IRAN-U.S.
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
What is to be done?
14-Apr-2009
To the President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
Pundits, experts and counselors have all expressed opinions on how to deal with Iran. Unfortunately, they all emphasize tactics—mostly myopic in their scopes—and forget principles. The only principled decision is one dictated by the law: by the still valid 1955 Treaty of Amity between the USA and Iran. I do not have to remind a former professor of constitutional law that this bilateral and self-executing treaty, which was approved by a 2/3 majority of the U.S Senate and ratified by the President of the United States in 1957, is qualified as the Supreme Law of the Land, as per articles II and IV of the U.S Constitution. And yet it has been trumped, for more than 22 years, by a presidential decree relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which by definition, must deal with an emergency, and therefore, temporary situation. We are, after all, in the United States of America and not in the Land of Humpty Dumpty where words acquired meanings by the moment, and to the liking of Humpty Dumpty. An “emergency” situation cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, last for so long. If the premises for the treaty were no longer valid, it should have been terminated. Since it was not, it still is the Supreme Law of the Land.
In Prague, you loftily declared: “Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.” That is precisely why all trade sanctions against Iran must be lifted; because the very essence of said treaty is its emphasis on a privileged free-trade agreement between the two countries (art. II.1), and on the prohibition of any “discriminatory” measure (art. IV.1). You have of course the possibility to immediately notify Iran of your intent to terminate the treaty, and to re-impose sanctions, if you so desire, after the 12 months notification period stipulated in article XXIII.3 of the treaty. Whether Iran will be able to acquire one atomic bomb or one hundred, and no matter how much the virulent Israel lobby will chastise such a decision, the Supreme Law of the Land must be treated as Supreme.
I have spent time, effort, and money (see attached), trying to give the Treaty of Amity its due respect; to no avail. Fearful and 9/11-struck federal judges seem to be more concerned nowadays with abortion matters than the Supreme Law of the Land. But the question is: Will you Mr. President—you, who have taken an oath to uphold the constitution, and pledged to value principles above expedient policies—honor the Supreme of the Land? Will you put an end to the 22-years “emergency” masquerade and lift the sanctions against Iran, at least for the next 12 months? Should you have the courage and fortitude to do so, I believe there shall be benefits for all:
Domestically – You would set the example for the country as a whole, and the judiciary in particular, that the law is the law and must be respected above all other considerations. The country needs it.
Internationally – The lure of justice, and the ideals that the United States once stood for, brought down the Iron Curtain. People around the world still strive to find the US beacon of hope that beamed from afar. By the stroke of a pen you can reestablish that beacon, and restore the lost prestige of the United Sates, as a country where the law reigns supreme and one which honors international treaties (think of your upcoming SALT negotiations with Russia). It will also be perceived around the globe as a sign of US self-assurance and strength. The world needs it.
For the people of Iran – Up to now, the real effect of the sanctions has been the strengthening of the hand of the Iranian government against its own people. The people have suffered while the ruling oligarchy has thrived. Once the threat of sanctions and foreign intervention is lifted, the government would be obliged to address the aspirations of its people, especially the youth that accounts for 60% of the population. The foreign scarecrow is no longer there to shield the government from the backlash of its coercive policies. Let the Iranian people settle their problems with their own government free of foreign interference.
For the UN – As any cab driver, from New York to Djakarta, will tell you, Iran has not broken NPT rules, and even if it had, it pales before the illegal situation of US protégés, namely Israel and Pakistan, who have developed bombs—hundreds of them—in defiance of NPT and the international community. When imposing sanctions on Iran, the UN had no leg to stand on, and has lost much credibility as a result. The worst victim of the UN sanctions is the UN itself. Relieve it of this ignominy.
But what about the Nuclear Threat?
Let us suppose, with Adm. Mullen, a worst case scenario through which Iran will produce, by 2015, enough fissile material for 5 atomic bombs, will actually decide to make them, and then sends these bombs over Israel. There is a good chance that one or two of them will misfire, one or two will probably be intercepted, and one or two may actually pass through. If the missiles are accurate, they will hit one or two targets; but the chances are that they will miss their targets, because of low accuracy. All of this to achieve what? To risk a massive retaliation, from Israel and the US, that may annihilate the whole country? One thing is for sure: the leaders of Iran do not operate in a suicidal mode. The Iranian oligarchy has amassed such a fortune in the past 30 years that its only worry is how to survive and savor the fruit of its illicitly obtained riches.
The more worrisome aspect of Adm. Mullen’s assessment of the situation, however, is his lack of understanding for Iran’s military strategy. In a region flanked by fanatical nuclear states, namely Israel and Pakistan, rather than seeking nuclear parity, Iran has astutely opted for a low-tech high-number strategy: it has accumulated thousands of missiles equipped with conventional war heads, as well as deceptive devices. No anti-missile system can effectively stop a massive attack of these. By nature, the capacity to launch a massive missile attack with conventional warheads has the same tactical value attributed to a nuclear force: it is a force of dissuasion, which is there to threaten but never to be used, because it is apocalyptic. Whether Iran decides to add nuclear warheads to its arsenal or not, it already has a dissuasion force that its neighbors must reckon with. Why should it go nuclear? And if it does, what strategic difference does it make?
Thus, the nuclear rhetoric puts an unwarranted straight jacket on US foreign policies, and limits all possible maneuvers in areas where both Iran and the US may have common interests. Israeli paranoia about the Iranian “nuclear threat” must not become a motto for US policy, unless of course one wants to use it as a pretext to attack the Iranian missile system as a whole. And that, I believe, is not a viable option; because a dispersed missile system is not easily wiped out (as shown in Israel’s recent attack on Lebanon). It would be wise to abandon this unnecessary rhetoric.
Assessment period
Once the sanctions are out of the way, a prudent approach may be taken in view of what to do after 12 months. The best approach is one already initiated by Secretary Clinton: a case by case exchange of views, and coordinated efforts, in regional matters of concern to a multitude of nations, as for instance in the Afghan case. Common interests there will certainly provide ample opportunities for common actions.*
A good test for judging Iran’s real stance on the nuclear issue is to accept its offer for foreign participation in its nuclear program. As you may recall, the French company Framatome was initially a full partner to the Iranian project, and got a billion-dollar loan for future cooperation, but pulled out after the Islamic Revolution. The US can become a partner in its stead. Its participation brings capital and expertise to the table; on the other hand, direct involvement in the project provides added monitoring capability, and thus assurance, as to the true objectives of Iran. An expanding worldwide demand for nuclear reactor fuel is a good incentive for both parties to engage in such a cooperative effort.
Ending recriminations
There are many impediments to a quick normalization of the relationship between the two countries as there is much recrimination in the air, as well as legal problems to solve. Apologies won’t suffice. Potential anger will linger on, unless finality is reached. When people have differences they go to court to settle. So do nations, except for the fact the International Court of The Hague is so slow that it may take decades before decisions are reached. As odd as it may seem, the following is a mechanism that may pave the way for cooperation, while ushering past problems into a side channel, with finality in sight:
a. Both parties accept to settle their differences by the verdict of a jury in a US court.
b. Sovereign immunity will be lifted for both countries and their citizens, but damages and punishments shall only be monetary and will not otherwise penalize any of their citizens. The actual money to be paid shall be the net sum of penalties inflicted to both parties, say X.
c. The process can only start when the US returns all the monies owed to Iran, minus an amount Y to be agreed upon, which shall constitute a cap for all penalties accorded to either nation (or its citizens). X shall thus be capped by Y. The US will put Iran’s Y in escrow, and will match the same amount from its own treasury, to cover the possibility that it may be the one penalized, rather than Iran.
d. The fairness of a verdict hinges on the universality of the laws on which it rests. Therefore, only laws and precedents that are equally applicable to Iran and the US shall be considered in this case. For instance, either the Flatow amendment, and all decisions based on it, are rescinded, or Iran and Iranians can sue the US on similar grounds. To wit, Iran may sue the US and the CIA for fomenting the 1953 coup, and seek damages commensurate with the CIA budget; because an emotional federal judge, based on hearsay evidence, speculated that even though the unfortunate death of young Alisa Michelle Flatow was caused by an explosion in Gaza, the financing of the operation “must have” come from Iran’s Ministry of Information, whose budget was then taken as a basis for establishing a punitive damage of $225 million. Same norms should obviously apply to claims against the US and the CIA.
Why should Iran accept such a proposal? Because, the verdict will be that of jurors, i.e., ordinary American people with whom the Iranian government has no quarrel, and jurors can usually transcend their chauvinistic bias; because, Iran will have a wonderful opportunity to lay out its grievances in detail before an attentive jury, and through them to the American people; because, the maximum damage will be the amount Y, but the process also provides a potential gain of Y; and because, it shall bring a finality to all pending lawsuits and claims. I truly believe that Iran may come out ahead in such a process.
Then, why should the US accept such a procedure? Because, there is much to be learned from past mistakes, and such a process can educate the government, as well as the people, to not repeat the same mistakes. And sooner or later the US must return monies confiscated from Iran. Pierre Mauroy, the former odd-minded socialist prime minister of France, adamantly refused to pay back the loan that Iran had extended to Framatome, until French jurists put the pressure on him, and pointed out that such a confiscation undermines French legal ethics. Same is true for the US; it cannot continue to unjustifiably hold Iranian monies, lest it wants to be perceived as a bully, and disrespectful of international law.
Alternatively, the mere specter of such a trial may push the two parties to settle their differences “out of court,” on an equitable and speedy basis.
Following the China policy
Not long ago, China was perceived as a pariah state. Today it is a colossal economic power and very much engaged in international endeavors. The same approach that brought China out of its isolation may help Iran’s further integration into the globalized economy. Because Iran today, has many of the characteristics that China had:
* An educated young population with an entrepreneurial tradition.
* A sizeable domestic consumer market.
* And more importantly, a large diaspora population ready to create bridges with the local Iranian economy, and to help it to align itself and get integrated into a globalized economy.
A future based on geographical prominence and pragmatism
For years, US policy has insisted on circumventing Iran for Central-Asian gas and crude oil. It has pushed for routes through difficult terrain and inherently unstable areas, at one point even entertaining the idea of having a pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan! This has not only added cost for consumers but limited routing diversity, thus increasing disruption possibilities. In comparison to most of its neighbors, Iran has been, is, and will be, a more stable country, offering shorter and easier routes to international seas. Moreover, historically, the Central Asian commerce was linked to Iran. Sanctions on Iran ultimately limit the economic potentials of Iran’s neighbors. It is a matter of geography and historical patterns of trade. US long term policies must recognize the centrality of Iran within Middle and Central Asia.
Furthermore, in an area where religious fanaticism is raising havoc, the US is well advised to worry about its future relationship with countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Israel, where fanaticism is on the rise, rather than Iran, where it is receding. Iran has had an overdose of religious fanaticism, and is moving out of it, towards a constructive pragmatism, pushed by its youth, which is notoriously irreligious. The opposite is true for the above mentioned countries, all perceived today as steadfast allies of the US. I have said it before, and I will say it again: only a fool believes that allies of today will remain so forever. Let us hope that the US will put its myopic policies aside, and will adopt long-term views, based on universal principles, as well as geo-political realities.
Respectfully submitted,
Abolala Soudavar
abolala@soudavar.com
www.soudavar.com
CC: The US Secretary of State
Iran’s Ambassador to the UN
| Recently by Abolala Soudavar | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Israel’s Escalating Rhetoric | 3 | Mar 08, 2012 |
| Thou shalt not steal | 8 | Sep 15, 2010 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
soudvar: You're sadly
by sue_happy (not verified) on Fri Apr 17, 2009 06:43 PM PDTsoudvar: You're sadly mistaken about the origin of Hizballah in Lebanon. Google is your friend.
To Landanneshin and Mr.Abolala Soudavar
by Meehan (not verified) on Fri Apr 17, 2009 04:40 PM PDT1)Dear Landanneshin,
Landanneshin says: "One should wonder what is it that makes many Americo Iranians so petrified when someone, be it the new American president or whoever, mentions improving relations with Iran"
I wonder if Afghani Americans wished America to have relations with the Taliban or Al Qaeda. btw, What is the diffrence between the islamic Republic entity and Hezbollah of Iran and Alqaeda and the Taliban? Alqaeda and Taliban had no oil in Afghanistan , but Mullahs of Iran are stealing the oil money and spend it on international Islamic terrorism?
2)Abolala Soudavar says "Hezbollah only took arms to rid Lebanon of Israeli occupation
How about hezbollah raping teenage virgin girl political prisoners in Evin Prison in Iran before their execution ? How about stonings ,beheadings and executions done bu Hezbollah in Iran? Is that not considered terrorism?
What is to be Done
by Abolala Soudavar (not verified) on Fri Apr 17, 2009 08:23 AM PDTDear Sir:
at issue is the applicability of the Treaty in the US and how the US and Iranian govt view the treaty.
FYI
the International Court of Justice in The Hague, in a preliminary judgment rendered on Dec. 12, 1996, observed : The Court points out, to begin with, that the Parties do not contest that the Treaty of 1955 was in force at the date of the filing of the Application of Iran and is moreover still in force. ICJ- Dec. 12, 1996, General list 90, Case concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic republic of Iran v. United States of America)
US Federal courts have regularly issued judgments against Iran based on the validity of the Treaty. Below are a few examples,
Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 905 F2d 438, 451 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
Berkovitz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 735 F.2d 329, 333 (9th Cir.1984)
but for a more comprehensive survey I suggest you read my Supreme Court briefs in cases against both Iran and the US posted on website
You only see one side of the story and partially too.
by Farah Rusta on Fri Apr 17, 2009 07:42 AM PDTMr Soudavar,
If you are writing to ingratiate yourself to the Iranian authorities (Nayeri et. al.) to persuade them to view your case in a more favorable light, you must try harder but if you need to show off your legal knowledge you must try even harder.
You are so obsessed with the law of the land that have forgotten the superior principle of Justice and Law are not one and the same. The Amity treaty, even if it were observed by both sides, is pointless as far as the Iranian regime is concerned and this alone nullifies its crediblity. Interestingly your subject of ciriticism is singularly the American administration and not the Iranian regime. For instance, you coyly refuse to mention that Iran has violated the NPT by secretly developing nuclear technology for 18 years but expect the US to honor their side of the agreement!!
By the way, I cannot remember to have written anything to suggest my hate for my former countrymen as you put it. If, however, you insist that my attacks on the Islamic regime should be eqauted with attacking the people who have suffered under its tyrrany for thirty years, it speaks volumes of your understanding of democracy and dictatorship.
FR
Religious fanaticism is "receding" in Iran? Really?
by BK (not verified) on Fri Apr 17, 2009 06:43 AM PDTMr. Soudavar, your article does make some valid point - e.g. the economic sanctions impacting mainly the ordinary people etc, but it also contains a number of fallacies as well as highly dubious claims such as the following:
"...Furthermore, in an area where religious fanaticism is raising havoc, the US is well advised to worry about its future relationship with countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Israel, where fanaticism is on the rise, rather than Iran, where it is receding. Iran has had an overdose of religious fanaticism, and is moving out of it, towards a constructive pragmatism, pushed by its youth, which is notoriously irreligious...."
Are seriously suggesting that religious fanaticism in Iran under the Presidency of Mr. "I lay awake at nights waiting for the Mahdi's return" Ahmadijnejad is receding compared to say, Mr. Khatami's reign (which itself was no secular paradise - despite the claims of his supporters to the contrary)?
A considerable proportion of the Iranian youth might be "unreligious", but that type of youth has no say in how the country is run. Rather it is the brainwashed Bassiji kind of youth that are given a free reign to cause havoc and mayhem as the vicious instruments of the fanatical religious repression that you are preposterously claiming to be receding in the country.
Mr. Soudavar, I'm curious
by Ostaad on Thu Apr 16, 2009 08:43 PM PDTI admit I am not a lawyer, but I believe I know my history quite well. Considering all that has taken place between Iran and the US, the 1955 Treaty of Amity between the USA and Iran seems like ancient history. I don't see anything in the 1955 Treaty that is enforceable or applicable today. Therefore, I would appreciate your help to get my arms around the 1955 Treaty and its application to the situation between Iran and the US at the present time.
The agreement between the US and Iran that I think is more pertinent today is:
DECLARATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
DEMOCRATIC AND POPULAR REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA
(General Declaration), 19 January 1981
You'll find the details of this agreement in the following document:
//www.iusct.org/general-declaration.pdf
There are many important documents pertaining to the on-going issues between the US and Iran on this site:
//www.iusct.org/index-english.html
I am eagerly looking forward to your response.
What is to be Done
by Abolala Soudavar (not verified) on Thu Apr 16, 2009 08:30 PM PDTResponse to Ms. Farah Rusta:
You are absolutely right; Iran breached the Treaty by letting the hostage taking at the American Embassy to go on. That it precisely why President Carter—temporarily—suspended the Treaty, but reinstated it as per the Algiers accord, and after the return of the hostages. In 1987, President Reagan imposed new sanctions in reaction to the Iran-Contra scandal, not because Iran had taken action against the US, but because the missiles that the US had shipped via Israel to Iran were funded through operations banned by Congress, and it blew into his face.
It is indeed baffling why the Treaty was not, and is still not, terminated because both sides had the right to do it at any time, provided a 12-month notice. The US, I believe, needed the Treaty to extract compensations for its companies from Iran, at the International Court of The Hague, and kept it despite the “violation” by Iran. If you have the patience to read the court proceedings on my website, you will find that The Hague and numerous Federal Courts have upheld the validity of the Treaty of Amity. The decision to terminate it is not yours.
No matter how you view it, the fact is that the Treaty has not been terminated and remains the law of the land, and must be honored because the US is a society founded on a Constitution and laws. You cannot simply apply the law when it pleases you. As a resident of this country you must cherish the sanctity of the law, unless of course you prefer to live in a banana republic where the law has different meanings every day.
As to your point that Israel and Pakistan are not signatories to the NPT and, you are right. They can do as they please. The US, however, is a signatory to the NPT and cannot do as it pleases. By the NPT, it has the duty to use all means to make rogue countries abandon their nuclear arsenal. Whatever may be the sins of Iran under the NPT, the US had to put sanctions on Pakistan and Israel first, and not to engage into nuclear cooperation with India (who refused to sign the NPT as well).
Finally, there are several billions of dollars in judgment against Iran, based on the Flatow amendment, a law designed to abolish sovereign immunity for states sponsoring terrorism. What I proposed was to have the same principle applied both ways: to the US as well as Iran. If a law is just, it must be applied in fairness to all parties concerned. It is a universal principle of law. I also proposed the arbiter of right and wrong to be neither you nor me, but a US jury. Is your hate toward your former countrymen making you even doubt the jury-system of the US?
Excellent
by saba3 (not verified) on Thu Apr 16, 2009 06:20 PM PDTThank you Mr. Soudavar for both the article and your response. I happen to agree with you, but apart from that, it is so gratifying to be reminded that such informed, intelligent and articulate Iranians exist. One comes across so much drivel from left and right that an occasional breath of fresh air is absolutely necessary for survival. Thank you for providing that!
non-sensical
by spock (not verified) on Thu Apr 16, 2009 05:56 PM PDTI think the IR should be charged with usurping the power from the hands of people by committing unspeakable violence and murder in 1979.
This regime is illegitimate and should be exposed on how it rose to power...All Iranians should be compensated and assets of all the mullah millionaires should go toward building infrastructures and hiring top notch economists to diversify Iran's economy and financial sector and building refineries and investing in new alternative fuels instead of stupidly outdated nuclear technology, period.
Shameful quislings will also be tried accordingly. You know who you are no matter how much your heart bleeds for Palestinian and Lebanese.
What is to be Done
by Abolala Soudavar (not verified) on Thu Apr 16, 2009 03:08 PM PDTResponse to (Mr./Ms.?) Meehan:
Some of us may have our heads in dirt, as you say. I worry, though, about the amount of dirt that the sound-bite-driven media has poured into others’ heads. You blame Iran’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah for preventing Palestinians to sit at the negotiation table. Let me remind you of two things: it was Israel who first helped, financed, and promoted Hamas as a counterweight to Fatah. Hamas won an election, initially supported by the US and Israel who thought otherwise. To them an election result was only valid if the outcome was in conformity to their expectations. Now, if the elected officials of the Palestinians are not recognized who should sit at the negotiation table? The Mossad, the Mossad, and the Mossad?
Also, Hezbollah only took arms to rid Lebanon of Israeli occupation (which still goes on in the Shaba’ Farms valley). In my book, attacking an invader army is not terrorism; terrorism is the killing of innocent men and women.
Based on that, I know of no greater perpetrator of international terrorism than your beloved Israel. Not only for its savage wars on Lebanon and Gaza, but for its systematic assassination of opponents as well as innocents, outside its lawful borders. If you live in the US but approve Israeli methods, you should then go and vote for your local police: to assassinate people on mere suspicion, to demolish a whole neighborhood for the sin committed by one of its residents, and to organize daily evictions of people from their homes. This is the way of the SA brown shirts of Hitler.
As for sponsoring international terrorism, I know of no greater sponsor than Saudi Arabia, which supports the Taliban and Al-Qaeda with billions of dollars, through the agency of Pakistan and with the tacit approval of the US government, even today.
To : Fara Rusta
by Bavafa on Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:52 AM PDTJust a couple of observation if you are interested to be taken seriously:
1- "being sued for their part in the so-called coup of 1953" might be only in your mind that is that is still "so-called coup" any impartial person that has the slightest interest in finding out, can easily learn about it and the State dept. has already owned up to it.
2- "the arrest, torture and detainment of its diplomats and employees" - what is your source for alleging that there was any torture?
3- " Islamic regime is a signatory and has operated in total secrecy in violation of NPT for 18 years" The IAEA has full access to the facility and every thing is under their observation.
But lets assume that all of these are correct. All is suggested, is to bring their case, including Iran, to the court and lets the jury to decide.
Respectfully
Mehrdad
It's called pragmatism!
by Landanneshin (not verified) on Thu Apr 16, 2009 05:06 AM PDTOne should wonder what is it that makes many Americo Iranians so petrified when someone, be it the new American president or whoever, mentions improving relations with Iran!
Are they those who,during the infamous Bush era, had started packing their suitcases in anticipation of a certain "regim change" and while waiting, "cracked hazelnuts with their tails" in joy?
It beggars belief that there are still some "khosh khials" around who really believed, and I fear still believe, baffons such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld,John Bolton, and to crown them all, George Bush!(where are they now?)
It is high time for them to wake up, wise up and realise that their adopted country, like any other, has no friends, nor would it shed a tear for "pain and hardships" of other peoples; their policy is guided by two factors only: preserving self interest and pragmatism.
If they, by hook or crook,can't get concessions from the adversaries,they come to "terms" with them. eg. If communism is, and has been anathema to the American poltical mind,then how come the poor tiny island of Cuba has been under 50 years of sanctions,threats and even an invasion, but the People's Republic of China has become a darling of Washington's? that's because she holds the US economy to ransom dear ones!
If, even the puppet masters of George W Bush knew that, how come some "zebel" Irano Americans still don't get it? If that's unbearingly painful, don't unpack your suitcases yet, start looking for a new Iran bashing home; there is only one left!
Porous principles of Mr Soudavar
by Farah Rusta on Thu Apr 16, 2009 02:16 AM PDTAt the rate the Iranians and particularly those residing in the US are writing letters of advice to the US President, I wouldn't be surprized if Obama administration would soon appoint a Secretary of State for Iranian Letters! The latest of such letters is the one presented here.
I have noted that Mr Soudavar has never been taken seriously by the people he has addressed which range from the American judges in the US courts to the chief prosecutor of the Islamic Republic. Chances are that President Obama would ignore the advice of his latest self-appointed Iranian advisor - and for good reasons too.
In the style of Ronald Reagan's referring to Walter Mondale in the Reagan-Mondale's well known televized debate, I am not going to exploit for political reasons Mr Soudavar's alleged huge business interests in US and formerly in Iran nor am I going to suggest that his keenness in the restoration of the US-Iran relations has anything to do with reclaiming the lost fortunes of his family buiness as detailed on his website. No, I am going to treat Mr Soudavar as a simple Iranian resident of the USA who is interested in normalization of his country's relations with the land of infidels in which he has resided for nearly three decades.
In reminding the President of the Amity treaty of 1955, Mr Soudavar ignores the bilateral nature of such treaty (though he makes a reference to it) and the fact that this treaty was outrageously breached by the Islamic regimes support and tacitly, if not explicitly, authorizing the illegal occupation of the American embassy in Tehran in 1979 and the arrest, torture and detainment of its diplomats and employees. This internationally respected symbol of Amity between two nations was violently assualted by the Islamic regime and to this day there has not been a single word of regret or apology from a serving authority of the regime in Tehran. Therefore, the principles Mr Soudavar is trying to remind the President of, were violated by the Islamic regime and still remain in violation some thirty years before.
Curiously Mr Soudavar makes not even once a mention of this hugely damaging incident in his letter but has the temerity to remind the President of the possibilty of the American government being sued for their part in the so-called coup of 1953!! One should remind Mr Soudavar the Amity treaty that he is so keen to be upheld was indeed signed between a post-coup government of Iran and the alleged coup-complicit US administration in 1955! Mr Soudavar you are obviosuly used to have the cake and eat it too :) You threaten the US government by the possibility of legal action being taken against them for their part in a so-called coup and at the same time expect them to uphold the Amity treaty signed between the post-coup govenrment of Iran and the coup organizing US adminsitration of Eisenhower?!!
I don't need to discuss the nuclear threat part of your letter as its falsity is self apparent: Pakistan and Israel are not signatories to the NPT treaty and therefore have not breached the treaty they have never signed. But the Islamic regime is a signatory and hasoperated in total secrecy in violation of NPT for 18 years.
Now, are you still in any doubt why you have never been taken seriously? Perhaps you would have a better chance if you write a similar letter to the Supreme Leader in Iran?
FR
Abolala Soudavar
by Meehan (not verified) on Wed Apr 15, 2009 06:16 PM PDTYou are absolutely wrong. Please allow me to summarize what I have said in other blogs so you and others will understand that a terrorist entity such as the Islamic Republic of Iran can not be trusted with nuclear energy or a bomb.
1)Why Keep your head stuck in the dirt?. If you do not think the Islamic Republic of Iran entity is an enemy to the the whole world and you have been "stuck on stupid" since the 1979 revolution. The islamic republic is responsible for the empowerment of all terrorism in the world. Hamas and Hezbollah keep the Palestinians from any real chance at peace and a homeland, all fed with weapons and financing from Iran. Syria is kept as one big terrorist training camp by Iranian command. If Iraq is not allowed to be set free by the Coalition forces, The this terrorist entity of Islamic Republic will control the whole region and Europe will then be the next target. Of course, the EU will raise the white flag immediately.
2)There are no differences between the entity of Islamic Republic ruling Iran including Hezbollah, islamic Jihad or what have you and Al Qaeda, the Taliban. So Ignore the fact that the Taliban murdered school teachers and hung women from goal posts at a UN-built soccer field during a brutal, oppressive rule in which ALL human rights were violated. Forget the fact that the Taliban sheltered Bin Laden while he plotted MANY terrorists acts against the U.S. (including 9/11).Let's ignore the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been an active sponsor of terrorism around the globe since 1979 and has murdered, maimed,tortured,raped mumerous Iranian men,women and even children. Oh, and let's also ignore the fact that 99% of terror victims are pecefull muslims that are killed by fanatical muslims.
3)What happens if the Islamic Republic of Iran being a major Islamist terrorist government and sponsor of Islamic international terrorism plans a major terrorist attack against the world's interests, or accelerates its terrorism support thinking it can deter response from major powers?
Do you support traditional deterrence measures, such as putting nuclear subs off of Iran's coast?
What kinds of assurances would you be willing to give Israel and Europe? Some of the anti-zionists here will loudly proclaim no assurances, but think for a minute what Israel and Europe's response to a nuclear Iran is likely to be in the absence of guarantees beyond what they are today?
The point I'm trying to make here is that the policy problem of an Iran working to acquire nukes is MUCH less complicated than the policy problem of what to do once they have them. This is not like North Korea, as all the nations that North Korea could threaten are already under our security umbrella. It's also not like India/Pakistan, because those nations are just two nations facing off against each other. if Iran gets nukes, it sets off an arms race in the Middle East and requires us to consider who we will and won't protect in that region.
This is a fanatical Islamic Regime in Iran that understands no logic. The same applies to Al Qaeda.
So, is all this worth dealing with, or is military action only against the Iranian terrorist Islamic establishment but not against Iranian people a better alternative if sanctions fail?
4) As someone else mentioned it in another blog ,quote "Do gang members in Los Angeles have a right to have nuclear weapons???
Does the Mexican Drug cartle have the right to nuclear weapons?
The IRI is no different."
Relationship?
by 1 hamvatan (not verified) on Wed Apr 15, 2009 04:19 PM PDTI sincerely hope that United State of America will Not negotiate with Terrorist State of Iran. It will only back fires and bites the hands. The sanctions are only useful tactic to keep Iran Government in check.
US policy has nothing to do with fairness and justice?
by anonymous fish on Wed Apr 15, 2009 02:10 PM PDTas compared to iran's IRI?
all i can say is that i hope all you "experts" on iran's intentions after achieving nukes is right. god help us if (god forbid) you're wrong.
US policy has nothing to do with fairness and justice
by Bavafa on Wed Apr 15, 2009 01:42 PM PDTThis letter/notion is based on the assumption that the US would ever be willing to follow the rule of law and/or a just policy when it does not serve its purpose. We all know that a "just policy" has not been the bases for the US policy makers, nor they would adhere to it any time soon when their interests are at stake. The so unjust and one sided policy of US towards the fascist Israel is an example for that, specially in the last eight years.
So, I do whole heartedly agree and wish such changes will come about both in US and Iran, but will not hold my breath for it.
Mehrdad
I'm all for normalization of
by Really? (not verified) on Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:34 AM PDTI'm all for normalization of relationship between the two countries; however, in no way shape or form, the frozen assets should be given to this charlatan thieves to squander and put in in the pockets of their offspring aghazadeh or the pocket of their mercenaries in south Lebanon. The mullahs have raped the Beit al mal enough. Unfreeze the assets until Iran has a democratic gov't who is accountable and serves its populace. Releasing the funds to these maifa is immoral.
They know that too
by Alborzi (not verified) on Wed Apr 15, 2009 08:37 AM PDTThe idea of Iran attacking Israel is absurd, aside from the fact that Israel itself can retaliate (they have submarines in Persian Gulf), USA will retaliate and at any rate an attack on Israel is a suicide for Iran, but its well known and the only reason to continue the game is the IPAC. US's foreign policy has always been controlled by special groups (like Cubans vs Cuba), so the game will continue, as long as Iran supports groups like Hezbullah, the meaningless excuses will continue.
Do not try to make sense, Obama knows it too, but he has to play or else he will be antisemitic.
You're spot on
by Ostaad on Tue Apr 14, 2009 09:12 PM PDTThis letter may not reach Obama's desk. It should.
Precise and Timely
by Monda on Tue Apr 14, 2009 09:00 PM PDTThank you Mr. Soudavar for posting your letter here.