Current Events

.

.

Re aegis of the U.S.

Dear Amir19.., the emphasis of your argument below seemed to be the benefit of the U.S. occupation of South Korea and Taiwan for their progress, as in "both of which did so under the aegis of the U.S." Now you grant that 'It is because of the shortcomings of the Egyptians themselves that Egypt is a "screwed up" country...'

In other words, you acknowledge that hosting U.S. military bases and cowering under the auspices of "U.S. aegis" does not gurantee progress!

"Arj"

Dear Amir19.., if sucking up to Americans would've turned third world countries into "1st world status," a country like Egypt should've been one of the most developed nations in the world! Why is it not? 

Do you not find it ironic that someone who invokes the "complexity of politics" also has notions of "sucking up? "Sucking up" is surely a "complex", nuanced idea if there ever was one. Sure, it is.

Now, go back and read again what I wrote:

Both of these countries have become major industrialized democracies due partly to their own efforts, but also due to their cooperation with the U.S.

As far as why Egypt is a "backwards" Third World country, the answer lies with the Egyptians themselves. They are responsible for their own actions and the fate of their own country. It is because of the shortcomings of the Egyptians themselves that Egypt is a "screwed up" country and blaming the Great Satan, Zionists, and vast, imaginary international conspiracies may be emotionally gratifying, but it does nothing to explain the status of Egypt (or any of the other countries in the Mideast).

VPK Jan

Americans may believe that religion plays a  role in politics, but the ultimate call for that role is made by the American people, not a religious elite.  As long as a sizeable portion of Iranians believe that some religious elite has veto power over the people, we will not get even incremental change, maybe just cosmetic one, like with Khatami.

I agree the more sutainable less traumatic route will most likely be the slow one.  That is the one I am proposing- collectively reaching an awareness and a national will.  You seem to expect this to be led by one person/individual.  I disagree.  You are specializing in software, so think distributed vs. centralized system.  The change we need is bottom up and grass roots, and not come from a concentrated source.  One of the only things I liked about Mousavi was his idea of "Har Irani yek setad".  You don't have to be a leader of people to help drive this change.  I would argue that the one strength mullahs had over all other political forces in Iran was that they were not centralized and therefore much more robust and harder to uproot.  Until other political forces of Iran achieve similar capability, the mullahs will dominate the political scene.

Fair Jaan

I am still in the dark as what to do. Let us get to real basics. I am an engineer by training. I specialize in software; could to hardware or even design a bridge if I had to. But I am not a leader of people. I don't have the charisma or the "leadership" gene. That must go to soneone else. 

We need to build on our strengths. We cannot just wait until people become non religious. Although thanks to IRI is may happen much sooner than expected :-) In America a sizable portion of the population things religion has a place in politics. I live here. If you ran as an atheist you will not win in most regions. Definitely not a national one. But America is making progress and I will be happy if Iran got to half where USA is. We have to work with what we got. We need concrete steps towards advancement. I don't care if it is incremental or sudden. Of course I prefer a quick change but with it comes pain. A slower one may be less painful. We need concrete ideas. Not slogans or wish lists and that kind of thing. I really wish Reza Pahlavi would stand to the challenge but he will not. Who do we have with the leadership and sanity to get people together. Once you have a leader there may be some hope. It won't be Rajavi for sure; and it does not sound like Ebadi is up to it.

You mean the only two third world countries...!

Dear Amir19.., if sucking up to Americans would've turned third world countries into "1st world status," a country like Egypt should've been one of the most developed nations in the world! Why is it not? The answer lies in the complexity of politics, which seems to be an alien notion to you! Your simplistic comparison of South Korea with Iran (regardless of its governing system) is riddled with so many flaws that one would not know were to begin, hence any attempt to address them would be a futile endeavour to take on!  

VPK- what to do now

Your question is very valid.  I also know a lot of people in California and elsewhere who are ready to invest in Iran.  That is not the problem.  The problem is that all this potential is unused and will continue to be unused as long as our nation is stuck in a silly backwards debate, which goes like "should be live in the 7th century or the 1970's"?

The first thing that we all need to do, whether we are political activists, people who know how to start companies, day laborers, teachers, whatever, is to think and learn from our mistakes, and work towards a national will, and look to our future.  National will does way more for a country than any single leader or ideology or manifesto.  This has happened in South Korea and Taiwan and other countries as dear Amir said, and the only thing stopping it from happenning in our country is our collective lack of will.

As long as there is a sizeable part of our population that still thinks that religion has a place in government and that reform can offer us a path forward, we are condemned for more of the same.  And in this case under such conditions, I am afraid I will have to disagree with Abarmard that it is too early to tell the way this century plays out.  Under such a condition, this century will play out exactly like the last century did for us- we will be having silly debates about which islamic figure and rule should play what role in our governance while the world at large advances at light speed.

Unless we break from our past, learn from our mistakes, and reach a national will.

Influence and Dependence

The notion that the west would tolerate Turkish influence but not Iranian influence is flawed.  The west would like to limit all its rivals' influence in the region, just like all its rivals would like to limit the west's influence in the region. The difference is that Turkey does not pursue a stupid policy of speak big and carry a small stick, the islamic republic does.  That is why the main problem the west has today with Iran is its becoming a nuclear armed country and making that stick big.

Similarly, the notion that a Mossadeq would be allowed to rule in Turkey but not in Iran is also flawed, naive, and uninformed.  Times and contexts are completely different.  Mosaddeq was a problem for the west in that time in 1953, and probably would not be ok in Turkey either.  But today, Mosaddeq in power in Iran would be a huge relief not only to the west, but also the Iranian people and all the region.  The west would be happy today even if a Mousavi or Khatami would rise to power, let alone a Mossadeq.

Also, the notion of dependence and its degree is key.  The islamic republic and some people here have argued that its "independence" is something to be acknowledged.  I would argue Iran is no more independent today than it was in 1975.  In both days, the economy have been equally oil based, the country was just as dependent on foreign technology, and the more foreign diplomatic support it needed for any particular instance, the more it had to pay in concessions to those who gave that support.  The difference is that in those days, we looked to the US, and these days we look to Russai, China, Venezuela, Syria, North Korea subSharan Africa, and other 2nd and lower tier providers of support.  The other difference is that in those days, whatever industry we had was producing (and was positioned to grow in) goods that were competitive on the world market, and today whatever industry we have produces decades old technology that cannot compete in the world market, despite having a much more globalized freer trade environment to sell into than 35 years ago.  

Influence and Independence are not things that are handed to you or brought by one person.  They are earned by hard work, sweat, good leadership, and playing your hand right.  None of which exist in Iran today, all of which exist in Turkey.

VPK my response to you comes next.

Two of the only 3rd World Countries to reach 1st World status

Are South Korea and Taiwan -- both of which did so under the aegis of the U.S. and both of which sit in "dangerous" neighborhoods (with China and North Korea threatening them) and both of which have far fewer natural resources than the IRI. In 1979, Iran had a larger GDP than South Korea; now the IRI is not even remotely in the same class economically or technologically speaking as South Korea. Both of these countries have become major industrialized democracies due partly to their own efforts, but also due to their cooperation with the U.S. (Compare North Korea to South Korea and West Germany to East Germany to see the difference between what "radical" anti-U.S. regimes can achieve versus those which cooperate with the U.S.). And now, it's time to go back to empty anti-Western slogans, rhetoric, and phony posturing about how the White Man is keeping us down and the conspiracies that the Great Satan is hatching for us and how the Middle East is screwed up not because it's own people have any responsibility but because of the Zionists, etc, etc

Two of the only 3rd World Countries to reach 1st World status

Are South Korea and Taiwan -- both of which did so under the aegis of the U.S. and both of which sit in "dangerous" neighborhoods (with China and North Korea threatening them) and both of which have far fewer natural resources than the IRI. In 1979, Iran had a larger GDP than South Korea; now the IRI is not even remotely in the same class economically or technologically speaking as South Korea. Both of these countries have become major industrialized democracies due partly to their own efforts, but also due to their cooperation with the U.S. (Compare North Korea to South Korea and West Germany to East Germany to see the difference between what "radical" anti-U.S. regimes can achieve versus those which cooperate with the U.S.). And now, it's time to go back to empty anti-Western slogans, rhetoric, and phony posturing about how the White Man is keeping us down and the conspiracies that the Great Satan is hatching for us and how the Middle East is screwed up not because it's own people have any responsibility but because of the Zionists, etc, etc

Dear Arj

You are right I never doubted you. Right energy is a part of it. I just got off the phone with the office of my USA Senator. They are trying to figure out what to cut. i told them what I thought.

America is running out of money for adventures. Once that happens there will be a power vacuum. That will be filled with Iran. I hope a democratic and free Iran. But one way or another it will be Iran even if it is IRI.

Regarding Iran / Armenia

There is a perfect example of cooperation based on need. Iran would naturally be ally of Azarbayjan. The leader Khamenei is from Azarbayjan. Iranians have cultural and ethnic ties. Republic of Ararbayjan was a part of Iran nog long ago.

However in the Soviet era there was a lot of brain washing. Soviets wanted to gobble up the rest of Iranian Azarbayjan. Therefore they started to feed garbage to the people. Some accepted it and after independence demanded Iranian land. The response was that Iran took sides with Armenia. Now about 1/6 their land is occupied by Armenia. Proving that picking a fight is not the best way to go. 

Too bad it does not seem the lesson got in.

Re the West and Iran

Dear VPK, the West, and particualrly the U.S. do not want IRI gone per se. They prefer a weakened, isolated IRI than any other alternative (that includes a strong IRI as well as democratic alternatives)! For emergence of a democratic Iran would upset the present ballance of power in favour of regional sovreignty as opposed to capitulation to foreign dominance! A strong, democratic Iran would not only be the major hub of all energy ttransfer of the region, but also a geo-political player and a regional pwerhouse that would not necessarily have to toe the line with Washigton or NATO while revoking the justifications for their interventionist role by removing the pretexts such as threat to Israel's existence and activities causing regional instability!

To add to Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Most people here seem to ignore or forget that it was never Iran that brought in radical Islam. Actually all the actions by Western governments were the direct cause of Islamization of the region. Hezbollah is not radical Islam, you want to see radicalism, take a look at US allies in the region.

They are all kept in place for emergency. We hear here and there that Pakistan and Saudis are the cause of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. They are directly financed by US and their governments are supported by the West.

Turkey and Egypt are not done deal yet. Stay tuned. Don't rush in. They both have a large "Islamist" groups in hiding. Turkey has given some lip service and has tried to play actively positive role in the region. Turkey's economy has grown and made them a economic power house in the region. But hold on, Iran was doing fine too. As long as you are influenced politically by other than your own interest, you may have challenges that can't deal with easily. Getting free benefits for simple policies don't make you a leader...yet.

Let's just wait and see. Iran is horrible system but it's our own doing. Let's see if we can get out, and let's see how things turn. Too early to tell.

Finally having a system that is attractive doesn't translate to power. Not irrelevant but not enough for leadership.

Question: Iran supports Christian Armenia or Muslim Azerbaijan? Take it vice versa. Iran is with Muslim Chechnya or Secular Russia? Therefore politically speaking countries and people align themselves based on interest and not form of governments or beliefs.

Turkey's recent close alliance with Iran makes my point more clear. If Iran can be next to secular Turkey, Russia, Egypt then Iran can be next to any of the other countries in the region.

So power is not based on your system and design but dependencies and strategy.

Good point Abarmard and AO

Both have good points. Abarmard is right that West does not want Iranian influence. No matter what regimes Iran has. AO is right behavior of IRI gives West the excuses it needs to put Iran back. 

There is no question that West does not want Iran as a regional power. This has nothing to do with Islam or IRI. Yes IRI provides the excuse. But why did the West destabilize the Shah? He was not acting like IRI. Nor was Saddam. The truth is they do not want any regional power except Israel. This is pushed by Neocon advisers. These people are messing up the whole region. They deliberately push radical Islam then so they could turn around and impose sanctions.

We had moderation for decades under Shah. People were Muslim but there was no radicalism. People went to beaches; had drinks and wore mini skirts. Iran was perfectly tolerant of it. Does anyone really think Iranians did not want Gogosh? IRI was a creation to make an excuse for keeping Iran back. However sooner or later USA will run out of money and pull out. Then Iran will take its place as the regional power. No matter what Bernard Lewis and others want.

Yes Fair geraami, but look at all that we have gained in return!

Hamas, Hezbollah, and the support of every other Quran thumping terrorist cult around the world! That's a fair exchange, wouldn't you say? :-)

Oh, I almost forgot.  We also punched the imperialists and the Zionists in the mouth and bought 1950's missiles from North Korea that we can drop on the "Zionist entity."  Even more fair of an exchange!   

Dear Fair

There are hints of truth in all you wrote but there is more to them than just that.

“Iran is not independent at all, it relies completely on Russia and China for their junk and diplomatic support."

It's arguable statement. No country is independent when it comes to trade and economy. The base of economy is trade. We are speaking about political independence. Alliances also doesn't take away the fact that if tomorrow Iran decides to stop or continue its relations with any country, it is free to do so. I am not arguing whether Iran has taken advantage of its position but stating the meaning of this word independence. As mentioned earlier, we shall see what happens with Turkey.

In the case of Turkey, do you believe that Iranian position is different even before the revolution in comparison to Turkey? Would you agree that West's behavior and policies to Turkey has been different than Iran? Many in Iran blame Iranian geography and natural resources not the government. Many believe that Iran has been mistreated by the West because of its possible clout, geography, culture, and natural resources. Many don't see Turkey having similar power or position. Iranian social behavior and traditional cultural forces also play a big role to separate Iran from Turkey. Iranian cultural force that plays either weakness or strength to Iranian society, depending on the lens and corner that you wish to observe.

Turkey gets funds and economic promotions because it never could have caused threat to West's strategic wealth in that region. Turkey was promised instead that with its help will receive "benefits", and it did. The opposite is true for Iran. I make the case that if Iran under any system tries to expand its influence in any direction would have been treated with threats and sanctions.

A mosadegh in Turkey would rule today but in Iran would be rejected by West. During Mosadegh there were sanctions imposed to Iran, am I right?

Not much has changed in West's attitude to Iran and the cause is not Turkish system vs. Iran. It had started much earlier in the century and reason has been debated. Most people still believe it is Iranian position in the region that separates Iran from most countries in ME.

Should Iran have better policies? Absolutely. They can do better, but as a concept of what Iranians think of themselves: Leader/power of Middle East, sets forth a sense of dissatisfaction with anything less. We experienced that during Shah and we are experiencing that today. Some of the policies directed towards Iran from the West is focused on this very attitude.

Finally DK is right, while Turkey still follows Atta Turk, Iran has new system in place. Again I would argue that Iranian culture can be our biggest weakness or strength. If strength means that Iran will monitor the wealth in the region and that's a no no. Turkey at best is what it is today.

Too early to summarize strategies of this century. It has just begun. All these will not cover one paragraph of future history topics about the regional developments.

Dear Fair

You are right in all you say. But what do we do now? Do we write blogs about how stupid Iranians are. Or do we come up with ideas. We may not be able to overthrow IRI from here. But we could prepare for when it is gone.

I know a lot of people in California ready to invest in Iran. If IRI goes and is replaced with something sane they will jump in. Within a few years Iran will be back on its feet. People are ready to start high tech firms in Iran tomorrow. I know how to start companies. I don't know how to overthrow IRI. That is up to the people in Iran. But if they do it I will do my part in restarting the economy. Does this make sense to you. What do you propose we do. 

The other option is for someone like Reza Pahlavi to take a lead. But he won't because he is not up to it. That leaves it to people in Iran for now.

Dear Fair,

You stated it perfectly. Ghorbanet.

Fetchez La Vache ! Unlike Us the Turks don't belittle their

Unlike us Namaknashnas Iranians the Turks didn't belittle their modern nation's founding fathers ...

Revolutionaries hang Reza Shah's Bust at Paris Embassy (1979)

Ebrahim Golestan: "The Shah's Coronation Made Me Wanna Vomit" (BBC)

COMPLAINING JOMHURYKHAH: What Have the Pahlavis EVER Done For Us ? ;0)


On the contrary they even praise ours :

HONORING REZA SHAH's GRANDSON: Candlelight Vigil For Prince Ali Reza Pahlavi in Izmir Turkey

pictory: Reza Shah with Turkish Navy Officers during State Visit (1930's)

despite having far more reasons than us to do so ...

HISTORY FORUM:Turkey and the Armenian Genocide - 'The Betrayed' (BBC Documentary) 


Now Go and Cry me a River on Our 7000 Years of History and Civilization ... 


SATIRE: Turk and Iranian argue in Austria ;0)

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

Rational talk without provocation or religious fanaticism!

       Erdogan shows, standing up against Israel aggression in the region and defending one's national interest does not have to come with unnecessary provocation and invoking religious fundamentalism.

       Brazil, India, Turkey and some other countries pursue an independent foreign policy without provocation and inviting wrath of the west. IRI officials may want to take a note.

Iran's loss is Turkey's gain

Amir you said it perfectly.  Iran is not independent at all, it relies completely on Russia and China for their junk and diplomatic support.  Yes, the same China who secretly offered Gaddhafi fresh arms towards the very end when he was massacring his people.  The same China that is in bed with the IRGC who rapes and maims and tortures and imprisons innocent Iranians.

It is not "Iran" who is willing to stand up for what it believes in.  It is the anti Iran mullahs who are willing to destroy Iran for what THEY need for survival.  They shamelessly hide behind the skirts of ordinary Iranians to "stand up" to the west.  They do so by spending the oil money which belongs to ordinary Iranians on its security apparatus, with no accountability whatsoever.  Turkey on the other hand has a government which rises and falls with the vote of its people, not on the backs of its people.

In the 1970's, Iran was the economic and strategic powerhouse of the region, Turkey was down and nothing.  Dubai was a refueling stop for planes and ships between Europe and Asia.  In 1979, Iranians called for an Islamic government and followed Khomeini.  The subsequent islamization, hostage taking, 8 year war, and conflict with the outside world isolated Iran, and made Turkey and Dubai rich and powerful, laughing all the way to bank thanking the stupidity of their once relevant neighbor.  Iran lost a million lives and hundreds of billions of dollars for the wishes of this stupid man with his stupid followers in the process.

There is no comparison between Turkey and Iran today.  Turkey has a much higher GDP per capita, exports something other than oil, is a major regional economic and political and social power in the modern sense, and above all, has legitimacy.  Iran on the other hand, is in a box, irrelevant, produces nothing of use to the outside world except oil, and all it has is mismanagement, massive brain drain, and a government that has not advanced beyond the 7th century.

Difference btwn Turk(y) and Persian = Frown vs Smile (charm)

Smile while ta dasteh too ko...moon mikonan. Don't ask the Kurds about the torkish democracy. They cannot even use their language. Armani? Only torki!

Turkey is getting smart trying to take the leadership role in the region. Learned her lessons good from IRI and expanded it by first standing up for the palestinians. I don't know their true intention, but I wouldn't keep my guards down. Wish that they are genuinely interested in peace not domination (Osmani).

Friendly interpretation!

Is it me, or does the American media favour friendly intervewees over non-friendlies?! As is seen here, Erdogan's interpreter is fluent in English with nearly no foreign accent, yet Iranian interviewees (not just Ahmadi, but even Khatami et al) are interpreted in something close to a heavy Arabic accent! However, with regards to Turkey's role as the future leader of ME, IMHO, jury is still out, or as in Persian; shab deraz-o ghalandar bidar! 

Turkey is in the position it is today by default, that is due to colossal f*** up by IRI, and incompetence of Arab nations such as Saudis, et al. In essence, Turkey is one of the creators of the status quo by enabling IRI to alienate and isolate itself through self-destructive stances on the one hand, and filling in the void created due to lack of leadership in ME by adopting anti-colonial postures while carefully threading the line with foreign powers. This has allowed Turkey to both take advantage of the regional consumer markets (i.e. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Azerbaijan...) as well as freeloading on cheap energy and transfer royalties by strategically placing itself in the center of nearly all East-West energy pipelines and presenting itself as a viable, safe alternative to the otherwise "unsafe" and "undesirable" routes!

Indeed, it is in Turkey's interest to prolong the current situation both in Iran and, on a larger scale, in the middle East. That is why it has decided to host and take part in the "Missile Defence System,' to assert its indispensability to its NATO and American patrons! Nonetheless, this hypocrisy will sooner or later catch up with the Turks, for once the democratic institutions begin to flourish in the region and independant states find foreign dominance and occupation of their region counter-productive and start questioning the rationale behind it! 

Dear Maziar:

Hundreds of thousands of Iranians, who passed through Turkey to reach their destinations in Europe or North America, owe their freedom to the Turkish authorities who worked with the UN to facilitate their passage. After the revolution, Iranians had their own Underground Railroad.

art. 301

 don't know much on that  but would invite you to see the movie midnight express

even though is an old movie but it tells you how the system works there

even today and the way they treat un documented Iranian avareh !

disclaimer- In a matter of choosing I still prefer Turkey as it very much resemble The Iranian style of living just like the old days.

Maziar

A few thing

• Turkey is not a truly free nation. It is better than IRI by a great deal. But it is not really free specially for minorities.
• Dear Mehrdad: I wish you would not refer to it as an "Islamic nation". We Turkey is a secular nation and that is a good thing. We got to get away from this "Islamic" or "Christian" thing. Nations are best defined by nationalism not religion. Nationalism is inclusive while religion is exclusive. It breeds division and trouble.
• Turkey and Iran are friendly that is good! On the other hand Republic of Azarbayjan is belligerent and wants Iranian regions. One good thing is that Turkey may be able to keep their hot heads in line. 
• Turkey also has its own separatists so it will oppose breakups. It knows if they do it to Iran they may be next. Just as Iran never recognized Kosovo as a nation.
• Turkey is not going to let itself get dragged into a war with Iran. Much to the anger of Neocon and Israeli right wingers.
• By the way democracy is not the same as freedom.

Pepperoncini!

A half democracy is much better than a full theocracy with all the trimmings!

Perperizmeeziii!

JJ(below):

What about Erdogan? Not easy to dismiss him. He's not a nut. He's the president of a true democracy.

ImlikeUWha?

AN's Claim:

AN claims, AGAIN, there are no political prisoners in Iran! He also says there are no gays, either!!!