Bijan A M

lol

You're such a coward, Q.

Craig, you are totally clueless

and I suspect "everyone on this website knows it by now."

I'm not surprised you can't understand any motivation other than money. But I don't even want to waste electrons refuting you as the entertainment value is higher this way. Suffice to say as usual, you have misread everything and everyone and continue to operate in complete ignorance.

expc

I don't like your judgmental attitude in here. There is a saying directly related to it. Do you want me to spit it out for you?

Q

As I said, if you or Fred can bring 5 million people to the streets of
Tehran...

Q, the only 5 million people people like you can bring to the streets of Tehran are the IRGC and the Basij. And while that's quite an impressive feet - there aren't many police states that have such a large percentage of the population working as government thugs - it's hardly relevant when taking about the opposition, is it?

...then maybe we should listen to your ideas of what Iranians
"want" and who they are willing to accept help from.

Who is "we"? Are there still people on this website who don't realize you support Ahmadinejad and Khamanie? It seems like Bijan is trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, and you're fighting him every step of the way. What possible reason could there be for you to oppose the inetrnational community providing financial and political support to the opposition, if you actually were part of the opposition? Especially when you are so happy about the support the IRI gets from Russia and China? There's no matter of principle involved for you. You just don't want the opposition to succeed. It's clear as day.

And I suspect everyone on this website including Bijan knows it by now. You're not exactly subtle.

What do you actually want?

What do you want for support? If it's a matter of fundraising, you can do that right now from the rich Iranians who hate the IRI. Who is stopping you? Don't you want to be self-reliant?

I am not of "any opinion", however unlike youreslf, I don't make assumptions about "what the people of Iran want".

As I said, if you or Fred can bring 5 million people to the streets of Tehran, then maybe we should listen to your ideas of what Iranians "want" and who they are willing to accept help from.

Q

Thanks again for your comment. As much as I respect your opinion, I’m afraid we have to respectfully agree to disagree. You are of the opinion (or at least you assume people in Iran believe) that secularism means anti-Islam. If that’s the case there is a desperate need for educating the public. I don’t understand why you continually translate support for opposition as foreign interference with the popular movement. You keep on bringing chalabi as your evidence to suggest that support means war. I firmly assure you that’s not what is meant by support. Once a leader emerges to unite the secularists,  the first order of business is to educate the masses so that they have the correct understanding of a secular government.

 In my opinion the process of education will be most effective if one or more  of our men of cloth (akhoonds , ayatollahs) come out in support of secularism. There is no doubt that there are some in the thousands of mullahs around who believe they should not be involved in politics. They can be the best tool to quote verses from Koran to support secularism (you know that you can interpret at wish when it comes to holy books).

Encourage these mullahs to speak on separation of religion and politics,and prepare cassetts, CDs’ DVDs, pamphlets, Flyers, “you tube”  clips… of these Rouhanies understanding of secularism and spread it like plague all over the nation. Support means helping with spread of this message. People are ready.  The time is right, we need to get the masses on the same page. The masses include the Basij (their family, their relatives, friends, those who they care for). The moment you penetrate the pasdar and basij cores this system will implode.

 Then it will be relatively a synch to encourage general strikes. Shut down the oil industry, and cause the collapse of this dragon the same way the vindictive Hendi imbecile did it with a few cassettes and a bunch of donkeys who carried his load.

In the climax of such turnover brave people will lose their lives. But, that’s the price of freedom. These monsters don’t have the decency that shah had to leave without having a river of blood in streets of Iran. And I am the one who stood in the streets and said “marg bar shah” and joined the strike of the oil industry to help the revolution succeed.

So, sir, don’t let your hatred for US and west’s foreign policies blind you to what your people need in terms of support. Let’s help them financially or otherwise to propagate their message and educate the religious underserved and underprivileged  population ( those who this regime has built its foundation on by brainwashing).

There will be no bombs in support of freedom. The whole world should unite to prevent IRI from getting their hands on nuke. Note that I emphasize IRI and not Iran. Iran without IRI has every right to nuke but not IRI.

 Thanks again for the exchange and your contribution to this blog.       

No, my friend

You cannot fight IRI’s brutal regime empty handed and in isolation by just slogans.

You cannot fight it on behalf of other people either. It can only be done legitimately from inside Iran. IF the people in Iran decide they want to organize formally against the regime, form an assembly and they ask for specific "material" help, at that time this question may be considered. Until then, it's just a words of a few ideological expatriots. Sorry to put it in those terms.

You are also mistaken about "it can't be done." It has been done in many places without foreign assistance of any kind, French revolution and the fall of the USSR are examples. It has also been done with some foreign assistance in other occasions such as the American revolution but still that was the democratic choice of a continental congress, not just some people who gave themselves the right to "ask" on behalf of 70M people.

It was done illegitimately by Ahmad Chalabi in the Iraq war. Him and his followers had no legitimacy, or any following inside Iraq. Their asking of the "US" for liberation was pure hogwash and was predictably exploited by foreigners. This is the closest scenario for Iran right now.

You are mistaking support with interference with their struggle.

No. I simply point out the reality that US or Western help would be for self-interest and not altruism. No government support can be anything other than to the interest of the government. If you are talking about "moral" support or even fundraising from individual citizens that's a different story, you can do that now. Nobody is stopping you. But not governments.

On another note, a secular system does not mean insult to people’s religion. Iranian can remain as religious as they want to be.

This has to come down to what you mean by secularism. You already cited AtaTurk. Reza Shah was the same way. Sympathizers call them "secular", others call them "anti Islam". But whatever you call them it's clear their model would fail in Iran as it was proven in the 1979.

You also simply cannot use a western model. Islam is not like christianity. European attitutdes toward relgion sare not the same as middle-eastern ones. There is an assumption that things can be cleanly cut off and divided, that's not true and everyone knows it. The divide itself is an evolution. If you begin with a principle of "secularism" from day one, someone will have to interpret what that means, and that person will not be legitimately accepted by all sectors of society. Therefore, you foster the exact same kinds of division that gave rise to the 1979 revolution.

I'm not saying it can't be done. It simply can't be "assumed" from the start. The nation must find it's own way and there's nothing we can do to hurry it.

Lastly, I agree with our foul-mouthed friend, Craig this time. But I hope you can see that all 4 of his options = war with Iran. So, when you say you want "material support" but "not war", you really need to think about whether this is possible.

If you are comfortable with war, then you should just say so in the open.

delete

delete

...

Bijan, thanks for the post! Things are so confusing around here with all the double talk going on. I for one really appreciate you laying out your positions in no uncertain terms.

vildemose,

I'm not so sure the US wants to really be rid of the IRI therefore

I think that depends entirely upon Obama's ego. Would he rather be seen as the US President who brought the Islamic Republic back into the fold after 30 years, or the US President who helped bring the Islamic Republic to an end? And to make matters more complicated for him, he's already gone on record quite a number of times, staking his reputation on his ability to make peace with IRI. Wouldn't wanna be him!

I don't see any help coming from the West. 

The only concrete actions the US could reasonably accomplish are:

1) crippling sanctions (like a blockade)

2) stronly backing or even provoking a civil war, like Reagan did so many times in so many places

3) deposing the regime by force

also

4) air strikes on nuclear and regime targets (I don't think this one is a viable option, myself, that's why I put it in the "also" section. 

In my opinion the US will not (and should not) do any of those.

I think the aid that Obama could provide would be purely rhetorical. And I think Obama is a skilled enough leader and a skilled enough orator that such aid would not be insubstantial! But as of yet, he's not doing it!

Thank you Bijan Jan. Always

Thank you Bijan Jan. Always insightful. We need to be more patient and if possible avoid a civil war...I'm not so sure the US wants to really be rid of the IRI therefore, I don't see any help coming from the West.

Mr. Q

Thank you for honoring me with your presence. In a few minutes that I have, I just wanted to post a quick response.

With all due respects, either I have failed to make my point clear enough or you have misunderstood it entirely. You cannot fight IRI’s brutal regime empty handed and in isolation by just slogans. People are going to die and slaughtered for what they stand for. They need support from freedom loving souls around the globe. You are mistaking support with interference with their struggle. No one is asking for others to do what is the Iranians right to do (i.e. elimination of IRI).  They just need some support, morally or materially. This in no way means bombs.

On another note, a secular system does not mean insult to people’s religion. Iranian can remain as religious as they want to be. That’s the beauty of a secular democracy. People in every corner of the country will and are protected to remain as devoted to their religion as long as they keep it out of politics and abide by the law of the nation. So, there is no conflict between our nation being religious and a secular government. There are probably more devoted (2 atisheh) religious people in the US than the entire population of Iran.

Thanks again for your comment and presence.

The whole problem,

Bijan, I will respect you to write you a serious response.

The problem is not just the effectiveness but the legitimacy of the sanctions. I do not consider the US/UK as any authority to help YOU or ME or anyone else try to live better or freer lives. The idea is ludicrous given the other regimes they support and the issues they are silent about. Iranians who may be every bit as much "anti regime" as you nevertheless have pride in their country and do not want foreign governments or -even worse- expatriate elite to make decisions on their behalf.

So, the whole idea of X country "helping" Iranians, through "sanctions" or "material support" to achieve democracy is already an insult to Iranians and I believe all the evidence shows that this view is embraced by the internal pro democracy movement.

Second,
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the slightest chance of success for freedom fighters is out the window the moment IRI makes its first Nuke.

This makes no logical sense. It's just not true. What do you think the IRI will nuke Tehran to kill demonstrators? The only way this sentiment could be true is if you think help MUST come from other countries who will presumably back-off becuase Iran has nuclear technology. This latter point means you have no faith in Iranians themselves and are actually depending on some foreign government pressure to solve our problems, which I mentioned is an insult. And even that didn't save USSR Communists or Pakistan's Musharref.

Third, I urge you to stay away from "knowing" what people want, like a rejection of Islam and a western style republic. Too often people just insert their own personal feelings undoubtedly shaped by their own upbringing, family and economic class, and innocnetly think 70Million believes as they do.

Iranians as a nation have always been religious, even before Islam. Over half a century of forced secularization under the Pahlavis didn't work. What makes you so sure they are ready to reject religion? And you even go as far as saying that the reform leaders like Mousavi are not "secular enough" implying they are not in touch with true feelings of iranians about this issues?

Please.... when you or Fred can bring millions of people to the streets, then talk to me about knowing what people want. Until then, don't insert your own ideas just because you really want them to be true personally.

Mousavi and the reform movement have done something no "secular" opposition has achieved in 30 years. But instead of the respect and support for this accomplishment, all I hear from the same failed opposition is how this just an accident, and just an act and people are REALLY in tune with what the failed opposition has been saying for 30 years anyway.