Musings of a former chicken

Doc

First things first, according to your repeated boasting, you are published in all the major papers and interviewed on weekly bases by other mass media outlets. Comparing that with your description of me as: “aside from his daily posts here on Iranian.com (and not even anywhere else for that matter)” one has to conclude what?

Then you say:

“But - and this is the point - as an Iranian living in the Diaspora, it is my duty to support whatever Iranians living in Iran do. Thus, my plan is to write articles, give interviews, and speeches,  in support of the democratic Green Movement in Iran, oppose sanctions and war so that the GM has a chance to succeed, and support them in any way I can. I have been doing this for 15 years, and no one - absolutely no one - has done more of this type of work than I have since last April in support of the Movement.”

So in anticipation of the “Green Movement” which happened few months ago you were propagandizing for the Islamist Rapist Republic for 15 years, some of it for its illegal nuke program? Is that to “support whatever Iranians living in Iran do”? Is that what your plan has been all along in supporting the IRR waiting for your “GM” to come?

You see Doc you are a classic Islamist demagogue, quick in shooting down any and all plans so through process of elimination only your Islamist type is left to be considered.

If you had any intellectual integrity left after so many years of lobbying for the IRR in one form or another you would not have taken such a cheap way out of explaining your plan to free Iran as you did here.

Doc be assured even being burdened by Islamist devotees of charlatan Ali Shariati and all other demagogues of your caliber, and you might not like this, there are others even more active than you in the Islamist cause, Iran will be freed from the tyranny of your Islamist dogma.

Doc we all will perish sooner or later but your name is tied to the Islamists who will not be treated kindly by history books in the future free and democratic Iran. School children will read about your type in footnotes the type we read in Kasravi’s History of the Constitutional revolution, you know the little enablers/helpers of the tyrants.

BTW, I thought you boasted what was it twenty nine or some thing along that number of years as political activist, the above 15 taken out of twenty whatever leaves many blank years, what were you doing then Doc, practicing your frivolous essay writing skill?

Moosirvapiaz

Thanks for your time and your response. I certainly appreciate your points and see why you, mammad, and so many others so passionately oppose sanctions. Granted we are only debating here, but, the premise of your side of argument is that war is not a possibility. I can’t really give you a very intelligent and in-depth analysis to come up with a precise probability of war. But, I feel certain that, the probability is greater than zero (it is a possibility). That’s why my simple mind translates inaction to gambling with millions of lives. Let’s hope that dialogue and engagement will buy us time. But I’m afraid with IRI’s and Israeli’s track records, all the efforts to buy time (for the democracy movement to succeed), will end up increasing the probability of the disaster.

It is sometimes irritating when some people water down some threats to the point of none-existence.

You have made a decent argument that more than likely sanctions will not work and they might even aggravate the situation to the detriment of the freedom movement. While I cannot provide a strong case against your argument, I wonder if the sanctions will put enough pressure on supporters of the government to start questioning their actions and policies and gradually gravitate to the movement side. Would it create crack in the Basij or Pasdar Organizations? If you go through all my previous posts you will see my reservations about sanctions. Unfortunately, I’m not smart enough to think of any other effective way to deal with the situation.

Thanks again for your response. You are a very intelligent man.

Not the whole story, Freddo!

First of all, who should the world believe? The experts of the IAEA, CIA, MI6, and even Israel's (who have said that Iran's nuc is no major or existential threat to Israel) who do not see the threat - not yet at least - the way Freddo sees it, or Freddo? The world and experts are naive, but Freddo is not? How come? Based on what expertise of Freddo? Based on what track record, aside from his daily posts here on Iranian.com (and not even anywhere else for that matter), even if we assume that he has the best of intentions?

Secondly, what the IRI has proposed instead is a simultaneous swap of its low-enriched uranium with the fuel for the research reactor, not exactly the dramatic picture that Freddo is painting for us.

Before Freddo comes back to me, calling me names, especially "Islamist" to insinuate things about ALL Muslims and my religion, and then demand that I specify my plans for getting rid of the regime(!) before he does it himself (!) aside from his daily worn out posts repeating the same(!), let me respond for the nth time:

As an Iranian I, like everyone else, have my opinion of what should and can be done.

But - and this is the point - as an Iranian living in the Diaspora, it is my duty to support whatever Iranians living in Iran do. Thus, my plan is to write articles, give interviews, and speeches,  in support of the democratic Green Movement in Iran, oppose sanctions and war so that the GM has a chance to succeed, and support them in any way I can. I have been doing this for 15 years, and no one - absolutely no one - has done more of this type of work than I have since last April in support of the Movement.

Sanctions will kill the Movement, not strengthen it.

There is no link between having the nuc bomb and evolving into a democracy. The Soviet Union, South Africa, Brazil, and Argentina showed that.

Libya also gave up its nuclear program but is still the same Stalinist regime. The West that forced Libya to capitulate has now forgotten about what is happening in Libya. Its oil can be extracted to the delight of the West!

I would like to see one counter-example!

Mammad

Bijan A M

you have to understand that not everyone in the US or Israel is convinced that IRI is a threat or that nuclear armed iran is imminent. The nuclear issue is hyped up by the hawks in both Israel and US. They have been crying wolf for the past 20 years (look to the Israelis back in the 90s for the same sort of reactions on Iran's nuclear program). Their superficial world view and lack of realism leads them to push for foolish policies (that are short term in concealing a problem, but long term in their disasterous effects). Look to the Bush years for what the hawks really think.

The difference between the likes of me, who by the way also have a problem with the nature of the regime (and its foreign policy) and them is that I choose the realistic non-destructive position to deal with them (from a governmental to governmental standpoint).Something that looks to the long term and not just today or a few years ahead.

I acknowledge that IRI, no matter how ruthless or incompetent, are not irrational. For an example, look to the comment of Sepahi cheif Ali Jafari (that
protecting the regime is more important that daily prayers) for
pragmatism when faced with a deep internal crisis like the green movement.

Today, there are no real evidence that IRI today is going after nukes. Only remaining uncertainties. So unless there is concrete evidence that Iran is going after nukes, we must not hype up the threat and show self-restraint.

But even IF IRI goes after one, I would argue like any realist would do that containment and detterance worked for the sovients, it will work for IRI - who are a paper tiger in comparison. 

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. 

Moosir Khan

Your points well taken.

What about the nuclear issue? That is not a democracy matter and is not addressable by freedom fighters and the opposition in Iran. How do you suggest the world should deal with this issue knowing well that Israel and the US will not stand for it. Do you think the price Iranian people would pay be less if attacked by Israel and a war broke out in the region?

It is all a matter of how much time is left for the democracy seekers to prevail.

MOOSIRvaPIAZ - thank you

Very well said, thank you.

Also...

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.

no sanctions

Once a day on Iranian.com Fred says: "Airtight sanctions in tandem with unremitting moral and material
support
to the Iranian people to soften the sanction blow and make the
overthrowing the Islamist menace is a must."

----

"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."