May 20, 2004
* Boils down to two facts
would have thought that with two writers collaberating to produce a single
tomorrow], the result would at least have set forth a few
well-researched facts. Instead it was like getting a lesson on Greek
philosophy from Archie Bunker.
Apart from stating the obvious fact
that Bible-believing Christians are a major political force in the US,
the notion that conservative Christians have some sort of death-wish
for the world is about as well informed as a Hindu who once
went to a Christian wedding.
You don't need to be too sharp to
understand why these Christian voters influence policy the way the do;
it simply boils down to two facts:
1) Christianity stands squarely on Israel as it's foundation. Jesus
was a Jew, remember? And everything He did and taught had it's roots
in the Jewish nation and it's scriptures.
therefore cannot avoid a sense of kinship with Israel and instinctively
wish to defend her against some guy in a turban yelling "Death to
Israel!" This, in spite of the fact that Jews are still
among the staunchest opponents of Christianity.
The second reason is simply
that radical Islam has declared itself implacably opposed to Western
culture which, for all it's faults still allows Christians
to worship and preach Christ in freedom, which they certainly
cannot do in Tehran or Riyadh. Therfore, I'm sure you can understand
why those same Christian voters will lean to the right when
the flake in the turban switches to, "Death to America!"
imagine that you are a devout Shiite from Isfahan listening to a KKK
rally chanting "Death to Iran!" I don't need to pretend
to be an expert in Muslim eschatology to understand how you might react.
* Makes sense to me
In responce to Alidad Vassigh's "Equally
I cannot understand this article and how is your response is relevant to Lawrence
Reza Ershaghi's "When
they invade Iran".
Lawerence basically says in a nutshell : "What are you going
to do if U.S. decides to attack your homeland." He is saying :
Whether you like it or not, as a person of Iranian origin, you
are tied to politics one way or another.
This means that if you remain silent bout Iraq you are tacitlly approving a
possible invasion of Iran. And if you are active, then you are opposing
invasion of Iran.
I see his point and it makes sense to me. But you and anyone are welcome to
Alidad if you can present an article without four letter words or
insults then you can democratically oppose a view. You see, by reading
your article I think
you are very passionate about your views. We Iranians have a lot of passion
about our views, to the point that we often can't tolerate another
vew point. Ironically
I believe that too much passion brings lack of tolerance and that is one
challenge that Iranians are facing in their current path toward democracy. "Khoshoonaat
brings Khoshoonat" as they say.
* American Christian Zionism
I read your article on millennial fantasies and their implications
for the political scene. As an orthodox Christian and member of the
Right, I share your perspective on Bush, Christian Zionism, and where
all of this is taking American foreign policy in the alliance between
the Dispensational Christian Right, the Neo-Cons, and Ariel Sharon.
You might enjoy my essay on this (which has a very lengthy bibliography) here.
I am going to re-post your article with links to the URL on the American
Right sites BATR (batr.org) and LibertyPost.org.
It will provide those browsers with access to your work and the rest
of iranian.com for future reference.
* I call it Pahlavi Complex
when i read your article about Farah Pahlavi [No
queen of mine], I became very sad, because you don't
have Gucchi or Yves Saint Laurent Couture. I want to help you, please
send me a picture of the models you need, and I will get you some
OK, let us be serious again, I want to tell you something about the
Pahlavi era, not because I loved or hated them, but because Iranians
often still judge biased and one sided about that time, the speak very
often against the Pahlavis. The reason why I feel disturbed by that is
that people like you often say: we are secularist and Democrats.
Dear Laleh, REAL Democrats always talk about BOTH sides of a matter,
about negative and positive aspects. I know what I am talking about,
because I saw in my short life (I am 34 years old) Democracy in Westerneurope,
Monarchy, Military Regime and Theocracy in Iran, Communism during my
time as a student in Hungary and the Birth of Democracy there and later
in the Eastern part of Germany (former Communist German Democratic Republic),
whith all the problems which occur after such fundamental changes >>>
* Pahlavis had their say
Thank you for your email [I call it Pahlavi Complex]. I read it twice, making sure I could get
the jist of your argument. Though I agree with you on many of the points
you made, I must clarify some things just for matter of conversation.
I hope you don't think that I am being defensive becuase that is
Firstly I frown on your argument that I may be too young
to understand mechanism of monarchy or democracy [No
queen of mine].
Yes I'm 25 but unlike many other 25 year old Iranians I have done much
academically, and personally. Understading the history of Iran, and
contemporary issues has beocme my career lets say. I have travelled
to Iran on a number of occasions where I have come into contact with
many sorts of people with conflicting interests and opinions.
What I wrote for iranian.com [No
queen of mine] was an opinion piece rather than a real
historical revisinist excercise. I wrote in simple reply to Mr. Bahamani's
claim that we
all need a queen in our life [My
dream coffee with Farah Pahlavi].
When I criticized the Pahlavis I did not by extension criticize all
entire argument rested on the fact that the monarchy was ousted... for many
different reasons. Each party, each person, had their own reasons for
supporting the revolution
which in hindsight was nothing short of a publicity tour of Khomein's many
lies and deceptions which were mechanically bought into.
of the forces which interplayed in different contexts to bring about
the revolution will take
much more time than I have to dedicate here. But as I trust that you too are
a scholar in this field, I will let it rest here. In my personal opinion,
the Pahlavis had their say in the history of Iran, and should not
necessarily return to prove their cause again--especailly not after an absence
of 25 years.
Lastly, the issue of money....Its not that I oppose people having money
or spending it as they wish, and its certaintly not that I am against the monarchy having
more money than the average person. What I question is the removal of that money from
Iran. Farah is not a queen anymore--so what right does she have to spend the money
that is not rightfully hers anymore. Sure the money belongs to the monarchy for
the rightfully duty but they forfieted that duty and at the same time took their
funds from Iran. It sounds to me like she can have her cake and eat it too.
That money doesn't belong to me or you. It belongs to the collective
My problem is not with the monarchy, its with people who romanticize
the era. Sure there is always two sides to a coin, but what is the real focus?
Why does every joe and his dog present his opinion? is for the
betterment of our home country? What are our interests? what is my interest
and what is yours? What reason could Farah or Reza Pahlavi have for
advocating their causes?
I went to a conference last summer with Reza Pahlavi and what was supposed
to be an interactive session of students and youth with him. I saw many young people
worshipping Reza as if he was a saviour. I could not help but think if we the Iranians
in exile have remained behind in history and in times. It was as though these
kids were only aware of the history that their parents had witnessed, they talked
and acted like little versions of their parents.
And all this is happening
while I am sitting in my comfortable -- though cold house in Canada and
you in Germany. What about the Iranians in Iran? Most
of them don't even have the luxury of putting forth arguments or critical
I appreciate your feedback and they many very valid points you raise, our
real challenge is looking ahead rather than behind if we are concerned
about real changes in Iran.
* Why ruin it for the Persian cat?
Imagine if Reza Shah had not changed Persia to Iran, and IRI
was instead IRP, what do you think the very people that insist in being
and not Iranians would be trying to pass as.
Perhaps it wouldn’t
be a good idea to change Iran to Persia. After all why ruin it for the
Persian cat, and the Persian rug, or the Persian
* Why ruin it for the Persian cat?
Imagine if Reza Shah had not changed Persia to Iran, and IRI was instead
IRP, what do you think the very people that insist in being called Persians
and not Iranians would be trying to pass as.
Perhaps it wouldn’t be a good idea to change Iran to Persia. After
all why ruin it for the Persian cat, and the Persian rug, or the Persian
* Surprise surprise!
In reply to the Quiz question, "Writing
on the wall":
carved their name into a structure at Persepolis - you know, the bearded
body with wings.
on that statue, including Henry Stanley and a number of Russian and British
journalists (surprise surprise!)
More letters (May 2004)
Page 1 | Page
2 | Page
3 | Page
4 | Page
5 | Page
6 | Page 7