The Hoopla, The Hope

Panel discussion on Iran's nuclear crisis

by Nazy Kaviani
Panel discussion on "The History of Iran's Nuclear Issue: Fears and Hopes," sponsored by UC Berkeley’s Iranian Students Alliance in America, with Dr. Maziar Behrooz, Assistant Professor of History at San Francisco State University, Dr. Muhammad Sahimi, Professor of Chemical Engineering at University of Southern California, and Reza Fani-Yazdi, human rights activist and former political prisoner.

Recently by Nazy KavianiCommentsDate
Nov 22, 2012
Dark & Cold
Sep 14, 2012
Talking Walls
Sep 07, 2012
more from Nazy Kaviani
Tiger Lily

For the decrepid cretins, once and for all

by Tiger Lily on

The IRI's criminal atrocities are at best expressed a 'foregone conclusion' and another subject entirely, and to be  tackled differently.*

An aggression of unnecessary war without legitimate grounds, is of upmost importance to take a stance for or against and not only, because everyone's voices are more effective within local politics.


Now before you cretins jump up and down: please get professional help in reading my post, preferably above primary school level.


*Isn't it a comical show anyway. Just think about it. So many thousands of selfdeclared Human Rights activists and one wonders what they've been accomplishing all this time except for clicks on their websites. It's beyond a bad joke. 

Get a grip on reality. It's very seriously hitting the fan and now think why so many Iranians doing rather well, keep well away from Iranians: it's that stuff they permanently hurl at the fan.


Esfand Jaan: I share your sentiments exactly....

by Bavafa on

Thanks for your last comment, well said.

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 


Esfand Aashena

Mehrban jaan should Reformists join d invading armies vs hdlnrs?

by Esfand Aashena on

Isn't that what MKO did when Saddam invaded Iran?  Or are you equating the invading armies with liberation armies?  Like when Dick Cheney refered to them in Iraq in 2003 and that Iraqis would welcome them with open arms, etc.?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking or the point.  Are you suggesting freedom fighting people will join the invading armies in an effort to overthrow the Islamic Republic and Reformists would have to decide which side to join?  Please note we're talking about "In the case of war ..." and war in this case means an attack by US, Israel or NATO to stop Iran's nuclear program. 

You see the lines are so criss crossed and diluted that we get lost in the middle of it all!  I don't know if you're secretly (or openly) hoping for a war by the international community or something.

As I said in my earlier comment the job of overthrowing the Islamic Republic belongs to the Iranian people not foreign Governments as they do NOT have Iranian people's interest in mind, only their own self interest.   

Everything is sacred

iraj khan

Excellent report

by iraj khan on

with an innovative format.

The superimposition of the text over speaker's image works well in this case and gives it more credibility.

A war between Iran and United Stated is going to be a lose lose situation for Iranians everywhere, inside and outside Iran. 

Ms Kaviani, thanks for your informative report and hope to see more like it.

Anahid Hojjati

I am disappointed at many intellectuals in Diaspora

by Anahid Hojjati on

OK, let's say that you are anti war but why do you write 20 articles against war and zero against IRI? are you guys going to be quiet about crimes of IRI?Because that would be as Noriala noted in his article titled:" lahzeh khedmat va khianat"?


 I hope to see a panel

by vildemose on

 I hope to see a panel discussing the *warmongering of Islamic Leadership and its track record in perfecting this tactic into an art form (Khomeni: War is a blessing)...Does anyone think concealing IRI's warmongering is going to help matters in averting any future war on our already devestated nation?

*The real disgraceful roots

by aynak on

Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

salman farsi

The new Yazdi-Banisadr-Ghotbzadeh

by salman farsi on


These three remind me of the triangle that surrounded and betrayed Khomeini.

 والله علم



For an Islamic democracy


All three speakers are correct

by iamfine on

A war with Iran will bring disaster to our motherland. It doesn't matter how you look at it, the war has negative consequences for both Iran and US. This country (US) has already more than 60,000 physically and mentally ill veterans, as the result of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The country is financially broke, with unemployment probably as high as 20%. It would be stupid to get involve with another war. The US government should realize that the IRI will not stay quiet and shows reactions which may last for a long time


Thanks to

by Reza_Fani_Yazdi on

I would like to thank Nazy Kaviani for her effort to covering this event for .

If we can overcome our sense of hate against Iranian authorities for their criminal way of ruling the country and follow our conscience, we stand for peace and democracy which cannot come out of war and invasion. Our people have suffered for decades of State violence and oppression, invasion and war would bring more suffering and pain to them. We should never encourage it.



Our own hammond

by religionoutofgovernment on

it is nice to see you hammond sitting in the middle there! As usual, I disagree with you!


 Mehraban: Excellent

by vildemose on

 Mehraban: Excellent point. At any rate, I think the reformers are victims of CIA and state department, big oil and fake democracy building think tands brainwashing and deception....they just don't know it yet.


Separation of Church and State AND Corporation


"In the case of war, Reformists will unite with the Hardliners"

by Mehrban on

What does this statement (if true) say about the Reformists?

Majid Zahrai

Shame on the warmongering leadership of the IRI

by Majid Zahrai on

Roozbeh Gilani: I wholeheartedly say it: Shame on the warmongering leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran! They have wanted a war for a long time in order to re-establish their grip over the country and to rule Iran for another 30 years. A military attack on Iran would be to the mullas' benefit.

I agree with Fani Yazdi. He is talking about Majid Tavakoli, Ahmad Zeidabadi, Nasrin Sotoudeh, Kouhyar Goudarzi, and labor leaders when he says:

“Talking about the opposition, I’m not really concerned about the opposition outside the country. A war has no effect on them. They are not getting bombed. They are not losing their jobs or having any problems. The problems will be experienced by the opposition inside Iran. Currently, we know that many opposition figures in Iran are under surveillance. They are in prison. They are under house arrest. Or, they have been accused of spying for foreign countries, cooperating with US and Israeli intelligence agencies, and many other charges.”


Majid Zahari,

by Roozbeh_Gilani on

It is not the "anti war position" of the "panel" which is being objected to, quite the contrary.

It is the complete lack of balance in putting any blame on Islamist regime's reckless, dangerous pursuit of their suspected nuke weapons programme which is being objected to. It is trying to justify this dangerous nuclear policy which is leading our beloved nation and country to the brink of a disasterous war which is being objected to.

Now since you are into 'shaming business", try to repeat after me, and dont worry it would not hurt:  

 "shame on warmongering leadrship of the islamist regime."  


"Personal business must yield to collective interest."


I didn't say being invited

by vildemose on

I didn't say being invited and 'accepting' the invittion are the same thing... 


Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

Majid Zahrai


by Majid Zahrai on

Being invited isn't that important. Hundreds of people get invited, because there are many Iranians who hold academic positions in the US. Accepting the invitation is a different thing.

Majid Zahrai

Excellent words by Mr. Fani Yazdi

by Majid Zahrai on

"I believe that a lot of people on the Iranian side think that a war would bring the regime down, and it may bring us a democracy; it may bring us a new government with democratic values. I don’t believe that. I think that bombing Iran and starting a war with the Iranian government has many devastating effects on the Iranian opposition. The Iranian opposition would be the main losers if such a war starts."

Shame on those Iranians outside Iran who think that lives of Iranians inside Iran an expendable in the interest of the asinine idea of "bombing Iran for democracy."


Interesting, Hamsad

by vildemose on

Interesting, Hamsad ghadimi's comment was removed from Trita Paris's thread?? WHy? I'm glad I copied it and have it saved. 


Separation of Church and State AND Corporation


   How many of you on

by vildemose on


 How many of you on IC have been invited to this hamayesh bozorg?

hamayesh bozorg is a "conference" where iranian expats are invited to iran (expenses fully paid after one is vetted) to participate in a gathering where iri officials try to illicit investments from expats to bypass any sanctions that western countries put on iri. the last one (the second of its kind) was held this past summer. here's the website for it: // --by HG

they also hold sessions on how to confront western media (even places like one of casmii cofounders, rostam pourzal, moderated such session: //

there was even poetry reading by ahmadinejad and mashaii talking at length about 'maktab iran' as opposed to the clergy's 'maktab islam.'


Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

Ari Siletz


by Ari Siletz on

I wasn't taking written notes; just listening. Nazy's photo #59 shows me writing down a discussion question for the panelists. There wasn't enough time in the busy Q and A session to get to it, but the discussion question was, to what extent (if any) our nation's military "un-attackability" from the outside would inadvertently make the regime "un-attackable" from the inside by domestic oppostion.

Anonymous Observer

My friend Mammad looks good!

by Anonymous Observer on

We have extreme differences on opinion on many fronts, but he's a good man--and his family has been victimized by the IR more than most of us.  

Wish him the best of luck!  


The Desperately Hopeless!

by Tavana on

The desperate moves by the 'Green' will not ever build them back up their diminished credibilities. This panel of 3 stooges is another desperate effort by the hopeless 'Reformists' with their proven 'Vs' records outside the country. Hoopla/continue with your panelings you 'anointed' ones! Keep on boys, keep on but not going anywhere!


The panel did not provide

by vildemose on

The panel did not provide an iota of evidence why Iran becomes "un-attackable" if they obtain nuclear weapons while continuing their 'exporting their revolution or interfering in other countries affairs??



Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

Esfand Aashena

Preparing the public for war = threat of war

by Esfand Aashena on

Hamsade during the cold war the "threat of war" was not about having first strikes like it is these days, it was about the ability to retaliate with fury.

Now the point I'm trying to make is you know what is being fed to the public here in the US in terms of preparing for another war.  People like Michelle Buchmann don't know there hasn't been a US embassy in Iran since 1980 and yet she wants to be "tougher" than Obama and be more trigger happy.

Now compare all the war talk including the threat of war to the anti-war talk such as this seminar in the most liberal city in America where gays walk naked in the streets with photos by Nazi Kaviani in an Iranian website where panelists are ridiculed day in and day out, much less foreign observers. 

Which do you think have the upper hand?  

 The attack by Israel on Iraq's nuclear site was an act of war.  Saddam in 1980 just didn't have anything to respond with in kind.  When it did in 1990 with their Scuds it responded.  Iran will respond too, much harsher than 1990.  Thus the reason Israel hasn't attacked and no one is buying it anymore.  Attacking mud buildings in Iraq and Syria don't count. 

Selling tools of wars (missiles, etc.) is an act of war.  Manufacturing tools of war is basically an act of war.  It's not for fun!

I don't want to get into a discussion about Israel.  Suffice to say Israel's major war is with the refugees they've created.  Before Iran and Khomeini, Arabs were supplying Palestinians with tools of war.

War is hell, is not a bumper sticker.  It's all we have!  Many on this very website want to have a war to overthrow the regime regardless of the consequences. 

I don't have a solid view on sanctions one way or another.  I know first hand it hurts ordinary Iranians when they try to get a small loan and make a living but on the other hand between war and sanctions, sanctions is better, yet sanctions have always been used as pre-cursor to war.

Everything is sacred


As usual, Faramarz: perfectly stated

by AMIR1973 on

The order of the day is Central Bank sanctions and stopping the oil flow and we know where these folks stand on those topics.


 Berkely has turned into a

by vildemose on

 Berkely has turned into a mouthpiece for salvaging the reformers riches and ill-gotten wealth.  How sad.


"It is the chain of communicat­ion, not the means of production­, that determines a social process."

-- Robert Anton Wilson

Anahid Hojjati

what were the questions and answers?

by Anahid Hojjati on

i am surprised that the panel members are so sure about their positions. don't they have the same type of questions that hg brought up?

i am interested to know what the questions and answers were.

  thanks nazy for doing the photo essay. these are important issues and have to be discussed more. 






thanks Nazy - can DK confirm/deny the offer of laptop to RPII?

by MM on



A Round-up of the Usual Suspects!

by Faramarz on

Thank you Nazy for the report.


The only people that talk about an imminent war and an invasion of Iran nowadays are the Regime itself and the NIAC-types abroad. Also, the only violent action that has taken place recently has been the ransacking of the British Embassy in Tehran with complete approval of the Regime.

It is quite amusing when you read phrases like, “with a nuclear weapon Iran becomes un-attackable”. For decades Iran had only one natural enemy with a territorial dispute and that was Iraq. All the other hostilities were initiated and carried on by the Regime starting with the hostage-taking, terrorism and sticking their nose in the affairs of others including almost all Middle-Eastern countries. But these people talk as if the Regime was minding its own business and everybody else started making threats.

If you want to be credible in the Iran nuclear discussion, you may want to talk about AQ Khan’s involvement in providing the Regime with not only the blue print for centrifuges but a crude bomb design itself. You may want to talk about the Sepah’s (Shamkhani) offer to buy a bomb from Pakistan in ‘87. You may want to talk about the involvement of Russian nuclear scientist and high explosive expert Danilenko’s activities in Iran. This guy worked at a Russian facility so secret (Chelyabinsk-70 / Snezhinsk) that the place was not even on the Soviet’s map!

The order of the day is Central Bank sanctions and stopping the oil flow and we know where these folks stand on those topics.

hamsade ghadimi

esfand, not necessarily. 

by hamsade ghadimi on

esfand, not necessarily.  a threat of war, just like having nuclear arms can be used as a form of deterrent.  using 'logic by example,' one can "prove" anything and its opposite!

i agree that war is hell and i'm not in favor of a full-scale military war (e.g., iraq, lybia). the iri apologists would like to portray sanctions as an act of war.  do you agree with that?  do you think arming a terrorist group to launch missiles to another country amounts to an act of war?  did the israel's boming of iraqi nuclear installation an act of war?  i think the former amounted to an invitation to a full-scale war (or threat) and nothing came off of it.  in fact, iraq stopped pursuing its nuclear ambition.  if i was to use 'logic by example,' then that would be a case where threat of war proved beneficial for israel.  so before we use bumper sticker slogans like 'war is hell,' we should define what is meant by the words we use.

i also agree threat of war may mean that a democratic country is preparing its citizens or trying to convince them that the action is justifiable.  however, a country like israel which has the mandate to act hawkishly in a unilateral manner on its 'existence' doctrine does not need to prepare its citizens.  they simply do not telegraph their enemies that bombs are coming.  threat of war by them can have many benefits without ever having to fly a sortie or drop a simple bomb (e.g., get aid, send signals to its allies, send signals to iri's enemies such as s.a., etc.).