Argument over nuclear statement

Akbar Ganji and Kazem Alamdari exchange accusations

Akbar Ganji argues against a statement signed by more than 182 political, social, student activists and journalists in active opposition to war through temporary and conditional stop of uranium enrichment and shutting down of all military aspects of the nuclear program >>>


Recently by Ghormeh SabziCommentsDate
Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day
Dec 02, 2012
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day
Dec 01, 2012
Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day
Nov 30, 2012
more from Ghormeh Sabzi

HG: when did

by aynak on


Sorry if I distored your view.   If you are taking bombing off the table, or never had it on the table, then that was my misunderstanding.

 I was simply trying to show a 3rd option (between bombing or not doing anything) exists, which will require engaging Iranian people on determining their own destiny.  Even if that proposal does not go anywhere, the way it is handled by U.N, those who propose a bombign and those who want a nuclear Islamic regime can be very revealing and also advance democratic process.

Have a great weekend.





hamsade ghadimi

aynak, when did i suggest

by hamsade ghadimi on

aynak, when did i suggest boming iran to democracy as you suggested in your last comment?

you wrote: "Instead of saying it is impossible (like expecting democracy to come after a good series of bombing growing democracy in Iran), try to be imaginative.."

is that what you understood from what i said in my previous comment: "i think that the current regime should be replaced (by the people) to a democratic one."

if that is how you read and interpret one's words, then i think we just should agree to disagree and move on.

remember my previous if-then statement: "if i was brad pitt, then ..."  now apply that to your if-then statement: "if u.n. held a referendum in iran, then...." 

have a good weekend.


HG: I am not not sure I follow your solution

by aynak on

"Iri would not allow opposing views of its nuclear program to be disseminated among the public.  need i say more?

That's precisely my point.  Right now, between two parties (Islamic Regime and Israel) who are driving this, have no interest to get Iranian people involved.

The agenda of those who want a democratic Iran, is very different, and I hope at least that much we agree on, that:  Islamic Regime wants to stay in power at any cost, and Israel wants Islamic Regime gone (at least that is what they pretend) at any cost, without regard to cost for Iranain people.

So then, if U.N proposes a vote by Iranian people, who will lose?

--If Iranian people are smart enough, they will say no to Nuke's in my view for the simple reason that not just Iran, but the whole world is incpable of handling this technology, as we saw in Japan, Russia and U.S(3mile Island).

--If they are Not smart enough, and want to keep the program, then it is their right, but no-one has th right to stand against that, and much hypocricy of double standards would surface.   Of course Iranian peole would be saying that they would put their trust in the hands of VF system.   

At any rate, you clearly have no solution when you say:

"i think that the current regime should be replaced (by the people) to a democratic one."

That's not the question.  I frequently visit Iran, the question is:

How should it be replaced?  And of course as important with what?   

To me getting there is not going to happen auto-magically.   In what country have you seen --democracy-- installed?   

So we have democratic practies that if followed and pursued will eventually and hopefully result in a democratic state.  I don't trust ANY-ONE individual. country or interest group to do the right thing for Iran.    But the will of majority, would have  one great thing about it:  No one can blame others for it.   It also teachs you to be better decision maker.

Going back to what Alamadri was suggesting, and I fully agree and was trying to give it a more concrete shape: 

What is wrong with the notion of U.N, instead of cooking up a recepie, resort to Iranian people's vote for the nuclear program as a whole?

Instead of saying it is impossible (like expecting democracy to come after a good series of bombing growing democracy in Iran), try to be imaginative, at least challenge youself to come up with a more concrete plan?





hamsade ghadimi

aynak jan, as i said

by hamsade ghadimi on

aynak jan, as i said before, i think that your solution or ganji's solution are two impossibilities. they are really not solutions. iri has been duplicitous in its dealings with the nuclear issue and does not allow u.n. inspectors within iran. iri is contemptuous of u.n. and thinks it's an arm of u.s. and israel. iri would not allow a foreign entity to enter its territory to monitor a voting scheme.  iri would not allow opposing views of its nuclear program to be disseminated among the public.  need i say more?

so your "solution" is not really a solution.  the only way that iranians under vf can have a fair and free election is if they allow disney to open up a branch in iran.  only then they can go to "fantasy land" and cast their ballots.

on the serious side, i think that the current regime should be replaced (by the people) to a democratic one.  then, the nuclear issue can be resolved in a more transparent manner and with cooperation with the international community.  until then, the vf will waste iran's resources on its nuclear project (as opposed to projects that make more sense) just to stay in power and you know the rest...

Darius Kadivar

LOL anglophile Jan No One Can Outfox the Fox ;0))

by Darius Kadivar on

Good One ! ;0)) 

I can see Indeed that No One Can Outfox the Fox:  





Your "Furry" Lips to God's Er ... Er I mean to Ahura's ... Er I actually mean to the "Masses" Ears ! 


If "Secularism" was the only reason why we don't have a democracy in Iran then someone has to explain how come a country like Great Britain which hardly has a written constitution and where the head of state is also the head of the Church of England happens to be the oldest democracy in the world ? Where would America be if the Brits had not come up with their Bill of Rights a Century earlier only to have it Copied and Pasted in that of the American and French Constitutions ?


RESTORATION: Britain's 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 and the 'Bill of Rights'

Maybe they should also explain how come the President of the YOU ESS OV A takes his oath on the Bible ? ...


ROYAL FORUM: Fareed Zakaria asks «Does America Need a Prime Minister ?»

Meegham deegheh Een ANN TELECTUAL hayeh Mah have alot of homework to do before boasting their Ignorance to general embarrassment.

They would be a laughing stock in any international symposium conference on the history of the genesis of democracy and it's evolution in the Western World ...  


But let them Dream On ...


SATIRE: The Burqa Republic of Our IRANICAN Dreams ;0)


Heyvoonya ... 


Just can't wait to see their reaction when their entire Intellectual Construction of the past 32 years collapses in the Face of the "R" Word ...




Hee Hee  



شعار‌های انقلاب بعدی


جبهه ملی جبهه ملی 


خائنی خیلی‌ خائنی خیلی‌


مصدّقی دوباره

آخوندو جاش میاره


نه مذهبی‌ نه ملی‌

هر دوش دروغه خیلی‌


مصدّقی و خمینی ساختند با هم دوتاشون

لعنت به هر دوتاشون 




HG: my analysis vs yours

by aynak on


"aynak, i don't agree with your analysis on many levels. offering the
impossible to solve iri's nuclear question seems either naive or
insincere. "

Oh really? Saying U.N should propose a national referendum over usage of Nuclear energy in Iran, with UN observers,  is naive or insincere,  what exactly is your solution, I like to hear this.






hamsade ghadimi

aynak, i don't agree with

by hamsade ghadimi on

aynak, i don't agree with your analysis on many levels. offering the impossible to solve iri's nuclear question seems either naive or insincere.  ganji's solution that united sates and israel be taken to court alongside with iri for their nuclear violations is one.  and your "if" statement involving a referendum in iran to resolve the nuclear impasse is another one.  and you say it is "simple." i say the "if" part is difficult.

"if" i was brad pitt, it'd be a cinch to bang angelina jolie. that simple. :)

Darius Kadivar

Indeed the shortsighted ESPECIALLY Qualify ;0))

by Darius Kadivar on

"As far as Alamdari, being a Melli Mazhabi,   I should have qualified, " - aynak

Indeed I suppose you do ... 

Tu veux ou tu veux pas - with subtitles


Hee Hee 


HG: before Iranian can ....

by aynak on

HG,   In my opinion, Iranian fall in two categories:

1-That truly believe in democratic governance

2-That believe in a supreme VF/King/dictator to rule for them and see no use/need for vote/opinion of Iranian people.   This group finds iranian fundamentally incapable of making the correct decision, and somehow believes fundamentally that a VF or king can do the correct thing.

I think if we repeat as it is customery here, to say a few things about how illegitimate the regime in Iran is, (As there is really not much disagreement there), we haven't really solved ANYTHING.   So you or anyone saying "...but this regime is illegitimate ......" is preaching to the choir.   The question is, HOW to make this regime also --NOT from any other view but strictly SELF PRESERVATION-- look at people's opinion as a way of gaining letitimacy?

This is the biggest piece of puzzle, many people are simply incapable of understanding:   Islamic Regime, is a brutal system that is IN POWER.  Now what are you going to do about it, but more importantly what is the path to a democratic government?   Not just a change of regime.

In my opinion, getting people's opinion/vote involved in every aspect of political decision making,  is ALWAYS the best  method for solving/addressing issues.   If U.N observers are present and a national vote is cast on for instance:

--Should Iran pursue nuclear program?   Yes/No?

And let Iranian people decide.   The path is much more important than any bullshit that's put forth by the regime or outsiders.

Answer this, can a regime conduct such poll and then  remove "presidential election?".   Would this not get people directly involved?   Would we want that or would we want Ahmadi-Nejad and Khamane-h-ee or Netanyahu to decide?

You are dismissing the whole process by saying it is not that simple.   Yes it is.  Is it not interesting if neither people who claim they are against the regime  and the regime  itself both agree on one thing, that there is no need for vote of people?!?    I personally believe in voting system as means and as an end, some don't.   Let's raise the issue of national referandum under U.N observation, on using nuclear energy, as the only possible/legitimate way to go forward with this program. 


As far as Alamdari, being a Melli Mazhabi,   I should have qualified, I see nothing wrong with someone being Melli-Mazhabi.  I know of many great,honest members they are as good as any Iranian.  That's one group like many others in Iran that has many supporters and the right to exist regardless of if I agree or disagree with them.   The point is the spreading of lies and of course non-stop campaign by this individual, that goes from outrageous to ridiculous. 





hamsade ghadimi

aynak, before iranians can

by hamsade ghadimi on

aynak, before iranians can vote with third party impartial observers (which is just pure fantasy), they need to be educated about the choices that they will be making (as anyone would before voting).  alamdari has two points which ganji refuses to discuss: 1) the iri government is illegitimate and cannot be trusted, 2) iri's nuclear program is not based on economics as it likes to portray (refer to point 1; lying) and is spending all this money based on ideology (and if you ask me, survival). 

it's not just say, ok let's vote.  now, do you think that iri will allow any of the two points that alamdari raised to be discussed before such a "referendum?"  the answer is hell no.  will iri allow international observers to enter iran to referee a referendum? the answer is hell no. it's almost as if we're ignoring the big elephant in the room: iri is dictatorial, brute government and does not rule based on democratic principles including referendums.

what we can do is at least discuss the points that alamdari has raised and not act like ganji or discuss how we should take the vote of the people.  alamdari posed a rhetorical question and obviously believes if the iranian people had access to information to all sides of the issue and had the freedom to express their opinion, then they would agree with alamdari's point of view as opposed to ganji's (iri's). 

as far as kadivar goes, his ozr is movajah.  although, at times, i enjoy his contribution, his logic doesn't make sense and contradicts himself (he's willing to agree with ganji on a point if ganji makes sense in his view but refuses to discuss alamdari's points (above) because of his perception that he's meli mazhabi)! "this guy is melli mazhabi; i'm going to put my hands over my ears and go lalalalalalala."  and he sees the world in either shah or khomeini (or if one's evil, the other is an angel).  whether intended or not).


Hamsade Ghadimi: Easier said than done/ Also Kadivar lies....

by aynak on


The only possible way to know what Iranian people want regarding nuclear issue, is to conduct a national referandum.  This issue is important enough to put it up to a vote.   And of course you would need U.N observers.

 From the view of the regime, if they think the current path they are taking is  representing Iranian people's aspiration, why not hold a national referendum, with U.N observers to show to the world where Iranian people stand?   

 From **the part** of international community that has concern  over Iran's nuclear activity, then a vote by Iranian people would tell them if they are dealing with the regime alone or a nation.   If it is just the regime, they will be justified in their preemptive action, however if Iranian people vote in favor of the program, then the first thing they have to consider strictly from a cost/benefit analysis would be to understand ramification of current collision path.

 That's so simple that needs no discussion, only if there was willingness to resolve this, how it should be resolved, By referring to the opinion of Iranian people.



As far as Darious Kadivars clear LIE about Alamdari:


"Khob Aghayeh Alamdari Mageh khodetoon Melli Mazhabi naboodeed?"

This is the type of lie this 24/7 agent of propoganda puts out on this site.  Kazem Alamdari as pointed out by Dr.Kazemzadeh, was a supporter of leftist Minority wing of Fadayian dating back to 80's.   When a person is allowed to so open distort and lie on day light, and others believe whatever lie he puts out, that tells something about both the quality of readers and also this poster.

 As the statement Darious Kadivar put out (as usual) is FACTUALY incorrrect, I would be curious to see how the admin on this site handles his post.  In the past, they have removed my post and left his posts on this site.




ایران برای همه ایرانیان
رای ایرانیان - دولت ایرانیان
نه ولایت وقیح نه پادشاه سفیه





Darius Kadivar

MK Jan You don't need to justify yourself ... ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on


Almadari's referred to

by vildemose on

Almadari referred to Projet-e- Pars?? Jaryanesh chiyeh?? If anyone knows. thanks.


"It is the chain of communicat­ion, not the means of production­, that determines a social process."

-- Robert Anton Wilson

Masoud Kazemzadeh

democracy vs. dictatorship

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dariush jaan,

1. Thanks for Hila Sedeghi’s recitation of the poem. It does not apply to me because I do teach about democracy, freedom, and human rights. I do not teach about Aryan stuff.

2. I do not hate Arabs. There are good and bad Arabs like there are good and bad Iranians, or any other nationality. It is interesting about some monarchists obsession and hatred for Arabs considering that it was an Arab, Anwar Sadat who gave refuge to the Shah, and the Shah’s first wife was from Egypt!!!!!

3. The vf regime is NOT a secular democratic republic. The VF is not elected periodically by the people. VF is reserved for members of one cast (only Shia clerics) like the king is reserved for member of one family.

In contrast, in a republican democracy, every single citizen can run and be elected by the people voting in free, democratic election.

In conclusion, the vf regime and the shah’s regime are BOTH reactionary tyrannies.



Darius Kadivar

MK Jan C'est Celà Oui ...

by Darius Kadivar on


How about looking in the Mirror ...

'79 Revolutionaries Infatuation with Arabs

Just make sure to get your anthem right next time you send Your Republic's President Abroad ...

Venezuela welcomes Ahmadinejad with Imperial Iranian Pahlavi Anthem

Masoud Kazemzadeh

Ganji 0; Alamdari 5

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Ganji lost the debate by a wide margin.


Epic fail, Mr.

by vildemose on

Epic fail, Mr. Ganji. 

"It is the chain of communicat­ion, not the means of production­, that determines a social process."

-- Robert Anton Wilson

Masoud Kazemzadeh

DK Moving to Saudi Arabia?

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dariush jaan,

You are a monarchist, living in France. Last, I checked, France was a republic. Why don’t you move to Saudi Arabia?



Masoud Kazemzadeh

Na shah mikhaym na akhond, lanaat bar har 2 ta shon

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on


If Alamdari claims that the Islamic Republic is "Illegitimate" then he cannot endorse the Revolution from which it was born.

If he does ... then he is merely contradicting himself ..

MK: Darisuh jaan, you make FALSE assertion, factually and logically. One could say that both the monarchy and Khomeini were bad. One could fight against the Shah’s regime because it was a nokar of foreign powers, brutal tyranny at the same time as fighting against Khomeini and fundamentalists for being anti-democratic, reactionary tyranny.

Your assertion is a FALSE dichotomy that one has to submit to the nokar regime of the shah or the ultra reactionary regime of Khomeini. There are in actual fact democrats (JM) who oppose BOTH the shah’s regime (for being nokar, dictatorship, violated human rights, reactionary) and Khomeini’s regime (for being dictatorship, violated human rights, reactionary). The same for most Marxists, who opposed both shah’s and Khomeini’s brutal regimes.

As our slogan goes, naa shah mikhaym na akhond, lanaat bar har 2 dat shoon.

And, another of our slogans were: "Khamenei, haya kon, saltanat o raha kon." Shah, like Khomeini and Khamenei are brutal tyrants. The oppose of these tyrants is democrats.



Darius Kadivar

Being a "Republican" in a Land of Kings is an Oxymoron

by Darius Kadivar on

Masoud Kazemzadeh

Correcting False Assertion

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dr. Alamdari was NEVER a melli-mazhabi. He is NOT a melli-mazhabi today. He was a leftist many years ago. He is a secular democrat today. He was among the founders of Etehad Jomhurikhahan Iran. He is a thoughtful, decent person. His views are very much like those of the late Dr. Mehrdad Mashayekhi.



Darius Kadivar

Everyone has been for the past 32 years ...

by Darius Kadivar on

Otherwise why do they consider "Republicanism" as the "legitimate" form of government for Iran ? ...

Footage of the 1979 referendum of the Islamic Republic of Iran

If Alamdari claims that the Islamic Republic is "Illegitimate" then he cannot endorse the Revolution from which it was born.

If he does ... then he is merely contradicting himself ...

pictory: Bakhtiar Denounces Bazargan's Provisionary Government in exile (1979)

But then that is the case of almost all of the so called Iranian Intelligentsia for the past 32 years ...

Mashallah Ajoudani on Intellectuals and the '79 Revolution

Many of whom signed the above petition.

From that point of view Ganji is at least coherent with his past ...

By trying to Safeguard the Republic he contributed to bring to power. Very much like the NIAC Folks after all ... ;0)

That doesn't mean that I necessarily share Ganji's point of view ...

I have defended him when It mattered:


And I have been critical of Ganji when he deserved being criticized:

SHEKAYAT KOJA ? Akbar Ganji say's Iran has less than 1000 Political Prisoners byDarius KADIVAR

But Accountability is a two way process ...

But Asking Ganji or anyone who is at odds with our ideology ( whatever that may be ? ) to be accountable but refusing that same accountability for ourselves is nothing short of hypocrisy.

But like the French would say:

"A Chacun Sa Merde ..."

FED UP WITH POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: Ahmadinejad is NOT my Prime Minister !

hamsade ghadimi

don't miss the main point

by hamsade ghadimi on

don't miss the main point of the argument that almadari put forth.  the point that ganji purposefully did not address: the logical argument in developing a nuclear program.

Maryam Hojjat

Dr. Alamdari is a meli/mazhbi?

by Maryam Hojjat on

I did not know that.  He can not be trusted either.  He is messed up with his religion!

Darius Kadivar

Khob Aghayeh Alamdari Mageh khodetoon Melli Mazhabi naboodeed?

by Darius Kadivar on

THE IRANIAN: Opinion, Monarchy, Kazem Alamdari (February 13, 2002)

From populism to pluralism (May 8, 1998)

With Khatami's election, Iran has entered into a distinct era. Unlike his predecessors, the new president has the will to bring about change. In addition to a major shift in Iran's foreign policy, domestically Khatami has put an emphasis on law, order and democracy. Political parties, civil society organizations and non-governmental organizations are encouraged. This trend, though very bumpy, breaks the clientelist system -- which is the main obstacle to change and development in Iran -- and makes the elected government accountable.

Really ?



"A Country that Loses it's Poetic Vision is a Country that faces death"-Saul Bellow.

Recommended Blog:

EURODIF: Georges Besse’s assassination, The Shah, The Bomb & the Revolution


A Traitor's Boiler!

by Tavana on

Whether boiling or freezing, what difference does any of the two make in the world if the person is a proven 'traitor?' A 'traitor' is always a 'traitor' & must never ever be trusted with anything he/she says or he/she does. Never ever. 

hamsade ghadimi

aynak, easier said than

by hamsade ghadimi on

aynak, easier said than done.  do you propose that iri put this issue up for voting a la 1979 referendum or the 2009 presidential election voting scheme?

btw, this news item is a double post (incl. fred's blog).  here's the double posting of my comment from the other blog (for the sake of completeness!):

ganji is requiring a pre-condition of abolishing nuclear weapons in countries that on record have nuclear arms (u.s.) or suspected of having nuclear arms (israel) to denounce iri's desire to have nuclear arms.

upshot: ganji: iri has the right to pursue nuclear arms.

the moderator asks ganji that his statement that "foreign agents were responsible for the recent explosion (that killed the general) in iran" is not based on fact.  ganji responds to the moderator: "only iri has denied that fact, are you siding with iri then?"  then ganji cites killing of nuclear scientists in iran by foreign agents (only claimed by iri) and killing of the general and soldiers in iran (only iri has denied that) that this is the type of pressure that the likes of alamdari is asking for.

upshot: ganji is contradicting hismself.  is he "siding with iri" according to his own logic (citing killing of nuclear scientists), and "siding against iri" (killing of the general)?  or is it as alamdari explained (to which ganji never responded) that ganji is making logical arguments based on iri's standards.



The only solution is national vote

by aynak on


 Alamdari is correct in stating that the only way forward is to get a national vote.







by jasonrobardas on

Lost the debate .....