Musings of a former chicken

Bijan

I have never said to leave Iranians alone. If you had read my posts carefully you would know that I have given specific points on how to bring down the regime. Read all my posts in this blog AND more importantly the link i gave to LoverofLiberty. I dont know how much more clear I can get.

----

a compilation of some posts i made earlier on iranian.com

--

the best way to destabilize a
ponderous, oppressive government such as Iran's is to ensure the growth
of a strong middle class in the target country with an educated and
politically active youth. Sanctions tend to do the opposite by denying
(or reducing) a country's access to trade, economic growth,
pharmaceuticals and health benefits, knowledge and innovation. It
stigmatizes countries' populations against the world, which often
entrenches hard-line governments with staunch supporters. Sanctions
also reduce positive effect of the global community's political
feedback: if a country is already a pariah, their leaders have little
incentive to conform to accepted norms (e.g. human rights).

--

In our quest to punish the regime for its behavior we are
economically isolating Iran and Iranians from the liberal democracies
that are the western world. In the long term this could destroy the very
middle-class that made the June uprising of '09 possible. It could help
to cement the tyrannical regime's reign over the Iranian people,
prolonging its shelf life. And naturally IRI is forced to deal with
non-western powers, moving Iran further towards questionable regional
actors like Russia and China.

"Criminalizing Consequences of
Sanctions," Peter Andreas, International
Studies Quarterly 49 (June
2005): pp. 335-60.
Read

One of the biggest flaws of the sanctions literature has been the
failure to discuss unintended consequences. Humanitarian costs have been
raised above, but what about other side effects? Peter Andreas looks at
the consequences of the multilateral sanctions directed at the former
Yugoslavia during the 1990s and finds a disturbing legacy. Economic
sanctions, it turns out, can unintentionally contribute to the
criminalization of the state, economy, and civil society of both the
targeted country and its immediate neighbors. By trying to evade the
sanctions, private entrepreneurs and public officials are encouraged to
disregard the rule of law. This fosters an unhealthy symbiosis among
political leaders, organized crime, and transnational smuggling
networks. These criminal networks can persist even after sanctions are
lifted, contributing to public corruption and undermining governance.

"Are Smart Sanctions Feasible?" By
Arne Tostenson and Beate Bull. World Politics 54
(April 2002): pp. 373-403.
Read

The comprehensive United Nations sanctions on Iraq during the 1990s
were a humanitarian disaster, leading policymakers to recognize that for
any future sanctions regimen to be politically sustainable its human
costs would have to be limited. Thus was born the concept of "smart
sanctions" -- tailored measures, such as asset freezes, travel bans, and
arms embargoes, that would supposedly target an offending regime while
minimizing collateral damage to the country's population at large. The
question now is whether smart sanctions can achieve significant results
with fewer downsides than more conventional forms of economic coercion.
Arne Tostenson and Beate Bull review the evidence and conclude that the
answer is no: "Although smart sanctions may seem logically compelling
and politically attractive, such regimes are difficult to establish and
enforce because of numerous inherent operational problems and the
intricacies of the Security Council's political processes."

--

Today, Iran is facing grave danger because of the Islamist regimes
adventurous and dangerous foreign policies. We cant change IRI while
they are holding 70 million people hostage, but we can influence the way
US is dealing with the regime. If they dont talk, make no mistake, the
only other path is confrontation and full fledged war. Now NIAC is
argueing for engagement precisely because the alternatives are not in
Iranians/Americans interests. The engagement policy is not about
legitimising the brutal regime but avoiding something that is going to
make the livelihoods of Iranians even worse than already is. 

Hyping up a threat that does not exist is detrimental to the interests of any democracy movement in Iran. 

People like you and me need to publicly advocate moderation while doing
our own thing to bolster the democratic movement in Iran.

We need to call up our representatives, organise and make our voices
heard. Only then will be able to give the moderate voices in washington
the political capital needed to stand up to the hawks. 

----

With the recent increasing trend of IRI incompetency, they will run the
country into the ground themselves soon and more people in Iran will
depart from the IRI ways and we will see even more cracks in the
leadership.

We have a pro-democracy movement of Iranians, and I'm not talking about
the ones living comfortable lives outside,  that can work their way in
through the cracks and lead for truly effective and lasting change.

No need to have foreigners do it for us and let IRI mask the truth. No
need to have foreigners engineer democracy like they did with Iraq. 

Those of us living outside need to stop with our selfish desires to have
a "quick" fix for Iran. This isnt something you can fix overnight.

---

Certain things that can be done to help Iranians inside:(I'll borrow Amir's post and add some of my own)

1) Sanctions on sales of anti-riot gear and electronic surveillance
equipment. freezing assets of persons connected to the regime. (not
entire banks)

2) Funds to help striking workers

3) Crimes against humanity charges filed in international courts against regime actors responsible for such crimes

4) Anti-filter software and other such technology to allow people to use
the Internet and cell phones without being blocked or tracked down by
authoritie.s. 

5) Increased civilized demonstrations against IRI organs and broadcasts from
Iranians living abroad--that will show Iranians that they have the moral
support of their compatriots living outside the country as well as
others, and that they are not alone. 

6) Increased assistance from human rights, civil society, and NGOs to
similar organizations and individuals inside the country to augment and
expand their civil disobedience and resistance against the regime

If there was to be any help from outside forces it needs to originate
from the civil society, non-governmental entities with geniune interest
in helping and forming relations with Iranians. bolster the independent trade unionists and help with forming
aliances with those in western countries. 

All this of course is where we the Iranian diaspora come into play. We need to recruite people - not governments - to our cause.

As I said before, it takes a while but it can be done if we stop the war
talk first and foremost, drop economic sanctions and specifically
target regime's people instead of entire organs. As difficult as it is
we have no choice but for regime to prosper along side normal Iranians
for a while. but make no mistake, once the middle-class is strong and
independent, its when the tough fight begins. 

The Leeches Of IR!

None of these leeches who defend IR care about Iranians. If they did care, they wouldn't be here wasting their time. Instead they would be back in Iran helping poor Iranians. These entities cannot cite any cases of Iranians dying of famine. "Ordinary" Iranians? Who are they? Why not defend their rights as well? Why not condemn the brutalities of the murderous regime with regards to "ordinary" Iranians? Why aren't "ordinary" Iranians getting any of the large and small projects Ahmadinejad is handing out to the top brass of Revolutionary and Basij corps? "Ordinary" Iranians have very little to lose because they have nothing to begin with. Sanctions are only hurting the regime with some insignificant collateral damage to many Iranians. In a country where every state project is set aside for a chosen few and nothing happens without state control. In a country where state agents are getting wealthier by the day and hoarding their massive windfalls of euros and dollars in foreign banks, talking about "ordinary" people on the one hand and at the same time tirelessly defending the regime, only smack of hypocrisy. Such individuals are paid to do so and it is in their best interest to defend the regime under any pretext. For eight years they used the pretext of the self-imposed Iran-Iraq war. And now the "new-found" excuse of worrying about the lives of "ordinary" Iranians!

Good to know the meaning of Journalist

I used to think that they ask questions. But in the country that lawyers are expected to prosecute their clients instead of defending them, journalists should evidently give answers instead of asking questions.

Please help me Moosir.....

As much as I whole heartedly subscribe to Fred’s line of logic, I would like to understand (or at least explain to myself in a rational way) your logic. You strongly believe sanctions and confrontational policies would harm ordinary Iranian people and would do more harm than good. Correct me if I’m wrong. You are suggesting to leave the criminals alone, stay out, and let the victims resolve the case on their own. You suggest that we (the opposition) should do nothing and let passage of time take care of the rapes and murders. Is this what you are saying?

Would you please cite me a case in history (modern or ancient) where an oppressor regime relinquished its power without bloodshed. Cite me a single case where an unarmed victim that overcame an armed rapist without any support. Do you see how irrational your position is?

In my humble opinion, our only way out of this mess is an armed struggle or a popular uprising with the help of the entire world. Considering historical examples, that would leave us only with sanctions or some form of regime change (with the help of advanced technology).

If you love Iran and Iranian people you have to come to terms with some pain. I guaranty you it will not happen without pain but it will happen, sooner or later……        

MOOSIRvaPIAZ,

Thank you for clarifying where you stand.

Although I agree that, in general, there is some sound reasoning regarding your position, I question how long you think that process might take?

Could it take one year, five years, ten years, a generation, or more years?

While it could be said that "patience is a virtue," I seriously doubt that any country-such as the US-or any world body-such as the UN-has an infinite amount of patience.

So, I think the answer to this question is very important...if what you propose is a viable solution.

(I don't expect an actual answer from you regarding this question, per say.  Indeed, I doubt anyone can accurately answer it.  I just think it is a crucially important question that needs to be raised when one advocates such a proposal.)

No war-advocate Fred

For that you will have to go to my previous posts and I have explained myself countless of times.  unlike you who likes to call me an Islamist, I have never tried to hide the facts that I do not support the regime, dont believe in mythical beings and religious nonsense and that I am against sanctions, I am against war. Unlike you I give clear cut answers to these questions. Again I ask you,, do you acknowledge that airtight sanctions can
potentially cost Iranians their lives? (as Iraq airtight sanctions
records show). If so they you are knowingly advocating the killing of
Iranians not only by airtight sanctions but by the war that will follow
the airtight sanctions (an act of war on its own). 

Maryam Hojjat, it would be good to hear more than "I agree with Fred" from you from time to time. Like, do you agree with Fred's position that Iran must go under airtight sanctions? 

Fred, I agree with your view

You are right. I was fooled by this IRR/IRI thug.

Rabid Islamist 7

Ok Rabid Islamist, this is the last response to your rabid Islamist nonsense.

You call me “war advocate” prove it by citing my own words. And that does not mean your usual Rabid Islamist response of it is in “your blogs” nonsense.  

You see Rabid Islamist; you are a sack of Rabid Islamist liar if you do not cite my specific words to back up your “war advocate" charge.

Now go play with your other Rabid Islamist buddies and think about it.

Again war advocate Fred deflects

you think calling anti-war anti-sanctions opponents "islamists" is going to make your case stronger you are sadly mistaken. here are the facts, you want airtight sanctions. airtight sanctions potentially kill people. airtight sanctions are illegal by international law, they are an act of war. I will let the reader be the judge. 

maybe you should stop pretending and say what is really on your mind. about the greater good and collateral damage and things that will be very unpopular on a site like iranian.com.

Rabid Islamist 6

Actually I “label” your Islamist Rapist brethrens as Nazi and not “Iran “as you Islamistly claim.

That aside, when it comes to sanctions, both Aun San Suu Ki and Mandela are banes around your rabid Islamist neck. You got to somehow get over the fact that your rabid Islamist mindset can’t comprehend some stuff.

Now be a good rabid Islamist and go do some Islamist stuff with your other rabid Islamist buddies.

Fred another job well done

Although i am against capital punishment, but do agree that all who in some way provided service to this regime to stay in power must be brought to justice.  Let's face it, our Persia/Iran is failry well destroyed.  These Islamic Cultist Arabs have done a good job of destroying our country.  Tough sanctions followed by surgical attacks will not do any more damage than what these guys have already done.  The end result is we would have stopped further damage.  Let's once and for all, destroy these leeches and retake our country back.

rabid neocon Fred

no, they are not the context. again it goes to show how little you know about Iran that you are willingly comparing the country and the leadership from Nazi Germany to South Africa and Burma, all in the guise of pushing your self-intersted agenda.you label Iran nazi germany when it suits your alarmist behavior, and then in the same breathe compare it with South Africa!  

again you have not answered my qustion.  Again I ask, do you acknowledge that airtight sanctions can
potentially cost Iranians their lives? (as Iraq airtight sanctions
records show). If so they you are knowingly advocating the killing of
Iranians not only my airtight sanctions but by the war that will follow
the airtight sanctions (an act of war on its own). 

rabid neocons are funny that way.

How is pointing out the

How is pointing out the potential lethal effect of sanctions in any way "rabid" or "Islamist"?

Every time this commenter going by the name of "Fred" tries to dodge such questions, this is his/her preferred label. It reminds me of a cornered rat showing fangs.  

Rabid Islamist 5

Rabid Islamist:

“Aung san Suu Ki and Mandela said whatever they said in different context.”

Nope, the “context” in the case of South Africa was and in Burma is sanctions.

Rabid Islamists are funny.

LoverOfLiberty

Here is the thing. first we have to get ourselves out of this very wrong mindset that Iran is an all powerful force that is coming to destoy the world. Then we will begin to appreciate time and being able to wait and not sound the alarm bells like Fred is doing nearly every day. And then, only then can we start a process whereby ordinary Iranians get to decide the future of their country by gradually forcing the rotten regime out of Iran for good. this take time and effort, something the neocons dont have and appreciate. They want instant results and look how that has turned out for Iraq and other dictatorships in the region.

As for specific policy positions, I posted a compilation of where I stand in this thread: //iranian.com/main/2010/sep/its-time 

MOOSIRvaPIAZ,

While I tend to agree with you that either sanctions or war could tend to hurt or kill ordinary Iranians, what do you propose as an alternative to sanctions or war?

If you ask me, I think there are only three possible options going forward with regards to how the West and other concerned governments deal with Iran: 1) Negotiate some sort of settlement, 2) Implement sanctions with the hope that the Iranian regime will be forced-albeit with less political strength-to reach a negotiated settlement, or 3) Go to war with Iran with the hope of forcing upon the Iranian regime some sort of non-negotiated settlement or even outright regime change.

So, would it be accurate to say that you are in the 1st camp, that being that you are an advocate of a negotiated settlement?

rabid neocon trying to change the subject

Aung san Suu Ki and Mandela said whatever they said in different context. This is Iran, not South Africa or Burma. Again I ask, do you acknowledge that airtight sanctions can potentially cost Iranians their lives? (as Iraq airtight sanctions records show). If so they you are knowingly advocating the killing of Iranians not only my airtight sanctions but by the war that will follow the airtight sanctions (an act of war on its own). that in my book is murder. 

You are not being forthright with your readers. you are pushing an agenda. a destructive agenda.

Rabid Islamist 4

Rabid Islamist Fatwa: advocating sanctions is equivalent to murder

Me: does that fatwa cover people like Aung San Suu Ki and Mandela?

Rabid Islamist: “South America and Burma “are different than Iran

Me: Does the fatwa include Aung san Suu Ki and Mandela

Rabid Islamist: So it is ok to murder people?

Me: Does the fatwa include Aung san Suu Ki and Mandela?

Rabid Islamist: so it is perfectly ok to murder Iranians?

Me: it is useless to enter into a dialogue with rabid Islamists.

rabid neocon Fred 3

So killing ordinary iranians by airtight sanctioning them is the means to an end and not "murder" and perfectly justified according to rabid neocon Fred, especially when Iranians are against it!

Rabid Islamist 3

Rabid Islamist must learn his geography first, Mandela is from South Africa, which is in a different continent than where “South America” is.

Then the Rabid Islamist needs to explain away why those two that I mentioned do not qualify for the rabid Islamist’s fatwa that advocacy of sanction is tantamount to murder. Keep on trukin!

rabid neocon Fred 2

Needs to stop changing the conversation. Do you or don't you acknowledge that airtight sanctions potentially kill Iranian people? And isn't it advocating murder from your comfort of your chair in the west?

Rabid neocon Fred needs to realize that Iran is different from South America or and Burma. Iraq and North Korea are better models.  And armchair neocons have no right to call for airtight sanctioning of ordinary Iranians. this is a decision for the Iranian people and rabid neocon Fred needs to realize that the overwhelming majority of ordinary Iranians  reject economic sanctions let alone airtight ones that will kill en mass! 

rabid neocons find sanctions as a means to an end, which is they hope will bring the final
confrontation with the regime in Teheran in the form of military strikes, more deaths and destruction for
Iran and ordinary Iranians.

Rabid Islamist 2

Rabid Islamist’s logic would put people like Aung San suu ki and Mandela in his category of “murderers”.

Rabid Islamists need to stop raping, maiming and murdering  Iranian men, woman and children.

Instead of reply to my valid point rabid neocon Fred...

... takes another cheap shot by calling me your favorite neocon catch phrase rabid islamist. So does rabid neocon Fred acknowledge that he is actually advocating murder by calling for airtight sanctions?

And by simply using your own language, your own logic and rhetoric (hot air) you become the blood thirsty blogger.

Rabid Islamist

Rabid Islamist talking about “blood thirsty blogger” is just rich, he and his Islamist Rapist dogma are the embodiment of savagery and barbarity.

Maryam 2

Actually he is part of the problem; he is with the ruling Islamist Rapist establishment and with his asinine poetries eulogizes them all the time.

His asking to implement social justice from the show president of the Islamist Rapists is like asking a serial rapist to implement the rights of women.

بلاگر خونخوار

Fred you say: "After thirty two years of Islamist savagery, if one thing is clear, it
is that murder, whatever the justification, does not solve anything."

This is confusing to me. Arent you the one who posts nearly daily blogs about airtight sanctioning Iran? The net result is that lots of Iranians could potentially die as Iraq's airtight sanctions act showed. You will then have blood on your hands Fred. Isnt that murder? Arent you advocating murder too? 

I agree with you about murdering People, Fred

But he is trying to talk about welfare of poor Iranians who are being taken advantage by the thugs in IRR/IRI who are using economic situation to their own benefits.

Mahmoud's lip service

Dear Fred who, like many of us, does oppose this regime in its totality, is only focusing on the prevalent mentality of violence and desperate measures which has manifested itself in all layers of social psyche.

What else do we expect after three decades of irrational governance?

I'm just wondering if A.N was indeed able to offer an answer to the question.

The short clip showed none.

Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Maryam

After thirty two years of Islamist savagery, if one thing is clear, it is that murder, whatever the justification, does not solve anything.

To solve the rampant mismanagement of the country and her economy due to innate Islamist Rapist thievery, cronyism/nepotism and simple incompetency, this guy is advocating murdering people who almost certainly have had nothing to do with it.

Haven’t Iran and Iranians had enough of this mentality?

He Has points, Fred

I disagree with you this time, Fred.