Letters

March2006
March 25 -- March 13 -- March 11 -- March 8

Iran nuclear threat is neither imminent nor real

On Goudarz Eghtedari's "Honest conflict resolution":

Dear Goudarz Agha,

The key here is the word "honest." There is no honest desire for conflict resolution on the part of the Bush administration. In fact it has been 3 years of US administration bullying which led to the Feb 4th resolution of the IAEA to bring Iran before the UN Security Council for sanctioning when in fact there were no legal or technical violations of the terms of the NPT on the part of Iran. The Additional Protocal as several commentators have already pointed out which has allowed IAEA inspectors to perform instant anytime anywhere visits of nuclear sites in Iran has been strictly voluntary on the part of Iran and is not required of any other member.

I find it interesting that it is OK with the USA for India, Israel and Pakistan to have nuclear power and nuclear weapons even though they are not members of the NPT but it is not OK for Iran to enrich uranium for generation of electricity even though they are members of the NPT. The plain and simple fact is that the USA does not like the IRI.

The USA is the biggest dog in the pack and it does whatever the hell it wants including threatening war and even the use of tactical nuclear weapons against non nuclear countries which is clearly a violation of the NPT.

As you recall Iraq was cooperating with UNSCOM inspectors prior to the US invasion and the WMD scare was never substantiated. Mr. Bush was not concerned with that and during the Bush Kerry campaign debates he kept repeating that the world was a better place without Saddam. The finer points of legality seemed to pass right over his head. He acted as a vigilanti when he invaded Iraq and his invasion of Afghanistan was the first time in US history that it invaded another country "pre-emptively." He acted outside US and international law in starting those two wars with enemies who could not defend themselves against vastly superior military might let alone constitute a real threat to the USA. Ironically when he was re-elected by a narrow majority, he announced that for the first time he felt that he had a clear mandate from the American people, never mind that nearly 50% had voted against him. If that constitutes a clear mandate then Iran is a nuclear threat.

As far as Mr. Bush is concerned if Iran does not back down from enriching uranium by March 6th, as in the day after tomarrow, he has given himself permission to bomb Iran.

That is his agenda make no mistake about it. War is the only tool in the "War President's" chest. Bush is lacking the intelligence and desire for a more creative solution. The only way he knows how to resolve a conflict is with a fight and usually an unfair fight, a dirty fight...

The nuclear threat of Iran is neither imminent nor real and yet the IAEA has been bullied into considering it as such and the US Congress has passed a resolution to support UN sanctioning of Iran in the interests of "democracy for the Iranian people." The media including Newsweek magazine with Ahmadinejad on its cover is assuming that Iran is a nuclear threat. If a politician repeats a lie often and loud enough it becomes defacto truth especially if the media all carry it. Mr. Bush has bullied the entire world community into condemning Iran as a nuclear threat when in fact it is not.

It is very convenient that the IRI has committed horrific abuses of human rights and has returned Iranian government to a medievil anachronistic blending of church and state with a totalitarian repression enforced by morality police, which no other nation on earth currently has nor envies. There is no question that the Iranian people deserve a better government not a bombardment and invasion nor sanctioning. As I recall UN sanctioning killed half a million children in Iraq but did not uninstall Saddam.

Despite the unpopularity of the IRI, the agenda of the neocons and the American Century and the AEI is not to establish or should I say impose democracy on Iran but to return Iran to a client state giving the US a free hand to their petroleum and their economy. In fact the AEI has been touting the Shah's son as a serious contendor for rule of Iran without ever bothering to check in with any consenus of the Iranian people themselves, the majority of whom have no wish to see the restoration of the Pahlavi puppets for which they already fought a revolution in 1979 to remove.

In fact historically the rise of Islamic fundamentalism was something which was fostered by the CIA during the Cold War as a weapon against the spread of the Godless USSR.

Ben Laden, El Qeda, the Taliban are all creations of the CIA which have turned on their master in a phenomena called:"Blow Back" by the CIA. So when Condoleesa starts handing out the $85 million to Iranian dissidents it scares the hell out of me from wondering who in the devil she is going to give the money to. From what I can tell there is no unified opposition. The oppostion factions seem to spend as much time fighting themselves as they do the IRI.

I wonder if I can sign up for a donation as an Iranian dissident sympathiser as a way of getting some of my tax dollars back? I mean, only recently the US Congress has had dialogues with the MEK which was considered a terrorist organization by the Dept of State until now. So judging from the picks our "intelligence" agency has made so far in the region I do not have a lot of confidence in their mucking around in Iran. They will either waste vast amounts of money to no avail or start a bloody civil war with their meddling. Do not forget the 8 year "Silent War"; silent because it was ignored by the media, in which the then US administration, many of whom are the same players today, encouraged Saddam to attack Iran and then sold both sides biological and other weapons til over a million youth were dead. Did this effort do anything to give the Iranian people democracy or to destabilize the IRI control? On the contrary, it acted to strengthen the position of the IRI which is why Ahmadinejad of that era, also welcomes the adversity of a war as a way of uniting his constituents behind him which he now lacks.

So in light of the war agenda and no desire for peaceful conflict resolution on the part of the Bush administration or Ahmadinejad, it becomes imperative for the Peace lovers and activists of the world like yourself to expose the truth to as many people as possible.

Brian H. Appleton

Top

Selective respect

On Ayatollah Motahhari's "Charshanbeh Soori is for idiots":

I was just wondering why it is so wrong for Motahhari to be against the celebration of Charshanbeh-Soori while it is ok for some Iranian "artists" to display extremely insulting pictures, on Iranian.com, about Ashura, which is also celebrated by millions of Iranians?

If people's traditional celebrations ought to be respected, lets not be selective about them! [See reply]

Ali Nasri

Top

You get what you deserve

In reply to Ali Nasri's comment, "Selective respect":

Motahhari is just a prominent example from the past. Like-minded religious extremists attack Iran's pre-Islamic traditions on a daily basis through state radio, tv and newspapers as well as Friday Prayer sermons across the country. They represent the ruling class. And because Iranian leaders claim to represent Islam, their actions in the past 27 years will also reflect on Islam itself. So if you see Islam being bashed a lot these days... blame Islamic zealots and the miseries they have brought upon Iranians.

Jahanshah Javid

Top

Historical context

In reply to Jahanshah Javid's "You get what you deserve":

In that case, one can also justify Motahhari's opposition to charshanbeh-soori by putting it in its historical context. Afterall, he said all these things right after a revolution that had toppled a regime which oppressed the Iranian people and committed many crimes against them under the banner of the "Pre-Islamic" culture, jashnhayeh 2500 saleh..etc

But again, I don't think insulting people's traditions, customs, beliefs, race, etc can be justified by putting the blame on some extremists or criminal fractions within that community.

Ali Nasri

Top

Feeling of constant attack

In reply to Manesh's "Don't joke with god":

Manesh,

Their are many instances where the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) and Imam Ali (AS) both joked and laughed about things.

The Prophet was known for his constant smiles, even at times of difficulty. He was a man at peace with himself, and brought those around him to a state of calmness as well.

It is not that religion and humor do not mix. It's a feeling that Muslims world-wide feel that their religion is under constant attack, and the West is hypocritical in its response to it. For example, that same newspaper that published the cartoons of the Prophet, refused to publish cartoons of Jesus in fear that it would "hurt sensibilities of Christians." Why are they attacking Islam?

And my question for you is this. Was it not vilification of Jews through cartoons and movies in pre-Nazi Germany that led to the rise of the Third Reicht? Why should we Muslims tolerate being vilified, where the symbol of our religion is vilified, and then become even more dehumanized to the point where slaughtering us even further would mean nothing to them?

Look at Iraq today. Over 150,000+ Iraqis have been killed since this "Second Gulf War" and yet the news rarely reports Iraqi deaths. Not only that, the Pentagon REFUSES to count dead Iraqis and says its a "change of policy." How dare they not count how many innocent Iraqis they are killing!!!

They have dehumanized us Manesh. This began with the Crusades, and it intensified during the Colonial period in which they had to make Muslims look like beasts and emotional barbaric creatures in order to justify conquering, enslaving and occupying us for centuries.

Now in this Imperial age, vilification has started again, for the wolves have seen oil and they thirst for it. They want power and domination in our region. And with the constant xenophobia, people react by further pushing limits by further dehumanizing us on their own.

The cartoon of the Prophet wearing a bomb turban was the last tick of the bomb called "Muslim Patience." How much do they have to endure while their countries are one by one occupied, their women humiliated and raped by soldiers, and their children blown up by "stray missiles"? What you see on Fox News is MUCH different than what they see on Al-Jazeera.

And for the rest of them, they are under dictatorial regimes whose coercive apparatus are funded by the US Government. Enough is enough.

I condemn violence as a reaction, but you can't hold 1.8 Billion Muslims back and keep telling them to be quiet while so much injustice is happening against them. If 100,000 of them react thats still only 0.0005% of Muslims.

Khodah Hafez,

Dariush Abadi

Top

Finding humor in gloomy situation

On Soody Sharifi's "Maxiatures: Playing with the past":

Dear Ms. Sharifi:

Thank you for sharing your art of Maxiatures with viewers of Iranian.com. As an artist, who enjoys new ideas, I congratulate you on your keen eye and artistic ability. Hard as it may be to find humor in a gloomy situation, you have done a superb job of it. I haven't had as much fun since reading Marjan Satrapi's, Persepolis!

Wishing you the best, always,

Zohreh Ghahremani

Top

>>> More March 25 -- March 11 -- March 8

>>> All past letters