CHOMSKY

Okay Jaleho, you want to be serious?

IRI is the most violent and repressive government in Iran's recent history. It has killed more Iranians than any other regime; it has introduced medieval barbarities (stoning, flogging, rape of female prisoners in the form of "sigheh" just so they weren't virgins when they were executed). It came to power on the back of criminal lies, murder, and pathological levels of deceit--a calling card of Khomeinism (i.e. exaggerating grossly about the number killed in Jaleh Square--IRI's leaders claimed over 15,000 were killed and wounded by "Zionist troops", when the true number was between 84 and 88 in all of Tehran on Black Friday; Islamists set the Cinema Rex on fire and killed over 400 people--the single bloodiest incident of the Revolution). Khomeini told all sorts of lies while he was in Neuphle-le-Chateau about women having equal rights, the clergy not being directly involved in governance etc. It has made a shambles of Iran's economy: Iran's GDP per capita (purchasing power parity) is lower than that of Botswana or Gabon; Iranians' average income was higher in 1976 (despite 31 years of oil and natural gas revenues; and despite the fact that the Shah had high oil prices only  from 1973-1978). It must be easy to sing the praises of the disaster scene known as the IRI while living in Sheytan-e Bozorg or elsewhere in the West, isn't it so?

Jamshid, try to seperate your own opinion from facts

And then you'll understand what I've been saying.

Iranian national rights exist absolutely irrespective of any government and should be defended as such.

One type of government is responsible and has the safety and interests of the Iranian people in mind above all else.

This is mildly interesting but it's all your opinion. You can label whoever you want "responsible" and whoever else "irresponsible". This is exactly the problem. From some person/group's point of view the government of any country at any time is "irresponsible." That's why things like this don't depend on personal opinions.

Would a majority of Iranians in 1978 agree with this statement about the Shah? Answer is no. Does that mean they should have been against Iran's right to enrich Uranium?

The Iranian people are faced with two options. One is supporting nuclear rights while the IRI is in charge, but at the high risk of war and therefore loss of lives,

Once again, completely unproven personal opinion. If I wanted to take anybody's opinion, I would take the Iranian people's as a whole.

As a matter of fact, many professional analysts have argued that just like North Korea, going even further and gaining a nuclear weapon would prevent war and "therefore loss of lives".

Any Iranian who loves his country would support those rights. This is a given and not subject to discussion.

Good. So why are you against Iran haven't these rights?

The issue is rather how are we going to achive those rights, through peaceful means, or through confrontational means.

"Rights" are not "achieved". They are only exercised or taken away. Iran has had these rights ("achieved if you will") since before the IRI. They were codified in NPT. "Achieving" is not on the table. What's on the table is these rights being taken away.

But these are not the sort of things that could lead Iran to war or endanger the safety of Iranians. So the comparision is irrelevant.

Actually, some of these ( like the 3 islands )could very well lead to war if the West decides to make an issue out of them, say, for example after a missile defense installation?

You may think they are irrelevent but that is exactly the attitude that causes nations to lose their rights.

if obtaining our nuclear rights, while the IRI is in charge, would NOT be at a high risk of war, deaths, sanctions, isolation or other miseries for our people, then I would support the IRI or any other dictatorial or democratic form of government to obtain those rights.

First of all, I don't think they will lead to war at all. War with who? If the west or Israel could justify war they would have attacked already. What will change when Iran has nuclear enrichment? (which it already does by the way)

Second. Some rights are worth fighting for, example: the Iran/Iraq war. If push comes to shove, only at that time, I would let the iranian people make a decision of weather or not they want to go to war over something.

It's possible for example that if US Navy takes over the 3 PG islands, there would be no enthusiasm to go to war on the part of Iran.

According to your standard, those Islands should not be defended because there would be certain risk of war with the US by trying to take them back.

I, however, would rather the Iranian people decide if they want to defend them. It's not clear what they would think in that situation. But it is clear, what they think of nuclear rights right now.

it doesn't care at all, so

it doesn't care at all, so long as the "greater ideological cause" is achieved.

Jamshid jan: Even if millions are dead and the country is destroyed, what guarantee do we have that the "greater ideological cause" is achieved?? There is no guarantee in the event of war that the IRI will achieve any of its goals. The IRI is suicidal run by warmongers like Q whose blood lust trumps over anything else. 

No cause, however noble,  or ideology is worth starting an irresponsible and unwinnable war with a formidable advesary like the US.

Q

"Supporting Iran's rights, meaning supporting them irrespective of any government's position."

This is a false, misleading and dangerous statement.

There are two types of governments. One type of government is responsible and has the safety and interests of the Iranian people in mind above all else. This government behaves responsibly towards its people as well as in the world arena. It uses intelligent foreign policies and "good relations" with the rest of the world as the means for achieving its nuclear rights (or other rights that some may regard as controversial.)

Another type of government is irresponsible and considers its ideological goals above all else, including the safety and "worldly/material" interests of its people. In its view, the people's lives and worldly comforts can and should all be sacrificed for the "greater cause."

This government behaves irresponsiblity, has irresponsible foreign policies, takes risks and engages in advantures that could very well put its people in danger of war, isolation or other miseries. To this type of government, this is fine; people can be sacrificed, so long as the greater cause is acheived.

When it comes to "nuclear rights", if I we had the responsible type of government, first of all we wouldn't have faced as many obstacles, and secondly, there wouldn't be any dicussions in here as whether or not we should all support our government's efforts to become nuclear. The answer would be obvious.

But we have the unfortune of having an irresponsible type of government at the helm, a government that does not know how (or rather does not want) to get Iran's nuclear rights without confrontation and chest beating and arbadeh keshi, a government that does not care if tomorrow a million Iranians die in another useless war, it doesn't care at all, so long as the "greater ideological cause" is achieved.

The Iranian people are faced with two options. One is supporting nuclear rights while the IRI is in charge, but at the high risk of war and therefore loss of lives, and the other is temporary setting aside the nuclear issue, and instead concentrating in changing the regime (through revolution, reforms, etc.), so that later we obtain our nuclear rights with a responsible government in charge and without the risk of war, sanctions and isolation.

So the issue is not whether we should support our rights, nuclear or otherwise. Any Iranian who loves his country would support those rights. This is a given and not subject to discussion. The issue is rather how are we going to achive those rights, through peaceful means, or through confrontational means.

You brought another example. Should we not support the IRI for its efforts to keep the name "Persian Gulf" from becoming the "Arabian Gulf", just because it is the IRI? The answer to this question and other similiar questions would obviously be yes we should support IRI in those efforts. But these are not the sort of things that could lead Iran to war or endanger the safety of Iranians. So the comparision is irrelevant. 

Conclusion: If obtaining our nuclear rights will be at the cost of high risk of war, deaths, sanctions, isolation and so on, and if it further empowers the IRI, then we should first concentrate on establishing a democratic and responsible form of government, and only then pursue our nuclear rights through peaceful means (which is very feasible.)

However, if obtaining our nuclear rights, while the IRI is in charge, would NOT be at a high risk of war, deaths, sanctions, isolation or other miseries for our people, then I would support the IRI or any other dictatorial or democratic form of government to obtain those rights.

Jaleh, thanks for the comedy hour!

Jaleh, although these days my low level of faith on greens has gotten even lower, I don't have any faith in Ahmadinejad either ... and therefore I don't have your energy ....., I look at many "greens" of this site and tell myself "mordegaan raa bogzaar taa mordegaan bar daarand" ..... but as usual I enjoyed reading your comment  about these mordegaan (with exception of your statement about Dr. Sahimi- I didn't like that one).

Dear Amir, be honest now

"Didn't you wish you had as much hair as Ahmadinejad has, even if it were boogandoo?"

I am amazed at the very low level some people are willing to go for meaningless insults!

Is the above sentence good enough for YOUR level of debate? 

Correction: Body odor not "order" :-)

Well, it's certainly possible that the smelly president of the Rapist Republic has a body order to go with his body odor. Does stinky president ever intend to shampoo his hair or is he waiting "ta enqelab-e Mahdi" before busting out the Prell?

Comedy hour w/ Islamist cyber groupie Jaleho

Q, they forget that about 80% of ALL Iranians

polled at different times were FOR Iran's nuclear right. That is, a huge majority of Iranians of all colors and background support this right.

The groups who repeat Fred's type of argument against Iran having the nuclear know-how are completely repeating the western and Zionist propaganda that has been fed to them. This is their propaganda line:

Although there are countries like India, Israel, US or some western countries who DO have nuclear WEAPONS, but these countries are SANE not to use them.(Let alone that the only country which has used the weapons in a barbaric way was the US). As such, nuclear weapons in THEIR hands is used as a deterrence and is OK. But, a regime like IRI is irrational, suicidal, and thus can not be trusted with a nuclear know-how. That is the main reason that the western and Zionist media have been working like mad dogs to portray Ahmadinejad who is in fact a very CLEVER and rational person, as  a maniac. Many of the Iranian.comners have bought that portrayal of Ahmadinejad before they even heard him once! No wonder many were surprized to hear his interviews with Charlie Rose (who doesn't censor or take parts out of context for propaganda), or they were surprised to hear him in the reasonable presidential debates.

The IMAGE made of Ahmadinejad or IRI must be very irrational in order to single out Iran as the one country which must be denied its nuclear rights. Otherwise, many sane analyst beleive that even a nuclear weapons capability in Iran is going to be the biggest deterrence in a volatile region with so many anti-Iranian Arabs (Saddam was an example), or anti-Arab Israelis. The best deterrence of course is a nuclear-free zone, which means Irseali mad dogs be ripped off their nuclear war heads, but short of that an Iranian-counter balance is the region's best bet for safety!

Jamshid, this is dead wrong

Supporting a nuclear IRI is supporting the IRI. I don't know how else to put this for you.

Supporting Iran's rights, meaning supporting them irrespective of any government's position.

Iran has many rights and they are outlined in treaties and international law. It's absurd to claim that they are all of a sudden not worth defending because of the government in charge that you don't seem to like.

Ask yourself some simple questions:

Did you support oil nationalization, Iran's membership in UN/OPEC or Iran's nuclear program when it started? Because the Pahlavi dictatorship was the "beneficiary" of that. Would you say you were "defending the Pahlavis" ? Or is this type of an accusation only for others and not yourself?

Sooner or later the West will make an issue out of the 3 disputed islands in Persian Gulf. Will you be "benefiting" the IRI by defending Iran's claim to those islands?

It's funny how one relentless line of attack against IRI is how it doesn't protect Iran's rights, like for example in the Caspian Sea region. Yet, here you are saying no one else should either as long as Iran is under the IRI.

Why are you benefiting the IRI by taking its side on the "Persian Gulf" naming dispute?

National rights are national rights. Those who believe the West or whoever, will simply put these rights in "escrow" until such time as a government THEY approve of shows up are living in la-la land.

Iran lost much of its rights during the corrupt Ghajar monarchy. No one gave those rights back just because the government changed.

It was in fact Masoud Rajavi who popularized this line of argument. This is what he used to say in the 80's:

"We are not attacking Iran, we are attacking IRI".

"We are not killing Iranians, we are killing IRI agents".

"After we liberate Iran, Saddam Hussein will give everything back".

Under Reza Khan, the Iranian armed forces brutally suppressed a few successionist movements in Kurdestan and Azerbaijan. Does that mean everyone who supported that action was really defending the Pahlavis?

In this particular issue, you are completely out of touch with mainstream Iranian thought. It's not just opposition leaders like Mousavi and Karroubi who support the Iran's nuclear rights, even though it benefits their political enemies. It's also loyal Pahlavi era officials like Ardeshir Zahedi and Akbar Etemad who fully back Iran's nuclear rights under the NPT, just like Mammad. Are you saying these people are defending the IRI?

If you are against sanctions, does that mean you are "defending" the IRI? Isn't IRI a "beneficiary" of that policy?

You've been supporting nuclear rights despite the IRI being in charge and becoming the beneficiary of those rights. This is the same as supporting the IRI.

Dead wrong as I said. IRI can be said to be the beneficiary of all kinds of rights: Airspace rights, territorial rights, legal rights, etc. If you hate the IRI, that's not enough reason to sell out the national rights of Iran.

I hope you can find enough insight to set aside your considerable personal feelings and look at Iran's rights objectively.

IC Rush Limbaughs feel obliged to love Chomsky?!

There are two types of Iranian exiles who are itching to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran:

1. Those who are openly Shahi, MKO, neocons, AIPAC sympathizers, the Rush Limbaugh lovers...... These people have no problem being aligned with AIPAC, McCain, Lieberman, Hillary the-Iran-nuke-princess.... People like Azar Nafisi have no problem being in this group, and Milani to some extent and bunch of Iranian.comers like Fred or DK or Empire loving nut cases like Samsam and co belong to this group.

2. Then there are the exiles who hate to be associated with the above group as they finds it below their "intellectual" level to be associated with backward ultra right and neocons. They consider themselves "advocates of human rights" but their advocacy has taken the form exactly advertised by the first putrid group! These are the ones that failed to follow the delicate path that Chomsky talks about which the majority of youngster protester in Iran managed to detect and follow, but these exiles failed to do so, failed to understand the huge crowd that went to street on 22 Bahman, Qods Day, and the day after Ashura to combat the few MKO and terrorists who tried to hijack their protest, like the Iranian.comer were hoping and praying for!

So ironically, the Iranian election has made not only a strange bed-fellow of the above two groups, but it has made the second supposedly "progreesive group" a bunch of hypocrites who repeat the worst of AIPAC and Hillary propaganda spread by the first group. Yet they "feel bad" to denounce people like Chomnsky, George Galloway, or Francis Boyle. These public figures used to be these "intellectual's" former hereos. But now that the typical Iranian.comer has been bought by the $400 million propaganda spent by the first group regarding the "election fraud", the same way that they were bought the propaganda of "iran extended the war", or "Iran is at fault re. nuclear issue"...., this second group repeats the same vomit of the first group, yet they continue to claim allegiance to Chomsky!

People like Hamid Dabashi who supported Makhmalbaaf, the big advocate of Iran sanction, is of this second type. He has to bad mouth Milani to dissociate himself from the first group. People like Sahimi probably feels bad that he's solidly on the side of Hillary Clinton whit his BS about the military coup in the June election.....and many many more on Iranian.com who consider themselves anti-Shah, but for "human right" in Iran, can easily repeat Fred's IRR propaganda line by line! They act like Sahban bi mokh alright and are in the pocket of ultra-right-neocon-AIPAC-propaganda, but they just can't denouce Chomsky yet ;-)

Come on guys, Khomeini was a much bigger man than Chomsky, as lovely as Chomsky is. Don't let your "westernization" cheat you!

"Read the articles.

"Read the articles. Everything that I say is strictly within the international agreements and the IAEA reports."

Supporting a nuclear IRI is supporting the IRI. I don't know how else to put this for you. We should first achieve democracy, and only then become a nuclear power. We should not become a nuclear power under the barbaric IRI. This will only hurt the cause of democracy by giving the IRI more amunition for its survival.

You've been supporting nuclear rights despite the IRI being in charge and becoming the beneficiary of those rights. This is the same as supporting the IRI. You can disagree all you want, but this is my opinion.

I am sorry for the loss of your brother and your cousins. They die at a young age, which is even worst. This makes it even more difficult for me to understand why you have been a reformist (pro-regime in principle) all these years.

I think it might be due to the fact that despite cautiously being against some of the IRI's crimes, you are strongly supportive of many elements within its ideology, e.g., anti-US and anti-Israel views, inclusion of Islam in government and politics (per your support of Dr. Shariati), the view that under the IRI Iran has "progressed", etc.

But today is not the time for wanting the best of both worlds. You don't have to torture yourself with wanting it both ways. One has to either completely severe its support of the regime, or keep its ties with it. There is no middle ground anymore. The middle ground has been tested with failed results for far too long.

.

.

Amir, you're going in circles

and this conversation is going downhill. You clearly missed the point of hypocrisy that I made about recently colored "green" activists.

Even if he wasn't the driving force (Khomeini was), he is intensely loyal and devoted to Emam-e Aziz, and there is no Iranian less deserving of loyalty and devotion than Khomeini.

See what I said about "being out of touch" with realities on the ground.

Chomsky is not Vietnamese and has no connections or roots whatsoever with Vietnam.

LOL! People also told him to go Russia, Palestine, etc. too.

You, on the other hand, are Iranian and do have connections with Iran. It would have been perfectly natural and right for you to remain in Iran.

I asked you not to make stupid assumptions when you don't know what you're talking about.

No way! You think 35 million Iranians could get visas to leave the country or just walk across the border (as if Iran's neighbors would let them)?

You mean 3 Millions Afghans and Iraqis got Visas to come to Iran?

The borders are porous. Smugglers come in and out all the time at every border. Why do they have to go to Europe? Any other country should be better than IRI, right? Isn't that what you're saying?

Western countries want Iranians who are doctors, dentists, engineers, university professors, etc.

And rug merchants and taxi drivers and entertainers apparently... You're just wrong. They don't actually want doctors and dentists or else they would have made it easy to transfer licenses for these professions. As it is, it's very difficult for perfectly good Iranian doctors to come and practice in North America and Europe.

All over Europe, especially Germany, the long term trend is to import all levels of labor, especially low-skilled labor. These jobs are currently filled by Turks, Africans and East Europeans whom I guess (according to your logic) must hate their governments even more than Iranians hate the IRI.

Even during Stalin's reign, "tens of millions" of Russians didn't leave.

Yes, according to your (flawed) argument, they were hypocrites or communist lovers.

The more normal state of affairs is for people to stay put in their native countries and put up with the hardship. What's unusual is to have such a big "brain drain", of which Iran is one of the world's leading countries.

The "brain drain" issue is real but exaggerated mainly because no other country is taked about in the News in this regard. American professional schools and advanced Universities are full of students from China, India, all over Latin America and other places in the same boat as Iran and they are encouraged to stay by US Policy because it helps the state where they used the state-subsidized education.

This has most to do with jobs and opportunity, which unfortuately is most directly related to US-backed 30 year old sanctions that keep Iran out of world capital and credit markets. Iran is shut out of world tourism, manufacturing and serices sectors. This is slowly changing right now which is part of the reason the West feels it is losing its leverage on Iran.

Response to Q

You say when "...many who are now calling themselves "green" were bashing Mousavi". Well, Moussavi was Prime Minister during an 8-year period of Iran's history when the Iranian government killed more of its own citizens than perhaps at any point before (or at least in its recent history). Even if he wasn't the driving force (Khomeini was), he is intensely loyal and devoted to Emam-e Aziz, and there is no Iranian less deserving of loyalty and devotion than Khomeini.  

You state: "Oh yes, the classic cheap shot. Actually professor Chomsky can tell you back when people used to tell him to "go live in Vietnam". Actually, that's a very poor analogy. Chomsky is not Vietnamese and has no connections or roots whatsoever with Vietnam. However, Chomsky did live for 6 months on a kibbutz in Israel (he has said that he and his wife had sold all their things in the U.S. and were planning to move there); but he didn't like Israel's treatment of Arabs, left the country, and has been a harsh critic of it ever since (despite the fact that he still travels there). You, on the other hand, are Iranian and do have connections with Iran. Moreover, you moved back to Iran. It would have been perfectly natural and right for you to remain in Iran. Despite what you may think, I'm not trying to question your right to make your own choices. I am simply suggesting that you don't have the courage of your convictions on this issue. You defend the IRI, and yet, given the opportunity, you made the decision to get the heck out. Whether or not you agree, I find that instructive.  

You state: "Clearly at least 50% could afford to leave the country if they wanted to." No way! You think 35 million Iranians could get visas to leave the country or just walk across the border (as if Iran's neighbors would let them)? Western countries want Iranians who are doctors, dentists, engineers, university professors, etc. You think half of Iran's population has the means to move abroad and to support themselves? No way. However, a significant portion of people with advanced degrees have either already left or are trying to leave (but may or may not get visas). Even during Stalin's reign, "tens of millions" of Russians didn't leave. The more normal state of affairs is for people to stay put in their native countries and put up with the hardship. What's unusual is to have such a big "brain drain", of which Iran is one of the world's leading countries. I think it's quite unfortunate for Iran that the IRI has made life so difficult for so many of the country's brightest minds.

Mammad Agha

 If you ever get the chance see if Chomsky has ever had any ideas about creating a new industry and putting people to work somewhere.   These inexperienced scholars are just good talkers.  The easiest thing to do in the world to gain power and popularity is to cry for the weak and poor and to attack the rich and the strong - without ever coming up with a "Tonboon" for "Fati". 

BTW - the guys has no clue what America is and how dynamic things are here in America. 

Amir,

Yes, of course it includes myself as well, which is why I stick to facts, figures and reality to support what I say, rather than biased opinions. The most recent example is the 85% turnout in IRI's elections, when many Iranians living in North America, including many on this site, and many who are now calling themselves "green" were bashing Mousavi, pushing a "boycott" and predicting a low turnout.

Unfortunately, many other Iranians are so increadibly out of touch that they can't even understand the reality on the ground. Based on self-affirming "anecdotes" and 30 year old upper class western valus, they think they know what 70 million Iranians are all about.

Wasn't life under the IRI good enough to want to stay there or to go back now?

LOL. Oh yes, the classic cheap shot. Actually professor Chomsky can tell you back when people used to tell him to "go live in Vietnam".

So, let me ask you a question, genius: There are tens of millions of people living under the IRI. Clearly at least 50% could afford to leave the country if they wanted to. Even the rest could walk out in mass migrations just like the Afghans. So this must mean they all love the IRI, right?

You're welcome to think whatever you want about me and my choice of residence with my family. It's obviously an irrelevent nonsequitor to the actual issues.

Jamshid

I have no doubt that that many people feel about the 1979 revolution as you do. I never meant that it was only you who felt the same way. But, I was responding to you.

Your statement that I use the language of the IRI to defend Iran's nuclear rights is totally wrong. Read the articles. Everything that I say is strictly within the international agreements and the IAEA reports. I have never said "IRI said this, so it must be true."

Your last statement indicates that you did not understand what I say. I meant that Iran becoming democratic is far more important than its nuclear program, because that would solve the nuc problem automatically.

Finally, your statement that "NOW I feel the pain," is totally insensitive. I felt the pain when my 23 years old brother and counsins between 20 and 28 were executed in 1981. You do not tell me when I felt the pain; I know when I did, which I still do. But, good or bad, I have separated my personal feelings from what I consider to be my patriotic duties.

Mammad

To Q

--"The perception and the attitudes of many exiles is now terribly out of date." Would you include yourself as an "out of date" exile or are you another kind of exile?

--"As a matter of fact I had left Iran before the revolution but went back and lived in Iran for years after it." And where are you settled down now? Wasn't life under the IRI good enough to want to stay there or to go back now? 

Amir,

Please don't put words in my mouth or make baseless assumptions about me.

Where did I say Afghans came to Iran because IRI was "desirable" ? It was obviously better than what they left behind, but that's not the point I made.

Millions of refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq came to Iran, and over a million Iranians left Iran. Meanwhile the population doubled by increase in birthrates and lower infant mortality. Over two thirds of Iranians weren't born when the Shah was around. My point was that Iranian demographics have changed tremendously. The perception and the attitudes of many exiles is now terribly out of date.

But of course, I don't need to tell this to Q and Mammad. You already know this. After all, you too got out of the IRI and left your birthplace.

As a matter of fact I had left Iran before the revolution but went back and lived in Iran for years after it. But "voting with your feet" is neither a scientific nor a terribly convincing argument.

Half the world probably had wanted to live in the US at some point, partly because of the high standard of living, jobs, but also because of tremendous cultural advertising that distorts the reality of life in the US. There are far more Indians and Chinese in the US. There are millions of European and Canadian immigrants and of course tens of Millions of Mexicans. It doesn't mean they "voted" in any "referendum" against any government.

I know of no such precedent in modern Iranian history.

The fact is all migration and travel is up, including Americans living abroad. Never before has it been easier and more convinient, for those who can afford it. Afterall, it's not cheap for an Iranian to come all the way to North America.

Mammad

"And, you say so mainly because I do not subscribe to your view of the Revolution that you yourself supported, but then turned against, feeling fooled and misled"

I've got news for you Mammad. It wasn't just me who was deceived, the majority of Iran's population was as well. And yes we were indeed misled, but by people who subscribed to your type of views.

"If defending Iran's nuclear rights ... is defending the IRI - so that a war would not start with Iran that would devastate Iran and the Middle East - then, yes, I have done that, proudly so..."

Using IRI propoganda jargon? I mean to say that are you equating Iran with the IRI? Because they are not the same.

Every single Iranian defends "Iran's" nuclear rights. That's a given. But many don't defend "IRI's" rights to anything, as the IRI is a murdering machine that is sucking the very joy of living, happiness and prosperity out of Iranians. We don't need the IRI to have "rights" while they are violating the most basic rights of Iranians.

So yes, defending IRI's nuclear rights is defending the IRI. If you want to defend "Iran's" rights, then concentrate on human rights, the economy and democracy, all the things that the IRI has destroyed. Once these are achieved, the Iranian people would then be more than capable to achieve their nuclear rights. And they certainly don't need IRI Mafia thug to "protect" them.

More than the US actions, it is the IRI's irresponsible foreign policy and behavior that is depriving Iran to achieve its nuclear and other rights and to find its rightful place in the world.

"... so that a war would not start with Iran that would devastate Iran and the Middle East"

So you believe that if the IRI becomes nuclear, war would be avoided? The IRI strives on confrontation. The only way to avoid war is to get rid of the IRI. When the safety of Iran and its people and their aspirations are matched up against your ideology and with the "cost" of friendly relations with the US and even Israel, then it becomes too big a pill to swallow for you, am I correct?

"So, yes, guilty as charged, if that is my guilt!"

I know your intentions are well and you mean well for Iran, so your guilt would be your narrow mindedness, and your inablility to see how you've inadvertently been defending the IRI all along, and not your oppressed people.

"I have been saying, establishing a democratic government would solve nuclear programs of countries like Iran"

So does a nuclear IRI would take Iran closer to that democracy or farther away from it? Do you see what I mean?

Azadeh

Indeed it is time to move on. Think about if all the nations of the world, that at some time were subjugated, were holding grudges against each other and just "couldn't forget" what was done to them. Armenia and Azarbayjan and Tajikestan would hold "death to Russia" days, Armenia would do the same against Azarbayjan, and India would do the same with Britain, South Korea with Japan, Philipines with the US, and on and on...

This isn't right. Instead of holding deep hatred and resentment, we should learn not to allow other nations to subjugate us or to step on us, by being smarter and playing it more intelligently and more to our advantage.

Case in point is Iran and USA on one hand, and South Korea and Japan on the other. The South Koreans have learnt to even take advantage of Japan, their old oppressors. They could have easily "not forget" what Japan had done to them and hold "death to Japan" days too, but they were smarter than that and we can see the results.

Sorry, Mammad

You state: "The crimes that the IRI has committed are far worse than whatever the Shah did. I have had this opinion for a long time." Sorry, I did not know that was your opinion. I have long considered myself a leftist (and still consider myself a progressive, to a large extent), but I think for some Iranian leftists it is hard to admit that the pro-American dictatorship that they opposed was replaced by a significantly more violent and repressive anti-American dictatorship. Anyway, it's been a good exchange. Regards.

Response to Mammad

 I don't have any sympathy for the Pakistani government or fundamentalists. However, Pakistan's government is not openly confrontational towards the U.S. in the way that the IRI is. Are you denying that?

The fact that India sided with the USSR during the Cold War, is outside Washington's sphere of influence, is considered "the world's largest democracy", has nuclear weapons, and yet is not in a head-on collision course with the U.S. could perhaps serve as a lesson to Iran that it could adopt a more constructive and rather independent line from the U.S. without being needlessly (and aimlessly) antagonistic either. Don't you think? 

Amir1973

Of course you are correct. Did I dispute that?

Let's just get this straight: The crimes that the IRI has committed are far worse than whatever the Shah did. I have had this opinion for a long time.

But, why are you asking me this? I commented on what Chomsky said regarding what the US policy toward Iran and other countries like Iran is. I believe he is correct. That is all I was commenting on.

We can move on ONLY if we learn the history as it happened; do not sweep it under the rug, and learn correctly from it. That is why, despite what anybody might say, people like me never forget what the US has done to Iran, both before and after the Revolution.

Mammad

Amir1973

Only to those who either have not read the history, or do not remember it, India and Pakistan have been "friendly" toward the US.

So long as the Soviet Union was around until 1991, India was its ally, including in 1976 when it did its first nuclear test. Even now, India has good relations with the US, but it is not in the US sphere of influence.

As for Pakistan, oh yeah! Are you talking about the same Pakistan that created the Taliban that occupied Afghanistan as Pakistan's "backyard," the same Taliban that provided a safe camp to Al-Qaeda to attack the US? Are you talking about about the same Pakistan that, despite taking billions of $ from the US, has not helped to crush Al-Qaeda that has its bases on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border? And, what is Pakistan? A military-intelligence Junta.

Mammad

Q and Mammad

Q, I asked you: "the IRI has seen the greatest exodus of Iranians in Iran's modern history (perhaps ever?). I believe you are part of that exodus, no? Why do you think so many more Iranians have left the country under IRI than under the Shah? Could it have something to do with the miserable state of affairs there?"

Millions of people leave their country in a short period of time when conditions become miserable. The Afghans came to IRI not because IRI is a desirable place to live, but because it was nearby and less awful than their own war-torn country. In fact, the number of Afghans who went to Pakistan was higher (are you suggesting that Pakistan is also a desirable place to move)? The fact that this migration out of Iran has taken place, continues to take place, and would be even larger if countries in Europe, N. America, and Australia were willing to issue more visas says a lot about the kind of country that IRI has turned Iran into. These are some of Iran's brightest minds, and the thing they want most is to get the heck out of the IRI. I know of no such precedent in modern Iranian history. Indeed, Iranians who came to the U.S. during the Shah's era planned to do so temporarily. They were looking to go back because, for all its many problems, the Iran of that era was more liveable than the IRI (and I am NOT a monarchist; I support a secular democracy). But of course, I don't need to tell this to Q and Mammad. You already know this. After all, you too got out of the IRI and left your birthplace. Your feet already voted in the referendum on the IRI, and your feet (eventually) took you out of Iran.

Jamshid

Yes, I know that everything is obvious to you, particularly after anything that I, or people like me, may say. And, you say so mainly because I do not subscribe to your view of the Revolution that you yourself supported, but then turned against, feeling fooled and misled.

I wonder, since everything is so clear to you, why do you not write a single article, post it somewhere credible, and teach people like me a lesson or two?

Now, regarding your absurd statement:

If defending Iran's nuclear rights within the international agreements that it has signed - and mostly by the Shah - is defending the IRI - so that a war would not start with Iran that would devastate Iran and the Middle East - then, yes, I have done that, proudly so, and - news for you - am still doing it. Check out my articles on antiwar.com. On average, I post an article there every two weeks. I proudly wear it as a badge of honor. So, yes, guilty as charged, if that is my guilt!

At the same time, for at least 12 years (when my first article on nuc bomb was published in the Los Angeles Times), long before the Greens came around and long before you ever heard of me, I have been saying, establishing a democratic government would solve nuclear programs of countries like Iran, because a democratic country - such as India - with nuc will not be worrying to the world. I have repeated this theme for many years, long before you had ever heard of me. Now, if that is defending the IRI, then, yes, guilty as charged again.

Mammad

Well said, Jamshid

You are indeed expressing the pragmatic and realistic views of the new generation in Iran. It is time to move on beyond all the well-known facts expressed by Chomsky.

Azadeh

Mammad

Yes, the U.S. government and media are hypocritical for criticizing Iran. But the IRI is not hypocritical for championing the cause of Palestinians while it has killed more Iranians since 1979 than Israel has killed Palestinians (24 of those 31 years saw Moussavi, Rafsanjani, and Khatami as premier or president). And let me be clear, I oppose Zionism in principle, think Israel should never have been established and support one secular democratic state in Palestine for Jews and Arabs. History is important, and we should learn from it. But of we want to bring historical grievances, then Iran has more grievances against Russia historically than against the U.S. 

You state: "I say that if we wake up tomorrow and find that Iran has become a completely democratic state, but headed by an ardent and truly independent nationalist, the US will still oppose that, perhaps in more subtle ways, but still oppose it." How about we worry first about the more important goal of making Iran into a decent country that respects human rights and then worry about the future machinations of those dastardly Yankees. Perhaps then, Iran can have a government that is even worth backing.

You state: "The US has double standards when it comes to nuclear program. It helps Israel, Pakistan and India, but criticizes Iran's that, at least up to this point, has not even been a military program - who can deny thae double standards?" Yes, it is a double standard, but those states (good or bad) don't adopt a confrontational attitude towards the U.S. Friends (or at least non-enemies) won't be treated the same as adversaries. Right or wrong, it's a fact of life.