Pictory

One more thing...

Another thing you don't realize, because as you admit, you're biased, is that the IRI survives on the existence of CRISIS!

Whether if it was the hostage crisis in 1979 or the Iraq war, which they unnecessarily prolonged so as to liquidate their homegrown dissidents in the name of patriotism, or the Palestinian crisis, or the nuclear issue -- this morally bankrupt regime DEPENDS on the existence of CRISIS -- without it, the IRI would be dead on arrival!

Having a ready made crisis gives the IRI an excuse to skirt the real problems at home -- like massive unemployment, massive inflation, massive corruption, massive social ills like rampid prostitution and the highest per capita heroin addicts in the world.

Moreover, the IRI, after 30 years, is STILL operating in a revolutionary mode. Iran, to this day, is still a "cause" as opposed to a country.

The IRI is still hellbent on spreading its militant version of Islam (Islamic Revolution) all across the middle east. That's it's raison d'etre, its mission. The US has nothing to do with this!

Most countries who experience a revolution settle down within a few years after the upheavel and join the rest of the world as responisble nations. Iran has yet to settle down, and this has been an intentional regime policy for 30 years. Indeed, it is why they have survived for so long. They have continuously and masterfully kept Iran and Iranians in crisis mode for over 3 decades, which has given them the perfect pretext for crushing all forms of dissent (usually in the name of patriotism or Islam). 

It was not the fault of Jimmy Carter, nor Bill Clinton, both of whom tried sooooooooo very hard to open up to the regime in Iran. President Reagan even sent his National Security Advisor to Iran with a gift of a Quran and a cake in the shape of a key, so as to bring about some sort of rapproachment with Iran, but the IRI rejected the Americans every time!

That's because the very foundation of this barbaric, terrorist regime, its reason for existence, has been anti-Americanism, ergo "Death to America" or the "Great Satan." That's why the mullahs will never make a deal with the US, because if they do, it will mean the end of the IRI as we know it.

Iran today is a cause, and has been one since 1979. It's not a country. And that is no fault of the Americans. It's the ideological sturcture of the IRI. The beast needs anti-Americanism to survive! Without hatred for Israel and hatred for America, the IRI would have no reason ot exist, and the mullahs know this all too well, and perhaps that is why they rigged the elections because they knew that the Rafsanjani/Mousavi camp was ready to make a deal with the Americans, and Iran would finally settle down as a country and stop militantly pursuing an unholy cause across the middle-east. 

In short, STOP blaming America for IRI's belligerant behavior! The mullahs are belligerant, not in response to anything America may have done to Iran, but because it is in their DNA to be belligerant, militant, and against peace -- it is their cause to be at war with the west, or rather, in crisis mode. 

Peace with America spells doom for IRI's cause.

But you leftist know-it-all phonies are always ready and quick to bash the US government as the evil behind all of our problems in the world. Our problems in Iran have NOTHING to do with America, and that includes the 1953 coup, which a great many Iranians contributed to, and would have never succeeded BUT FOR their efforts.

So do us all a favor and go to Sudan, and let Iranians fix Iran.

LONG LIVE THE GLORY OF KUROSH 

Aaron Newman

You are simply OUT OF YOUR MIND to say, "we also argue that the US helped create the conditions for a hostile Iranian government and continued to lead the escalation."

The IRI is, and has alwasys been, a confrontational terrorist organization since DAY 1!

Jimmy Carter, your lefty president, tried soooooooooo very hard to maintain diplomatic relations with the IRI (after they sponsored and financed the revolution), and the mullahs rewarded Carter by taking 52 hostages for 444 days!

There were no "Axis of Evil" speeches back then by Jimmy Carter, there was no crazy cowboy George W. Bush then, there were no Afghanistan war, no Iraq war back then (on Nov. 4, 1979) -- and yet, the mullahs lashed out at Jimmy Carter when he was trying so hard to strike a deal with them.

And please don't make me throw up by bringing up America's involvement in the 1953 coup as a reason for the IRI's confrontational behavior.

Open up your ears (or ditch the lefty bias for a second) and listen clear: The beasts who run the IRI today, were spawned by the very forces who were responsible in a very BIG way in bringing about Mossadegh's ouster. Mossadegh was dealt a crippling blow by Ayatollah Kashani's betrayal (of Mossadegh), and that blow was as  damaging to Mossadegh's chances of survival as anything the CIA did in those days.

And if you don't know who Ayatollah Kashani was, which I bet you don't, Kashani was the spiritual godfather and teacher of Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the IRI. Indeed, it was the Fedayoun-e-Islam and Ayatollah Kashani, who were loosely associated with Jebh-e-Meli (Mossadegh's party) who truly stabbed Mossadegh in the back when they joined forces with the "coup" players.

So, for Madeline Albright to apologize in 1997 to the Islamic fascists of the IRI for America's involvement in the coup, is utterly and completely asinine, because Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of IRI, and his master, Ayatollah Kashani, ultimately betrayed Mossadegh in a very real way when alligned themselves with the coup. I mean, how do you apologize to the very same group who played a very heavy hand in the very success of the coup itslef?  

Anyway, I know all of this is a bit over your head, as you do-gooder lefties in America with too much time on your hands are always on the wrong side of the equation  (you people always seem to allign yourselves with reprehensible regimes out of your hatred for America) -- interesting how you did not address the misinformation regarding General Huyser's actual mission in Iran. 

Why don't people like you go stop the genocide going on in Sudan, for example, and leave Iran to Iranians??? Who are you anyway? What is the name of your organization? Are you associated with J Street?

LONG LIVE THE GLORY OF KUROSH 

Many thanks to aaron94132

For creating this film and I look forward to watch the other 69 minutes of it. Likewise thank you for the explaining your motives and objective as many of us both Iranian and American wish nothing but peace, we are tired of war and injustice in this world.

I sincerely hope that this will help some folks in US that have heard only one side of the story to understand a bit more about the history and what is being done in their names.

Mehrdad

Dear aaron94132

I do appreciate your candor, and fortrightness, regarding this movie

As I have indicated earlier, I enjoyed this 10-minute trailer

Looking forward to seeing the entire movie

Tks :)

Aaron

I just wanted to say:

Thank you for the great video clip, the time and all the work that you have dedicated for the great cause of peace.

Best regards

IRANdokht

Mariam

I made the film

Greetings everyone.  I am the film maker and thought you should know a few things:

1.  This is not the whole film.  It is a 10 minute clip out of 79 minute film titled "IRAN (is not the problem)" 

2.  I made the film in 2007 for an American audience as a counterargument to the justification for war.  I made it with local Iranian and non-Iranian activists who felt that war was unjustified, despite what we saw and continue to see in the news every day.  The film was made for $2000 and I didn't get any checks from Soros or the IRI ;)

3.  This "bias" is stated explicitly in the beginning of the film.  There is no such thing as non-bias, so we did our best to make our perspective known.

4.  We did our best to represent relevant facts to show actual US intentions to control the Middle-East as part of long-standing and ongoing project to be an empire of global reach and control.

We highlighted historical US hypocrisy to show that pretexts such as  concern for the well-being of Iranians and ensuring the safety of America or Israel are not legitimate.  We don't believe our government has the right to initiate a war, and we also argue that the US helped create the conditions for a hostile Iranian government and continued to lead the escalation.

I would add that even if there is no intention to go to war, Secretary of State Clinton has stated that the Iran policy goal is to gain support for crippling sanctions.

//www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/04/23/clinton-says-iran-policy-goal-to-gain-support-for-%E2%80%9Ccrippling-sanctions%E2%80%9D/

5. The other 69 minutes of the film deals with issues such as supporting terrorism, the nuclear debate, relations with Israel, criticism of the Iranian government since 1979, etc.  No one in the film is a fan of the mullahs, and they are quite vocal about it, but that doesn't give the US government the right to act as world police when they are unable to follow international law themselves.

6.  The goal of the movie is to help change the debate on Iran. To help you speak to others who view the film, I have created an unmoderated blog for errors and omissions.

//iranisnottheproblem.org/blog/errors-and-omi...

It is linked to the movie homepage.  If anyone knows of an easy way I can create a blog with voting so popular posts can be elevated and more visible, send me an e-mail.

Best,

Aaron Newman

aaron@iranisnottheproblem.org

www.iranisnottheproblem.org

Fred

LOL, yes, that's "tyranny", you're right!

once again, Nousha, proving the cross-eyed hatred that has made you completely illogical runs deep roots.

Who made you judge and jury, Q?
the question was not ASKED of you, but of Craig. I stated a fact. You, emotional nonsense. You can't handle not being the center of attention for even one conversation? How typical.

I know if it was up to you, you would have me locked up, tortured and raped for giving my opinion

Re-read what I said about "fantasies", and "emotional" drivel and this time pay close attention.

You wanna shut down, beat down anyone doesn't agree

This from the someone who justifies Saddam's invasion of Iran based on Khomeini's speech? That's rich!

(Huyser's outward purposes in Iran were a mere cover for what he was really there to accomplish)

Yawn... it wasn't his "outward" mission I wrote about in both cases.

This is just a pathetic attempt to insert your wrothless words, where scholars and biographers have opined. Unlike you I don't rely on MY OWN emotional interpretation for something I had no direct knowledge of.

Of the fact that you have no answer in face of clear evidence and no counter examples or evidence of your own other than your hatred-born fantasies, I can't say I'm terribly surprised.

Ari, when did American NOT have a say

in the Iranian Imperial Army?

The modern Iranian military we have today was initially build-up and trained by American (and previously British) military advisors:

//books.google.com/books?id=oqUOAAAAQAAJ&pg=P...

In short, the Shah was serving as the policeman of the Middle East and therefore required a huge investment in modern
military equipment and, more significantly, large numbers of American technicians and trainers to support the highly sophisticated equipment for a very unsophisticated and under-educated military...

About Huyser, there is disagreement about his mission. Some say that he was sent to "neutralize" the army, while others say he was sent to help the army plan a coup detat incase Bakhtiar's government fell. However, in his memoirs Husyer mentions that the army commanders disagreed among themselves about what to do and even "the hardliners showed no real capacity or willingness to plan for a, military takeover due to uncertainty about the loyalty of their troops, their mixed views about supporting Bakhtiar..."

source: Steven Ward (2009) " Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces"

Ari

Your new Huyser question is rhetorical, isn’t it? Whereas your original question was not where you asked:

“Is it intelligent nationalism to view foreign countries as political assets instead of risk factors to be managed in our project for democracy?”

To which I responded by questioning the wrong formulation of the question and cited few historical facts to back up my contention which the resident Islamist demagogue has a problem with, fine with me.  

Typical Hezbollahi Tyranny

Our house hezbollahi writes: "You are -of course- wrong on both counts, but who was asking you? No one."

Who made you judge and jury, Q? I know if it was up to you, you would have me locked up, tortured and raped for giving my opinion -- you're all the same, you parasitic IRI fascists! You wanna shut down, beat down anyone doesn't agree with your abject LIES and MISINFORMATION.

Your quote, is as usual, prima facie, worhthless (Huyser's outward purposes in Iran were a mere cover for what he was really there to accomplish) -- thousands of pages have been written detailing Huyser's REAL mission in Iran, but you choose to believe the double-talk and deceptive jibber-jabber of a Trilateral Commision stooge like Brezhenski , who was the financial and spiritual godfather to your mullah Khomeini, and Mr. Green Card, Ebrahim Yazdi.

Nice try. Now go take your slanted, dimwitted claptrap back to your America-hating, IRI-supporting mosque in California. 

Shameless.

LONG LIVE THE GLORY OF KUROSH 

Of course, Arie, it was an affront

to Iran's integrity and it made a fool out of Shah's claim of being independent.

Our misguided sophist friend, Fred, however, who can be witnessed here as a true propagandist has the wrong analogy but once again, couldn't care less about facts or history, so long as they appear to support his current political agenda.

He wrongly implied Washington's answer to your "miguided" question, thinking Washington was actually a fan of foreign involvement. I showed he wasn't and of course Fred spins accordingly.

But his bigger failure is his misguided analogy, which is purely emotion driven. In fact, asking for US involvement is not like asking for French who were already at war with the world's biggest super power for limited help, on equal terms, under American military leadership and regulated by an established congress of the American people.

It is more like turning over complete military control to that superpower in the civil war, a notion treasonous by any definition.

But the best analogy of course is the one the Fred's of the world wish to reapeat: the Chalabi/Iraq analogy. There were no Iraqi troops, or any legitimacy to speak on behalf of their nation, or any equal footing with Americans in war prsecution, and thus they were pretty much used as convinient PR donkeys by the neoconservatives to ride their way into the war. That's exactly what Fred wants, because that's exactly how it will be with the Iran situation.

As I oft prove, Fred is not interested in facts, history, or pretty much anything other than his single minded pro-Israel and (self-admitted) pro-AIPAC agenda. Using the American revolution is just another convinient ploy.

Fred, Q, or anyone with answers

Rewriting history

Islamists shamelessly rewriting Iranian history including the history of terrorist Ayatollah Kashani is one thing, they are occupying Iran and do as wish, but they cannot do the same to any other county’s history. The fact that American freedom fighters including GW sought and received French help is just a historical fact which the Islamists cannot change.  

Citing GW’s end of second presidential term farewell address, after having won American independence which included receiving substantial French help, as proof of not needing help to defeat tyranny is so typical Islamist.

Some folks choose to

Some folks choose to remain just ignorant and if I am not mistaking that is a definition of a fool.

Mehrdad

Q...

makes a valid point. It still does not justify Saddam's aggression. Regardless of how much Khomeini might have provoked, we did not initiate the military conflict. Saddam did.

Washington's answer

to this so-called "wrongly formulated" question:

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combination and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
//www.csamerican.com/Doc.asp?doc=washfarewell

Fred, it's good that you know of what you speak before jumping in to denigrade others' questions as "wrongly formulated"!

Congratulations. Your well-earned reputation of sophistry remains unchallenged.

Goose and gander

“Is it intelligent nationalism to view foreign countries as political assets instead of risk factors to be managed in our project for democracy?”

Long ago these among many others have answered such wrongly formulated question, George Washington, Hamilton, Charles de Gaulle…  

There is no such clear cut dichotomy; foreign countries by nature are both assets and liabilities. It is ludicrous and foolhardy to be the subject of severe oppression and at the same time refuse any and all potential sources of help out-and-out.

If such were the case not many democracies including U.S. would have existed. That would have meant depriving Iranians living in the safety and freedom American democracy has provided to argue against the same kind of help for Iran that helped bring about that which they are enjoying in America.

sorry nousha, fantasies don't count

You are -of course- wrong on both counts, but who was asking you? No one.

"I repeat" is only a silly child's way of disputing something. Your words have no weight. You haven't shown any historical lies. What you have shown is your severe allergy to reality and your frightening willingness to let your obvious hatred replace facts and logic.

On your first fantasy:

Huyser was sent given instructions to plan for a military coup in case it is needed.

At the White House, Brzezinski is finally able to hear Huyser's viewpoint on the possibility of a coup: "only with direct support of the US military". Brzezinski asks him if he is ready to lead the coup and go to Iran. Huyser's answer is calculated: "Yes, with some conditions: I need unlimited funds at my disposal; 10-12 US generals are to be handpicked and must accompany me; I need 10,000 elite US servicemen; and full authority and comprehensive national support."
source: //iranian.com/History/Feb98/Revolution/

Once in Iran, he reported back:

Huyser reported that he was making headway with the commanders. He had gotten them to work together to prepare plans for taking over oil fields, power plants and communications, and to break the strikes and to regain control. He reported that he was able to move them from depending on the Shah to working as a team under Bakhtiar.

source: From Gholamreza Afkhamis SYMPATHETIC biography of the Shah. "The Life and Times of the Shah".

As to your second fantasy of "provocation". You are -of course- propaganizing worse than anything you claim the video is doing.

In fact, making vague speeches about exporting Islam is not provocation of war according to any definition. No International law or authority would do anything but laugh at the suggestion that armed invasion was justified because of this "provocation".

Are you ready to support an IRI military response to US repeated calls for "regime change" in Iran? Didn't think so.

What you conviniently conflate is the clear definition of a MILITARY provocation which was not met, given Iran had not amassed any troops or its army was in no clear preparation for any attack, nor any intent demonstrated. This is indeed the very REASON Saddam saw an opportunity to invade Iran.

How does your "reasoning" explain Saddam's well planned moves to carve off Khuzestan and make it into an Arab puppet country? How does it explain his call for Arabs to rise against Iranian oppressors? To support the attack against Iran's embassy in London? It doesn't and you didn't think about this because frankly you don't care about the facts. Let's face it, you're just fishing for something you can blame on the IRI. Truth be damned.

Only the Saddam propaganda which was repeated in the west for years (and obviously picked up by gullible fools) called this inasion a defensive move against Khomeini.

As you can see you have nothing on this video. Now go play with someone your own age.

Said it once; say it again; in your face...

Most fair; most balanced; Pure Iranian or, Persian or, whatever and not ...

Thanks GS; to me you are MP which stands for Mozaffar Polo.

Friends don't hesitate to flag me.

The Pahlavis and all mullas must disclose the source and the amount of their wealth.

Moosir/Piaz

Writes: "the video... omits certain facts about Khomeini's intentions.  He wanted to export the revolution. I remember seeing a newspaper clip of him encouraging Iraq's army to wage a coup against Saddam before Saddam started the war."

Precisely my point! Thank you, and well said! This video is shamelessly one-sided, which is the technical definition of a "propaganda" piece.

And Q, you asked for just one "historical lie" in this ridiculous video -- I've given you TWO of them.

Cheers. 

LONG LIVE THE GLORY OF KUROSH 

this video is far too one sided...

even though i agree with most of what the video presents it omits certain facts about Khomeini's intentions.  He wanted to export the revolution. I remember seeing a newspaper clip of him encouraging Iraq's army to wage a coup against Saddam before Saddam started the war.

And the Islamists policies in Leobanan were also ignored.

Is there unanimous agreement therefore...

Just one last thing in the hopes that you get it....

"But it gets pretty damn hard when (some) Iranians start bashing my country thinking that somehow serves their interests."

See Craig, you don't distinguish between your country and the government of your country. Some of us do! And that enables us to oppose the IRI while keeping the interest of Iran in mind. By the same token many Iranian Americans are able to oppose US foreign policy toward Iran while they do actually feel all warm and fuzzy toward the USA, their adopted homeland! Shocking I know! I guess it is something you have to have experienced Craig. I can't hold it against you.  And you are most certainly entitled to your view.

No you really don't, Craig, try and understand

My problem is, I'm not Iranian.

No, this is far from your problem.

My other problem is, the administrator of this website praises such historical lies as being "balanced".

Your other problem is your bias and fundamental failure to respect opinion. Can you please point out one "historical lie" in the video?

I'm sorry but I can't support him in his grievances against the Islamic Republic

Did anyone ask for your support?

This has been a problem so-called reformers have had for years. They don't want to admit any foreigners have good cause for being hostile towards IRI because they fear war,

This is your interpretation and quite false. Iranians of all persuasions hate being treated unfairly by self-serving westerners.

but at the same time they want political support from those very same foreigners against the IRI.

Who wants support from foreigners? The Iranian people have certainly never asked for this. The only people saying it are Iranian Chalabi's who want to sucker US tax payers Iraq style. I know it may be a lot for you but don't confuse the two.

In any case, I'll make you a deal. If anyone asks for your support for God's sake don't give it! We really have had enough of this "support" in the past 50 years.

100% Propaganda!

JJ, are you serious, you actually think this BLATANT propaganda piece is "balanced?" Are you sure you're not on the sauce tonight, just a little?

This deceptive claptrap, if it wasn't produced by the NIAC and Trita Parsi, with George Soros money, then it must've been produced by the IRI, the Rafsanjani version, as he and Khatami are thick as thieves with Soros.

I'll cite two reasons why this putrid propaganda piece is misleading and smacks of IRI misinformation, which makes the entire piece extremely suspect, specially when it comes to the truth.

Firstly, as DK rightly points out, General Huyser was NOT -- and I repeat, he was NOT -- sent to Iran to "instigate" a military coup, but rather, the exact opposite! The Carter Administration was worried, as were the mullahs, that the army would stage a military coup if Bakhtiar's government was unable to govern effectively. The Americans didn't want that. The mullahs definitely didn't want that.

As any objective student of the revolution will tell you, the biggest question mark of the final days of the revolution was the army, and how it would react upon Khomeini's return (in the absence of the Shah). In late January 1979, Tehran was rife with rumors of an impending military coup, and it most likely would have happend, BUT FOR General Huyser.

In truth, what Huyser was able to accomplish, with great help from Generals Gharabaghi and Fardoust (both traitors to the Iranian nation), was the NEUTRALITY of the army. Therefore, when the army returned to the barracks and declared its neutrality, the revolution was complete.

And the man who was able to caliberate and coordinate this incredibly vital declaration of neutrality, was no other than Jimmy Carter's right-hand man in Iran, and that would be General Huyser!!!

So, for this utterly asinine and biased video to claim that Huyser was sent to "instigate" a military coup -- tells me all I need to know -- and that is, that what we have here is a slick propaganda piece with generous donors, laden with misinformation and lies, but for whose benefit???

The IRI, of course, but also, the wing of the US ruling party (Soros, Obama) who desperately wish to make nice with the IRI so that they can finally get on with the business of making money!

SECOND, this IRI jibber-jabber actually tries to sell the idea that Saddam Hussein attacked Iran "unprovoked." Literally moments after the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the mullahs were wholeheartedly engaged in fomenting a sister shiite revolution in sunni-dominated Iraq.

The IRI was hellbent on doing to Saddam Hussein what they had done so effectively to the Shah! From the get-go, the IRI was overtly involved in raiding the border towns of Iraq, instigating insurrection in shiite Basra, with the hopes of it spreading throughout Iraq.

The whole first year of the revolution, the mullahs were lampooning on their loudspeakers for the cause, necessity and purity of a SECOND Islamic revolution, this time in Iraq -- in fact, they were doing in shiite Iraq exactly what the mullahs are accusing the CIA of doing in Khuzestan, Kurdistan and Baluchestan -- and that is, fomenting minority unrest in order to destablize the central government.

Lastly, I'm always suspicious of any piece about Iran that refers to the Persian Gulf as "the Gulf." This woman uses this offensive term twice! That in and of itself makes me doubt its sincerity as a true Iranian case study.

LONG LIVE THE GLORY OF KUROSH 

Holly

I get it just fine. Iranians who want to avert war with the US think it's OK to omit all of the Islamic Repiblic's misdeeds on the international stage, and try to pretend that the IRI is only guilty of misconduct at home, against Iranians.

My problem is, I'm not Iranian. My other problem is, the administrator of this website praises such historical lies as being "balanced". I'm sorry but I can't support him in his grievances against the Islamic Republic if he's going to pretend my grievances against the Islamic Republic don't exist.

Anyway, I agree... we'll just have to leave it at that. This has been a problem so-called reformers have had for years. They don't want to admit any foreigners have good cause for being hostile towards IRI because they fear war, but at the same time they want political support from those very same foreigners against the IRI. I can't solve that dilemma for them. All I can do is try to relate to the grievances of Iranians against the IRI. But it gets pretty damn hard when (some) Iranians start bashing my country thinking that somehow serves their interests.

XPC

OK. You just don't get it. We'll leave it at that.

Seriously, though

Americans should just delete the Iraq war from history too! I think that would make everyone happy. And while we are at it we can delete the 1953 Mosadeq thing too. By the time we're done the history books will be entirely blank of American misdeeds.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c4L4CPfQY8

We're the greatest!