Misc

free....

I could not agree with you more......akhoond khomeini should have been taken care of 50 years ago....too bad

Abarmard writes:

"US has not until now change its foreign policy."

Indeed the US has changed its foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran. Just a few years ago, it was technically "regime-change." That is no longer the explicit US foreign policy as per Iran. That's a huge change. But do the mullahs recognize this tectonic shift? Of course not, because they have to carry on their Machiavelian, tried and true, conflic/crisis game in order to survive.  As I've written earlier, anti-Americanism is in their DNA. 

If they didn't manipulate each and every single crisis that comes their way, they would have to actually explain their massive incompetence (in running the economy), not to mention their unprecedented theivery.

And mind you, Fatollah,

Abbas Milani spent time in prison for his Marxist affiliations back in the late 1970's, and today, his views have indeed gone through a remarkable, dramatic transformation, even praising the Shah on occasion.

Almost reminds me of Parviz Nikhah, who was a revolutionary Marxist himself, whose group tried to assasinate the Shah, even storming the palace with an ensuing shoot-out. Nikhah was NOT executed by the Shah, even though his group had tried to kill the head of state. Just imagine what Saddam Hussein (or Khomeini) would have done to someone like Parviz Nikhah and his entire family after a failed assasination attempt.

Nikhah spent all of 4 years in prison -- his sentence was commuted by the Shah (an unbelievable act of forgiveness), and while in prison, he did a lot of reading and had a complete change of heart vis-a-vis the monarch, so much so, that later on when he got out of prison, he was appointed as the head of Iranian Radio/Television, a very high post within the regime, to be sure.

And it's ironical that it would turn out to be akhund Khomeini who would in the end execute Parviz Nikhah in 1979, and not the Shah, even though Nikhah had, in his own right, tried to destroy the monarchy several years earlier. The Shah could forgive Nikhah for trying to take his life, but akhund Khomeini could not forgive Nikhah's change of heart.

For all of the massive revolutionary misinformation out there to this day, the Shah was truly a very decent man, too decent if you ask me, but then again, if it was up to me, I would've carpet bombed the entire city of Qom in 1963, the first time Khomeini tried to implement his sadistic plans for Iran.

Thanks for the reply DK

I've not read the book yet! I will do so since you recommend it. :) Yes, you are right, Shah was instrumental and perhaps without him there would be no Camp David accord, an unsung architect as you put it. But, ofcourse Jimmy can take all the credit. The Shah, according to Alam's memoirs developed respect towards Sadat after an Islamic summit, don't remember the year. In this summit Sadat remained silent when Shah verbally reprimanded Egypt while Nasser was alive and kicking, in later years Shah understood that he could create distance between Egypt and the Sovjets. Shah was also instrumental in, giving advice to the Americans in order to stop Israeli drive towards Suez and Kairo during Yom Kippour war [], Iran had also assisted Egypt financially and indirectly by leting the Sovjets assist Egypt using Iran's air-space to deliver hardware. Add his Oil policies on top of that - No wonder they - "barash khat o neshon kishide bodan"

It is also important to notice, Shah kept Iran out of Arab Israeli conflict and pursued Iran's own national interests. Ofourse, he was a politician and helped PLO financially from time to time as long as they were obedient and respectful! By 1975, Iran had sorted out her differnces with all of her former enemies in Persian Gulf and else where. As for Israel, I don't think they liked these policies of Iranian King! 

When someone like Dr. Abbas Milani review history through new glasses. His haters won't even acknowledge Dr. A. Milani and the former King's achievements regardsless.

With regrads -F

Obama

has written 3 warm, personal letters to mullah Khamenei, hoping against hope for dialogue and negotiations only to get insults in return from Ahmadinejad (calling Obama an "amateur"). He's referred to Iran as "Islamic Republic" many times, showing the bankrupt leadership in Tehran respect.

Abarmard, you obviously have some sort of an agenda, you can't be this blatantly naive. The IRI is hellbent on confrontation, at the least hoping for strikes against its targets in Natanz in order to crush its opposition at home, in the name of national security. The IRI fears its people more than it fears Israel or Obama. And mere strikes would give the IRI amunition to recruit soldiers across the middle-east in their anti-Iranian fight against the "zionist" boogeyman. They love to play the victim card, as Arafat did so skillfully for 35 years, and Israeli strikes would give the IRI just that! Another 30 years of crisis manipulation abroad and oppression at home.

The IRI m.o. is so predictable, it's wholesale.

Jahanshah Javid

Offer the compromising solution then we can debate if they are interested or not. Besides the fact that everyone can hold their own political views, US has not until now change its foreign policy that is anti the Islamic Republic.

US in one hand talks about Iran being aggressive against the US, and on the other pushes for more sanctions. it's not the issue of chicken or egg here. US is working hard to break Iran. So what does one expect Iran to do? What compromise are we speaking about when the political environment set by US is as it is today?

Fatollah Ditto Thanks ( watch Sadat on Khomeinism) ;0)

Yes You are right. The Six Day War was in 67 and Yom Kippour if I am not mistaken in 73. Although Sadat as you may know was in Nasser's government also. By the 70's and after Nasser's Death, Sadat was distancing himself from the Soviets and the Shah played a crucial role in convincing Sadat to Join the Free World rather than stay in the Soviet Sphere of Influence.

President Sadat talking about Islam & Khomeini :

You should read Those Who I have Known which is a great read. Not without it's share of biaised views by Sadate for example when he claims that Khomeiny started the War and Not Saddam ...  

The Book was written in the early 1980's and obviously like all politicians even Sadat indulged in "Langue De Bois" when Egypt's Relations and strategic interests with the Arab World were at Stake. And Iran at the time Wanted to export it's revolution. 

But overall it is a sincere account and has some Very interesting insights on his relation with the Shah.

It's available on amazon.com if you look for it. 

DK

 you meant during the Yom Kipur war in 73. Egypt was lead by Nasser during Six day war ...

IRI not interested

Abarmard, as you know I am against war and sanctions that would hurt ordinary Iranians. I am also a NIAC fan.

However, it is abundantly clear that the Islamic Republic in not interested in ANY compromise solution to the nuclear crisis. They think they can continue their policies and ridicule the international community. IRI loves confrontation. They're asking for it. They are far from innocent.

Iran has been willing to make relations

If according to some Iran enjoys isolation, shouldn't the "opposition" promote negotiations and anti sanctions?

NIAC does that and Leverett promote that also. 

If we wait long enough, you'll see that you are debating against yourself. The reason for that is because the US/Washington based information that many tend to follow is as credible as Kayhan in Iran. 

wow just read email between Trita and Leveretts

I dont know how anyone can be supportive of NIAC knowing Tritas interactions with the Leveretts.

 I did not know they knew each other til the email.

Regime survival

This regime knows that anti American rethorics and isolation of the country and its people from the outside world are the keys to their survival. As long as these regime and their Revolutionary thugs are on power, khafaghan, islolation will be upon the Iranians. If majority of Iranian could surf the internet and become aware of the outside world, they would realize that what a hell they living in.

Abrarmard,

are you intentionally trying to sound obtuse? Did you read my comment below about the IRI being a "revolutionary cause" and not a true country? Did you read where I wrote that the foundation of the IRI is anti-Americanism ("Great Satan"), and there will be no better relations with Iran so long as Iran is in "cause" mode?

Please feel free to read.

What does democracy has to do with US-Iran relation?

That's where my Cuban example works best.

US relation has only helped empowering people living in authoritarian systems. The goal should not be a regime change but bettering life for Iranians. If Iranians are not happy, Iranians will react. As mentioned many times, Cuban American think similar and look what they have done to their own country from their lack of collective reasoning. Imagine same Cuba with much more money!

In an eye blink fifty years will pass and Iranian American just like Cuban American will only gain a poorer country if they don't support better Iran-Us relations with united demand for lifting the sanctions. Similar to Cuban, Iranian American will hope that "Iranian isolation" will bend the knees of the government. 

Why not learn from similar scenarios? 

MM

"because democracy may escape Iran's future if a deal is made."  

I couldn't have said it better. And I know, it was the Leverett's who made the asinine reference to Sadat, not you. It's a joke. Say anyting you want, but Sadat was a legitimate statesman. There's nothing legitimate about these Qomi rapists running Iran.

To compare Khamenei/Ahmaghjad to Sadat is so patently self-serving, whacked really, as to be insulting, not just to Sadat, but to average intelligence worldwide. And this creampuff tool Charlie Rose just sat there listening to this nonsense as if he was enamored, pleasantly surprised really, by their outside-the-box, renegade "intellect."

What a baffoon!

Free

I do not have a case here.  I do not prescribe to the Leverretts line of work/thinking and I certainly do not care for the current regime in Iran.

What I said was "here is what the Leverretts are thinking about, based on their writings, their website and their interviews".  Their arguments for a peace deal with AN/VF is the main reason the Leverretts are be-littling the opposition movement in Iran.  Unfortunately, when you do the kind of wholesale thinking as these bozos, you (not you literally) do not care if the MKO, Saddam or AN is running Iran, and all you care about is the overall deal.  The examples of deals with Egypt and China are quotes from the Leverretts' own words.

This embedded interview made it very clear, for me, what the Leverretts' intentions are, and I do not freaking like it because democracy may escape Iran's future if a deal is made.   You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Sanctions Ultimate Goal

Clearly sanctions on IRGC operated biz is not beneficial to its insiders, the regime and yes even some lay Iranians who are beneficiaries of their outreach and subsidy programs.

The fact sanctions will be beneficial is obviously not equivalent to IRGC and the regime crumbling, but one can not suggest that taking a good % of revenue out of the pockets of IRGC will leave IRGC as if nothing had been taken out!  Or for that matter the institution itself and the regime will be as strong as nothing had been done.

As far as the effects of sanctions on other Iranians. Again like everything in life its a question of give and take.  If Iranians truly want to get to a point where they don't have an absolute rule sent by god ruling over them, and is not putting as much focus as he should be in addressing their everyday needs then they need to show some sacrifice.  The old khoda and khorma dilemma. 

You can't say I don't want to go out and revolt, I don't want to have sanctions imposed on us, and I don't want any country supposedly liberating us and yet somehow expect this regime to change its way both internally (as related to Iranians inside Iran) and externally (as related to other countries w/ vested interests in the region) by just our good WISHES! In my opinion in the context of Iran's long history Iranians will also endure any sanctions - the question will be will be whether so will the Hokomat Eslami? 

Q Has Diplomatic Immunity on Iranian.com so Might as well

take my precautions ... LOL

And Guess who masterminded Sadat's Rapproachment with Israel ?

//iranian.com/main/blog/tapesh/shah-iran-anwar-sadat

The Shah not only helped Egypt (although smartly remaining Politically neutral in regard to the conflict) during the Six Day war against Israel by delivering Free Oil to Sadat's Egypt when all the arab sheiks and even Lybia's Quaddafi turned their backs on Sadat.

The Egyptian Sphinx and the Persian Lion:

pictory: (SURPRISE) Shah and Sadat Pro Palestine Statement (1975)

This reinforced the Trust between the two Statesmen and Sadat never forgot the Shah's generous gesture which explains why he staunchly supported the dying monarch when he fell from power.

The Shah was actually the unsung architect of the Camp David Accords for which Carter, Begin and Sadat recieved the Nobel Peace Prize of 1977. Prior to this historic meeting Sadat had been to Iran to seek advice from the Shah:

Go to 28 minutes to see this meeting~in this French Report at the time ( Actually dates from 1977 not 1978 as suggested in the title) :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHn_FCi95j0

Recommended Reading:

A Queen's Loyalty! by Darius KADIVAR

Recommended Book:

Those I Have Known by Anwar Sadat

Trigger Happy Q Flagged me again ? ;0)

I did not know I could not call public figures like the Leverettes Olagh and explaining why though historical references was a crime ? ...

Q Q BANG BANG !

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL8Uv7gsVwQ

Leverettes are disappinting here

I'm sadly disappointed by their wholesale dismissal of the Green Movement. I thought highly of them for a long time and I still think they are more realistic than most Government insiders about Iran.

But It looks like, they too have been driven to extremism probbaly in horrified reaction to the extremism of the (fossil) Iranian exiles.

I will write an article about this interview. There is a lot that needs to be said.

"hezi" is an Israeli slang for Lebanese Hezbollah

Free jan, don't give yourself away so fast, make it a challenge next time, OK? I'm really bored.

No Iranian uses "hezi". That's indicative of someone deeply involved in pro-Israel rallys, forums and causes in North America. Your jumpy reaction to "AIPAC", and your laughably obvious fury at these Jewish Americans is very telling. Lastly, Your claim "CIA doesn't necessarily represent the interests of USA", is literally a written pro-Israel talking point by Israel-firsters in the US.

Yawn...

You and Fred need to come up with a new game plan, this one is up.

regards.

What an Olagh ...Hillary Leverette's Take on Sadat ;0)

And Guess who masterminded Sadat's Rapproachment with Israel ?

//iranian.com/main/blog/tapesh/shah-iran-anwar-sadat

The Shah not only helped Egypt (although smartly remaining Politically neutral in regard to the conflict) during the Six Day war against Israel by delivering Free Oil to Sadat's Egypt when all the arab sheiks and even Lybia's Quaddafi turned their backs on Sadat.

The Egyptian Sphinx and the Persian Lion:

pictory: (SURPRISE) Shah and Sadat Pro Palestine Statement (1975)

This reinforced the Trust between the two Statesmen and Sadat never forgot the Shah's generous gesture which explains why he staunchly supported the dying monarch when he fell from power.

The Shah was actually the unsung architect of the Camp David Accords for which Carter, Begin and Sadat recieved the Nobel Peace Prize of 1977. Prior to this historic meeting Sadat had been to Iran to seek advice from the Shah:

Go to 28 minutes to see this meeting~in this French Report at the time ( Actually dates from 1977 not 1978 as suggested in the title) :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHn_FCi95j0

Recommended Reading:

A Queen's Loyalty! by Darius KADIVAR

Recommended Book:

Those I Have Known by Anwar Sadat  

Lastly,

This is why the phony Leveretts make absolutely no sense, because the IRI and the nature of the Sadat government are completely different -- it's not even apples and oranges, it's apples and assholes.

Sadat did not rule over a revolutionary regime, Ahmadinejad does. As such, the comparison to Sadat is such an intellectually dishonest comparsion, it's laughable. Only amateurs would fall for this equation. 

The IRI can be compared to North Korea, perhaps even Cuba, in this limited sense, in that, they, too, experienced a revolution and are still in quasi "cause" mode, but not Egypt's Sadat, no way. The allusion to Sadat is so flawed as to be intentionally misleading.

Let's be honest here, the Leveretts, as "energy" consultants for big oil companies, want this regime in power, not because the US can come to terms with Iran, but because the IRI is fabulously good for business.

Oil prices have never been higher. In fact, that's the IRI's true life insurance policy. The day that the IRI's policies start jeapordizing rising oil prices is the day that the mullahs will be in trouble. Then, and only then, the whores who we all know as Leveretts, will abandon the notion of dealing with the IRI as quasi-responsible parties, and push for their speedy destruction.  

MM

What you fail to calculate in your "case" is the fact that anti-Israel and anti-Americanism are the main pillars of the IRI. The "great Satan" and the "Little Satan" are the fuel that drive this revolutionary regime. They cannot, and will not, make a deal with America and America Jr. (Israel) as per Sadat, because if they did make a deal, the IRI would be dead, finished.

That's the whole reason why the elections were rigged. The Ahmadinejad cabal knew that if Rafsanjani's man was elected, i.e., Moussavi, then, as savvy businessmen, they would "unclench" their fists and reach across the table and shake Obama's hand.

That would be the end of revolutionary Iran.

You see, for 3o years, Iran has not been a real country. We have been a revolutionary "cause" (to export the Islamic revolution). Most countries that experience a revolution settle down in a few years and behave like a responsible country again, but Iran has yet to settle down after 30 years. We're still in "cause" mode, which woud in fact have come to an end with a pacifist president in the White House, who wanted nothing more than to negotiate without preconditions, and a reformist president in Iran.

The political climate was perfect, ideal for truce.

Clinton tried in 1999 to shake Khatami's hand at the UN and Khatami knew that the news of the handshaking with America would reach Iran, so he hid in the UN bathroom for 45 minutes with Clinton waiting around to shake his hand. It never happened. It was the final year of Clinton's presidency and Khatami was not about to forge any kind of a deal with a lame-duck president.

Anti-Americanism is the foundation, the bedrock of the IRI -- it is their raison d'etre. They (the Revolutionary Guards who are now the real power in Iran) cannot make friends with America and still maintain their revolutionary cause, because their cause requires an antagonistic relationship with America (and Israel). They need this enemy, this Great Satan, in order to survive.

Khamenei made this very calculation before the election, which is why they risked their entire existence, including the chaos that followed, because in their twisted calculations, a rapproachment with the US would be even worse -- the slow, but certain death -- of the hard-line Revolutionary Guards and their imperialisitc agenda. So, they rigged the elections and braved through the "temporary" messy results of a fraudulent election.

push everyone to make a deal with the devil that we know

You all are making it too complicated.  Leverretts logic is very simple-minded, and here it is again,

The Leverretts do not care what type of government IRI is running in Iran and do not give a hoot about Iranians.  The Leverretts thinking is strategic for the sake of Israel and US foreign policies similar to China-US (Nixon's trip) or Israel-Egypt peace (Carter at camp David) deals made before.   The Leverretts think that a lot of anti-holocaust, anti-US rhetoric of AN is for Muslim consumption and deep down, AN/VF want a deal.

While not agreeing with their thinking, for the sake of all Iranian suffering, I believe that they are arguing that similarly, Sadat was also anti-Israel and anti-US, but with the right type of negotiations, Egypt was persuaded to accept Israel and make peace with US and Israel. 

There is peace between US-China and Israel-Egypt, but is there democracy is China or Egypt???  I rest my case.   

Agree to disagree

Go ahead with your Cuba analysis and cut and paste it under the banner of Iran. Lastly, I will just point to this sentence which smacks of the wrong approach, the approach which I might add, is the preferred one in Qom. You write, "Iranians do not need any help, what they need is open trade." This is sad, indeed. You sound like you've been schooled by the tretcherous Leveretts. 

And by the way, Obama has "unclenched" his fist (he has written 3 private letters to Khamenei), he has bent over backwards trying to engage, it's the mullahs who want no part of an "engagement," because anti-Americanism is the bedrock of their existence, their raison d'etre. You take "anti-Americanism" away from the mullahs, their reason to exist goes out the window.

At the end of the day, everything must be done, including surgical strikes, to NOT allow the mullahs to get nukes. If you think they're porroo now with no nukes, just wait 'til they get their hands on Nukes. Not only will they be more belligerant, but the next thing you know all the neighboring Arab countries will want nukes too. That's the last thing we need for Iran and Iranians, to be surrounded by nuclear Arab nations. Can you just imagine if Saddam Hussein had nukes in the summer of 1982 when Iran was kicking the Iraqi's butts on the battlefields of Korramshahr?

There's always another Saddam on the horizon, let's just hope he won't be equipped with nukes. That day is coming and coming fast if the mullahs get nukes.  

Free

Iran is Iran. Iran has been under sanctions for 30 years. Iranians that came out, were not the poor class Iranians, but upper class. Meaning you empower Iranians you get better results. Where is that logic to say that isolating a country will be beneficial. Do I need to repeat the last two comments. I don't believe that we are communicating correctly.

It's clear that there are two forces, which are two possible thoughts about Iran in a form of a policy. I am not the one who is making these choices, these are the choices that are being preached to the senate's foreign policy committee. Mostly the more powerful ideology is based on pro Israeli, which translates to preemptive strike. Many of hard core Republicans are now admitting to that policy openly. So it's our job, as Iranians, to join political bodies that can fight against war with Iran.

There are no possible ways to have a smart sanctions/surgical strike with Iran. Best policy is engagement policy to let the Iranian nation do their own work. Iranians do not need any help, what they need is open trade. Lift sanctions today and let Iran grow.  

Abarmard,

Man, are you a front for NIAC? And again, how could you say it's a choice between these guys and AIPAC? Why do people like you always reduce the debate to the lowest common denominator? You're starting to sound like a closet hezi, like Captain Ayhab. Do you have an agenda? Seriously, you're playing games here. On the one hand you talk about "empowering" the people of Iran, but then you basically say hands off the rapist regime.

What are your plans specifically, or do you think it's okay for the IRI to have nukes? Do you think it's okay for a rapist, perverted theocracy to have hegemony in the middle-east? Or do you hate the Jews more than the mullahs? Do you hate AIPAC more than the IRI? That seems to be your stance, as if that's all the choices we have!

Abarmard and vosough,

Abarmard, I don't understand your logic: why do the choices have to be so stark. Why does it have to be between isolation and/or war. That's what people who think like you say in order to justify the Leverett's depraved analysis.

Iran is no Cuba, Iran is no Iraq, and Iran is no other country. Stop these lame compare and contrasting games. Iran is Iran, with its own very unique culture/society/history. If America was serious about punishing this regime, or god fobid, help Iranians change it altogether, it could happen quite effectively without war. However, I'm quite certain that it won't happen through the UN, so I think Vosough is dead wrong about this. The Russians, and specially the Chinese, have already made it clear that they will not support tough sanctions, which means nothing will happen AGAIN and whatever "sanctions" we end up getting will not change anything.

America needs to stop the UN shell game and just join alliances with European countries, which do millions of dollars in trade with Iran and implement a meaningful set of sanctions, without China and Russia. America and European sanctions alone is much more than enough.

Without European trade, the IRI would suffer irreparably. This is a fact. It's high time that Obama joined forces with a handful of European countries and said to hell with China and Russia and imposed serious sanctions on the IRI, including possibly a gasoline sanction. This would cripple the Iranian economy and the mullahs would either cave in or there would be revolt.

This is why the Cuban analogy doesn't work. The crippling effect of sanctions on Cuba plus the heavy hand of the Castro regime has produced a docile nation. Iranians are not a docile sort, not these days. Moreover, Cuba, much like North Korea, is a perversly closed society. There is no trafficking of ideas, via the internet, no viable opposition movement, no real threat from within, no trade with the west. Information, including western goods, will travel within Iran and reach every corner of the country, and its lack thereof, will have a net effect, something that cannot be said about Cuba and North Korea.

The west, if they're honest about democracy and freedom in Iran, should also send very loud and positve signals, as in the case of Poland, with its Solidarity movement in 1981, and let it be known to the people of Iran that the great democracies of the world stand with the people of Iran. That's the one thing that bothered me about Obama's reaction to the June elections. Never did he once mention the word "freedom," not once. It was always about "justice" (regarding fair elections, I assume) or some other vague terms, never freedom.

The millions who poured out in June -- yes, there were millions -- are ready for change, not just superficial change, but wholesale change. This is not about war and it's not about isolation, none of which will happen if the free world is serious about doing something meaningful in Iran. In the final analysis, it's about doing the right thing, which somehow escapes the Leverett's analysis rather easily. Ultimately, and history will judge, whether the free peoples of the world sided with tyranny or freedom in Iran?

statira, and vosough

First: Vosough, sanctions will not work, at least from the point of what most Iranians desire as a good outcome. In this case I will not agree with you, but hope that we can discuss this later.

Statira, you are speaking from US position, which is understood, but I was speaking to Iranian Americans who support sanctions. 

From US based, for now, we need to unite for one purpose: Empowering Iranian people. Our goal should be to empower Iranians, and support those policies that do just that. Not to advertise, but NIAC is the only organization that has stood clear against sanctions and against Iranian isolation. back to my previous comment questions! You do have a choice.If Iranians don't do what Cubans are doing, Iranians will benefit greatly, and opposite is also true. Keep going what we have been doing or change and learn from our mistakes. These guys or AIPAC, take your pick.