VIEW
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Don't Bother
03-Dec-2010
It seems that the on-again, off-again meeting between the EU’s foreign affairs chief, Lady Catherine Ashton, and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, is on again in Geneva for December 6-7. The talks with representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany are expected to last two days to afford "sufficient time for a full and in-depth exchange of views," according to excerpts from the invitation letter to Iran. The Obama administration and its European allies appear to be champing at the bit to talk with Iran regarding a range of matters, but especially about putting a halt to Iran’s nuclear enrichment and presumed weapons program. This past Wednesday saw U.S. officials even holding out the promise of more economic support for Iran. The Iranians, on the other hand, are still playing hard to get and say that they are willing to talk about anything except their nuclear-enrichment program.
First some facts and then a different vision of how to deal with the mullahs.
The Obama administration has little or no comprehension of the mindset of those who are in control behind the scenes in Iran. U.S. officials and their advisers have hardly had any meaningful engagement with them. These street-smart Iranians are nowhere to be seen in public. In their mindset, the United States is weak and wants an agreement with Iran at any cost whereas they, the Iranians, hold all the cards. To them, Europeans, for example the French, are even weaker; Iranian intelligence operatives were laughing when they got the French authorities to release an Iranian who was being held for the murder of a former Iranian prime minister in France! These shadowy Iranians have contempt for weakness. The willy-nilly ratcheting up of sanctions further supports their beliefs of U.S. indecisiveness and weakness. Although Washington has numerous ways to make the sanctions truly “crippling,” it has declined to do so on the premise that the average Iranian may suffer too much. When have realists lost sleep over the sufferings of average Iranians? The Iranian authorities know that they will not be attacked because: a United States that is unwilling to adopt effective sanctions will not take military action against them; U.S. hands are tied in Afghanistan and in Iraq; although Israel is the only real military threat, America is unwilling to give Israel carte blanche because things could go horribly wrong; and Washington has learned the painful lesson of the Iran-Iraq War if nothing else, that is, if Iran is attacked, then Iranians will rally behind the mullahs.
In today’s Iran the plain truth is that the regime is unpopular as never before. The only supporters of the regime are those who receive direct benefits from their association, including: a minority of clerics (since the devout have long divorced themselves from the likes of Khamenei), the Revolutionary Guards, the Baseej, the intelligence services, the families of “martyrs” who receive regular subsidies and businessmen who are directly connected to regime insiders, all told about five million out of a population of 75 million. The average Iranian no longer supports the regime because: their economic condition has become intolerable and they have no hope of improvement; income disparities have grown since the Shah’s reign; Iranian citizens have fewer personal freedoms than under the Shah; dissidents are treated much more harshly than they ever were under the Shah; and many feel ashamed of where Iran finds itself today, especially in comparison to Persian Gulf Arabs who have historically been regarded as inferior but whom Iranians today envy. And importantly, the majority of Iranians have become totally disenchanted by the entire apparatus of their clerical regime. They see how their religion has become perverted and brutal. They see the devout clerics distancing themselves from the political mullahs. There is a forced religiosity in the today’s Iran and far less religious freedom than there was under the Shah. The clerical regime has brought severe costs, such as economic mismanagement, brutality and religious pretensions, and no tangible benefits. Reminiscences about the Shah’s regime are becoming increasingly frequent and nostalgic.
The clerics and their supporters believe that the United States is bent on getting rid of them and that their best hope for long-term survival is the nuclear program, which they cannot abandon.
Realists in America and in Europe know that the real problem is not Iran’s nuclear quest but its regime. An agreement with the mullahs would be not worth the paper it is written on. The regime with nuclear capabilities will be many times worse than it is the regime of today.
For the imagined “average” Iranian what is better? An attack on Iran (and covert operations in Iran by the United States) to overthrow the regime? Cooperation between Tehran and Washington? Or all-out pressure on the regime with crippling sanctions in the hope to overthrow it?
A military attack on Iran (and covert operations that could be exposed) is not in the interest of anyone, Iranians or the West. Simply said, the regime will receive widespread support, thus increasing its lease on life. Cooperation with the mullahs would reduce pressure as the economic noose would somewhat loosen, in turn affording the clerics more room for maneuver and more domestic support.
The real hope for average Iranians is the third approach—crippling sanctions (on Iran’s central bank, stiffer U.S. fines on those who circumvent sanctions and measures to initiate a run on the Iranian currency) coupled with a demand that the regime respect human rights and free elections, including free elections for a change in the constitution (demands that would enrage the regime but hearten average Iranians), all in the hope of toppling the clerical regime at the hands of the Iranian people. Why won’t the United States adopt such an approach? For sheer lack of will. It’s that simple. However, the reasons given are two—the average Iranian will suffer “too much” and nothing will succeed in overthrowing the Tehran regime.
These are manufactured reasons. The average Iranian hopes for a better future, but there is no hope as long as the mullahs and the Revolutionary Guards are in charge. Average Iranians cannot cope with the economic pressures of their daily lives. It is my deeply held belief that they would rather suffer a little more if there were a reasonable chance that mass demonstrations might ensue and that the regime might be overthrown. Most rational people anywhere in the world would choose the same rather than suffer for the foreseeable future.
Will there be mass demonstrations, will they lead to massacre at the hands of the Baseej and to the regime’s downfall? I believe that all of the above are likely. Iran is ripe for street protests the likes of which this regime has not seen. In the face of such protests the bazaaris and other rich merchants with close links to the regime will in all likelihood shut down their businesses, further damaging the frail economy. The regime’s thugs, the Baseej, especially those from outside Tehran, will at first kill demonstrators at will. These developments will contrast the “brutality and un-Islamic” behavior of the mullahs to the “humanity and Islamic” behavior of the Shah! Soon the protests would spread into other cities and become so massive that clerics, with the exception of a few around Khamenei, and the Revolutionary Guards (who effectively control the Baseej) will throw in their lot with the protesters in their quest to survive. There will be pain and much turmoil but that is the nature of the beast.
The indicated policies are clear. All the U.S. administration needs is political will to support the people of Iran in their struggle for freedom, human rights, a say in governance and a better future for all Iranians.
First published in nationalinterest.org
AUTHOR
Hossein Askari is Iran Professor of International Business and professor of international affairs at the George Washington University.
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 |
Iran is *not* a military dictatorship
by Shutruk on Sun Dec 05, 2010 05:38 AM PSTIt amuses me how some people think that Iran has gone from being a "clerical despotism" to a "military dictatorship" just because the candidate favored by Sepah won.
Iran has had 25 nationwide elections over the past 30 years that have attracted turnouts of over 80%. You cannot deny this.
If you want a *fair* election for the presidency you cannot allow nearly 500 people to stand because you would need to give all of them equal coverage.
Let me remind you that in the last Majlis election there were 4,600 candidates contesting 290 seats. These were competitive elections of the sort that we didn't see in Egypt recently.
Now, should the vetting process be changed or relaxed? Yes. That is what reformists in Iran have been arguing for some time. But that doesn't alter the fact that Iran has competitive and fair elections that broadly reflect the popular will.
Remember that the communists, marxists, secular nationalists and others were allowed to participate in the early days of the Islamic Republic but *they* quit the process - some of them turning to violence. The Tudeh party was closed down in 1983 for treason because it was being used by the KGB for spying.
America
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Dec 05, 2010 05:24 AM PSTI admit that America is not a model I would have for Iran. It is biased and undemocratic. There is too much money involved in elections.
However that in NO WAY excused the Iranian system. Which is MORE corrupt than America. The whole IRI constitution has to go. It is biased by nature and the fact that it has monarch known as VF. In addition the IRI does not even follow its own constitution. Thus making it in violation of its own laws!!The right approach is to get rid of the position of VF; "assembly of experts" and the vetting process. Let the people decide who is of "political importance" by voting for them.
Shuturk
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Dec 05, 2010 05:17 AM PSTSure you get to "register" to run. Then disqualified if the "system" does not like you.
Regarding the numbers: tallies done in a military dictatorship mean nothing. Saddam won with 98 % of the votes. If you believe one then you may believe the other.
BS is BS no matter where it comes from. IRI is a military dictatorship no matter how you try to spin the rotten thing.
Shuturk
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Dec 05, 2010 05:20 AM PSTI have rarely read such nonsense as you write sir.
In Iran you say the wrong thing and if you are lucky you go to jail. If not you get murdered by the state.
In USA you do get plenty of propaganda from the main stream media. But you also get to say whatever you want. I have read PLENTY of stuff totally opposing the system. Try "Democracy Now" for a good example.
//www.democracynow.org/
Veiled prophet
by Shutruk on Sun Dec 05, 2010 05:12 AM PSTAnyone is free to register to run for office in Iran - anyone, male or female.
In the 2009 election, 475 candidates registered their candidacy. In order to ensure a *fair* election, and give equal access to radio and television, the electoral watchdog is obliged to screen and whittle the list down to ,at most, 10 candidates based on their political importance and the personal requirements for the office of presidency provided in article 115 of the constitution.
Now, if the Iranian people didn't like the choice on offer, they didn't have to vote: but 85% of them did whether you like it or not!
In the United States, anyone can stand for president, but the corporate media only ever offers up a Republican and a Democrat - very rarely a third party or independent. With no financial means to compete for campaigning, advertising and promotion, the system is rigged in favor of two parties with all the money, and the backing of the corporations and wealthy donors.
Why is it that only two parties, almost indistinguishable from each other, completely dominate American politics?
Comparing Iran and America
by Shutruk on Sun Dec 05, 2010 05:02 AM PSTIn the United States, the press is owned by the capitalists: the Wall street journal, New York Times, Washington Post etc all reflect the views of ,at most, 10% of the population.
In Iran, the press is not owned and run by the government - which is why it finds itself in trouble often. If there is censorship in Iran, it is precisely because the press is so independent and speaks its mind to the dismay of the government watchdog.
Ask yourself: How many newspapers in America with a mass circulation oppose the current Rep-Dem political establishment?
Askari
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Dec 05, 2010 04:57 AM PSTthat professors can be idiots too.
I was not waiting for Askari to prove this fact. I learned that in graduate school!
The real problem is this:
IRI is not reformable and has to go. Different people have different ideas on how it should be done. But pretty much everyone I know both inside and outside agrees IRI has to go. So I do not think Askari is stupid; just desperate.
askari proves
by Niloufar Parsi on Sun Dec 05, 2010 04:39 AM PSTthat professors can be idiots too.
the fool is openly asking for 'crippling sanctions' as 'The real hope for average Iranians'. this he reckons should be 'coupled with a demand that the regime respect human rights and free elections, including free elections for a change in the constitution'. he then goes on to ask 'Why won’t the United States adopt such an approach?'
it is only americans and islraelis who demand crippling sanctions on iran.
it is only servile slaves who think foreigners can push a consitutional referendum on their country.
it is only a heartless traitor who begs usa to target his own country with crippling sanctions.
Roozbeh,
by AMIR1973 on Sat Dec 04, 2010 09:48 PM PST...just doing his job, a bit like what you are doing here, except he did a good job.
Hilarious :-)
Shutruk, about the contractor and heating problem..
by Roozbeh_Gilani on Sat Dec 04, 2010 09:38 PM PSTThe contractor came and fixed the problem with the boiler room, so we have heating tonight. No, he was not an evil capitalist, he was employed by the firm, just doing his job, a bit like what you are doing here, except he did a good job.
Please stay away from whatever MKO smoke, highly dangerous.
"Personal business must yield to collective interest."
IRI is the land of "political pluralism"
by AMIR1973 on Sat Dec 04, 2010 09:11 PM PSTNot only is there more "political pluralism" in the IRI than in the U.S. (meaning only followers of Khomeini are tolerated), but there is also more freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly in the Islamic Republic than there is in the United States. Oh yeah, sure there is. Good night.
"Sargord",
by AMIR1973 on Sat Dec 04, 2010 09:05 PM PSTSean and Amir
by Shutruk on Sat Dec 04, 2010 06:43 PM PSTSean and Amir,
How many political parties are represented in the U.S congress? How many independents are there? In the Iranian Majlis there are no fewer than 43 parties represented and 39 independents with views, especially on economic policy, ranging from neo-liberalism to socialism.
There is far more political pluralism in Iran than there is in the United States with its corporate-run government and media.
If Iran is "Islamist" then the United States is "Capitalist"
Amir-jaan
by Sargord Pirouz on Sat Dec 04, 2010 06:20 PM PSTWhere've you been? Enjoy your vacation? Do anything or go anywhere interesting?
There is only one political orientation allowed in IRI
by AMIR1973 on Sat Dec 04, 2010 06:18 PM PSTKhomeinism. Period.
Shutruk: the silly propaganda of a West-residing IRI Groupie who praises the rule of the Hidden Imam's earthly representative from the comfort of Europe or North America will not convince anyone other than your fellow West-residing IRI Groupies. Take care.
Quote of the decade by Shutruk
by seannewyork on Sat Dec 04, 2010 05:14 PM PSTFrom Shutruk: "At least in Iran there are many political parties and views, and not just two like in the United States"
Game, set, match. What a fool, what the hell are you talking about. Serious what are you smoking.
Again, Askari is correct in his analysis.
Roozbeh
by Shutruk on Sat Dec 04, 2010 05:01 PM PSTYou're a communist, so don't pay the evil capitalist contractor anything.
Watch this anti-Ahmadinejad, pro-Mujahedeen song. It is funny.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=DES_B1JX4pw&NR=1
"shutruk", whatever you've been smoking....
by Roozbeh_Gilani on Sat Dec 04, 2010 04:43 PM PSTI want some.
I am having a bad day with my house heating broken, the contractor is asking $80 to come and just take a look at the freaking thing ...
I need to escape to the cloud kookoo land, where you seem to be residing at....
"Personal business must yield to collective interest."
Amir's delusions
by Shutruk on Sat Dec 04, 2010 04:36 PM PSTLook, *nobody* believes that the 2009 election or the 1997 election in Iran did not have a high turnout of over 80%. You are completely deluded if you think otherwise. Cite me one source claiming that Iranians did not flock to the polls last year. If the elections were a "sham", then why did they bother doing so?
The Queen of Great Britain is unelected but is the head of state: does anyone know this among the anti-IR crowd?
You complain that the Vali-e-faqih is elected once and his performance is regularly monitored by an elected assembly of scholars who have the power to remove him if he is not doing his job. That is *way* more democratic than in Britain with its unelected monarch, unelected upper house, unelected judiciary and unelected but very powerful civil service.
At least in Iran there are many political parties and views, and not just two like in the United States (which are hardly different anyway).
IRI's sham "elections"
by AMIR1973 on Sat Dec 04, 2010 03:59 PM PSTNorth Korea and Cuba claim higher voter turnout in their sham "elections" than the IRI claims for its own sham "elections". Do the West-residing IRI Groupies want us to believe that those states' elections also are democratic and legitimate because of their supposedly "high voter turnout"? And these are just the sham "elections" for the Khomeinist "president", the Khomeinist pseudo-parliament, etc. Needless to say, the clerical Leader of the country can NOT even be popularly elected, but rather was chosen 21 years ago by 86 Shia male "experts".
Askari has *no* evidence
by Shutruk on Sat Dec 04, 2010 03:43 PM PSTThe 2009 election *was* a referendum and it was observed by the foreign media: there is no doubt that the Iranian people participated en masse. It was called a "fraud" because the people of Tehran city voted for Mousavi and demonstrated against the outcome.
I suppose you must also reject the election of Khatami and the reformist parliament in 2000?
You still can't answer a simple question: If elections in Iran are fraudulent, then why have they attracted a turnout of over 60% on average over the past 30 years ?Why would people bother?
In Egypt, whose regime you probably support, the turnout of the recent parliamentary election was less than 15% because everyone knew the electoral process is rigged.
Those people who claim the Islamic Republic and Ahmadnejad have minimal support have to provide real *evidence*. If you cannot, then shut up. Your view is worthless.
IRI official figures what a joke, Askari is correct
by seannewyork on Sat Dec 04, 2010 02:23 PM PSTthats what you dont get. we dont believe any official figures from 1979 on. get it, dont give a damn what the official figures you have say becuase it is all lies and bs. who cares how many fake votes mossavi got.
if you believe in the support of the system why wont you support a referendum on the islamic republic with international groups watching? then we wont have any questions if IRI wins ill be on my way, if people want another system we will put you and all of IRI on trial for treason, murder, and rape of the Iranian people
your comment is very stupid :" More Iranians have confidence in their system than Americanns do of the RepDem plutocracy that is the United States."
go back to your offical results and polls. LOL
Sean's "reasons"
by Shutruk on Sat Dec 04, 2010 01:53 PM PSTSean,
If Iranians regard elections in the country as "illegitimate" then why did 85% of voters participate in this one as well as those held over the past 25 elections which have had an average turnout of 60%? More Iranians have confidence in their system than Americanns do of the RepDem plutocracy that is the United States.
You make no sense whatsoever.
Also, the 3 post-election surveys are both *consistent* with each other and *congruent* with the official figures. Saying you voted for Mousavi is hardly a crime in Iran as he was a candidate in the election.
Explain why 64% of Iranians approve of Ahmadinejad in the surveys *and* 62% of Iranians voted for him according to the official figures.
Do you have any data to support your argument?
Afshin zadeh
by Shutruk on Sat Dec 04, 2010 01:45 PM PSTLook, Mousavi won in Shemiranat, Tehran and 46 towns across Iran ,as well as the expat vote. But he lost overall. The people of (North) Tehran could not accept or believe that Iranians in the provinces would have voted for Ahmadinejad - but they did . If you don't know Iran beyond Niavaran and Tajrish then that is your fault.
Do you know what the majority of the people of Tafresh and Delijan think or Lalejin and Dorood? Or Zabol and Yasooj? I bet you haven't even heard of such places before.
And only 5 million votes had been counted withn 3 hours before the result was called. The full count was completed within 12 hours.
But you knew that, right?
Shutruk and Leveretts belive these polls
by seannewyork on Sat Dec 04, 2010 01:24 PM PSTobviously you have no idea about IRan and polls and some random person calling you in iran asking you about your opinion on IRI or khamenei or ahmadi. are you joking. do you think anyone would answer correctly. everyone thinks its the basij/intelligence doing a check. it its obvious you have no clue about the mentality of people in iran.
polls in iran are worthless.
if that is how you prove 24 million voted for ahmadi you are embarassing yourself. people in iran dont even accept the elections as legitimate. even if moussavi would have won, the regime and system will go just a matter of when.
Shutruk
by afshinazad on Sat Dec 04, 2010 01:02 PM PSTAre you for real and this is your approval by western organizations and since when the western survey is acceptable, I was there in election day and I have seen and spoken with so many people and I have seen people came out to vote which they never voted in their life and where did this 24milion vote were counted. if these moron mollahs could count 24 forget about million.you people are amazing counting 40 million vote in same night within 3 hours which they claimed the victory. one should be blind not to see reality in Iran and I would suggest hamvatan it is time to think about nation and the country not the AHAMDY nor the KHAMENIE, these people don't care about you and I , they only think about their self interest.
24 million Iranians re-elected Ahmadinejad. He represents the nation whether you like it or not. Opinion surveys conducted by western organizations give him a 64% approval rating:
Sean and others
by Shutruk on Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:24 PM PST24 million Iranians re-elected Ahmadinejad. He represents the nation whether you like it or not. Opinion surveys conducted by western organizations give him a 64% approval rating:
<a href="//www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/653.php?lb=brme&pnt=653&nid=&id=">Polls show Iranians regard the government as legitimate</a>
Again, just because you don't like the leadership of the Islamic Republic, doesn't mean that the majority of Iranians within Iran do.
You claim to oppose "fascism" but you assert that you are always right and everyone else must be wrong, citing no evidence whatsoever to support your case. What *evidence* is there that only 5 million Iranians support the system, as Askari claims?
Sounds to me like some people here are more fascistic in their political tendencies than they would like to think.
WHO IS ANTI IRAN & IRANIAN
by afshinazad on Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:50 AM PSTWhy would you call anyone anti Iran who is oppose the negotiation with fascist regime, isn't this treason to nation and the country support the regime that rape and kills own people for own survival and any one oppose their sick ideas charged with enemy of so called god and question is who is god anyway and who's god,
How someone could accept such a behaviours from this regime that if he or she call themselves patriot and Iranian and what is that blinds these people, aren’t you Iranian and aren’t you beating on your chest that you want best interest of the nation and country, why aren’t you people think of well being of your own fellow countryman. Foreign policy must be for best interest of the nation and country and no Iranian willing to give that away but of course no Iranian have a say in this and those who represent them they are not concern about national interest or the people. So please those who, all of sudden act patriot but they forget about their own people and they forget that our people are suffering and their money goes to Arabs who they hate us, stop wasting your time and please don’t lecture us with same crap that you been told by bunch of thugs. Agreement with these thugs ends of Iranian future period and there is no choice to topple this regime by all means and there is no time like today that regime is in disarray.
Ali Baba's version of how change will take place in Iran
by Mola Nasredeen on Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:33 AM PSTHere is what he says:
"Will there be mass demonstrations, will they lead to massacre at the hands of the Baseej and to the regime’s downfall? I believe that all of the above are likely. Iran is ripe for street protests the likes of which this regime has not seen. In the face of such protests the bazaaris and other rich merchants with close links to the regime will in all likelihood shut down their businesses, further damaging the frail economy."
Qusestions:
How do you know?
Where's your proof?
Why do you think Iranians will go on the streets and get arrested, imprisoned or even killed?
Are you living in Iran?
Or are you sitting in your comfortable home thinking, among other things, what to buy for Christmas?
They will not, they are wiser than that.
The AUDACITY! REALLY!
Seanyy
by Doctor mohandes on Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:41 AM PSTYou re -posted the same article here!!