Jaleho
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Alternative Iran Policy Advice to Obama
03-Apr-2009
I just watched Iran Debate link on Iranian.com now, and noticed that bunch of people with failed past policy advice are giving each other the illusion of importance! It is good to know that Obama gets and is willing to listen to other ideas, some like the following, which are good for the US. Hopefully he will act reasonably within his power.
Dear President Obama,
I am an Iranian American. Our community was extremely charged up about your candidacy, and with an immense hope for a change in US foreign policy towards Iran voted overwhelmingly for your election. Your victory was not only celebrated by Iranian-Americans, but by almost all household inside Iran who are now anxiously awaiting a real change in US-Iran relations.
It was with great pleasure that we listened to your Norooz message to the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Norooz is a celebration of the arrival of spring, rejuvenation of earth and human spirit; a celebration that ushers the end of an icy and cold winter. Traditionally, family members who might have developed a case of dispute or hurt are encouraged to reconcile. Mr. President, by quoting the words of Iranian poet, Sa’adi, in your Norooz message, “The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of the same essence,” you proved how genuinely you appreciate the spirit of Norooz that now can be extended to the larger family of nations. Those words of Sa’adi are engraved in stone on top of the United Nations building, reminding us that all of humanity is one large family. You underlined that tradition of renewal in the dawn of the “New Day” that behooves every family member to set the grievances of the past aside, and on top of the molten ice of a distressed past, welcome the buds of a new friendship.
There are plenty of urgent reasons to revive a healthy US-Iran relation. Iran by its strategic location; its cultural and economic influence in the region, its historical imprints on many countries of the region, and its sheer size and power, can be an important partner for the US in a tumultuous region of strategic importance to the United States. But, after years of unconstructive policies and missed opportunities, misconceptions and mistrust are abundant and make the road to reconciliation rough. To achieve a steady progress, one must first understand the wrongs done in the past, and build a mutual trust which paves the way for a new era of cooperation for the common good.
US-Iran past relationship and the root of problems
As you are well aware, Iran and the US have had an icy relation for thirty years. For majority of Americans, this difficult relation has been crystallized during the Hostage Crisis following Islamic Revolution of Iran. For most Iranians though, the enmity started by the CIA assisted coup of 1953 which toppled democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mossadeq, and installed Shah to power. Following the publication of Kinzer’s popular book, “All The Shah’s Men,” many in the US learned about the coup, but incorrectly attribute the bringing down a democratic secular regime as the reason for the success of the “unwanted” Islamic Revolution of Iran. This is a very superficial and unfortunate interpretation which tarnishes a clear understanding of Iranian revolution, and the true aspirations of the Iranian people.
In fact, Islamic Revolution of 1978-79 was a continuation of the anti-colonial struggle of Iranian people dating back to the Constitutional Revolution of 1905. It was founded on the rejection of colonial designs on Iran’s natural resources exemplified by D’arcy’s oil concession given to the British in 1901. Then the 1905 revolution in Russia, the other player of the “Great Game” in Iran, provided the catalyst for the Iranian Constitutional Revolution. All the other Iranian struggles of the last century including the “Oil Nationalization Movement” of 1950s, the Islamic Revolution of 1978-79, and the present struggle for” Nuclear Energy” have that underlying “anti-colonial” tint for progress and “independence.” It is this unique combination of “anti-colonial” and “class struggle” that gives Iranian revolution a “paradoxical” look in which every strata of the society ironically participated: the intelligentsia, the cleric, merchant class of Bazaar, the comprador, peasantry and the urban workers; all united.
Real understanding of Islamic revolution, not as commonly perceived in the US as a religious backlash of 1953 coup against a secular democracy, is urgently needed. Iranian clergy, with their heavy influence on Bazaar and thus Iran’s commerce, have been an active participant in Constitutional Revolution; Oil Nationalization Movement as well as Islamic Revolution. The former had a more secular façade of National Front of Mossadeq whose strong popular base was Ayatollah Kashani; the latter had a more religious façade of Ayatllah Khomeini who appointed the National Front’s Bazargan as the first post revolutionary leader. Throughout all these struggles, famous religious leaders who did not have an “anti-colonial resume,” were quickly purged from power together with the secular and communist leaders who were perceived as “colonial collaborators.” President Ahmadinejad replaced the popular president Khatami on that anti-colonial platform for insisting on Iran’s right to nuclear energy, and this afforded a relatively unknown political figure an overwhelming victory in the election. Recently, Khatami removed himself as a nominee for the upcoming elections in favor of another candidate from his party who shares Ahmadinejad’s stance on Iran’s nuclear energy. Mr. Khatami understood that Iranian perception of him being lenient on nuclear issue would not give him a chance against Ahmadinejad’s proven stance on Iran’s right to nuclear energy.
Dear President, I read your book “Dreams From My Father,” and I am heartened by a background that affords you to be a compassionate person with a rare humanity. Growing up a portion of your childhood in Indonesia, has given you an immense advantage in understanding the nuances of other cultures, religions, and traditional sensibilities. When you went to Kenya, searching for all of your identity and heritage, your description of the “railroads,” and the internal struggle and soul searching of your grandfather, and you father after him, reminded me that you understand the colonial injustice with your bones, not just on an academic level. I was pleasantly surprised to read a passage from your time in Occidental, when your friend Marcus is reading a book on economics of slavery. You describe an Iranian student who asks Marcus why the slaves did not fight back en masse, and to death. And you turn the question to the Iranian, “Was the collaboration of some slaves any different than the silence of some Iranians who stood by and did nothing as Savak thugs murdered and tortured opponents of the Shah?” That quote reminds me how deeply you understand the real struggle of Iranian people. For an Iranian who is used to associate American presidents with clandestine coups in Iran, or an open call for regime change, a regime that despite all its shortcomings is a representation of the collective will of seventy five million Iranians; that quote brought the fresh air of hope. Hope that an American president indeed understands a nation and its aspirations.
Road to Reconciliation
The path to reconciliation with Iran is indeed bumpy, and there are many from both sides who would like to see that renewal failed. The Iranian regime has lived with the policy of tolerating hardship of isolation and sanctions, and will not give up the status quo of “no war and no peace” easily. In America, there is a plethora of powerful interest groups who are opposed to any rapprochement to Iran; Iranian leadership is not even certain that you would have the required power to overcome the internal politics of the US, and offer a genuine friendship to Iran. This suspicion was reflected in Khamenei’s reply to your recent message.
Advice to initiate a policy towards Iran cannot come from some office in Washington with ties to Iranian opposition groups, and defectors living in the west who have absolutely no popular base in Iran. Most of these individuals are known inside Iran as “collaborators.” Iran’s former history of foreign interventions has made Iranians weary of foreign power overtures with these anti-Iranian elements abroad. And the American side must have learned its lessons from the ill advice gotten from Iraqi opposition groups who helped build the case for Iraq invasion. The arguments of neoconservatives, Ahmad Chalabi, those with ties to the Pentagon “Office of Special Plans,” and academics like Makyia who assured president Bush that “ Iraqi people would embrace the American liberators with open arms and flowers,” did not warn the president of real dangers of the invasion. They did not warn the president of the other kind of “open arms “ once the initial euphoria of the “mission accomplished” would wane, and the dangers waiting for the American servicemen who went to Iraq on false promises and concocted lies.
Your leadership should instead focus on 1) the reasons why a US-Iran cooperation is beneficial for US, and what are the areas that one can work on a common interest; 2) recognize the grievances, and work on those which can be remedied while putting the more intractable issues for a later date; 3) note what policies have failed in the past to achieve those goals, and avoid repeating the same mistakes.
1) The most obvious area that Iran can help the US is in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran has already helped the US in its defeating Taliban in Afghanistan and the establishment of regime of president Karzai. Unfortunately, President Bush included Iran as part of an “axis of evil” right after that cooperation! Your government can emphasize the common interest of US-Iran in preventing Taliban resurgence, and curbing the threat of Al-Qaeda which is the common goal of both countries. Your Norooz message prior to arrival of Iranian delegation to discuss Afghanistan on March 31st was a great start.
Iran and the US similarly share a common interest in a stable and non-militaristic Iraq which would be a healthy partner in regional stability and commerce. The centuries old Iran-Iraq relation goes well beyond the recent enmity that was created by the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Iraqi Shiite leaders have ties to Iran, the Iranian born Ayatollah Sistani being the most prominent one among them. For the religious leaders, Najaf and Qom are interchangeable, and one cannot artificially put a wedge between them. The Sunni and Shiite division although it exists, is also over-emphasized. The massive street demonstrations in Egypt in support of Nasrallah following the Lebanese –Israeli war, was a good example of that. The Persian-Arab conflict has more historical basis, but unless the Arab-Israeli problem is solved with more attention to Arab sensibilities, the Arab street would have more sympathy to the Persian Iran than its own Arab government.
Additionally, the unfriendly US-Iran relation puts severe restrictions in America’s policy in the larger Middle East and South East Asia. The US is pressed to adjust its policy towards Russia and former Soviet Republics in order to get them more on board with America’s policy towards Iran. In many cases, concessions given to these other countries for accommodating a hostile Iran approach, is more costly to the US than any direct approach to Iran itself.
2) The list of grievances is long and it goes far back, but should not be discouraging you. Iran’s list of complaints coming directly from Ayatollah Khameniei in response to your message actually showed the desire on Iran’s part to begin a constructive high level talk.
Starting from the 1953 coup, Iranians consider the US to be constantly on the side of anti-Iranian elements trying to prevent Iran from reaching its potential in the region. They consider US enmity towards Iran heightened by the Islamic Revolution which removed the “US stooge,” Shah. While the US considers the hostage crisis as the epitome of Iran’s bad behavior, Iranians consider US accepting Shah after the revolution an intention to repeat another clandestine coup to bring Shah back to power. Iranians never properly and officially apologized for the hostage taking. Instead, America’s freezing Iranian assets in retaliation for Iran’s bad behavior became the centerpiece of America’s perceived anti-Iran designs.
During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran had legitimate complaints against the US. The US fearing that a victory of Iran would export a dangerous Islamic revolution to other countries in the region; supported the brutal invasion of Saddam Hussein. The US tacit support of Saddam in the form of intelligence, political support by using US prowess in the UN, military support and even provision of material needed for chemical weapons to Iraq which Saddam used profusely against Iranians and his own Kurdish rebels, and the final direct US military involvement in the war in support of Saddam and the downing of the Iranian Air line at the end of the war, are real grievances of Iranian people and government against policies of Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations.
The US policy after the war was no friendlier to Iran either. The sanctions imposed by President Clinton are considered a reflection of the “same” US anti-Iran policy regardless of a Republican or a Democratic US president.
Iranians believe that the problem with the United States stems from America’s “imperialistic arrogance” and “neo-colonial behavior,” its enmity to Iranian “independence” and advancement; an animosity signified by its “double standards.” From Iranian point of view, some of the US grievances against Iran are also one-sided and biased. While the US worries about nuclear proliferation because of a possible diversion of Iran’s nuclear program, the Islamic Republic considers Israel, Pakistan and India who have stockpiles of weapons already, a clear danger. Iranians are perplexed that their country is considered a threat to regional security whereas Iran was one the first signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); Iran has not invaded any country for 250 years, and in fact has been invaded by Iraq in a bloody war in which the west supported Saddam. Iranians cannot understand why Israel, a country with a nuclear stockpile; a country which has invaded all of its neighbors and is sitting illegally on land acquired by force; a country which even refuses to sign to NPT, is not considered dangerous and Iran is.
The US considers Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. Iran considers Hamas as the legitimately elected representative of Palestinian people, and Hezbollah and Hamas as “freedom fighters” defending their homeland against illegal occupation. US consider Islamic Republic as an obstacle to Arab-Israeli peace. Iran contends that the Arab-Israeli peace initiatives have all failed even before the Islamic Republic was born. Iran attributes the failure rather due to Israeli refusal to accept UN resolution 242 which calls for Israel to 1967 borders in exchange for peace and recognition by the Arabs.
Iranians attribute all of this to a half century of Israeli-centric US foreign policy, and are suspicious that any US president can have the political will or power to overcome the obstacles for a real peace. Some actions of your own young administration also ignite those suspicions. The choice of Hillary Clinton at the State Department and Dennis Ross as the envoy, the fact that you renewed the sanctions imposed on Iran by President Clinton, makes Iranians afraid that you policy towards Iran is a continuation of the enmity of President Clinton, although your tone is different from the belligerent Bush administration. The fact that Stuart Levey, the treasury official who pushed the banks around the world to deny credit lines to Iran, and he is one of the few senior Bush era personnel who remained in power in your administration also raises suspicion about any real change coming from your administration. More recently, the Israeli lobby’s effort in preventing Chas Freeman from the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council was interpreted in Iran as the Israel lobby’s wish to make sure that another National Intelligence Estimate like that of November 2007 indicating that Iran was not building nuclear weapons, will not be released by the council. The uniform and typical support the Congress offers AIPAC, your refusal to defend Freeman on the face of tough opposition, in line with your silence during the Gaza war makes Iranians worry that you might not have the will to challenge any Israeli-centric policies.
3) One must review the previous Iran policies which failed to give a productive result. All those failed attempts were founded on the wrong premise that “a strong Iran is a bad Iran.” In fact, history shows that a strong Iran has always been a source of stability and security in the region. For thirty years, this wrong assumption has led every American president to take a non-constructive approach towards the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The coercive and militaristic approach to the degree of supporting Saddam Hussein’s war, backfired not only as a mean s of controlling Iran, but it created a monster in Iraq who threatened the security of Kuwait and Saudis and his very own people. The policy of “dual containments” advocated by people like Indyk, Hass and other Clintonites, the imposition of sanctions to weaken Iran’s economy, clearly failed. Its immediate result was only hurting the Iranian people, and in the long run helped the Iranian government become more self-reliant. The Bush policy of “carrots and Stick” in regards to Iranian nuclear program, a language considered by Iranians only appropriate for donkeys, was the epitome of his lack of understanding of Iranian people and their sensibilities. It brought the anti-colonial memories to fore. It solidified the belief that the west is opposing Iran’s progress the same way that it opposed Iran building its railways in 1920, steel mills in 1960, mastery over its own oil industry in 1950 and beyond. Now it was the west opposition to Iran acquiring knowledge in nuclear industry and uranium enrichment, and advancement in space technology.
Dear President, indeed clouds of misunderstanding and distrust have thickened for thirty years, and you are dealt a difficult hand to amend all the long standing issues of contention. However, there are some easier and more immediate issues that can start to remove the clouds of suspicions, and pave the way for a constructive dialogue.
One preventable obstacle is the effort of some in the US to auction ancient Persian artifacts which was loaned to the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute in order to compensate victims of a terrorist act occurred in another place! A decision by the courts to auction these ancient treasures of Iran will undoubtedly create a crisis between Iran and the US. This will severely jeopardize your vision of diplomacy and America’s national security. While terrorism must be condemned, targeting the cultural heritage of an entire people for a terrorist act committed elsewhere is simply wrong and must be prevented. Mr. President, you can prevent this seizure in the same manner that President Clinton stopped a similar action in 1998, and remove a significant cause of future bitterness between the two countries.
Another manageable issue is that of Iranian frozen assets. The monetary value is paltry compared to Iraq war damages that Iran believes were denied because of US actions in the UN. However, release of Iranian frozen assets by the US is of tremendous symbolic value. It has been the centerpiece of Islamic Republic’s demand for any reconciliation. Iran’s helpful actions in Afghanistan and Iraq in return should be an amicable start.
Dear President, Norooz predates US-Iran enmity. It goes back to thousands of years ago when an Iranian prophet Zoroaster, whose teachings were the foundation of not only ancient Iranian culture, but also our common Abrahamic faith. Zoroastrian theme of “Good vs. Evil” was used by President Bush towards Iranian people and regime in a manner that ignited our sensibilities, resulting in a new trough in US-Iran relations. Your Norooz message stroke the opposite chord of Zoroastrian central tenet which is equally engraved in Iranian psyche: “Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds.” As Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, promptly acknowledged, all Iranians were heartened by your personal Good thoughts and good words which must be well established as a path to the future good deeds. The world, Iranians included, is anxiously awaiting your good deeds.
| Recently by Jaleho | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| No revolts, mayhem or bloodshed | 4 | Apr 01, 2010 |
| Norooz 1389 in Tehran | 175 | Apr 01, 2010 |
| The STINK grows as Dabashi stirs it more! | 23 | Feb 01, 2010 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Selling out dissidents of Iran
by Anonymous on Mon Apr 13, 2009 08:42 AM PDTWell, Obama better read this news:
//iranian.com/main/news/2009/04/13/euro-t...
and stop companies like Siemens and Nokia to do more damage to our people.
Dear Mammad,
by rosie is roxy is roshan on Sun Apr 12, 2009 05:39 PM PDTIran's elections have NEVER been fair, period.
In what way would you say the elections for the city councils in 2002, while democratic, were not fair?
although the vetting has intensity, sometimes it is weak, as in the elections for the 6th session of the Majles, because there was huge popular pressure, and sometimes it is strong, as in the elections for the 7th session, because the right wing had felt that people do not care.
Could you give me the dates please for those elections.
What I had meant by whether or not the military flanking of Iran had caused the hardliner backlash was whether Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq contributed to the collapse of the Reform movement, and if so to what degree? I think it was to a very great degree, what would you say?
I urged people to vote for Rafsanjani in the last election. Rafsanjani is corrupt, but he has a much more realistic view of the world, wanted to re-establish relations with the US (which, in my opinion, is vital for Iran's democratic movement), and his administration after the Iran/Iraq war did a lot of good reconstruction work to repair and upgrade Iran's infrastructure. He and Ahmadinejad are like night and day, comparatively speaking.
That’s what I thought at that time and I thought it was a very bad idea to boycott those elections. I also thought that they are like night and day in a paradoxical way because on one hand, Rafsanjani is a modern pragmatist while Ahmadinejad is a Medieval fanatic, but on the other hand Rafsanjani serves the vested interests of capital, while Ahmadinejad ran as a man of the people, a populist. Would you agree with these statements? And also to what extent was the election actually boycotted and did that influence the outcome?
I like reading your posts. I have often felt that you are one of the few people here who seems truly objective, because while on one hand you are perhaps the only regular blogger who supports an ISLAMiC Republic for the long haul (is this a correct way to say it?) on the other hand you've lost family members to the Regime so your agenda would be to make a better IRI which can only be obtained through the truth. Whereas those who wish to overthrow it or apologize for it seem to elaborate intricate arguments based on false , apparently subconsciously chosen to further these agendas, and so the arguments spin and spin but the debates remain frozen, congealed. Sometimes my jaw drops. How is it that after thirty years half the people still misremember a four word referendum?. Do you understand what I am trying to say?
PS Mammad, I wrote this post before I looked at the dialog below between you and FK, and this is exactly the kind of thing I mean. Of course FK is extreme, but typical because of it in a way. How is it possible that he has not processed things about you that are so basic and have papered the walls of this site for about a year now?
on a serious note, Kashani
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Sun Apr 12, 2009 02:05 PM PDTKashani_jAn, on a serious note watch one of 'frontline' programs about the Afghanistan mistakes. Particularly listen to CIA agents speaking about those blunders,...., and do some thinking for change, ...., don't come back and say those CIA agents are also 'Maoists' and 'Stalinist'!
Anonymos7, and one more
by Farhad Kashani on Sun Apr 12, 2009 01:52 PM PDTAnonymos7, and one more thing..
Yeah, you’re so smart and you’re right again this time! It was Regan who “created “ Taliban! For many reasons why I guess you would assume that:
- Because Taliban is the ONLY group that promotes Islamic fundamentalism. IRI promoted progressive liberalism!!!!! So Islamic Fundamentalism narrows down to Taliban, because, let me guess, Baer said that to you!!!
- Regan ordered Americans to go to Pakistan religious school and teach the Taliban (i.e. students) to stone women and hate America, and follow Khomeini’s footsteps in rising in the name of Islam!!!!!
- Regan was a Muslim himself!!!
- It’s not like the U.S helped other Afghans fighting the Soviets besides those guys, no sir!! Ahmad Shah Masoud and others NEVER received U.S assistance, only the extreme Islamists!!! Because again, Regan was a Muslim!!
- Its not like U.S helped the Afghans fight a greater common enemy at that time (now Communism has been replaced by Islamic fundamentalism), no sir!!! He just loved the extremists!! He just helped him because Regan loved extremists!!
- Afghans and Pakistanis, who supported the Taliban, and the IRI for inspiring and promoting Fundamentalism, in the middle of all this, are not at fault at all!! It’s all a “US right wing” conspiracy!!! Did you know that peanut butter is also a U.S conspiracy? And like your buddy smhb said the other day, so is Facebook!! He actually was clearer, he said it was CIA!!!
Anonymous7, keep enlighten me, PLEASE !!!
Happy Easter Kashani!
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Sun Apr 12, 2009 01:09 PM PDTKashani_jAn, it has been a rainy and cloudy day, and I couldn't find one of those good old Woddy Allen's movies, thanks for making me laugh with your mombo jumbo (as mammad calls them). You are hilarious my extremist friend! Happy Easter Farhad chackan.
Anonym7, Don’t get
by Farhad Kashani on Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:52 PM PDTAnonym7,
Don’t get mad at Reagan because he defeated your beloved Fascist USSR and killed your dreams of the Left ever been able to dominate the world with its regressive ideology. Don’t get mad that the dreams of your spiritual leaders Mao and Stalin never came true!!!
It’s OK, I can understand how it’s hurting you. I really hope you can get over it one day.
I would say though if I was a decent Leftist (I know those words contradict each other!), I would move to China or N Korea when the IRI kicked their behind. Just for the sake of decency. Not come to the U.S and claim in the year 2009 that Regan was “after world domination!” (as if a president that only can serve a maximum of 8 years really can benefit from all the wealth it brings!!, I guess Regan’s bank account was in billions when he left office because he “dominated the world!!).
I think you live in a world that’s “dominated” by ancient cold war rhetoric plus hatred and enviousness for democratic nations that has blinded your vision. Didn’t you go to one of those re-education camp that your “spiritual leader” Mao established?
Reagan, .., Bush (to Kashani_jAn!)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Sun Apr 12, 2009 06:00 AM PDTKashani says: "Bush was not anti Islam, nor anti Iraq, nor after oil in Iraq, Bush just wasn’t ready for the changed world."
Kashani, as a person with your management skills would say, let's look from a macro level instead of micro level. As you know one of your old spiritual leaders, Mr. Reagan, in his quest for world domination (cold war), created the monster Talibans and likes, ...., years passed and your recent right wing spiritual leaders, Mr. Bush and those in AIPAC, again in quest for domination, this time domination of middle east/oil, ..., got bugged down by what your first spiritual leader created!
.... ya, the criminal right wasn't ready to deal what itself created, what an irony, and how ironic to hear it from a right winger like you.
KorousS jaan, I
by Farhad Kashani on Sat Apr 11, 2009 01:36 PM PDTKorousS jaan,
I agree with many of your points, however I still believe that Bush’s image, which was a mixture of how he conducted himself (horribly!) and how the Leftist and corporate media portrayed him, one to make money and other to bash him blindly, had lot to do with the exaggeration of the outcomes of many of his policies among the American public and the world. Bush was not anti Islam, nor anti Iraq, nor after oil in Iraq, Bush just wasn’t ready for the changed world. He didn’t see the threat coming, but after it arrived, he understood it, but his incompetence didn’t help him effectively counter those threats.
Jaleho REVISED / IRI democracy, not opinion, FACT /Mammad
by rosie is roxy is roshan on Sat Apr 11, 2009 05:23 PM PDTOkay Jaleho or anyone who saw this post in its original form, retract. You see I had no idea that the avatar you use is one of the general ones, I'd never seen one that pretty offered before. So in the original post here I obliquely implied that you HAD had a post directed to me. Well SOMEONE did with that avatar, addressed to Miss Rosie is Roshan and then it was gone. After i'd written my first post to you telling you I would reply. Now I remember seeing the name Jaleho on it and it's posible that I did imagine that, far ore possible than if your avatar were yours and yours alone.
So I'd said I was DELUSIONAL in thinking I'd seen that post which you said never existe, and said you were delusional too in claiming IRI is a democracy, and continuing implicitly to say so in your short post to me saying we all have different opinons.
So let me modify that. I'd say I IMAGINED the post to me with your avatar which is gone said your name, it wasn't so strong as to be a delusion. So might I then suggest that you are IMAGINING that IRI i a democacy.
Fact: IRI has democratic elements.
Fact: IRI is not a democracy,
as Mammad has corrobated in his as always lengthy, thoughtful post backed up by details from his encyclopaedic knowledge of the history and workings of the Islamic Republic.
Agha farhad.
by KouroshS (not verified) on Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:56 PM PDTTrue. I do agree that there definitely is a need for so many fundamental changes or rather adaptations that need to take place. I do agree with you on the principle of the US government being a lot closer to a perfect system of governance, as you mentioned to mr. mamad, compared to so many other western countries.
But the issue of our discussion was practically the brainchild of W. himself. It seemed as if he was going at it single-handedly without hearing and taking into consideration every piece of evidence out there. The point that i am trying to make is that, regardless of the extent of authority of a president in any other situations domestic or international, When it comes to make a declaration of war He has the final say on the matter, Even though congress does play a part in the process, but as we witnessed, apparently it is the president who is allowed to totally ignore congress, and on his own issue the final order.
Mammad, I said a
by Farhad Kashani on Fri Apr 10, 2009 06:55 PM PDTMammad,
I said a thousand times that I am never interested in anyone’s personal story, or their race, or religion, or background, I do however care about their political stance. I was not looking for you to lay out all your personal details, although out of honesty you did and that’s admirable. I was merely looking to analyze the mindset of someone who has certain beliefs about someone or something, but at the end of the day has to make compromises. I think we all did and do that.
The biggest point of difference between you and I is that you believe U.S foreign policy post WWII has been, overall, “bad”, and I believe the opposite. Because I believe U.S was involved in a battle for its survival against communism, and it wasn’t only U.S that was involved, tens and tens of countries around the world were involved in the same situation. Since U.S was a superpower, many of the anti communism governments allied themselves with the U.S for that reason. But many of those were not what you would call “democratic”. Think about what U.S should’ve done here, it had no other choice but to befriend them. That doesn’t mean that U.S is “partners in their crime”. Did the U.S make mistakes, sure, they even say it, but at the end of the day, U.S and its model and its inspiration, triumphed over a dark and regressive and brutal enemy, and as result of that, millions are free and prosperous, or to be realistic, way better off.
Also we differ in what we constitute as the “closest to a perfect” model of governance and system. I don’t think you would consider U.S system as one, but I do. I want it to adopt itself to the situation, but you want it to “change”.
There are also the questions about personal responsibility and discipline which I think each country should hold itself responsible for its shortages before holding others, but you tend to disagree.
Anyways, at some point may all of us see the light!!!
KorushS jaan, What
by Farhad Kashani on Fri Apr 10, 2009 06:38 PM PDTKorushS jaan,
What you need to realize aziz is that when I say that there were other factor other than Bush that caused some of the mess up of the last 8 years, that doesn’t mean that I am saying that the president has no power, and like he said himself, the buck stops with him, but not everywhere and at all times. What I’m talking about is more about the fix, and the fix is to restructure government and bureaucracy and intelligence services and financial structure. Many of those do not fit the world that we live in and do not fit how America grew and its mindset changed.
Also criticizing the false anti Bushism culture is not the same as defending Bush, although many of his policies are defendable, in my opinion. Same thing with Obama, although he has been in office for 10 weeks or so, I agree with some of the things he did and disagree with others. The one that I really disagree with is mentioning the IRI regime in his Nowrooz speech. That was a huge mistake and one day you will realize why. On the other hand, I have supported his stance on Guantanamo, Stem cell, and WISE military budget.
Lets see what happens.
Anonym7
by Mammad on Fri Apr 10, 2009 08:50 AM PDTThank you for telling me this. As I am sure you agree, eventually all of us will leave the scene. Therefore, what should survive and thrive is our native land. We leave behind a legacy of the sort - no matter how unnoticed - regarding how we treated Iran, the land that gave me - I do not speak for others - anything the might be good in me.
My borther was in those 81 events, as were my cousins, and too many friends to count. My family has suffered greatly. But, I'll be damned if I allow my personal feelings to get in the way of how I think and act when it comes to my beloved native land. As you said, I'll never be binary - either with us or gainst us - or black and white. The time for such thinkings is long past. Those who accuse us of being "extremist" of this or that type are, in fact, the extremist of first rate themselves. Only an extremist - from Bush down to his "lovers" in this site - see the world that way.
Mammad
regarding the "IRI supporter" ( to mammad)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Fri Apr 10, 2009 06:49 AM PDTMammad, your story has similarities with those of many from my generation ..... unlike you (if I understood you correctly) some of us even participated in ~81 events (attempts to remove IRI, continuous revolution- as you know), and we/I failed.
Unlike many of these extremists, we have not allowed our opposition to IRI turn into hatred for Iran or Iranians. In the eyes of these hatred driven, binary thinking people, we MUST therefor be "IRI supporters".
FK
by Mammad on Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:38 AM PDTI answer your honest question:
I have lived in the US for 31 years. I am a citizen of this country. A good citizen, a true patriot, is not someone who blindly follows the leaders the way you do, rather is someone who thinks about what the leaders do, ponders their decisions, supports them if supportable, criticizes them if they must criticized, and rejects them if they should be rejected. Tens of millions in the US totally reject Bush, and I am one of them.
Why is it important where I came from, or why I came here? I came here to get my doctorate and go back to Iran. When I graduated, I wanted to go back. My parents told me not to. I did not know why at that time, but my parents told me with much crying and begging at that time (1984) not to go back. 4 years later when I finally went back to visit, I realized why: They had killed my brother (I did not know until then), and my parents were worried that if I went back at that time, I would be too. Both my parent eventually died as a direct result of what happened to my family.
But, you have the nerves to call me with straight face an IRI supporter. I am not, although I do not care about what you may call me. I, (1) do not allow my personal feelings to get into my way of caring about my native land, and (2) do not see things black and white. I defend what can be defended, reject what must be rejected, criticize what must be criticized, and am absolutely proud of all the achievements of Iranians in Iran, particularly when it comes to the nuclear program. I feel exactly the same way about the US, my adopted country.
The only difference between me and a nth generation American is that, the boat that brought his/her ancestors to this country arrived before the 747 jet of Iran Air that brought me here. So, I am as entitled to reject or accept or criticize anything as anyone. As an American colleague told me a few months ago, "we have had many presidents in the past whom we did not like, but Bush is the first president whom is despised and hated." I am one of those who despises this War Criminal.
You, on the other hand, are totally oblivious to all the crimes that have been committed as a result of the foreign policy of this nation, and in particular Bush's. You are willing to say anything, to do anything, to write anything, just to justify the foreign policy of the US. You mistake slogans with actual actions. The crimes of the US foreign policy in Latin America, in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Iran, etc., cannot be washed off. Millions of American agree with this. The US is as responsible as Israel about what Israel does to the Palestinians, because without US help Israel will never be able to do what it does.
Mammad
Farhad. Dooste aziz
by KouroshS (not verified) on Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:44 PM PDTIf a country really prides itself on being the single biggest and the most important promoter of democracy in the world since who knows when, then it better damn make sure that it can live up to it and implement effective and harmless tactics in order to let that democracy come to life. Sadly, US's policie, shortly after The big G.W, were so off the true path.
You have mentioned and talked about the american pulic at lenght in these posting. Let me tell you this: The American publice can be devided in two distinct groups. The educated and politically informed ones who have followed the news in iran methodically and without any bias and understand the situation there. and the second is those individuals who regardless of their level of education, and solely based on their cultural upbringings, have constatly used various political situation, anywhere in the world as an excuse to spew nonsense, under the Guise of Patriotism. Regardless of any venemous and Ultimately destructive idealogy The IRI may spread and any agenda it may be interetsed in promoting Those who are wise and Understand do not care to listen to Crap and know how to separate it from the truth,and actually believe it, Bush USED this to promote his mantra or his mandates. It was not Just simple case of "echoing" the world's sentiments at the time.
I never even once made any mentions of what bush messed up in domestic and internal affairs!!! We were talking about his authorities and the ability to make decisions about the final move toward the invasion of Iraq and in that move and As a CHIEF commander, He had the ultimate authority, Regardless of how various Government entities should have worked together! so please don not change the subject, and yes he was so at fault. One thing that YOU need to REALIZE, is that waging a campaign to expose the supposed evil in the world MUST be based on SO much credible evidence and not thin air.
It is really too late to comment and discuss what he should or could have meant by all that he said. What matters is that he put his words into action without making clear his intentions and purpose.
Dear KoroushS, U.S
by Farhad Kashani on Thu Apr 09, 2009 06:13 PM PDTDear KoroushS,
U.S has been the single greatest promoter of Democratic values around the world. And that has been an integral part of their foreign policy since the days of G Washington. Now, the tactics and strategies that they used in achieving and promoting that goal have not always been successful. I think the most rightest of the right wingers will even agree with that. But the truth remains the same. Also, in order for free countries like the U.S to counter regimes such as the IRI, thy need to have an effective public opinion and propaganda policy since regimes such as IRI feed and thrive and survive on propaganda. They have been calling the U.S “the great Satan” for 30 years now. Do you really think some people haven’t really bought into that? One big mistake that I see some people make is that they underestimate the power of “words” and “ideology” and “war of hearts and minds” and focus on “things” only. The number of times that I heard that “since IRI doesn’t have a nuclear weapons, therefore it’s not a threat” on this site, is sad! In today’s world, people with box cutter can have much bigger effect than nuclear weapons! If you don’t counter their propaganda machine, you already lost half of the battle. Off course calling the IRI regime “evil” could mean many things, but it makes the point clear. Most people around the world do agree that IRI regime is “evil”, so what W said was just an echo of what people, especially Iranians, believe in.
As far as President Bush goes, I actually agree with you that he did not make enough attempts to make some necessary changes, but what you need to realize is the limitations of the president’s power in this country. Fortunately, we have a president, not a king. The checks and balances and bureaucracy significantly reduces the power of the president to make many domestic changes, and that goes back to my point that we shouldn’t be blaming Bush for all that went wrong. But again, I do agree that he did not make many necessary changes. One area that even Rumsfeld himself gave a D for the administration for, was waging the public opinion campaign to expose Islamic fundamentalism and its perpetuators and tell the world what real threat they represent.
And as far as war on terror, I’m not sure if its “endless”, but I think we need to realize what that “terror” means, and I think that’s another area W lagged on which was explaining what is exactly we’re waging war on, although out of all presidents post 1979, he has come the closest in defining it. Tyranny is terror also, but the way the world should counter tyranny is different than the way they should counter Islamic fundamentalism and martyrdom culture, which I think that’s what he meant or should’ve meant by it. Two different concepts, two different ideologies and two different methods to fight them. I personally think he should’ve said “war on fundamentalism” or something in that nature.
Jaleh
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Thu Apr 09, 2009 06:12 PM PDTJaleh, sorry for not having responded to your question. I have been hesitant to sprinkle more salt on self inflicted wounds of Mr. Kashani.
Mammad, The world knows
by Farhad Kashani on Thu Apr 09, 2009 06:10 PM PDTMammad,
The world knows that the Left supports mass murder regimes as long as they take an anti Capitalism/anti Western/anti American/anti Liberal stance. What the IRI did to Leftists (whom by the way were IRIs allies before Khomeini turn on them) shows the brutality of the IRI regime, not the “victimization” of the Left.
Nowadays, everywhere from Sudan to Iran to Cuba, the savage regimes of those countries get support from the left regardless of what they’re doing to their people and others, because they simply proclaim to be anti “Imperialist”. The Left hates America more than it loves itself.
And if I may ask a question, and please do not take this the wrong way, I’m not being sarcastic nor insulting by asking this question. Im not trying to ask a personal question (since I never do) or anything like that, but since you brought it up, why move to the U.S which you guys despise so much, and when leaving Iran, not trying to go to N Korea or Cuba or USSR, since you guys claim them to be the model to follow? Again, this is purely an honest question, and I understand if you don’t wish to answer. All I’m trying to do is understand what goes through a Leftist mind when they have to be confronted with these awkward situations? Please understand this is not an insult.
Dear Rosie is roxy,
by Jaleho on Thu Apr 09, 2009 08:19 AM PDTAll the messages that I have written are in here. Maybe you read something by another person that was deleted? Thanks for your interest in this long blog, and naturally many differing opinion.
Rosie
by Mammad on Thu Apr 09, 2009 07:52 AM PDTBy democratic I mean, whoever that wants to be a candidate and run, can. This is not the same as fair, at least in the context that I defined. Since the Gaurdian Council vetts the candidates, it cannot be democratic, although the vetting has intensity, sometimes it is weak, as in the elections for the 6th session of the Majles, because there was huge popular pressure, and sometimes it is strong, as in the elections for the 7th session, because the right wing had felt that people do not care.
Khatami's victory meant that, (1) there are limited elements of democracy in the system, and (2) in a competitive election (since Khatami and Nouri were so different), people participate and reformist and democratic candidates will win.
Militarization of Iran's politics started long time ago. It was Ayatollah Khamenei and the right wing who used the Basij militia and sometimes the Sepah to suppress their opponents. Gradually, Sepah commanders decided that, instead of being foot soldiers for the Ayatollahs, they want to control things themselves. They had saved Iran during Iran/Iraq war and wanted power for a part of it.
In my opinion Ayatollah Khamenei has put himself in an impossible situation. Unlike what many people think, he is under pressure by Sepah commanders, and has to go along with what they want, in order to preserve himself as the Supreme Leader. He has no base of popular support whatsoever.
I urged people to vote for Rafsanjani in the last election. Rafsanjani is corrupt, but he has a much more realistic view of the world, wanted to re-establish relations with the US (which, in my opinion, is vital for Iran's democratic movement), and his administration after the Iran/Iraq war did a lot of good reconstruction work to repair and upgrade Iran's infrastructure. He and Ahmadinejad are like night and day, comparatively speaking.
Mammad
Thanks so much for the reply, Mammad. As usual
by rosie is roxy is roshan on Thu Apr 09, 2009 07:15 AM PDTyou give me so much background, details and explanation to put things into better perspective.
To tell you the truth I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "democratic" in contrast to fair and competitive, so could you please elaborate on this a bit? And then could you please comment on Khatami's victory within this context. I use it as an example to show that there are democratic ELEMENTS built into IRI--otherwise he could not have won--because it is the only one I know.
I also wonder what yu think of my idea that ithe military flanking of IRI during the Reform was the singl most important factor in bringing about the hardliner backlash.
I agree with you that as long as there is some choice, no matter how much it has been narrowed by the vetting process, that it is better to vote. I think all Ameroicans hould've learned this in 2000, and I was flabberghasted that my friends a little further to the "Left" of me would not vote for Obama in the face of McCain and not even when he joined forces with the Moose Killer. because he is also part of the "system".
This in an extreme example but anyway, what I want to know is that given the choice between the two evils, (and forgetting what has happened since the elections) would you have voted fro Rafsanjani or Ahmadinejad and why?
I have a couple of other questions but that's enough for now. Thanks so much. Take care,
Roxane
Rosie
by Mammad on Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:11 AM PDTI do not know whether you want me to comment on your writings here. But, if that is the case, here is my 2-cents worth opinion:
In my opinion, the three elements of true elections are: being democratic, fair, and competitive. The meaning of democratic is obvious. By fair I mean that the ruling establishment does not use the nation's resources to its own advantage, and limit the other side. By competitive I mean one in which different candidates have opposing views, and it is not clear who will win the elections. Now, in this light, let's look at Iran's elections.
With very few exceptions, Iran's elections after the Revolution have not been democratic. Iran's elections before the Revolution, with a couple of exceptions during Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh's era, were also not democratic. After the CIA-MI6 coup of 1953 up until 1979 we never had elections, but simply shows!
The only relatively democratic elections after the Revolution were the elections for the first session of the Majles, the elections for the first president (that Abolhasan Bani Sadr won), and the elections for the second terms of the city councils in 2002. The last one was completely democratic, the only one in Iran's history.
Iran's elections have NEVER been fair, period.
Iran's elections after the Revolution have, most of the time, been competitive. The exceptions are the elections for the 7th session of the majles, and to a lesser degree those for the 8th session. In the elections for the 4th session of the Majles, many of the leftist candidates were declared unqualified, but the elections were not without competitions.
It is clear that the IRI system is not democratic, though there are limited elements of it. At the same time, the IRI is also not a dictatorial regime in the classical sense. The IRI system is a strange mixture of various aspects.
We have a parliament, but also the Guardian Council that can veto Majles' resolutions. Then, we have the Expediency Council that can over rule both! We have Ministry of Higher Education, and Ministry of Education, but we also have the Cultural Revolution Council. We have the Foreign Ministry, but also have Secretary General of the Supreme National Security Council that often acts like the Foreign Minister. We have the regular Army, but also Revolutionary Guards. We have a president, but also a Supreme Leader who himself is selected by the Assembly of Experts. This can go on and on.
But, the net results are that, (1) power is diffused, although the SL has the highest power, and (2) the system is always semi-paralyzed (except when it comes to security issues). This allows, (1) the existence of a vocal opposition that cannot be eliminated or supressed, and (2) makes the system distinct from a classical dictatorial regime in which there is an absolute central authority, and everyone else follows him, the way the Shah was.
In my opinion, so long as the elections in Iran are at least competitive, one should participate in the voting.
Mammad
Farhad
by KouroshS (not verified) on Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:00 PM PDTMr. F. kashani
As a follower of the exchange of opinions on this blog, i read your back and forthh with mr. mamad. Looking at that and also some of the things that you pointed out to jaleho, i noticed a little bit conflict in your statements.
Let me start by your justification of Bush calling the IRI part of this axis of evil. You even go so far as to say that he should have reserved that title for IRI and no other countries. It really does not look good for a country such as USA who has been the biggest promoter of such revolutionary ideas that most often wind up in creating and giving rise to such so-called "evils" of the world, to slap the lable the same lable on its own creations. That is so oxymoronic.
You are making a very distorted image of Mr. Bush. First you introduce yourself as a Non bush or obama Lover. Then, Again in an attempt to justify his deeds, You give him the title of the "product" of his environment and the political and social atmospehre that was dominant at the time in the country. What about all that good stuff about Trend-setting and initiating a new direction and making fundamental and effective changes? What good is a president if he or she is merely a product of what is going on in the society?
It does not make any logical sense to claim that the president of a country is simply following the same direction as his own country and is the result and a product of what is going wrong in that country. What a nonsense. WHy do we elect a president then? Why spending massive fortunes on an election campaign, If we are not rooting for a real Leader and someone who can change the course of things?
You need to differentiate between two totally separate concepts here. Nobody is suggesting that a president has endless authority here, But even if one does make such a claim, he or she is not to blame, he is after all the CEO and the commander-in-chief, which by its nature gives him much more significant authorties than anyone else in the establishement or in this case the government and its structure! as you like to say. So who cares whoes fault it was? why did not he wait until he had all the pieces together before making such strategically horrible blunder? Who the hell should care to what extent the CIA or other agenices played a role in this? The CHIEF has the final word on everything, does he not?
ANother thing you and so many patriots should keep in mind is that , the war on terror is very similar to the concept of The war on drugs. There is no end in sight. It can never end and it can always be renewed for various stupid reasons. There are no winners and losers per se. There is no such thing as the world getting "sidetracked". Why would they? What is the exact definition here? How can one stop the turmoil, that is more than anything else is the creation of one's own self?
Those are still questions, many have failed to produce a clear and reasonable answer to.
ibc,
by rosie is roxy is roshan on Wed Apr 08, 2009 07:24 PM PDTcould you please let me know if you're still out there and if you are I'll reply to you about this referendum thing.
Thanks,
Roxane
double post
by rosie is roxy is roshan on Wed Apr 08, 2009 07:25 PM PDTdelete
To Curious, deferring and differing
by rosie is roxy is roshan on Wed Apr 08, 2009 07:03 PM PDTGod, I hope you come back to read this.
Many thanks for your prompt and detailed response to my earlier comment. Since the original post had disappeared from the front page I thought the issue was passé. However, today I noticed that the saga still continues.
This happens frequently with unregistered users. Probably the biggest advantage of registering is that it gives you a tracking system that you click on and it tells you every time any thread you've posted on has been added to, so you can just click on it right then and there and check it. But some people have serious concerns because of which they really can't register, and in that case the thing to remember is that a very discussed thread usually dies pretty hard and will usually be in the most-discussed box on the homepage for about a week after its original posting. In fact this one is.
In fact, in one of your comments, you have written, “Or a Fish down below who said he repects Jaleho's right to think IRI IS a democracy. Why? Do you respect my "right" to think that pigs can flly?” I happen to be that ‘Fish’.
As you have surmised, I didn't realize that, and it's because the thread's so long and I didn't have time to go back and search for it. But I liked the rest of the post very much, only that particular line I found...too polite, under the circumstances.
What I wrote, however, was, “Jaleho, I respect your right to BELIEVE that contemporary Iran is democratic.” I used the word BELIEVE (in upper case) instead of ‘think’ for obvious reasons. Rosie, I will also respect your right to BELIEVE “that pigs can fly.” But, if you “think” they fly, I have a course in Zoology to offer you
I'm game! (no pun intended). Let's start off with unicorns, griffins, and simorghs.
Borrowing your metaphors, I would like to remind that both ‘the elephant’ and ‘the bull’ are side-neutral. And, after all, the proposed dialogue is more like a first date than a divorce proceeding. Therefore, it is in the interest of both sides to display their good manners, and avoid any pretentious upsmanship.
Well just to clarify, the elephant in the room is just the hr issue (you know that), but the bull in the china shop just refers to a kind of chaos, that's all, could be anything, no idea what, so I don't really know what you mean by "side-neutral",,,unless that's what you mean..?
I am sure you agree that when it comes to HR violations both regimes have a checkered past – and even present – that cannot be easily swept under the rug. Furthermore, both sides have repeatedly shown a propensity to air each other’s dirty laundry in public. As a result, neither side has a moral authority to demand from the opponent a change in this regard – at least not in the first date
Agreed. I'm not saying that either side does. I'm just saying that the Obama administration IS well aware of it and any serious letter to him discussing policy with Iran must refer to it, or it will discredit the letter. So even to simply explain to him, as you so persuasively did to me and continue to do, that it is not in anyone's best interests to stress (perhaps not even bring up) the issue now, would make a valid letter. Not mentioning it is "incredible", as it were.
Unless one is a neo-con, a Plan-B strategist, or an armchair HR activist, intended on bringing about an abrupt end to any rapprochement between the two countries, he or she should not insist on placing issues that are deal breakers, on the negotiations’ agenda.
Agreed. See above. If you guys agree that the best thing to tell Obama would be to not even mention it at all NO MATTER WHAT, that would be perfectly reasonable to me. Provided that the decision emanated from the kind of honest, thoughtful deliberation that you're showing me. And that's...relatively rare..on this forum, you know.
And I also want th throw in here, not for you, Curious, but for others who may be reading it, that anyone who is naive enough to think that by not stressing it HERE that that helps in any way, shape, or form to draw attention away from the human rights issue from the watching world (and they are watching, and if you don't believe me, ask me why and i'll explain) because the hr issues are plastered everywhere anyway, so to think that playing the triple monkey game (more zoology!), i.e., see no, hear no, speak no evil..is seriously delusional.
Anyhow, again, the previous paragraph was not intended for you, Curious. But now, to state again: not to mention the issue to Obama EVEN IF ONLY TO TELL HIM NOT TO MENTION IT is a bad idea. Now I want to look briefly at your laundry list:
Unless one is a neo-con, a Plan-B strategist, or an armchair HR activist
As i am sure you will agree, the neo-cons almost destroyed the planet using the pretext of human rights for the goal of King Oil, so let's forget about them and hope they'll be extinct soon, which would be a great contribution indeed to zoologists.
Plan B strategist: Again, no, plan A. Obama knows about it, he's thinking about it. IF ANYTHING all the more urgent to tell him why it shouldn't be used on the first (or maybe not even the tenth..) daate. Not only to maintain your credibility but also to guide HIM. Aren't you afraid that if you DON'T mention it, he WILL use it? Is that an unrealistic possibility?
I think Barak is basically a good person. But he's also green (no pun intended). And he knows it. He's smart. He knows his limitations very well. So he is very receptive, I believe, to advice and he's still working on finding his own ground. He is a brilliant MEDIA strategist, probably the greatest one since the globaliation and I'net started. But he's not a brilliant political or economic or diplomatic strategist YET. The good thing is, he knows it. So he needs all the sound advice he can get.
If you think bringing up hr would be a terrible blunder, and I can see it your way, don't you think it might be a good idea to explain why? Just in case he might do it if you don't?
So again, not plan B. Plan A.
armchair human rights activist
okay, fine, but you left out onel group.
what about authentic human rights activists? Obviously they do exist. Even here on this forum, among the regular bloggers, there's oh...say...two or three...but outsdie of here there are many more, without and within Iran, Iranian and non-Iranian, etc. etc. et.c
Your not mentioning them among the groups would seem to imply that human rights activists could ONLY be armchair. And if I had to choose one and one thing only for you to respond to from this post, IF I had to, it would be that.
P.S. ‘Ta’ligh-e be mahaal’ (literally, “hanging to the impossible”) is Persian for ‘deferring ad infinitum’.
Aah, I see. Well I'm a fairly patient person, but not ad infinitum..in deference to you...
Mammad,
by rosie is roxy is roshan on Wed Apr 08, 2009 06:26 PM PDTfirst of all I wanted to say that I never thanked you for that feeback you gave me on my nukes question and it was so helpful and you're the only one who did, and you know that's not like me and I'm really sorry but something happened... and believe it or not, it's been preying on my mind..but you know you're not contactable at your account and I lost that e-mail address I got through your friend a while back.
anyway, I'm somewhat ashamed to ask, given those circumstances, but while you're here I wonder if you could glance up the thread at my series of posts w/replies, I know there're quita a few and it's a bit much but you're a good scanner, I'm sure, and give me some feedback. I would graatly appreciate it.
Thanks so much,
Roxane
JALEHO, YOU POSTED A REPLY TO ME WHICH I NO LONGER
by rosie is roxy is roshan on Wed Apr 08, 2009 06:17 PM PDTsee. I wrote a short reply to you (below) telling you I'd be reading it and replying and that's what I came back to do. I hadn't even got the opportunity to read it, and now I don't see it!
I've looked for it several times. Is it possible I'm missing something? Could you please redirect me to it, what's above & below it? Or if it accidentally got deleted, could you please rewrite it to the best of your recollection and post it here?
Thanks so much.
Take care,
Roxane
FK, FK, FK
by Mammad on Wed Apr 08, 2009 06:17 PM PDTOoh! Wow! Haah!
I am so impressed by your determination to counter "extreme socialists" like me. Do it, but not based on your usual fabrications, and hallucinations!
Let's see: I am an extreme socialist, but the IRI that killed thousands of socialists and communists is my regime!
The first conditions for a good debate on politics are, (i) the ability to admit failure and mistakes, and (ii) avoiding fabrication and rewriting of history. You do not satisfy these conditions.
As I had predicted, you came right back with mumbo jumbo and MJ only.
Mammad