Short of war

There are many models for bringing unreformable regimes down


Short of war
by Fred

You might call this confession of a reluctant sanction-monger.

Advocating sanctions against ones homeland is as strange as advocating for ones extended family to go without, so there better be a damn good reason(s) for such odd advocacy.

First a little personal background which might help in dispelling any false notion or prejudgment. My entire extended family except one sibling live in Iran, all except one world-class rich distant cousin, are middle to lower middle class with most being like the overwhelming majority of Iranians in the hand to mouth category. So my advocacy of sanctions does come from the point of view of someone who knows what it is to be of limited means, what a precarious situation it is and what real airtight economic sanctions could do.

All that said I am for sanctioning IRR, the Islamist Rapist Republic, here are some but not all my reasons:

I am convinced that the way IRR is abusing the nation, disintegration, wide spread armed civil strife and general lawlessness are not that far off, some of it already exists.

I am convinced that due to its nuke and regional interference policies IRR is imposing a devastating war on woefully unprepared Iran and Iranians.

I am convinced that the opposition to the IRR, both inside and outside, are opportunistic go with the flow type, therefore do not have any plan to head off the coming devastation. And even if they had plans they lack the means to face up to such barbaric regime.

I am convinced former IRR guys, a PM, President and Speaker of Majles, who are its opposition now as the Persian saying goes are like the knife’s blade which does not cut its own handle. Their opposition will not amount to anything meaningful just adding to peoples’ piled up dashed hopes which will one day explode with devastating consequences.

I am convinced that the opposition to war and sanction at any price has become an end to itself therefore will end up in having both war and sanction imposed on Iran and Iranians.

I am convinced that unless the ruling Islamist system including the “reformist, pragmatist and principalist” is gotten rid of by the Iranian people, others with no care whatsoever for Iran or Iranian will do it and nothing will stop them.

I am convinced that IRR is way past its ideological phase and now depends on paid thugs as opposed to volunteers to do its suppression operations; less funds will mean far less thugs beating, raping and killing Iranians which is the basic tactic in any such fight to reduce the regime’s forces making the it more vulnerable to people power.

I am convinced that without airtight sanctions in addition to moral and material help to Iranians to soften the sanction blow and to quicken the fall of the Islamist Rapists, war is inevitable.

There are many models for bringing unreformable regimes such as the IRR down, for the stated reasons, to avoid war, I believe downfall of the regime should be the goal and, reluctantly believe sanction is part of any solution in that regards. Now if that makes me a warmonger so be it.


Recently by FredCommentsDate
ادا اطوار اسلامی
Dec 05, 2012
مسجد همجنسگرایان
Dec 05, 2012
Iranians are legitimate target
Dec 04, 2012
more from Fred


by Mammad on

As Iranians who live outside Iran, we have the luxury to believe in what we want and advocate it.

But, as you also seem to agree, ultimately a secular republic must be established by Iranians who live inside Iran. In my opinion, we Iranians living outside of Iran must play the role of the supporting cast. We should support whatever the Iranians who live in Iran want.

I am, was, and will always be against any military attack on Iran, so long as the IRI has not attacked first.

As for sanctions, it is not that people like me are genetically opposed to sanctions. No, it is that I do not see how sanctions will help move Iran along the right path.

The Sepaah controls the economy and Iran's wealth. People are fed through this economy. In fact, that is exactly why the Sepaah moved to control the economy. This was predicted several years ago by Saeed Hajjarian. People criticized him at that time, but now we see that he was right.

At the same time, there is no counterweight in Iran to Sepaah's control of the economy. Therefore, in my opinion, any serious economic sanctions at this point will only hurt the ordinary people, the very same foot soldiers of establishing a secular democracy. The experience with Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, Libya, ... showed that sanctions do not work. People constantly talk about South Africa. That is a myth, as I have explained many times in this column.

But, even if we were to take "airtight" sanction proposal seriously, one must first do a cost analysis. What is the cost to ordinary Iranians? How long will it take for such sanctions to seriously undermine the IRI? What guarantees that tough sanctions will not lead to war, as in Iraq?

Now, you said that I still believe that the IRI can be reformed into a SD. Actually, I believed this many years ago, not any more. Several years ago, Abbas Abdi was jailed because he was advocating that the reformists should leave the Majles and government, and let the hardliners grapple with problems. Way before he said that, I advocated that again and again in my radio interviews in southern California. All of them are recorded and exist.

But, precisely because establishment of SD must be done by Iranians living in Iran, people like me consider it a duty to support whatever Iranians living in Iran want. At this point, there is no great movement for overthrowing the IRI through a revolution and bloody internal war. What there is, in my opinion, is a great social-political movement to push the hardliners back. At this point, it is in Iran's and democratic movement's interest to agree on a minimum of demands, in order to have the maximum support and unity.

The nine demands listed by Mir Hossein Mousavi seems to be the required minimum, and all the important opposition groups in Iran, from university groups to others, agree on it. If I were to darft of a list of minimum demands, I would have added many more to it, but I do not live in Iran. Therefore, At this point I support that also as my duty.

At the same time, this must be done more gradually, in order to have a lasting effect. It is no use to be way ahead of people, if the people are not ready to pay the price. In 2004 the reformists staged a sit-in in the Majles to protest their disqualification from Majles election. People did not pay any attention to them.

But, in 2006, just a year after Ahmadinejad took office, in the elections for city councils people voted in large numbers. 70% of the city councils went to the opposition. The same year shouts of "marg bar doctator" began in the universities.

In 2009 people voted again, and did not go home afterwards. They have stayed the course. So, as you can see, there has been a gradual ratcheting up of people's pressure.

Thus, the moment that I become convinced that people in Iran are ready for bigger more serioys things, I will also support that, regardless of what I personally think. My duty is to support what the people want.

Regarding U.S./Iran negotiations: I support them so long as respect for human rights, and punishment for their violations, are given equal footing with nuc problem in the negotiations. If that happens, and negotiations are successful, then the threat of military attack will be eliminated.

It is exactly this threat that has been used by the hardliners for 30 years to repress and oppress the population. So, once that threat is gone, or at least reduced greatly, the excuse for invoking it will no longer be there. The hardliners will then have no choice but either responding to aspirations of the people, or one way or another be overthrown without any outside interference.



are you joking Bijan?

by kharmagas on

Bijan says: "So, why don’t you keep out of it and stay quiet for a while. Will you, please?"

Keep out of what? I was trying to help with what?  I asked you a simple question, and said you did not have to answer it!

BTW, my question was a logical consequence your statement....and your statement was not addressed to a specific person! 

Bijan A M

For the last time (almost the last time) (to magas)

by Bijan A M on

You took it wrong. I never ever even imagined that Fred is a jew or represents the Israeli’s interest.  Completely to the contrary, I imagine you as an x-Jew like many other communist jews. When it comes to Iranian democracy I will vote for Fred and Mammad as co-leaders. Regardless of the fact that they are at each other’s throats, they are after the same goal. They have to hash it out and find a middle ground.

 Your meddling (Paa manbari) is not helping. So, why don’t you keep out of it and stay quiet for a while. Will you, please?


so, what does Fred represent? (to Bijan)

by kharmagas on

Bijan says: "...just remember that both Fred and Mammad are after the same goal but different paths to get there"

Bijan, I take it that this statement coming from you confirms that Fred to some extent represents the views of Iranian American Jewish community?

If you don't want to answer me, that is fine, but don't assume that my question has a negative connotation. On the contrary I view this as a positive thing (if you ask I'll tell you why).


Bijan A M


by Bijan A M on

Is it because you cannot comprehend? Or because it is out of the realm of realities and possibiliteis?

Why don’t you offer a scenario where IRI is attacked on its nuc sites and responds by throwing a bomb at Tel Aviv. What do you see in the picture when thousands are dead on each side? Do you see the whole world standing on the side line and letting the conflict settle on its own? Or, do you see every nation take a position and join one side of the conflict?\


WWIII is unlikely since IRI is not a world power

by M.Moussa on

@ Bijan A M. Do yourself the favor of diversifying your scenarios...I never read anything more absurd in my life.


Staying on topic

by M.Moussa on

I think that we can all unequivocally agree that we take issue with the IRI regime. I can understand the frustration-borne hate that some feel towards the IRI regime. I can equally understand the name-calling: leftist v. neocon, etc. But it's all rather childish isn't it to name-call and harbor unchecked rage towards an already imploding regime.

@Fred. I think that you jump to conclusions---in fact I see no basis for you to assert that all who challenge your ideas as "lefty-lap dogs" or "Islamist-lefty" essayists. One can argue that you've taken a rather tyrannical posture in assuming that your way is somehow better than all other possible alternatives. The hate-talk that you publish here is of the same stock and trade of any demogogue including Khomeini and his bedfellows. I can understand the frustration: I certainly don't smile upon a nuclear-bomb-capable IRI. Fred, you are intelligent and you are passionate, but don't let the frustration get the best of you. I presume that you are not in Iran at the moment; if that is the case then I will remind you that you can afford to reflect more deeply on the issue facing Iran and take a less pessimistically brutish posture than to name-call and advocate tougher sanctions on Iran.


You know and IRI knows that

by vildemose on

You know and IRI knows that Israeli’s won’t buy that.

Dear Bijan: You don't see any of this addressed by the Islamists because in their worldview, Israel is a non-entitiy; it shouldn't exist and has no right to exist. You can't discuss something that you think doesn't exist and if it's there, should be eliminated at all costs.

How do you get to this point where you can ignore the existence of millions of jews and their lives and livelihood? Their hatred of the jews makes Isralies and jews  less than 'living things' and therefore already dead and a non-entity. That is why you don't see any logical arguments coming from their side addressing the concerns of Israelis.

Bijan A M

two scenarios

by Bijan A M on

1-IRI insists on his right to enrich uranium and a war breaks out and leads to WWIII

2-IRI abides by the will of the globe and gives up the dream of atomic bomb. In a few years or within a generation time a secular democracy will shape up (under joint leadership of Fred and mammad.(just remember that both Fred and Mammad are after the same goal but different paths to get there) Which scenario will you vote for? For sure, I vote for scenario 2. 


AIPAC wants a stooge (to "Parsa")

by kharmagas on

"Parsa" says : "Kharmagas -- you lie"

This clip does not lie though:


Even Shah figured it out, unfortunately too late and when he was surrounded by too few nationalists, and too many vatnforosh.



The brave ones

by Fred on

Aside very few all the rest are the usual frivolous Islamist essayists and slogan spewing lefty lap-dogs who by eliminating all possibilities to get rid of all versions of the Islamist Rapist leave the only option which is learning to live with IRR and somehow moderating its barbaric behavior to a tolerable level.

It is of course quite Islamist lefty of them to prescribe continued torment and be willing to retest again and again their failed vision till the cows come home or to the last Iranian, whichever comes first. After all from the safety and comfort of Western democracies they are fighting an ideological battle which has boiled down to labeling those who do not toe their line as reincarnated devils.  

But from the looks of it Iranians inside who are at the receiving end of these brave ones’ step by step modulated progress with giant regressive steps being taken by Islamist Rapists on daily basis have something else for their future in mind.

One wonders at what point are the brave ones going to label all Iranians as stooges who eat neocon fortifies Lavash for breakfast, AIPAC Kubiddeh for lunch and warmonger stew for dinner?

ramin parsa

L. Gillani, Kharmagas and Craig

by ramin parsa on

Gillani writes about bombing Iran, "For generations, we will never recover from such a domination and dependence.

A true democracy, under such circumstances, is impossible and is only an American lie. A very well polished lie, for that matter…"

"Impossible?" Are you joking? Japan was turned into a smoldering parking lot on August 6, 1945 and forty years later (in the '80's) they had and still have one of the largest economies in the world, not to mention a functioning democracy (a constitutional monarchy). The same could be said of Germany and Italy, for that matter. Cities like Dresden, Germany were fire bombed to hell (500,000 people in Dresden were burned alive in the bombings).

And look at Germany today.

I'm not saying Iran is Germany (not by a long shot) nor am I advocating fire-bombing Tehran (no way, no how), but let's at least try to be historically accurate and curb our enthusiasm.

Craig -- you and vildemose (on his good days) seem to be the most sane bloggers on this site, including Fred, Shushtari, Farhad Kashani, and a few others. Keep up the great work, Craig!!! Please never abandon your good faith efforts, which are extensive and exemplary! Most of the guys and gals on this site are pure-bred bad faith hacks, period!

Kharmagas -- you lie when you say that the Shah would have confronted the same issues as the IRI had he pursued nuclear weapons. After all, it was the Americans who were 100% behind the Shah's nuclear initiatives. You IRI apologists try so hard to make this whole thing about nationalism, which it ain't. This is about the IRI's quest for a life insurance policy and the nature of the government that would have access to nukes.

The classic case is Germany prior to 1945 and after 1945. While the international community would be scared shitless if Hitler had nukes, they would not worry so much if a democratic secular Germany had them. DO YOU HEAR? It's the nature of the regime, pal. We generally don't like it when terrorists regimes who rape and murder their own people and are the world's NUMBER 1 sponsor of terrorism to get their hands on nuclear weapons.

The world, other than the Arabs, would have very little to say about a responsible government in Tehran becoming a nuclear power. Now go spin this into a nationalism issue, it's what you people do best -- misinformation and damage control.

Fouzul Bashi

Bijan AM

by Fouzul Bashi on

It's a bummer to feel this frustrated. I feel for you man, I was in tears reading your rowzeh khooni.

Write an article and send it to someone to publish. I am sure antiwar won't be your publication of choice, but you can send it to one of your favorite right-wing papers. Even Sarah Palin found a publisher after all!

Bijan A M

So frustrating

by Bijan A M on

Why is it so hard to get a simple point across without getting entangled in the noecon or Israeli lobby? Laleh-e aziz  you are absolutely right, any democracy in Iran has to come to life with Iranian bloods without any outside intervention. I believe in that with my entire being. Nobody, and I mean nobody, would support Iranian democracy if that would not serve their interest. That’s a fact. You and I would do the same.  We will never support any thing that we consider to be to the detriment of our people.

My point in this debate has nothing to do with democracy movement in Iran. It has everything to do with the reckless behavior of IRI in provoking confrontation. Somehow this statement automatically becomes the reason for being assassinated on this site for being a Neocon or Israeli agent. It is all about nuclear IRI. Let’s agree that Obama’s administration has turned into a warmonger gang under Israel lobby. Let’s also agree that Isreal is evil, isreal is bad, Israel is a war machine,….for the time being let’s just focus on these two entities and leave the rest of the world out of it. How logical do you think it is to provoke confrontation?

 Obama administration has changed the tone of interactions and genuinely attempted the dimplomatic approach (let’s give at least part of the credit to NIAC).  This approach has taken place and should continue to be the number one priority. However, if you are looking at the situation from US or Israeli side you can appreciate that time is a big factor when it comes to nuc development. You and I and many other may sit hear and argue that IRI is not after bomb and it can be verified by IAEA, etc..and even if they develop it is for deterrence, etc… You know and IRI knows that Israeli’s won’t buy that. I know it sounds very cowardly and un-nationalistic to suggest compromise even if you have to swallow your pride. But, if the alternative is sacrificing the lives of your citizens and jeopardizing your independence, logic and common sense suggests accepting defeat instead of committing mass suicide.

 I read Dr. Sahimi’s article in  while I found the main point of the article to be in defense of NIAC and their activities to promote diplomatic ties between IRI and US, he continued to repeat his opposition to any form of sanctions and/or war. There is absolutely no doubt (at least in my mind) that he is striving for a non-monarchial secular democracy in Iran.Where we may not be on the same page is his belief that the theocratic government of IRI can be reformed into a secular democracy. However, what I find missing in Dr.Sahimi’s article is a proposal other than, diplomacy, sanction or war to deal with nuclear armed IRI (given the assumption that nuc armed IRI is not an acceptable option). And this is exactly the same point that’s missing in every anti-sanction and anti-war post in here.


 This is what people like

by vildemose on

 This is what people like Jaleho, No Fear, and fake reformers advocate and support: Violence and more violence!

More information about the sudden mysterious death of the 26 year old Dr. Ramin Pourandarjani who served part of his national service in the notorious Kahrizak detention centre has now emerged.

 More on Doctor Pourandarjani


Mardom Mazloom

¿No entiende

by Mardom Mazloom on

el c#lo. I tried to speak at your level though.

ex programmer craig

las pulgas

by ex programmer craig on

Maybe that would seem clever in farsi?


Touché, big time!

by benross on

Where are your friends from DailyKOS? Coukld it be that their only interest in Iran is how they can leverage Iran to influence domestic politics?

 Touché, epc. I couldn't agree more. I have had the same argument with many of them on that site to no avail...


Air-tight sanctions against Iran?

by M.Moussa on

I cannot even descibe how terrible this political measure is...only a misanthropic, near-sighted, pessamist would support this kind of diplomacy. Regardless of the situation sanctions do not solve issues. Ten years of sanctions brought Iraq to its knees and look at Baghdad now. Iran is already suffering from brain drain. Can air-tight sanctions address this issue? If the communist government of Cuba can survive the US embargo for 50+ years imagine how long the IR will last in Iran with air-tight sanctions. There is no better way to dehumanize entire populations of people than air-tight sanctions...even war is more civilized. Air-tight sanctions are tyrannical, they demean the general population, they are cruel. To support air-tight sanctions, is to submit to pure and cold sadism. There has to be a better way...


The last word on the smear attacks

by IRANdokht on

Thank you Dr Sahimi! 




AIPAC wants a stooge (to IA)

by kharmagas on

Shah towards the end of his life wanted to make Iran prosperous and independent. Had he actually entered the phase in which he would have gone for the nukes to ensure Iran's independence .... he would have encountered the same issues that Iran is facing now....... watch this Shah's short interview, it says it all:




Where are your friends from

by vildemose on

Where are your friends from DailyKOS? Coukld it be that their only interest in Iran is how they can leverage Iran to influence domestic politics?

 Touché, epc. I couldn't agree more. I have had the same argument with many of them on that site to no avail...I have to leave now but I will be back later to discuss what's in the national interest of the US and Iran and NOT THE IRI.

Iraneh Azad

Mr. Kharmagass

by Iraneh Azad on

You are taking the easy way out by saying that you don't agree with everything that Q says.

As I read the comments from all here, I realize that there is one big difference between the people. And this ONE BIG DIFFERENCE causes all the strife between us. The difference is that there are people, such as myself, that consider the Islamic Regime as the enemy of the people and Iran. There is another Group, such as Q, who either support the Islamic regime (based on his statements below that you ignore); or there are people, such as yourself, who are insanely OK with the Islamic regime, because of our history and deep routed distrust of foreign intervention and influence.

People like me argue that Iran would not have any issues with respect to atomic energy, AIPAC and the rest of the bull shit that we see if there were no Islamic Republic. Proof is that the USA, for example, initially under the shah helped Iran with its nuclear program.

I also believe that your view that the IRI should have nukes is misguided. IRI's possession of nukes will not protect IRAN's borders or people. Possession of nukes by the IRI will place Iranians in bigger danger. You are mistaken if you think Iran's problems will go away, as far as foreign influence and foozooli is concerned.

Good luck in your insane support of people such as Q.

ex programmer craig


by ex programmer craig on

epc: I have noticed your mixed feeling toward Iran and Iranians. You have bad days and good days...It's understnable, but your bad days far outweigh your good days,,doesn't it??

I don't come here on my "bad" days :)

I don't see a whole lot of American leftists hanging out on this blog investing as much time as I do trying to engage Iranians. Why is that? Where are your friends from DailyKOS? Could it be their only interest in Iran is how they can leverage Iran to influence domestic politics? But that wouldn't be very noble of them, would it!? And we all know how leftists are noble and altruistic!


What Iranians Want

by LalehGillani on

ex programmer craig wrote: “Iranians will end up with whatever kind of government they want and can successfully create for themselves.”

As a patriot and a political activist, it is my duty and sacred obligation to bring about true democracy and independence to my people and homeland.

“What Iranians want” can be easily manipulated and distorted by another charlatan.

Khomeini is a prime example of such a charlatan while the latest honor of mass deception goes to Mir Hussein Mussavi and his IRI reformist followers.

ex programmer craig

quoting DailyKOS at me now?

by ex programmer craig on

With irrelevancies, no less?

epc: did you know that there are  more than 25
million hungry Americans, including 9 million children and 3 million
senior citizens?

Yeah and back in the 1980s a lot of my class mates were on food stamps and signed up for the free school lunches for poor kids.  You act like poverty in the US is something new? This recession didn't hit the poor very hard. It hit the middle class like a ton of bricks. Now can we please try to stay on topic?


epc: I have noticed your

by vildemose on

epc: I have noticed your mixed feeling toward Iran and Iranians. You have bad days and good days...It's understnable, but your bad days far outweigh your good days,,doesn't it??



by Mammad on

I do not know what the devil you are talking about. Laleh made a good point regarding the motivation of an US attack on Iran and its consequences, and I said I agree with it. I also said that I have disagreed with her in the past. So, what else is there?

Who says we should all reach a consensus? We can agree on certain points, disagree on others, learn from both, and move on. You have a problem with this?

Optimistically speaking, you read too much into what I said.



epc: did you know that

by vildemose on

epc: did you know that there are  more than 25 million hungry Americans, including 9 million children and 3 million senior citizens? //

ex programmer craig


by ex programmer craig on

Iraq is doing well??? How??? 

I didn't say Iraq was doing well. I said I'd be disappointed if Iran couldn't do at least as well post-war as Iraq has.

Do you really think the US can afford another war??

We were able to afford a war during the Great Depression, weren't we? We can afford war. What we can't afford right now is more nation building.

Do you think the US needs another war to save itself from bankruptcy?? Is that why you support a war against Iran?

Hey now! I never said I supported war against Iran! et tu vildemose!?