USA

I'm not big on surveys

period.  But this was interesting.  Hardly anything the average intelligent person could dispute, but interesting.

The Survey

It is a hard reality and popular belief among Channel 1 watching Iranians that if refrandum was conducted , Iranians will vote NO to IRI, that ain't so. It won't be 98% like that of 1979 but it will pass with big margin. Iranians should agree to do this only if referandum is to be conducted in every member country of United Nation, crazy idea but fair. I am sure there would be many surprising outcomes.

i can smell

Moosalman around her please go back to desert -time is tickin pretty soon well be eye to eye.

to·tal·i·tar·i·an –adj

to·tal·i·tar·i·an
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
–noun.
3. an adherent of totalitarianism.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary

IRI is indisputably a totalitarian states. We think of gulags such as Evin and killing fields of Khavaron. We think of secret police and surveillance, informants in every neighborhood and county in Iran in the form of Basiji or Hizballhi in the manner of KGB or the SS officers.

The thing that makes a place 'totalitarian' is not the nastiness of it or even the repressiveness of it, but the totality of state control. The real defining characteristic of totalitarian seems obvious from the word itself.

And what is a total state? It is a state in which there is no civil society, just politically or religiously derived rules by which people may interact with the approval of minstry of Ershad.

And I would argue the key to that is removing the right to think and act independent of the state and state's prescribed religious/political laws and norms.

In a totalitartian state such as IRI , there is No free association to **anything but** the state's approved/controlled political, social, and relgious organizations, and above all, absolute allegiance to the Velayte-faghih. That is not Independence. That is being servile; that is forfeiting your independence when you allow the state to usurp it; You are not only wholly depedenst on the state but you are also a 'Saghir/retarded human being"; you are the slave of the state in need of Faghih; a symbiotic and pathological state of Complete 'Dependence'!

To argue that cannot afford either democracy or humane treatement of its citzens because it fears loss of "independence" is a reflection on how unstable and fractrured the system feels as s collective unit.

Britain has no gulags, no killing fields, it has a relatively free press (though less so than it was), it has no internal passports (though they are working on that with ID cards and panoptic surveillance)... but every year we take more and more steps towards the destruction of a voluntary civil society of free interaction and its replacement with a state in which no aspect of life is not politically regulated. This is often described as making things 'more democratic'... and in that the supporters of the total state are not being disingenuous, for democracy is just a type of politics after all.

We are headed for a different kind of totalitarianism than that of Stalin or Hitler or Mao, but a total state really is what a great many people have in mind for us all. They seek a sort of 'smiley face fascism' in which all interactions are regulated in the name of preventing sexism, promoting health, and defending the environment. The excuses will not invoke the Glory of the Nation or the Proletariat or the Volk or the King or the Flag or any of those old fashioned tools for tyrants, but rather it will be "for our own good", "for the Planet", "for the whales", "for the children", "for the disabled" or "for equality".

But if they get their way it will be quite, quite totalitarian.

What are you saying?

"Perhaps in the future when the UN actually becomes a representative of the worlds' concerns then we can follow an standard Declaration of Human Rights."

UN has proven its uselessness over and over throughout the years. What are Iranians inside Iran supposed to do in the meantime, while waiting for this wish of yours to come true?

Are you saying they should put up with mullahs' nonsense and continue to be repressed, imprisoned, tortured, hanged, shot, etc. etc. while you sit outside Iran, come on Iranian website once in a while and philosophize for them?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Abarmard: I don't think that

Abarmard: I don't think that is what he means. Without democracy and human rights "independence" means nothing; it is as hollow as a black hole.

Independence from whom? Independence toward what? Independence for whom?

What does Independence means to Hizballhois like yourself?

Is Iran really independent while being Russia's and de fact proxy against the US interest?

Independence from humanity, Yes. Independence from justice and morality, Yes.

Independennce to plunder the national wealth for pure greed and personal use, Yes, and for independnce the sake of lining their own pockets and offsprings, Yes...

Independence to peacefully repress, brutalize,terrorize, oppress, and kill those who are fed up with their corruption, stealing, squandering the wealth of the nation, keeping Iranians backward and brainwashed?!! Yes...

Diplomacy versus sanctions

hehe...like that we're born yesterday and didn't see the game of playing with the words for the last 8 years. If that's true that diplomacy is about bargaining then the Obama admin must've had a crystal ball that could see the future. Now this explains why he has arranged his admin towards more sanctions against Iran!

Dear whatdoyousee

I assume he is saying that Human Rights issue is an internal affair of any sovereign nation. Although some disagree and some agree. China would not care what Human Rights advocate are saying. In the US they use it only to pose their will on the less powerful countries, and not to actually promote the human rights.

No one is going to follow a International Law of Human Rights because every country has many justifications for their "wrong" doings. Think of the United States when we saw the torture chambers on those who were not allowed a fair trial and legal representatives or and their crimes were not charged or proven.The US public and government saw that as a "national security" move and an internal issue. 

Perhaps in the future when the UN actually becomes a representative of the worlds' concerns then we can follow an standard Declaration of Human Rights. Do you understand now?

human rights and

human rights and democracy
by whatdoyousee (not verified) on Fri Dec 12, 2008 03:44 AM PST

human rights and democracy is against Iran's independance
by Seyyid (not verified) on Thu Dec 11, 2008 01:31 PM PST

For the love of God, can someone elaborate on this insane proposition?

Can someone answer my question? Please!!!

The purpose of this survey

The purpose of this survey was not to determine whether Iran and the US should have a friendly relationship.

This survey was a simple empirical method of gathering data. There was no induction or deduction of the resultant raw data. Stop interjecting politics into everything...

Diplomacy versus sanctions

There is nothing complicated about this!!!

I believe what the new adminsitration means by Diplomacy is direct face-to-face talk, discussion, negotiation, bargaining

Sanctions- means punishment if diplomacy, direct talks, negotiation, bargaining, etc. does not lead to any compromise/solution/"give and take" (in layman's terms) satisfactory to all parties involved (i.e. U.S., Iran, Israel and lastly EU).

Of course, some people on this site seem to prefer diplomacy for the sake of diplomacy or talks for the sake of talks BUT definitely no limitation on how long this diplomacy must go on, and if ther is no result, aor compromise, ther should be absolutely NO punishment becuase according to them, it is Iran's right to have the bomb and do whatever she wants with it.

Firoozabadi (not verified)

Firoozabadi (not verified) on Fri Dec 12, 2008 05:07 AM PST

Most excellent! Let them follow their religion and their Imam Mahdi in the well. I hope Ali geda doesn't change their mind.

What about Canada?

Do similar surveys exist for Iranians living in Canada given its growing Iranian population?

Mehdi,

No problem bro! Chakereem!

Midwesty: My apologies, then

I read your comment agian and realized that I had misunderstood it.

You are absolutely right. I think it is a intentional treacherous trick to redefine the word diplomacy as sanctions or threats. They have effectively removed any friendly option by doing this - very sneeky.

Mehdi,

If you think I meant anything other than what you said then read my comments again and don't jump on the conclusion.  

Let me make myself clear. Sanctions are act of war! The rewording of the word Diplomacy is equated with the word sanctions in Washington now. In better words Washington is redefining the word diplomacy. I believe that you are with me on this.

However from the readers perspective who is not aware of the current trajectory of the US foreign policy and the absence of defining the word diplomacy in this survey cause the reader automatically replace the definition in his/her mind with what Washington like to present, which is sanctions.

This survey had to ask people if they want sanctions or not in order to differentiate the word diplomacy from the newly redefined word of diplomacy by Washington. And you and I agree that most of surveyed people would not prescribe any sanctions against Iran.However the lack of this question in this survey creates a vacuum in the reader’s mind.

Either this survey is being untimely published where at the time it was taken the word Diplomacy with Iran hadn’t been equated with the word sanctions by Washington or it is in very subtle way reaffirming the Washington’s policy towards Iran which is now clearly defined as Diplomacy=Sanctions.

This survey clearly lacks the definition of diplomacy. I want to ask the sponsor of this survey that what they are really prescribing? Someone might say, you blind man! They say diplomacy. Then I said what diplomacy? Washington’s? Or the real old school diplomacy before Washington redefined it as sanctions?

We need to do our homework

I must admit that I haven’t been able to read all the comments made about this survey. However, I have reviewed the original survey thoroughly, and would like to make a few observations:

1.    Because most of the individuals surveyed came to the United States after the revolution, 54% to be exact. One can surmise that the findings of this survey might reflect the opinions and the priorities of that particular segment of the IA population and not the Iranian community at large! But I don’t think so; I believe the survey results accurately depict what typical Iranian thinks.

2.    When it comes to economic, social-status, and performance indicators, the Iranians are well above the average and that is something to cheer, or even brag, about.

3.    Does it sound surprising to you that only 3% of us would like to describe ourselves by using the world religion? What is wrong with religion that we want to dissociate ourselves from it?

4.    51% of us would like to improve our image in America which I believe has been badly tarnished by the biased representation by US media. How can we do that?

5.    Almost half of us wish to become a member of an Iranian organization but currently are not. Don’t we know how to get organized? The survey is clear about the obstacle preventing us - or we think they do - from forming successful organizations both at national or local levels. How can we surmount these barriers?

6.    Most importantly, the responses to the questions about Issues of Importance were surprising to me.  A whopping 54% of respondents believe that domestic issues are of primary concern to them even though they are not unique to IA community. This is reinforced by the fact the Iranians are socially and politically extra active in this country. Such finding tells me that some of us have been beating the hell out of each other on this site debating the issues not important to Iranian community at large such as the issues related to internal affairs of Iran which are the flagship of this site. The fact is that only 7% of Iranians think that such issues are important according to the survey. I believe it is the time that we switch the gear and pay more attention to the issues that really matter to us as Iranian-American; domestic issues such as healthcare, jobs, energy, economic crisis, crime, ect. Issues with significant bearing on our everyday life country. I hope JJ agrees with me.

I believe this survey gives us lots of homework to do.

Midwesty: correction

Please ignore this post - my mistake.

:O)

The survey carries numbers that contradict the motive of the surveyed people.  The sets of questions and their orders in which they are being presented, starting from economical well-being of Iranians and other true facts about our community lead the reader to believe that the rest of the survey is also true.

However the majority of questions are about diplomacy with Iran.  How on earth if 90% of us are not concerned about Iranian internal affairs but 75% of us managed to be worried about Iranian Human rights affair? Isn’t it, human rights issue the Iranian internal affair?   

Bottom line this is the core message, “Finally, the survey indicates that almost three-quarters of Iranian Americans believe the promotion of human rights and democracy in Iran is the most important issue relating to U.S.-Iran relations. About the same percentage, however, believe diplomacy is the foreign policy approach towards Iran that would be in the best interest of the United States”.

And what is diplomacy everybody in Washington talking about? SANCTIONS!

Hamatoon vel moataleen

ایلنا: رئيس ستادکل نيروهاي مسلح،‌ گفت: آفتي که امروز و در اين مقطع زماني انقلاب را تهديد مي‌‏کند اين است که آمريکايي‌‏ها پيام مي‌‏دهند و کساني اينجا مي‌‏گويند ما پيام آمريکايي‌‏ها را بررسي مي‌‏کنيم.

حسن‌‏فيروز‌‏آبادي درجمع مسوولان ستادکل نيروهاي مسلح، اظهار داشت: غير از افرادي که از انقلاب هستند و با طرح عملياتي مشخص دارند با دشمن برخورد مي‌‏کنند يک کساني هم هستند که بالاخره پاي اين پيام بردن و آوردن دايره مي‌‏زنند و خوشحال هستند که بگويند خيلي خوب، ولي‌‏فقيه باشد، جمهوري اسلامي باشد داخل دولت و مجلس اينها نفوذي‌‏هاي آمريکا هم باشند. همه بحث دوم خرداد همين بود و همه بحثي که امروز دارند دامن مي‌‏زنند همين است؛ «قل يا ايها الکافرون لا اعبدماتعبدون» آمريکا برو ما به تو نمي‌‏چسبيم. تو هم به ما نمي‌‏چسبي.

وي افزود: اين وصله ناجور است ما انقلاب‌‏اسلامي خودمان را داريم ما از برکت نفس هاي نائب امام زمان (عج) حضرت امام خميني (ره) که انقلاب اسلامي و اسلام ناب و ولايت فقيه را براي ما آورده است يک ذره معامله نمي‌‏کنيم. اينکه امام فرمود؛ پشتيبان ولايت‌‏فقيه باشيد تا به مملکت شما آسيبي نرسد، اين جمله بزرگي است.

فيروزآبادي درخصوص آنچه امروز انقلاب اسلامي را تهديد مي‌‏کند، گفت: ‌‏شکر خداي متعال براي انقلاب اسلامي، براي اسلام‌‏ناب، براي ولايت‌‏فقيه ،‌‏اين است که به دشمن بگوئيم «لکم دينکم ولي دين» شما برويد دنبال دين خودتان ما هم به دنبال اسلام ناب و ولايت‌‏فقيه و امام زمان خودمان هستيم چيزي را معامله نمي‌‏کنيم، تقسيم‌‏منافع نمي‌‏کنيم وتقسيم مقاطع زماني هم نمي‌‏کنيم.

رئيس ستادکل نيروهاي مسلح، اظهارداشت: امروز اين خطي که مي‌‏گويد بياييم، بسازيم يعني خط‌‏سازش يعني خط اجازه نفوذ آمريکا و استکبار و انگليس به داخل دولت و مجلس.

فیروزآبادی اظهارداشت: بنا براين اينکه ما به آمريکا و استکبارجهاني نه بگوئيم به حکم قرآني «لااعبد ما تعبدون» اين در داخل کشور هم مصداق دارد در سياست روز هم مصداق دارد، بايد آن کسي که به امام مي‌‏گويد بله، ما به او بله بگوئيم، آن کسي که به رهبري بگويد بله، ما به او بله مي‌‏گوئيم.آن کسي که به دنبال سازش با غرب و آمريکا است به او نه بگوئيم. «لااعبدما تعبدون» ما به سازش‌‏هاي شما به طرح‌‏هاي سازش شما ايمان نداريم، خوشبختانه امروز ملت و روحانيت عزيز و نخبگان مومن ايران همه متحد به دنبال سخن و اشاره رهبري هستند و موفقيت‌‏هاي انقلاب همين است.

وی به‌‏ تشريح مفهوم واقعي اصلاح طلبي پرداخت و افزود: اصلاح طلبي دست ولايت فقيه است. اصلاً فقيه يعني اصلاح طلب، اصلاح‌‏طلبي پيروي از ولايت‌‏فقيه است، اصلاح طلبي نگاه به زبان مراجع است، اصلاح طلبي نگاه به انگشت اشاره ولايت فقيه است که راه‌‏هاي نو را نشان مي‌‏دهد، چشم انداز بيست ساله را مشخص مي‌‏کند، در مورد علم، چشم انداز پنجاه ساله را مشخص مي‌‏کنند، مي‌‏گذارد جلوي ما،‌ آيا سياست‌‏هاي کلي که رهبري به طورمرتب ابلاغ مي‌‏فرمايند اينها اصلاح طلبي نيست؟

human rights and democracy

human rights and democracy is against Iran's independance
by Seyyid (not verified) on Thu Dec 11, 2008 01:31 PM PST

For the love of God, can someone elaborate on this insane proposition?

Think d is right.

Mehdi

I don't think that d could have been any more clear than this.
If yor recall, In early Fall, there were rumors that the Bush administration is intereted in Studying the possibilities of establishing an interest section in iran, For the specific reason of Easing a variety of consular services, with issuing visas being at the core of the plan. Not a word was mentioned about the topic of re-establishing relations or even this being a first or major, or any kind of step for that matter.

This is reality

These polls are scientifically accurate. I have no reason to doubt any of the responses. I can't believe some of the reasons people are using to reject it.

401 people? Most CNN polls that are extremely accurate indicators of 300 Million US citizens are of only 1000 Americans. 400 is plenty to gain an insight.

What's next? The survey is invalid because Zogby brothers run the Arab-American institute? Let's not find excuses just because you don't agree with the opinions of others.

Mehdi is right. The question of "diplomatic relations: yes or no" was not posed in the poll. Maybe it should have. But outside of that, asking to establish an interest section even if for Travel purposes means more cooperation and interaction between US and Iranian governments by definition. There is no other way to think about it.

The thing to keep in mind is that for good or for bad, Iranian-American, income, religion, and therefore attitudes and priorities are not reflective of Iranians in Iran. Questions of democracy, sanctions and "regime change" are quite irrelevant when put to Iranian-Americans. But the civic participation and immigration are very relevant.

Sampled population was too small

You can't rely on a statistical sample of only 401 people among a fairly large population such as the Iranians in USA. Sure they had a list of 30,000 people at their disposal but the fact that they only contacted 401 persons makes the conclusions and graphs and charts not as reliable as they indicate. I had to dig deep into the article to find the sampled population.

So then I searched the web for any other census on Iranians and found this article, which seems to be as reliable in many ways with different twist!

//iranian.com/Ashtiani/2003/October/Doogh...

I didn't gain an insight

Perhaps some specific and direct questions would clear up the confusion as what is the purpose of the survey!? The US Interest section? What where the set of questions? that's it?

From all the questions in the world, who decided that these ambiguous questions were to be preform? waste of time and money, since it only goes so far. I would have given those answers without a survey. Waste. 

Let's read it this way:

90% don't give a damn about Iranian internal affair, 75% don't give a damn about US-Iran relation but on the other hand 84% wants a US interest section in Tehran and 75% wants human rights promotion in Iran? Am I missing something? or this crooked statistics is smooting the way for more "Diplomay with Iran". Diplomacy in form of sanctions of course. Why didn't you just simply ask the participants if they support the sanctions against Iran?

d: after all that how about answering the question?

Could you answer my question? Are you denying that opening such an "interest section" is effectively a major step towards re-establishment of relations? Keep in mind that taking a major step is not the same as completing the task. In other words are you saying that opening an interest section has absolutely no effect on relations?

I am not sure what the rest of your comment is trying to say. The survey is clearly done on Iranian-Americans. So what's your point? Are you saying they don't matter because they have effectively given up on Iran? Are you serious? Who do you think defeated the Israel sponsored bill to for the US to set up a blockade in Persian Gulf? Of course they matter. And they matter greatly. And unlike what you seem to try to imply, I see that by far most of them want an improved Iran-US relationship. The animosity between US and Iran was mainly created by Communists and their watered down version MKO. This is a terrible heritage we get from our "revolutionaries" who destroyed Iran by taking up arms against Shah, and murdering Americans in Iran and later taking American diplomats hostage and generally leading people into the abyss. Mullahs and the so-called Islamists only resist the invasion of "western culture." Other than that they have no real animosity towards US. They kind of got pushed into the so-called hostage crisis - they never really wanted it.

نظر ِ شخص ِ بنده

Here are some additional findings from the report:

درصد ايرانيانى كه نون ندارن بخورن ولى بنز سوارند - بيست درصد
درصد ايرانيانى كه خواننده رپ شدند - چه عرض كنم
درصد ايرانيانى كه از بيكارى بلاگر شدند - خدا عالمه
درصد ايرانيانى كه ميگن از اينترنت ميليونر شدند - خيلى زياد
درصد ايرانيانى كه همش افه و چوصى ميان – فراوان
درصد ايرانيانى كه شب و روز فقط يوتوب نگاه ميكنند - خدا ميدونه

Thanks Rudi Bakhtiar. I

Thanks Rudi Bakhtiar. I miss your reporting from your CNN days . Hopefully one day you'll be back at it. You were the best and prettiest at CNN.

Mehdi, Diplomatic Relations 101

An interests section facilitates relations between people of two countries that do NOT have diplomatic relations, typically dealing with legal issues such as birth and death registrations, and cultural and educational affairs.

The United States has had an interest section in Havana Cuba since 1977. Iran has had an interest section in the US for over 25 years. So, obviously having an interest section does not translate to and a quick follow up to diplomatic relations.

Also, if you want to draw inferences, you can see one 1/4 of Iranian Americans cite foreign policy issues involving U.S.-Iran relations and less than 1/10 ten cite the internal affairs of Iran as being of greatest importance to them. Note that about 15% of the ones surveyed only hold a Green Card and I would not be suprised if the great majority of the 1/4 and 1/10 ratio are the new comers. By contrast
3/4 want to ensure that the image of Iranian Americans in the U.S. accurately reflects their values and accomplishments. Also, most think of themselves as well assimilated and not hanging out with other Iranians and necessarily speaking only Farsi at home. So, it seems like although they are ethnically Iranian, they are only so by name and want to have a good image as an American-Iranian in the US. They don't care much about the "diplomatic ties". They only want to travel freely, visit their families and want to maintain ties with the people (not the govt).

To me this survey clearly shows the transition. We first thought of ourselves as Iranian, then Iranian-American and now American-Iranian. Our children will think of themselves as American. The interest section would suffice for us and them because the only level of interest is to keep in touch with the Iranian culture. However, that may not even be necessary if the IRI continues to emphasize religious traditions as opposed to the Iranian traditions. Once that happens, might as well go to Saudi for Haaj ! BTW, do you know what that is?