MEDIA

Mr. Sadeghi, Mammad

Mr. Sadeghi, I believe all hatred to be wrong, and counter to the greater good. I have always felt that. My understanding of why Iranian hatred of Arabs exists shouldn't imply that I think it is correct.

I agree that there are a great number (the majority) of Arabs who completely disavow themselves from the behaviors of this small, yet well-known minority of criminals and thugs. We have all been guilty at one time or another of making the generalizations that you mentioned. We have all been wrong.

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated, and I thank you for taking the time to share them here.

Mammad, your response is 100% spot-on. Brilliant.

Mamad: Are we to take your

Mamad: Are we to take your words for it?? Where are your citations and references??? You need to back up your statemetns by using reliable sources...you have not done that...If anyone is manufacturing and confabulating it's you, my friend....

My Sunnis Lebanese friends don't agree with any of your accounts regarding Hizballah either, BTW.

Nouraee

I've browsed through your posts and so-called articles in the past. Hating Arabs, all Arabs, making vulgar generalizations about Arab culture is something you do regularly (come on, call me an Arab-lover. You know you’re dying to do so. Frankly I've met many decent Arabs whom I prefer to hateful narrow-minded so-called fellow countrymen like you. I've met some Arab jerks too and they sound a lot like you). Based on your logic it's understandable for Hindu fundamentalists to hate Iranians since Islam was spread in India by Persianized Central Asians. It was understandable for Iranians to get beat up in the US in the early 80’s after the hostage crisis. Don’t you read your stuff before posting it Mr. I’m-too-sophisticated- for-my-own-shit? You accuse Ulrich of repeating clichés but you're full of clichés yourself. She is a Jew hater because she attacks Taheri as a tool of Israel. I'm a Basiji because I challenge your condescending nonsense. Get out of US if you don't like it? Man, how did you think up that zinger? How the hell do you know I live in your precious USA? The prison by the way is that pathetic empty box sitting on your neck. I'm done with you.

Accept the fact

To all those ignorant who hate Jews, Jewish people have not raped our mothers or killed our fathers -- and then redefined us new name and then came to call our brother Ali or sister Zinab. For once in your life please do not be IGNORANT and admit to the realities of the past. Who raped our mothers and killed our fathers?

Sometimes it might take 500 years to realise that we made a mistake. Shia'sm was a faithful trend and may have been good 500 years ago, but at this time and age it doesn't work for us. It works against us! Why? Because it is not our nature. Our identity comes through being Iranian and not through being a Shia.

Just imagine one day again like before Iran and Israel become friends. Be fair and admit to yourself that, we were in a much better situation then, than we have ever been since. It was not the Jews who invaded our lands, redefined our heritage, burned our history. It was the Arabs.

A brilliant reply

A brilliant reply Mammad...Bravo!!!

Response To Taheri

Some people rightfully asked Soraya to directly respond to Taheri's allegations, without using seemingly slogans. Here is my response to Taheri's usual fabrications and lies.

(1) Bombing in Lebanon in 1983 and Hezbollah: The Lebanese Hezbollah declared its existence on February 16, 1985, almost two years after the bombings. There is no doubt that Iran helped Hezbollah to form, especially through Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, who was Iran's ambassador to Syria at that time, and now belongs to the leftist faction of Rouhaniyat in Iran. However, even if Iran had not done that, Hezbollah or an organization like that would have formed because,

(i) Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1978 had killed thousands and created 250,000 refugees, while its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 had again killed several thousands (probably in tens of thousands) and created another 450,000 refugees (you can check all the numbers through the internet). The bulk of the killed and the refugees were Shiites who live mostly in southern Lebanon, on Israel's invasion path and occupation.

(ii) Amal, the older Shiite organization of Lebanon (whose establishment had been greatly helped in the 1970s by Mostafa Chamraan, who later became defence minister in Iran after the Revolution and was killed during the Iran/Iraq war) had not been able to address the needs of Shiites who had been strongly discriminated against in Lebanon for decades, even though they are the largest group in Lebanon.

Therefore, unlike popular perception and the US propaganda, Hezbollah had no role in the bombing. I am not saying Hezbollah has not committed terrorist acts. I am saying it did not do that one. So, this is Taheri's lie number 1 in that article.

(2) No Trotskyite or Leninist organization that I am familiar with has any office in Tehran. George Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was a Maxist group, but abadoned it long ago. Plus, his group is mostly restricted to Syria. Taheri mentions the Colombian FARC ONLY because it is allegedly aligned with Chavez. But, no intelligence agency of the West has ever made that allegation, and Taheri presents no evidence whatsoever, like a lot of his other lies. That is lie number 2.

(3) Iran's relations with the Latin American countries that Taheri mentions are only tactical, not strategic. It is opposed even within Iran by many people in the power hierarchy. It has come about only because Ahmadinejad wants to prove that he is a world leader, and has had no strategic consequence so far.

But, most telling about the depth of these relations is what happened several months ago in Tehran. On the anniversary of Chamraan's death, the Basij invited children of Che Guevara to Tehran in a conference called "Che mesleh Chamraan," in an attempt to link Chamraan to Che. But, when a Basiji claimed that Castro and Che both believed in God, the children protested, and the conference was cancelled unfinished.

So, that is Taheri's fabrication number 1.

(4) Tehran has never financed PKK of Turkey. While some members of PKK have in the past taken refuge in Iran (in Kurdish area) as a result of Turkey's hot pursuit of them, Turkey has never, to my knowledge, accused Iran of financing PKK. The reason is clear: PKK is an enemy of BOTH Iran and Turkey. If it succeeds in Turkey, it will come after Iran. That is Taheri's lie number 3.

(5) There is absolutely positively no evidence that Iran has financed the FIS of Algeria. Taheri presents no evidence, because he has none. That is his lie number 4.

(6) The fact that Karroubi participated in a conference attended by Sunnis does not mean a hoot. The IRI leaders routinely meet and greet Saudi Arabia's leaders, UAE's leaders, and so on.

So, insinuating a sinister purpose behind that meeting (if it occured at all; I could not confirm it) is Taheri's fabrication number 2. Taheri does not even know that Karroubi has always belonged to the leftist faction of Rouhaniyat, not the right wing that controls everything in Iran.

(7) Attributing the Khobar event to Iran is, at least at this time, Taheri's lie number 5. The US has never ever brought any charges against Iran or anyone in Iran to any US court. There has been a lot of speculations, but no concrete evidence or official charges. Notable is the absence of such actions by the Bush administration, the enemy of the IRI. I am not claiming that IRI has not had any hand. It might or might not. There has just been no concrete evidence. As a US official put it three years ago, "we have no evidence that we can present to a court of law."

(8) This is the first time ever that anybody claims that Iran had a hand in the events in Yemen in 2000. Taheri presents no evidence, and I could not find any anywhere. That is Taheri's lie number 6.

(9) Contrary to what Taheri claims, the IRI has, in fact, had a very constructive role in establishing peace in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Those Islamic groups fought with their governments, and it was only through the IRI mediation that peace was established. That is Taheri's fabrication number 3.

(10) Same about the Islamic group in Azerbaijan. So what, even if true? Any country seeks allies that help its interests. The US is allied with the President of Azerbaijan, who replaced his FATHER in a supposedly republican system, and is also allied with some of the worst Arab regimes.

(11) Taheri's lie number 7 is that the IRI is the most important source of funding for Hamas. Saudi Arabia provides more funding to Hamas, but because it is a US ally, the US is quiet about it. Besides, Egypt allows Hamas leaders to travel there, collect all the donations, totalling tens of millions of $$ every few months, and carry them into Gaza
(check the internet for both).

(12) Taheri's allegation about the Shiite group in a province of Pakistan helping the revival of Al Qaede and Taliban is total fabrication. There is absolutely no evidence for this. I did extensive search and found nothing. I also follow such things very closely, and had never heard of this. Note also that both the Taliban and Al Qaeda are bloody enemies of Iran and, more generally, the Shiites. So, this is Taheri's lie number 8 and fabrication number 4.

(13) Yes, some members of Al Qaeda do live in Iran, under house arrest or in jail. What Taheri does not mention is that, the IRI offered many of them to the US in exchange for the top leadership of the Mojahedin terrorist cult, but the US turned down the offer. Taheri does not also mention that the IRI has sent hundreds of other Al Qaeda members back to their original countries, including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, to be jailed there.

In summary, once again Taheri has made up a totally fabricated story.

I did not use Zionist, CIA, SAVAK, neocon, etc. Are you guys satisfied?

Dear Mr. Nouraee

Dear Mr. Nouraee - I like you and think you're definitely one of the more reasonable and intelligent individuals on this site, but to say that 'Arab-bashing' is more 'understandable' for Iranians is in my opinion is completely and utterly wrongheaded.  We seriously need to get over this cultural schizophrenia which afflicts so many Iranians.  Ancient Persian is part of our history and how we interpret and understand ourselves - but so is Shi'ism, even if we choose to abandon our belief in God or our faith in Islam.     

The nonsense that Arabs and Persian have longstanding historical enmity is exactly the kind of propaganda that Saddam Hussein relied on in order to drum up support for his regime during the first Persian Gulf War conflict.  It is also demonstrably false since the Middle East was almost entirely characterized by fluid and porous borders until the first decades of the twentieth century. Just as the Islamic fundamentalist cannot occlude our ancient heritage from the historical makeup of Iran and Iranians, to try to do the same with Islam is fundamentally misguided.  Iranian Shi’ism, which has consequently impacted Shi’ism more generally, has been shaped and developed within Iranian culture for at least 500 years (Persian cultural influence on regional articulations of Islam has really though existed for an even longer period of time – it was Persians who contributed to the overthrow of the Umayyads to bring the Abbasids to power long before Shi’ism was even made the national religion, itself a political maneuver by the Safavids) and since the ascendance to power of the Safavid dynasty.  There are plenty of historical examples of Shi’i doctrine melding and emanating from out of Persian culture (Salman-e-Fars, the legend of Hossein’s marriage to a Sassanian Princess etc…) which clearly defies the whole simplistic narrative of Islam being merely an Arab cultural import.  Do Indonesians, Malays and Pakistanis regard this as the case?  The overwhelming majority of course don’t.  In fact I believe that the number of non-Arab Muslims far exceeds the number of Arab Muslims and for starters not all Arabs are even Muslims.  You have Yemeni Jews, Coptic Egyptians and Palestinian Christians.    

Are all Arabs really responsible for al-Qaeda?  Of course not.  The logic of your argument would mean that you and I are responsible for the crimes of the Iranian theocratic establishment in virtue of our being Iranian.  You and I both know this to be nonsense.  Iranian identity and history is plural with a plethora of disparate identities, narratives and imaginations all conditioning and interpenetrating one another – none of which trumps any of the others.  I guess what I am saying is that we need to learn to live with ourselves and thus all of our history, not just those elements we feel glorifies and aggrandizes those aspects of ourselves we like and wish to show to the outside world (I am not saying that you are doing this, it’s just a common thread that weaves through many people’s comments and observations on this site and others).  Without the Islamic Revolution would you or I be the same person?  Would we be liberals and staunch secularists?  We cannot be so complacent as to not question this.  We are reacting and emerging from out of the histories we live through as much as advocating isolated and ahistorical Archimedean points of view.   

Finally I very much agree with you that to endlessly blame the so-called neocons and AIPAC for all of the problems within the Middle East gets tired very quickly (even though in my opinion the neocons are significantly responsible for many of the dire problems in recent history and only concerned about benefiting American imperial interests at the expense of the rest of the world – John Bolton and many others have explicitly expressed this opinion, it isn’t a big secret – maybe that is why it bores you to keep hearing about it – you’ve just been saturated with this argument and are simply sick of it which is perfectly fine – analysts maybe need to be more imaginative and creative in this regard) and if such criticism remains one-sided and fails to ever turn its attention to the crimes of the Iranian government and others it becomes just plain hypocritical.  I hope you take my comments how they are intended, from one web-friend to another.  Best, Eskandar.

Correction on Neoconservatism

Thanks to Soraya for informing everyone of this issue but since its critical we get our facts straight I want to correct her "former neoconservative" source who claims that neoconservatism originated in a split between Stalinists and Trotskyists in the 1930s. Neoconservatism is rooted in the idea of economic liberalism ie that the economy and the state are distinct autonomous spheres - an idea that is in stark contrast to ANY faction of communism. As I understand it, neoconservatism arose as a backlash against the civil rights movement and grassroots mobilization of the 60s.

George Soros is more fair than some of us!

George Soros is much more fair than some Iranian right wing extremists, he says:
"I am not sufficiently engaged in Jewish affairs to be involved in the reform of AIPAC; but I must speak out in favor of the critical process that is at the heart of our open society. I believe that a much-needed self-examination of American policy in the Middle East has started in this country; but it can't make much headway as long as AIPAC retains powerful influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Some leaders of the Democratic Party have promised to bring about a change of direction but they cannot deliver on that promise until they are able to resist the dictates of AIPAC. Palestine is a place of critical importance where positive change is still possible. Iraq is largely beyond our control; but if we succeeded in settling the Palestinian problem we would be in a much better position to engage in negotiations with Iran and extricate ourselves from Iraq. The need for a peace settlement in Palestine is greater than ever. Both for the sake of Israel and the United States, it is highly desirable that the Saudi peace initiative should succeed; but AIPAC stands in the way. It continues to oppose dealing with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas."

Anonymous-today....

You're the one hiding anonymously, sucking your thumb, and you're telling me to grow up.

It's about time you enrolled in a course for remedial English.

When you have successfully completed that course, read all of the posts that come from this woman. I have neither the free time or the inclination to school you. It appears that you are blindly enamored by her. Maybe that's why you are trying to pick a fight with me, in an effort to defend her honor.

When this woman can engage in a meaningful debate without having to resort to the cliches of the CIA, SAVAK, the so-called neo-cons, or anything related to Israel, let me know.

Oh, and your bit about Arab-hating? While all hatred is counter-productive, Iranian hatred of Arabs is infinitely more understandable considering what the Arabs have done to Iran and Iranians. And, no I'm not going to make an issue about Arab-bashing. It is Arabs who continually wreak havoc throughout the world, whether it's Hamas, Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda.

Actually, withholding your name is your right, not a privilege. Just as it is my right to call this woman whatever I choose. It's called the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If you don't like it, then get the hell out of the U.S.

And if you don't have time to play police, then what the hell are you doing trying to police me? Who died and made you part of the Basij? Don't flatter yourself into the delusion that you're intimidating me with your "don't talk tough" schtick. If you want to exercise your "privilege" and remain anonymous, then in reality you lack the stones to really do anything about it. You truly have no earthly idea who I am. Just know that at any time, I can set you free from that prison you call a mind. Just ask.

(Oh, I used the Yiddish word "schtick". I guess that makes me a Zionist).

Nouraee, it's time you grew up!

You insist on making this personal. Your language is full of personal attacks towards the writer. You can call her writing weak and without substance but you explicitly have called her a Jew hater and I asked you to show why she is a Jew hater. Repeated criticism of state of Israel, tiresome as it may be, does not constitute Jew hating. By the way, is Arab hating better than Jew hating or more justified? This site is littered with examples of people who start bashing all Arabs from Baghdad to Marakesh on each occasion and yet I haven’t heard you making a sound about that. Withholding my name is my privilege. I don’t have the time to play police to this site or the likes of you. And don't talk tough, dude, you may get what you're asking for.

Anonymous-today.....

Frau Ulrich's subject text as well as previous texts clearly indicate that she subscribes to the same tired, worn out, recycled and rehashed tripe by those who blame their plight on Jews.

If Rupert Murdoch were a Buddhist would that make a difference? Of course not. He's not even Jewish. He's Roman Catholic. But it has become a matter of over-used convenience to label anyone who takes exception as either SAVAKI, Zionist, or a CIA lackey. It plays directly into the stereotype that really exists about some Iranians with these elitist attitudes, who honestly believe that when they defecate, the sweet smell of orchids fill the air.

No, I don't follow the dictum of either the Israeli lobby or any other. It's in fact Frau Ulrich who is following the dictum of a lobby. The lobby of the IRI. And she's following it like a puppy. All these lobbies are infected with a singular mindset that prevents true progress from ever being made. That's the entire purpose of a lobby: to forcefully shove your ideas down other people's throats.

Can this woman make her point without having to resort to these tired cliches? It would be a refreshing change of pace, but I have serious doubts that she has either the guts or the brains to either raise or debate an issue on its own merit, without having to resort to these fairy tales of Jewish cabals.

And if you want to threaten me with deletion, at least be an adult and e-mail me to say who you really are and confront me like a grown up and on an even plane, rather than hiding behind a fake name like a child who lost his balloon in the park.

Dariush: I know the difference between the two. The problem is that there are so many people out there like this woman who don't.

Kaveh

There is a difference between jewish and zionist. It is the zionists that are hiding behind the jewish name and commiting crimes and ruin jewish name in Israel and around the world and Murdoch is one of those zionists.

Thank you Soraya

Intelligent and insightful. Thanks for your well researched and well documented article.

Of course you can expect all the Politically motivated AIPAC lovers to jump up and down and scream that you are a Mullah lover, but I have seen nothing in your articles to that effect.

I have enjoyed your intelligent and impartial writing and will read more when I see them.

To Mr. Nouraee

Where in Ms. Ulrich's text is any indication of hatred of Jews? Could you quote any passage? Or is it that you simply follow the Israeli lobby's dictum that to attack Israel is to hate Jews? Your language is by the way ugly and vitriolic. And keep that male chauvinist rubbish tone out of your posts or they'll get deleted again.

Fred: I got your answer loud and clear

you:  Her venom is reserved  exclusively for  whomever  opposes the IRI

me: Are you capable of calling a liar a liar? Or do you have to always change the subject and inject your own venom for antiwar writers? This piece is about Amir Taheri, a known liar with neocon connections. Do you have enough "ensaf" to acknowledge this?

you: Invoking “insaf”, impartiality, fairness in a solicitous defense of this libelous and thinly disguised Anti-Semitic diatribe is rich beyond comprehension.

So, what did you do? Did you answer the question? No, you avoided it (see "change the subject"), and instead attacked the messenger. It's perfectly clear for all to see. 1) You are here just to attack Soraya, not to talk about any issues. 2) you do not have "ensaf" to admit a simple reality and have to change the subject to avoid it. 3) You inject just as much venom and hatred into your own baseless accusations as anybody you are supposedly criticizing.

If you had any ensaf, you would acknowledge the truth first. Second, if you really thought she was being antisemetic, you would show how and where in her writing, not just a drive-by accusation with no substance which is what you alwasy do.

Conclusion: you don't really care about the substance of this piece or even any antisemetism, you are here only to label people with politically charged terms because you can't answer them rationally.

Have a nice day thinking about that.

Taheri would first require

Taheri would first require one or two arguments to deconstruct and not just insipid bedtime stories he has made up to scare small children and ignorant sensationalists...as a rule of thumb however Anonymousk I agree with you.  The debate should revolve around the issues and not personalities who are only interested in the number of hits their name receives on a Google search... 

Sorya khanoom why don't you

Sorya khanoom why don't you address Mr. Taheri's arguments, not him or his association. Why do you always personalize the discourse? why can't you address concerns without recrimination. There are "mutual frustrations" on both sides.

Why don't you dissecthe the arguments of both sides instead of attacking him personally?

More power to Mr. Taheri!

//www.nypost.com/seven/03312008/postopinion/o...

The booty of war

Mr. Taheri's record speaks for itself. His shameless "report" on the color-code for minorities should have been enough for him to be banished from any publication with an ounce of integrity. I'm no fan of the regime in Tehran. I don't believe they're guiltless in putting Iran in the perilous position it is now but the warmongering of Bush-Cheney clique is the worst kind of PR bullying. They are aided also by an unholy alliance of Israel and reactionary Arab states such as the Saudies, Jordanians, Egyptians and the Persian Gulf Arab Sheikhdoms (see the ridiculous communiqué put out by the gutless, toothless Arab league against Iran yesterday). Seymour Hersh reported two years ago that bidding on reconstruction efforts in Iran in case of American invasion had already started behind closed doors and you can bet the same usual suspects, Halliburton, Bechtel, Balckwater and cohorts, are already in the running. This is pure, old fashion war plundering plus a colonial refashioning of other nations, never mind turning Iran into another lab for the most lunatic neo-con economic and social policy experiments. I’m not trying to absolve the Mullas, far from it. But to present Iran as a world threat, even as a serious regional threat (to whom by the way?) is the biggest con job in history. Of course if you accept the premise that the world belongs to the United States (to quote Chomsky) then it all makes sense. Anyone who doesn’t play ball with the USA must be crushed. The mainstream American media seems to becoming lull again, not taking Bush to task. How the Congress could allow this kind of warmongering from a lame duck president is beyond me. How the Democrats could take this is also amazing. Shouldn’t they be a little more concerned to be stuck with Iraq 2 in a larger scale? Of course if it does happen, god forbid, then books will be written, careers will be made analyzing the “mistakes” etc. Meanwhile who has the guts to question this bunch now?

Disgraced neo-con!

Taheri is rather a liability to the zionist propaganda than an asset! Even the pro-Israel National Post of Canada (in which Taheri frequently gave lip service to zionists and neo-cons alongside krauthammer, Pipes, David Frum...) has dropped him as a feature columnist after the infamous minority color-code gaffe. The zionist paper (owned by Izrael Asper's family) issued a formal opology to the readers for having dedicated its front page to Taheri's bogus "breaking news!"

Anyone with a shred of human decency would have died of shame after such a disgrace, but then again, there's always Fox news to come to rescue. He still pops up here and there under different pseudonyms pushing the case for Israel, trying to amplify shia- sunny and Persian-Arab divdes!

Soraya

Happy New Year -

I wish upon you and your family - Chador, Rousari.... and everything else the Iranian youth are going through.  

Peace. 

Once again an excellent thoroughly searched analysis by Soraya

One person I can always count on for being balanced in her views, and thoroughly researching a piece before she puts pen on paper is Soraya Sepahpour Ulrich.

I would like to know all of those who are blasting Soraya while giving "hip, hip hoorah" to other writers on iranian.com who simply print information filled with misinformation and lies due to their hatred of the Iranian regime, and Islam have they requested documentation to prove such allegations! The answer is a clear No!!

I to agree that if one does a thorough search of most of the propaganda that others publish on this site; the road lead to the Pro-Zionist lovers, the Pro-Zionist Lobby; and the hardcore neocons, and friends of Israel.

If this is news for some, then you are either not doing your own homework, or will simply jump on the bandwagon because of your hatred towards the Iranian regime.

There are many Iranians, one of which is Amir Taheri, who have joined along with the terrorist cult the MEK, and even RP on the neocon and Zionist Lobby bandwagon. All one has to do is follow the links; and then follow the cash.

Soraya is one true patriot, a true blooded Persian, who loves her mother land beyond and above all; and will fight with all of her might even if she is the only one standing on the stage to prevent harm to Iran and the Iranian people! She cares not for herself, unlike others, she cares not for glory or fame, unlike others, she is not attempting to be a famous writer, she is not attempting to promote a book; she hasn't suddenly come out of the wood works like many other opportunists who see the time ripe to forge alliances with Iran's enemies; she has always stood her ground and is uncompromising on her integrity and principles.

Amir Taheri and many Irianians like him, are nothing but traitors to Iran; they will lie, disseminate false information as they have absolutely no integrity, nor do they understand the responsbility of professional journalism. Freedom of speech, and freedom to write, does not give one right to fool the masses. Individuals who resort to such tactics have absolutely no respect for civil society!
Haterd, divide and conquer, inciting violence and provoking disunity is what these people are all about; exactly what we do not need in our world today!

Thank you Soraya as always!

"insaf" not

Invoking “insaf”, impartiality, fairness in a solicitous defense of this libelous and thinly disguised Anti-Semitic diatribe is rich beyond comprehension.

Enough is Enough

Amir Taheri has on countless occasions been refuted and shown to be a pathological liar and has absolutely no credibility in the journalistic world or the academic world. This is openly acknowledged even by those whom oppose and openly criticize the IRI.

Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University has accused Amir Taheri of concocting nonexistent substances in his writings, and states that he "repeatedly refers us to books where the information he cites simply does not exist. Often the documents cannot be found in the volumes to which he attributes them.... [He] repeatedly reads things into the documents that are simply not there."[4] Bakhash has stated that Taheri's 1988 Nest of Spies is "the sort of book that gives contemporary history a bad name."[4]

Dwight Simpson of San Francisco State University and Kaveh Afrasiabi accuse Taheri and his publisher Eleana Benador of fabricating false stories in the New York Post in 2005 where Taheri identified Iran's UN ambassador Javad Zarif as one of the students involved in the 1979 seizure of hostages at the US Embassy in Tehran. Zarif was Simpson's teaching assistant and a graduate student in the Department of International Relations of San Francisco State University at the time.[4]

On May 19, 2006, the National Post of Canada published two pieces, one by Taheri, claiming that the Iranian parliament passed a law that "envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public."[5] Numerous other sources, including Maurice Motamed, the Jewish member of the Iranian parliament, refuted the report as untrue. The Associated Press later refuted the report as well, saying that "a draft law moving through parliament encourages Iranians to wear Islamic clothing to protect the country's Muslim identity but does not mention special attire for religious minorities, according to a copy obtained Saturday by The Associated Press." [6] Reuters also reported that "A copy of the bill obtained by Reuters contained no such references. Reuters correspondents who followed the dress code session in parliament as it was broadcast on state radio heard no discussion of proscriptions for religious minorities."[7] Taheri insisted that his report is correct and that "the dress code law has been passed by the Islamic Majlis and will now be submitted to the Council of Guardians", claiming that that "special markers for followers of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism are under discussion as a means to implement the law".[8]

The National Post retracted the story several hours after it was posted online. The newspaper blamed Taheri for the falsehood in the article,[9][10] and published a full apology on May 24.[11] Taheri stood by his reportage.[8][12]

Amir Taheri, Wikipedia, Accessed April 1 2008

Seriously, how many times does the guy need to be unequivocally refuted and shown up for what he is?  Even if one is sympathetic to his political outlook one needs to say enough is enough.  You can't just lie and fabricate information and then not even have the decency to retract your deceits after they have blantantly been proven to be unmitigated falsehoods.    

Mrs. Ulrich: You can bring

Mrs. Ulrich:

You can bring evidence to disagree with Taheri but Intoning "zionist mouthpeice" as a magic incantation doesn't suffice.

Also, taking Richard Curtiss, Scheer, Gary sick, juan cole et al as impartial experts , when they have done nothing but to shove the Islamic Republic down Iranian's throat since 1978, does nothing for your credibility and is as suspect to me as Taheri is to you...

Fred: are you capable of calling a liar a liar?

Or do you have to always change the subject and inject your own venom for antiwar writers?

This piece is about Amir Taheri, a known liar with neocon connections. Do you have enough "ensaf" to acknowledge this?

This author is mirror image

This author is mirror image of Amir Taheri...Both are boring and habitual bile spewers!

Way to Go Soraya

Thanks for this critical look at Amir Taheri and the irresponsible media that let him broadcast his dangerous lies.

This isn't a critique

You can't just premise you argument on sos and so is Jewish or pro-Israeli and then call whoever associates with them as somehow evil. Rupert Murdoch has as much of a right to be pro-Israeli as you do being pro-IRI. At some stage instead of writing pseudo-conspiratorial "poor Iran" rozekhooni tou should address the factual content of Taheri's article. I couldn't see anything in his article thatis factually wrong. Unless you wish to believe whatever IRI officials say uncritically. And in that case you'd be pretty much an anti-Semitic racist. Apparently you think Jews spin lies against Iran for no good reason while all the lovely bearded murderous IRI offciials are telling the truth.