Moral advice from a criminal

So how should those clueless new graduates behave as they step out into the real world after George Bush's sermon?


Moral advice from a criminal
by Rostam Pourzal

I was shocked when I read that George Bush advised the graduates at a college the other day to "act responsibly" in their adult life. He told of his dream for a "culture of responsibility" to spread in America so people stay away from too much drinking, sex, and drugs. This immediately reminded me of that proverbial Iranian story about an elementary school teacher who had trouble pronouncing some sounds. When he tried to teach the first letter of the alphabet, his students heard "anef" instead of the correct version, "alef." Naturally, they mispronounced, too. So he got impatient and yelled "when I say anef, don't say anef, say anef" not realizing that the kids were copying him faithfully.

So how should those clueless new graduates behave as they step out into the real world after George Bush's sermon? They do need guidance, but guidance from what sort of leader? As a parent of a new graduate, it matters to me who tries to influence our young. Should they do as Bush tells them or act like he does? Should they, too, "act responsibly" and terrorize innocent civilians on the other side of the world and lie about it?

After all, this jihadist is in the spotlight every day as the president of the planet's sole superpower. So we should want to be like him, right? Should the new graduates rob the poor to give (tax breaks) to their corrupt, rich friend, as Bush does proudly in the neme of freedom? That's "responsible", isn't it? Should they spend all the money they can possibly borrow on insane, failed ideas but tell the rest of us to exercise fiscal restraint rather than declare banruptcy? Should our graduates totally screw up the first project that's entrusted to them and leave the mess to their successors? Should they, like holy George, expect only others to sacrifice for the common good?

The twenty-something generation must be confused as hell, especially when the topic is something as awesome as "r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y" and the person advising is the Leader of the Free World! Many must be wondering whether drinking too much is more irresponsible or the mass murder of over one million Iraqis? Good question, especially when you consider that the Americans most likely to die in Iraq or come home paralyzed don't get to hear the President at graduation. They're in the military because they can't afford college in the richest country on earth.

But really, what should we tell our sons and daughters as they embark on their careers? That it's irresponsible to sleep around, but not reckless if you let hundreds of thousands of hurricane victims to fend for themselves in New Orleans while you're fundraising for the Republicans in California? Should we, too, pretend it's virtuous to let your greedy political allies rob tens of thousands of shareholders and employees, as Bush did with Enron Corporation?

Probably no one understands the confusion George Bush's campus audience experienced the other day better than US-backed Middle East tyrants. One day, the CIA sends them "terror suspects" to interrogate with torture; the next day George Bush shows up lecturing them on virtues of human rights! They, of course, know it's all a game. But what about America's youth? Are most of them mature enough to see vulgarity in high places behind the fig leaf?

Visit, Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII)


Recently by Rostam PourzalCommentsDate
Boycotting Ahmadinejad's U.S. Visit?
Aug 30, 2008
more from Rostam Pourzal
Farhad Kashani

Jamshid jaan, great

by Farhad Kashani on

Jamshid jaan, great responses.

Farhad Kashani

Q, since my last posting,

by Farhad Kashani on

Q, since my last posting, you still have not made the slightest effort to reply to my points, but rather you keep trying to engage in personal attacks and dancing around the issue. First of all, in most countries around the world, democratic or undemocratic, when political factions, groups and parties present a platform or an idea, they claim they speak on behalf of the people or claim to do what’s best for them, otherwise, how can they get credibility? And since we are engaging n political discussions and many of us are part of different political groups oat at least politically active, we can either present different platform on behalf of the people or at least claim to talk on behalf of them. Obviously, the audience will make the decisions on whom to go with. Second, even some people from your political belief on this site, when comes down to it, admit that although they are anti-U.S, but they don’t agree with the IRI either. So let alone the majority of Iranians who are not subscribed to your political belief. So you can go ahead and claim that most Iranians are pro IRI and want the regime to stay. I actually would love to see that, because the more you guys discredit yourself, the better for the people. So if you wanna ignore the times when most Iranians travel to Iran and talk to people, when we talk to Iranians who just arrived here, when we watch Iranian TV and listen to Iranian radio stations and hear Iranians talk, and when communicate with the young generation in Iran, and when we read Iranian publications such as,magazines, newspapers, publications,  and when we analyze and see in front of our own eyes and see what the IRI has done to our country, and we listen to the world public opinion, and when we use our own common sense and analytical skills to see the truth in front of us, and in all those times, by doing those things, we come to this conclusion that the IRI is the source of evil in the world today, for both Iranians and non-Iranians, we can claim that majority of Iranians despise with great hatred, this fascist regime. So you can claim otherwise, and I urge you to do this, but please, do not expect me to retaliate in personal attack game like you do. All I care about is your augment. When the Iranian regime arrests a political activist, the first thing they do is to throw a bunch of charges like possession of alcohol and drugs, and they accuse him of being “morally corrupt”. They do that to assassinate the individual’s character from the beginning. Please don’t be like that. Don’t attack me for saying that the majority of Iranians believe in this or that, try to give me your opinion of why my argument in itself is baseless. Try your best. Again, over and over again, I believe the vast majority of Iranians want to live in peace and democracy, and want to have good relations with the entire world including Israel and the U.S, and vast majority of Iranians want to be part of the 21st century, and want free markets, and want to adopt universal declaration of human rights, and want to be respected, not feared. Try telling the Iranians that majority of them do not want those things, be my guest.


Jamshid, I notice you have no examples

by Q on

is this because if you actually show the proof, it will soon become obvious that I was responding to vicious attacks with (most often on myself) and answering specific points rather than initiate anything the kind of blanket stereotyping and assumptions that I was dealt with in this particular thread, which is beyond dispute a classic "character assassination" ?

And you have kept a silence when others like you, have done it to those with the opposite views than you.

2 things seriously wrong with your statement. One is that you "keep a silence" when others "like you" are engaging in "diversions." Second, you excuse the person who initiates the problems but only "notice" the responses to those problems and call them "diversion." That's quite silly and selfish. I guess the way to gain your approval is to shut up and not respond when someone attacks you, just so it won't be called a "diversion." Nevermind that the original attacks were a diversion. So your solution is to give one side complete immunity to attack and slander the other. And you think that's constructive?

If I started holding everyone, like yourself, responsible not only for attacks and slander, but things they didn't say, I'd have to write a book every week. I do what I can, but sorry, your approval is just not that important.

As for the rest of your rant, (which is the real, diverstion, by design, exactly as you accuse others of doing), you are purposefully confusing "having a right" with "being right", a game that is too often played by people around here. Myabe I'll blog about that some other time.


Re: Q

by jamshid on

Q, you wrote, "What other time have I (Q) done this? (in reference to character assasination)"

You have done it to others with opposite views than yours too many times to count. And you have kept a silence when others like you, have done it to those with the opposite views than you.

Whether you take someone serious or not is your business. You are entitled to it. But don't make it sound as though it is a fact. What you believe in is not necessarily a fact.

Every individual has the right to believe in what he thinks the majority of a people want, based on his/her collective experiences with those people. He can then act on this belief by voicing it, forming a party, or by numerous other means.

Naturally, you have the right to disagree with such person and with his opinion. You can then argue and show your evidence as to why you think he is wrong.

However, what you cannot do, is to attack the person and his right to possess his own opinion. And this is exactly what you are doing here. Instead of demonstrating that Kashani's opinion on what the majority of Iranians want is wrong, you have chosen to attack him and belittle him.

You have additionally succeeded in diverting the attention from the main subject; something I have seen you do often when your side is on the defensive.

Now I ask you how can this be constructive in any way? What good came out of your last post? What did anyone learn? How did it benefit the debate and the arguement in this blog?


Kashani, how can I take you seriously?

by Q on

when you so casually claim the majority of Iranians think just like you without bothering to prove it?

If I told you Allah told me X. What would you say? If you come back with "that's rediculous", do I have a right to say "Why dont' you answer my argument, X?" "It's obvious you don't like X" blah blah blah...

No one can seriously evaluate your "arguments" if you sound like this. Why should they?

Obviously, you’re an Iranian, and obviously I don’t speak on your behalf, so how would I make that claim?

Good question. But how did you make these claims?

although I know for a fact that the vast majority of Iranians, specially the overwhelming majority in Iran, believe like us


There is a reason they call us the silent majority


I don’t “think” that the majority is on my side, I “know” that the majority is on my side. You know why, because I travel to Iran and speak to people, I visit Iranian political websites constantly, and I follow the news, and I analyze things with an “open mind”

It's not exactly "obvious" in these quotes is it? If the "vast majority" of Iranians are "on your side", that does in-fact mean that you are speaking what they want.

That may be true. But you didn't show it. All we have is your "traveling" and "reading websites". Tell me honestly if that's not rediculous?

I said, and I have all the right too, just like MEK, leftists, right wingers, monarchists, republicans, or what have you ,do, to claim that what I said represent the majority belief.

No, you did not say that you have the "right" to make that claim. You just made it. Sure you have "right" to say anything you want. But you have no "right" to be taken seriously by anyone and in fact would be met with the same treatment groups like MEK are correctly being met by.

You, like many people with your political belief, immediately engage in character assassination to dance around the issue. When you guys have no logical answer to give, you resort to that very sneaky tactic.

Who is "you guys"? What is my political beliefs? What other time have I done this? Do you know or are you just talking out of your behind? Isn't this character assasination? Or does that only apply to you?

I can hardly follow your words. Have you heard me say anything about Roussau? When I say scientific, I mean something other than your personal beliefs and philosophy. Some proof that what you say in fact has some validity. Is that really too much to ask anymore? Do we just have to take your word for everything on faith? Now isn't that arrogance?

"Like I said before, overcomplicating issues and believing in conspiracy theories, is not sign of intelligence or “scientific analysis”, it’s a sign of madness and confused mind. When you can’t see the truth right in front of you, you have an issue."

OK, whatever. I think you have now left the visible spectrum. What conspiracy theory did I commit? What ruth can't I see?

I'll make you a deal: If you accuse me of something, please produce the evidence for your claim. If your problem is with other people, do not tell me about them, find whoever you are angry against and let them have it.

When you tie issues that are unrelated and come up with some of kind of relationship between them, that’s not a sign of intelligence,

I completely agree with this. So why are you doing this to me?

Your tirade has made so many assumptions and "personal" ones too, that you completely negate your so-called attitude against character assassination.

Now I know I was right not to take you seriously. You don't take yourself seriously.

Farhad Kashani

Q, its very obvious what

by Farhad Kashani on

Q, its very obvious what the issue is here. You apparently didn’t like my view. You did not answer the points I made, you did not answer my argument. All you replied was that I’m an arrogant person and I claim to speak on behalf of all Iranians. Obviously, you’re an Iranian, and obviously I don’t speak on your behalf, so how would I make that claim? I did not say that Iranian people have appointed me as their spokesman. I said, and I have all the right too, just like MEK, leftists, right wingers, monarchists, republicans, or what have you ,do, to claim that what I said represent the majority belief. You can claim that too, and let people decide which one is telling the truth. For example I claim that the majority of Iranians want to live in peace. Am I being arrogant? We are talking about argument and points of views here not about me or you. You, like many people with your political belief, immediately engage in character assassination to dance around the issue. When you guys have no logical answer to give, you resort to that very sneaky tactic. We’ve seen this before Q jaan. We’ve seen it in the last 50-60 years since the rise of leftist ideology in Iran. And as far as “scientific statements”, again, I will claim that I and the majority of Iranians have realized how “un scientific” you guys’ argument has been, you know why? Because we saw the results of it. You guys call something some 80 years old leftist professor,who hanst step foot in Iran,in some college, preached about world affairs, scientific? Or something Rousseau said 200 years ago which has no or minimal application to todays world affairs, scientific?I've been to those classes and I have Rousseaus book, trust me. Rousseau's ideas worked great for his time, and some of them still do, I'm sure, and the leftist professors' idea would work great in the world, but not this world, his own utopian one. Its very simple my friend, it has been tested and it has failed miserably. It is you guys who do not seem to get that point, and want to re-test what it has been tested already. To realize that what you were and are preaching is wrong and destructive. Like I said before, overcomplicating issues and believing in conspiracy theories, is not sign of intelligence or “scientific analysis”, it’s a sign of madness and confused mind. When you can’t see the truth right in front of you, you have an issue. When you tie issues that are unrelated and come up with some of kind of relationship between them, that’s not a sign of intelligence, it is creative, I have to agree on that, but it’s misguided and wrong. When brutal human rights violations in Iran are tied to “imperialism plots”, we have an issue on our hands. And I’m sure those guys who tie human rights violations to so called ”imperialism plots” are very creative, but that doesn’t make them right. Now you guys wanna shove those beliefs down our throat by using scare tactics and character assassination methods. So please don’t blame others.  


Kashani, read it again, carefully this time

by Q on

I have said before that way too many people falsely think they speak for the whole iranian nation, that they know what most Iranians think.

To this you replied: Yes, I know what most Iranians think because I 1) travel to Iran, 2) I read political websites.

Don't you realize how arrogant and egotistical that sounds? Many people travel to Iran and "read websites", including myself. I not only travel and talk to Iranians, I am constant touch with Iranian bloggers who currently live inside the country.

Never in my wildest dreams could I claim with any degree of accuracy that I know "what Iranians think." Unfortunately there are many people with a lot less knowledge who have no problem making such grandiose statements.

Yours was such a statement. Your statement sounds exactly like what the MEK and Maryam Rajavi constantly say. "We are with the majority", "we represent the true voice of Iranians," and yours was that you are with the "silent majority."

It was so outragous that the only way to respond to it was through satire. It seems you STILL don't get how rediculous that statement is. You should at least make a slight effort to be fair and scientific about your statements. Don't be like MEK who don't represent anybody but they project their own values into 70 Million people.

That should be laughed at and so should your statement. If you want to call it "character assasination," I think you miss the point.


In summary, I am

by abc (not verified) on

In summary, I am anti-imperialism because imperial powers colonize weaker but rich nations, exploit and loot their resources, put their puppets in power who are typically dictators, cause death, destruction, and backwardness, and prevent development of the weaker nations.

Do you hate Islamic Imperialism/colonizations just as much?
As far as I'm concerned the Islamic Republic leadership is a puppet of Islam and are "dictators, cause death, destruction, and backwardness, and prevent development of the" nations they have invaded and occupied.

Civilizations destroyed by Islam:


Farhad Kashani

Q, when did I claim that?

by Farhad Kashani on

Q, when did I claim that? You oppose my arguments all the time, does that make you the only "wise" Iranian on this website? Why such personal attacks? I never engage in character assasination. You can attack my argument all you want, I enjoy a healthy debate, but why would you attack me personally?



by Anonymous Iranian (not verified) on

I went from reading the writings of a concerned father to ramblings in the comments sections that clearly have nothing to do with the original post. You people have entirely too much free time on your hands. I suggest you use your time more wisely. Instead of watching crappy LA tv stations, or foxnews, go on and enjoy the great outdoors. Have some tea or some scotch. Whatever it is, you people need to relax. Oh by the way, for the ones who think they're really extra smart, try proof-reading your post. Also a spell check would help. Doesn't do too much for your argument if one has to sift through paragraph upon paragraph of repetetive junk full of grammatical and spelling errors.




by Mammad on

I gave you my answer. I honestly have not much to add. In summary, I am anti-imperialism because  imperial powers colonize weaker but rich nations, exploit and loot their resources, put their puppets in power who are typically dictators, cause death, destruction, and backwardness, and prevent development of the weaker nations.


FK: Don't even bother

by p0 (not verified) on

FK: Don't even bother responding to Q. He is not here to debate or learn.

His has a self-serving agenda. His tactics are creating distraction and magnifying insignificant/irrelevant points to where the original debate is derailed. Has anyone ever heard a positive/constructive comment written by Q except bashing of those whose ideologies he disagrees with??

In Q's world, if you're not a supporter of the IR, then you need to be exterminated!


Not very bright!

by Concerned Iranian (not verified) on

Obviously, the author of this article does not know the defintion of a criminal. It is very irresonsible to call someone an awful name like this if you do not know what the label means. Sadly many gullible Iranians who simply and wrongly hate the West fall for this line of thinking. Please do some comprehensive reading and come back in a few years.


Re: Mammad

by jamshid on

I am still waiting for your answer to the question I asked you. I hope I'll hear from you.


OK, Kashani you are right, I have to apologize

by Q on

I don’t “think” that the majority is on my side, I “know” that the majority is on my side. You know why, because I travel to Iran and speak to people, I visit Iranian political websites constantly, and I follow the news, and I analyze things with an “open mind”

I did not realize the depth of your expertise and knowledge. Obviously you really know what you are talking about and other people are just stupid. Travel to iran? Talk to people? Read websites?

Surely you must be the only one on this website, perhaps the only Iranian -ever who does this kind of intense scientific research. I'm awe-struck just to be in your virtual presence.

What other wisdom can you dispense on us ignorant non-traveling, deaf-mute-blind Iranians?

Farhad Kashani

Q, what’s very typical

by Farhad Kashani on

Q, what’s very typical that you guys butchered democracy in Iran because you consider it a “Western concept” or a “Western phrase”. That’s how the IRI has been justifying its brutal and undemocratic nature for the last 30 years. And now, you come around and attack me because I used a word that “allegedly” Buchanan invented! How pathetic is that? Obviously the silent majority I’m referring to is not what he “allegedly” referred to!

Furthermore, you can bet that the silent majority has awakened. I’m just a drop in the sea of that silent majority. I don’t “think” that the majority is on my side, I “know” that the majority is on my side. You know why, because I travel to Iran and speak to people, I visit Iranian political websites constantly, and I follow the news, and I analyze things with an “open mind” (Do you know what that is?), and I see an obvious change of tone among Iranians…among other means. Finally, I have to say I got a really good laugh when someone who apologizes for and supports the IRI, the government which was involved in the longest war of the 20th century, and has brutally massacred and oppressed its people for 30 years, and has been beating on the war drum with the world since day one of its appalling existence, calling him/herself “a peace activist”! No “peace” will happen for our country while the IRI regime is in power. If you want peace, stop bashing other countries and help your people get rid of the IRI, who has brought and undoubtedly again, will bring, war to our country. I’ll be the first person to support you. Where have you been the last 30 years? And where were you between 1980-1988? So when you gonna open your ryes and mind and start realizing the truth!  


Asghar Tragheh

by Mammad on

Thank you for your response. I appreciate it. I do not intend to darg this on, but you brought up a few good points that I would like to respond to. By the way, I did not ask you to apologize for anything.

South Africa was not the best case, actually. In my view, Poland,  Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union were the best.

But, for the record: What brought down the apartheid regime was not sanctions. Yes, there were sanctions, but they were not effective mainly because the US, Britain, and Japan, South Africa's largest commercial partners,  were not supporting them. In fact, the Reagan administration shielded South Africa, under the excuse of "constructive engagement," led by Chester Crocker, Assisstant Secretary of State at that time.

In my view, the partheid regime fell because, (i)  the internal situation became intolerable for BOTH whites and blacks, and (ii) the white leadership correctly concluded that, by giving up the political power, it will still have great influence on the country through its economic power. This is what I said at that time (it is in an article), and this has turned out to be completely true. Today, whites have a lot of power, and the African National Congress has to accomodate it.

I did not advise you to have a drink. I said you must be really drunk if ...

Saudi Arabia gives more financial support to Hamas than the IRI can ever or has. But, the US ignores it for the obvious reason. This is very well-known. In addition, unlike what you seem to believe, Hamas has great support among the Palestinian in diaspora. At least this is what my Palestinians students have told me repeatedly.

As for Hamas' weapons, I do not know whether the IRI gives them weapons. It is plausible that IRI does. But, what I do know is that Israel and the US have accused the IRI of training some Hasmas members, but hardly of giving them the weapons. But, remember: There is a vast weapon black market in the Middle East.

I do not even believe that Iran, with or without the IRI, should support Hamas or Fatah, or whoever, except moral support. Yes, as a believer in human rights as universal values, I support the Palestinians' struggle. But, ultimately, it is the Palestinians themselves who should make the decisions. Does that mean that I should ignore all the crimes that Israel commits against the Palestinians? Of course, not

Have IRI's and Syria's aids to Hamas been useful? I do not know. You must ask the Palestinians. They are the ones who accept the aid happily. But, I do know that Hamas is not Iran's puppet. No objective expert on the left or right has ever claimed that. 

I do not believe in what Farhad Kashani or Jamshid says when they say that it is Iranians that do this or that. If we accept this argument, then it makes no sense to talk about colonialism, imperialism (which Jamishid says he opposes, implying that it exists), etc., because one can argue that, well, you brought this onto yourself. But, this is nonsense.

True, we cannot blame everything on the US, Britain, Russia, etc. Iranians also contribute. But, say, for example, if the CIA-MI6 had not staged the 1953 coup, would we have been in this situation? Would the Middle East have been in this situation? I think not.

The problem with you rejecting the reformists in Iran is that, you and people like you think that setting up a democratic political system is a project. No, it is not. It is a PROCESS that takes time, quite possibly quite long. The reformists were not ready to lead, because they did not think that they would win. They were weak and ill-prepared. But, they are getting better, which is why the right-wing disqualifies them from election. The right-wing in Iran is ruthless and smart. If they did not think that reformists could win the elections, they would not disqualify them.

 At the same time, compared with 1997, discontent in Iran is much deeper, which should help the cause. More and more people, even politicians, are recognizing that Velaayat-e Faghih is not working. Hashemi Rafsanjani said two weeks ago that he did not support it when they wanted to insert it into the Constitution. So, the movement is making progress.

The argument that, don't scare Iranians from sanctions, because they are already hurting, is absurd, to put it extremely politely. Every year 50,000 die on US streets and highways, and there are another 100,000 homicides. Does that mean that we should not care about the 3,000 innocent people killed on 9/11? Of course, not. Heck! Bush has caused the death of over 1 million Iraqis and thousands of Afghan for those 3,000. Same thing with your "argument." Why should one support adding misery to a nation, just because there is already misery? This is absurd.

Will I support street demonstrations in Iran for getting rid of the IRI? Yes, but:

I'll support it, provided that there is tough, dedicated, and greatly accepted leadership in place. A leadership which is not too cautious, but not too radical either. Blind, unled demonstrations will only create bloodshed.

Say what you want about Ayatollah Khomeini, but his leadership of the Revolution was absolutely outstanding (this is separate from what happened AFTER the Revolution). That is the type of leadership (not idelogically, but practically) that I'll support.

That is why I said in another post that, we should first build up political parties, political discipline, NGOs, etc. We also need a charismatic leadership, like Khomeini himself (again, not ideologically, but practically). But, I do not see anyone.

Finally, I never ever supported Velaayat-e Faghih. I am a democrat, and believe in a democratic repulic, in which church and state are separated. In fact, despite being a leftist, one reason I reject Marxism (aside from its basis which is dialectic materialism) is that, I do not believe in such concepts as dictatorship of the proletaria. That is nonsense. So, saying that it was ok with me is not only unfair, it also borders on a cheap shot.  You should be better than that.


How very typical, Kashani, how typical

by Q on

There is a reason they call us the silent majority,

"silent majority" is a phrase invented by Pat Buchanan during the 1968 democratic national convention. Whoever he was talking about, I'm sure it wasn't you.

But it's simply extraordinary that you call yourself "silent." Just count the huge posts you have made for this article. Khejalatam khoob chizie...

There is no sense of the word for which either you or your positions are under represented in Iranian community. It's even more extraordinary that you think the majority must be on your side.

I don't care what your politics is, this is a very arrogant thing to say.

In any case, while we are here debating petty squabbles, the neocons are getting ready to bomb our country.

Will you people finally open your eyes and stop spending all your time attacking peace activists?


reality must be hard to take if you still can't take it

by jalili (not verified) on

can you explain to me how operation ajax was not the work of imperialists?

do you love the british so much that you can't even admit they did this to us?

Asghar Taragheh

Jalil Joon

by Asghar Taragheh on

Please read Farhad's post below. Maybe you will lose your biase against reality! I am aware of operation ajax and all than none sense. But the reality is very hard to face. I know.






aghaye asghar taragheh

by jalili (not verified) on

you can not be taken seriously if you think this about 1953 and mohammad mossadegh:

"And it was not a failure because of the West or Imperialism. Its a failure because of Iranians. Because of us. Stop blaming everyone else. "

anyone who thinks this has a bias against reality.

Asghar Taragheh

Mammad, Anonymous8, Farhad & Jamshid........

by Asghar Taragheh on


As to writing in caps. I already apologized once below and explained my intent to Annony8. Would you like another apology? You don't win any brownie points here.

Please don't think that I only diagree with you on a "few issues". I disagree with you on many issue. Fundamentaly, I disagree with how you view the world and life and I would incorporate all of Farhad's last response by reference here as part of my response because he is 100% right.

as to your point (iii) regarding the so called "reformist". You see them as some type of solution or answer to the problem. I see them as useless and without any real power. You also say that the party holding power would use any outside pressure as an excuse to limit and "supress the opposition".

I read your response to AnnonymouseHaha were he asked you to give examples of" succefull changes from within" on another blog. Your number one example was South Africa. However, you preconditioned change by saying that there should be no sanctions on the IRI because of this excuse thing. Haha correctly reminded you that South Africa was under intense international pressure and sanctions which was the ultimate catalyst to the change from within that you propose. So you can not have it both ways for the IRI. The IRI will find an excuse no matter what. Its very easy. If its not outside or US pressure, they will find another. They are in control of all the oil money which is essentially their protection money (paying off Bonyads, Basijis & Psdaran). In Return, these same groups will not let the conservatives just give up power because it would be tantamount to signing their own death senntence. Please be realistic. The IRI system is so flawed that change from within could not happen in a peacfull non violent manner. At least in my life time.

Please see your responses to Haha's here:


As to your advise to me to have a "drink" with respect to me thinking that Hamas is an Iranian stooge. I advise you, since you are a praticing muslim who can not have a drink, to have some Ab Ali Doogh (the kind with Mint flavor and carbonated). Most of your analysis about the origins of Hamas and how Israelis allowed them to exists as a challenge to Fatah is 100% correct. However, this is before they had any real power. Regardless, can you tell us were are they getting all these grad rockets from? Is it from the Egyptians? Do you remeber Mahmood Zahar walking through the border with 12 suitcases of cash from a return trip from Iran or how Haniyeh said the the IRI had pledged $250 Million in cash:

Here are a few articles to refresh your recolection while you drink that Ab Ali Doogh:




The point is, whether you admit it or not, this type of behavior does not help the IRI internationally when it has a crisis over the nukes.

As to all your other points, you got my argument wrong and I did not imply or mean to imply that the Pals started the intifada because of the IRI. I do not need a history lesson about this conflict. All I could say is that you leave half the story or parts of the story out to make your points. For example, you leave out all the Hamas Suicide bombings prior to the failed Taba conference which lead the Israelis to Change to the right even after Rabin's assasination where Netanyahu refused to take control of the government when he could and waited for elections (to prove that political assasinations should not be the catalyst for policy change).

Regardless, Syrian and the IRI are the main parties supporting Hamas. Has this helped the Palestinians if you care about them so much? The same people who lined up and supported Saddam while they were killing Iranians. This is exactly the type of politics and behavior Farhad/Jamshid are talking about.

As to how the IRI can be changed- AND THIS IS ALSO FOR YOU Annonynous8:

1) I don't think the IRI can change from within for the reasons I have stated. And Again Anno8- All the changes that I reffered to and admitted to were failures because of Phlisophy's such as Mammad's and yours (again this is why Farhad and Jamshid make so much sence). So you want to call them change by Iranians go ahead. My only point is that they were failures- yeh my personal judgment just like you have your personal judgment Mr./ Ms. Annoy8! Do you understand me? And it was not a failure because of the West or Imperialism. Its a failure because of Iranians. Because of us. Stop blaming everyone else. Intelligent people like Mammad were for the revolution and had no problem having a Velayateh Fagih in Charge. They did not understand separation of church and state with all the books they read. They got rid of the imperialist puppet Shah. Good Work!

2) The only acceptable change is from within by Iranians and I don't think any change by outsided MILITARY forces would be valid and Iranians would look at it as puppet like regime and compalin about it for the next 1000 year. However, I have no issue with sanctions and economic pressure on the IRI- whether it brings change or not. Mammad's best example was South Africa- and I remind you that international pressure played a big part in South Africa. Yes you will argue that Iranian will suffer. Iranians are suffering regardles and this would be IRI's problem to solve. This may actually give some strenght to the opposition since they can do JACK right now. Regardless, I think its naive for Iranians to think that the US and West will invade Iran to change its government. Its also very foolish. Look how foolish the US looks by trying to teach and give democracy to the Iraqis.

If there is any attack on the IRI, it would be limited to the nuclear issue which also opens a whole new can of worms and would not solve any issues with the IRI in the long term- it would only strenghten the IRI- I actually think the IRI wants to get attacked- it assures their survival for a long time to come.

Now, Professor Mammad and anyone else who is intereted:

If the change from within was by Iranians using mainly mass protests and the use of violence only to combat IRI violence, would you support it? If no, why since you supported a revolution that involved violence in response to the Shah's government in 1979?







Jamshid jaan, excellent job

by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on

Jamshid jaan, excellent job my friend. although I know for a fact that the vast majority of Iranians, specially the overwhelming majority in Iran, believe like us and reject leftists and Islamic ideology and have waken up to realities in Iran, but the thing is some of us will never ever apologize or admit their mistake of subscribing to those ideologies. Lets just make sure to be as vocal and as active as these few leftists and IRI apologists are and to make sure to end their hijack of the Iranian voice. There is a reason they call us the silent majority, we need to change that to loud majority and not let loud minority speak on behalf of us. I do have to say I see a rapid change in the right direction. Keep up the good work azeez.


Iran Accepted Pickering's

by abc (not verified) on

Iran Accepted Pickering's Enrichment Proposal: Did Anyone Notice?



Re: Farhad Kashani

by jamshid on

Dear Farhad, very well put. You said it. The main problem in Iran is not the US or Israel or Palestine or USSR/Russia, etc. It is us the people, our thinking process, our beliefs, our ideologies and our actions.

For example, South Korea was as backwarded as Iran in the 50s. It is almost unbelievable how parallel Iran and South Korea's progresses were in the 50s to the 70s. They were doing almost the same things for their industry, education, and so on.

South Koreans never blamed foreigners for all their miseries eventhough they were rightfully entitled to do so. They did not blame the US, Japan or the Soviets despite being hurt and abused by these countries.

They focused on themselves and fixing their own home instead of anti-imperialistic talks. Look at where South Korea is today (the 10th strongest economy in the world without having a drop of oil) and where Iran is.

To me, all of us Iranians are anti-imperialistic. All citizens of the world are anti-imperialistic too, no less than Iranians; it doesn't matter whether you are Iranian or Indian or Chinese. Nobody likes being bullied.

However, "how" you deal with these bullies is all that count. For a people, this could be the difference between being happy, at peace and prosperous, or otherwise being unhappy, in constant tension and miserable. South Korea and Iran are examples of this.

The point I want to make is that saying "US bad, US blood sucker, US this and that" will not change anything in Iran. We the Iranians have to change. The current regime has to change. Our tought process has to change.

We Iranians are not a perfect country or a perfect people. We do have a lot of domestic/internal problems. As long as they are not corrected, not only the US, but now today even the Chinese, yes the Chinese!, and tomorrow the Indians and god knows who else are going to take advantage and suck our blood.


Jamshid jaan, absolutely

by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on

Jamshid jaan, absolutely right. You’re right on the money. This is the source of whatever they say. The majority of Iranians, including the ones who were at some point subscribed to the leftist ideology, have realized the catastrophic consequences it had on our country. There are a few who still do subscribe. As all leftists, they are very active and vocal. The old ones of them just don’t wanna admit their mistake and realize the facts we live in. and the young ones, just keep repeating what they hear from the old ones. They came to this the very same country which they bashed all their lives, and just unable or unwilling to realize what has happened to our people the last 30 years. When the young ones who have not seen anything from the past, go to Iran, because they hang out with the few alike people, they are just unable to grasp the reality in Iran. And the ones who go to school here, live this idealistic life unable to understand whats really happening in the world. Their rhetoric, like you said, sounds exactly like 20th century communist propaganda. The whole “anti imperialism”, “anti Americanism” thing, which is OK to me and I respect their view, as long as they don’t apologize for the IRI based on that view. These guys somehow connect and apologize for the atrocities committed by IRI as we speak, to what the British and Russians did to our country some 150 years ago. They use some twisted, never before heard logic for that. They are unwilling to accept that the British and Russians ruled other places too, and other countries who were under colonial rule have emerged victoriously and prosperously (if that’s a word!) from those days, why can’t we? Look at India. I t was under direct British rule, their government does not butcher its own people. What they say and do is catastrophic to the cause of liberty in Iran. Their main theme is anti Americanism and stripping responsibility from us and blame it on someone else. That in itself is an old Iranian social illness. The leftist ideology gave those people a false sense of pride and a false sense of victimization. They are unable to understand that Shah, Khomeini, Savak, Savama, Basij, Sepah, Reza Khan, Howeyda, Khamenei, …are all Iranians. They’re not Americans. Lot of them never even has been to the U.S. The millions who marched on the streets once to remove the Shah, then to ask for him to return, then to remove him again, and bring Khomeini, were all Iranians. No U.S soldier, U.S marine, U.S special agent…was on those streets. And it was because of those millions that changes were made. So who’s to blame? Us and no one else. Although I’m very anti leftist, but you never hear me bash the USSR because some of our own people tilted to the left. I only fault foreign countries if they are involved in direct occupation, like Colonial days. Post colonial world, is like a chess game, if you don’t learn it, you lose. Has nothing to do with “imperialism”, or “communism”. Yes, the US, USSR, England, China, or whomever, will always try to step on you, Iran (During Shah and post Shah) tries that too, but if you don’t make mistakes, no one will be able to step on you. You never hear me bash the USSR for sending money and weapons to communist groups in Iran. Because I fault our own people for receiving those money and weapons. USSR did whatever it thought was in the best interest of the USSR, why does my neighbor, brother, uncle, or whoever, receive those money and weapons? If he wanted to go to the streets and make changes with those money and weapons and he could not get them from USSSR, he would get em from someone else. It’s that simple. It’s their intention that I blame everything on. It’s not the USSR fault; it’s our own people fault for subscribing to that ideology. Jamshid, that’s the biggest difference between us and them.


Re: Mammad

by jamshid on

It may be difficult for me to find the right words for the question I have. The answer you gave me was not what I was looking for.

I was more interested to know what are the "bottom line" reasons you dislike imperialism/colonism today? In other words, what are the net bottom line results of an imperialistic/colonistic behavior that makes you or others dislike it?

Again, I know my answer, but I am trying to hear yours.



the Iranian youth (to Jamshid)

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Jamshid, yes if you grab someone young randomly in not only Tehran, but Tabriz, Isfahan, etc, and ask them if they prefer to live in the U.S., very likely they will say yes.
In fact if you ask that question from the Indian youth, Mexican youth, Portuguese youth ....... they will quickly say yes. Even in the time of Shah when there were plenty of jobs and the was plenty of money to be made in Iran many youth including myself wanted to come to the U.S.
Iran, Mexico, ... are not US! Even under an ideal government, less corrupt and merciless culture, .... many Iranians would prefer to leave their land (do you know about recent droughts, lack of water etc. in Iran). Jamshid this was a cheap shot, you need to argue better!


Jamshid: Regarding imperialism

by Mammad on

I am strongly anti-imperialism, as you said, because of first and foremost what has happened to Iran over the last 150 years. The British and Russian empires practically divided Iran into their own sphere of influence, and did whatever they liked. They both opposed Iran's developments. They both extracted extraordinary concessions from Iran. Russia separated the Cacasus and Central Asia from Iran. The British separated Afghanistan from Iran. The British staged coup in Iran, first in 1299 (1921), and then (with the US) in 1953. I can go on and on, and on.

They also had agents within and among Iranians. The British were smarter and had their agents among different segments of the population, from Freemasons, to military, to some mullahs. Russia and then the Soviet Union had many elements of the Tudeh Party and other secular left.

But, at the same time, I am anti-imperialism, because much of the world's problems are due to imperialism and its child, colonialism. Just look at what Bush is demanding the Iraqis give the US. If invasion, occupation, and now these demands are not imperialism, then what is, and this is 21st century.

You are right. What I wrote was just scratching the surface. But, this is a vast area and deserves much deeper discussions. I publish articles all the time (two in the last three weeks, with two more coming) in newspapers and political sites with large readership. I am more interested in informing the US public at large. They are ill-informed, but much more open minded than our compatriots. That is why I do not post my articles on (except one in 2001). I am also working on two books, one on Iran's nuclear program, and one about what the West has done to democrats in the Islamic world. I have my big scientific research program (in physics and engineering) at the university that I am working and a family to take care of. That is all I can do!


Re: Mammad

by jamshid on

I think you have showed your soft side in arguing against Bush policies. You missed many other important and critical flaws in Bush and his legacy, especially those that affect Iran. It is unfortunate that you only touched the surface.

But I do have a question from you. Why do you have such a strong anti-imperialistic sentiments? I know why I have them. But I really would like to hear your answer too. You'll be surprised how two people might share the same views, but for totally different reasons.