ANALYSIS

responses

Dear Jahanshah Rashidian,

Thank you for your response, and kind words. I read your articles and enjoy and learn from them. You are doing a great job.

Soccer is one of the few things that our people can have and it is not an Islamic activity. It is one of those rare activities that brings joy (and collective sorrow) to our people. So, I think an international sanction on sports harms our people and does not harm the fundamentalist terrorist regime.

However, I agree with diplomatic and political sanctions. It is a great idea to have the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague to take the cases of the crimes against humanity on Rafsanjani and Khamanehi, Por-Mohammadi, etc. Also I think it is a good idea to suspend the fundamentalist regime from holding our seat at the UN. Iran’s seat at the UN should remain vacant until the Iranian people in free and democratic elections choose their legitimate representatives.

Nooruz shoma piroz,

MK

================================

Dear Anonymous-2,

I am a member of Jebhe Melli (in exile). Dr. Mossadegh is our founder. JM is not a cult that we worship him or have to follow every thing he said. We, in JM, have the right to criticize Dr. Mossadegh. In my opinion, for example, Dr. Mossadegh made a mistake on 28 Mordad; he should have used the radio and call upon the people to come out to the street and confront the coup plotters. Had Dr. Mossadegh done that, then we would not have suffered 58 years of brutal savage tyranny. Dr. Mossadegh was not God, nor prophet, nor did he receive messages from Imam Zaman. He was the BEST statesman our nation has produced in many centuries. Like all human beings, he had his shortcomings.

We in JM uphold principles of independence, freedom, democracy, human rights, social justice. Particular ideology or policy is up to the constituent parties within JM and the individual. For example, one could be atheist and Marxist like Khalil Maleki, while another member could be devout Muslim like Dr. Sanjabi; one could be social democrat, another liberal democrat, another... JM has been and is a coalition of various parties and individuals. This has its advantages and disadvantages.

You cannot extrapolate from Dr. Mossadegh’s philosophy the psychology of JM members. Dr. Fatemi had one personality, Dr. Sanjabi another, Dr. Bakhtiar another, Parvaneh Eskandari-Forouhar another.

If you have any questions about my beliefs, simply ask. I will try to the best of my abilities to respond.

Nooruz shoma piroz,

MK

==================================

Dear Anon7,

In the past 2 weeks, students at Shiraz university have been risking their education, liberties, and lives by engaging in protests. One of their slogans is "jonbesh-e daneshoyee amadeh ghiyma ast." Do you think that they are willing to put so much at risk because of high inflation or because they have had it up to here with the repressive policies of the sadeghi dude that is president of the univ?

Are the brave women organizing the million signature campaign to get rid of discriminatory laws, rising prison and torture because of inflation rate or because of oppressive laws discriminating against women?

Of course the incredible economic mismanagement in the past 29 years is a major reason of the economic misery of the Iranian people. This is due to that lack of education on modern economic by fundamentalist rulers from Khomeini who thought that "eghtesad male kharan ast" and thought that a country of then33 million people could have as its economics minister a baghal sare kocheh!!!!! The handful of second rate agha-zadeh-ha brought to govt to manage the economy could not solve the serious foundational problems of economy and political legitimacy in brought by the fundamentalist regime. To provide one simple example is they could not touch the bonyads. If you point is that modern economic illiteracy of Khomeini, Khamanehi, Ahmadinejad have contributed to poverty (despite getting billions and billions of dollars virtually effort-free from the sale of oil), and thus undermine the legitimacy of the regime, then to that extent you are right. If you mean to say that a lot of poor people in 2005 were so poor that at that juncture that primarily were concerned with economic issues, then you have a point.

If a political system is regarded as essentially legitimate, then economic problems will not cause serious political issues of legitimacy. They could cause serious changes in economic and political policies, but not foundational and constitutional changes.

The main problem with the fundamentalist regime goes much deeper than inflation rate. It is a foundational and constitutional crisis of legitimacy. Economic difficulties could (and usually do) exacerbate political problems and help push the non-politically active population (who always constitute the overwhelming majority of every country) to leave their regular lives and enter politics. The Shah’s regime was essentially illegitimate. But it survived. Between 1976 and 1979 due to a variety of factors including economic difficulties (compared to present-day Iran very very mild difficulties) the poor masses entered the struggle. Today the fundamentalist regime suffers from serious crisis of legitimacy, so if there is a serious economic collapse (due to sanctions of oil sales), the poor would probably enter the struggle and more likely than not, that would end in the overthrow of the regime.

MK

====================================

Dariush jaan,

Thanks for the article and videos. As usual, very interesting.

If 70% of the Iranian public was for monarchy, then RP should have no problem overthrowing the fundamentalist regime.

Nooruzet mobarak,

Masoud

======================================

Ola Nadia,

Houston!!!! Have you tried Caspian Café? Excellent Persian food.

Feliz Nooruz to you and your family,

Masoud

==========================================

Dear Anonymus-today,

Obviously you did not understand my article. Perhaps, you should read it again.

1. My argument in the article was NOT based on moral reasoning. It was based on the

A Fatal Flaw in Any Grand Bargain

The essential component of their grand bargain (or any grand bargain) is the assumption that the fundamentalist regime will honestly declare all of the sites and the dimensions of its nuclear weapons program. This assumption goes against the actual history and behavior of the regime. The regime kept its nuclear program secret for 18 years until it was disclosed by the PMOI. Far more significant is the fact that the regime explicitly deceived the EU-3 (Britain, France, and Germany).

In the October 2003 meeting among regime officials and the foreign ministers of the EU-3, the regime explicitly agreed to provide full disclosure to the foreign ministers and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for the EU-3's agreement that it would oppose the American policy of referring Iran's case to the UN Security Council. In February 2006, during intense intraelite fighting, Hassan Rouhani revealed that Ahmadinejad and his hard-line colleagues had attacked Rouhani and the previous team as both incompetent and weak and claimed that their policies were responsible for undermining Iran's position in the nuclear conflict. Rouhani responded by publishing his remarks to the High Council of the Islamic Cultural Revolution.70

Rouhani said that in October 2003, after serious deliberations that included all of the main leaders of the regime, they collectively decided not to reveal all of the secrets to the Europeans and the IAEA because doing so would have caused Iran's file to be referred to the Security Council. One such case was the P2 centrifuge case. The regime was not aware that the Libyan government had disclosed all of its nuclear programs to the United States and Britain. Thus the fundamentalist regime decided not to reveal that it had secretly purchased the highly sophisticated P2 centrifuge plans. Because of the Libyan disclosures, the EU-3 and the IAEA were aware of the person who had sold P2 centrifuge plans to Iran. Rouhani stated that the exposure of Iran's explicit deceptions caused the EU-3 to mistrust Iran.71 This disclosure led the EU to support the American policy of referring Iran to the Security Council. It is imperative to add that engaging in deception about its nuclear file is not an exception for the Iranian regime. It has a long history of explicit lies such as its public denials of the assassinations of dissidents abroad despite the fact that its agents have been arrested, convicted, and imprisoned in many Western European countries. Although the regime has successfully lobbied for the extradition of the imprisoned assassins to Iran, it denies that those agents were sent by the regime.72 Lying is allowed in Shiite Islam under the practice of "taghiyeh" [lying, deception, dissimulation].

The belief that the regime has not declared all of its nuclear facilities is widespread. It involves the so-called problem of known and unknown nuclear facilities. In Leverett's words: "Numerous analyses have raised serious doubts that U.S. military strikes against Iran's nuclear infrastructure would delay significantly its nuclear development because of profound uncertainty about the reliability and comprehensiveness of target selection, the possibility that 'unknown' facilities are at least as close to producing weapons-grade fissile materials as 'known' facilities."

There is an internal logical inconsistency in Leverett's argument. On the one hand, Leverett uses this belief to argue against military strikes. On the other hand, Leverett's grand bargain is based on the belief that the regime will honestly provide a complete list of its hitherto "unknown" nuclear facilities and programs to the United States and will agree to dismantle them. In addition, the regime has the added incentive to continue to lie rather than to change its pattern of lying. Continuing to keep the "unknown" facilities "unknown" could enable the regime to take advantage of collaboration in the "known" facilities to advance its technological acquisitions in the "unknown" facilities. Once the regime developed nuclear weapons in the "unknown" facilities, it could then suspend the grand bargain.

Fatal Attractions of the Grand Bargain

In addition to the fundamental flaw in any grand bargain, the grand bargain that Leverett proposed in the longer study includes principles that would cause the fundamentalist rulers to reject it. The Leverett grand bargain includes implementing internationally recognized human rights conventions,73 recognizing Israel via accepting UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and stopping assistance to Lebanese Hezbollah and Hamas. If the regime were to respect the basic human rights of the Iranian people, it would not last long. The fundamentalist regime needs massive coercion in order to remain in power, a fact obvious to regime officials but one that Leverett fails to take into account. It was one thing for Khatami in 2003 to say that if the Palestinians accept a deal with the Israelis, Iran would not be more Palestinian than the Palestinians; it is quite another for Khamanehi and Ahmadinejad today to accept Security Council resolutions officially recognizing the existence of Israel, a nation they want to wipe off the map. It is imperative to add that even in May 2003, Khamanehi did not accept all of the features of the roadmap.

The roadmap offered by the regime in 2003 reflected the interests of the fundamentalists ruling Iran at that particular moment. But would any grand bargain be in the interests of the United States?

The long-term interests of the United States involve cultivating and maintaining the good will of the Iranian people. The United States was intensely hated in Iran because of the CIA-engineered 1953 coup (which overthrew Iran's democratic government of Dr. Mossadegh) and the support the United States gave to the dictatorial regime of the shah. Since the early 1990s, however, Iranians have been one of the most pro-American populations in the world.

2. The MORAL aspects of my arguments were on the IRANIAN parts. In the article, I wrote that many IRANIANS regard appeasement of their tormentors and oppressors as unethical and immoral. In my responses to the various commentators in this thread, I elaborated this moral dimensions for us Iranians.

3. When Kharazi explicitly states that Khamanehi agrees with 85 to 90 percent, it means that he opposed 10 to 15 percent of the draft written by Swiss ambassador and Kharzai. Therefore, those saying that all the fundamentalist leaders agreed to do xyz, and then say enumerate the various stuff in the draft are simply wrong.

The text of the fax speaks for itself. This draft was not initiated by Khamanehi, but rather by Swiss ambassador and Kharazi.

I believe the actual text PROVES that what had been propagated to be utterly false. The Swiss ambassador dude did NOT simply convery the message of Khamanehi to the US. Rather this dude sat for few hours with Kharzai and came up with a draft, a draft that even Khamanei opposed 10 to 15 percent of its content.

4. If Israel or India or Pakistan do NOT sign the NPT, then they do NOT have to abide by NPT, do NOT have to tell anything to the IAEA and are 100% within their right to develop nuclear weapons. They might wish to disclose their nuclear work or not. They have not given their commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran has been a signatory of the NPT. Therefore, the govt in Iran canNOT develop nuclear weapons. IAEA has the responsibility to monitor compliance.

One may argue that it was wrong for the Shah’s regime to sign NPT, or that it was wrong for the fundamentalist regime not to PUBLICALLY leave the NPT.

You do NOT understand these simple facts. Israel, Pakistan and India did not violate any treaties by developing nuclear weapons because they did NOT sign the NPT.

The leaders of the fundamentalist regime have a long history of LIES. They are proven LIARS and charlatan. They have a proven history of mass killings, mass torture, mass rape. That is why there is a concern about these mass murderers.

Best,

MK

Sloppy reasoning

Among the clutter of this article, the central argument seems to be the rejection of the so-called grand bargain with the Islamic Republic. Of course if you’re against the regime on moral grounds, then the notion of any kind of compromise is moot. But international foreign policy is not based on fine morals regardless of what demagogues on the left and the right would have you believe. Mr. Kazemzadeh of course has wrapped his piece in cloak of objective analysis. Geopolitics is about national and economic interests not human rights. Some of Kazemzadeh’s statements are downright strange. For instance he repeats in more than one instance that Khamenei didn’t agree with all the points of the proposal that Iranian ambassador in Switzerland (?) put forward to American officials; that he only ascended to 80%. He even downplays the proposal because it came from the ambassador and not Kahemeini directly (could any one believe the ambassador did this on his own and without at least indirect agreement by Khamenei?). This is frankly sophomoric reasoning with all due regards to the professor. The fact that Khaemeini had ascended to any compromise is quite significant. In foreign policy you have to get into the door before entering the room. Iran after all facilitated cooperation with Northern Alliance during the invasion of Afghanistan and Sistani who surely did and still does have close connection with the IRI played ball with Americans. Now you might say Sistani and the Shia leadership did that because they had learned from history that they had to play ball with the Americans to get power (the Sunnis did the same back in the 1920 with England and were favoured thereafter) but if Sistani had declared Jihad against the invaders then they would have been called tools of Iran’s expansionist policies in Iraq. Now, the professor surely can’t call US’s foreign policy moral and just. He keeps talking about Iran’s bellicose foreign policy but the only thing he has to show for it is Iran’s support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. First off, Hamas is not Iran’s proxy; this is simply repeating pro-Israeli language of American media. They used to get aid from Saddam too (in their old incarnation as Moslem Brotherhood, they were even boosted financially by Israel because the oppose PLO), did that make them Iraq’s proxy? They are a Sunni nationalist organization that frankly will get the aid from wherever it can get it. Israel is the US’s largest recipient of foreign aid in the world. One out of every four dollars in Israel’s economy is American money, does that make Israel US’s proxy in the region? I guess some people would say yes. What do you think, the professor? Wahhabism is the most virulent, violent, fascistic strain in Islam. In spite of all reactionary behaviour of the IRI, and they are reactionary, the true reactionary heart of Islam beats not in Tehran or Qum or Najaf, but in Saudi Arabia. They’re the ones who call the Shia apostate, never mind the Jews and the others. Wahhabi schools are mushrooming all over the world funded by Saudi money. Al-qaeda is a Wahhabi group and yet in spite of all this, the US and Britain have had no problem with a grand bargain with the Saudis for over 8 years, never mind the Chinese with their massive human rights violation, etc. So moral reasons for rejecting the grand bargain don’t cut it. The US will shake hand with any devil for its national interests. Here is another truly bone head-statement, and I paraphrase, the IRI practices deception and cannot be trusted because of Shia practice of taghia (the practice of hiding one’s faith because of fear of persecution which the Shia did in Iran when they were a persecuted minority), which sanctions lying and deception. Really, professor? No other government in the world deceives and lies except the IRI? Hasn’t Israel hidden its nuclear arsenal from the world? Didn’t Israel put the whistleblower in jail for many yeas and other Israeli called him a traitor? For that matter, didn’t Pakistan deceive the world and then simply opted out of the Atomic Agency? Isn’t Iran at least a member and as such can be censured or be demanded to comply? Note everyone, including the professor that the Atomic Agency is a voluntary organization and at least on the surface the Mullahs have shown a willingness to be part of this, which is more than one can say about US’s behaviour in the past decade by refusing to be part of any international treaty that limits their ability to behave as an imperial force. This is almost as bone-head as the Bernard Lewis’s statement that the belief in Mahdi by the Shia means nuclear Armageddon if Iran ever acquires nuclear weapons. As well, quoting from the IRI’s constitution means very little. Commitment to some form of spreading the revolution, is no more than third-worldism wrapped in cloak of Khomeinism. Iran is not the only revolutionary country that postures like this. Sur they gave some aid to some ragtag groups in East African and so on but to hold that as the reason you can bargain and contain the regime is again not very solid. The US itself has been exporting Americanism for decades in South America and other places.
I’m not in favour or disfavour of grand bargain with Iran per se. I’d be glad if there was a bomb that could be dropped on Iran that only killed Mullas and their cronies (let’s call in M-bomb) and left the country relatively intact. By the way I’m not sure why the world has to revolve around America and what it wants or doesn’t want from the rest of the world. But I object to sloppy reasoning and repetition of accepted nonsense in American media when it comes to potentially concluding that the best way to get rid of the IRI is to invade Iran and potentially destroy it as a country.

fundamental flaw of this article (to Anonuousk)

Anonymousk says: "The complacency observed among the population is not synonymous with approving the fundamentalist Islamic Regime. Your argument is predicated on flawed reasoning or you think Iranians are all fools and mentally challenged."

An may I ask what part of my statement implies Iranians are "fools and mentally challenged" and "complacent"?
On the contrary Iranians are very outspoken to point out their dissatisfaction. Here is what I said, read it again:
No, Mr. Kazemzadeh, although IRI does not have a good human rights record and it is a semi dictatorial regime the overwhelming majority of Iranians are discontent because of the economical hardship they are experiencing (high inflation .....) not because of IRI human rights records or its dictatorship! You are simply out of touch with Iran's realities, and As Ajam stated below you are repeating American mainstream media version of world issues!

to anonym7: The complacency

to anonym7: The complacency observed among the population is not synonymous with approving the fundamentalist Islamic Regime. Your argument is predicated on flawed reasoning or you think Iranians are all fools and mentally challenged.

To a large extent this unfortunate complacency is a psychological outcome of population under years of oppression, extreme fear and intimidation, and brutality. In psychological term it is called *Learned Helplessness"...One out of 16 Iranian is a drug addict, another symptom of Learned Helplessnes...

Definition of Learned Helplessness:
//www.noogenesis.com/malama/discouragement/he...

Houston area........

best place to be in Texas. :o) Of course, it is my subjective opinion. 

Feliz Nooruz,

Solh va Doosti (paz a vosotros)

Nadia

Massoud Jan I said Legacy Not Legitimacy

Thank you Massoud for your kind comments. It is equally a pleasure to debate on such important issues in a civilized way regardless of whether we share or not the same views.

Your questions require a more in depth response than what you will read here but I am sure that we will have other oppurtunities to speak on this endless subject of legitimacy of the monarchy Vs the Republic or particularly on Reza Pahavi's role.

I do think however that Reza Pahlavi does have a historical legacy upon his shoulders and that is not something that should or can be solved be it in a congress or reunion between politicians. The issue of the Monarchy Vs Republic is too an important issue to be reduced to merely a question of form.

Your arguments are respectable but not irrefutable no more than mine, however I would most probably agree with you if lets say we were celebrating the 50th anniversary of the revolution or that like in France the revolution had taken place 200 years ago.

30 years that is barely one  generation is too short a periode to truly allow us to drop the question of the monarchy overnight or even judge it as an obstacle to democratic thought and evolution. All the more that the monarchy as an institution again has a long VERY long history in our nation.

I would like to sum my arguments partially through visual demonstrations in the following links. At best they can simply be seen as FOOD FOR THOUGHT ;0)

1) GATHERING STORM: A BBC TV series with Richard Burton:  

Even if the comparison may not be entirely the same, I would like to draw your attention to an exerpt from an excellent movie entitled The Gathering Storm a remake of which was also made recently with Albert Finney and Vanessa Redgrave . This was the one with Richard Burton in the title role of Winston Churchill. I feel that Burton's Churchill delivers some strong arguments ( based on WC true speaches and memoires) in regard to his refusal of seeing Great Britains King to Abdicate:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amq7wEcd32U

2) Historical LEGACY Vs Political LEGITIMACY: Reza Pahlavi's speach of Oath as "Roi de Jure" made upon his 21st Year shortly after his fathers demise in Cairo.

This Oath was only a commitment by the Crown Prince of Iran to the cause of Freedom and Democracy of his fellow compatriots. It was not an actual Oath as King which can only be made in an elected Parliament in Iran. Given the particular circumstances in which he reached majority ( according to the previous Constitution) and the outcome of the Iran Iraq War during which he had also wrote to General Velayatollah Felahie, Chief Commander of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic, offering to fight in the air force for Iran in the war. The offer was rebuffed.

Part 1:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=h09-snPfeK8

Part 2:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBxYjjoKOro&feature=related

3) Shapour Bakhtiar's attitude towards Khomeiny and the Revolutionary mouvement. ( ALSO Joins the Argument above in regard to Historical Legacy VS Political Legitimacy) :

fundamental flaw of this article (to author ,... , Ajam)

the author says: "Similarly, the overwhelming majority of Iranians have come to hate the fundamentalist regime, whose human rights record is far worse than that of the shah's. Those governments that have friendly relations with the fundamentalist regime are viewed negatively by the Iranian public ... The Iranian public has high regard for the United States because the widely held perception is that it has stood by the Iranian people and has opposed the ruling fundamentalist dictatorship while Europeans and Russians have put profits before concerns over human rights and democracy in Iran."

No, Mr. Kazemzadeh, although IRI does not have a good human rights record and it is a semi dictatorial regime the overwhelming majority of Iranians are discontent because of the economical hardship they are experiencing (high inflation .....) not because of IRI human rights records or its dictatorship! You are simply out of touch with Iran's realities, and As Ajam stated below you are repeating American mainstream media version of world issues!
Your update of state of Iranian opposition groups is fairly good though. So I think reading your long article is not a waste of time.

Mr. Kazemzadeh, I would like to ask you one question!

Dear Professor Kazemzadeh:

With all due respects you have mentioned that you are with "Jebheye Melli" that is of course a group who believes in the philosophy of the great Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq. Is this correct?

Your answer to this will be quite useful to understand your psychology and your beliefs.

Regards

My solutions

I like to thank the author for his great article.

Despite increasing poverty, unemployment and inflation in Iran, the IRI has a high budget for its repressive organs which is invested from the national oil income. Therefore an eventual oil sanction results into weakening of the repressive regime and may be regarded as positive for the long-term struggles of people. Oil income, as said the author, has not improved our national economy. It is rather a tool of repression than a source of national income.

Other kinds of sanctions regimes which meet the basic needs of people, or a military attack on Iran without caring about the fate of 70 millions can result into more complicated casualties, damage of infrastructures, and unpreditable promlems without even a guarantee for a regime change.

A real opposition would condemn the whole IRI which has occupied and destroyed our country, and then would firstly rely on Iranians themselves to get rid of the plague of Islamism in Iran. As I described in my previous witings, our main problem is the lack of a democratic, radical --not appeaser--, secular, and trustful opposition to organise and lead different kinds of people's struggles to topple the regime.

As for the international support, I would propose appropriate international assistance with respect to all means of our independence and sovereinity. A democratic and secular opposition would campaign for the following requisitions:

The IRI must be internationally isolated, all diplomatic, and sport contacts with it must be suspended. All foreign accounts of IRI’s officials must be frozen. Their mafia activities in the Persian Gulf and around Iran must be internationally under controlled. International mandates must be issued against IRI’s officials for their crimes against humanity. So, there are many other sanctions that can be proposed on IRI’s officials, but neither military nor economic sanctions must be accepted because the dimensionality of national casualties cannot be predictable. So, once again, oil sanctions can be however be a long-term means of weakening the repressive organs and coercive apparatuses of the regime.

The UN and the Council of Europe should be demanded to approve resolutions putting the IRI and the political Islam on an equal status of fascist, racist, and criminal organisation. Such resolutions are not either beyond the legal competency of these organisations nor the judicial facts. This is an active contribution to elaborating a charter of principles for an IRI’s isolation.

In the meanwhile, such an Iranian democratic movement would try to form a front of all seculars and democrats with the acceptable principles as a common platform.

Limp Logic

When faced with irrefutable facts, You have nothing to say.

The most ridicules of all the statements you made is this :

"
The United States has won the hearts and minds of a new generation of Iranians."

"
President George W. Bush is popular among Iranians ..."

NO one and I mean no one with a sane mind would agree with the above statements.

USA is viewed as an OIL
PARASITE by the rst of the world.

Over 1000 000 Iraqis have been killed for OIL.

And you think Iranians love USA for it ?

If you want to have an honest debate, than respond to my
comments and do not make any personal statements. As far as KHODA I am
generational NON-KHODA ! MAZHABA MAN IRAN.

responses

Dear A347,

Thank you for your kind and generous comments.

Nooruz shoma pirooz,

MK

Dear Anonymoushk,

1. On the social bases of the regime, especially the hardline faction, utilizing govt generated data, my analysis just came out. If you have access to a university library (or willing to pay a little money through their Internet purchase), you could get it.

Masoud Kazemzadeh, "Intra-Elite Factionalism and the 2004 Majles Elections in Iran," Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 44, No. 2 (March 2008).

//www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a...

2. In Iran, the ideology of fundamentalism (transformation of religion into political ideology plus a reactionary interpretation of all political and religious issues) has been defeated. The current oligarchy faces problems of legitimacy far worse than those suffered by the communist regime in USSR in the late 1980s. This has come about due to a variety of factors, among which is the utter lack of competence by the regime (except manipulation of masses, use of extreme violence) in areas of economic management, political system, foreign relations. They consistently sacrificed long-term benefits to their narrow short-term benefit.

It is clear that demands for freedom, democracy, human rights, individual liberties have spread wide and deep in our society. Whereas in 1905, these demands were limited to a few percentages of the population (highly educated), in 1950s to the educated modern middle classes, today these demands are embraced by men and women, religious and non-religious, those living in big cities and small towns. Khatami and reformist faction of the fundamentalist oligarchy won elections not because of Khatami’s rosy cheeks, but because he echoed the demands of the masses for azadi, jama madani, hokumat qanon and the like. He won not by promising slogans of the revolution, but by echoing the slogans of the democratic opposition. And Ahmadinejad won by portraying himself as opponent of the status quo (as bizaare as that may seem), by opposing agha-zadeh-ha and by promising to bring oil money to the table of the people instead of to the pockets of the fundamentalist leaders.

3. Solution: There are several serious problems plaguing the opposition. Our leaders have been incompetent, self-centered, and short-sighted.

Our young generation does not suffer from the political short-comings of the earlier generation. Unlike other Islamic nations, our people do not suffer from the illusions (or delusions) of Islamist utopia (or more accurately dystopia).

Our political culture was terribly damaged by the long dictatorial rule, especially since 1953. Instead of healing and reconciliation, Khomeini and fundamentalist poured salt on our cultural wounds and made them much much much worse. Just compare what Mandela and ANC did in South Africa with what Khomeini did in Iran. Whereas Mandela brought reconciliation, democracy, pluralism, Khomeini brought blind revenge, mass slaughter, mass torture unprecedented in our history, and terrible dictatorship. Despite the fact that the 1979 revolution was truly a huge mass based revolution, Khomeini’s psychopathic and fascistic policies so brutalized our nation that today so many compared it with the previous dictatorship and say "Khomeini rooye Shah ro sefid kard," or refer to Shah as "khoda biyamorz"!!!! Khomeini’s brutal and pathological policies have so terribly harmed our political culture it will continue to harm our politics.

Unfortunately, I think more sufferings is on the way for the Iranian people. Fundamentalist regime is like cancer. It has, and continues to, kill our body politic. Healing can only begin after this cancerous tumor has been taken out. I don’t think most Iranians realize the gravity of the situation. By the time they realize how serious the problem is, I am afraid it will be too late.

We lack a Mossadegh that could galvanize the people and save the situation. The only distant second available is Abbas Amir-Entezam. Would our opposition leaders rise to the occasion and subsume their parochial short-term interests to the broader public good? Would our people rise to the occasion and participate in mass uprising to get rid of this cancerous tumor before it kills us all?

If Ahmadinejad provokes a war with the US or Israel, what will happen? Ahmadinejad thinks that his pro-war policies will cause the reappearance of Imam Zaman. If one believes that Imam Zaman will show up, end injustice, and usher in 1,000 years of perfect justice, then Ahmadinejad’s starting a war is religiously right. If you are a true believer, having the privilege of being Imam Zaman’s real soldier is worth a few million deaths. If you don’t believe that the 12th Imam will show up sometimes in 2009 or 2010 to assist Ahmadinejad, then we are in a very serious trouble.

In my opinion, the only thing that could change the current situation is a UN Security Council resolution imposing similar economic sanctions on the fundamentalist regime that we imposed on apartheid regime in South Africa. An immediate ban on purchase of oil and gas from the fundamentalist regime may cause serious economic collapse, run on the food stores, run on the banks, mass uprising that the regime could not control. This might work or it might not work. If it did work, it would free Iranian people from the misery of living under the fascist fundamentalist regime. If it did not cause the overthrow of the regime, it might at least postpone a war.

Fighting cancer is not pain-free. It is very very painful as is fighting fundamentalist regime. We need to be honest with ourselves and with Iranian people. There will be much pain and agony for us all. The cause of this pain is the fundamentalist regime and its leaders Khomeini, Rafsanjani, Khamanehi, Ahmadinejad.

4. I do not think we need another religion. What we need is a separation of religion and the state. Shia Islam of the Ayatollah Uzma Kazem Shariatmadari, or Ayatollah Uzma Zanjani (or perhaps Ayatollah Taleghani) was not incompatible with democracy. What is harmful for democracy is transforming religion into a political ideology (especially one like fundamentalism that presents a fascistic interpretation of religion and politics). Taleghani was against velayat faghih and opposed clerical dictatorship, but attempted to create a liberal Islamic party that would promote policies based on Islam but not a state that was ruled by clerics.

If we are lucky and can establish a secular and democratic republic, then each person could worship any religion he or she so desires, or have no religion at all.

What is essential is that we do not have a clueless reactionary cleric be Supreme Leader (Khomeini and Khamanehi), another clueless cleric president, another clueless one Head of the Judiciary, another gang to determine who can become president or member of Majles,...

Nooroz shoma pirooz,

MK

Dear Arya,

Actually it is false to claim that there are harsh economic sanctions in place. In the past 29 years or so ONLY the US has not directly traded with the fundamentalist regime. Other than air-craft parts and some US military stuff, other American goods find their way to Iran via UAE and Qatar. The latest bank stuff is also relatively minor. The EU, Japan and China buy oil and gas from the regime and they (plus Russia sell it all sort of stuff). Therefore, it is FALSE to say that there are harsh economic sanctions.

The ONLY thing that can have serious impact will be a UN Security Council ban on the purchase of oil and natural gas from the fundamentalist regime. This will immediately cut off the oxygen that keeps feeding the cancerous tumor that is brutalizing the Iranian people. As long as fundamentalist regime can sell oil on large scale, not much will matter. Thus what has occurred so far is a little drop to what could happen if UNSC were to actually impose sanctions.

It would be false to say that this will be pain-free for the Iranian people as it would be false to tell a cancer patient that surgery will be pain-free or a dentist telling a patient that root-canal will be pain-free.

To remain silent and not discuss the real pain that will be visiting upon our people is not being responsible.

I am saying now what I have been saying in the past 7 years or so. I was against a war then, I am against a war now. You and I can jump up and down until we are blue in the face, but we cannot make US or Israel not follow THEIR national interests if military attacks are in THEIR interests. Obviously the likelihood of a peaceful transition to democracy has dramatically been reduced and the likelihood of a major war has increased. What I has been writing on the bb has now been put into an scholarly article which has been under review at a journal in the past 2.5 months. If it gets accepted, and published, I will try to get permission to re-publish it here, so it might help our people.

I think there is a very high likelihood of war in 2009 or 2010. A UNSC sanctions is probably the only thing that could postpone the war. I do not think it is likely that the US and/or Israel sit back and live with the possibility of fundamentalist regime continuing the nuclear enrichment and develop nuclear weapons capacity (which would allow the regime to develop nuke bombs shortly if it so desired). There is a lot of self-delusions and wishful thinking going on among Iranians inside and abroad. I have been writing and saying this for more than 7 years. I am afraid, when bombs drop, then people say, "Kazemzadeh was right." By then it will be too late.

Nooruz shoma pirooz,

MK

Dear Mr. Kadivar,

Let me begin by saying that I truly enjoy reading your many contributions. You are a credit to our community. Thanks for your superb works.

RP says that he will accept being a monarch if the people in a referendum would vote for monarchy. Do you seriously think that 50% of the Iranian people will vote to establish monarchy???????

Democratic republicans say that it is easy to promise freedom and democracy when one is out of power. Khomeini is Paris promised freedom and democracy and promised that he would not accept any role in the future govt. But as soon as he could, he established his tyranny. As I mentioned in my article overwhelming majority of republicans do not trust RP. Moreover, they think why in the world create a position (monarch) and then try to make sure that position will not amass and abuse power, considering that a monarch is a permanent position.

The institution of monarchy gains its legitimacy not from democratic principles but rather from tradition (traditional sources of legitimacy). If such legitimacy had in fact existed among Iranians (as it does among British, or Swedes), then we would not be having this debate. Traditional legitimacy exists not because it is rational, but because it exists despite rational and democratic precepts and sources. Constitutional monarchy is a hybrid system that lives with a non-democratic institution, struggling to restrain its power into merely symbolic ones devoid of actual real political power. It could survive only under special circumstances when the ruling dynasty enjoys great deal of legitimacy, in part due to its longevity, its actual being in power and gradually giving away its real power. It is a very dangerous situation when the monarch decides to abandon his earlier promises to respect the wishes of the people.

In my opinion, the Pahlavis do NOT enjoy widespread legitimacy. A small proportion of the population supports monarchy, many intensely so. RP has not succeeded in creating an alliance with non-monarchists. My proposal, would transform monarchists into a conservative republican party with RP as its head. This would allow an alliance with liberal and social democratic republicans. This would help create a powerful opposition against the regime. RP could run for presidency and if he won he could serve as president for lets say two terms. If he lost, then he could run for Majles if he so desired. If RP believes in democracy, then he should not demand special privileges for himself (and his family), rather be a person like all other Iranians: run for office in periodic free elections. I have no problem seeing RP become president (say in two consecutive terms in free and fair elections).

In order to get rid of the incumbent dictatorship, we need to have a broad-based alliance. This requires several things. One is our willingness and ability to openly and publically break some political taboos. We need to somehow being groups that have historically hated each other into some sort of understanding and coexistence. This in turn requires our leaders to LEAD our people by openly discussing some of these issues.

RP has taken some good steps, but in my humble opinion he needs to make more. The leaders on my side of the divide also need to make serious leading, and I believe that Abbas Amir-Entezam has indeed make great strides. I think communists (or former communists in many instances) and the ethnic parties have also taken some major steps. If we are able to come up with a formula that would make all these groups target solely the fundamentalist regime, then it that would spell the doom of the fundamentalist regime. Unfortunately, I am not very optimistic.

Nooruz ra be shoma va khanevadeh gerami tabrik migam,

MK

Dear Zion,

I disagree with you. If treaties had no effect, why then the US did not sign the Kyoto protocols, or the International Criminal Court, or the treaty banning landmines? If you are right, then the US could have signed them and them cheat as you suggest?

If the US signed a grand bargain with the fundamentalist regime, then it would have to remove the regime from the State Department’s annual publication’s Patterns of Global Terrorism’s "terrorist list." The US had to publically state that the regime was did not belong to the "axis of evil."

If a country signed a treaty and then cheated, then it will lose credibility. It is one thing to have one’s tukhuz kicked in global public opinion and say hell with it, I am going to bomb the hell of anyone who opposed me; it is quite another to lose credibility as govt that would carry out its signed treaties. If the latter, then no one would sign any treaty with that country, and thus that country would not benefit from treaties.

Best,

MK

Dear Anonyousk,

There is no doubt that the fundamentalist regime leaders are charlatan and liars. And that is precisely why others do not believe when Khamanehi and Ahmadinejad say that the nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. It is precisely due to the lack of credibility of the fundamentalist regime that others do not trust the treaties this regime signs.

Happy Nooruz,

MK

Dear Bang Man,

As they say back home: "khoda shoma raa shafa bedahad" (if you believe in khoda); and if you don’t, may the Big Bang help solve your problems.

Nooruz mobarak,

MK

Dear Mr. Kashani,

Thank you for your kind and generous words. I have discussed the sabotage scenario in my forthcoming article is some detail. Have patience, it shall appear.

The US govt will do what is in the national interest of the US. The Israeli govt will do what is in the national interest of Israel. WE have to do what is in Iran’s national interests.

The govts in US and Israel are legitimate in the eyes of THEIR citizens. Americans widely respect and revere their constitution, and they can vote for anyone they so desire. Israeli system is regarded as legitimate by the Jewish citizens of Israel. They can vote for anyone from far right to far left, from religious to atheist. Therefore, when one party loses, it still regards the system as legitimate.

Unfortunately this is not the case in Iran. There is a small clique that not only oppresses those who think differently than extreme right-wing fundamentalists, but also bars members of the fundamentalist oligarchy from running for offices (e.g., sitting member of the Majles!!!!). There is an extremist fanatical regime that horribly oppresses our people. At the most basic level, the interests of the ruling oligarchy is in opposition to the interests of the Iranian people who oppose the regime. Time and again, the fundamentalists have harmed the national interests of Iran, whether it was the hostage crisis, Salman Rushdie affair, etc..

Until this regime is removed and a legitimate political system established in Iran, we will have resistance and struggle. Only with the establishment of a legitimate political system, could we all live side by side, have free and democratic elections, so that politics will NOT be a matter of life and death (LITERALLY). Only AFTER the establishment of such a legitimate system, we will have social peace, which will help economic investments, which will lead to prosperity. As long as this tyrannical regime stays in power, the misery of our people continues.

It is OUR responsibility to get rid of this nightmarish regime. If we want freedom, we have to be willing to pay the price. If we fail, then others will do what is in THEIR national interests. Those who support the regime and promote appeasement of the regime, prolong the incumbent dictatorship, which prolongs the misery of the Iranian people. To help the fundamentalist terrorist regime is against the interests of the Iranian people and the national interests of Iran.

On your reply to BID:

I am actually center-left. I am very liberal and am very secular. I do not classify JJ as right either. He is a decent man who truly believes in freedom of expression and has provided this wonderful forum for all perspectives to express their analysis. He has been publishing my articles for many years. The Iranian.com is an achievement of our community and we owe a great debt of gratitude to Jahanshah Javid. The existence of this site shows that despite all our flaws, we can have freedom and democracy. The fact that JJ published diverse and opposing perspectives is a major positive attribute of this site. It brings a lot people into one community; some read our serious articles and others watch anar anar. :-)

BID does not make sense. He criticizes me for having published my article at the journal of one of American’s major foreign policy think tanks. He does not know that last year, fundamentalist regime ambassador to the UN actually was personally present at this think tank along with Henry Kissinger. It their weird mind set, it is perfectly fine for fundamentalist to lobby Americans, but pro-democracy Iranian scholars should not publish their scholarly works in their journals!!!!!!

What he does is typical pro-fundamentalist regime propaganda. The Ministry of Intelligence has this cartoon video of Mc Cain, Soros, and calls Iranians who struggle for freedom and democracy and human rights as stooges of the US. Lets review: WHOOOOOOOOOOOOO had secret deals with officials of the US and Israel?????? Remember the Iran-Contra scandal. For the fundamentalists it is halal for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, then-president Khamanehi, Rafsanjani and Mir Hussein Mossavi (the prime minister) to SECRETLY meet and deal with American officials and Israeli agents. If getting assistance (especially secretly) is bad and punishable, then the Ministry of Intelligence has to arrest supreme Leader Ali Khamanehi, and Rafsanjani. Khomeini is dead and cannot be arrested for his secret dealings with the "Great Satan" and the "Little Satan"!!!!!!!!!!!

It is the job of pro-fundamentalist propagandists to attack Iranian democrats. BID is doing his job. Truth, honesty, and decency are alien values for fundamentalists. No person with much brain would believe the nonsense and lies of fundamentalists. Do you think anyone (other than supporters of the fundamentalist regime) believes that Dr. Jahanbegloo was a spy for the US? It is the job of Shariatmadari’s Keyhan and their supporters to throw mud; that is what they do.

The fact of the matter is that we Iranians have been struggling for azadi, hukumat mardom, hukumat ghanon since the Constitutional Revolution (1906), and under the able leadership of Dr. Mossadegh. Our struggle for freedom and democracy is more than 100 years!!! The fundamentalist have always opposed freedom and democracy. In 1907 it was Shiekh Fazlollah Noori, then Fadaian Islam and then Khomeini, and nowadays the fascists who rule Iran. Next BID and the Ministry of Intelligence will release a video saying that Sattar Khan took money from the CIA to kill Sheikh Fazlollah Noori.

Nooruz shoma piruz,

MK

Dear Nadia,

De nada. Thank you for your kind and generous words. Where in Texas are you from?

Happy Nooruz,

Masoud

Interesting!

Interesting (in an entertaining way) article! Once I found "Ahmadinejad's belicose rhetoric and plicy" among the reasons for concern, I realised that I should look at this as an entertaining article whos's author buys into the American mainstream media version of world issues! Basing an argument on Ahmadinejad's cartoonish rants -- that only amount to attempts at capitalizing on the regional anti-Israeli sentiments that and even American pundits (neo-cons notwithstanding) don't take seriously -- as one of the factors involved was a dead give away!

And why does the author (much like a cult-member) refer to the IRI as the "fundamentalist regime," which among other things, lowers the level of the article to that of a gossip column such as Dr. Nurizadeh's?!

P.S. hoping this post geys through the censores, I keep my fingers crossed!!!

Thank you!

It was a very interesting article.

Solh va Doosti (paz a vosotros)

Nadia

Bored Iranian dude, just as

Bored Iranian dude, just as much you don’t believe certain things, we, and I mean the majority of Iranians, are in disbelief that there are still Iranians who support this regime. You wrote” The Basij are 13 million disillusioned militia of poor people fighting "for the Khomeini revolution" armed with AK47's and bikes, any attack on them would kill fathers, brothers and husbands of thousands of Iranians.”. I’m sure you are well aware that not all the 13 million Basidjis are at all times mobilized to fight. And even if they were, the Basidj is like the Soviet Red Army or the Hitler Army. They are guilty of committing human rights violations against Iran and are one of the major terrorism sponsoring military units in the world. So its not fair for the majority of Iranians and other people around the world to live in fear and threat of the Islamic regime and its Basidjs. The other 57 million Iranians also have sons and husband and fathers, not just the Basidjis, they also have rights, and just like the Soviet Red Army who committed human rights violations in its country, then the Basidjs need to be treated the same way. We gave the regime 30 years worth of chance and opportunity to change its behavior, and what did it Mr. Khameni do? Become more radical day by day, and by the way, way before Bush was in power or the Iraq war started. You wrote” You must have amazing good faith in American bombs that hit the Chinese embassy by an accident during the Yoguslav campaign”. For your information, that wasn’t an accident ! If you really have bought the argument that smart bombs don’t work as affective as some news media reports, then you are very naïve my friend. Just read about the latest U.S strike on the Somali Kenya border where smart bombs were used. You wrote” Oh no you don’t, it is known beforehand that there will be NO uprising. Religious fanatics will rush to the street, protesters will be shot on sight and every right movement, woman movement and workers union will be dissolved in "the interest of the state”. I beg you not to claim that this hasn’t been reality in Iran in the last 30 years? Please don’t! You wrote” Well that idea assumes that the planners, Pentagon and the military industrial complex in the US are currently working hard to free the Iranian people because they love Iran so much they cant stand watching Iranians under a dictatorship. Not to break the sad news to you, but they don’t. If Iran was wiped off the map tomorrow, they wouldn’t care.” Although U.S support, (Mostly through non military support) has been essential in so many countries, for example, former Soviet block, to achieve democratic states, they are not obliged to “love” Iran. Can’t you see my friend that the problem that U.S and others (By far not only the U.S) and Iranian people, have with this regime is that they are the main source of inspiration and support of Islamic fundamentalism? You wrote” A grand bargain would make the middle-east stable from a catastrophic war and let the Iranian people decide by their own whether or not they chose to fight this corrupt theocratic system” Time has changed my friend and statements like this does not work in the 21st century and the information age. If we don’t do the dirty work, others will do it for us. And again, unlike lets say Burma or Zimbabwe or Turkmenistan or others who have dictatorial regimes but only affecting their own country and not others, Iran is a threat to peace and democracy reaching to as far as South America. So the world community definitely looks at them differently. You wrote” Can’t believe Iranian.com republishes crap from these so called "think thank" groups which 5 are formed every week now in the US like a F'ing fast food chain”. First of all, you’re obviously showing incredible intolerance. Second, Iranian.com used to be a much more left leaning site, and to a great deal still is, but it has improved much and the reason is that the silent majority of Iranians are waking up and expressing their voice and demand for change, people like Mr. Kazemzadeh, Fred, Zion, jamshid,myself and many others, specially the majority of people in Iran who have to deal with this regime 24/7….and it looks like Mr. Javid has realized that the voice of the majority of Iranians cannot be ignored anymore. We were silent for 30 years, and now we’re waking up.

Mr. Kazemzadeh, this is one

Mr. Kazemzadeh, this is one of the most well written analysis’ of the fascist regime and its policies I read in a long time. You have spoken my and the vast majority of Iranian people’s mind. I like to applaud you on a job well done. The ones, who either out of amazing shallowness or incredible disregard and disrespect for the suffering of Iranian people in Iran and total denial of the brutality of this fascist regime, promote for a “dialogue” between Iran and others, specially the U.S, are doing enormous damage to the freedom movement in Iran. Those do not represent the majority of Iranians in any way, shape or form. Many of them actually promote for so called “dialogue” because in fact they would like the regime to stay! They actually want the U.S to sit down and give promises to the regime and they think in return, the regime will give up its anti U.S rhetoric, amazingly looking over the fact that the regime’s anti U.S rhetoric is one of the main oppression and survival tools of it. They day that this regime 1- Dismantles all oppression and inhumane laws and policies 2- Stops supporting Islamic fundamentalist terrorism 3- Stops using anti U.S propaganda, is the day this regime is no longer in existence!Offcourse no one is promoting for war on the Iranian people, they are innocent and first on a list of many victims of this regime, not to mention they are U.S and modernism –friendly, so it is wrong to wage war. But there are many different avenues to take to counter this regime besides a full scale war, and some of these IRI apologists and leftists on this site and elsewhere are not even for those measures! They are ill intentionally or misguidedly do not distinguish between the regime and the people of Iran. Their blind hatred for U.S, and other factors, has totally prevented them from seeing what actually is going on in Iran. I believe the best and most effective and less costly way of getting rid of this regime is a well planned and well executed sabotage campaign, including assassination of the 200 figures that have been controlling this regime since 1979. They are well known and identified. Instead of having U.S fighters bombing our country, maybe we can have some Iranian pilots bombing the few important and vital regime headquarters. The least, and I mean the least, that would do is cause a major shake up and installs fear in this regime. There are many unhappy and opposition members Iranians who are willing to participate in it.

Mr. Kazemzadeh: I think Zion

Mr. Kazemzadeh: I think Zion is spot on. Unless, the regime wants to share dominance with the U.S. in the region, meaning a bigger piece of the pie...which will not go well with countries like Turkey (who has a much stronger economy and GDP) and Saudi Arabai or Kwait.

Here is the latest on Hamas and Iran:

Iranian daily, Entekhab, quoted Ahmad Yussef, Hamas's political adviser, denying to reporters in a press conference in Gazza that Iranian built rockets reach Hamas through intricate underground tunnels from Egypt. "Iranian rockets in fact reach us through the Mediterranean Sea" Yussef finished his statement with.

So no denial that Hamas's rockets come from Iran, just a question of how they reach Hamas :))

Even the Iranian daily can't hide its displeasure with Yussef's claim and finishes with this paragraph:
" سخنان این دشمنان دوست نما که روزگارشان با بیت المال ایرانیان سپری می شود، قرابت بیشتری با سخنان مقامات صهیونیسم دارد تا ایران.اما نکته مهم آن است که گروه حماس و اعضای بلندپایه اش از اعلام این دست اخبار چه قصدی داشته و چه هدفی را دنبال می کنند."

translated:
"Statements made by such enemies who pose as our friends and their daily lives passes with the hard earned money of the Iranian people is more in tune with statements made by Zionist officials. The important question however is, what is the intention of Hamas and its high ranking officials from making such statements and what purpose do they pursuit?"

Well that is the result of not making a sound judgement on what is in our national interest!

//www.entekhab.ir/display/?ID=57675&Send

Violating a treaty

You said,
`One might violate a written commitment/treaty but that comes with a huge cost, because that would undermine the reputation of the country that signed and then violated it.`

You are confusing things here. Giving security guarantees to another government is not an international treaty, it is not even a meaningful commitment. A government can`t ask for its own security from another government in a meaningful way. This kind of stuff is only bargaining chips and have no moral values anyway. A state that is so insecure that demands another state to give it guarantees that it won`t help its people to overthrow it is bankrupt. That is why even the mullah regime in Iran does not make any such official demands. And as I said, even if the US gives its assurances, even if official, there is no way to check this. Push for regime change can be made as always in discretion.

I might also add that you must be extremely naive to believe that nation states would remain loyal to anything, when they have ways to break it without being found out, and that they are not constantly doing this all the time. Nation states are bound only to the interests of their own citizens. International agreements are taken only for promoting that interest and are uphold only as long as that interest is served. This is the real world we are living in.

More seriously Massoud Jan ...

Interesting overview of the state of the opposition and the challenges faced in seeing an end to the 30 years theocracy as well as the strategic trap or morbid temptation of bargaining with the current regime.

I however do not agree with your suggestion that RP should renounce to the Crown in order to unite the opposition. It would be not only foolish but I believe a genuine error.

Why ? I will try and explain below:

No one except monarchists ( Constitutional ) until recently took Reza Pahlavi seriously until they realized the true vacuum of power and credibility in assuming it if ever the regime of Tehran was to implode or more likely go through a serious political crisis that would oppose reformists and hardliners. Added to this internal conflict you have an entire new generation of Iranians who for the most ( essentially because of what their parents say to them or what they have learned over the years ) want to see Real change. They remain facinated not particularly by the monarchy but the level of Freedom that existed before the clerical revolution succeeded. That Freedom of course was not political but certainly individuals and women in particular benefitted from the same freedoms as in the West in terms of civil and social rights as much as men. The contrast is obvious be it visually. It is because of the level of emancipation they had and lost in the process of the Revolution that the current generation is totally dissillusioned by not only the current theocracy but maybe also by empty promises of Freedom and Democracy.

The democratic Republican opposition has no real representative or figurehead who could enter the political arena without making more promises or even making political concessions to rally support from various parties or ideological sensitivities. Not that no competent figurehead cannot be found or would not appear in the course of the years but they cannot claim to any form of historical legacy as Reza Pahlavi can today.

The Defeat of the Religious Theocratic Republic will be interpreted by the people as a defeat of the Revolution. This is where I think the Constitutionalists can play a positive and constructive role that would benefit not particularly the monarchy or the potential monarch ( i.e: Reza Pahlavi) but the democratic society in the making.

Indeed if Reza Pahlavi were to renounce to the Crown as you seem to suggest the wish, it will I believe only create a terrible political and historical misunderstanding amongst Iranians and not just amongst the followers of RP or the monarchists ( Orthodox or Constitionalists) because it would appear as meaningless and defeatist by all means.

The Theocracy has lost total credibility including amongst its staunchest supporters. The granddaughter of the Ayatollah Khomeiny has even lost faith in the hardliners and their capacity in restoring faith in the ideals of the revolution.

The question today is not necessarily weather the IRI will fall but when it will fall.

In the process can and does the opposition ( by that I mean the democratic opposition ( Republican and Constitutional Monarchists)) as well as all who regardless of their ideological sensitivities can find common ground in this struggle offer a positive and hopeful alternative to this 30 year old nightmare that has plundged an entire nation to seeking its roots ( particularly pre-Islamic) and its quest in redefining or rediscovering its identity. Scars and bitterness towards those responsible for the current situation will be essentially oriented towards those in power today rather than anyone who was in power before the revolution. Not that this is entirely fair but you cannot expect the young Iranians who hardly lived under the Shah to blame the former regime for the current slump of credibility, international humiliation and general mismanagement of the economy and social life in the name of conspiracy theories in the lines of Stephan Kinzer & Co.

Reza Pahlavi comes across as "clean" since he was not even born at the time of the 53 coup or could be held personally responsible for his father's would be crimes or shortcomings. Pahlavi represents whether we want it or not the Future. Were he even to renounce to leading the opposition, the question of Monarchy VS Republic will appear quite naturally and by no other than the people of Iran themselves particularly those living back home. Why may you ask ? Simply because the comparison once again will appear very legitimately when historians and politicians of all grounds will have to set the record straight as to the achievements and failures of the revolution and why it went wrong.

What may appear logically sustained or debated amongst historians will not be the same on the political front. When the masses are hungry for change they turn towards the person who can bring that about. Ten years ago people thought that providential "hero" was Khatami but he did not become the Islamic Gorbatchev everyone hoped for.

Today the scenario is VERY different.

We have in front of us a system of government that has lost total credibility and a leadership that nearly everyone agrees has terribly damaged Iran's image in the world but also its long term interests.

The mascarad surrounding the upcoming elections reinforce this general feeling that "We Cannot Trust these Mullah's".

At this stage RP doesn't have anything to do but wait. Time seems to be on his side.

However let us not have any illusions about his role or true potential. The true fact is that we have no real opposition today. RP is the first to admit it. Yet for the first time in 3 decades Iranians seem to have achieved at least one thing in accepting that :

The future government has to be secular.

The Next challenge is to make sure it will be democratic !

RP ( even his website suggests it) is in favor of not only democracy but everything that this notion implies in regard to human rights.

In short he advocating Mark Anthony's famous speach as in William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X9C55TkUP8

But in RP's words it would sound like:

"I come to bury the Shah, NOT the Praise Him"

However Unlike Mark Anthony, Reza Pahlavi IS Crown Prince of the Peacock Throne ( regardless of the legitimacy or not of the monarchy as an institution ). He was born Prince and everyone remembers and associates him to the Imperial Regime. Is he worthy or not the title is another debate ...

But asking him to renounce to the Crown (all the more that he has already made great concessions by calling on a Referandum to determine his exact role in a future government and by doing that he has put the Crown in the Balance ) as an extra guarantee to Republicans that "Hey Guys look he is a Democrat ! "  is not only hypocritical of Republicans who have hardly made ANY concession in the past 30 years in improving the state of the opposition but it would Also be an Error of judgment on what RP represents not much as a person but as a democratic alternative to which the nation can turn too.

I think people prefer to see someone stand out straight for what he is than hide under a cloak of hypocrisy. Oh so he won't be King so he should be President ?

I prefer to know that Reza Pahlavi is a former Crown Prince that could eventually ( if the people wish so ) become a Constitutional King, than see Reza Pahlavi as renouncing to the Crown in order to become a potential future Peronist South American Like President. In the latter case he will only create an ambiguous political legacy that will neither benefit the Monarchists nor the Republican and even less the cause of Democracy for that matter.  

From that point of view I think that it is for instance not Reza Pahlavi's role to explain the future Constitution or his would be role to us a little like a professor in a University. That responsability should on the contrary be that of the opposition leaders or competant jurists/lawyers who would be in charge of drafting the future constitution. Unfortunately given that we don't have a structured opposition today, we simply see a Crown Prince trying to do his best to explain his role with more or less success but also unavoidable blunders in abrupt or sporadic interviews he is asked to make.

Ironically Reza Pahalvi the Crown Prince devoid of any "divine Right" but adament to respecting a constitution ( As he has been repeating it for years ever since he made his Oath de Jure 29 years ago in Cairo ) even to the dismay of some of his own followers would seem much less a threat to democracy than Reza Pahlavi the Politician and or candidate to Presidency of a Republic that has no name or identity ...

It is the role of those who will draft the future Constitution ( Republican or Monarchical)  to clearly define the role of the head of State, the role and power of the government and the parliament.

Iranian democracy would come out victorious in the light of a century old struggle that goes back to the Constitutional Revolution of 1906 if we don't mess it up again by reinventing concepts that have never been put into practice.

I don't really have a preference between a Secular Democratic Republic or a Constitutional Secular and Democratic Monarchy but we should begin by stopping to lie ot ourselves and to others by promising the paradise that does not exist.

The fall of the Islamic regime if it EVER occurs in our lifetime would simply mean "pulling our sleeves up" and getting back to work and civil participation in building a democratic society in a country that has always dreamed of having one but has never truly experienced it.

If Iran were indeed to restore the monarchy not in a desperate attempt but upon a collective national decision based on what RP's followers  suggest: that is an internationally supervised Referandum, then the Spanish model would not seem so absurd and even an Iranian Republican or Socialist Prime Minister like Zapatero would end up by defending Reza Pahlavi's legitimacy like recently observed during the 17th Ibero-American Summit :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Kzbo7tNLg

The Conclusion in my humble opinion boils down to CLARITY ! and UN AMBIGUITY ! And FALSE PROMISES OF FREEDOM IN 6 MONTHS !

Something that I believe was best expressed by the late Shapour Bakhtiar who gave his life in the process too:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMvWKRtbs9A

Iran Hargez Nakhahad Mord ! BUT LETS GIVE DEMOCRACY A CHANCE !

My Humble Opinion

bah bah Farhad 100

MK:

Long time no chat. Given that your essay was way too long to read (I suggest cliff note versions for sites like this) -- I briefly went through it and as I finally scrolled my way down to the final paragraph I noticed you (and assumingly based on your scientific polling majority of Iranians) are against such a grand bargain -- if not a grand bargain then what?

You used to be against a military strike ... kind of like Pahlavi's position on this matter ... but your implicit positions seem to side with the agenda of hawkish neocons whom you are asking (and some begging) for their help to stop such engagement policies.

So my question is if you don't advocate a military strike - and we already have a pretty hard economic sanction in place and you don't want engagement then what do you expect a US administration to do ... and more importantly what do you expect Iranians to do?

Dear Mr. Kazemzadeh: Please

Dear Mr. Kazemzadeh:

Please don't reply to trollish so-called rebuttle that are irrelevant to your post. You never advocated bestowing democracy upon Iran by foreign intervention.

I have a question for you. You correctly point out that our main problem is fundamentalism in Iran. Do you know what percentage of population in Iran can be classified as fundamentalists? What is their demographic? How much power (economic and military)do they possess?

How are we supposed to fight this deeply rooted fundamentalism in Iran? How do we expose the depravigty of their ideology? What kind of a force (nationalism, another religion??) do we need to counter and marginlize this reactionary force in Iran???

Vanessa Redgrave

Mr. kadivar, Vanessa Redgrave was truly gorgeous. Wasn't she?

She was not only a great actress (and still is) but truly beautiful.

I Hear You ! ;0)

I'm Your Man :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdrEmZ35fxc&feature=related

Revoluntiany Guards now in FULL COMMAND

Does anybody honestly think the U.S. can strike a genuine grand bargain with the IRRG whose hands have been involved in almost all Mideast and beyond anti-Israeli activities for the last 28-29 years?

//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/72960...

Great Article

Great article Dr. Kazemzadeh.

Truthful and unbiased. I quite enjoyed reading it!

Struggle for freedom in what CONTEXT?

I will parse your article
and enumerate the main points and will respond to each one. I would like to hear your rebuttal.

1. M.K: Among other factors, the American failure to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan has fueled Iran's attempt at regional supremacy to the consternation of many in the region and beyond.

--This is a half-truth:
A. America has lost the war both in Iraq and Afghanistan
Bye-Bye Miss American Empire
Iran Celebrates Victory Over America!
As alliances shift, Iran wins. Again

B. The war is a major factor in pending economic catastrophe

War is hell - and hellishly expensive
Dollar meltdown

... take a moment away from
your work to watch reports of Ahmadinejad's visit to "surge"-occupied
Iraq. And then ask yourself,
"Does a country that goes bankrupt and dies in order to lose a war that
hands a country over to its sworn enemy...is this country at all mentally fit
to judge anyone else?"

2. M.K: The failure of the containment policy, fear that the Islamic
Republic will develop nuclear weapons, and the bellicose rhetoric
and policies of Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have
given rise to urgent discussions about how best to counter the
threat of the fundamentalist regime. The main policies under
discussion are regime change; surgical strikes; reconfigured
containment; limited, issue-based dialogue; and a "grand bargain."

A. Facing a predator

… Tush Factor is an important parameter for those Iranians sitting on the side lines and passing
pseudo intellectual comments in the form of geopolitical analysis. All the while, regurgitating
the same old rhetoric and labels trumpeted by mainstream US corporate media. The repetition is
an exercise in drone indoctrination. People the likes of Dr. Ahmad Chalabi. Hand picked and
trained to play the odds and the numbers for a future subservient Iraq as envisioned by the Zionist
project

The long sanctions and the war have resulted in heavy destruction of Iraq. Was there anything
Iraq could have done to stop the war? Hindsight, we must ask ourselves would have a nuclear-ready
Iraq helped to deter the war and the
destruction?

…
…
Let us not kid ourselves: we are faced with a predator who believes it is going to a 'generational
war '. Iran has to prepare for worst case scenario. Iran must be ready to defend itself.
In final analysis when the "Abu Ghraib" business goes Franchise in Iran, We only have ourselves
to blame for inaction.

3.M.K: A grand bargain would be in the interests of the United States only if one accepts the assumption
that the regime is legitimate in the eyes of the vast majority of the Iranian people. If that
assumption is valid, then one would expect that Iranians would continue to hate the United States
and have positive feelings toward those who have had friendly political and economic relations with
the regime. However, the well-known pro-American sentiment among Iranians casts doubt on that
assumption.

A. The disease that is US Hegemony is of less relevance to M.E in general and to Iran n particular today.

B. Cowboy pathology

A new regional security paradigm is needed:

Prospect of war and destruction is inherently the legacy of Zionism. Fathers who choose to
give such legacy to their children can hope their children do their dirty work for them.

The Islamic world has no choice but to create an alliance like NATO to defend itself.

Iran will have to have nuclear deterrence to avoid any future war.

4.M.K: The United States has won the hearts and minds of a new generation of Iranians.
A grand bargain, which is regarded by vast sectors of the Iranian public as appeasement of
their tormentors, would undermine that hard-earned positive sentiment.

A. M.k: Ha Ha …! and Pigs will fly
Bush and Company“will be greeted with sweets and flowers” … “Mission accomplished”

B. M.K: US is irrelevant as far as IRAN is concerned and will become even less relevant ever day.

IRAN has to continue on build on historical and cultural alliance with neighboring countries.

Iran must work towards building a new regional security paradigm to limit US influence
and secure a lasting peace.

Finally, you said , “we as IRANIANS have the responsibility to get rid of the fundamentalist
terrorist regime that is brutalizing IRANIAN people. I wish that all others elsewhere to also
have freedom, democracy and human rights. As Iranian it is my responsibility to get rid of
dictatorship in my homeland and establish freedom and democracy in Iran.”

Yes, but “we Iranians” does it include a little help from USA as well ?

What role do you do you see for USA in this regard?



Struggle for freedom in what CONTEXT?

There are groups of people who view destruction of Islam as a silver bullet to what ills Iran today.

In fact, given current geopolitical context, there motives fall in line with the US Neconsn.



CONTEXT is the key.



“Freedom and democracy” can not be from without and it can not be manufactured.



It is indeed a Generational struggle.



CONTEXT is generational. Building democracy will takes time and can only be achieved by applying

incremental change and not by any help (WAR) from the USA.

Your analysis is not unbiased or based on facts ...

Professor,
You need to prepare better. Read Iranian history and see that that in fact the crimes by the US government against our people are UNFORGETTIBLE and UNFORGIVABLE. If it were not for the terrorist acts of USA government against iranians in 1953, we would not be in the shape we are now. Now that we are here, we have to look forward and knowing our enemies (inclusing MKO whom you are a member of!), better the lives of iranians and our countrymen. War and destruction may bring Maryam Rajavi or her adultrous husband to power, but will do iran no good.

Those realists who advocate

Those realists who advocate appeasing the IR should know a little bit of Iranian history. The "revolution" of 1978 was the result of long power struggle between two historical ruling classes in iran, the Clergy and the king. The power struggle has always been about controlling and having access to national riches and wealth.

It is also informative that the clergy were a most integral part of the ruling classes all the way until 1920s, when the founder of the Pahlavi Dynasty, Reza Shah, summarily stripped the mullahs of almost all their social, economic institutions of power.
and confiscated large land holdings of the clergy and their access to wealth. However, many mullahs were on the Shah’s payroll and received monthly stipends until a few months before the revolution to keep them quiet so they wouldn't be able to use Islam as a tool to seize power and wealth like thay had been used to.

The root cause of the problem in Iran is Islamic fundamentalism. As long the mullahs have the support of this segment of the population, even some of the moderate mullahs have to cater to their needs in order to survive.

This group of Islamist/jihadist, though a minority, is extremely powerful, violent, and profoundly entrenched in the culture of Iran.
As one of the commencers pointed out in another thread, this group of reactionary Islamists did not revolt against the late Shah's SAVAK or corruption.

Their main objections to the secular Shah were deeply rooted in reactionary religiosity, anti-modernism, and anti-secularism. In fact, Khomeini astutely recognized that this group of fundamentalist was his meal ticket. He capitalized on the misogynistic and religious.

They are still very powerful and their strength lies not in the government but in their so-called "religious conviction" to kill and murder with impunity in the name of their God and their version of Islam. In fact, that is how they hijacked the revolution and slaughtered the secular democratic and progressive movements that existed in Iran after the 1978 “revolution”.

However, this group has become more sophisticated and Now they recognize that in order to release the pressure of their oppressive system within the society, they need to have a escape valve in form of 'the reformers' with a shiny packaging and all.

Once in a while, they let some air out from (read Khatami et al) this valve and allow some cosmetic changes like leniency in hijab to show that "change is possible" if they only try harder and wait longer.

This built-in mechanis in the structure of the regime prevents frustration in the society to reach a critical mass and paralysis ensues. The reformers are responsible for creating ‘false hope’ among the people to extend the life of the regime by creating bogus civil and fake women and human rights movements such as Islamic democratic or other oxymoronic organization like Islamic feminisim.

The U.S. foreign policy makers should not be deceived either by the hardliners or the reformers because they are both fundemantalists in nature driven by their militant shia ideology.

IRAN like RUSSIA

Hey Bro

We are cutting a deal like we did with JOSEPH STALIN during Harry Truman administration. We might nuke NORTH KOREA. JUST KIDDING!!! IRAQ was different and AFGHANISTAN has a long way to go. This was the most unpopular war in the AMERICAN HISTORY. We are becoming a Third World nation. CHINA is the next superpower and they begin SCO trade corporation last year with RUSSIA, ISTAN STATES, MONGOLIA, PAKISTAN, INDIA, AND IRAN.

response

Dear Anonymous Person,

1. When the U.S. govt does something bad, we have to condemn it. Here are some of my work criticizing and condemning the US for its role in the 1953 coup:

//iranian.com/History/2005/January/Kinzer/index.html

//www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/Kazemz...

2.

AP: "The number of civilians killed by the U.S. government in Iraq and Vietnam is exponentially larger than the number of civilians killed by the IRI (though that, of course, does not excuse the IRI's crimes)."

MK: You are comparing apples and oranges. It is NOT germane to domestic brutality of a regime on how many it kills in wars. We do NOT count how many Iraqis were killed by Iranians between 1980 and 1988 as atrocities of the fundamentalist regime. What is germane is how many IRANIANS are tortured, executed, raped and assassinated by the fundamentalist regime due to their political views (or activities). The US system is a democracy because you and I can criticize its policies and condemn them and not be imprisoned, raped, our little sons and daughters tortured in front of our eyes, lose our jobs. The fundamentalist regime is brutal dictatorship because if you criticize Khomeini, Khamanehi, you will lose your job, you will be imprisoned, you will be tortured, your little children could be tortured. What is germane is how many AMERICANS have been killed by US govt, or tortured, or raped by US govt employees because they criticized the US govt policies.

3. While I am at it let me explicitly condemn the US actions in Guatemala in 1954 (and during Reagan years), El Salvador (in Reagan years), Chile (1970-73, and since until early 1990s), Dominican Republic (1965), Vietnam (1954-1975), support of former Nazis, etc.

4. The US is a super power. If Khomeini or Khamanehi, or Rafsanjani or Ahmadinejad (or Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein) had the same amount of power as the US, what would they do? Would they have killed more or less than Americans in order to achieve their foreign policy goals?

5. We have to condemn the US when it does bad things. But we have to be logically, politically and morally consistent: when the US does something good, we have to applaud and publicly approve those good actions. Such as fighting against Nazi Germany, standing up to Stalin in general (and as Iranians we own a huge debt of gratitude to President Truman for standing up to Stalin and supporting Iran in Stalin’s attempt to annex Azerbaijan and Kurdestan). We have to condemn atrocities by Stalin-USSR and Mao.

Shouldn’t we thank the US for militarily intervening in Bosnia to stop the genocide by Serbs? Shouldn’t we thank the US for intervening in Kosovo to stop that genocide? How about the military intervention in Haiti to overthrow the military junta and restoring President Jean-Bertrand Aristide?

In our particular issue of our struggles against the fundamentalist regime: should we ask the US to appease our oppressor and tormentor or should we ask the same thing that anti-apartheid activists demanded????????? That is why I condemn any appeasement of the fundamentalist regime.

6.

AP: "Yet, you don't consider the crimes of the world's most powerful government in history "the moral issue of our time and our generation(s)". Why is that? Are you an appeaser and apologist for the U.S. government? I would like to think not, but I haven't detected the least bit of criticism on your part against what is, without a doubt, the world's leading violator of other countries and enabler of right-wing dictators."

MK: There is a disturbing aspect/implication of your piece. You want me to stop my struggles against the fundamentalist regime before I criticize the U.S. This is logically, politically, and morally flawed argument. It is like demanding activists in the ANC and the anti-apartheid movement in the 1940s-1994 period not to struggle against the apartheid regime because there was a worse dictatorship in Soviet Union, or China, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia. Should pro-democracy activists in Chile not fight against Pinochet’s dictatorship because there were other dictatorships around the world?????? Should people in Iran not have struggles against the Shah because there other bad dictatorships around the world.

Should we not fight against the fundamentalist regime because there are other regimes around the world that are oppressive????????

The answer is obvious: we as IRANIANS have the responsibility to get rid of the fundamentalist terrorist regime that is brutalizing IRANIAN people. I wish that all others elsewhere to also have freedom, democracy and human rights. As Iranian it is my responsibility to get rid of dictatorship in my homeland and establish freedom and democracy in Iran.

7.

AP: "As a simple moral truth, our primary responsibility should be to denounce and bring to justice the rulers who rule over us first, before we start to denounce the actions of foreign leaders. Yet, you don't consider the crimes of the world's most powerful government in history "the moral issue of our time and our generation(s)". Why is that? Are you an appeaser and apologist for the U.S. government?"

MK: I regard myself as primarily an IRANIAN political activist. I am a member of the Jebhe Melli (in exile). I am NOT a member of any American political party.

Members and supporters of the ANC who resided in the US worked very hard to gather support against the apartheid regime. To demand that they should have stopped struggling against the apartheid regime and instead fight against the US govt is logically flawed.

As the prime responsibility of anti-apartheid activists was to struggle against the apartheid regime, the prime responsibility of Iranian-Americans, Iranian-Canadian, Iranian-British, Iranian-X, is to help Iranians inside in the common struggle to remove the fundamentalist tyranny and establish freedom, democracy and human rights in IRAN.

I have criticisms of the US government policies, but to compare the US with a fascistic brutal regime like the fundamentalist regime is weird. It is like in the 1930s and 1940s, saying the US is an imperialist regime and oppresses African-American in the Jim Crow south, therefore one should not struggle against Nazi Germany but rather fight against the US (or British imperialism). One could grant that the US under FDR or under Bush II is bad, but to compare it with Nazi Germany or fundamentalist regime is logically, politically, and morally flawed. Despite all its flaws, and there are many, no honest person could compare the US with the fundamentalist regime ruling Iran or the Nazi regime ruling Germany, or Stalin’s regime in USSR, or Pol Pot in Cambodia.

8. I f I missed any point, please let me know and I will try to the best of my abilities to respond.

I hope this is helpful.

Best,

MK

Another delusional Guy with Altered Reality syndrome!!!!!

Wake up man.........Stop the hatred....spread the love.....you will harvest peace!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TALK IS CHEAP......especially the long ones!