still recognized as “the American Lafayette” in Iran. Yet by 1911, British and Russian intervention had dispersed the parliament and restored monarchal despotism. The effective replay of these events in 1953 would convince many Iranians that democracy, with its openness and freedom, could not maintain national independence against foreign intrigue. Such feelings combined with an old feud between the clergy and the reinstalled, American-supported dynasty created perfect conditions for the growth of religious militancy. .

Such facts are essential to an understanding of the 1979-81 hostage crisis which was sparked by fear of yet another restoration of the monarchy. I appreciate the horrific nature of kidnapping and hostage-taking and as an assistant state attorney general, helped secure severe penalties for such crimes. However, the quarter-century rule of the American-supported Shah would also involve political executions and torture. This repressive monarch became the cornerstone of American policy in the region and a “status of forces” agreement exempting American personnel from Iranian laws only increased Iranian feelings of betrayal and humiliation. Most significantly, the Shah’s reign saw the beginnings of an American-supported nuclear program in Iran which eventually would have been able to develop nuclear weapons.

The restoration of the Shah also affected Iran’s relationship with Israel and it is disingenuous for you to denounce Iran as always having posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq. In 1947, Iran with its Shiite-Persian majority joined 12 other nations including Hindu-majority India in opposing the creation of Israel through the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. India like Iran, shares no border with Israel and like Iran, has had a traditional enmity with Sunni Islam. Nonetheless, India had the freedom to develop its own diplomacy and foreign policy which would eventually include recognition of Israel. In contrast, Iranian foreign policy under the Shah was heavily influenced by the United States and the Shah’s support of Israel would be widely perceived as another Western violation of Iranian self-determination.

Thus, some substantial anti-Israeli sentiment developed in a nation that was traditionally indifferent, if not hostile to the interests of Sunni Muslims such as the Palestinian Arabs. Although such sentiments can still be played by cunning politicians such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, powerful actuarial trends strongly favor pro-Western and even pro-American perspectives. Approximately 60 percent of Iran’s population is now under the age of 35 and this younger generation is unquestionably tired of the revolutionary dogma of its elders.

This younger generation represents a realistic hope for a peaceful and stable Middle East but only if Iran is freed from fears of “regime change” and permitted to continue developing its own, unique democratic institutions which already show progress even within the Islamic Republic. Thus, there is no more important foreign policy “change we can believe in” than renunciation of the neo-conservative prerogative of “regime change” for nations that have not attacked the United States and restoration of our fundamental belief in self-determination. Such was expressed as a foreign policy concept in the 1941 Atlantic Charter which guaranteed all peoples the right to choose their own form of government. This guarantee was a primary objective of the World War II Allies and your grandfather and great-uncle, as well as members of my family sacrificed to advance this goal.

Given the West’s long-term stifling of Iranian democracy, it is disingenuous to denounce Iran as the “greatest strategic challenge” to our nation in the Middle East. To the contrary, Iran opposed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan before and after the September 11th attacks. Iranian assistance to the Northern Alliance in the wake of those attacks was crucial to victory over the Taliban and subsequent diplomatic efforts by Iran helped smooth Afghanistan’s transition to the Karzai government. Iran was then “rewarded” with placement on President Bush’s “axis of evil” and presumably targeted for “regime change” some time after Iraq. Your easy road to national security “toughness” only reinforces this volatile situation and gives the Bush administration no incentive to choose the presently-available diplomatic alternative to war.

If you genuinely represent “change we can believe in” you should not be denouncing not Iran, but rather the grossly un-American policy of “regime change” which accounts for the current state of affairs in that troubled nation. If you genuinely want to win the election, you need a national security platform that restores our fundamental belief in self-determination, not a sorry attempt to “out-tough” John McCain with tirades against Iran. Except for Western-instigated aggression by the Shah during the 1970’s, Iran has not attacked a neighbor in over two centuries and, if afforded genuine self-determination, Iran will likely align itself with the country that gave it Howard Baskerville.

It is no coincidence that the overthrow of Mossadegh, the arming of the Shah, the beginnings of his nuclear program, and even long-term support for Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran, all occurred under Republican administrations. Is it asking too much of our Democratic candidate to recognize these facts and demand genuine “change we can believe in?”
Respectfully yours,

Bob Petrusak

Bob Petrusak is a retired government attorney who spent approximately 23 years in criminal justice as an appellate and trial prosecutor, a defense attorney, a police administrator, and a corrections attorney.


Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
default

IRI supporting logic

by Mensa (not verified) on Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:16 AM PDT

Shirazi3 writes

"Give me the current regime over these psychopathic lunatics any day of the week. This is the opinion of the great majority of the Iranian people: take your foreign-sponsored regime change and put it up your own ass. Leave the Iranians out of it."

Lets see...you prefer to have a totalitarian and theocratic regime, which bases its laws and governance on the Whabi based philosophy of 1300 years ago.

Lets see....you prefer to have a proud country and its people viewed as world wide sponsors of terrorism. I am too young to remember but my parents tell me that an Iranian passport demanded respect around the world. On my last two trips to Europe....I was interrogated for hours simply for the place of my birth and the sins of my government.

Lets see....you want to have a regime that treats women like animals and will not grant the most basic rights...such as having the freedom to wear what they want and watch a soccer game at a stadium. For that matter treats all its people in a horrible fashion....I will not even go into drugs and prostitution...

Lets see....you want a government, who has tortured and killed many of its own people (who opposed its political stances) and murdered hundred of dissidents abroad.

Lets see...you support a government that ruined our country in an 8 year unnecessary war (after two years into the war Saddam wanted to end the war and pay retribution)....but No...that crazy lunatic, Khomeini (may he burn in hell) was on a fanatical personal vengeful war of his own...with no regards for thousands of casualties.

Lets see...if I take your quote above and replace the word "IRI" with any prior fascist regimes....one would consider you a supporter of fascism.

All those who support the continuation of this regime (by the way... a NO vote to intervnetion from outside is a vote of support for this regime) are themselves guilty of the sins committed by this regime.

Do not tell me about peaceful reform from within....there is no possibility of that in an undemocratic society. If you do not like Bush...you can wait a few more month and vote for another candidate...you can vote for senators and congressmen and members of parliment of your choice...therefor you can bring about reform in democratic societies. But in a society run by MAFIA MULLAHS who will never give an ounce of their power away...there is no way for internal reform.

I hate to say this....I really hate to say this...but there is NO PEACEFUL WAY of dealing with this regime or bringing meaningful change to this country...whether it is a revolution from within or an influence for chnage from outside...that is our only hope. I hope the day comes that the Iranian people will take it in their own hand to overthrow this regime...however the prior several attempts (do you remember 18 tir student revolts) have all been crushed...sometimes help is needed from outside and there is nothing wrong with that. Do you think the Americans would have been successful with their continuation for independence from England without the outside support and influence of the French. Do you think Poland and Romania and many of those eastern european countries would have gained their freedom from the evil grip of communism if not for the secret support of NATO countries specifically the US. Why are so many people so ashamed to admit that maybe a bit of help from the outside is what is needed to ignite a chnage from within. This regime is a cancer and I will take whatever chemotherapy or radiation (althought somewhat harmful) to get rid of this cancer...otherwise I will just DIE SLOWLY.


  •  
default

Dear Mensa

by Free Thinker (not verified) on Tue Jul 08, 2008 09:19 AM PDT

There is one other group, if I may: the rootless bunch. They are those who have no cultural or historical attachment to the country and as long as their naturalized status in the US remains intact they have no care in the world for those who are still under the tyranny of the mullahs. This group and their second generation are like the tourists who spend their US dollars in their annual visits to their former homeland and return safely to their adopted home in the West. To them the weaker the Iranian currency the more luxurious would be their next holliday in Tehran.


  •  
default

This is an excellent,

by shirazi3 (not verified) on Mon Jul 07, 2008 08:05 PM PDT

This is an excellent, balanced, and logical letter that is based on solid facts. Thank you Bob! If the alternative to IRI is represented by the pro-war hate-mongering individuals who are so active in writing comments on Iranian.com, then Iran is in deep trouble. Give me the current regime over these psychopathic lunatics any day of the week. This is the opinion of the great majority of the Iranian people: take your foreign-sponsored regime change and put it up your own ass. Leave the Iranians out of it.


  •  
Farhad Kashani

Mensa, great posting.

by Farhad Kashani on Mon Jul 07, 2008 07:08 PM PDT

Mensa, great posting.


  •  
default

Are you serious?

by Mensa (not verified) on Mon Jul 07, 2008 05:17 PM PDT

Anyone who opposes to an overthrow of this regime must belong to one of the categories listed below:

Mulitple choice question (please answer- more than one choice can be used)

a. Delusional- believes that you can actually have reform within a totalitarian and theocratic regime...that is called an oxymoron.

b. Pro-IRI- Believes that by stressing peace they can overshadow the ever growing daily violence that the Iranians and for that matter the rest of the world faces at the hand of this current regime

c. Desperate Leftist- they live by the expression of "an enemy of my enemy is my friend"....they are in bed with this regime out of their pure hatred for the west and capitalism..in particular USA. So they will say anything to uphold this enemy of their enemy.

d. Bazaris- They are financially invested in this regime and its continuation. They never had it this good. With rampant corruption and lax laws they are having the best time of their life...why change something that benefits you so much.

I personally feel bad for the group of Iranian in choice A...because unknowningly they are pro-longing the life of this regime in the name of peace. Do you think Germans in the 1940's should have written a letter to Churchill and Rosevellt to ask them not to attack Germany through Normandy and over throw the NAZI regime....because there is hope for reform within. Would you think Hitler would have suddenly given up power or for that matter the germans would have immediately overthrown him....NO!!!!!This cancer has to be get rid of....one way or another...just like all other past failed despot ideologies.

Thank you


  •  
Farhad Kashani

NIAC will never have the

by Farhad Kashani on Mon Jul 07, 2008 04:16 PM PDT

NIAC will never have the same power, because it represent a tiny minority (Although vocal) of Iranians. No one takes them seriously. Iranians want nothing less than the removal of the fascist IRI regime, and NIAC officials say everything to justify IRIs action, everything to apologize for the IRI, and their officials travel freely and frequently back and forth to Iran, as NIAC officers! So, since their ideas does not reflect the Iranian majority views, it does not in any way, shape or form, represent Iranians.

 


  •  
default

to Sherlock Fred:

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on Mon Jul 07, 2008 03:15 PM PDT

Fred, it seems whenever you can't actually form a coherent argument you resort to name calling and character assassination. Why do you do it so often? Don't have anything of actual value to say?

Most people know how to use google themselves. After listening to your worthless babble for so long, I can say one thing for almost sure. Whatever CASMII and Petrusak are, they are not propaganda for IRI. It only makes sense because you claim they are and provide no proof as usual.

It's really time for Iranians to start telling the difference between facts and unproven bullshit which so many in our community love to dish out. I don't think Fred has evolved that far yet, but there is hope!


  •  
default

Iran will protect Iran

by Alborzi (not verified) on Mon Jul 07, 2008 02:30 PM PDT

Its not a case of aggression, in fact we see this all the time in Iraq, perfectly humane, good American kids, boy scouts, go on to rape and burn a fourteen year old girl. In fact this was a subject of an experiment, half the people in a dorm became prisoners and the other half became jailers, after a few days the jailers started to abuse the prisoners. In this case US has lived with Stalin with nuclear weapons, Mao with it, but the only times that has threatened a nation with annihilation is Iran and Cuba. Countries who could not be a problem for such a treatment. In essence for human sake, Iran needs to be able to stand on her feet. Thats her only chance of survival.


  •  
Fred

Unwitting CASMII lobbyist?

by Fred on Mon Jul 07, 2008 02:12 PM PDT

CASMII lobby has apparently been highly selective about the info provided to this writer. For among a host of inaccuracies about the Islamist republic, he seems to be under the misperception that it is somehow on par with the ill fated short lived Democratic government headed by Mossadegh. This can clearly be seen in this passage: “if Iran is freed from fears of “regime change” and permitted to continue developing its own, unique democratic institutions which already show progress even within the Islamic Republic.”

By fielding this sort of obvious misinformation which mirrors those put out by the Islamist regime’s propaganda organs, the CASMII lobby lends hand to those who have grave questions about its sincerity and legitimacy as an honest “anti-War” lobby.

Islamist/Ani-Semites and their likeminded lefty allies are at it 24/7

//www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/5432

 


  •  
default

You're not very informed

by Anonymousanonymouse (not verified) on Mon Jul 07, 2008 01:40 PM PDT

You're not very informed about the manufacture coup/soft revolution of 1978, are you???

This book by William Engdhall is a Must read for every Iranian. The author is an anti-imperialist:

//www.amazon.com/Century-War-Anglo-American-P...

The author's website:
//www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/

What really happened to the Shah of Iran:
Excerpts from the book:

//www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html

You want more reference, look up the comments on this thread:
//iranian.com/main/2008/obamas-jimmy-cart...


  •  
Abarmard

Where is the letter to McCain?

by Abarmard on Mon Jul 07, 2008 01:14 PM PDT

Are you going to publish that too?


  •  
default

if NIAC was as Strong as AIPAC Obama wouldnt be saying those t

by Al Sefati (not verified) on Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:57 PM PDT

Obama wants votes, support, and popularity and if the National Iranian Council (NIAC) had nearly as much power and include in American politics as America Pro Israel Loggy (AIPAC) has, then Obama would have a different tone and approche towards Iran.

Furthermore the word "Change" was nothing but a slogan for Obama's campain and the only change he is going to bring to white house is to change the color of the skin of the next president and that is all!


  •