CHOMSKY

One more Mammad

You wrote, "The US has double standards when it comes to nuclear programs. It helps Israel, Pakistan and India, but criticizes Iran's"

This is a false statement. First, the US has only one standard: "protect its own interests and damn everyone else." Second, 30 years ago when the Shah was in power, the US didn't have any problems with Iran having nuclear technology. It was even competing with Europe to sell nuclear technology and contracts to Iran back then.

Perhaps if the IRI acted more responsibily towards the interests of the Iranian people rather than its ideology, perhaps if it could have friendly relations with all its neighbors, including Israel, perhaps if it did not arm terrorists in Lebanon, perhaps if it did not have a "death to the US" day in its calendar (rooze marg bar america), perhaps it if wouldn't want to wipe some countries off the map, and yes, perhaps if it could have good relations with the US and all other countries as well, then it could peacefully aquire nuclear technology without any fuss, just as it was doing in the previous regime.

So before you blame the US, as the IRI always does, first take a look at the IRI's own doings and blame its lack of a responsible foreign policy. Something I know you will find difficult to do.

Mammad

You wrote,

"the hardliners are criminals, but the long history of what the US has done to Iran and Iranians cannot be washed away or swept under the rug. At least people like me will never forget them. "

And here lays the problem. While countries such as India, which at one time was even colonized, or South Korea, have moved on and healed their psychological wounds, and reestablished good relations with even their past colonists, there are folks like you that just can't get over the past and constantly bring the past's poison to the present and inflict everything and everyone with it.

In the process, you keep Iran and Iranians in a state of "kineh varzi", and you fertilize feelings of hate, vengeance, helplessness, and heghaarat dar moghaabele bigaaneh.

Instead, we should move on and try to protect our today's interest and not let the wounds of the past divert us from doing this. This is what India and South Korea had done long ago.

Whether we like it or not the US is a superpower and had worldwide dominiation in many areas. What you don't understand is that instead of fighting this fact and hurting your own people, you can work with this superpower and reap much benefits for your people. Just look at Cuba and South Korea.

Mammad

The US does not want democracies, it does not care for human rights. it only wants to protect its own interests. You have not made a great discovery stating the obvious.

The same could be said about you though. You are more attached to your ideologies than to freedom and human rights. In fact, you are willing to sacrifice both freedom and human rights in favor of your ideological interests.

When people were getting killed left and right by the IRI, and others were crying "human rights", you were busy writing and posting articles that protected the "interests" of the IRI. Only when the IRI turned its brutality against your bretherns, i.e., the reformists, you began to flinch and feel the pain.

Welcome though. It is never to late to get to the right path.

What is wrong with what Chomsky says?

He says:

1. The Us is not interested in helping democracies, but only protecting and expanding its interests. If it really were, it would start with Saudi Arabia and Egypt (something that people like me have been saying for years). More generally, he says, the US foreign policy has not been designed for promoting democracy or human rights  - completely correct, in my opinion.

2. The Us enmity toward the IRI has nothing to do with violation of human rights in Iran or lack of democracy. Well, if (1) is correct, so also is this.

I add: The enmity has everything to do with the fact that the US (and Israel) want to dominate Iran and the Middle East. I say that if we wake up tomorrow and find that Iran has become a completely democratic state, but headed by an ardent and truly independent nationalist, the US will still oppose that, perhaps in more subtle ways, but still oppose it. 

3. The U.S. often hurts, rather than help, many authentic democratic movements, such as that in Iran - completely correct. Just look at Iran. Any expression of support for the Green Movement by a US official will become a stick to beat on the opposition in Iran. Why? Because the US has a long negative history in Iran, from the CIA coup of 1953, to trying to stage a coup by General Robert E. Huyser in the last days of the Shah, to supporting Iraq in its invasion of Iran, to shooting down the Iranian Airbus killing 290 innocent people, to destroying Iran's offshore oil installation in the Persian Gulf,.....

Yes, the hardliners are criminals, but the long history of what the US has done to Iran and Iranians cannot be washed away or swept under the rug. At least people like me will never forget them.

4. The US has double standards when it comes to nuclear programs. It helps Israel, Pakistan and India, but criticizes Iran's that, at least up to this point, has not even been a military program - who can deny thae double standards?

5. The example of Egypt - an "ally" or puppet of the US (depending on one's view) - attacking a convoy of humanitarian aide to the Palestinians in Gaza is truly revealiong. Where is the support for human rights here? Israel allows only 20% of all the agreed upon help to the Palestinians reaching them. Where is the protest by the U.S.?

These are all correct.

6. I add my own: Who has been the greatest winner of the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan? I say Iran's hardliners.

The Khatami administration wanted to negotiate with the US about "every issue" in April 2003, but Bush and Cheney, still drunk over the "victory" in Iraq and "mission accomplished" nonsense, did not want it. So, what happened? The US is still in Iraq and Afghanistan quagmires, is involving Pakistan in it too - a dangerous unstable nation with nuc arms - the hardliners are doing what they want in Iran, and as Ayatollah Khomeini used to say famously, "the US cannot do a damned thing."

One must be truly blind and deaf not to see these.

But, of course, those who always seek legitimacy in their attachment to some power, still hope and actually believe that the US wants democracy in Iran. Yeah right! I am also the best looking man in the world, and can sell you the Brooklyn bridge!

Mammad

"But he [khomeini] only

"But he [khomeini] only became a household name thanks to the people that followed him in Iran."

But mostly thanks to his uncanny lies and deceptive false promises he made to the people of Iran.

Response to Amir

sticking to the main point,

I don't care much either way about the "Islam debate". I think religion should be a private matter.

It's fine that you can't care which is consistent with your point of not getting bogged down about the past. But the question was do you say something about these people or do you reserve yoru criticism only for those people who speak out against the Pahlavis?

You don't care for any of it. But some of it apparently is worthy of criticizing.

"For the great majority of time since the revoution, Iranians seem too insecure to represent their own interests..." Perhaps, because those Iranians don't see their interests as you do.

I doubt that they "don't see their interests" in opposing war with Iran. I don't think you are right on this point because Iranians have in recent years begun to organize for just the kind of action that Chomsky was talking about. Just look at the number of national Iranian advocacy groups that have popped up just since 2000s and you'll know what I mean.

Khomeini had followers inside Iran, consisting largely of other clerics, seminary students, and families who were close to clerics. But he wasn't a household name either prior to the Revolution

Of course. But he only became a household name thanks to the people that followed him in Iran. Without that support base, he could not have done anything. That base was also broader than you suggest since he was a big enough fish to garner national newspaper attention and be exiled rather than "disappeared" by the Shah.

You raise an interesting point: namely, the fact that the IRI has seen the greatest exodus of Iranians in Iran's modern history

This was not the point I raised. The point I raised was that there was a big difference between 70's Iranian activists and today's immigrants. They were students, not immigrants, nor intended to stay long term and get assimilated in American society. Had they been in the US living and working, starting businesses for 30 years, it would have been fair to ask them to "act locally".

About the exodus issue. Actually *you* raise an excellent point. Iran today is very different than before the revolution. Actually the greatest exodus is that of Afghans mostly to Iran. Iran has also had a population explosion of its own. Iran itself does have a sizable exodus, as you pointed to, which goes to prove that the country these immigrants left behind has change tremendously and inevitably their ideas become outdated very fast.

Your position seems to be that Iranians in the U.S. should restrict themselves to opposing war or any kind of sanctions against IRI.

Not really my position. I just said that if you want to emulate Chomsky, you must first and foremost focus on your own government. The fact is that US can't deliver any "human rights" for Iran. And the IRI doesn't care about Iranians living in the west.

No, you don't have to "restrict" yourself to anything. We are discussing Chomsky's advice (which you stated you agree with). It's just about evaluating what you can accomplish with your actions.

Those who really believe in what they are doing and actually going inside Iran to do real activist work or joinging NGOs are of course not part of this discussion.

Whereas, the previous generation of "exiles" should restrict themselves to training with Amal in Lebanon, issuing calls for general strikes and for their followers to be willing to give their lives in the cause of Khomeini coming to power,

As I explained above, these people weren't "exiles" nor immigrants. They were mainly students with no long term interest in staying in the West. The vast majority of activist work they did was protesting against US support for the Shah.

Of course those who went to Lebanon weren't in the West. Today we have MEK members who go to Iraq as well. It's a choice, of course you can do it.

and giving interviews to Western media outlets promising the establishment of democracy in Iran,

LOL! Now the regime dissidents have their own TV stations and websites so not much has changed. The West couldn't help make any social change in Iran happen and it still can't!

They shouldn't condemn the IRI (except in very mild terms because that would just give an excyse for war or sanctions.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. Of course they can condemn anything they want. Yes, it will be used as an excuse if the West already wants to do something, but not as a cause for War/Sanctions. Smart people can tell the difference.

I never said these sentiments will be abused by the west (I believe it but it's only relevant to a small degree). The more important point is that they can't accomplish anything.

Of course Iranian people should decide for themselves what they want like they have done so many times in the past. Nobody in their right mind wants a foreign-imposed solution!

Without pressure, the IRI's leadership has for 31 years shown an openness to reform and accommodation towards its opponents.

Are you kidding me? Iran has probably had more pressure on it than any other country in the world in the past 30 years. And in spite of this counter-productive pressure, Iranians have challenged and changed the system. Ask anyone what they think of today's Iran -- even with the latest coup -- versus say, 1983. There is no comparison.

That's why all objective scholars, including Chomsky believe that external threats have hurt the democracy movement.

Response to Q

You state: "While some (very few) "focus" on the Pahlavi misdeeds, a far greater number is focused on the "misdeeds" 1500 years ago with the Islamic conquest of Iran, and what kind of "remedy" we can deploy to fix it. I hope you are equally as vocal to those Iranians." I don't care much either way about the "Islam debate". I think religion should be a private matter. Unfortunately, the IRI has seen to it that it is anything but. Which brings me to another point: IRI is the main source of Iranians' problems today. Not the only one, just the overwhelming and predominant one. That is true of most dictatorial regimes in the world.

You state: "For the great majority of time since the revoution, Iranians seem too insecure to represent their own interests..." Perhaps, because those Iranians don't see their interests as you do.

You state: "Khomeini could have done absolutely nothing had it not been for the influence he already had with the Iranian community in Iran prior to being exiled." Khomeini had followers inside Iran, consisting largely of other clerics, seminary students, and families who were close to clerics. But he wasn't a household name either prior to the Revolution (in fact, Ali Shariati's profile was somewhat higher as a regime opponent).

"Most of those revolutionary era Iranians were only here to study not "immigrate"." You raise an interesting point: namely, the fact that the IRI has seen the greatest exodus of Iranians in Iran's modern history (perhaps ever?). I believe you are part of that exodus, no? Why do you think so many more Iranians have left the country under IRI than under the Shah? Could it have something to do with the miserable state of affairs there? Or, not so much?

Your position seems to be that Iranians in the U.S. should restrict themselves to opposing war or any kind of sanctions against IRI. (Whereas, the previous generation of "exiles" should restrict themselves to training with Amal in Lebanon, issuing calls for general strikes and for their followers to be willing to give their lives in the cause of Khomeini coming to power, and giving interviews to Western media outlets promising the establishment of democracy in Iran, equal rights for women, clerics not ruling the country, etc). They shouldn't condemn the IRI (except in very mild terms) because that would just give an excyse for war or sanctions. They should just let the IRI evolve on its own, without much in the way of external pressure. Without pressure, the IRI's leadership has for 31 years shown an openness to reform and accommodation towards its opponents. Personally, I don't see much room or need for evolution: IRI is headed by the Twelfth Imam's representative pending his return. Their isn't much need for reform (other than some window dressing changes). All is well in IRI.

Amir,

Being on "this site" is no excuse. Jahanshah Javid had repeated numerous times that this site's audience is almost all Iranians who live outside the country, mainly in the US.

Even Chomsky himself is a first generation American of immigrant background (Russia). That's no excuse to focus on the actor (US) where he can be most useful.

That's why I oppose U.S. foreign policy. Far to often, it has been a force for destruction. While we are focusing on present, as opposed to past, misdeeds, perhaps we should observe that rule about Iran and worry more about the IRI than the Pahlavi regime (which fell 31 years ago).

Completely agree with focusing on the present. Unfortunately most iranians on this site don't. While some (very few) "focus" on the Pahlavi misdeeds, a far greater number is focused on the "misdeeds" 1500 years ago with the Islamic conquest of Iran, and what kind of "remedy" we can deploy to fix it. I hope you are equally as vocal to those Iranians.

But we are on Iranian.com, which means our Iranianness (mine and yours) matters to us.

No doubt it matters. As far as useful things that can be done about it however, Chomsky's principle says put your energy into things you can make a difference in: i.e. the government you live under right now.

Irish-Americans constituted a major source of funds for the IRA,

Yes, and if USA had any role whatsoever in their conflict, or was a former colonial power like the UK, you could be sure that the bulk of Iraish-American activism would be directed toward the US government. Put 5 US naval Carriers off the coast of Ireland threatening that country and you will probably see a revolution in Washington.

With Israel, where US has the most active role, you see that Jewish American establishment focuses almost 100% of their effort on US Government.

Why are Iranians different? That's a question that must be asked. For the great majority of time since the revoution, Iranians seem too insecure to represent their own interests and would rather simply make themselves feel better by yelling loudest against IRI, and let the US do whatever it wants.... and we see how much that has accomplished in 30 years.

Khomeini could have done absolutely nothing had it not been for the influence he already had with the Iranian community in Iran prior to being exiled. Second, Khomeini did very much bash Saddam Hussein and the Baathist regime of Iraq where he was living for 14 years.

Most of those revolutionary era Iranians were only here to study not "immigrate". Very few of them actually lived here and none that I know seeked American citizenship at the time. They never integrated compared to most Iranian Americans today. They and their American allies did very much focus exactly on the US government. All protest activity in the 70's was pressure on the US's support for the Shah because US had such tremendous influence on Iran. US had $billions of dollars in contracts and tens of thousands of citizens in Iran. It was training the Shah's Army and secret police. Shah was consulting with the US embassador for even the most routine decisions.

Those people were asking the US to stop enabling the Shah, and stop intefering in Iran. It was a local act.

Today, the US has no such influence in Iran, except the ability to hurt Iranians by war or sanctions, a policy that can be very much influenced by people who care about Iranians. And that's where a "local" activist would focus.

Tough talk Ostaad...ahhh, I mean military

Russia is supporting your turbaned masters further opress the masses (I mean those you think support your regime)....When do you think they'll pay for those crimes? Also, one of their ultimate goals is - and has been - access to warm water ports...Your masters are helping them get closer and closer to that goal...

And, are you naive enough to believe that since Russia is not USSR, they are any different than before?

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

Q: responses to your questions

You say: "As a matter of fact the vast majority of American intellectuals do concentrate exclusively on other countries, but not because of proportionality."---I don't agree with the dominant intellectual climate in the U.S. (but clearly it's a 100 times freer than that of the IRI and not characterized by jailing, intimidation, assassination, and execution; and there hasn't been a Cultural Revolution here as there was in Iran).  

You state: "You may have a good argument about Nazi Germany and Communist excesses... during those decades when they were happening, but what about now? Given Iraq (both sanctions and 2 wars) and Afghanistan alone, who has killed the most innocent people in the world in the past 20 years? It's not China or Russia."-- That's why I oppose U.S. foreign policy. Far to often, it has been a force for destruction. While we are focusing on present, as opposed to past, misdeeds, perhaps we should observe that rule about Iran and worry more about the IRI than the Pahlavi regime (which fell 31 years ago).

You state: "If you live in the West, which are you most responsible for, and "can do something about?" IRI or Western actions? Isn't it true that your primary moral responsiblity, as a Western resident, is to the same government to which you have democratic input?"--- Yes, it is. I didn't say it was otherwise. But we are on Iranian.com, which means our Iranianness (mine and yours) matters to us. I was born in Iran and still have relatives who live there. Many immigrants continue try to be involved, in one way or another, with the land of their birth. Just to use one example, Irish-Americans constituted a major source of funds for the IRA, despite the fact that the major waves of Irish immigration took place in the mid-19th century.

Perhaps Khomeini, Ebrahim Yazdi, Qotbzadeh, Bani Sadr, Ali Akbar Velayati, Massoumeh Ebtekar, Marandi (Father & Son), Mostafa Chamran, Mohammad Boroujerd, and all those other revolutionary "exiles" who lived outside Iran should also have focused more on local politics in France, Iraq, the U.S., Lebanon, etc and butted out of Iranian politics. What do you think?

Russia is not the Soviet Union

I find it interesting that the IRI's supporters are quick to bring up
U.S. misdeeds against Iran, but seem to suffer from amnesia regarding
the misdeeds of one of IRI's closest international patrons, i.e. Russia.

Nothing is forgotton about Russia! But you are missing a small detail. It was not Russia that committed the crimes you refer to rather the demised Soviet Union which has shrunk misreably from the communist times as the second power in the world.

Soviet Union paid for its misdeeds, however, that is not the case for the US ! 

Unfortunately, as they say "what goes around, comes around". For the US it is a matter of time not IF!!

Interesting Amir, now a question for you:

First,

If it were, then American intellectuals should focus on the misdeeds of Nazi Germany, USSR, and Communist China to the exclusion of everything else, for those states' crimes far exceed those of the American Empire, no?

As a matter of fact the vast majority of American intellectuals do concentrate exclusively on other countries, but not because of proportionality.

You may have a good argument about Nazi Germany and Communist excesses... during those decades when they were happening, but what about now? Given Iraq (both sanctions and 2 wars) and Afghanistan alone, who has killed the most innocent people in the world in the past 20 years? It's not China or Russia.

Yes, I'm aware of that quote and now, I have a question for you personally:

If you live in the West, which are you most responsible for, and "can do something about?" IRI or Western actions? Isn't it true that your primary moral responsiblity, as a Western resident, is to the same government to which you have democratic input?

I understand your call for an "Iranian Chomsky," which has to come from inside Iran and people like Ebadi and the late Montazeri are good candidates for this.

So why do YOU and many people on this site, do the exact opposite of what Chomsky practices and concentrate on Iran when they don't live there?

Q

This interview is posted on Iranian.com, not Monthly Review, Z Magazine, Electronic Intifada, etc. Since we are on Iranian.com, I felt it relevant to touch on the subject of IRI and Iranians (I said: "where is the Iranian Chomsky?). I also understand the importance of proportionality; however, it is not the sole consideration either. If it were, then American intellectuals should focus on the misdeeds of Nazi Germany, USSR, and Communist China to the exclusion of everything else, for those states' crimes far exceed those of the American Empire, no? I disagree with almost all of America's foreign and domestic policies. Does that make me "anti-American"? I also recognize that the U.S. (with all its many problems) is fundamentally a freer and more decent place to live than the IRI. Why is the term "anti-Iran" being thrown around so easily on Iranian.com for those opposed to the most violent and repressive regime in Iran's recent history?

Here's a quote from an interview with Chomsky: "Anti-Americanism is a pure totalitarian concept," he retorts. "The very notion is idiotic. Of course you don't deny other crimes, but your primary moral responsibility is for your own actions, which you can do something about. It's the same charge which was made in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, when he demanded of the prophet Elijah: why are you a hater of Israel? He was identifying himself with society and criticism of the state with criticism of society."

Chomsky is an idiot

For commenting on something he has no clue about.   Over the past years - whatever comments this baboon has made on Iran have been pro IR and anti Iran.    Just check out some of the members praising him !! loool

Dear M. Hojat - please be very careful about rethorics that on the surface look humanistic - but in fact follow interests of whomever taht are willing to pay these leftists.    That is how we lost Iran in 1978.  

Amir, I'll show you where:

I find it interesting that the IRI's supporters are quick to bring up U.S. misdeeds against Iran, but seem to suffer from amnesia regarding the misdeeds of one of IRI's closest international patrons, i.e. Russia.

Who in this page is jumping on the US misdeeds? Chomsky spends 75% of the interview on it. Why else would your comment be relevant to this discussion?

Its great that you have actually read chomsky, but perhaps you should read some more. He has and does criticize other governments when appropriate. For example when he went to Canada he called Lester B. Pearson a war criminal much to the anger of Canadians who were there hoping to hear anti-US rhetoric.

You forget one important detail about US criticism. US has the biggest military and engeged in some of the biggest, world-changing international crimes affecting millions of people worldwide. Other governments like Iran's may have done some terrible things, but Chomsky understands proportionality (unlike most anti-Iran commentators).

ماشاله ماشاله ، ماشاله

ماشاله ماشاله ، ماشاله

ماشاله به چومسکی ، ماشاله

ماشاله به فکرهاش ، ماشاله

ماشاله به حرفهاش ، ماشاله

ماشاله کتابهاش ، ماشاله

ماشاله به بحثهاش ، ماشاله

ماشاله ماشاله ، ماشاله

Big time Hypocricy

This socialist anarchist ignoramus has no idea what he is talking about. Just look at his supporters. It explains it all. 

Chomsky and hypocrisy

Is Chomsky a hypocrite? Let's see. This is an extract from an article co-authored by Chomsky back in April 2007: What if Iran had invaded Mexico? In the first paragraph Chomsky cautiously supports promotion of democracy in Iran and nominates his favorite candidates for the job:

Democracy promotion at home is certainly feasible and, although
we cannot carry out such a project directly in Iran, we could
act to improve the prospects of the courageous reformers and oppositionists
who are seeking to achieve just that. Among such figures who are,
or should be, well-known, would be Saeed
Hajjarian, Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, and Akbar
Ganji, as well as those who, as usual, remain nameless, among
them labor activists about whom we hear very little; those who
publish the Iranian Workers Bulletin may be a case in point.

Next he says how to do the job and attacks those "idealist" supporters of democracy whose past records show their hatred of democracy:

We can best
improve the prospects for democracy promotion in Iran by sharply
reversing state policy here so that it reflects popular opinion.
That would entail ceasing to make the regular threats that are a
gift to Iranian hardliners. These are bitterly condemned by Iranians
truly concerned with democracy promotion (unlike those "supporters"
who flaunt democracy slogans in the West and are lauded as grand
"idealists" despite their clear record of visceral hatred for democracy).

//www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt27...

Excuse me? did I hear Hajjarian, Ganji and Ebadi? And did I hear Chomsky condemning those democracy seeking idealists with past hatred of demcoracy? Weren't Hajjarian and  Ganji ardent supporters of Islamic regime and actively working in the intelligence organs of the regime suppressing calls for more freedom but later turned reformist? Ebadi was obviously not involved in the crimes that Hajjarian and Ganji were but she was, and still is, a supporter of Khatami which makes her guilty by association.

Is Chomsky, Mr Hypocrisy?

Q: you're clutching a straws

Where did I call Chomsky an IRI supporter (show me where). I was speaking about IRI supporters who are Iranian NOT Chomsky. I've even bought a couple Chomsky books for friends of mine to read ("Failed States" and "Fateful Triangle").  Here's my previous post: 

"I have read numerous books, articles, and interviews of Chomsky's, and in some regards would even consider myself an "admirer" of his. One of his recurring themes is that Americans should focus primarily on the behavior of the U.S. government before criticizing the actions of foreign governments. But, where is the Iranian Chomsky to condemn the IRI for its staggering hypocrisy of criticizing Israel or the U.S., all the while that it has been denying its own citizens of even the most basic human rights for over 3 decades now? Of course, the IRI would never allow such a critic to live within its borders. And Iranians living abroad who condemn the IRI are denounced as "exiles", etc. It would seem that the current Iranian regime would quash any Iranian Chomsky's and never let them see the light of day. That's unfortunate, because I think Iran could benefit from a healthy dose of self-criticism."

Amir1973, Chomsky is an IRI supporter?

Thanks -yet again- for making your absurdity clear for all to see.

USA; Russ

US was instrumental in helping Iran regaining Azerbayjan after WWII. Have you forgotten USSR occupied. It was only after threats by the UA that Soviets "agreed" to withdraw. So IRR supporters keep bad mouthing  the US and praising Russia! No wonder you have so little credibility with Iranians who are free to speak their mind .

I find it interesting...

I find it interesting that the IRI's supporters are quick to bring up U.S. misdeeds against Iran, but seem to suffer from amnesia regarding the misdeeds of one of IRI's closest international patrons, i.e. Russia. It's fair to say that no country has violated Iranian sovereignty so much in the country's recent history (including a number of invasions, occupations, and territorial ambitions). Moreover, the USSR (along with France) was the number one supplier of weaponry to Saddam during the war.

Sure,America does not care

Sure,America does not care about Human right's abuses in Iran,at all.Or the West.Whatever,Believe what you want,hear the notes you want,I really don't care if you all go crazy.I can feel the hate coming off the keyboard..But what puzzles me is I still can't figure why some human beings would waste their lives living in country's they hate.I don't really care,it's their problem,waste your own lives.It's kinda like stabbing yourself over and over,makes no sense.And 10 years from now,I could probably come here and read the same things,you'll still be in the same stagnation.You're most likely going to die, hating America and the West,while spending your life living in it.
I guess I'm fortunate,I'm American and I love America and I know America act's in own interest.Every country does,what kind of genius does it take to figure that out? But How you twist that into making it so America does not care about Human right's is your own call.
I think it's a stretch like you stretch Noam's words.

And that couldn't be more wrong.In fact,Right now the sympathy for the people of Iran is the only thing that's make's American's even give half a crap about Iranian's.Personally,That's the truth,from an American.Now I've got over 120 personal friends just on my facebook,and those are just the ones that have a facebook,they are all close friends and Americans I know in person,hang out with.I don't just make friends with anybody on there.And believe me,none of them care about Iran except they feel sorry for the people.That's the extent of their caring about Iran besides thinking the leaders are whacko nut jobs.And no,they are not stupid,they just don't care,why should they? It truly is,their own interest.They are having their own lives.In a country they love..I guess I feel sorry for you,you're here and you don't have that.You have to live,in a country you hate..
 I don't come here to have arguments, I come here to tell you how it is from an American perspective and meet alot of resistance.Well I don't make these things up,I'm doing you a favor and trying to help you,mentally understand Americans.Because nothing is going to change things,if you don't accept the way things are,you will live out your life,in hate.I don't wish for that.
If you really are in America and are a Iranian/American,you know when you go out in the streets,you know people are having their lives and it does not involve Tehran.The protestors entered their lives with their message and this is all you think of American's reaction? I think it's very in-sincere.Of course those people care and Obama cares.
But What did you expect people to do? There is not alot we can do and if we did,you would be the first ones to criticize it most likely anyway.So sorry but it doesn't mean we don't care,this is uncalled for B.S. and most of all what you should realize is that it is not reality...I guess you won't know until you actually get out there and meet American's for yourself,besides reading about them.

Thank you Mr Chomsky!

Excellent interview, thank you for posting.  I hope this will act as an eye-opener for those who have misplaced their hope for democracy and human rights in Iran on the US's concern and love for democracy!!   The example of Obama's refusal to criticize human rights abuse and dictatorship in Egypt on his recent visit there is enlightening.  There is indeed a thin line to tread by those who act out of genuine love and concern for the people of Iran, whom do not include the likes of Mr Sazegara, the visiting fellow of the Bush Institute for Democracy!!!

//georgewbushinstitute.com/2010/02/04/iranian-dissident-mohsen-sazegara-joins-bush-institute-as-visiting-fellow/ 

Thanks Noam!

for showing us ugly & criminal face of US government & his intentions in meddling in IRAN & Iranians lives. We as Iranian American must remember that US government only think about his interests even sometimes American people are being victemized by their own government.

Bijan jan

it is not Chomsky's job to predict future of Iran or anywere else for that matter. He is a sociopolitical historian/analyst and a very good one at that, since he tells you the facts without the rhetoric.

It is the Iranian people's duty to lead Iran into the future and Chomsky is exactly saying that. Don't beat the courier boy, read the message, take heed and as an Iranian promote peace in Iran and for Iranians without polarising your own people.

Salamati

Ahmed from Bahrain

Chomsky beautiful Chomsky - Thank you Farid

Dear Amir1973

Here is the "Iranian Chomsky"

There are many Iranian Chomskys admirers and followers.

Mr. ELS

Then, We'll remember where we took off, when we meet again.

Have a good, and peaceful time.

Thank you

Pandar Neek Jan,

This is becoming off topic a bit. I will address your questions under another blog if I may!

Mr.ELS

My point exactly, I don't have a high opinion about armchair revolutionaries either. But again I don't try to shove them all into one shelf. You see, mixing friends is fine, after all they are all friends; but as for enemies you have to try to separate them, sort them into different categories, and so forth. Don't you really sometimes want to hurt all those who have different ideas from you, Mr.ELS? Sometimes I detect too much anger coming out of you, as if you don't like people very much. Why don't you talk about those hidden feelings? Any thing in the past which bothers you. Let's forget the Shah and the mullahs for a moment; I bet even if the Shah were still in power you would have found another reason to be still so agitated a person.
Thank you