Salaam Iran

So much for "ask me anything"

Good riddance. Next time, have respect for people's time and intelligence before you offer something you cannot deliver on - a defense of AN.

Have a nice life.

-Fair

Fair, I have lost any interest in a debate with you.

You have started with new questions again!  Can we come to some agreement on earlier ones before you keep producing more and more questions?

Whats the point of debating like this?

You jump from one topic to another one like a monkey from one tree to another. Find someone like yourself that can debate like yourself. I am not going to continue with you. You are a waste of time. Sincerely.

You have no ground to stand on

Russian technology is substandard. Period. They are the ones who brought the world's worst nuclear disaster ever- Chernobyl. 56 people died directly, thousands others died of cancer in the years following, and 600,000 people were affected by this fiasco and the Russians could not succeed in covering it up (they tried very hard). Fifteen nuclear reactors of the type that exploded at Chernobyl are still operating in Russia, Ukraine, and Lithuania. The
West, concerned about safety of operations, wants these reactors shut
down, but the host nations refuse.

And you feel qualified to explore the concept of "being taken seriously"?

Tell me No Fear, what environmental protection agencies are functioning in Iran, and what is their standard? From the air pollution in all our large cities, to toxic waste and water pollution, to the huge levels of microwave radiation the population of Tehran is subject to due to satellite TV and radio jamming by IR government, which body in Iran is looking after this? And whenever you can answer this satisfactorily (not with your usual copouts), what guarantee and standard can they provide for the people around Bushehr, Natanz, Arak, Esfahan, etc.? There are rising cases of cancer in areas around Esfahan, is the government studying this? If some doctors bring this up with the authorities, what response do you think they will get?

Get Real.

Now about natural gas- you are completely clueless. We sell natural gas to Turkey. Whoopee! We are in negotiation with Pakistan and India. Yayyyyy. Maybe you can give us the sum of money that has been collected to date from these exports. And then you can compare that to the sum of money obtained by Russia through gas exports- let me give you a hint: It is over $60 BILLION just last year, just to Europe from Gazprom alone, which produced 17% of the world's production last year. So why are we not selling to all of Europe and benefitting from this? We don't need to refine it, just send it over pipeline.

The only remaining export customer in your mind is Afghanistan? Again, Get Real.

Wind and Solar are more expensive today, but still very important for long term sustainability, not to mention very suitable for remote areas, of which Iran has plenty. If you are going to argue nuclear energy based on sustainability, this is very relevant. So you are the one who is clueless about energy here, not me.

As far as refineries, yes, I know exactly what it takes to build one. But first, let's see: it is not cost effective to build a refinery, SO LET'S IMPORT GASOLINE FROM LIBYA, AND SELL IT FOR LESS THAN WHAT WE PAID FOR IT. That is really brilliant, isn't it? The fact that Iran's economy is mismanaged, that the government is forced to subsidize the most basic commodities for a population half of which lives under the poverty line is a separate issue, and is another reason for not having AN, IR, and other incompetent people.

It would be cost effective to build a refinery if Iran were a normally functioning economy, integrated into the world economy like most other countries. It is your idol AN who insists on keeping Iran isolated.

And yes, sanctions can be removed if Iran were to abandon confrontation with the west. Western companies and governments would love to sell tons of stuff to Iran (Boeing continues to lobby the US government to ease sanctions). So NO need to dream on for this. The "dreaming" is necessary only when it comes to desiring competent and pro Iran leaders in Tehran.

So No Fear, if you are losing interest in "debating" (as if you even know what that means), that is fine, good riddance. I never intended to debate you anyway. Just keep your promise, and answer the 9 questions about the murderers that you support, that you ran away from, despite the name you chose for yourself.

Fair

This is a long and not quite

This is a long and not quite satisfying comment. But I give it as it is.

I think the main point of the blog should not be pros and cons of nuclear energy, which by the way, can be developed in Iran if the proliferation of nuclear weapon was not suspected. Energy source is a major issue for any country and depending on the situation of each country, one option may be preferable than the other. In the time of Shah, the nuclear energy program was planned as the ONLY alternative KNOWN to the gas and oil energy, with of-course the same 'military' interest in the perspective. Hydraulic energy is not much of an option in a dry country like Iran. With todays knowledge and technology, one might argue that nuclear energy is not the best alternative for Iran. But I want to go back to the 'correlation' of national affairs and international affairs. This to me, is the most important point of the blog.

The terms of international community for Iranian nuclear program is not a 'double standard'. It's just common sense. If such conditions are not imposed on Canada, it's simply because there is no reason to be suspicious about the intentions of Canada. I wouldn't call it 'double standard'. I would call it the world standard in which IRI doesn't fit.

Same Canada was the source of technology provided to India for its nuclear energy program, which has led to development of military use by India. Canada and the world community has learnt its lesson ever since about a better control of nuclear proliferation. It is now obvious that a nuclear program in developing countries will undoubtedly lead to military development if left unchecked. The question then, is why CANDU reactors technology of Canada inside Canada itself doesn't lead to military exploitation but it does in India... which in turn forced Pakistan to develop its own and the chain reaction is very real.

The argument of 'double standard' can only be defined in 20 century terms of 'exploiter' countries versus 'exploited' countries eternal conflict, in which IRI is an honorary member. In that logic, the only goal of restrictions imposed by developed countries is to 'maintain' their advantage and superiority at the expense of keeping the rest of the world behind.

India, which is a democratic country and technically doesn't fit to this 'correlation' scheme, could not have nuclear weapons if the west had a better control over the situation. But what India has gained in 'breaking free' from 'superpowers'? A nuclear capability that soon led to a nuclear capability by Pakistan, and for all intent and purpose, the conflict over Kashmir for example remained a 'conventional' weapon conflict as it was before, for the sake of both countries! What kind of 'dissuasive' power India has gained over this?!

India was not expected to develop nuclear bomb with CANDU technology. Iran at the time of the Shah also had nuclear energy program. Shah did not have a chance to finish his energy plan, and despite all respectful status that Iran enjoyed in International community at the time, it is far from certain that the road to the nuclear arm development could be any easier for the Shah either.

To understand all this -and I don't claim I do- we should focus on the main subject matter: nuclear proliferation. If the importance of this issue is not understood, all these complains about 'double standard' would amount to the complain of a kid for being slapped on the hand when trying to reach a cookie.

'Double standard' concept in my view is inherently misleading. There is only one standard. You either fit in or you don't. In that sense, I think the term Fred usually uses, 'the sane world' is much more evocative of what is the real issue.

The 20 century notion of conflict between haves and have nots, wrong within the 20 century itself, but understandable, has no place in post cold war. India did not improve its economy because of nuclear weapon. But because it opened up its market and penetrated in global market. China didn't become a superpower because of its nuclear weapons, but because she opened up her country to open market. Look where nuclear North Korea is compared to South Korea. The difference between those who join the 'sane world' and those who don't is quite remarkable.

So is there any correlation between how the world treats a country and how the country treats its people? I would say there is. But not in a linear fashion. The nuclear proliferation, is a fundamental issue that should be understood in its own term. Joining the 'sane world' does not automatically give you a green light for nuclear bomb development. It gives you a green light to be 'sane' and realize you don't need one.

Fair, I am losing interest debating with you

paying through the nose for unsafe, obsolete, substandard Russian nuclear technology, and even then it is way over budget and decades behind schedule

How do you know its obsolete? Substandard? unsafe? None of your statements can be taken seriously.

We are burning natural gas into the air- a complete waste.

Should we build expensive gas refinaries so we can sell our refined gas under priced and heavily subsidized for local usage? Where is the economical sense in that? Do you know what you are talking about? Please explain better.

Our gas exports are miniscule compared to their potential

Oh really? We are selling gas to turkey ( pipeline ) and in negotiation with pakestan and india. let me see who else we can sell it to from land....hmmmm  , aha! Afghanestan.That should help our export. We are selling liquid gas internationally to everyone.

We are investing nothing in solar and wind, both of which have huge potentials in Iran, especially since Iran is large, with many geographically dispersed villages and towns

Comments like these shows how little you know about energy. Wind and solar are green energies but far from being economical or efficient. Do your own research and save me from typing.

We can end sanctions tomorrow by engaging with the west instead of making stupid statements like "the Holocaust never happened" and insisting on confrontation.

Dream on.

There are many Russian and Chinese companies that would not be held back by sanctions and could develop Iranian natural gas, oil, and other energy sources, but they don't. It is much more a problem of utter mismanagement and corruption. That is why we have to import gasoline into a country which is swimming in oil.

Do you even know whats involved to build new refinary plants? Have you heard about cost being paid from the sales of that plant? Thats the idea. Now .how can you justify building a plant when you have to sell the product cheaper than what its going to cost you to produce? This is a major problem in our oil and gas sector and why we can't attract foreign investments, it has NOTHING to do with politics, its pure economics.

Now if the government starts to eliminate the subsidy from oil and gas sector to address this issue, then people like you are going to pop up and make dimwit comments about the government is doing nothing. I am losing it. 

Even Gary Sick calls Iran a military Junta!

Sargord No Fear: This is really bad news for the IRI, if a long time supporter of IRI can no longer hide the fact that the Khamenie is not in charge anymore.

From Juan Cole:

"A desire on the part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Commanders to retain the soft deterrence of a rapid breakout capability probably explains Iran's waffling on the deal tentatively adopted at Geneva on October 1. That agreement would have had Iran send 2600 pounds of its 3200 pounds of low enriched uranium (enriched to less than 5 percent) to Russia for processing, so that it could be used in Iran's small medical research reactor, and used to produce medical isotopes. In this way, the LEU, the seed stock for any potential bomb, would get used up. It would have taken Iran a couple of years to replace that LEU, reassuring Western hawks in the meantime that Iran's weapons-making capability had been temporarily blunted. But when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative brought this deal back to Tehran, I believe that the IRGC commanders vetoed it because they want to retain a rapid break out potential and did not want the LEU seed stock to be lost.

That the hawks were able to veto the representative of Supreme Leader Khamenei lends credence to Gary Sick's argument that the Revolutionary Guards have carried out a soft coup behind the scenes and Iran looks more and more like a military junta.

//www.juancole.com/2009/11/iaea-condemnation-of-iran-omen-of-new.html#comments

The Great Sustainability

As part of our commitment to 'Communicating existing and emerging concepts to a contemporary audience, raising awareness and understanding about sustainability issues', The Natural Edge Project secretariat seeks to provide information on key public debates and provide the key arguments from each side with further reading resources to help you make up your own mind. The first debate in this new TNEP series is the very topical 'Nuclear Energy Debate'.

Pros and Cons of the Nuclear Energy Debate

Over the last two years there has been renewed debate about nuclear energy. To help you make up your mind on this complex issue firstly we present below the key points of both the Pro-Nuclear Case and the Anti-Nuclear Case followed by further information from TNEP that synthesise TNEP secretariat's findings to date on this important debate along with a shortlist of additional reading. These opinion pieces by TNEP secretariat are the result of detailed consideration of both sides of the argument.... read the rest below:

//www.naturaledgeproject.net/TheGreatSustainabilityDebates-NuclearPower.aspx

Nuclear power phase-out pros and cons

Nuclear power is an expensive, dangerous and non-sustainable technology. There is still no solution in sight for the treatment of the hazardous waste produced. It is therefore high time to replace nuclear power and to clear the way for sustainable technologies.

Survival of human being on the Earth will in the long and medium term only be possible if we switch to a sustainable life style . This is only achievable with renewable energies. The nuclear power phase-out opens a whole window of opportunities for renewable technologies.

In contrast to nuclear energy, alternative technologies have almost no lobbying organizations. The development of alternative technologies has therefore mainly been financed by private investors. They have received only very little subsidies, if any at all. However, industry will only invest in such technologies if there is a strong demand and large market for them. Nuclear phase-out will create exactly this market.

We cannot on one hand decide to continue nuclear power to generate electricity and on the other hand expect alternatives to be developed. It will not work because in this case there would be no interesting market for alternative technologies. As a consequence alternatives - like sustainable technologies - would not be developed.

To continue using nuclear energy is the contrary of being innovative. Countries who take leadership in not using or in phasing-out nuclear power will become market leaders for alternative technologies. This innovative attitude will then open many opportunities on the world market.

Countries, who do not phase-out by free will, will sooner or later be forced to do so because of the limited resources of Uranium. Uranium is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years (1). Its supply might be used up even sooner than fossil fuels. Those countries relying on nuclear power will later buy alternative technologies from those, who now lead the way for renewables.//timeforchange.org/nuclear-power-phase-out-pros-and-cons

IF nuclear power is to be considered...

...it should be technology OTHER than Russian. If German and French companies were doing Iran's reactors, AND similar investments (or higher) were being made in natural gas and renewable sources, you would have a point.

But the problem is, we are

1-paying through the nose for unsafe, obsolete, substandard Russian nuclear technology, and even then it is way over budget and decades behind schedule

2-We are burning natural gas into the air- a complete waste.

3-Our gas exports are miniscule compared to their potential

4-We are investing nothing in solar and wind, both of which have huge potentials in Iran, especially since Iran is large, with many geographically dispersed villages and towns.

5-We can end sanctions tomorrow by engaging with the west instead of making stupid statements like "the Holocaust never happened" and insisting on confrontation.

6-There are many Russian and Chinese companies that would not be held back by sanctions and could develop Iranian natural gas, oil, and other energy sources, but they don't. It is much more a problem of utter mismanagement and corruption. That is why we have to import gasoline into a country which is swimming in oil.

Furthermore, prove your claim that Iran was the first country in the world with a nationwide natural gas pipeline. Are you saying Iran did this before the US, France, Germany, on and on and on? And what capacity does the natural gas pipeline actually have? What percentage of need of its endpoints can be delivered? This claim is very grand and I would be very surprised if you could prove it.

-FAIR

Fair

I'm not sure this would be the right thread to bring up those issues, but i will try to address them to the best of my knowledge and based on facts.

Nuclear power, despite the 1970s environmentalists claim, is one of the most safest and cleanest form of energy out there, hands down.( Yes i am aware of chervnobyl failure, i am speaking overall ). It is also one of the cheapest form since a few hundred KG of uranium is capable of producing the same amount of energy of millions of barrels of oil or gas that could be sold to others with the polution that comes with it. In 2001 , %16 of the world's electricity was produced by 440 nuclear reactors operated at that time. Now i believe the number should be much higher. Most of the developed countries rely heavily on Nuclear power plants while developing countries continue to burn fossil fuels.

Nuclear technology also has great benefits for agriculture and medicine. If properly implemented, it translates to completely new industries for Iran which translates to more jobs in Manufactures, research, medical,agriculture, military and so on.

Iran was probabely the first country in the world with a country wide gas pipeline network and this was accomplished during the war with Iraq. We can export our gas from all four directions while east and west are pipelines, the north and south are liquid gas containers routes. There is high demand for gas internationally and we are better off selling it than using it internally, specially when you have to subsidize it heavily for internal usages.. The cost of maintaing oil and gas refinaries are also very high and we are unable to attract more investments in this sector due to sanctions. For all these reasons, the nuclear options seems to be the correct decision for our needs both internally and internationally. Sincerely.

Some refrences; How much energy out of one kilogram of ;

Firewood 16 MJ/kg Brown coal 9 MJ/kg Black coal (low quality) 13-20 MJ/kg Black coal 24-30 MJ/kg Natural Gas 39 MJ/m3 Crude Oil 45-46 MJ/kg Uranium* - in light water reactor 500,000 MJ/kg

Those who favor other forms of energy are simply ignorant to the above facts. i rest my case.

Solar Power Costs Falling

Solar Power Costs 50% Lower than Last Year : CleanTechnica

Thin-film solar is leading the way down to greater affordability. Higher finance costs have hurt recently, but those are expected to ease, while the equipment is likely to get cheaper.

Solar is the only real game in town to decisively solve the world's energy problems-- addressing renewability, pollution and climate change.

Almost everyone could now be heating their water with solar, but unfortunately in most states there is no retail infrastructure for providing it, and no tax abatement. Here in Michigan I called around, finally found someone, and was told there would be a two-year wait for installation and I'd get my money back typically over 6-8 years but that the state would not help out in any way. It shouldn't be so hard.
//juancole.com/

Blinded by hate- wonderful

Well SS Major, perhaps you could lay out for those who are not blinded by hate here the economic case for nuclear energy in Iran. You could explain how many billions have been spent while natural gas (of which Iran has an over 100 year supply) is just burning into the air while Russia has Europe by the b*lls with its monopoly selling them natural gas. You could explain the environmental risks and costs of a Russian built nuclear power plant in Bushehr, vs. pipelines of clean burning natural gas criss crossing the country and the region, bringing in tons of money and savings and less pollution for Iran. You can explain how you can run cars efficiently and cleanly on nuclear power vs natural gas.  And the confrontation with the west is purely the choice of AN and the IRGC junta in Iran.  They can instead choose a path of cooperation with more industrially developed countries so Russia doesn't feel like it is the only choice Iran has and can screw us way more than the Americans ever did under the Shah.

Maybe your case for this absolutely wreckless and brain dead policy can englighten us.

Truly your audacity is amazing.

Once again, your Goebbels style twisting of reality when it comes to anti riot actions is amazing. There is lethal force and there is lethal force. Tell the readers SS Major, how many American students were killed in the entire 60's and 70's in demonstration by government forces? Compare that to the number of young Iranians killed in just one week in June 2009. Not to mention rape, torture, imprisonment without charge, chain murders of writers, expulsions from universities, on and on and on. The IRI forces not only were not caught by surprise, they had been preparing for this for years. Ever since the student uprisings in 1999. Their tactics were deliberate, and they claim their doctrine openly. When the IRGC commanders openly take positions on election outcomes and declare war on those who disagree with them, it is not a chaotic unprepared reaction we are seeing. It is deliberate.

Your audacity and ridiculousness is beyond limit.

-Fair

Sk jan,

"a regime that show hate towards Iranians that disagree with it or are just different".

Brilliantly said. Furthermore, I am afraid the attacks after the election had a larger underlying motive. They have already demonized anybody who is different. They think the demonstrators were not humans.

delete

delete

No Fear, and Sargord,

We won the 8-year war for one reason, we led the enemies in morality. We will lose if we get away from the way we normally operate. Iranians are passive people but hell if you step on their toe, whether you are a national or foreign government they will up-root you.

No Fear

"Are you serious? How do you explain Saudi Arabia and other totalitarian states in the middle east who clearly don't have the best human right records and in some of these countries, women can't even vote, but they enjoy all sorts of support and technology transfer from the west?"

What type of twisted logic is this? Since there is a "double standard", which I clearly said it myself, so it makes a good excuse to torture our own people? 

You also said, "Why don't you brush up on your geography and realize that Iran is located in the middle east( A huge energy resource ) and not located in europe or midwest?" 

I don't believe Iran is located in Middle  East, but the other way around, Middle East is located in Iran. Those people throughout the history are influenced by us, they have looked up to us. We naturally with no efforts because of the brightness of our people have always led/influenced half of the world. That's why we should be better than them!

By the way where are you located? Maryland? Seriously!

Jenab Sargord,

I decline to participate in nuclear discussion since it is welcomed by the IRI hardliners as a divergence to their poor human rights records.

You said, "The comparison to late 60's, early 70's America is in some ways tilted against the US. Lethal force was used throughout the American period of anti-establishment unrest".  So this can be an excuse for the forces that once were admired to defend our country to viciously attack unarmed citizens?

You also said, "Admittedly, the IRIPF (and IRICJS) were caught unprepared, and in some cases undertrained and under-led, for the events that transpired".

I have a hard time to believe that since Teemsar Jafari (head of IRGC) months before the incident clearly in various speeches laid out the new mission of IRGC. Even years before that a very sophisticated radio and visual communication network along forming the Gordan-hay Shahadat with a specific mission of Anti-Riot, directly contradicts your point.

Sorry sir, if someones were under trained and under-led they weren't the paramilitary or military personnel but were the naive demonstrators. 

How Naive ...

It is time for the hardliners in Iran to come to this realization that there might be a direct correlation between the way they view their own people and the way people outside of Iran view them. Midwesty

Are you serious? How do you explain Saudi Arabia and other totalitarian states in the middle east who clearly don't have the best human right records and in some of these countries, women can't even vote, but they enjoy all sorts of support and technology transfer from the west?

Why don't you brush up on your geography and realize that Iran is located in the middle east ( A huge energy resource ) and not located in europe or midwest?

So, you are saying, lets play Mr. Nice guy, The west will see we are nice, then they will be nice to us. OMG' you totally sound like a teenage girl. You make me laugh. Keep it up.

Why not for god’s sake IRI tries to change its behavior towards its own people and see how things change in return internationally. Midwesty

How many sanctions has Iran received for abusing human rights? 0

How many sanctions has Iran received for pursuing Nuclear tech?  4

I rest my case.

nuclear power & law enforcement

Iran is making a planned effort at relieving its dependence on fossil fuels, and investing in sustainable energy technology. If you were not so blinded by hate, you'd easily recognize this fact. We all know what parties are to blame for the program being behind schedule and over-budget. (It certainly isn't easy resisting US-Israeli efforts at regional hegemony. But it wasn't so for Churchill in 1940, either, resisting a hegemonist Germany.)

The comparison to late 60's, early 70's America is in some ways tilted against the US. Lethal force was used throughout the American period of anti-establishment unrest. The IRIPF is in the process of adapting to the situation. It doesn't have the decades of experience US and Western police forces have to draw upon, but efforts have been made toward utilizing less-lethal means of crowd control. Better discipline remains a point in need of improvement. Likewise, the criminal justice system hasn't become so overloaded as it was in June. Admittedly, the IRIPF (and IRICJS) were caught unprepared, and in some cases undertrained and under-led, for the events that transpired. Expect improvements if the situation persists.

The Revolutionary Guards in power are minority..

..not the millions of people protesting them and getting killed for it in the streets.

Self proclaimed Sargord- you insult the Iranian people whose only demand is their basic human rights by claiming they are a minority without evidence, and calling rapists that attack them "law enforcement". I have said this before- if they are a minority, it is very simple to prove: hold an open transparent poll in Iran and ask people. IRI will never allow this. Why not? What are you afraid of?

Now to your ridiculous claim of a long term sustainable energy policy. Let's see:

1-Importing gasoline while exporting crude oil

2-Burning natural gas into the air while Russia makes a killing by selling natural gas to other countries

3-Building a nuclear power plant over budget by billions, behind schedule by decades, and by the country who brought us Chernobyl- i.e. the most behind nuclear reactor technology out there. Oh, and by the way- right on the Persian Gulf in a massive earthquake zone.

4-Producing large numbers of obsolete cars with decades old engine technology and emissions and consumption standards

5-subsidizing and rationing gasoline for use in these inefficient polluting cars

6-All this without investing anything in solar and wind, of which there is abundant source in Iran. Not to mention decades worth of clean burning natural gas if they choose to actually use it.

That sounds very sustainable. What kind of idiots do you think the people on this website are?

Your comparison to American experiences of the 60's and 70's is also ludicrous. For the record:

1-American protestors were never attacked or arrested for asking "Where is my vote?".

2-US law enforcement did not torture and rape protestors

3-The US president did not publicly come on TV and tell the whole world "those who protest my decision will be responsible for anything we bring on them"

4-The US did not send dozens of motorcycle riding thugs with guns to opposition leader's houses calling for their death

5-The US government did not close down newspapers and hold mock trials for dozens of people at a time with no legal representation

6-The US government did not break into Nobel laureate's safe deposit box and illegally confiscate here Nobel prize, other awards, and beat and arrest her husband without charge.

Get Real you fake Sargord. You are a disgrace to your uniform. The most anti-Iran agenda out there is the one you shamelessly defend.

You can close your dokoon now. People see right through you.

-Fair

Very Well Said

"Nevertheless the bunch that claim that god is on their side think if they change sides God will move with them to the same side."

AK69

I see the

discussion of 'No Fear' blog is no longer on the 'most discussed" schedule. In case you are looking for it here is the address:

//iranian.com/main/blog/no-fear/i-am-supp...

Aside from the non-sense claim of the writer of the blog, "Ask me any thing", the self-righteous attitude of these people comprising of 'they can do anything' have given them an illusion of being above the natural laws.

When Muslims were defeated on their second battle in Ohod, after an astonishing victory in Badr, God criticized them for getting too self-righteous.

Nevertheless the bunch that claim that god is on their side think if they change sides God will move with them to the same side.

Only the time will show...

divaneh jan,

Any discussion about the nuclear issues with Iran is a huge set back for the human right issues at hand.

I want to make it clear, based on IAEA regulation and the treaties that Iran had signed, it is absolutely undeniable right for Iran whether to pursue or not to build and operate the nuclear facilities.

So let's not go there since it won't lead to any constructive discussion.

We conclude

that the rest of the world must have raped the IRI. I think they are beyond help. They keep removing moderate elements who may have helped achieving the internal and external moderation and respect. And Sargord jaan, with so much sun and wind, we do not need nuclear energy.

Jenab Sargord,

Aside from the low approval rating of US media even amongst Americans (less than 30%), your comment is an insult to our intelligence.

US's 60s ordeal lead to this democracy today because they had a constitution with a proper capacity. Can you say the same about Iranian constitution?

Let's go even further, let's say hypothetically even US government is fully corrupt, does this justify for IRI to do the same?

Well, it's cost them, but

Well, it's cost them, but the IRI actually has a long term (nuclear) sustainable energy policy in place- unlike America!

Nuclear is sustainable energy policy to You medieval people? Are you suggesting that nuclear is the only alternative for Iran's energy policy?

sargord pirouz: Are you a

sargord pirouz: Are you a member of IRGC?? Who issues your paycheck?

IRI goals

Well, it's cost them, but the IRI actually has a long term (nuclear) sustainable energy policy in place- unlike America!

And as for the current vocal anti-establishment minority that finds itself on the receiving end of IRI law enforcement, this situation actually shares some similarities to the American anti-establishment movement of the late 1960's and early 70's.

Keep an open mind, and resist the influences of a heavily biased Western media machine focused (resourced) on an anti-Iran agenda.

A bit too late.

The toilet (Mostarah) is already flushed, and there are a lot of Aba, Amameh, Rish, Pashm, Baton, Akhoond, Basiji and Sepahi, among other solids, turning in circle before the final drainage in to the cesspool of history.

What the heck is IRI up to?

What the heck is IRI up to? I really don't think IRI has any  clear policy or goals except its short-term brutal tactics for  survival, to secure Iran's national, economic, social, and security interests.

Who is running the IRI? what is the long-term goal of IRGC for Iran and its future??? Do they even have any clue how to run a country the size of Iran??