MODERATES

Just like Dariushagha said,

Just like Dariushagha said, I can’t believe some people on this site talk about “elections” in Iran!! What election? Do they even know what the definition of this term means literally and politically? The same guys who bash elections in the U.S as “corporate interest driven” and “unfair” and “doesn’t give the black man a chance” (when there is a black man who raised much less money coming close to victory, and guys like Romney who raised millions and have strong corporate ties losing bad) and other leftist propaganda like that, believe there are “elections” in Iran. Those both mentalities go hand in hand! I mean what is “conservatives” versus “reformist” in the Iranian political system? Didn’t the 6th so called ‘Parliament” belong to the so called “reformists”? What happened? Nothing! I simply astonished by the fact that some Iranians have bought in to this argument that this regime is somehow a “republic” and there are “elections” in Iran! Haven’t you guys read the tons of reports released by neutral human rights organizations such as Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, ,,,and others, and see where Iran ranks in democracy categories such as free elections, freedom of press, social freedoms,, and others? Let’s get out of this bubble we created around ourselves blaming everything on so called “Zionists” and so called “Neo Cons”, and start reading those reports. Now if you claim organizations such as that are run by “Zionists” and “Neo Cons”, then we have a bigger fish to fry and a much bigger problem at hand!

Re: Here are the painful truth

I have no idea why you are posting under this article. Your comments have nothing to do with it. But in any event, what you are missing is that the western imperialist WANTS Iran to seek nuclear weapons. This is ONLY so that they will have an excuse to rob Iran. Unfortunately establishing a racist theocracy referred to as the "Jewish State" in that area also helps fuel the fears that the IRI has about its real or imaginary enemies. It also doesn't help when the CIA agents within Iran whisper in the ears of the rulers that "to stop the filthy Zionist, we need A-bomb!" The whole trick is to find a way to interfere in Iran's affairs without any, or much international objections. So the international community as well as Israel must believe that the Iranian regime is dangerous. And unfortunately the IRI "leaders" are easy to fool. Otherwise nuclear enrichment tech for such an extremely hefty price of possible war with the western imperialist is not worthwhile at all - anywhy they look at it. The whole "revolution" was staged in Iran, along with the hostage crisis, etc, to discredit the Iranian government internationally so that nobody cares afterwards what the western imperialist will do in that area. Otherwise the regime has been the best regime the western imperialist could ask for in the past 28 years! Cheap oil and other resources has been flowing with ease - Shah was not about to let that happen - so he was taken out with a fake revolution.

Here are the painful truth

Here are the painful truth about the IRI:

That Tehran will not pay any heed to the third UN Security because quite simply, the supreme leader Ali Khamenei is hell-bent on getting the bomb; hence selecting Ahmadinejad and his IRGC base (reminiscent of Chinese Red Army owning the chinese economy) in the last presidential election and disqualifying the reformers in yesterday's Parlimantary election.

As an insecure Shiite nation amidst a sea of surrounding Sunni countries, what best serves Iran's interests? By a process of exclusion one can rather easily trace around the outline of Iran's goal. No single item more capably serves the entirety of Iran's current military, political and relegious agenda than acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Increased wealth, self-sufficiency in food production, industrial modernization, none of these, repeat NONE OF THESE so categorically address Iran's current overall agenda like possessing nuclear arms. Regional hegemony, deterrence of Western intervention, countering Sunni dominance, enabling heretofore unthinkable levels of terrorism and even the incomprehensible notion of summoning forth the 12th imam all are fulfilled by this one single achievment.

How is it possible for anyone of reasonable intelligence to believe that Iran has abandoned pursuit of something which simultaneously satisfies the vast majority of its short-term and long-term goals? Iran's entire modus operendi is so comprehensively served by this one single objective that drawing any other conclusion simply defies logic.

To: Mammad and Nokhodi or anyone else

I am curious about a number of issues:

1. There are still 70 seats unaccounted for
2. The independents are not necessarily pro AN, but fall into all three categories (reformist, AN's allies, and the anti-AN conservatives)

Besides knowing Larijani from his days as head of Iran's Nuclear negotiating team, I don't really know who the rest are (of course I know Qalibaf was mayor of Tehra but that's it);

This anti-AN conservatives seem hate AN's group as much as the reformists.

As such, is there any intersection of interest between the reformist, the independents and the Larijani conservatives, which could pull them together for a moderate change and unity in order that they may solve some of Iran's critical problems:(1) defuse the warmongering attitude of the U.S. against Iran; (2) attention in solving Iran's economic problems,and (3) satisfy the peoples desire for greater civil liberties??

Re: Alborzi

You are wrong. It is the IRI that is facilitating a war for the US. And if the war happens, it would not be MEK or anyone else who caused it, as the US does not listen nor give a damn about Iranian opposition. It would be poor IRI policies against the US bully that caused it.

Anonymous-2

Thanks for your constructive comments. Some people in this column are only interested in viciously attacking, bad-mouthing, making baseless accusations, etc. They are in such a haste to "respond" and "expose" that forget the recent history! They themselves have nothing intelligent to say, but since have the urge to open their mouth, they attack others!

I agree with one of your basic points: The system is the system. However, some of the best-known reformers, those who are known to pursue the improvement of the political system with vigour, were not allowed to run. Consider, Tehran, for example. Mohammad Reza Khatami, against whom the right wing is very sensitive, was advised not to run. Others, from Islamic Iran Participation Front and Islamic Revolution Mojahedin, were rejected. The nationalist religious coalition, some of whose leaders are popular among university students, did not even participate. People vote for those whom they know. We do not have political party discipline in Iran, so that people would vote for the candidates of a Party, regardless of whether they know them or not.

I do not agree with your comment that the reformists should be vague. First of all, the problem that the right wing has with them is not that they are blunt. The problem is that, they know that if the reformists are allowed to run the country, everything will be questioned, like the first 2 years of Khatami presidency, and the Majles will be used as a tribunal to reveal so many things that the right wing do not want to be revealed. This happened during the sixth Majles too many times, with Mohsen Armin, Khatami, Haghighatjoo, Mousavi Khoeiniha, and others revealing so many "secrets."

Secondly, what the right wing wants is a system in which everybody follows them sheepishly without questioning anything. As Mesbah Yazdi has said time and again, he and his ilk consider such things as elections as decoration, nothing serious. The antithesis of this is to empasize the differences with the right wing. In fact, if anything, I believe that the reformists are not blunt enough to motivate people. They are too cautious.

I repeat: the sixth Majles of 4 years ago was the best parliament of the past 100 years in Iran. The goodness of Iran's Majles is not measured by how many of its legistlations were actually implemented. In the current Iran, the Guardian Council can veto anything. Rather, the goodness and attentiveness of the Majles to the needs of people are measured by how much they tried to improve the situation, and how many legislations they passed in that direction. All they could do was passing the legistlation; the rest of beyond their control.

Confessions of One Nokhodi -- Anonymous-2

If even one in a thousand Iranians were as smart as these two guys, Iran's system would completely change in a matter of weeks! But instead we have tons of prejudiced, blind, ignorant "intelectuals" who are only interested in antagonism, fights, power, name and such destructive or at least low values. Unfortunatley most Iranians follow the path that MEK travelled - extremeists obsessed with mullahs or superficial issues. They cannot draw a clear path from current conditions to a future better condition. They only see the targets that they "have been given." Sombody shows them "mullahs are evil" and they go for that target, not asking why they were given that target. A little sad. When you look at Mojahedeen, they were among the brightest people I have met and yet, they have gone so far off that today they are begging the western imperialist to please topple their puppet regime!!!! Can't get more confused than that!

Lengesh kon

Its fascinating how Shahis, Mojahedeens want a more violent process, maybe even war with US, on the other hand there is marginal improvements that can be had through non violent means, and thats the distinction, you are filled with so much hatred that you cannot see the genocide in Iraq and want the "liberators" intervene. Khodkah nabashid.

Whether we like it or not this is currently the system. in Iran

As such, within this system there are ways to make the situation better.

My question to Mammad is this - Yes, one of the reasons why the reformists did not win is because many of their candidates were rejected. But I also agree with the analysis that One Nokhodi said. As I said, the system is the system; and there is a Velayate-Faqih. So, naturally they cannot distance themselves at least openly with Khamnei. This would be a threat to his beliefs and power.

The reformist should have been alot more diplomatic; and played the game of politics confuse Khamnei by not totally revealing what their real agenda is. Look doesn’t the Republicans and Democrats do the same; the independents never win. While the Republicans and Democrats try to appeal to most spectrums of the society; hardcore religious evangelicals; the progressive; the conservatives; etc..

To win, unfortunately you can't say what your real views are, else you will never get elected. Just look at Kucinich, Paul and Gravel. They were the most frank about their positions; and were quickly dismissed and marginalized. This is politics. Plus in the U.S. it is not majority vote anyway you have this convoluted electoral system; then the super delegates; then let's not forget if you can't raise $100MM or greater you can't win, or will drop out very quickly. This is another weeding out process; whereby many qualified candidates can not run or have to drop out!.

Also bear in mind how the presidential candidates have to wear their riligion on their sleeves in the U.S. and demostrate their unconditional support and loyalty to Israel.

Right now Obama the front runner for many months is starting to lag behind Hillary; because of the statements that his pastor has said, they used his middle name which is totally ridiculous, he had to continuously state he is not a Muslim and he is a Christian. The next day he had to go to a conservative evangelical Church to pray. Furthermore, race is still an issue in this country. Black votes are going for Obama and white voters are going for Clinton.

It all demonstrates that politics is very rarely about issues - more about preception, unfortunately!

By the way I am not comparing Iran's system to that of the U.S. - but simply from a political/diplomatic point of view.

However, the reformists in Iran alienated themselves from the Supreme Leader. You will never win, if he is not behind you.

What I read today that is that out of the 290 seats, 132 seats went to the hardliners; of this 90 went for the allies of Ahmadinejad and 42 to anti-Ahmadinejad camp (Larijani, Qalibaf); the moderates won 31 seats, and the independents (which include members from all factions) 39 seats. There are still 70 seats left that have not been counted.

The urban/rural areas came out to vote in greater number than the people in Tehran ( 60% lower than the national average ), exactly who the Reformists were counting on. So, in effect the fact that the people in Tehran did not come out also resulted in lower seats for the reformists allowing the hardliners to win!

A positive point is that Larijani will become speaker of the Parliament kicking out the staunch AN ally. Larijani is more moderate than Ahmadinejad; he wants to compromise on the nuclear issue and wants better relations with the West. The West aslo seem to like him and feel they can work with him.

There are steps being taken which will eventually chang the political system of Iran. Throughout our history we never really had true elections anyway. None of our neighbours with the excpetion of Pakistan has elections and even then, Musharaff doesn't accept the outcome.

My two cents on this.

Guive is sad

It is really sad that Mirfendereski fails to understand the real world in which moderates have to operate, and the rationale of gradual advance that is the basis of their movement.

His proposal that "hoards of people" should stay at home to destroy the legitimacy of the regime, is a short sighted adventurism which has failed repeatedly.

election? what election?

I am very surprised to see you guys believe there is actually an election going on..

There are no elections in Iran, this is just some b.s. shows to make feel worthless about themselves.
None of the members of so called parliaments ever did anything for the welfare of the people, ever.

This regime is invalid and fake.

Re: Mammad

"the sixth parliament - the best parliament in Iran over the past 100 years..."

Yeah right. And Khomeini was the best leader in the same time span as well?

Come out of the closet mister. The worst pro-IRI individuals are your likes who try hard to give legitimacy to this regime while hiding in the closet of "reform" to hide their hypocrisy.

Confessions of One Nokhodi

As one of your loyal readers Mr. Mirfendereski, I disagree with this analysis of yours. I think that there is another interpretation. You see, not long ago we were in charge of the Presidency and the Iranian Parliament, but we could not do a damn thing with them. Do know why? Because we sacrificed peoples wishes in place of our own desires.
.
When we took control of the Majles, the first thing we did was to weaken the central pillar of the Islamic Republic: the Valiat Faghih. We were so lost in our dilutions that we had forgotten that we should work with the boss not against him. As you knnow, when you work against the boss you always lose. Many years have passed since that time, and I (the Ex-Namaayandeh and the present nokhodi) think that Iran needs a Valayat Faghih for many years to come. You see, the majority of our people want to be the Chief. Without any Indians, the nations will be headed for a gigantic chaos. However, this nokhodi also thinks that the Valayat Faghigh will eventually be marginalized but it will take a while.
.
However, we also made other errors. Rather than concentrating at getting something done for the people who elected us, we continued to work against the system. Because we believed that without political reform we are unable to do economic of social reform. That was a deadly mistake. With our limited authorities we could have done a lot more to help our constituents, but we did none.
.
But our worst mistake was when we demonstrated and staged a huger strike in the Majlis. Another words, we clearly said that we are so helpless that we need other to help us. To make the shame permanent, we even put a banner, IN ENGLISH, stating that we, the Parlimentarians, are on strike. That was interpreted by the Nezaam (the system) as a green light to the Enemy that we are your guys. Ever since then, we have been labeled as the enemy from within. Right or wrong we only have ourselves to blame.

Guive-e Aziz

Guive-e aziz:

You know who I am.

You did not explain one point:

The right wing is smart enough to know who is a nokhodi and who is not. Therefore, if the reformists and other democratic groups are real nokhodi, why, then, the vast majority of their candidates were not allowed to run?

Out of a little over 100 seats in the parliament for which the reformists could compete for, they won roughly one half. So, if they had been allowed to compete for all the 290 seats, it would be safe to assume that they would have won roughly 50% again, plus a majority in Tehran. This would have been roughly the same proportion of seats controlled by reformists during the sixth parliament - the best parliament in Iran over the past 100 years.

Reformists and other democratic groups are not nokhodi. That is why the right wing does everything to deny them the right to compete in a fair election. We do have nokhodi in Iranian politics, but they are not these guys.

POLITICS-IRAN: "The

POLITICS-IRAN: "The Government Suffers From Delusions"
By Omid Memarian*

//www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41624

To:nokhodchi - Thank you for the article!!

This was the best analysis I read about Islam and the concept of an Islamic State.

If only the IRI would abide by true Islamic teachings, then we would all be happy, as each person is free to practice their own faith as they like, and there is separation of state and religion.

There is no concept of Velayate Faqhi in Islam. Furthermore, there is absolutely no concept of forceful submission, it is up to the individual to use his brain, and knowledge and take responsibility for his actions.

But of course we know that many Islamic States have created their own false version of what Islam is; according to their own interests. Furthermore, the Mullahs have gone even further, by creating this concept of Velayate Faqi which serves to control the liberty of the people to chose freely whom they like.

As the article said, IRI is not an Islamic State nor a Republic. I don't know what it is!

Thank you for posting this article.

They are two ways to go forward

It's too soon to conclude about the Iranian politics. I would say let's wait until the presidential election. that should give us a better outlook to the Iranian direction.

Iran's Islamic Outrage

Iran's Islamic Outrage

March 17, 2008
New York Post
Abdullahi Ahmed An-na'im

Last Friday's election in Iran - like every vote there since the 1979 revolution - violated fundamental Islamic principles. But, then, so does the so-called Islamic Republic of Iran itself. No one can become a candidate in Iran without the approval of a body known as the Council of Guardians. The regime, in other words, doesn't trust individual Iranian Muslims to uphold Islamic principles in their political choices.

Yet the fundamental principle of individual personal responsibility - which can never be abdicated or delegated - is one of the most striking recurring themes in the Koran. Various schools within Islam put different emphases on this duty, but having a council of fallible humans negate the free will of Muslim citizens is totalitarianism - not Islam.

Thus, the "Islamic Republic" is neither Islamic nor a republic.

The authoritarianism of such institutions as the Council of Guardians is supposedly justified as necessary for preserving "the Islamicity of the state" - a goal that is claimed as another teaching of the Koran.

That, too, is false. The claim that a state can be Islamic is false from a religious point of view and has no support in 15 centuries of Islamic history.

There is no mention whatsoever of the state in the Koran. Islam does not prescribe any form of government. Rather, the teachings of Mohammed emphasize the community of Muslims and each Muslim's responsibility for conducting public affairs.

True, Muslims everywhere, whether a majority or minority of the populace, are bound to observe sharia as a matter of religious obligation. But this can be best achieved when the state is neutral regarding all religious doctrines.

Any principle of sharia that has been enacted into state law, simply because it is a principle of sharia, is no longer religious - for Muslims would then be observing the law of the state as such and not freely performing their religious duty as Muslims.

(This does not, of course, prevent a Muslim from supporting, say, laws against pornography or prostitution on the basis of his or her moral beliefs. But, then, the same holds for citizens of other faiths.)

The notion of an Islamic state is in fact a postcolonial innovation in the thinking of some Muslims - an "import" of a European model of the state and of a totalitarian view of law and public policy.

In essence, then, today's Iranian system is no different from the former Soviet and Nazi regimes - or from the Arab nationalist Ba'ath dictatorship in Syria (and formerly in Iraq). That the repression comes in the name of religion doesn't make it any less totalitarian.

A true and valid return to Islamic values, in Iran and elsewhere, requires allowing individuals to practice religion unfettered by political leaders who claim to speak in the name of the Divine.

This is the clear demand of Muslims everywhere. Consider "Who Speaks for Islam," a survey, published in February by Gallup, of 50,000 Muslims in more than 35 countries. A clear majority of those polled said they don't want religious leaders to draft their constitutions.

The survey also confirms that large majorities of Muslims want to protect free speech and reject attacks on civilians as morally wrong. It also found Muslim women demanding equality and respect for their human dignity.

Gallup did find a majority of Muslims saying they want sharia to be a source of legislation and religion to have an important role in their societies. Plainly, much great public awareness is needed of such concepts as the inherently secular nature of the state and the critical role of the principles of constitutionalism, human rights and citizenship.

Islamic beliefs, as with any other religious and philosophical principles, will unavoidably have some connection with politics. But a proper understanding of the Koran's teachings can regulate that connection - indeed show the necessity for separation of sharia and state. The question is how to transform attitudes of Muslims on these issues.

Human-rights advocates should, of course, speak out about the Iranian election and call it what it is - a mockery of democracy. Just as important, however, Muslims must speak out.

The "religious" state that the Iran's ruling clique hopes to perpetuate in Iran is, in fact, a form of heresy - completely antithetical to Islam's true teachings.

As a Muslim, I demand - and the Koran promises - the right to practice my religion freely.

Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im is a law professor at Emory University and author of "Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Sharia."

//www.nypost.com/seven/03172008/postopinion/o...