Declaring war with Iran?

U.S. Congressional resolution requires naval blockade of Iran


Declaring war with Iran?
by Emily L Blout

Washington, DC — A U.S. House of Representatives resolution effectively requiring a naval blockade on Iran seems fast tracked for passage, gaining co-sponsors at a remarkable speed, but experts say the measures called for in the resolutions amount to an act of war.

H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also “demands” that the President impose “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran.”

Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

Since its introduction three weeks ago, the resolution has attracted 134 cosponsors. Forty-three members added their names to the bill in the past two days.

In the Senate, a sister resolution S. RES 580 has gained cosponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. In little more than a week’s time, it has accrued 15 cosponsors.

Congressional insiders credit America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby for the rapid endorsement of the bills. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its annual policy conference June 2-4, in which it sent thousands of members to Capitol Hill to push for tougher measures against Iran. On its website, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to “stop Iran’s nuclear program” and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill.

Proponents say the resolutions advocate constructive steps toward reducing the threat posed by Iran. “It is my hope that…this Congress will urge this and future administrations to lead the world in economically isolating Iran in real and substantial ways,” said Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), who is the original cosponsor of the House resolution.

Foreign policy analysts worry that such unilateral sanctions make it harder for the US to win the cooperation of the international community on a more effective multilateral effort. In his online blog, Senior Fellow in the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Ethan Chorin points out that some US allies seek the economic ties to Iran that these resolutions ban. “The Swiss have recently signed an MOU with Iran on gas imports; the Omanis are close to a firm deal (also) on gas imports from Iran; a limited-services joint Iranian-European bank just opened a branch on Kish Island,” he writes.

These resolutions could severely escalate US-Iran tensions, experts say. Recalling the perception of the naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the international norms classifying a naval blockade an act of war, critics argue endorsement of these bills would signal US intentions of war with Iran.

Last week’s sharp rise in the cost of oil following Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz’s threat to attack Iran indicated the impact that global fear of military action against Iran can have on the world petroleum market. It remains unclear if extensive congressional endorsement of these measures could have a similar effect.

In late May, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly urged the United States to impose a blockade on Iran. During a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in Jersusalem, Olmert said economic sanctions have “exhausted themselves” and called a blockade a “good possibility.”

Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Colin Powell, disagrees. Iran has already gained the regional power that these resolutions seek to prevent, leaving diplomatic engagement the only way to proceed, he said in a June 7 interview with Real News Network.

“Demographically, military, every way you want to measure hegemony, Iran is the dominant power in the Persian gulf,” he said. “Therefore we’ve got to come to recognize that, we’ve got to deal with that and hope we can shape that to a responsible role in the gulf and the region, and ultimately in the world. The only way you do that is through diplomacy.”

Emily L Blout is Legislatove Diorector of the National Iranian American Council in Washington, DC.


Niloufar Parsi

BK Khan

by Niloufar Parsi on

Thank you so much for all that encouragement. You are an honourable gentleman and it's been a pleasure and a good learning experience debating with you. :) 



Ms. Parsi

by BK (not verified) on

One quick point, if I may. When I mentioned regimes like Burma and North Korea etc in the same vein as the IRI, my intention was not to compare them directly and imply these regimes are all exactly alike. My point (in responding to your original question) was that authoritarian and repressive regimes - of whatever ilk - that are ruthlessly efficient and merciless at stifling dissent and opposition tend to survive for long periods and the aforementioned states were some examples of such regimes.

Regardless, if I may say so, you are an intelligent and articulate person with well-constructed arguments and standpoint. Above all, you are a person who cares for her fellow human beings, which in my book, surpasses all other human attributes. You have my deepest admiration for that.

I’ve thoroughly our discussion here, in particular the calm and courteous way you express your views. So, may I take this opportunity to wish you the best in all your endeavours.

Kindest regards.

Niloufar Parsi

BK Khan

by Niloufar Parsi on

Goodd arguments, I must say. And you are right: the gap between us is very narrow.

I promise to keep this one shorter and to the point!

Why do we care so much about Palestine? That is a good question. Personally I had many good friends who were Palestinian activists, and I was heavily involved as I was in the Anti-Apartheid movement at the same time. The reasons for picking one struggle against another are limitless in scope. It is a matter of choice, and many have chosen this particular one. Some would prefer to save whales.

But on Austria/Germany you are perhaps confusing an argument meant to expose the hypocrisy of original justifications for setting up Israel in the first place with ideas about solutions today. No one is proposing that Germany and Austria should actually give up their land for Jews. The argument is meant as a view Against sectarianism not in support of it.

The two-state solution is in my view impossible as 40% of the West Bank is now occupied by Israel. It is also pandering to sectarianism, which in principle you are clearly against. But then there is the reality of mutual resignation among Jews and Palestinians... Enough on this anyhow! 

On the North Korea, Burma argument, I am afraid I wouldn't add the IRI to That list! This we will have to agree to disagree on, although it is clear that N Korea is also a theocracy (only their god is a man) like the IRI, except worse! However, individual political and economic freedoms in the 2 countries are not really comparable (e.g. newspapers, NGOs, private sector etc).

Now to the crunch of the matter: we both want the regime to be changed, but we differ on strategy. To me, the way to release internal forces for democratisation in Iran is through a détente with the West. This follows the same logic as your last 2 sentences. Good people on all sides are being held down and exploited by opportunistic leaders. Promoting peace among the leaders will lead to a situation where counties will HAVE to deal with their own internal problems in the absence of a foreign scapegoat.



Ms. Parsi

by BK (not verified) on

Thank you for your thoughts.

I’d like to think of myself as a humanitarian and as such I share with you condemnation of the mistreatment of Palestinians and theft of their land by the Israelis. I’ve also stated my view of US’s actions in the Middle East by referring to the “disaster” in Iraq and branding the US president as a “war monger”. So, I don’t quite understand why you feel the need to defend yourself in taking a position against those two countries. There is no need.

But I do not agree with your support of Mr. Ahmadinejad on this issue. This is for several reasons. Aside from the fact that I find the suggestion of Germany and Austria giving up part of their land as unworkable, it would set a precedent that could lead to all kinds of complications and cause more problems. Consider this, many countries have committed terrible acts, like the Turkish genocide of Armenians – so should Turkey give up some of its land to the Armenians? Should Iran/Iraq/Turkey hand over part of their territory for a Kurdish state? Should Spain and Portugal give parts of their land to South and Central American Indians because of the atrocities they committed?

Here’s another point that I find utterly ludicrous in Mr. Ahmdadinejda’s muddled thinking. The man doesn’t even believe the Holocaust happened, so why (if he thinks he is right about this) is he suggesting that German/Austria should give part of their and for a Jewish state for something they didn’t do? And while are at it, Austria itself was actually a conquered state by the Nazis (all be it, some Austrians supported the Nazis), so why should Austria give up part of its land?

You say are an ardent supporter of the Palestinian cause. Good for you. Clearly you are a humanitarian who cares about the people who have been wronged as a result of Israel’s ethnic cleansing (which is exactly what has happened to Palestinians). It is indeed shameful what has happened to those people. But why the sole focus on the Palestinians? Why are we beating our chests for them so much? There are many other people that have bee wrong in this world.

If we care about other dispossessed people on this planet, the why don’t see people on this site talk about the Chinese/Tibet issue? Why not about the Sudan/Darfur catastrophe, which is actually a far bigger disaster in scale than the Palestinian/Israel conflict? I would also like to remind you that these very Palestinians were cheering when Saddam’s army had occupied parts of Iranian territory during the Iran/Iraq war. Some of them were even accusing Iran of supporting the US when Saddam was toppled. They certainly don’t a give a hoot about the Iranian people.

But that’s all beside the point. It is not for you and I to decide where the Jews should live. And it sure as hell should not be up to Mr. Ahmadinejad to make announcements on an event that happened in Europe in the last century and what its consequences should be, when it had nothing to do with Iran. It’s none of his business. His business should be to improve the lives of the Iranian people. What on earth has the Palestinian/Israeli issue got to do with Iran and Iranians?

The reality is Israel exists and it is not going to disappear. Most Palestinians (and indeed emost Arab countries) have accepted this. And here we are, with the Iranian President, supported by even good people like you, insisting that the Israelis should pack up and go live somewhere in Bavaria, when nobody else with any sense thinks this is
even remotely realistic. I absolutely don’t mean to be offensive, but this kind of thinking is so ridiculous, it doesn’t even bear thinking about

The only realistic idea – the idea that will put end to the Palestinian misery is for them to have their homeland along side Israel. And if some Iranians wish to help the Palestinian cause they should help to bring about lasting peace with a two states solution through the International Community and Institutions like the UN. In contrast Mr. Ahmadinejad (whom you support on this issue) and the regime he presides over do not want to see peace. This is why he is sticking nose in an issue, which has nothing to do with him, calling for the Israel regime to be wiped out and doing his part to prolong war by funding and arming the Lebanese Hezbollah and Hamas to fight Israel. And guess what? Even Hamas have started to think about making peace with Israel and are negotiating a ceasefire as we speak. And of course, the side effect of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s blatant interference in that conflict has turned into one of the reasons why Iran itself has become a potential target of an attack

And this was my whole point. We agree that Iranian people are suffering under the Islamic republic and here we are talking about how terrible it is for the Palestinians and how jolly nice of Mr. Ahmadinejad it is to be so supportive and care for them. If only he cared as much about people in Iran. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is indeed disgraceful, but at least Israel treats its own people decently.

Oh and to answer your question, i.e. how could IRI survive so long; my answer is that most authoritarian regimes that are very dept at suppressing dissent and have an iron grip on power tend to survive for long periods. The World is full of them, from North Korea to Burma to Saddam’s regime (which only fell because of the US invasion). Add IRI to this list. One thing the IRI is extremely good at, is being totally ruthless and merciless at ensuring its own survival. We might think Shah’s regime was dictatorial and in many ways it was, but it had nothing on the sheer brutality of this intolerant and reactionary bunch that are making mess of a country that has the potential to be so good.

Sorry for the rant. I do think we probably agree on most issues than not. But it is so frustrating for me to see so many Iranians, who are good and smart people, allowing this regime to get away with its misrule of Iran by diverting attention away from it (which it is doing so successfully) by focusing on external enemies that IT is mainly responsible in creating. Indeed that is another reason why the IRI has survived for so long and, given the sorry state of the Iranian opposition, why will probably survive for quite a lot longer.

Niloufar Parsi

BK Khan

by Niloufar Parsi on

I have no intention of insulting your good intelligence, so please do not read what follows in that light.

But it does not seem right to me in the current context to apportion equal blame on both sides in a conflict. You sound like you might do that when there is a conflict and just because there is a conflict.

For example, I am an ardent supporter of the Palestinian cause regardless of Hamas or such like because their struggle came out of an unprovoked foreign invasion. Interestingly, I find Ahmadinejad's line quite sound when he says that Germany and Austria should have given part of their land to the Jews. That would have been just. This does not mean that I am a fan of Mr. A. but I find that he follows my line of thought on this.

Then of course there is the situation of civilians in a conflict. Whatever Bin Laden did, the vast majority of Afghans had nothing to do with it, and again, I find myself in opposition to the US especially given how they have conducted themselves for 7 treacherous years. And the same goes for Iraq.

This does not make me a Taleban supporter (they really are scum actually) or a friend of Saddam. But the position of the IRI on the Iraq war, again, is supportable. In case you may be interested, I did some research on this subject in Tehran recently for an article, and the great majority of Tehranis I talked to were very sympathetic toward Iraqis regardless of the previous war.

In short, there are millions of shades of grey in this bewildering world of politics. I have elsewhere outlined some of the semi-democratic characteristics if the IRI, no doubt to your great annoyance. But I cannot close my eyes to the fact that they have kept their half-hearted commitment to holding regular elections, which have been poor in quality, but not so if one compares them to previous regimes or the history of Iran.

Finally, despite all the vehemence pouring out of certain individuals in this otherwise balanced web site, the IRI has outlasted the Shah's regime in endurance terms if we take the Shah's actual rule to start from 1953. Now we are talking about a country that has been prone to revolution at least over the past 100-odd years.

So the question that arises is: if this unpleasant regime is so 'unIranian' and the cause of greatest 'evil' on earth as some here would claim, and a new 'Arab invasion', so how could it survive and continue its existence? Now this is the question that actually baffles me. Do not read it as a statement of passive support. what I deduce from such puzzling facts is this: 

I for one am on the fringes of Iranian society. My beliefs have not been internalized by the great majority of the people there. So I eat a humble pie and wait for my turn with some patience and understanding, and a realisation that my Iranian brothers and sisters in Iran are deeply religious people who are largely unimpressed by what the likes of me and you have yet to offer. 

Yet I remain optimistic for 2 simple reasons: First. the rule of the mullahs is just the ticket for undermining the influence of religion. We both know that religiosity is in steady retreat in Iran. Second, I have a deep-felt confidence that my values can make a difference, and that reason itself will lead to some 'triumph'.

Now, nothing that the most vitriolic of the IRI opponents express on this site gives me any hope that that their approach is of value. In fact, they remind me of those instruments of opporession under the Shah and the mullahs. They appear to have learnt nothing about how intolerance begets intolerance. Resorting to the dismissal of the rights of any group to BE Iranian and to vie for power in its political structure is quite autocratic, which is the blood borther of theocratic. 

Omidvaram keh saretan ra dard nayavord-e basham! 



Ms. Parsi

by BK (not verified) on

I'm assuming you haven't read my earlier posts on this topic (can't blame you really, my long-winded posts even bore ME to tears sometimes). So, just for your benefit let me be very clear about this:

I'm totally against any kind of military or attack on Iran. I don't even want to see sanctions against Iran. Iranian people are suffering in Iran under the Islamic Republic as it is without being subjected to a war too. The Bush administration has already created a massive disaster in the region by its invasion of Iraq and the last thing I'd want to see is that bunch of neo-cons doing the same to Iran.

IMHO, if a full scale war against Iran breaks out not only will it lead to countless deaths of innocent people and massive destruction in Iran, but it may also result in the disintegration of parts of the country. Additionally, if Iran is attacked, especially under a limited aerial strike scenario, it will hand the Islamic Republic the perfect pretext to intensity the climate of repression in Iran since it will accuse anyone protesting against its rule as siding with the external enemy during a time of conflict.

So no, I absolutely do not want to see war on Iran. Whatever change that should take place in Iran can only be brought about by the Iranian people. End of story.

The reason why I got involved in this topic is because of my frustration in seeing article after article on and elsewhere, solely focusing on the US (and Israel) as the reasons why Iran may come under attack and giving no consideration to the Islamic Republic’s contribution to the present dangerous climate.

My stand point is that while the war-monger George Bush and the hypocritical and provocative Israeli government certainly deserve condemnation for their threats against Iran, the primary responsibility for Iran becoming a potential target rests with the policies and actions of the Islamic Republic, over the past 30 years, as I’ve outlined in my previous posts.

It’s no good, for those of us who wish to do our small part to prevent war by putting pressure on the US, to totally ignore the actions of the IRI as if it is the innocent party in this confrontation. As I said before, it takes TWO sides to bring about a conflict and the way to prevent it is not by merely addressing one side, while disregarding the other, which, as it happens, is the main cause of this potential catastrophe due to its reckless, hostile and misguided actions, which in the main should have had nothing to do with Iran and done nothing for the welfare of the Iranian people.

Btw, apologies for my previous post. I noticed several spelling and punctuations mistakes. I’m afraid it happens when you try to type too fast without taking time to spellcheck.

Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

All those things you say about the regime are irrefutable. It is a disaster what is going on with this regime. But tell me: are you advocating for war? Is Iraq better off now than it was before? Do you trust Bush to do Iranians a genuine service?

Farhad Kashani

BK, exellent posting.

by Farhad Kashani on

BK, exellent posting.


Dear Jaleho

by BK (not verified) on

Gotta take my hat off to you sir (madam?). I've been away a couple of days, but you're still here, batting away for the Mullahs and "the Muslim masses". They should be proud of your good work. Sadly I'll be away again, so I'll leave the last word to you (and I know you won't let me down).

You say let Iranian people have speak through the ballot. Sounds good, but what ballot? The IRI is a regime that laughably pretends to be a democracy, when it nothing of the sort. In most democratic countries anyone (above a required age) is allowed and free to put himself or herself up as a candidate. Of course the great majority of candidates drop out or get eliminated because they don't receive the required number of votes. But the point remains that they are FREE to enter and run a campaign if they wish to do so.

In Iran, no real opposition parties are allowed to campaign or enter elections. Only a tiny number of candidates, hand-picked and vetted by an unelected and unaccountable body, are allowed to take part as candidates. So the choice for the electorate is, either they vote for one of the hand-picked candidates or they vote for another of the hand-picked candidates (i.e. NO choice).

And the point is that the candidate who gets elected has no real power anyway. All the effective power rests with the leader of the revolution. The post of president in Iran is effectively a public relation exercise. It is a very clever system designed to create the impression that progress has been made and Iran has become a democratic country, when it is nothing of the sort. The democracy in Iran is a joke. Although to be fair, Mr. Ahmadinejad (unlike his smiling predecessor Mr. Khatami) is trying to wrestle more control out of Mr. Khamenei's hands and become the sole person on charge of pushing Iran towards oblivion. But anyone with even basic understanding of democracy can only conclude that the democratic process in Iran is a joke.

Clearly, you support this regime and you are entitled to your view. The problem is you support a regime that has killed thousands of innocent Iranians simply because they happened to disagree with its policies, or belong to the wrong political party/philosophy or because they belong to the wrong religion or were just simply fed up with it. It has imprisoned, and tortured thousands more with savage and unspeakable brutality. It has confiscated and stolen the properties and livelihoods of thousands of others.

It assassinates political opponents at home and abroad. It routinely shuts down newspapers, magazine, publications, websites etc. It regularly conducts public hanging of people in front of ordinary people with women and children witnessing such gruesome displays.

This is a regime that murders (in some cases stones) woman for having sex outside marriage or committing infidelity. Women by law are regarded and treated inferior to men and have far fewer rights than men. Members of religious minorities are harassed, imprisoned, tortured and in some cases murdered. Workers and student who complain and strike are regularly persecuted.

This is a regime under whose rule drug addiction (2 million,according to the regime’s own claims from 5 years ago, who kow what the real figure is), prostitution, poverty, sex slavery and general social misery have reached unprecedented levels in Iran’s history.

But it doesn’t stop there. This regime that even stifles Iranians most basic rights and freedoms. This is a regime that even tells people what to eat or what not to eat. It tells people what to drink or what not to drink. It tells people how to dress, how not to dress. It tells people who they can be seen in public with or who not. It forces people to live in fear for simply holding parties or listening to the “wrong” kind of music.

It tells people what they can or can’t watch on the TV or at cinemas. It habitually censors and bans people’s access to satellite TV and to many internet sites, that go against he official line. It tortures people for drinking alcohol. It has hordes of mindless thugs (the bassiies etc) going round, harassing, intimidating, swearing at and beating on and even killing people.

This is a regime that despite record level oil revenue has squandered the wealth of the country and made a total mess of Iran’s economy and resources. Inflation is near 30% per year, unemployment soaring (11.5% according to the IRI, but far higher in reality) with many of those lucky enough to have jobs having to work 2/3 jobs just to make ends meet. This is a regime that is rotten and corrupt to the core with back-handers and bribery rife everywhere. The Revolutionary Guards and various bonyaads have enriched themselves to tune of billions by taking over countless Iranian people’s livelihoods all over the country.

But hey, that’s all ok because what matters to good people like you is that ”Iran is the moral authority in line with demands of Muslim masses.” Yes, let IRI show its “morality” by fermenting even more war and misery in the region (on top of the mess made by the US) by funding the likes of Hezbollah, Hamas, Muqtada al-Sadr’s Shia private army to continues to wage war, even as their own populations burn.

Just a pity that none of the morality or huge sums of Iranian people's money spent by IRI to please its “Muslim masses” overseas to take on US and Israel, is denied to millions of Iranians. But hey, at least YOU're happy with IRI's rule.



by Free Thinker (not verified) on

Let me see if I got you right: did you say "fringe", democratic ballot" and "majority"? Are you talking about Iran or the US? Can you please tell us which democratic ballot has so far been conducted in Iran that the world is denied of knowing about? On whose authority do you assume your voice to be the voice of the majority? Remember I never talk about statistics? In your typical conspiratorial mind you have to resort to bogus statistics to prove your empty argument. Statistics, particularly the bogus Iranian statistics, is the last resort of the desperados!


Free Thinker from inside Iran

by Jaleho on

Dear Free Thinker, since you repeat this post of yours, let me repeat my answer, lest you miss the imortant piece!!

You wrote:

"You hyphenated Iranians, have every right (under the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, ....
amendments) to say what you want to say, but your words are worth
nothing compared to the words of the people who are trapped inside Iran
is asking for bombs to fall but YOU CALIF-IRANIANS ARE THE LEAST
basically what we true Iranians who live and work and suffer inside
Iran are asking you and very politely so can be summed up in two words:


I completely agree with you! It is the MAJORITY of people INSIDE Iran who determine the fate of Iran. Not the fringe whiners INSIDE OR OUTSIDE of Iran.

And the majority of Iranians have spoken through their votes and this is what they had to say to the fringe elements inside Iran or out in few word:

SHUT UP and let's our democratic voice through ballots speak for the Iranian majority!!


The voice from inside Iran

by Free Thinker (not verified) on

First, I would like to thank BK and all his like-minded posters for their most realistic and non-partisan arguments in favor of the interests of the people who, like myself, are trapped inside Iran for nearly three decades and have to suffer the tyranny of the Islamic regime. Here, I post what I have written on another tread as I think would be of relevance for the debators here:

You hyphenated Iranians, have every right (under the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, .... amendments) to say what you want to say, but your words are worth nothing compared to the words of the people who are trapped inside Iran. You guys have reached your dreams - we, on the contrary, have been living through a nightmare while you folks were realizing your dreams. Now, you are saying: hands off Iran - let those poor bastards live in the same hell they were living for the last thirty years BECAUSE we, the Iranian-Americans have made to it to the promised land and want no more of "them" over here. If you guys had a care in the world for your homeland, if that is what you still call it, you would have helped toppling the regime of mullahs and NOT encouraging other countries to sit around the negotiation tables with them and have trade and investment with the regime.

The trouble with you Venice beach residents is that you see everything from vantage point of the Hollywood hills further up the road. Sorry fellows, but life in Iran is very different from that shown in the photo essays of those happy-go-lucky travelers who go to see their parental homeland for a couple of weeks and leave it in the same mess that it is was and continue with their happy-go-lucky lives back in the comfort of their Venice beach or Albany houses. There are people in Iran (sorry no statistics available :o) who are prepared to die if this regime is stay there for another two years. Nobody is asking for bombs to fall but YOU CALIF-IRANIANS ARE THE LEAST CREDIBLE ENTITIES TO SAY WHAT IS GOOD OR WHAT IS BAD FOR IRAN. . So basically what we true Iranians who live and work and suffer inside Iran are asking you and very politely so can be summed up in two words: SHUT UP!


Farhad Kashani

Niloufar azeez, I’m

by Farhad Kashani on

Niloufar azeez, I’m looking at this from a larger picture and an historical point of view. The fact of the matter is that the coalition of leftist and Islamic forces and ideologies have done so much damages to our country in the last 50-60 years that it will take more than a generation to fix them. Both groups marginalized and attacked anyone who disagreed with them by labeling them as “Zionist”, “CIA agent” and “Gharbzadeh”..among other nasty labels, thus silencing the majority of Iranians who did not subscribe to those ideologies. Another fact is that those two groups were and still are very active and vocal. But the reality is that Iranians are fed up and are starting to speak out against them and starting to push them back. We see that everywhere. We, unlike them, have correctly identified what are the shortcomings with Iran and have also identified measures to solve those shortcomings. And finally, I have to say not only I don’t disagree with anyone who speaks the truth about IRI outfoxing everyone in number of issues, not just nuclear, but I encourage everyone, like you, to speak out more and more about that. I have said it myself many times that we need to not be naïve about the IRI. The IRI is the most dangerous threat facing the world and we need to expose it and identify its tactics.



Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

Farhad jaan,

As you know I am a newcomer here, so I will utilize my 'honeymoon' period before people box me in a corner too!

you've raised a point that I want to discuss a bit further if you don't mind. i want to zone in on your 'expectations' from other bloggers here. 

Of course we all feel passionate about Iran. Some more than others. However, it is also possible for an Iranian to take a more objective approach as a third party might. 

As an example: it is quite possible to 'praise' the IRI for the way it has extracted so many advantages from the West in its years of cat and mouse over the nuclear issue.

In a way, it is like judging a football match. The team that has scored more goals may be the one that you cannot stand, but you may be able to say: 'yes, that was a clever move'.  

Would such a comment (e.g. the IRI has outfoxed the West in the nuclear dispute) mean that the person making it is a supporter or an apologist? To me, a comment like this is objective.

And you are right: i would not victimise the IRI against the US. Quite the opposite.


Farhad Kashani

Niloufar jaan, thanks for

by Farhad Kashani on

Niloufar jaan, thanks for the clarifications. I see where you coming from. You and I have more things in common than not. Just one point, terrorism is done by people who are not an army, and do not wear uniforms; using weapons by armies in uniforms, of internationally recognized governments against each other, is not the same thing. But again, I do not condone the use of atomic bomb or any other weapons of mass destruction. America was wrong in doing that. 

What I’m impressed about your logic is that first, you are anti IRI, and I think that is what matters right now for us as a nation at this point in history. Whether you are pro or anti U.S, we all should be anti IRI, and that distinguishes you from some other people on this site. Second, although you are anti U.S, but you do not victimize the IRI or apologize for it based on that opposition. Some people on this site do that, and it can never fail to amaze me.


With regards.


Mohammad Ala

Thank you.

by Mohammad Ala on

Thank you BK jaan and others.

Our directions to achieve our goals are different but our hearts beat for the same place where our ancestors lie.  We owe it to them.  Together we can bring positive changes to Iran for all Iranians and non-Iranians who choose to live in Iran.


Cho Iran nabashad tan-e man mabad.




ummm, Sunni Arab

by Jaleho on

Did you just suggest that I am not an Iranian, which by over a 90% chance makes me not be a Shiite?! And then strangely you went on to say:

"Islamic Republic colloborated with the US to invade Afghanistan and
Iraq, however, some Shi'ite arabs conveniently and selectively forget
that little tid bit.

I assure you that the Sunnis will not forget the safavids.

Iran on Its Heels"

I guess if you were one of the %65+ majority Shiite in Iraq, many of whose families were burried in mass graves of Saddam Hussein, and many others who fled to Iran to escape Saddam's brutalities, you would have forgotten that little tid bit too! But nay, you're a sunni Arab!

And, believe me, Iranians would not give a hoot that Iraqi Sunnis loyal to Saddam wouldn't forget the "safavids"! Of course they do care about the majority Iraqi shiites and Iraqi Kurds with whom they have a perfectly good relation, much to the chagrin of Iraqi sunnis Arabs like yourself.

Now, if you got enough of the Sunni-Shiite, Arab-Iranian garbage you're so found of, let's go to your "Iran on its Heels" article which makes Vali Nasr feel like a friggin expert ever since he has been making a fashion out of Shiite-Sunnis thingie that for some reason impresses the hell out of Americans!

I guess, you can remind him that FIRST, Hakim and Maliki are more in the pocket of Iranians than Sadr ever was! Except that when there's a clash like the recent Basra division, that no one could tackle, Iran managed to bring the two Shiite sides together.

BTW, the Iranian backed Hamas are all SUNNIS. So were all the Egyptians who poured in the street last summer shouting "long live Nasrallah", Nasrallah being the SHIITE leader of Hezbollah who gave Israelis a bloody nose.


Second, re. SOFA. Maliki is stuck between a rock and a hard place. US has gone to Iraq for colonizing it and after $2 trillion expense, over 4000 dead and 50,000 maimed Americans it is hard to just put its tail between its leg and get out. Yet, the UN mandate finishes this year. So,  Americans are threatening to freeze billions of Iraqi money unless the government of Iraq sign the colonization document.

However, Iran opposes this disgraceful pact, so are Iraqi people. Maliki went to Iran, and came back with what? I AM NOT GOING TO SIGN THE DOCUMENTS LIKE I HAD TOLD THE AMERICANS I WOULD.

And, Ayatollah Sistani's voice was indistinguishable form Ayatollah Kashani's in denouncing SOFA. I mean, of course you probably are hurt that besides Maliki and Hakim who look up to Iran as Iraqi political leaders, the entire Iraqi Shiites, 70% of the population, listens to the higest religious authority in Iraq, which is the Iranian Ayatollah Sistani :-)


In fact, if you really read your own posts you would know that. But, somehow your comments are not coherent even within one post, let alone if you wanted to reconcile two of them, see:


Niloufar Parsi

US terrorism?

by Niloufar Parsi on

Farhad jan,

I should have been clearer in my piece earlier:

1. I was referring to a minority of Americans, not the majority.

2. Terrorism is vehemently attacked especially by the US. The main element of any definition of terrorism is a direct attack on civilians. By that count, the 2 nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nakazaki were acts of terror.

But perhaps we can agree to disagree on this one though! And I would confess that I tend to be very harsh on America :)

One quick point about Japan's recovery: this country was already so far advanced in industrial terms that it launched an attack on America. It was bound to rise up again because of its own human resources, and whether or not there was any US help! But there is no way I can prove that! Just a hypothesis I guess.



Jaleho: I gather from your

by sunni (not verified) on

Jaleho: I gather from your remarks that you're not Iranian and the welfare of Iran is not any of your concern. In your view, as long as the Islamic Republic "saves" Palestinians and feeds south Lebanese, the hell with how unjust and oppressive the regime is toward its own citizens.

I hate to break it to you, the mullahs are not helping the oppressed masses in the arab/world for either Islam or Arabs. You can count on being betrayed by the mullahs when the chips are down.

BTW, the Islamic Republic colloborated with the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, however, some Shi'ite arabs conveniently and selectively forget that little tid bit.

I assure you that the Sunnis will not forget the safavids.

Iran on Its Heels:

Farhad Kashani

Niloufar jaan, I agree with

by Farhad Kashani on

Niloufar jaan, I agree with everything you said about Iranians. However, not so much with what you said about the U.S. The American people are one of the most tolerant and gracious people around. They don’t just go around asking their government to nuke countries. Yes, it did in Japan, but that was because of a war that was declared and initiated by Japan, and I do have to say I don’t agree with the premise of using nuclear weapons, in any circumstances. So the U.S did use it, but if its citizens or government were that evil they way you picture them to be, they woudlnt’ve rebuild the country of Japan afterwards turning into a major world power and a competitor to the U.S itself. And as far using “terrorism”, that’s not even logical. We have a significant difference in point of view as far as how much U.S interfered against the interest of other people and whether nations should take responsibility for their own actions versus blaming it on others. Regards.

Farhad Kashani

BK jaan, I am impressed by

by Farhad Kashani on

BK jaan, I am impressed by your logic and reasoning. Keep up the good work.


BK, actually I do believe

by Jaleho on

BK, actually I do believe that unlike some war-trigger-happy-Zionists on board here, you do have a reasonable argument not emanating from any particular care for the US or Israel. That's why I took the effort to clarify why our conclusions for example on hostage crisis are diametrically opposite: we start from different assumptions.

That's where my opinion of US designs in Iran matters: Coup d'etat as a tactic have been an integrated part of US policy, all over the world, and Iranians CLEVERLY used their very own experience to thwart a US coup by embassy siege, US command and control center.

You say: "instead ranting and raving about US and Israel, we should be looking to the IRI and its systematic and deliberate acts of hostility that have effectively made Iran a pariah state and a target of potential target attack."

And I am telling you, if Iran instead of three times a day shouts " Long live USA" instead of "Death to America" it would not make an iota of difference in US policy towards Iran! Hey, Iran's candle light vigils after 9/11 got "axis of evil" label in return. WHY? Because slogans don't matter!!

When Iran insists on nationalization of its oil, you get a coup d'etat even if you kiss American butt 5 times a day instead of Allah's!

When Iran doesn't give its oil revenue back in the form of billions of dollars of US military equipment (like Shah did and like Saudis do) to run US military-industrial complex and its regional arms dealer Israel, you block their main source of bread and butter, and you're DOOMED. More so, when Iran not only produces its own military equipment, it sells it cheaper than US to regional groups too. Why do you think that the main item of recent sanction was to ban outflow of Iranian arms, not inflow if they really were worried about arms getting in "terrorists hands"?

When Iran insists on acquiring knowledge to missiles, space technology or nuclear technology, which according to the nuclear club must remain in the hands of few who can charge whatever they want to whoever they want, then you are doomed, no matter what you say.

So I guess a better question you might ask is this:

Then why doesn't Iran just shut up, use its oil revenue to build more universities and hospital, continue its sovereign attitude, and stop using inflammatory rhetoric and as you say, stopping meddling in Lebanon etc.?

The answer is this: Iran can not claim its legitimate regional power status by being hundred percent isolated or worse, have all of the west against its progress and independence yet have no power base in the region. The "Arab-non Arab" and "Sunni-Shiite" are already born- in division that the west has used to set discord to divide and rule the region. The only strategy Iran has had in its disposal from the very beginning of the revolution was to set itself as the Islamic moral authority in the region to appeal to the masses of Arab countries--not their governments who are themselves US lackeys.

That's why in the first Gulf war, Iran's official policy was "US has no right to invade Iraq", whereas when Saddam sent his planes to Iran for protection, Iran ate them up!

Iran has had the most JUST foreign policy, at least the stated foreign policy on every single regional issue. From opposing to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (taking the correct position opposite of Palestinians), to opposition to first US invasion of Iraq (which I am sure they loved), opposition of the second invasion, support of Hamas democratically elected government, support of Lebanese victims of Israel... you name it, Iran is the moral authority in line with demands of Muslim masses.

There goes the power of "Death to Israel". In fact, the example I gave you in my last post of Lebanon war last summer, should have convinced you that all the help Iran has given to bolster Hezbollah has been worth every penny! Iran basically had a proxy war with Israel and US not in Iran's soil, and it won it!

Its support of Iraqi government and Iran's being the first opponent to SOFA and Iraqi colonization is completely in line with that policy. The Persians did not fall in love with Arabs all of a sudden. They are fighting a super power which is trying to subdue Iran to keep Israel's hegemony in the region even if it could do it with a nuclear obliteration.

I do believe that Iranian people will prevail in their struggle as they have the entire last 30 years.



by ToofanZeGreat on

Your welcome, you raise good points, but I disagree with most of them

Yes I agree that embassies are seen as a foreign countries territory, but when you are at war with a country, you dont share embassies. When the government of that embassy has supported a dictator, and pulled down the gov of Mossadegh that was representative for the people of Iran (many iranians will disagree with me on that historically), I belive its just cause to raid the embassy when its used as a nest for espionage and coup related activities. Remember, that even if a country has a embassy in yours, that means that the countries have normal relations, the US government was out of sync with the Iranian people. But I agree that in the total sense, the taking of the embassy was drastic, and little productive for future relations and the wealth of the iranian people, and misused for propaganda purposes. But the argument is valid, because we are not talking about the Mongol era, we are talking about the support of a dictator right up to the taking of the embassy. You cant drive coup de etat actions from your embassy and believe that it will be accepted, no civil nation should. Coup operations are the worst forms of military action you can pull against another nation, especially when its against a government supported by the people, and when you already did so only 20 years before.

There is no proof that Syria had a nuclear fascility, the IAIE said in its recent reports that such rumors are false, and that the Syrians did not have or do have the capabilities to have such a program. Let me remind you that the Israeli F-16 flew in from the Med. sea directly into Syria and bombed a site most like used for missile production. A fascility not heavily protected compared to say the Natanz enrichment fascility in Iran. Point being, even an old low flying Syrian Mig can theoretically penetrate Israeli air space with luck and planning, drop a bomb or two and get away. Yes Israel has greater air capability, but it depends on the target and what your going after, the latest anti syrian operation was a propaganda stunt by the US and Israel, which was very successfull. As for Syrian air defence, it has not the capabilities that Iran has, Iran is now self sufficient production in low air air defence missiles/guns from the 70-80's technology, and had even agreed to fund the Syrian air defence partially in a new pact because the Syrians need help on that front.

Further I belive you heavily overestimate the military of the US, read about the pentagon persian gulf military drills, the australian US based war games and the military inventory of Iran today (also compare it to Syria if you wish) and you will see that Iran would bite back hard. Its this and the oil price that keeps the US from attacking. The US only has air dominance, break that and their ground forces and navy are halted to a stand still, read the campaign reports from Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran would most definatly push back a full scale US invasion, the only case the US could win in a full scale war against Iran would be the use of its nukes. 

I do however agree on your fact that this regime is driving a fanatic revolution agenda that belongs in the dark ages of christian feudal europe.

But think strategically, Iran will never be left alone, its right in the middle of the world with oil and gas, with chinese lusting for it while the US want to work against chinese interests because it owns China billions of dollars and wants a counter weight. If it was not the nuke issue, Iran would be sanctioned for its missile systems, if it was not for that, it would have been sanctioned for its support for hezbollah and hamas, if not that, it would have been sanctioned for its space program. Point being, the US wants Iran to act like Saudi-Arabia and Turkey, a client state, and I dont agree to that policy they have had on Iran since the 1950's when the British mainly talked them into supporting coups in Iran and treating it like a colony. Iran must develope itself into a regional superpower that acts as a balance in the middle east between Russia China, and EU US.

The right path to all of this is simple. The people of Iran must change the government gradually which they will and are already trying to do in may ways. The US and EU must not interfere and have normal relations in the meantime with any administration in Tehran (be it a mullah, a king or a clown). While this is happening, Iranian ex pats abroad must support ordinay iranians (note not the government) back home with investments in its science and industry so that the country does not fall back instead of pouring the cash into Dubai and expensive space flights. This is the real way of helping Iran and fighting the brain drain. There are so many bright kids in Iran with wonderful ideas, they need the funds to develope them. The IRI will be gone one day, what happens in the mean time of their rule is vital for the states survival.

Looking forward to your reply :)



To Jelaho

by BK (not verified) on

While I appreciate you taking time to express your views, sadly you have either totally missed the crux of my argument or are deliberately disregarding it.

I'm not going to rehash the same points over and over again. Clearly it’s pointless. I'll just say this: as I have repeatedly pointed out I'm not here to defend the US or Israel or justify their actions. I couldn’t care less about either country.

The point that I have tried to put across, for which I've provided ample examples, is instead ranting and raving about US and Israel, we should be looking to the IRI and its systematic and deliberate acts of hostility that have effectively made Iran a pariah state and a target of potential target attack.

And your response? "US this and Israel that", “Israel that and US this”. In other words, you are demonstrating the obsession that some of us Iranians continue to harbour with these two countries instead of addressing the real authors of Iran’s misery, the Islamic Republic. This is exactly the kind of mentality I was talking about.

The very fact that you praise the IRI for spending the money that belongs to the people of Iran, while many of them live in abject poverty, on the Lebanese Hezbollah to fight is telling. What Israel and Hezbollah have to do with Iran and what business is that conflict of IRI’s, I don’t know. What I do know is that while you’re busy being proud of the IRI funding and supporting the likes of Hezbollah, Iran is going down the toilet.

Have a nice day.


BK- Wrong Premise

by Jaleho on

BK, thanks for elaborating your argument. I guess our difference stems from a completely opposite set of premises.

1. You assume that America is omniscient and omnipotent. Not so at all!

For example you say: " If the US was going to directly intervene in Iran it would’ve done it BEFORE Shah was toppled, during the Revolution. Not AFTER, when it was too late."

In fact, US with all its intelligence apparatus, did not even know the extent of the revolutionary fervor in Iran. Carter shook hands with Shah just before the revolution, and called Iran "the Island of Stability!"

And, US is not omnipotent either. Vietnam war in which US killed millions and still all it got was a devastation to its economy which broke gold-dollar equivalence is a perfect example. US is even stuck in Iraq which was already DEAD by Iran-Iraq war and years of sanction. The cost of present war to US has already started to break Petro-dollar equivalence. Iran's conversion from $ to other currencies helped too. This alone can drain US economy to dangerous limits.

2. You forget US imperial designs over other parts of the world. You say:

"most (if not all) embassies have a number of intelligence operative, spies etc among their staff. The IRI certainly has it fair share. So, it would not exactly be a great surprise if the Americans had “spies” in their Tehran embassy."

Most countries do not have US stellar records of CIA initiated coup to change a regime and install an American puppet. I do not even to argue about ROOMS of documents where smart Iranian students took decade to paste the shredded papers which proved the US ill intentions. Iranians had learned their lessons from 1953 coup and forced the US on the spot to shred its own designs, rather than 50 years later write books about yet another Iranian Ajax operation!

3. You also assume incorrectly that Israel can do something about Iran by itself. You say:

"Syria has been purchasing and arming itself with Russia’s latest and most modern ant-aircraft defences (as good, if not better than anything Iran currently has). But this counted for zilch when Israeli fighter jets destroyed the Syrian nuclear facility just a few months ago. Not a single Israeli jet was lost."

May I simply remind you that Iran's support of Hezbollah FORCED Israel to finally stop its 20 year occupation of Lebanon? And, as recent as last summer, US and Israel tried a proxy war in Lebanon, and an armed militia group of Hezbollah in a country of a mere 3 million population rubbed Israel's nose right under its own borders. Israel's constant barking is meant to guarantee the continuation of $trillion that it has been getting from US as a charity. Israel has to pretend that it is worthy of all that aid in case US needs it as a base. But, in reality, US had to make an EMERGENCY shipments of extra bombs last summer and prevent UN from a cease fire in Lebanon to give Israel a chance to fight Hezbollah!

Israel can only bark against Iran, but it only dares showing its teeth to stone throwing Palestinian kids! Why do you think the Zionists and American Jewish neo-cons have been pushing US to do something about Iran for them?!

4. You assume bullies need a reason. You say: "It takes TWO sides to bring about a conflict. "

That argument has been used to justify Saddam's invasion of Iran, or for that matter, any other aggression to another country. It is used to argue that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric can actually cause an attack. These are completely nonsense. Slogans don't make wars. It is strategic plans, the economic interest, the overall foreign policy of a country, and the feasibility of winning a war that makes a bully decide to go to a war or not. It is also the cleverness of the leaders to calculate the probabilities of winning or losingit correctly.

That is why US has chosen NOT to attack Iran all these 30 years and preferred to weaken Iran economically, and build military bases on its weakest sides like Iraq and Afghanistan. It is hoping to use a tired people, squeeze it economically, bark to prepare a war psychologically, and hope for an eventual breaking of Iran.

US and Israel are both masters of unilateral aggression. If they need an excuse, they also have the bulk of international propaganda machine, and can CONCOCT any story they want to start an aggression with no shame at all. The reason that neither has so far attempted an attack on Iran is... believe me the clever observation of Khomeini breaking the taboo:

"US and Israel can not do a damn thing!"

That is, if Iranian people are as vigilant as they have been when they defended their young revolution.


Mr. Ala

by BK (not verified) on

Nobody is defending Western countries, least of all the US. There is no question that they have their share of the responsibility for what has happened in the past and the difficult situation facing Iran currently. The West will do, what it has always done, i.e. act in its own self-interest and if this is at the expense of other countries, so be it.

But it seems that, in our zeal to blame everything on the US and the West as a whole, some of us have lost sight of the reality that the predicament that Iran finds itself in. The reality is that Iran’s problems are chiefly of Islamic Republic's making.

I brought up the hostage situation in response to a point that seemed to imply that the US has been hostile to Iran under the Islamic Republic unilaterally. As if Iran was simply minding its own business and doing absolutely nothing to incur the wrath of Uncle Sam. I’ve already pointed out some of IRI’s numerous acts of mischief making that have got us where we are, so I won’t repeat them. But suffice to say that the stance which absolves the IRI of any responsibility in causing the confrontation between Iran and the US, a confrontation that might end up causing great suffering to people in Iran, is not only short-sighted, but shameful.

I’m totally opposed to any sanctions on Iran, because the Iranian people are already suffering greatly under the IRI. Sanctions will only hurt the ordinary people and not cause any discomfort to those who have been busy robbing the country blind. What this also shows is the sutpidity of the Bush administartion. But to use emotive and inflammatory language such as “sanctions are act of war” is totally counter-productive. I mean, if that is what we should believe then the implication must be that since this is war then Iran and Iranians are justified at attacking the US. So is that what we should do?

My view is that what we have to do, is do away with this bravado and emotive language, and help persuade BOTH sides to work to ease tensions and prevent war and sanctions at all costs and NOT inflame things even further.

Btw, even though I don’t agree with everything you say on with on this issue, I do have a lot of respect for the good work you have been doing and continue to do for the people in Iran.

Zendeh Baashi.

Niloufar Parsi

Sho'ar-e ashqal!

by Niloufar Parsi on

Farhad jan,

I am absolutely disgusted by those 'marg bar...' chants. It is unbelievable that our people can act like utter sheep for 30 years nonstop! It is totally fair to ask the question: how would we feel about Americans chanting 'death to Iran' every week and on every occasion when they get together? It is mob behaviour at its worst. 

There is something very schizophrenic about Iranians, we have to admit. Perhaps it is just a survival instinct in the face of religious persecution and its inherent hypocrisy that Forces a double standard mentality on everyone, but few people on earth are willing to say things they do not mean at all the way our people do.

Having said all that, it is still only the American government that would happily shower Iranians and others with WMD's and with no hesitation. The IRI has no such tendencies when it comes to other countries.

And it is only some members of the American public (a worryingly large number actually) that would comfortably say: 'Nuke 'em'!

And they mean it too. It's been done before, with no remorse and no compensation for those hundreds of thousands of civilians deliberately targeted in Japan. America is responsible for the mother of all terrorist acts in history. And it did not stop there: central and south america., south east asia, the middle east. And it goes on.

I would not trust the American elite (not the general population, it has to be added) any further than I could throw them!



Mohammad Ala

Sanctions are act of war

by Mohammad Ala on

As several of you have mentioned, sanctions are act of war.  The majority citizens of any country do not want war.  Interest groups are pushing for a war against Iran. 

Everyone should know that Iran will not be Iraq or Afghanistan.   It is amazing that some people still bring up hostage crisis without mentioning what caused it to happen.  The Western countries have been stealing natural resources, historical artifacts, from other countries for the past 100-150 years. 

The U.S. with the help of few other countries might attack Iran but they will pay extremely high price by bringing down their own economy. 


To ToofanZeGreat

by BK (not verified) on

Thanks for our response.

So are you saying that the invasion and take over of another country’s embassy and the taking hostage of its staff for over a year of half by a supposedly sovereign government that is supposed to abide by International law is perfectly justified due to past grievances towards the country whose embassy has been violated? Because let’s remember all embassies are supposed to be part of the territories of the country the represent.

Going by that logic then, was the take over of the US embassy was justified because of the toppling of Mossadegh a quarter of century earlier? Well, why stop there? Why not attack Iraq’s embassy in Tehran and take its staff hostage because Iraq invaded Iran and inflicted a war on us in the 1980s? While we are at it, let’s go back further in history and attack Mongolia’s embassy because the Mongol’s butchered over 80% of Iran population a few centuries back. Let’s also do the rest of the Arab countries and Greece’s embassies and take their staff hostage because their countries attacked Iran once upon a time too.

In short, this counter argument does not have much to merit it. For a regime that has just come to power (by whatever means) to pick a fight with World’s most powerful superpower by taking hostage its embassy staff, instead of focusing all its efforts to improve the lives of its own people, is sheer idiocy of highest kind. I mean, how the hell did you expect the Americans to react?

On the weapons issue. I’ll just point this out to you. Syria has been purchasing and arming itself with Russia’s latest and most modern ant-aircraft defences (as good, if not better than anything Iran currently has). But this counted for zilch when Israeli fighter jets destroyed the Syrian nuclear facility just a few months ago. Not a single Israeli jet was lost.

You are deluding yourself, if you really believe the IRI forces will be able to match or even seriously put up much of a resistance to a full-scale US invasion. I’m totally against an American invasion because many innocent Iranians will be killed as well as the many bad-bakht soldiers fighting for the Mullarocy folly and also because this will create havoc in Iran, possibly even leading to disintegration of parts of the country. Thankfully though, a full-scale invasion is unlikely to happen.

To Jaleho: most (if not all) embassies have a number of intelligence operative, spies etc among their staff. The IRI certainly has it fair share. So, it would not exactly be a great surprise if the Americans had “spies” in their Tehran embassy.

More to the point, there is NO credible evidence that the US was planning a coup at the time. Certainly none in the shredded documents pieced together by the students who took over the embassy. If the US was going to directly intervene in Iran it would’ve done it BEFORE Shah was toppled, during the Revolution. Not AFTER, when it was too late. Indeed, if anything, the Carter administration was not particularly concerned about Shah’s fall at the time and thought it could work with Khomeini, before the embassy saga.

I don’t know if why you good folks are looking at the events and the events of the past 30 years with a decidedly one-sided view.

It takes TWO sides to bring about a conflict. Certainly the Bush administration deserves condemnation for its polices and posturing towards Iran and we all know about the history of US interference in Iran. But the main reason why Iran is under threat is due to regime that rules over the country. It is the IRI that through its relentless hostile policies and actions for nearly 30 years has needlessly made Iran a target.

From the very outset the IR made its intentions clear with its “Marg bar America” and stars and stripes flag burning rituals, that have become a constant feature of the regime’s public gatherings in Iran. We’ve already talked about the violent take over of the US embassy and taking hostage of the embassy staff. Added to that it was also the IRI that, through its Lebanese Hezbollah allies, organized the suicide attack that killed 250 US marines on peace keeping mission in Lebanon and the numerous hostage taking of westerners in the same country in the 1980s. It is the IRI that has continued to fund and support Hamas and Hezbollah to run a proxy was against Israel. It is the IRI that has been arming and training the Shia Militia in Iraq and making the mess made by the Americans even worse.

So yes, let’s by all means do everything we can to prevent any external attack on Iran by the war monger Bush and his deranged neo-con advisors. But that is all we hear from you people. “Amercia this or America that”. Why don’t we ever hear anything on addressing the other party to this conflict, the Islamlic Repulic of Iran, to drop its damaging hostility towards to the West, work to ease tensions (for which it is primarily responsible) and do its part to avoid war ?

Farhad Kashani

Nioufar jaan, I agree with

by Farhad Kashani on

Nioufar jaan, I agree with most of what you said, specially with the part that talks about us being responsible for what has and will happen to our country. I like to see this mentality grow more and more among Iranians, then it will be easier for us to recognize the truth of what happened to our country in 1979 and 1953, instead on blaming it on other governments without any logic.What I'm trying to say is that in order for us to prevent an attack on Iran, we need to go after the party which is the actual war mongering and is doing everything possible to provoke other countries to start a war on Iran, and that party is the Islamic regime. Wherever you stand on U.S policy, we have to admit that the IRI has provoking the U.S for over 30 years now, and that provocation has gotten to a serious stage. We have to know to what benefit to our people and to our country, has the illegal IRI regime been provoking other countries, specailly the U.S, to attack us? Most countries around the world try not to provoke each other, except the IRI, it bashes everyone, and some of those countries have oil, and some of them have grown to become great powers and still act independently.