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 |
Don't kid yourselves. The
by AnonymousHH (not verified) on Wed Apr 08, 2009 04:30 PM PDTDon't kid yourselves. The Zionists OWN Obama and in fact the whole US political system. Netanyahu has a hard on for iran they will hit iran and HARD.
If you don't think Iran will be attacked, you need a reality check. Iran HAS to be attacked for the zionist agenda. There is no other way.
These pigs live for war. Ahmadinejad might be an idiot but he is right to call israel an cancerous tumor. They really are.
Jaleho, I accept
by Farhad Kashani on Wed Apr 08, 2009 02:24 PM PDTJaleho,
I accept facts, unlike you. So I’m going to ask you, what does heavy USSR casualties during WWII mean anything to our discussion? The reason that U.S suffered less casualties is simply because it’s geographical location which was far from the major battlegrounds. What is your point exactly?
Bush: Bush was a product of a nation and its culture and system that lost its way, not that he created all of the mess. America has become too powerful and too “laid back” and government became too corporate style in its operations, and Americans became less politically aware and more lazy and welfare oriented and instant gratification seekers versus long term goals seekers, and W was simply a product of how things were going wrong in America. But considering the circumstances, he managed to set the base for countering the biggest threat this country and the world faces, which is Islamic fundamentalism. His tactics were off at times, that why Obama,I think, will have better success using better strategies. But he initiated the war on terror and this war is not something that the world affords to lose or get sidetracked on. Before W, no U.S policy maker, or majority of the world, ever saw the threat or did something about it. But he did. He certainly was an incompetent president in many ways, but if you have the basic understanding of governmental structure in this country, which unfortunately it seems you don’t, you would understand where the loopholes were and which bureaucracy and which side or person is at fault when and where. For example, the Iraq war was not only a strategic mistake on W part, it was the failure of CIA, global intelligence cooperation’s, war planning on part of Pentagon and civil authority. Certainly the buck stops with him, no doubt, but if we’re talking about the root cause or a fix, we need to fix those first before we think the prez has endless authority and ability to make changes.
Mammad, First
by Farhad Kashani on Wed Apr 08, 2009 02:23 PM PDTMammad,
First off, if I’m not mistaking, we had discussed how public opinion is measured in situations where as regimes such as your beloved Fascist IRI does not allow free public opinion surveys for obvious reasons. So I can go back and copy and paste material, but I like t engage in meaningful discussion, not childish games like you’re engaging in. I’m sure you are well aware of our previous discussion. You can keep your “power of attorney” to yourself, thanks. All Fascist regime have supporters, USSR did, IRI does, Khemer Rouge, Communist China, Communist N Korea, all of your beloved “anti Imperialist, victims of American imperialism!!” regimes, all have supporters. The question is how many?
Secondly, I don’t speak for W. Who do you speak for? War mongering, terrorism inspiring and promoting, chaos causing, human rights violating, Iranian people oppressing, fundamentalism promoting Fascist IRI? I think the answer is YES.
Third, what you don’t seem to understand is “what is a reasonable reaction to an action”? That’s the problem with you guys. You guys say if Israel is occupying Palestine, it should be eliminated (extreme reaction), if America has done some mistakes, we should burn its flag and bad mouth it 24/7, attack its embassy, takes its people hostage,and…(extreme reaction), if Bush has done mistakes, we should make up this whole “culture” ranging from ridiculing the way he speaks (which is by the way the way millions of honest Americans speak) to the way he laughs to bashing every policy he initiates without thinking about it (extreme reaction). That’s my point. The culture that was created was an “extreme, entertainment centered, biased, unrealistic” sentiment towards Bush. It surpassed logic. Criticize him when necessary, and support him when necessary. There were people that blindly opposed everything he did. Well, now they’re talking about continuing many of his policies. So what happened back then?
Fourth, I’ve never seen anyone like you miss the point. How do you teach? Seriously? HOW? Isn’t the Supreme Court of Iowa part of Iowa? Furthermore, you guys labeled any state or any person who voted for Bush as “extremist” and “neo con”. Well CA is very “blue” isn’t it? So how come the voters didn’t approve? So is CA “Neo Con” and “extremist”? You get the point? It’s the false labeling that leftist like you engaged in and caused serious damages (which I know it the intent of the Left) to this country. Also, as an Agnostic, borderline Atheist, I am a staunch supporter of Gay marriage.
Fifth, Neo Con: You simply don’t get it. Someone coming up with a phrase is different than that phrase get used extensively to label a group, and more sadly, using that label to bash your opponents. Re inventing a concept or a term to demonize others is what happened. Many of the people that yours pals call “Neo Con” don’t consider themselves “Neo Cons”, so it’s a subjective word.
Sixth, read my article again. Obama is definitely different in many ways, including stem cell and Guantanamo and others…however, as we predicted before and to you guys’ disappointment, many of Bush’s policies are being continued by Obama. You weren’t’ able to realize that these are the necessary and right policies, again, all you people did is label things as “Neo Con” and “Imperialistic” and “extremist”. To name a few, pressure on IRI, extending Iran sanctions, bombing Pakistan tribal areas, stimulus packages, government intervention in economy, maintaining U.S presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressuring N Korea, Annapolis conference (he said in turkey that Annapolis and road map are the paths to peace), support for Israel (and Palestine both), to name a few. Also, I’m neither a Bush lover nor an Obama lover. I love them when I have to, and dislike them when I have to. I’m an objective person. Do you know what that is? Please look it up.
The way you’re wording the examples about Bush policies illustrates your lack of objectiveness and your extremist approach. You are an extremist. That’s just bottom line. How can you say the Supreme Court are “loonies” when that court bumped heads with Bush himself in some cases? What kind of “lunatic” steps have they taken? What did Roberts or Alito do that are so “extreme right wing”??? And as far as IRI goes, Bush RIGHTLY so called it that (actually there is no axis, rather, IRI is the evil itself!) because it inspires, promotes and supports terrorism (i.e Islamic Fundamentalism), well, guess what, Obama said the same thing in his Nowrooz message, that’s IRI should stop supporting terrorism! And narrowing down 30 years of blind and irrational IRI animosity towards the U.S to one act that IRI did in Afghanistan (out of fear, not out of intent to improve relations!), shows your lack of ability to analysis even the most obvious facts.
Also, he didn’t try to overthrow King Hugo (who has killed Venezuelan democracy and economy), patriot Venezuelans (or to you extremist right wing Venezuelans!) did, the ease dropping he probably shouldnt’ve done, and as far as stem cell and assistant to aborting approving groups in 3rd world (I said already Obama is taking different approaches in some areas). Also, in which country did the 1953 happened? Where was the Shah from? Where was Zahedi from? Where was Shah’s supporters from? Answer those simple questions to yourself, not to me!
Call me an “extremist conservative” all you want. That falsification of fact and character assassination will only make me more determined in exposing “extreme socialists” like you who support the one regime that has destroyed Iran and its values.
Anonymous7
by Jaleho on Wed Apr 08, 2009 08:55 AM PDTWhat happend to bear and the bear hunter?
bear hunter (to Kashani)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Wed Apr 08, 2009 06:58 AM PDTKashani_jAn, you remind me of the hunter in the bear hunter joke (the hunter who kept missing his target). Keep shooting ....
Mr. Kashani
by Jaleho on Wed Apr 08, 2009 05:50 AM PDTYour present sentiments towards G. Bush is not surprising to me. It seesm to me that you are not even willing to accept the well established historical facts let alone facts about G.Bush that still needs to be judged by history. I remember a discussion I had with you about 60+ million killed in the WWII, the greater part of it coming from the USSR, NOT USA; Dresden, hiroshima and nakasaki brutal bombings and its real figures and motivations, and you just couldn't accept the well established historical data that every one who knows an epsilon about history more than what they hear in FOX, would know.
About George Bush's historical legacy, this we know: so far, most historians seem to agree that George Bush will go down the American history as one the most notorious and despised presidents this country ever had. He knows it himself and says that he doesn't care what people think, he attributes it to the blessed freedom of people to think of him whatever way they want ;-)
AND, this letter was sent to Obama right after his Norooz message in March already, sorry that your approval was not gained prior to that. Like I said, if it did not reflect your particular sentiment, why don't you send him your very own? I promise I wouldn't care.
FK
by Mammad on Tue Apr 07, 2009 09:00 PM PDTWould you please specify who is "us" here that you speak on behalf of? I do not remember giving you any power attorney. And how do you about your "majority?" You talked to them, or took a poll?
And who do you speak for? George W. "had good intentions" Bush, right-wing lunatics, wickedly anti-proressives, Israel-can-do-no wrongers, etc., etc., etc.?
False anti-Bush culture? What the heck are you talking about? The man is despised by the world. The Republican Party ran away from him. The Republicans ran away from him. His own advisor, Dan Bartlet, said that after Katrina it was obvious that Bush had lost people. MaCain, who had voted with Bush 90% of the time, ran away from him. No one wanted to be seen with him during the elections. And he has been practically hidding since leaving the WH, and you still defend the War Criminal in Chief? The man's place is in a jail.
And, here is some more of your mis-statements, to put it extremely politely:
1. Iowa did not approve gay marriage the way California rejected it. To the opposite. The Iowa Supreme Court, just like CA's, approved the marriage. I have never known anybody who invents and rewrites events as fast as you do.
The question is, what is your position regarding the issue? Let me tell you about mine: As a practicing Muslim, it is perfectly fine with me if gays and lesbians want to get married.
2. The word neoconservative was not invented by those who opposed them. The word was used first by the neoconservatives themselves in the early 1970s, by people like the late Senator Henry "Scoope" Jackson, Democrat of Washington. At least learn the history of what you adhere to!
3. No, Obama is not following many of the Bush's policies. What the hell are you talking about? You are transforming yourself from a Bush "lover" to an Obama "lover" now? At least people like me know better.
4. What Policy of Bush was right?
Torturing? Invading Iraq illegally and criminally? Supporting Israel blindly? Making a mess of Pakistan? Trying to overthrow Hugo Chavez? Accepting Iran's help in Afghhanistan, and then turning around and naming it a member of the hallucinatory "axis of evil?"
Eavesdropping on innocent citizens? Packing the courts with right-wing loonies? Interferring in scientific issues, such as stem cell research and faking data about environment in order to deny the Green House effect? Terry Shiavo? Denying birth control to the 3rd world?
Authorizing opening of people's mails and reading their e-mails? Politicizing the Justice Department and firing 8 US Attornies because they would not prosecute the opposition? Sending people to the hospital bed of his own ill Attorney General, John Aschcraft, to get him sign on some illegal documents? Oh hell, this list can go on and on and on!!
It does not matter whether you accept Iowa as the Jesus land or not. Experts, the true ones that are credible, say so. You are not considered an expert. So, lament as much as you want.
I know you will come back with more mumbo jumbo, but you can be a good decent conservative and right wing by accepting some essential facts, admitting some errors in your fantasy land. But, you have chosen to be an ultra-right wing who is living in denial, and have the nerve and straight face to label good decent people as agents of this or that, simply because they do not go along with your fatansies, such as "the 1953 coupe was an Iranian coupe!"
And, you lament why you are not considered an "expert" on Iran, but Trita Parsi is? And then, you say later on, when a lot of people got a chuckle as a result of your bemoaning, that you were targetting me and people like me? What happened? Did you write your fantasies and submitted them to a credible website, and they did not take your article?
Oh, hell, enough is enough of this absurdity of yours.
Mammad
Dear Jaleho, First
by Farhad Kashani on Tue Apr 07, 2009 02:23 PM PDTDear Jaleho,
First and foremost, do not speak on behalf of us because none of us and most Iranians do not share your point of view. If you like to express your opinion, this is a free country, and you can do that, but never speak on behalf of the Iranian people.
Second, what you show is a great example of how someone can be extensively consumed by a culture created by groups and media outlets which have specific ideological goals in mind. What you said in your article, unfortunately, in my opinion, does not illustrate a thorough and unbiased analysis of the topic you eluded to. It simply represents a false Anti Bush culture created by the Left that dominated the “news” circles during the last 8 years and now many, if not all, aspects of its falsehood and are surfacing. They called the Iraq invasion an “imperialist” act where as more and more are realizing that it was a strategic mistake more than anything else. They called states who voted for Bush as “Jesusland”, and now we come to hear that Iowa is legalizing gay marriage, where as CA rejected it! They invented the term “Neo cons” and attributed many of Bush’s policies to an alleged “Ne Con agenda to control the world”, where as Obama is following many of the same policies, because those policies were the right and necessarily policies, whether you label it “Neo Con” and “Old Con”. Offcourse each administration is different, and this is not saying Obama is following Bush’s path all the way, certainly, he has already taken a different course but many of W policies that made out to be “extremist” or “Neo Con flavored”, are been continued, because they were the “necessary” measures to take.
So, the Left got it wrong, and if you, and it appears that you are, want to follow it, you will get it wrong also.
deferring ad infinitum
by Curious (not verified) on Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:31 PM PDTRosie,
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. 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’.
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!
As far as the content of your response to my own comment is concerned, however, I still beg to differ. Allow me to touch on only one of the issues you have raised, the human right (HR) question.
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.
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.
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.
P.S. ‘Ta’ligh-e be mahaal’ (literally, “hanging to the impossible”) is Persian for ‘deferring ad infinitum’.
US GOVT STRATEGY / PERSIANS = WIN/WIN
by THE PERSIAN (not verified) on Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:38 AM PDTI agree with some commentators here, but certainly not anything about 'terrorism'. So if people in Iraq fight back against invading occupiers that kill their children, they are somehow 'terrorists'?!? The invaders are the terrorists, thank you very much.
Strategy: Playing all sides and all decks, it seems this is the final conclusion:
The US government needs to play the game. Do it Persian style, pretend to be defeated, then come up from the ground suddenly.
Play friends. Then let the Persians topple whomever they please. It is nature.
However, the US should be a catalyst, a supporter, managing the show...but the superstars are the Iranians themselves.
If this is too cryptic for you to read, you must not be Persian. :-)
Jaleho, again, I posted the previous post bvefore I saw yours,
by rosie is roxy is roshan on Tue Apr 07, 2009 07:34 AM PDTand I haven't read yours yet, but I will, and I'll reply later.
Okay, News, ibc, (sorry for the formatting problem)
by rosie is roxy is roshan on Tue Apr 07, 2009 07:32 AM PDTNews, as I explained to Curious below I never said IRI was a democracy. Even under the best circumstances, any country whose constitution privileges one religous or any other group over others, can never be considered a true democracy. Ever.
What I said was IRI's constitution is a mixture of democratic and totalitarian elements. The word I usually use to describe it is "schizophrenic." I also said that IRI displays sometimes more and sometimes (read, often) FAR less of the democratic elements.
The democratic elements are that regular elections are guaranteed and held regularly for all the elected posts you would expect in a democracy, from mayors to Presidents. The non-democratic element first and foremost is of course the lifetime Supreme Leader and all those who act along with him like the Guardian Council, having veto power over any and all decisions made by elected officials; as well as the ability to vet the candidates. And so in weighing and balancing their very existence FAR outweighs the authentic democratic elements which DO exist, and anyone who says they outweigh them can be at best accused of dreaming, and at worst of engaging in a meretricious propagandizing that, unfotunately, in today's geopolitical context, some people are actually susceptible to. This is most unfortunate.
How do we know though, that the democratic elements do exist? We know it because someone like Khatami couldn't've possibly become President, much less with the landslide he did, emerging as he did ot of virtually nowhere with a platform so much more liberal than the other candidates and the existing Regime's.
Now some people will argue, oh that was a set-up, they only let him in as a tool so that the dissidents would come out of the woods and then it would be easier to purge them, and god knows what else they'll argue...well, people will argue anything, and Iranians, along with some other peoples, have a remarkable ability to hypothesie about things, building elaborate constructs whose arguments are valid, watertight, but whose premises are false. And this is due to both high intelligence and a tendency toward paranoia, which all do not share but many do to greater or lesser degree.
And that is a lot of the reason why I keep harping on this referendum thing, because it's part and parcel of elaborating water-tight arguments of what reality is based on false premises. But I'll return to that later.
Anyway, so Khatami was democratically elected. However during his tenure his hands were often tied. In my view the conservative backlash was caused by the military flanking of Iran on both sides by Bush, with both an implicit and explicit threats therein. And I dont really understand why other people don't stress this as much as I do. Be that as it may. So Khatami was elected democratically, the country got a lot more freedoms but his hands were always tied in many areas, an outside event happened, a backlash ocurred, and he wound up completely tied in a stratjacket. And this year he had the opportunity to run again.
So. Clear democratic elements. But the fact that they can be at any time undone by the veto of one single person (not to mention all the rest, the tortures, the imprisonments, the hijab police.wiill always make them just that: elements, and the fundamental underpinnings of IRI are inherently totalitarian. And to say otherwise would be laughable if it weren't so goddamn dangerous. So especially the drafter of a public letter to Obama (or anyone) suggesting what they should do about anything having to do with politics, human rights, social issues, etc. should seriouslyl scrutinize themselves before uttering the words"iRI is a democracy". The "albeit not perfect" is not enough. IRI IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. It has real democratic ELEMENTS.But IT IS NOWHERES NEAR A DEMOCRACY and, even, no matter how close it may get, it will never be a true democracy until that Constitution is changed. And frankly Jaleho, to say such a thing is embarrassing, Because the State Department people reading thi will be wondering, why should we take the ideas in this letter seriously OR the ideas seriously of ANY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS THREAD who has not SERIOUSLY challenged you on that, as opposed to "Well, I think we must agree oto disagree. Oh and now let me talk about my fanstasy referendum." That's not a serous challenge. 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?
Fantasy Island.Ya gotta get off of Fantasy Island. And that's why the people who challenge the babble about IRI being a democracy albeit not perfect, have to stop babbling about fantasy referendums and such, because you're all dong the same thing, creating elaborate watertight system of what reality is, based on falso premises.
Anyway I hope I have clarified that I do not believe that IRI is a democacy. I also am strongly against sanctions, strongly against the Israeli regime, highly critical of Obama, moreso of Hillary, am a socialist, etc...so anyone who wants to try to put me in a boxand label me as reactionary just because I said that to utter the words IRI is a democracy is a bunch of garbage, well, here's some cardboard, wrappng paper and tape. I''ll even pay for postage if there's somewhere you want to send me.
As regards your post about the referendum itself, ibc, I think it's very important to address your questions so I'll post on that later. Yes, people, I DO THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT, FUNDAMENTAL, to this letter you're drafting here..
Take care,
Roxie
Dear Mr. Kashani,
by Jaleho on Tue Apr 07, 2009 05:04 AM PDTIndeed there is not in single common ground between the arguments you presented and the content of this blog. So, the best way would be for you to write another letter to Mr. Obama with your totally different point of views.
But, remmeber to change your title from the present "an alternative policy advice to Obama," because what you're talking about is what Cheney and the neocons have been saying all along. Regurgitating the failed neocon material would not be "alternative policy" for a president with the mantra of "change." But hey, in this country, it is quite common to feed people the same old garbage with different euphemism, I heard they are officially changing the word "toxic assets" to "legacy assets." And war has been often used instead of peace, freedom, human rights and salvation, maybe you'll hit a gold mine.
This article is full of
by Farhad Kashani on Mon Apr 06, 2009 07:33 PM PDTThis article is full of factual errors, re-definition of reality and is nothing but an Islamo Socialists attempt to justify and apologize for the IRI regime, the most fanatic and barbaric regime in the world.
- Root cause of US IRan animosity goes back to the extreme ideological clashes between two very different classes of thought, Fundamentalist, human rights violating and terrorism inspiring version of the IRI, and the liberal and democratic version of the U.S. These two are simply unable to co exist. Khomeini saw U.S as the exact opposite of what he represented, and since U.S is the face of Western civilization and democracy, it is automatic that it will be the punching bag for ideologies that resent what U.S represents.
- The 1953 coup was an IRANIAN coup, done by Iranians, in Iran, against other Iranians. It wasn’t some long term military clash that needed significant U.S interference. Not taking responsibility for our own actions and blaming our shortfalls on others, is a trademark of Iranian Islamo Leftist ideology. That being said, even if we accept the argument that the coup was “American”, didn’t the IRI kind a”made up” for that with the hostage taking in 1979? So why they haven’t moved on? Did the IRI stated after the hostage crisis, that now it wants good relations with America? NO! If anything it got worse, because, again, these two ideologies are incompatible, and knowing my own people, Khamenei and his goons will never back down from this ideology. Anyone, such as the author of this article, deliberately or indeliberately undermines the role that ideology plays in the U.S IRI feud, is either out of lack of understanding making a terrible mistake and/or knowingly trying to strip IRI of any role it plays and plays in igniting and continuing this irrational animosity.
- Iranians in no way, shape or form, blame this animosity on anything and anyone else but the Fascist nature of the IRI regime.
- Asking for the U.S to make all the moves and first gestures without even slightest request of the IRI to compromise, is a selfish act rejected by most Iranians who understand who is the party at fault in the Iran US feud, the IRI regime.
- IRI is one of the, if not the, biggest savage inhumane, fundamentalism inspiring, terrorism inspiring regimes in the world, and simply nothing that it does is in any way, shape or form is constructive and beneficial to the interest of Iran or the world..
- Iranians despise the IRI, and their first plea from the U.S is to help them fight and remove the regime that has brutally and in a rarely seen in history fashion killed, imprisoned and butchered them for 30 years.
- The vast majority of Iranians strongly resent and rejects attempts made by the author of this article and his like-minded people, to any way, shape or form, soften the image of the regime and apologize for it. We only blame one source for most, if not all, Iran’s ills: the unelected, illegitimate, and illegal regime in Tehran.
President Obama, IRI wants only one thing: the U.S bowing down to it, which means the defeat of the U.S. All of these attempts by these Islamo Leftist to ask you to make a gesture are calculated attempts to make the U.S look as if the party to blame. If the U.S does that, the following will happen: Global Fundamentalism will achieve its greatest victory, IRI will remain in power which means the endless suffering of Iranians will continue, and you can kiss world security and liberal values all over the world good bye. However, if you strongly and actively support the struggle of Iranian people to remove the regime, the following will result: The beginning of the end of Islamic fundamentalism, liberation of Iran, end of U.S Iran irrational feud and the achievement of U.S and world security and triumph of democratic values over Islamic Fascism represented in IRI.
Take your pick.
thanks Jaleh
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Mon Apr 06, 2009 06:41 PM PDTJaleh, I may not agree with many of your views, but I am a strong supporter of of normalization of Iran U.S relation, removal of sanctions, etc.
Democracy or Theocracy ? You decide:
by David ET on Mon Apr 06, 2009 06:37 PM PDTFrom the IR constitution:
Article 4… .All civil, penal financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. This principle applies absolutely and generally to all articles of the Constitution as well as to all other laws and regulations, and the fuqaha' of the Guardian Council are judges in this matter
Article 94…All legislation passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly (MAJLES) must be sent to the Guardian Council. The Guardian Council must review it within a maximum of ten days from its receipt with a view to ensuring its compatibility with the criteria of Islam …..
Article 96…The determination of compatibility of the legislation passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly with the laws of Islam rests with the majority vote of the fuqaha' on the Guardian Council…..
Article 98…The authority of the interpretation of the Constitution is vested with the Guardian Council, which is to be done with the consent of three-fourths of its members.
Article 99…The Guardian Council has the responsibility of supervising the elections of the Assembly of Experts for Leadership, the President of the Republic, the Islamic Consultative Assembly, and the direct recourse to popular opinion and referenda.]
NOT TO MENTION THAT SUPREME LEADER IS BEYOND QUESTION and S-ELECTED FOR LIFE TIME
//iranian.com/main/blog/david-et/iran-constitutions-islamic-monarchy-islamic-republic-iii
Vaveyla
by sickofiri (not verified) on Mon Apr 06, 2009 01:17 PM PDTWe have reached a stage where chumming up to racists like Faribors (insulting the President of US) et al , to totalitarian Islamists neocons like Jaleho, have become normal prescriptions for obtaining liberty, justice, prosperity, and freedom.
What an inverted/twisted position of freedom fighting over the half-past century.
No political group or ideology has a monopoly on liberty, justice, equality, opportunity, and democracy or the methods in achieving it.
ibc,news, your comments to me hadn't yet been posted
by rosie is roxy is roshan on Mon Apr 06, 2009 01:03 PM PDTwhen I wrote to curious. If they had been, I'd've addressed them all together as they raise similar points. And it would've changed the content, form and especially the tone of the beginning, (dear ibc, my sincere apologies) so please remember that as you read my long post to curious. And thanks so much for responding to me.
Curious,
by rosie is roxy is roshan on Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:49 PM PDTaddresing your pointsL
1. Equating the 1979 referendum with democracy is at best wishful thinking and at worst outright cynical.
i absolutely did not equate. At all. I pointed out I thought the rreal referendum was MORE democratic than the so popular fanstasy one--talk about wishful thinking!-to give people an idea of my own views for the "curious", of which I assume there are several, given I'm being highly critical of "both sides", which is very rare indeed here. No equation with democracy whatsoever. Anywhere in my statement. I can say death by crane hanging is kindER than by stoning but that doesn't mean I think it's kind.
Making an agreement on such a trivial issue a prerequisite for sending a ‘memo’ to Pres. Obama amounts to ta’ligh-e be mahaal (you know Persian. Don’t you?)
NO I DON'T THINK IT'S TRIVIAL. This clear, obvious and simple FACT about THE WORDS in the root event of the democracy or non-democracy history of IRI--the CHRONIC warping, forgetting, distorting, fantasizing about, these four simple words (Islamic Republic yes no) calls into question the accuracy of any other "facts' presented by the people who are still doing this after thirty years. And someone's praising the post which contained this comment for being "factual" while two seconds later correcting it, KNOWING it was totally wrong, and not even saying your fabulous comment is so factual BUT...puts this further into question.
And yes I know Persian a little, and no not fluently, and especially not lately, I've forgotten a lot, and no I don't understand the phrase. But this being non-Persian, and not immersed in the culture anymore either, actually gives me certain perspectives that very few other people here could have. Like how RIDICULOUS this fantasy referundum of 1979 is. And how CHRONIC.
In any case, the issue of whether IRi is democratic was pursued here so that didn't seem to be off-topic to the issue of writing the letter. for many people. So, again, democratic or not, IRI 'democracy" or non-democracy, began at the moment of that ballot. Four words. Just four words. And people still can't get it right. As they bicker over and over ad infinitum about the relative democracy of IRI with the same polarizations and no resultion.
One thing I do have to admit here though is that at LEAST the different polarized people are trying to DO something together instead of JUST bicker.
2. As I stated in response to Azadeh, raising the issues related to democracy (human right, women right, etc.) in any negotiation aimed at reducing the existing tension between the U.S. and Iran will be counterproductive. Unless the goal of such negotiation is to show that negotiation with the IRI officials is futile, as advocated by discredited neo-cons and Plan-B strategists. Any rapprochement between the two countries requires emphasizing the common interests between the two sides (e.g. in Afghanistan and Iraq).
Agreed. But it's not going to be all palsy walsy between IRI and US just because of common interests in Afghanistan (which I believe is is the most important common interest by far), or EVEN within the Arghan cooperation, which will have to come. There will be plenty of other crucial matters, conflicitng interests of both governments.Human rights will be used by Obama, even IF not as a real crucial matter to him as a bargaining chip, because his base cares about it A LOT (however hypocritcally or not). So in drafting a letter to Obama this has to be accepted, and dealt with. HOW MUCH should the human rights issues be mentioned in the letter itself--because unless you want to write, Dear Mr. Obama, IRI government is Sweden,OR broach it in some kind of reasonable, if strategic, way in the letter-he WILL notice its absence.
And he will find it strange. Which will undermine the credibility of the entire letter in his eyes (and in mine, very justly so).
To not even "raise" such a glaringly obvious issue is called "the elephant in the room." He may be a dove, he may be a fox, a peacock,or an ass, but he's not going to take an elephant seriously.
Would you?
3. For the time being, democracy advocates need to hold their breath. The current confrontational state of relationship between the two countries (a.k.a the no-war-no-peace state) has served the cause of democracy in Iran the least. Reducing the tensions may – and this is a big MAY – lessen IRI’s fears of regime change and allow relaxation of some of the draconian steps IRI has taken in order to protect itself.
--
if you think holding their breath until their faces turn blue is a good idea with Obama, like I said, he may be a fox or an ass, but he's not color blind.
The other points you raise are interesting and you may be right but you still can't leave human rights out of that letter completely and maintain credibility. Even if you only bring it up to him as STRATEGY to him, something along the lines of what you just said to me which was pretty convincing, you have to bring it up.
But going back to the original point in your post, this all requires excruciating honesty to yourself and honest dialog with each other, both of which you appear to have, to even strategize together effectively. Yet after thirty years there still is no concensus about whether that stupid referendum had four words or five among people who should know far better.
4. The optimist in me hopes that a less antagonistic relationship between the two governments can help create of an environment more conducive to personal freedom for Iranian citizens. The realist in me considers such potential relaxation of some of the antiquated religious codes a far cry from democracy. However, that is a step forward we can hope for at this time. It has been quite some time since I acted like a kid in the candy store.
Again your arguments about potential freedoms emerging (paradoxically) from not stressing the freedoms issues now is persuasive. As for feeling like a kid in a candy store, that's good, I too feel the prospects are much better than before, But don't put an elephant in that room of a candy store of yours when you write to Obama--especially if it's going to be some kind of joint or mass or petitition kind of letter-or you're going to wind up with a bull in a china shop instead.
Thanks for the consdiered comments.
Oh and PS, Obama's people are reading this blog and the thread already and many people mentioned the human rights issue before I did. So don't blame me for letting the elephant--I mean cat, out of the bag. :o) Hi State Department, how are you today? Isn't it great guys? Almost one half million hits from individual computers per month, mostly in English so you don't even need translators, access to the full spectrum of Iranian expat political opinion except for the FAAAAR right and FAAAAAAAAR left which neither you nor I nor the others here need much anyway..read i,c, carefully. It's important.
This is an important piece.
by Anonymouspo (not verified) on Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:36 AM PDTThis is an important piece. Everyone should read it.
//iranian.com/main/2009/apr/expect-major-...
Rosie, what is your real
by news (not verified) on Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:32 AM PDTRosie, what is your real motivation in trying to portray Iran as a democracy? Would you be willing to live in Iran? Would you want your children to grow up under such a government?
Do you agree with neocons basic premise a la Struass that the Church and State should not be separated?
Jaleho
by Anonymoussy (not verified) on Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:28 AM PDTThe last person Obama needs advice from is a shameless IRI cheerleading Hezbollahi like you who has no problem settting Iran on fire just so that her amameh wearing maters can throw her a bone once a while.
question for eveyone
by ibc (not verified) on Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:19 AM PDTRosie, your point is duly noted.
Given the fact that Islamic Republic was an Undefined abstract concept at that time.
People actually voted for an 'unknown' or loosely defined entity...
What was the definition of Islamic Republic back in 1979? Was there a standard defintion?
When people actually said 'yes' to Islamic Republic, did they envision andIslamic Republic as it turned out to be?
I want to ask those who actually voted 'Yes 'to Islamic Republic their actual Perception, definition, impression at the time?
What did Islamic Republic mean to you in your minds eye as you voted 'YES'.
Rosie, I respectfully disagree
by Curious (not verified) on Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:57 AM PDT1. Equating the 1979 referendum with democracy is at best wishful thinking and at worst outright cynical. Making an agreement on such a trivial issue a prerequisite for sending a ‘memo’ to Pres. Obama amounts to ta’ligh-e be mahaal (you know Persian. Don’t you?)
2. As I stated in response to Azadeh, raising the issues related to democracy (human right, women right, etc.) in any negotiation aimed at reducing the existing tension between the U.S. and Iran will be counterproductive. Unless the goal of such negotiation is to show that negotiation with the IRI officials is futile, as advocated by discredited neo-cons and Plan-B strategists. Any rapprochement between the two countries requires emphasizing the common interests between the two sides (e.g. in Afghanistan and Iraq).
3. For the time being, democracy advocates need to hold their breath. The current confrontational state of relationship between the two countries (a.k.a the no-war-no-peace state) has served the cause of democracy in Iran the least. Reducing the tensions may – and this is a big MAY – lessen IRI’s fears of regime change and allow relaxation of some of the draconian steps IRI has taken in order to protect itself.
4. The optimist in me hopes that a less antagonistic relationship between the two governments can help create of an environment more conducive to personal freedom for Iranian citizens. The realist in me considers such potential relaxation of some of the antiquated religious codes a far cry from democracy. However, that is a step forward we can hope for at this time. It has been quite some time since I acted like a kid in the candy store.
i'm having a hard time getting to the crux of the matter
by anonymous fish on Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:47 AM PDTafter reading that imbecil faribors comment. black servant? how utterly offensive. it makes moot ANYTHING that comes from him. what an ass.
Why thank you Mr. Hosseini!
by Jaleho on Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:45 AM PDTyou said on behalf of Obama (or did you act as Hillary in here?):
"As a suggestion: rather than griping about all the bad things we did, it can not be worse than what we did to Japan. We actually nuked them! What did they do? They got over it, became our friend, progresses and took the auto and electronic industry from us. "
You're such a good Christian, slap one cheek with Hiroshima bomb and we bring the Nakasaki cheek for another one; plese, pretty please, O' great powerful milk cow , THE US of A, please one more slap!!!
My thinking is more aligned with the Iranian representative's response to Obam's Sunday lecture on nuclear arms, who said logically the following about the only power who has used the nuclear technology in an EVIL manner and has the gall to lecture others on "nuclear threat:"
Countries like the US whose nuclear stockpiles is in the thousands, should get rid of them for a safe and nuclear free world.
I guess they could learn some civility and humanity from Islamic Republic of Iran which refused to use WMD on Iraqis, even when Iran had the capility to do so, and when the entire world helped to arm saddam with chemical weapons to attack Iran.
I think Iranians should not wait for Hillary to "threaten nuclear annihilation of Iran," one more time. You seem to prefer kissing the milk cow's hind side even in the face of those kinds of threats. After all Japan....balh blah....
How can some of you
by rosie is roxy is roshan on Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:02 AM PDTprofess to have a legitimate discussion on what a letter to Obama should or shouldn't say, which includes HOW it should say it, when such a discussion requires an honest evaluation of to what extent IRI is democratic--if nothing else at least for STRATEGIC purposes withiin the letter as to how to suggest things to him,even if you believe HE is a hypocrite--or even undeemocratic--since he will use the human rights issue (or not) at very least as a bargaining chip?
How? when of two people who arethe focal points in the question of democracy in Iran, one, who wrote the original letter, says:
IRI is a democracy albeit not a perfect one, as opposed to, at LEAST, a far from perfect one, Which shows either ignorance of the parameters of what a true democracy actually consists of (REGARDLESS OF TO WHAT EXTENT, ISRAEL, THE US, SAUDI ARABIA, THE MOON, are democratic) or else implies disingenuousness (I happen to believe that IRI has clear democratic elements, at times more, at times far less, implemented, but that nonetheless they exist);
while on the other hand, the other says that the referendum of 79 consisted of Islamic Republic or Monarchy, a common fantasy referendum on this site--which btwI happen to believe is LESS democratic than the non-fantasy one which left things more open-ended by the "no" choice, which implies, in theory, an infinite number of other types of governments--how?,since the democracy question requires a historical overview and that was the very first election. And then someone who corrects this basic CRUCIAL and common error on what the four-worded ballot actually said were praises in the same breath this comment for being "factual"?
How?
Or to put it another way how can you have a legitimate discussion on how to phrase a letter on foreign policy to Obama when you can't even have a legitimate discussion on this crucial issue of whether and to what extent Iran is a democracy, at best with each other and at worst with yourselves?
now?
Alternative Iran Policy Advice to Obama
by Faribors Maleknasri M.D. (not verified) on Mon Apr 06, 2009 03:14 AM PDTi am sure: any advice, no matter how wise and logical, is senceless and without any effects. the black servant in the white house is allready so programmed as he can do only as that bushy bushy, his ancestor.
on the other side:
شتر در خواب بیند پنبه دانه
گهی هف هف خورد گه دانه دانه
and stil on the other side: every Iranian knowes:
حرفحقت
وگوشخرنمیره
The best way for american imperialism to get rid of recession and ecconomical disasterous situation can be:
1. Ending the sanctions
2. Giving up the aggression against Islamic Republic
of Iran.
3. Giving free Iranian Wealthes.
4. Accepting Iran`s Nuc-activities.
5. Giving up the hegemonial atitude in general.
I dont think that in case non or some of these points are not performed it affects Iran in any way.
But having completing this programm the not soo great satan as in the years 1978/79 will have to recitate the Holly Book Koran by heart and attend regulary the Friday Worship in WDC-Mosque. May be it gets then a chance to speak with the Guard of Iranian Ministary of State in Tehran. may be. Just as a Beginning Greeting
Referedum /Azadeh, ibc, all
by rosie is roxy is roshan on Mon Apr 06, 2009 06:29 AM PDTibc: Correct. The referendum did not say Islamic Republic or Monarchy as Azadeh stated it did.
ibc, incorrect. there WAS another choice on the ballot besides Islamic Republic.
The choice was no.
This business about the ballot saying IR or Monarchy is apocryphal. And yet it comes up OVER and OVER again, and yet it's such a SIMPLE BASIC thing.
Is it so hard to remember yes, no instead of monarchy?
I don't get it. What am I missing here?
There is an entire problemtic but crucial discussion about whether Islamic Republic yes or no constituted a real choice which pops up from time to time, but it ALWAYS begins with people having to first discuss what the ballot actually said.
Four words.
Islamic Republic yes no.
and then ibc, to congratulate someone for a comment as being 'factual" when it contains such a BASIC error...
no wonder the same conversation keeps happening on this site over and over again in different disguises and nothing ever gets resolved.
Check out the Ahmad Batebi thread on the homepage in the pictory. Just for fun...
i mean, do you people have any idea how much tooth=pulling I had to do on a thread here to find out what that stupid ballot actually said.
KW: Lier Lier pants on fire....
by MochGeer (not verified) on Sun Apr 05, 2009 09:34 PM PDTThis is what you said: "The only way to tackle is not for USA to invade Iran but support the oppositions Students org, Ethnic groups, woman and others activists financially and morally. I do believe that arming the oppositions and their unification for a goal is good start"
You are saying arming the opposition. Which opposition may I ask? You explain: "it includes Ethnic groups". Who are the "Ethnic groups? may I ask? Well it means Kurds, Arabs, Baluchies, Azaries, Lors, Torkemans etc. Now what do these "Ethnic" group demand according to you is "Federalism" which is translated to eventual separation.
Now who is the real Kurdish Warrior?