VIEW
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Dangers Ahead
28-Feb-2009
The election of Barrak Obama to the office of president of the United States has generated tremendous elation and enthusiasm in the U.S. and around the world. The rise of Obama has been accompanied by the rise of hope and anticipation that a new and better world is about to begin. Some Obama enthusiasts have gone further, and argue that Obama’s election has signaled a fundamental change in the U.S., and we are about to see the dawn of a new era in the country. Much to dislike of Obama enthusiasts, I will argue that such hopes and arguments are not only naïve and foolish, but also potentially dangerous. (I do acknowledge that the election of a black man as president of the United States is in itself a monumental accomplishment in itself, but this is beside the point here.)
There are also those who believe that Obama is America’s Gorbachev. This is a wishful assessment. Obama’s mandate is not to “restructure” the system he is presiding over, which was the case with Gorbachev. (Perestroika, Gorbachev’s main motto, literally meant restructuring. He used it to denote “mass initiatives”, “the consistent implementation of the principles of social justice”, and “socialist self-government”, among others.) As I will argue later, Obama is incapable of affecting a fundamental change. Rather, what he is capable of doing, and will actually do, is something more modest, that is to say, something along the line of managing and fixing some of the damage done by the Bush administration at home and abroad.
Under George W. Bush, the credibility and standing of the United States suffered a major blow in the eyes of the people and countries sympathetic to America. Obama is here to restore their faith in the United States. More importantly, Obama is here to tackle, or at least manage, some of the economic problems that three decades of neo-liberal economic policies and unbridled free-market capitalism have delivered to America’s doorsteps. A growing number of people in the country are beginning to lose their confidence in the viability of the system, and something needs to be done about it, and done very quickly.
Moreover, Obama is not a new Franklin D. Roosevelt either. Nor does he find himself in a situation similar to the one encountered by Roosevelt. For one thing, Obama is not facing a country with fifteen percent of its workforce on strike. Furthermore, there are no vivid signs of turmoil and anti-capitalist sentiments or movements brewing in the country, at least not yet. All Obama can, and will, do is to re-introduce or re-implement some weaker forms of some of Roosevelt’s New Deal reforms that neo-liberal restructuring of the economy has undone or undermined in the course of the last three decades. The other point worth mentioning here is that while Roosevelt was a center-left progressive -- or perhaps behaved as one in part because he faced a militant and powerful workers movement in the country -- Obama is a center-right politician who projects himself as a left-leaning progressive.
In some respects, Obama is a carbon copy of Bill Clinton. One indication of the similarity between the two is the composition of the cabinet Obama has put together, and the people he has surrounded himself with. Positions in his administration are filled mostly with conservative Democrats, Republicans, and people from Bill Clinton’s administration. Another sign of the similarity is that just like Clinton, Obama has the political savvy and astute ability to mislead left-leaning and progressive-minded individuals into believing that he espouses their views, and is committed to their values.
The main difference between the two has to do with the circumstances under which they arrive at the White House. When Clinton began his term, the neo-liberal re-organization of the economy which had begun with Ronald Regan, and had continued under the first George Bush, was in need of being consolidated into a comprehensive system of legislations and public/economic policies. Moreover, the project of establishing legal structures needed to advance the interests and aspirations of transnational capitalism (often dubbed as “globalism”) was on the top of the political agenda in Washington. Clinton met both of these challenges. The ratification of NAFTA, dealing the final blow to welfare and other entitlement systems, and the passage and implementation of a whole host of deregulatory and anti-union policies and legislations are the main legacy of the Clinton era.
Another difference between Obama and Clinton is that the former comes to power at the time when some of the disastrous results of the neo-liberal adventures that were formalized into laws under the latter’s administration are beginning to show their ugly and monstrous heads. Obama has the misfortune of facing the monumental task of managing the consequences of Clinton’s “achievements” and Bush’s failures.
Obama is the man! He has come to the rescue! He will fix the problems and make things right again. He is the embodiment of “hope”, and will “change” things in Washington. These exuberant and naïve sentiments about Obama were on the air in the country and abroad around the time of his election -- and have not subsided yet. Obama’s campaign grasped the depth and breadth of citizens’ despondence and dissatisfaction with the American political system very early on during the Democratic primaries, and masterfully crafted the vague message of “hope” and “change” and offered it to the electorate. The message was presented, to quote Noam Chomsky, as “a virtual blank slate on which supporters could write their wishes”. However, as Chomsky is quick to point out, “One could search websites for position papers, but correlation of these to policies is hardly spectacular and, in any event, what enters into voters' choices is what the campaign places front and center, as party managers know well.” (Z Magazine, Feb. 2009).
In conversations with some of my friends in Iran, I find myself bewildered by the extent of their credulity and naiveté about the whole Obama fanfare. Much to my dismay, I find that they are not alone in this. After eight years of suffering at the hand of George Bush’s America, a large majority of the people around the world have psyched themselves into believing that Obama is a qualitatively different president, and that a new era is about to begin in the U.S. under his leadership. It seems to me that a lot of people around the world, especially the younger generation in the developing countries, have become intoxicated -- or to put it bluntly, duped -- by the Obama euphoria. They have bought into his so-called message of “change” which is jazzed up and hyped by the Western media, and fanned by the intellectual and cultural cheerleaders of American corporate interests around the world.
My sense is that the majority of the people in the U.S. do not share the enthusiasm of much of the world. The core enthusiasts of the Obama phenomenon in the U.S. consists mainly of some broad sections of the educated and forward-looking middle-classes in the 20-40 age-group who were horrified by Bush’s presidency and see Obama as a breath of fresh air.
Against this euphoria about Obama, I would argue that the differences between him and Bush, or any other former president, are quantitative rather than qualitative. As was the case with Bush, Obama in his position as the head of the American state will also sit behind the wheels of the American capitalist system, and has to drive it to where it needs to go. Bush was a terrible driver; he caused too many accidents; killed and maimed too many people; damaged the engine; gave a lot of people motion sickness; and angered a great many conscientious people in the U.S. and around the world. Obama, on the other hand, is a smooth operator; and seems to be an excellent driver as well. He will, or at least he will try to, drive the American system to its desired destination in a safe and enjoyable ride.
What has taken place in the U.S. with the election of Obama is not a fundamental or qualitative change of any sort, but merely a cosmetic one. We no longer have the hubris and arrogance of a crass and vulgar emperor who told the world that ‘America makes the rules and the world must go along with them’. What we have now is an educated, intelligent, well-mannered, reasonable-sounding, and well-spoken man. With Obama’s election, all of a sudden, America does not look as ugly as it did just a few months ago.
The point is that this change of face does not alter the structure of the forces, nor does it change the nature of the interests, that make America what it is. The objectives of American capitalism under Obama leadership will remain as they were before him: reaping super profits in the U.S. and around the globe, and dominating the world for strategic interests and supremacy of the global free enterprise system. Obama cannot change these objectives, even if he wanted to.
What he can, and will, do instead is to use his political acumen, intelligence, cool and calm demeanor, and his command of words (in short his “magic”) to make these objectives appear acceptable, “reasonable”, “natural”, and un-threatening -- even “moral” -- to those who do not belong to the tiny class of transnational super-rich elites and their servants. Obama will use his magic to make us believe that the needs and interests of this tiny minority represent those of humanity, something that Bush could not even being to put into words.
Moreover, unlike Bush who was a ruthless and tactless aggressor, Obama will be more like a shrewd general who knows when to act like a wise statesman, and when to wage war. He will resort to intimidation, bullying, and eventually war, only when all else fails. He will speak softly, make tactical retreats now and then, and would be willing to give concessions here and there in order to secure the interests and domination of the global free enterprise system that the U.S. has been leading for a long time.
As far as the Middle East is concerned, especially the Persian Gulf region, America’s strategic objectives will remain what they have been for the last three decades, that is to say, to destroy post-revolutionary Iran, and achieve full supremacy in the region. As Chomsky once argued, Iran’s sin is that it not only refuses to take orders from Washington, but worse, it dares to challenge U.S. hegemonic domination in the Middle-East. This sort of behavior is completely unacceptable and unforgivable in the eyes of the architects of U.S. foreign policy. America must be obeyed, and those who refuse, must either be broken (e.g., the case of Saddam) or be bought (the case of Gaddafi). Iran is the only country in the region that is sabotaging, and standing in the way of, the U.S. strategy of attaining absolute and full control in the Middle-East. (Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas’ opposition to the U.S. would collapse rapidly if post-revolutionary Iran is neutralized.)
Bush’s policy of breaking Iran (“regime change”) did not succeed. His bullying tactics failed to intimidate Iran into submission. Given that American power in the Middle-East has been weakened in recent years, and that it is still trapped in Iraq and is sinking deeper in the quagmire of Afghanistan, Obama would be willing to grant some concessions to Iran. However, this would only come about if Iran would be willing to accept the unquestionable supremacy of the U.S. in the region.
Obama will definitely try a conciliatory tone in his approach, at least for a while. Like a shrewd general who would first try to lure and trick his smaller opponent into giving up before he resorts to intimidating and bombing, Obama will soon start the diplomatic game of luring and tricking Iran into accepting the U.S. terms for a détente. He will hope that this would be an easy game to play and Iran would be cheap to buy. If all fails, without a doubt, Obama would be willing to hit Iran. The frightening thing here is that he would encounter much less resistance than Bush would have faced had he attacked Iran. The euphoria around Obama has deluded most people into believing that since he is a fair-minded and reasonable person, he can do no wrong; and if he decides to bomb Iran, it must be the case that there are no other options.
Now, in light of these, what should be the response of Iran to the challenge posed by Obama’s election? In the last few years, Iran has played its cards at the diplomatic table extremely well. I would argue that Iran must stick to its game plan. Iran should not revise its strategic goals; nor should it scale them down. In particular, it should not retreat, not even a millimeter, on the issue of the nuclear energy.
In response to the cosmetic change in Washington, Tehran must come up with its own version of a cosmetic change. Iran should start speaking in a softer tone of voice. It also needs to cut down on needless and wild rhetoric, and appear more reasonable than it has in the past. Moreover, it should try harder to master the political art of spinning and learn how to play the game of public relations which the American political class is an expert at. Iran must become flexible enough to retreat here and there, make tactical concessions from time to time, but never retreat or concede on its strategic interests.
Iran does not need the United States, albeit a détente will be beneficial to Iran. Provided that Iran can continue to deter military aggressions against itself, as it has done successfully so far, the status quo in the Middle East is worth maintaining. The status quo allows Iran to pursue its strategic objectives. Stated alternatively, it does not curtail Iran’s ability to maintain its political independence and its superpower status in the region. True, sanctions do hurt Iran in the short run. However, in the long run, they force the country to grow more self-reliant. They also force Iran, as they have already done, to develop its own homegrown technological and industrial capabilities and infrastructure.
The question of responding to Obama aside, what worries me the most is the latest shift in Israeli politics. As indicated by the results of the latest elections, the prevailing political sentiments in the country have shifted from center-right to far-right. Having suffered two military defeats at the hands of Hezbollah and Hamas (defeat in the sense that it could not achieve its military objectives -- Israel’s first set of defeats ever), and facing worldwide condemnation and growing resentment against its war crimes, Israel finds itself in a bind, and seems increasingly nervous. The level of anxiety rises, almost on a daily basis, as the population of Israel and its political class witness Iran’s advances in nuclear and aerospace technologies. The Israeli leadership fears that its so-called “technological edge” in the region might evaporate into thin air in a matter of 4-6 years. This is extremely troubling and completely unacceptable to the Zionist megalomaniacs who run the warfare state of Israel.
As things stand, the state of Israel is doomed; it has reached the end of its rope. Jewish immigration to Israel has declined drastically since the 33-day war with Hezbollah two years ago. The war exposed the fragility of security and the dangers of living in Israel. As Iran tests more powerful rockets and builds up its missile stockpiles, living in Israel is beginning to look even more dangerous. The next big thing that will hit Israel will not be Iranian ballistic missiles, but the flight of capital and talent out of Israel as the direct consequence of the fear that Iran has the capability to hit Israel, and hit it hard. Moreover, the Palestinian population in the occupied territories is increasing rapidly, and in a matter of a decade or so, Palestinians will outnumber Jews in Israel. As Israel’s intransigence and cruelty toward Palestinians increases, and as fanatical Jewish settlers become more racist and violent, Palestinians lose their faith in the so-called “two state solution”.
The state of Israel is stuck between a rock and a hard place. To save itself from its predicament, it has two choices. It either has to dismantle the existing apartheid system in the country, kick the Jewish settlers out of the occupied territories, and return the land to Palestinians, i.e., in short, make a serious effort to seek peace, which seems very unlikely; or start a new major war -- of course with Iran -- and use the opportunity to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in the occupied territories (with a combination of indiscriminate bombing and expulsions), and deal a fatal blow to Hezbollah (by bombing southern Lebanon and parts of Beirut back to the stone age). Given that by its very nature, Israel is a warfare state, the second option seems to be the more likely scenario.
My fear is that some of the Zionist lunatics in the state of Israel have already decided on taking a pre-emptive strike against Iran, and have begun to press the Obama administration for support and help. Washington might be able to keep Israel on a tight leash for a while, but the mad and bloodthirsty dog might tear the leash, or with the force of its fury, drag the master along into a war with Iran.
These are dangerous times for Iran, and the best thing Iran can do is to strengthen its air defenses, expand its deterrent capabilities, and aggressively push ahead with its nuclear and missile technology programs. Iran must prepare for the worst, and yet hope that the Obama administration will make a serious attempt, or be able, to reign in Israeli warmongers and force them to pursue peace. Although the latter is highly desirable, Iran should not bank on it.
Finally, next to facing Obama’s challenge and dealing with Israel’s threat, the most pressing problems for Iran to address at this critical conjuncture are the Iranian economy and the alienation of its urban youth. In order to secure its survival and well-being, Iran needs to achieve two very important objectives, and do so very quickly. The first is to get the Iranian economy going. The second is to find a way to win the hearts and minds of its educated urban youth. Removing restrictions on social freedoms and addressing the problems with its fledgling and dysfunctional democracy will definitely help, but will not be enough.
These two objectives can be combined through developing imaginative and pioneering public and economic policies. Iran must come up with innovative and creative ways to put the energies and talents of its youth to good use. It must find a way to motivate them to devote their skills and talents to serving the interests of the country. As things are now, their energies and talents are being wasted in living unproductive and uninspiring life-styles that preoccupy themselves with espousing and imitating the worst aspects of western culture that satellites beam down to them on a daily basis. The next 4-6 years will be crucial years for the future of Iran and should not be wasted.
| Recently by Behzad Majdian | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| The Empire’s Plan | 22 | Mar 23, 2011 |
| Glorified Military Coup | 1 | Feb 16, 2011 |
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 |
Iranian Uncovered: 1921 - 2012
by Fariba.. (not verified) on Tue Mar 03, 2009 06:11 AM PST1921: Military chief REZA KHAN stages coup and names himself Shah of Persia.
1935: Khan changes Persia's name to Iran and changes his last name from Mir Pange to Pahlavi.
1941: Allies make pro-German Reza abdicate and send him into exile.
1941: Allies make his son MOHAMMAD REZA the new Shah.
1953: Mohmmad flees the country when Prime Minister Mosadeq takes over.
1953 Dulles brothers rethroan Mohammad as the Shah of Iran and thus help CIA become the king maker of world.
1963: Mohammad bestows on women the right to vote.
1964: Mohammad sentences mollah Khomaini to exile.
1966: Mohammad bestows on women the right to divorce.
1973: Arab/Israeli war quadruples price of oil.
1973: Mohammad uses oil revenues to build up his army to invade Iraq/Kuwait/Bahrain/Saudi Arabia.
1975: Mohammad's military and territorial influence threatens Saudi rulers.
1976: Saudi rulers flood the market with cheap oil by pumping an additional 3 million barrels of oil per day.
1977: Mohammad's government goes bankrupt, taps into Iran's reseves to pay workers. Riots and strikes errupt.
1978: Inflation at 50%+, SAVAK cracks down on bazaris and rioters.
1978: Riots spread
1979: Mohammad flees Iran. Dies later in Egypt.
1979: Islamic Hitler, KHOMAINI returns after 14 years in Iraq. Renames Iran, Islamic Republic.
1979: Islamic Republic becomes a defacto Palestinian state.
1979: Khomaini makes Arabic the official language of Islamic Republic.
1979: Begining of the U.S. being held hostage.
1980: Khomaini makes hejab compulsory and sharply curtails women's rights.
1980: Restart of Shia/Sunni medieval wars. Khomaini and Saddam kill 1,000,000 poeple.
1989: Khomeini issues fatwa on Salman Rushdie, for his publishing of the English translation of Koran. Better known as Satanic Verses.
1989: Khomaini dies. Gets one way ticket to his court appearance in the next world.
1989: SAYED ALI KHAMANEI becomes the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic.
1989: Ali orders VAVAK to kill all opposed to him.
1995: US imposes oil and trade sanctions on Islamic Republic.
2002: Reconstruction of Iran's first nuclear reactor begins.
2003: U.S. Presient Bush loads up on Iraq.
2003: Ali orders his troops to reduce the number of American forces in Iraq by 10% through the use of road side bombs.
2004: Ali chooses MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD to build Islamic Republic's 1st nuclear bomb.
2007: Stand-off with Britain after Iran detains 15 British sailors.
2008: Ali tells Mahmoud to turn down European incentives and to continue to build Islamic Republic's 1st nuclear bomb.
2008: Ali's military and territorial influence threatens Saudi rulers.
2008: Saudi rulers flood the market with cheap oil by pumping an additional ?? million barrels of oil per day.
2008: Inflation at 50%+, VAVAK cracks down by killing Iranians.
2009: Ali and Mahmoud await Obama's rescue baiout package for their bankrupt Islamic Republic.
2009: Obama refuses Ali's bailout request.
2009: Riots spread across Islamic Republic
2009: Ali, Mahmoud and Mollahs flee Iran. Later found hanged in Syria.
2009: Islamic Republic gets disolved. Mollah clergy gets disovled permanently. Iran returns with Pesian as the official language of Iran.
2009: Women's rights are resotred!
2009: Cyrus the Great's Bill of Rights are restored as the bill of rights of Iran guaranteeing equal rights for all ethnic and religeous groups in Iran.
2009: Iran receives Obama's bailout rescue package.
2009: Iran elects its first ever female Shah after the fall of Sassanids 1,400 years ago.
2009: The new Shah is elected by internationally monitored free and fair elections held every five years to a maximum of two terms as the head of state with ceremonial powers.
2009: The new government of Iran issues amnesty to all.
2009: Iran rejoins the world community.
2009: Iran prospers as an independent member of the world community.
2012: Iran lands its first mission on the surface of the moon and declares moon as it's satellite base of future space exploration.
"No matter how much
by Lefty Lap Poodle (not verified) on Mon Mar 02, 2009 09:02 AM PST"No matter how much Islamists/Anti-Semites and their likeminded lefty allies try to absolve the Islamist republic, being the core of the problem, their Islamist republic always comes out smelling worst after their defense."
Zionists/Anti-Muslim and their likeminded righty allies try to absolve the Zionist republic, being the core of the problem, their Zionist republic always comes out smelling worse after their defense.
Makes sense! I guess ;o)
Looking for a Second Mecca!
by Landanneshin (not verified) on Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:49 AM PSTIt took Britain to suffer the second World War to realise that the glorious empire is gone, hopefully,the combination of eight years of Bush's political illitracy and disastrous economic leagacy will do the same for USA.
But,don't bring the Champagne bottles out yet; as there are some people in Britain, and around the world, who still believe Britain being a world power with some magical diplomatic influece (utter crap)so are many poor soles within and without the United States who would feel orphaned if Obama or any other president were to declare America for Americans and the end of that stupid NewCon notion that the second Roman Empire is about to be born in 'Yenge Donya'.
All empires fall, but,not unfortunatley 'chaker-o-dast bousan' who seem to be breeding like rabbits.
The problem with the Islamic
by Anonymous098 (not verified) on Sun Mar 01, 2009 09:42 AM PSTThe problem with the Islamic Republic (an oxymoron, btw) is she demonstrates a lack of interest in understanding other people, their culture and history. Maybe we are expecting too much from a leadership which has for too long believed that it is the AGENT OF GOD (Allah) on earth and considers its own citizens as *retards* who need a Velayate Faghih or a Supreme Leader to decide every aspects of political, social and economic life on earth for their subjects.
Here is what Phillipe Welti a career diplomat said about the Islamic republic leadership:
He saw mendacious officials manipulate public opinion and was disappointed by the cynicism of some top officials, who rationalized away concerns about human rights and freedom of expression by labeling them "Western" concepts.
He was struck by the provincialism of the officials, many of them recent arrivals to the capital from rural backwaters, he said. "I got the impression that there are officials who do not know the world well."
.
"As long as there is a gap between fundamentalist positions and international standards of intergovernmental exchange and relations, it will be difficult for Iran to engage fully with the world," he said.
//www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/...
Provincialism and Paranoia
by Anonymousgsw (not verified) on Sun Mar 01, 2009 08:22 AM PSTProvincialism and Paranoia at its best...the piece is devoid of facts and realties of the non-commies and non-Islamists world.
Sometimes I feel that Iranian intellectuals live in a parallel universe of their own and cherry pick events and history out of context to fit their own dogmatic ideological worldview; A bigoted and narrow one inspired by envy and revenge. When are we going to read a non-testostrone driven piece by a non-marxist or a non-Islamist,non-pahlavi on this site?
Dennis Ross
by Mehrban on Sun Mar 01, 2009 06:17 AM PSTRumors were that Ross would be special envoy to Iran and a special advisor to Obama on Iran. Such as George Mitchell is in the Middle East affairs. My use of the word "Confirm" in an earlier post was not meant as congressional confirmation but loosely as in confirmation of rumors.
However, (I confirmed this morning, for myself), on Feb 23 Ross was appointed as "Special Advisor for The Gulf and Southwest Asia." He is appointed as an advisor to Hillary Clinton. He is not appointed as Iran envoy and not as Obama's advisor.
Interesting, but somewhat flawed piece
by BK (not verified) on Sun Mar 01, 2009 05:00 AM PSTMr Majdian puts together a cohesive view point, to a degree, in regards to the US and Israeli misplaced approach to their respective foreign policies, but he singularly fails to do is to put any onus on the Islamic Republic of Iran's contribution to the predicament that it finds itself.
No doubt, Israel’s policies and actions in particular (especially its mistreatment of the Palestinians and persistent occupation of their land) has not only been a great injustice, but also a continued source of instability in the wider region
However, somewhat disingenuously Mr. Majdian is effectively painting the Islamic Republic as a "victim" that is merely standing up to US/Israeli political bullying. I say disingenuously because Mr. Majdian has, for whatever reason, conveniently failed to make any mention of the Islamic Republic’s mischief making – which has essentially amount to a covert war by proxy against Israel – by sponsoring and funding extremist organisations like the Hamas and the Lebanese Hezbollah, not to mention its funding, training and arming of the Iraqi Shia militia under Muqtada Al Sadr. In short, the Islamic Republic is far from a blameless victim that is only defending itself.
Also somewhat overblown is Mr. Majdian’s assessment of the Islamic Republic’s performance in establishing an independent and successfully self-sufficient Iran that has managed to ride out the economic sanctions against it. There is no doubt that Iran has had to rely more on its home grown (though often foreign educated) talent to keep its industrial base moving and this is a good thing. However, much of what were previously more advanced Western based technologies, have been replaced by second-rate North Korean, Chinese and Russian designs. Even the blue prints for Iran’s much lauded nuclear programme were supplied by the Pakistanis (whose own nuke project was based on the North Korean model) and the country imports around 60% of its refined oil needs, despite being one of the largest producers of crude oil in the World. Hardly signs of advanced industrial independence.
Further undermining the “Iran’s successful independence under the Islamic Republic despite or because of economic sanctions” argument has been the dismal performance and the mismanagement of the Iranian economy by the Islamic Republic. Through corruption and gross incompetence the Iranian regime has allowed the population growth to get out of hand and squandered the wealth of the country and made a total mess of Iran’s economy and resources. Inflation is near 30% per year, unemployment soaring (11.5% according to the Islamic Republic’s own figures, but far higher in reality). Per capita gross domestic product has been stagnant for years, and take-home pay for Iranian workers is now about a third less, in real terms, than it was when followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah in 1979. And this is all despite, until recently, record level oil prices and revenues.
Educated Iranians have the hardest time finding good jobs. Only 75,000 positions await the 270,000 Iranians who graduate each year from colleges and universities. As a result, Iran has one of the largest "brain drains" of any country in the world. Approximately one of every four Iranians with a college degree is living and working outside the country.
The Islamic Republic’s semi-command economy approach had resulted in much of the economy and many companies being poorly run and surviving mainly due to state handouts and subsidies. This exacerbated by The Revolutionary Guards and various state sponsored foundations (the bonyaads) that have enriched themselves to tune of billions by taking over countless people’s livelihoods and businesses up and down the country.
So there we have it Mr. Majdain. Iran is a country abundant with natural resources and much potential, not least its hard working and diligent people who could be as enterprising as any another nation, if only they were allowed to be. And we can bang on about how it’s all the fault of the nasty ‘ol Americans and Zionist Israelis, but contrary to your assertion that Iran is standing up well to foreign pressure and pushing ahead with progress, things in Iran aren’t quite that rosy and the problem lies much closer to Tehran than to Washington and Jerusalem.
In looking to see how Iran preforms in the next 4-6, just take a look at the past 30 years.
AIPAC won't allow Iran & US hit it right! Not way Jose!
by gol-dust on Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:58 PM PSTThis is what you get when you put Rahm emanul (an AIPAC member who served in israeli army) in charge of the white house! He pushed and got dennis ross the zion aipac as iran envoy! Is ross representing US or Israel? That shows the power of aipac!
Iran should never allow any aipac members to enter into iranian soil! Iran might as well to negotiate w/ israel! This is the biggest joke! So laughable! we might as well don't have any dealing with iran! BTW why israel & US don't leave Iran alone? Iran didn't come to the US, they came to us! Por roo!
Iran should never trust any other country or leader. ROSS was nominated and does not need confirmation. Not a cabinet member.
Tricks, lies, Israel & capitalism: all to save the damn Mullahs
by Shazde Asdola Mirza on Sun Mar 01, 2009 09:13 AM PSTباز نشد که من بدبخت، مست و خراب از مهمونی بیام و یه چیزی شنگولی رو به خماری تبدیل نکنه!
آخه اگه این دروغها رو یه آدم بیسواد، با شونصد تا غلط املائ و انشایی نوشته بود، میگفتیم ولش کن، کی اینو میخواد. ولی یارو ` استاده ` ، همچین نوشته که میتونی صاف ورداری و تو هر روزنامهای تو امریکا یا اروپا چاپ کنی.
گفتم اسد خفه شو، از تو بزرگتر اینجا خیلی هست! اما دیدم که نخیر، دارن به حاجی تبریک و تهنیت میگن!
خلاصه اش کنم: آقا میگه، آمریکا و رئیس جمهورش نماینده سرمایه داری جهانی هستند. اسراییل هم یه کشور خونخوار و جنگ افروزه. اما، جمهوری اسلامی تا بحال خوب حال هر دوی اینها رو گرفته، و از این به بعد هم باید همین روش رو ادامه بده، ولی یک کمی فشار رو از سر مردم و جوانها ور داره!
سرمایه داری : آخوندا و پاسدارا تو ایرون خون مردمو تو شیشه میکنند، پولشون و ملکشن و زن و بچه شون رو مالک میشن، تو حالا داری میگی سرمایه داری؟ ایرون برگشته به عهد برده داری، مرتیکه خجالت بکش!
خونخوار و جنگ طلب : از این حزباللهیها و تروریستها، خونخوار تر و جنگ طلب تر کیه؟ اینها میخوان همه دنیا رو بگیرن تا امامشون بیاد با اسب سفیدش وسط یه دریا خون وایسته و حال کنه!
فشار رو جوانها : این حرومزادهها که برای کسی حق حیات قائل نیستند و در نظرشون، هر کس که ` خودی ` نیست کافر، مرتد و منافقه، یعنی خونش حلال و مالش مباح!
از یک آخوند بیسواد، یا یک بسیجی نفهم هیچ انتظاری نیست، ولی نوشتن این مقالات موذیانه توسط ` استادان فن ` ، جنایت محض است!
Iran does not equal to the Taazi regime
by Amir Khosrow Sheibany (not verified) on Sat Feb 28, 2009 09:38 PM PSTIran does not equal to the Taazi regime
And the Taazi regime does not equal Iran.
"the mad and bloodthirsty dog might tear the leash" that is a good analogy to use to represent the Taazi regime that has forced itself onto Iran.
american impire
by bj (not verified) on Sat Feb 28, 2009 06:55 PM PSTwell i remember in 1979 i was talking to my friend in foriegn country when we heard that the shah left the contry.my friend asked me what is going to happen? and i said i think this is the begining of the collpse of american empire.america has lost her dear friends who were supporting and helping america to be the leader of the world.bush and obama trying to revive the glory america had but it is too late.after cllapse of soviet union it is the policy of russia to creat free market from tehran to mosco.we must be affraid of rassia to invade or attack iran rather america or esrael.one reason US and esrael can not attack iran is rassia because iran now is the russian backyard.it seems US can not have the great presidents they had before.it is a petty but has happened.this is a reallty the world is going to be divided into north and south zone as the first russian house speaker said.america has done lot of good things for all countries around the world they had some mistakes like george bush but their good deeds have been way more than thier bad deeds. i still hope somehow US get herself out of this mess.
What is not measured
by Alborzi (not verified) on Sat Feb 28, 2009 04:41 PM PSTIran by backing Hammas and Hezbullah has established enormous amount of pressure that would cause major problems, not just for Israel but for client states (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt). Essentially all three are in a equilibrium and it is in ever one's interest to continue the current state. Yahoo will try to talk tough, but Iran has stood in front of others whose heads were full of Ghormeh Sabzi.
Good article, but...
by Ostaad on Sat Feb 28, 2009 05:31 PM PSTcouldn't disagree with you more. Iran has not suffered in the hands of the mollahs and its enemies, i.e. the Anglo/Zionsits in order to put itself in a cocoon by hunkering down and be for ever in a closed defensive mode. This is precisely the time for the Iran-US relations to be restored. Both have to take bold steps, but not talking is not an option anymore.
All countries including the US and Iran need security and stability in the region and in the world to survive the current global economic depression.
I have an impression that you don't know first-hand about Obama nor the US politics, although you would like it to appear so. If you had ever met the kind of people who voted for Obama, you would not have labeled them, nor their arguments as naive.
Peace.
Well written article. I
by Suomynona on Sat Feb 28, 2009 02:16 PM PSTWell written article. I enjoyed reading it.
However, it occurs to me it is often times easier to imagine coming doom and gloom, than to imagine a period of peace and prosperity.
Easy to imagine it is in Israel's, US's, even Iran's governments interest to have wars and conflicts than to imagine that even politicians and big business everywhere are also getting tired of war and conflict.
We live in cycles, and it is entirely possible, as evidenced by some of the events of the last year, that majority of people everywhere are genuinely tired of conflict and looking for a more live-and-let-live approach.
It is up to all of us to perpetuate the positive cycle now, and extend it as much as possible into the future. The conflict cycle will return in due course for sure, let's not hasten it's return.
Toofantheoncesogreat & Behzad
by Mehrban on Sat Feb 28, 2009 02:15 PM PSTI don't think that Ross has been confirmed as Iran envoy yet (he may not be) and Hillary will do what is politically expediant for her. So regardless of what she has said before, she will oblige the overall American foreign policy at the time.
As far as the US is concerned some relationship with Iran is perceived to be needed to quell the problems of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is true that Israel, unfortunately, even for Israel itself is moving further to the far right and its lobby can increase the pressure for war. However, I am not ready to declare the talks dead before they have started. I also do not believe it is smart to advise the Islamic Republic to practice the art of spin as it does not lack the ability to do so to a fault already.
As for the Iran's internal affairs, I repeat what I have said below.
Bump.
by Toofantheoncesogreat (not verified) on Sat Feb 28, 2009 01:20 PM PSTQuote
"Obama will definitely try a conciliatory tone in his approach, at least for a while. Like a shrewd general who would first try to lure and trick his smaller opponent into giving up before he resorts to intimidating and bombing, Obama will soon start the diplomatic game of luring and tricking Iran into accepting the U.S. terms for a détente. He will hope that this would be an easy game to play and Iran would be cheap to buy. If all fails, without a doubt, Obama would be willing to hit Iran. The frightening thing here is that he would encounter much less resistance than Bush would have faced had he attacked Iran. The euphoria around Obama has deluded most people into believing that since he is a fair-minded and reasonable person, he can do no wrong; and if he decides to bomb Iran, it must be the case that there are no other options."
This is what I have been saying since half way thorugh the elections to the insane pro obama camp in the Iranian american community. Gravel, Kusinich and Ron Paul were the only ones that would bring "Change" to the white house.
Obama will turn out to be a clown. Like I have said 5 thousand times on this site, I hope Im wrong. But imagining Hillary Clinton the oblitirator and Dennis Ross agent Israel are the ones who are going to lead the meetings, the talks are to fail, and its the intention of it to do so as Ross has said, its easier to argue for war if talks fail.
Dear Friend
by Abarmard on Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:41 PM PSTFirstly, welcome the the Iranian.com community. Hope that this is the beginning of many analysis that you will be doing here. iranian.com certainly is missing enough analysts that can masterfully portrait the logic and backgrounds of the situations, as well as you have done here.
I find your article extremely interesting and powerful. Thank you
Iranian Economy and the Educated Urban Youth
by Mehrban on Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:13 PM PSTHow do you expect the Islamic Republic to get the "Iranian economy going"? Oil is at $39/barrel and no ideas on the table.
As for the educated urban youth, the latest strategic effort in winning their hearts and minds has been to exhume the remains of war heroes and rebury them in the universities.
Day late and a dollar short
by Fred on Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:06 PM PSTYou say: “I would argue that Iran must stick to its game plan. Iran should not revise its strategic goals; nor should it scale them down. In particular, it should not retreat, not even a millimeter, on the issue of the nuclear energy.” You also say: “Moreover, it should try harder to master the political art of spinning and learn how to play the game of public relations which the American political class is an expert at.”
If replacing the actual dire situation the Islamist republic has placed Iran in with your wishful thinking was possible, a whole lot of others have already tried it to no avail. Even your recommended “political art of spinning” although being pursued on multiple levels and by different groups/actors has not helped. These thinly camouflaged anti-Capitalist lefty write ups are a dime a dozen these days.
No matter how much Islamists/Anti-Semites and their likeminded lefty allies try to absolve the Islamist republic, being the core of the problem, their Islamist republic always comes out smelling worst after their defense.