Capt Ayhab

Q

i just realized you talk alot but don't really SAY anything!   :-)

i wish other readers would explain or answer or justify other questions i had.  to post a blog like this and not respond to questions is a shame.  it leaves doubt as to the veracity of the claims.  i don't know that i understand why AIPAC should be considered a lobbyist for a foreign power and not NIAC.  it was said that NIAC campaigns for iranians living in the US.  but i feel that is not entirely true.  they do in fact encourage policy change in iran.  so why not consider NIAC a lobbyist for a foreign power too? 

anytime AF,

you have this habit of making all these statements which you claim are "facts"

Yes, I do have this habit. When I present facts, I also claim that's what they are.

What's really funny is your vague insinuation that they are not facts, but instead of picking a specific fact that you are disputing and explaining why it's not a fact, you basically just go:

see //www.google.com

That's what's funny and I'm glad you agree.
What I think is going on is this: What you are reacting to is not my words, just my attitude. You have a kind of defensive feeling, a kind of misplaced patriotism that wants to "defend" against "frivolous" ignorant and antisemetic attacks that you have seen and heard elsewhere, but you have decided to imagine I am the source of those attacks on the accoutn that what I say "sounds" like them. This is why you can't find specific instances of things that you have a problem with, but you're sure you do have a problem with them.

Now, if you want to get serious as opposed to making up irrelevant non sequitors, you can find any of my facts that you have a problem with and I will gladly explain them for you.

blaming the west for everything going wrong in iran. it's tiresome and it's absurd. no doubt the US influenced many changes in iran... good or bad.

Do you have a point... ?

yes, i have to admit that the "zionist conspiracy" comment was a little jab. i was really just beating you to the punch.

Oh I see... so you made a stereotype assumptionm about what you were sure I was going to say, and really just "beat me to the punch". It seems I'm rather superfluous in this discussion, so why is it that you complain when I don't "pursue" things "any further" ?

Hey, do me a favor, from now on, go ahead and just "imagine" my responses, and then your own responses to those responses, and so on. I will just show up once a week and read the record of your "conversation" without further input. It will save us both a lot of time? OK?

i do apologize for that.

It's not necessary but I accept.

along with other iranian-americans, feel free to make these ridiculous claims about the US

Again, without specific examples, I can't help you. There were a few facts I presented about world war II American influence in Iran and 1953. Tell me which one is a "rediculous" statement?

Wow! A question for you:

iran and iranian are complicit in anything that happens within her borders.

Is this just Iran, or any country?

but it will be a cold day in hell when the US takes orders from YOU or israel... IRregardless of what you might think.

Since this statement is completely irrelevant to anything, I will consider it yet-more comic relief for the benefit of the readers. Thanks.

it gets so confusing

when someone changes their original comments...lol.  hard to follow the gist... so to speak. 

these questions are legitimate

and if you don't want to waste your time answering them, don't.  i'm asking simple questions and looking for opinions.  i did in fact google and i'm trying to determine what the difference is.  i said A motherland.   as defined by wiki:  Motherland is a term that may refer to a mother country, i.e. the place of one's birth, the place of origin of an ethnic group or immigrant, or a Metropole in contrast to its colonies. This usage is sometimes seen in English, maybe more often in the social sciences.  

are jewish-americans not allowed to call israel their "motherland" or is does that personally belong to Iranians? 

"Iranians who live in America".  hmmmm

am i to understand that you are stating that NIAC does not advocate support for situations, policies, etc. IN iran?  it does not advocate on behalf of iranians IN iran... policies IN iran?  it does not involve itself with ANY policies in Iran? 

solely and completely 100% for iranians living IN America? 

simple.  yes or no.

this information is available online

I don't know why you are confused about the differences between AIPAC and NIAC!

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is an American lobbying group that advocates for pro-Israel policies to the Congress and Executive Branch of the United States. 

One represents the interest of the Iranians who live in America (where did you get "motherland"?), the other advocates for a foreign country's policies (the state of Israel). AIPAC is not representing the Jewish Americans per se. It's actually lobbying for their country's policies.  NIAC is not affiliated with IRI.  

IRANdokht

well of course

iranian-americans are not a foreign power... :-)  neither are jewish-americans.  but israel IS a foreign power and the suggestion is that AIPAC should be registered as a lobbyist for a foreign power.  so my question is a logical one.  is NIAC a lobbyist for a foreign power or not.  and if not... why not?  exactly (and in a nutshell as i don't think there is a need for huge cut and pasting) what do you consider the difference between NIAC and AIPAC?  are both not serving in the interest of a "motherland"?

please.... your thoughts are helpful.

google searched

NIAC is the lobbyist for American-Iranians (American/Iranians are not considered a foreign power)

//www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=315&Itemid=89

MISSION STATEMENT

Vision   Advancing the interests of the Iranian-American Community

Mission

• Advocacy: We advance the interests of the Iranian American Community on civic, cultural and political issues
  

• Education: We supply the resources, knowledge and tools to enable civic participation and informed decision making.
  

• Community Building:
  We provide the infrastructure for bridge-building across the network of
  Iranian American organizations and the peoples of America and Iran

Core Values

• Integrity   We take our responsibility to the Iranian American community seriously. We will stand and defend our principles. Integrity is fundamentally interwoven in our core philosophy, advocacy and actions.

• Pride   We celebrate our rich heritage and our contributions to American life to set an example for future Iranian Americans.

• Transparency   We are transparent in sharing objectives, sources of funding and positions on issues that count.

• Leadership   We lead by example and inspire future leaders by delivering tangible results for our community.
  

IRANdokht

thanks Cap'n

that sounds like some intense reading...lol.

but i've still not gotten an answer to my question.  is NIAC registered as a lobbyist for a foreign power?

fishie jan

See if my previous comment will help you

//search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Israel-Lobby-...

haler at me

-YT

Book

An Excellent book on Israelis lobby power

THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
John J. Mearsheimer
Department of Political Science
University of Chicago
Stephen M. Walt
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
March 2006 RWP06‐011

An edited and reworked version of this paper was published in the
London Review of Books Vol. 28, No. 6 (March 23, 2006), and is available online at www.lrb.co.uk  THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

EXCERPTS:

U.S. foreign policy shapes events in every corner of the globe. Nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East, a region of recurring instability and enormous strategic importance. Most recently, the Bush Administration's attempt to transform the region into a community of democracies has helped produce a resilient insurgency in Iraq, a sharp
rise in world oil prices, and terrorist bombings in Madrid, London, and Amman. With so much at stake for so many, all countries need to understand the forces that drive U.S. Middle East policy.

The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread
democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.

.......

THE GREAT BENEFACTOR

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and
military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War II. Total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars.2 Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one‐fifth of America's foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per
year.3 This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income
roughly equal to South Korea or Spain.4

Israel also gets other special deals from Washington.5 Other aid recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel
receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and thus earns extra interest. Most recipients of American military assistance are required to spend all of it in the United States, but Israel can use roughly twenty.

......

To begin with, "terrorism" is a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups; it is not a single unified adversary. The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel (e.g., Hamas or Hezbollah) do not
threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or "the West"; it is largely a
response to Israel's prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

More importantly, saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: rather, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. U.S. support for Israel is not the only source of anti‐American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult.15 There is no question, for example, that many al Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. According to the U.S. 9/11 Commission, bin Laden explicitly sought to
punish the United States for its policies in the Middle East, including its support for Israel, and he even tried to time the attacks to highlight this issue.

Equally important, unconditional U.S. support for Israel makes it easier for extremists like bin Laden to rally popular support and to
attract recruits. Public opinion polls confirm that Arab populations are deeply hostile to American support for Israel, and the U.S. State
Department's Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim
world found that "citizens in these countries are genuinely distressed
at the plight of the Palestinians and at the role they perceive the United States to be playing."

--------------------

As for so‐called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat
to vital U.S. interests, apart from the U.S. commitment to Israel itself. Although the United States does have a number of disagreements with these regimes, Washington would not be nearly as worried about
Iran, Ba'thist Iraq, or Syria were it not so closely tied to Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons—which is obviously not
desirable—it would not be a strategic disaster for the United States. Neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed by a nuclear‐armed
rogue, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without receiving overwhelming retaliation. The danger of a "nuclear handoff" to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be
sure the transfer would be undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards.

Furthermore, the U.S. relationship with Israel actually makes it harder to deal with these states. Israel's nuclear arsenal is one
reason why some of its neighbors want nuclear weapons, and threatening these states with regime change merely increases that desire. Yet Israel is not much of an asset when the United States contemplates using force against these regimes, because it cannot participate in the fight.

In short, treating Israel as America's most important ally in the campaign against terrorism and assorted Middle East dictatorships both exaggerates Israel's ability to help on these issues and ignores the
ways that Israel's policies make U.S. efforts more difficult.

--------------------------------

A DWINDLING MORAL CASE

Apart from its alleged strategic value, Israel's backers also argue that it deserves unqualified U.S. support because

1) it is weak and
surrounded by enemies,

2) it is a democracy, which is a morally
preferable form of government;

3) the Jewish people have suffered from
past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment,

4) Israel's
conduct has been morally superior to its adversaries' behavior.

On close inspection, however, each of these arguments is unpersuasive. There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel's
existence, but that is not in jeopardy. Viewed objectively, Israel's past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over
the Palestinians.

Backing the Underdog?

Israel is often portrayed as weak and besieged, a Jewish David surrounded by a hostile Arab Goliath. This image has been carefully nurtured by Israeli leaders and sympathetic writers, but the opposite
image is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better ‐equipped, and better‐led forces during the 1947‐49 War of Independence and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) won quick and easy victories against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in
1967—before large‐scale U.S. aid began flowing to Israel.24 These victories offer eloquent evidence of Israeli patriotism, organizational ability, and military prowess, but they also reveal that Israel was far
from helpless even in its earliest years.

Aiding a Fellow Democracy?

American backing is often justified by the claim that Israel is a fellow‐democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships. This rationale sounds convincing, but it cannot account for the current level of U.S.
support. After all, there are many democracies around the world, but none receives the lavish support that Israel does. The United States
has overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when this was thought to advance U.S. interests, and it has
good relations with a number of dictatorships today. Thus, being democratic neither justifies nor explains America's support for Israel.

The "shared democracy" rationale is also weakened by aspects of Israeli democracy that are at odds with core American values. The
United States is a liberal democracy where people of any race, religion, or ethnicity are supposed to enjoy equal rights. By contrast,
Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this conception of citizenship, it is not surprising that Israel's 1.3 million Arabs are
treated as second‐class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission
found that Israel behaves in a "neglectful and discriminatory" manner towards them. Similarly, Israel does not permit Palestinians who marry Israeli
citizens to become citizens themselves, and does not give these spouses the right to live in Israel. The Israeli human rights organization B'tselem called this restriction "a racist law that determines who
can live here according to racist criteria."28 Such laws may be understandable given Israel's founding principles, but they are not consistent with America's image of democracy.

-----------------------------------------

What Is The Lobby?

We use "the Lobbyʺ as a convenient short‐hand term for the loose coalition of
individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro‐Israel direction. Our use of this term is not meant to suggest that ʺthe Lobbyʺ is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues.

The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so
that it advances Israel's interests. Their activities go beyond merely voting for candidates who are pro‐Israel to include letter‐writing, financial contributions, and
supporting pro‐Israel organizations. But not all Jewish‐Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 percent of Jewish‐Americans said they were either "not very" or "not at all" emotionally attached to Israel.

Jewish‐Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key
organizations in the Lobby, like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (CPMJO), are run by hardliners who generally supported the expansionist policies of Israel's Likud Party,
including its hostility to the Oslo Peace Process. The bulk of U.S. Jewry, on the other hand, is more favorably disposed to making
concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups—such as Jewish Voice for Peace—strongly advocate such steps.61 Despite these differences, moderates and hardliners both support steadfast U.S. support for
Israel.
Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the former can maximize their influence in
the United States. As one activist with a major Jewish organization wrote, "it is routine for us to say: 'This is our policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the Israelis think.' We as a community do it all the time."

There is also a strong norm against criticizing Israeli policy, and Jewish ‐American leaders rarely support putting pressure on Israel. Thus, Edgar Bronfman Sr., the president of the World Jewish Congress, was
accused of "perfidy" when he wrote a letter to President Bush in mid‐2003 urging Bush to pressure Israel to curb construction of its controversial "security fence."

Critics declared that, "It would be
obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being
promoted by the government of Israel."
Similarly, when Israel Policy Forum president Seymour Reich advised Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to pressure Israel to reopen a
critical border crossing in the Gaza Strip in November 2005, critics denounced his action as "irresponsible behavior," and declared that, "There is absolutely no room in the Jewish mainstream for actively
canvassing against the security ‐related policies . . . of Israel." Recoiling from these attacks, Reich proclaimed that "the word pressure is not in my vocabulary when
it comes to Israel."
Jewish‐Americans have formed an impressive array of organizations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and well‐known.

In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC
was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People (AARP), but ahead of heavyweight lobbies like the AFL‐CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington's "muscle rankings."

The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick
Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives. They believe Israel's rebirth is part of Biblical
prophecy, support its expansionist agenda, and think pressuring Israel is contrary to God's will.

In addition, the Lobby's membership
includes neoconservative gentiles such as John Bolton, the late Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley, former Secretary of
Education William Bennett, former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and columnist George Will. 

Sources of Power

The United States has a divided government that offers many ways to influence the policy process. As a result, interest groups can shape
policy in many different ways—by lobbying elected representatives and members of the executive branch, making campaign contributions, voting in elections, molding public opinion, etc.

Furthermore, special interest groups enjoy disproportionate power when they are committed to a particular issue and the bulk of the
population is indifferent. Policymakers will tend to accommodate those who care about the issue in question, even if their numbers are small, confident that the rest of the population will not penalize them.

The Israel Lobby's power flows from its unmatched ability to play this game of interest group politics. In its basic operations, it is no different from interest groups like the Farm Lobby, steel and textile
workers, and other ethnic lobbies. What sets the Israel Lobby apart is its extraordinary effectiveness. But there is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway U.S. policy towards Israel. The Lobby's activities are not the sort of conspiracy depicted in anti ‐Semitic tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise the Lobby are doing what other special interest groups do, just much better. Moreover, pro‐Arab interest groups are weak to non‐existent, which makes the Lobby's task even easier.

Strategies for Success

The Lobby pursues two broad strategies to promote U.S. support for Israel. First, it wields significant influence in Washington,
pressuring both Congress and the Executive branch to support Israel down the line. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker's own views, the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel the "smart" political choice.

Second, the Lobby strives to ensure that public discourse about Israel portrays it in a positive light, by repeating myths about Israel
and its founding and by publicizing Israel's side in the policy debates of the day. The goal is to prevent critical commentary about Israel from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the
debate is essential to guaranteeing U.S. support, because a candid discussion of U.S.‐Israeli relations might lead Americans to favor a different policy.

Influencing Congress

A key pillar of the Lobby's effectiveness is its influence in the U.S. Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This is in itself a remarkable situation, because Congress almost never shies
away from contentious issues. Whether the issue is abortion, affirmative action, health care, or welfare, there is certain to be a
lively debate on Capitol Hill. Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent and there is hardly any debate at all.

One reason for the Lobby's success with Congress is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002 that "My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel."

One would think that the number 1 priority for any congressman would be to "protect America," but that is not what Armey said. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to make U.S. foreign policy support Israel's interests.

----------------------------- Continued

End Excerpt

-YT

just realized that my question was never answered

for example... is NIAC registered as a lobbyist for a foreign power?  and what other groups are there that would also be considered lobbyists for a foreign power? 

can anyone tell me if it is or not?

thanks Q

i'm glad i made you laugh too!!  you have this habit of making all these statements which you claim are "facts"... yet YOU never want to pursue any further.  but that's ok by me.  i've come to realize that this is typical with you.  and yes, i have to admit that the "zionist conspiracy" comment was a little jab. i was really  just beating you to the punch. but sarcasm is usually unnecessary and i do apologize for that.

the bottom line is that you, along with other iranian-americans, feel free to make these ridiculous claims about the US... blaming the west for everything going wrong in iran.  it's tiresome and it's absurd.  no doubt the US influenced many changes in iran... good or bad.  but to lay blame for shah or khomeni or mullahs on the US when we never even occupied iran as the SU and Britain did... is just beyond common sense.  it suggests that the iranian people are puppets for anyone who comes along. and i would consider that insulting if i were an iranian.  iran and iranian are complicit in anything that happens within her borders. 

now.  you're free to think anything you want.  but it will be a cold day in hell when the US takes orders from YOU or israel... IRregardless of what you might think.

peace out.

IRANdokht Jaan

Thank you for your response but Hoder has Never Been My HERO ! I express my solidarity with a fellow who I have even personlly challenged and ridiculed for precisely his outrageous comments on a wide spectrum of subjenct. But to remind people of his predicament is the least I can do for I would like to think that in a similar situation other feature writers on this site would do the same.

As for your comment : "Pay attention to see who is cheering you on Darius jan and be careful who you're pleasing and helping by your constant mocking of other members."

I can very well turn the same advice to you ?

I was frankly Shocked when you who were very supportive of the SCE campaign started taking sides with Jahelo when this person attacked Nazanin Afshin Jam calling her a Whore and other insulting comments of the kind and whose comments have ALWAYS been on the side of the IRI's Policies. Ok you may have shared Jahelo's views on a given subject. Its Your Right but then don't claim you are entitled to the "Right Opinion" and "Right Friends" and I have to share the same !

As if MARGE was better than Zion ?  When She endorsed Robert Baer's allegations that Kurds were Terrorists killing Iranians and overlooked the Bombing of Kurds by Turkish and Iranian Airforce. Yani Cheeh ? Why the double Standards then ?  While the Israelis were bombing Gaza  Iran was bombing Kurds to general indifference. Incredible !

To me both are anonymous BS and I treat and ridicule them in the same way they have done with me. After all what matters to me is to see my ideas triumph not theirs and they do the same. If in the debate Zion or another comes and says he (or is it a She ? ) shares my point of view, why sould I spit on it ?

You Say "You and your friends who are demonizing these patriots, are working in favor of this new "Sahrayeh Karbala" vision by ridiculing these people and their efforts."

First of all when it comes to such serious issues I don't write on for Friends on this website, I write what I think is right and will take the support from where it comes. Your Complaining about them being ridiculed  then what about me when I got attacks from nearly ALL of Your Friends on my position on GAZA and on the Front Blog Page ? 

Your Friends granted me no Gifts and I they cannot count on me paying them back with Flowers either.  And besides I mostly ridicule comments by people who hide under anonymity and have attacked me before. Why should they benefit from that kind of cowardly security and claim things without being accountable for their opinions. At worst they get hurt like I get hurt by their comments.

 And I dare you to show me when I ever claimed that I supported the Bombings of Civilians ! I simply brought attention on something that proved right:  Ahmadinejad's Support and Arming of the HAMAS and using this conflict to Demonize Israel and use it as a further arguments to support His Denials of the Holocaust as promoted by the Tehran Conference !

//iranian.com/main/blog/darius-kadivar/holocaust-myth-michelle-renouf-iranian-sahar-tv

You may think this is irrelevant! I don't ! And I have been Warning people for months about this type of manipulation and you refuse to accept it on grounds that I was biaised or blinded by prejudice against the IRI !

Sorry I said I support Khatami but only against Ahmadinejad, I don't have to go an sleep with him like hooman Majd.

Any Way got to go and hope to dance with you one day for real if life will give us the opportunity to meet one day in California. ;0)

Cheers,

DK

Dear DK

Thanks for taking the time to explain your views and provide video clips and links, answer my questions etc...

Personally, I never watch the Iranian satellite channels and have no clue who you were talking about. I am not impressed with Milani, or other characters you mentioned either, not even with your new hero Hossein Derakhshan. I never liked his stance on IRI and was not a fan of his writings. I wish him safe and a speedy release from jail, I believe in freedom of speech and don't want to see anyone jailed for speaking their mind, but I am not going to be blown away by this whole saga and pretend Hoder was a decent writer/journalist either.As for Hezbeh baad, I think the most consistant one in that show was Hooman Majd. Nafisi has changed views and approaches a few times since she became a household name. Although I am glad that she finally ended up on the right side.

Frankly DK jan I find your constant demeaning comments to anyone else's blogs and posts, and ridiculing people who do not think the way you do very offensive. I may not feel the same way that the monarchists do, but I am not going to jump at every opportunity to ridicule people who think others have superior genes and should be in position of power because they're inherently better!

We all feel in different ways and have different visions for the future of our country and I don't see why anyone who loves Iran and Iranians would resort to nasty sarcastic comments to put down others all the while high-five'ing with the ones who are advocating military attack on my country. I know you have said plenty of times that you do not support military actions, but look around you and see the ones who are encouraging your reactions to political blogs and posts. Pay attention to see who is cheering you on Darius jan and be careful who you're pleasing and helping by your constant mocking of other members.  

Yes Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are the reason we're in this mess and the reason Iran is threatened every day. That's BECAUSE they want Iran to be attacked, they want to make Iran another "sahrayeh Karbala" by the hands of US and Israel so they can cry about it and feel like martyrs.

Don't you see? the ones who are trying to STOP the military attack on Iran like the Iranian lobbyists and a few of the folks on this site, those are the ones who are working AGAINST Ahmadinejad's best interest.  You and your friends who are demonizing these patriots, are working in favor of this new "Sahrayeh Karbala" vision by ridiculing these people and their efforts.

Israel and US do not need your encouragement and support Darius jan, the people of Iran do! They are the ones who are suffering now and will suffer even more if we don't learn to unite and respect each other. Please don't insult people, don't call them arab parast or arab dokht just because they do not agree with your every view. Respect goes a long way my dear friend.

Thanks and some day hopefully we shall have that dance :o))

IRANdokht

PS: Speaking of hezbeh baad:  I have seen people who now praise Shirin
Ebadi and take ownership of the Ebadi fan club, pointing finger at
others who ironically have always been on Dr Ebadi's side and supported
her.

It's funny how people underestimate other people's memory and
intelligence. When I see them parade around with a "patriotic" flag
now, "impressed" is the last thing I feel. Darius jan before you ridicule people who you had a disagreement with, at some point in the past, try to see what's going on and who's been changing colors like a chameleon and who's been persistent and honest.   

Irandokht (Answers)

Your Questions: I guess I am not up to date with the behind the scenes dealings, I recall that the day Reza Pahlavi said he had a lot of respect for Dr Mossadegh a lot of the monarchists had to control their outrage. I always get confused too, like when Reza said surgical attacks are ok and needed, then he said he never wanted military attacks on Iran. I can't keep up... that's why I am asking what is today's monarchist position on Dr Mossadegh and on military attacks? 

My Answers:  First I am not Reza Pahlavi's spokesman nor have ever met him, so my answers are based on what I know of him and what I have read, heard and followed all these years in regard to his ideas, persona, books etc. Do I agree with most of his views ? Yes ! I say this so as to avoid ambiguity and avoid passing for a hypocrite. I fully support him given the vaccum of any other alternative to my taste. Others are free to think differently. If someone else appears in the future who can prove more efficient or capable to do what he says and that is achieve regime change without violence, I may change my mind for the good of Iranians and beyond my preference for the monarchy in its Constitutional Form. In otherwords Do I think Reza Pahlavi is the brightest and most visionary Iranian political figure today ? No I don’t ! But to his credit he has never claimed that either nor has he said he had all the answers but that given his historical family heritage ( Two Shah’s may I remind you) he feels compelled to do his share of duty or at best what he considers his duty towards his people. I respect him for that, and its the least I expect from a Former Crown Prince of a Royal Institution which I personally want to see restored in Iran.
But he is not campaigning for a Restoration of the Monarchy. I am ;0)
As far as he is concerned and maybe  to the dismay of die hard monarchists he is not limiting his contacts to monarchist but has extended his hand to Jomhury Khah's and Mossadeghis and Democrats in general.  He is  however campaigning for Unity amonst Iranian Patriots and Democrats who oppose the clerical regime and wish to turn Iran into a Democratic and Secular Society. So from that perspective I see no contradiction when he is speaking about Unity and claims that he does not have all the answers :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaSclIZMwEU

 
Mossadegh: Reza Pahlavi indeed expressed his full respect for Mossadegh in the past and for Chahpour Bakhtiar both of whom he stated as "Gahreman's of Iran". If it disturbed some die hard monarchists ? Probably in regard to Mossadegh, less in the case of Bakhtiar. But I don't see how Reza Pahlavi has to be held accountable for the opinions expressed by those who are more Royalist than the King or Queen and who belong to his constituency. All groups have their die hard members, including Mossadeghi's who refuse to even talk to Monarchists but fortunately this gap seems to diminish because of a simple fact that the events of 1953, however important belong to history and a remote past and so discussing it with less passion but more objectivity seems possible today which does not diminish the role or intellectual legacy of Dr. Mossadegh. I believe even that many including myself would even welcome to see  the Statue of Dr. Mossadegh and Shapour Bakhtiar to be erected in Front of the Iranian Parliament regarldess of whether Iran becomes a Constitutional Monarchy or a Secular Repubic  as a reminder of the importance of Parlimentary Rule and a warning against Absolutism and dictatorship. But to expect Reza Pahlavi to be held accountable for the events of 1953 seems far fetched given that he was not even born at the time and even his mother was not Queen during that time but Soraya.
 

Military Strikes: I have NEVER read such an allegation by Reza Pahlavi that he wished America or Israel to Strike Iran, NEVER ! 
 

If you say that based on what Anti Monarchists have been saying or because some Cheap Bazari LA TV has said between Advertisement for Nose Operations and News on Iran, I don't see what that has to do with Reza Pahlavi's Official Stance ?

He does not run these TV's.

And on Iranian Pars TV: He repeated EXACTLY WhaT He Has Said on other Medias in France that he seeked no vengeance nor violent change in Iran and was against Entegham Jooyeeh or Foreign intervention but insisted on Civil Dissobedience:

//www.rezapahlavi.org/audios/?id=276#276 

That these TV's Do Propaganda for his return, Why should he spit on them. Who wouldn't take complimants ? Does Khatami refuse being Interviewed on IRI TV ? Despite all the Anti Semitic Programs on which he has remained silent and has never condemned ? 

//iranian.com/main/blog/darius-kadivar/holocaust-myth-michelle-renouf-iranian-sahar-tv 

That Iranians outside Iran have been discussing or weighing the possibility of what our reaction as Iranians should be in case such Surgical Strikes do happen be it by Israel or America ? I think that is a natural and legitimate concern.

All the better that this debate takes place now rather than after for it may avoid it from actually happening.

Iran’s leadership knows Perfectly that they have been provoking this risk by bringing Israel into the picture. Wasn’t it already enough to have America against us ? Who asked Ahmadinejad to host a Conference on the Holocaust in Tehran while negotiating on our nuclear rights ? If Israel Attacks Iran should the Opposition to the regime take the blame ? I don’t think so and certainly not Reza Pahlavi !

And Azar Nafisi on Charlie Rose (with Hooman Majd & Vali Nasr) as to Dialogue with the Iranian regime by the US should not be done at the expense of the Iranian People and without their direct knowledge of behind  the scene negotiations:

I do not See ANY Contradiction between Abbas Milani, Vali Nasr or Azar Nafisi comments with that of what Reza Pahlavi has been saying to date. As for Hooman Majd he is entitled to his own opinion … I’ve expressed what i think about his Hezbeh Baad Attitude.

From Reza Pahlavi’s latest interview in L'Express ( if You can't  read French, Translation in English below):

Paragraph in Question:

"Le régime iranien ne demande pas mieux qu'un conflit militaire. Il l'exploiterait à fond. C'est le piège à éviter, le scénario perdant-perdant ; nous Iraniens percevrons une action armée comme une frappe contre le pays tout entier et non contre le régime seulement. Il ne faut absolument pas en arriver là. De l'autre côté, je ne crois pas que les mollahs soient assez fous pour penser un jour utiliser la bombe contre Israël: ils savent très bien qu'ils seraient aussitôt anéantis. Ce qu'ils veulent, c'est disposer de la bombe pour pouvoir s'institutionnaliser une fois pour toutes dans la région et étendre leurs zones d'influence. Ils rêvent de créer un califat chiite du XXIe siècle et entendent l'imposer par la bombe atomique."

English Translation:

"The Iranian Regime wishes nothing better than a military confrontation. It will exploit this opportunity to the fullest. This is a Trap we should avoid for it is a loser-loser scenario; For us Iranians, a military conflict such as a strike will be seen as an attack on our entire country and not the regime itself. We should absolutely Avoid such an eventuality. On the otherhand, I very much doubt that the mullah's would be so crazy to use the Bomb against Israel for they know that they would be destroyed. What the mullah's really want is to have the bomb in order to institutionalize themselves once and for all in the region and extend their influence. They are dreaming of a new Shi'it Califat of the 21st Century and an Atom Bomb will give them that invincibility they need."

He repeated here too Bibliotheque Medici ( French Parliament TV):

//www.publicsenat.fr/vod/bibliotheque-medicis/parcours/catherine-clement,jacques-attali,reza-pahlavi/60732

In his interview on France 24 he repeated in regard Israeli Threats Lets Not be "Trigger" Happy and help Iranians Inside Iran ::

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6oqsDNmfe4&feature=related

Now if some of you believe in Reform, Fine Prove us Wrong !

But Don't Expect us to Help capt_ayhab, Jahelo and all this Pro IRI Front to defend the IRI Governments Foreign Policy when a Feature Writer on this Very Website  Hossein Derakhshan is being Held in Iran's Evin Prison on grounds of being an Agent of Israel !

We Don't have the same vision of Iran and I will fight their views and arguments to the best of my ability Just like Burt Lancaster with Booz:  

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=6us-XYUjgcU&feature=related

VIVE LA RESISTANCE !

anonymous fish, you actually made me laugh

I did not click on any of your links. You are so affraid of being proven wrong, that you won't even go as far as making a claim yourself you pretend you are defending!!! You expect me to dig through a google search and make your arguments for you? truly hillarious!

I didn't say anything about a Zionist conspiracy, of course, but I'm beginning to think your "responses" have very little to do with anything I write.

Re: Q

Q, you are false. Again.

The shah was not "hand picked" from among millions of Iranians by the allies in order to become king. He was the son of Reza shah, which made him king due to Iran's tradition of monarchy.

Therefore, he was hand picked by our country's tradition of monarchy, not by the US, as the Americans knew that siding with anyone else would cause untold chaos in Iran.

There are facts.

Educate yourself before you opine.

I agree with you that there is a great variety of control in puppet states: real and perceived. (your words.)

Let's take a look at your favorite Iranian government, the IRI.

The IRI is one of the most puppet regimes Iran has seen in the past 200 years, worst than even some of the Ghajars.

Sure, they "pretend" like they are no puppets, by beating their chests against the Great Satan, or by arresting British sailors, or other similar actions, but when you look at their kaarnaameh, you'll see that they more than any Pahlavi king have allowed Iran's riches to be looted by the Russians, Chinese and even Indidans and many other countries such as Brazil, British and Germany.

Your support for such a regime speaks volumes about your loyalties.

I hate Wallace's patronizing

I hate Wallace's patronizing attitute.  He is intentionally rude to the Shah and the Shah falls right into his trap.  There is no reason for the king of Iran to tell Michael Wallace what he thinks of the role of AIPAC in American foreign policy.  

Wallace was just as rude to Ahmadinejad (maybe a little less) in a more recent interview.

Q

so you've personally decided to rewrite history on your own... again.

i suppose it's a zionist conspiracy that no one else seems to KNOW these facts but you?  LOL

//persepolis.free.fr/iran/personalities/shah.html

//www.iranchamber.com/history/mohammad_rezashah/mohammad_rezashah.php

//www.niasnet.org/iran-history/persian-leaders/reza_shah_pahlavi/

//www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=18401

puppets...

ali P, every "puppet" in History has always denied being a puppet and claimed to love his own people.

First, and for the education of Anonymous Fish, let's make one thing clear: There is no doubt that Shah was literally handpicked by the US (Stalin had little power when it came to Iran, and UK had no power at all and supported US). This was done as an investment in future energy resources to rebuilt post-war Europe. UK in particular, devestated completely by Nazi Germany was completely depending on Iranian oil for any postwar power at all. (North Sea oil had not been discovered).

This investment was further protected in 1953, when again, US and UK literally prevented Shah's all-but-certain ouster from Iranian politics and brought him back from Italy and put him back on the throne.

These are facts.

Second, there is of course a great variety of control in puppet states: real and perceived. Of course it fits the Western-oriented narrative in great competition with the USSR to say that US had no puppets, and try to produce signs and signals that show the puppet in question is really "independent". US would say for example claimed that the Batista Government in Cuba and many Latin American right wing dictatorships in the 50's and 60's were not puppets. But the reality is that they were to various degrees.

Just as Soviet propaganda would have Soviet citizens believe that governments of Eastern Europe were not "puppets", western citizens were fooled into thinking these governments in Latin America and the middle east who owed the existence, staying in power to US were not puppets either. But who controlled their military for foreign policy? Their economy? Who got all the lucretive import contracts? Who trained their police aparatus and their secret services?

Regarding Afghanistan and Iraq "governments" ask yourself this: Do they have the power to kick out US troops if they wanted to? Do they have the power to open up their military and economy to Russia and China? Do they have the right to get American companies and advisors out of their country?

What do you think a puppet looks like?

Imagine....................

Lets for a moment continue  the same interview. (Remeber Mike Wallas of 60 Minutes, himself is a Jew).

Mike Wallas: Your majesty, since in your view, AIPAC is as powerful with its influence of US foreign policies. Would it be plausible to think that, the same AIPAC may have had lot to do with US helping you back in power in 1953?.

Shah: Mike, it is all in the pudding. As I said before, Since the  Jewish Lobby controls the print and TV media, it can also publish articles to influence the world opinion about the legitimacy of coups around the world.

So, now I ask you Mike, did Aipac influence the US to depose my arch rival (Mossadegh), and put me back in power.You tell me.

by that same explanation

couldn't you also say that he was handpicked by russia (or soviet union)?  the allied forces was all three, correct?  are you being just a bit subjective to make the link to the US so exclusively? in fact, the US didn't even occupy iran as did england and the SU... correct?

as i understand it, the powers that be IN iran weren't all that happy with shah.  but you're suggesting that the US handpicked him. 

oooookay.

Superpowers and us

 I am not sure if superpowers handpick and then dictate exactly what they want to some puppet, and he carries out the orders for them, in most cases.

 Most of us do not consider Hamed Karzei, or Nouri Al-Maleki as American puppets (if you do, you may stop reading now. The rest of the comment is not going to make any sense to you).

 They are both have received the green light from the US to sit where they sit. Are they servants who do what they are told?

I am not sure. I think both men love their respective countries, and try to do what's good for their homeland, while being very aware of the hand that put them where they are.

 50 years from now, if they read in history books that the US installed these men, therefore they were puppets, it would be inaccurate, and it would be unfair.

 Between black and white, there is a whole bunch of gray.

Respectfully,

Ali P.

I Wonder ;-)

How would Shah feel about his son's tight and lovi dovi relationship with AIPAC?

//www.payvand.com/news/03/may/1139.html

Reza Pahlavi has shown his true face (finally!) and he should be praised for that.

One thing is clear and that is the more he
associates himself with neo-cons (right-wing nuts) the more he is
isolated and considered a puppet by Iranians. It is funny that only one
AIPAC (American Israeli Political Affairs Committee) top executive has
suggested that the support of the Pahlavi by AIPAC should be
"discrete".

Once Iranian people see the picture of Pahlavi with
Daniel Pipes, Michael Ledeen and Rob Sobhani then comes the end of the
road for Pahlavi.

I would say let Pahlavi say whatever he wants to say
and do whatever he wants to do and at the end of the day he will end up
like Rajavi in the eyes of Iranian people. Rajavi was not such a hated
figure among Iranian people before he sided with Saddam. Reza Pahlavi
is too dumb to learn from Rajavi's mistakes and that is the irony.

The problem with Pahlavi and those of AEI and others
who promote him is that they believe in their own misinformation and
deceptions ("bait and switch") and somehow think that Iranian people
will run into Iranian cities and demand return of Pahlavi once Islamic
Regime has shown a bit of vulnerability and that is a big
miscalculation, much like the situation in Iraq today.

It is a drastic task to take over a country,
something that the geniuses in Pentagon did not anticipate (after
working on this "doctrine" for 12 years!). There is a lot of work that
needs to be done to get basic needs of the Iraqi people since the
overthrow of Saddam. It will take years to "stabilize" the situation in
Iraq and at the end of the day there might not be enough resources (not
to mention enthusiasm in US Congress, public opinion) left to start
"building another nation."

I would also say let Sen. Brownbag (or is it
brownbag or dirtbag) to allocate the $50 million to these bozos. What
are they going to do with the money? There is already a TV station
broadcasting Pahlavi's message in Iran. Zia will probably spend the $50
million to trade-in his Jaguar for a Mercedes. These imbeciles will
spend the rest of the money (purchasing personal items) and that will
be a great embarrassment and source of a new controversy.

I don't think Pahlavi has any support among Iranian
people and I am not counting those who copy and paste articles from
Jerusalem Post in this forum. True Iranian people will say no to a
puppet like Pahlavi.

About the author:
Kave Pourmand lives in San Francisco Bay Area.

-YT

fishie

You asked[are you seriously suggesting or implying that shah was "handpicked" by the US?]

There are ample evidence and historical facts to suggest that Shah was placed on the throne by Allied forces[Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin].

In August 1941, the Allied powers Britain and the Soviet Union occupied
Iran by a massive air, land, and naval assault subsequently forcing
Reza Shah to abdicate in favor of his son.

The invasion was allegedly in fear that Reza Shah was about to align
his petroleum-rich country with Nazi Germany during the war.

The Allied forces held a conference in Tehran(Codenamed EUREKA)  between November 28 and December 1, 1943. It was the first World War II conference among the Big Three  in which Stalin was present. It succeeded the Cairo Conference and was followed by the Yalta Conference and Potsdam Conference. The chief discussion was centered on the opening of a second front in Western Europe. At the same time a separate protocol pledged the three countries to recognize Iran's independence.

Reza Shah, late Shah's father, was force to abdicate the throne, due to his cooperation and sympathy with Nazi Germany, and his son, Late Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was placed on the throne. He was only 22 at the time, pretty wet behind the ears you might say.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah

-YT

IRANdokht Jaan ;0)

Will answer your legitimate questions in detail, I've Got to leave my computer till tomorrow.

As far as Iran is concerned, I am afraid you are wrong.

Iran ALAS does belong to someone entirely today to Our New  SHAH : Ayatollah (ZAHAK)  Khamenei and the IRI Clerics Aristocracy who have been running our country irresponsibly for 30 years.

My Point is to give their Supporters a Headache when ever I can ;0) 

My Level of Sadism at worst shakes their Doh Gheroony Patriotism. And I do it with My Full name and Identity unlike them !

Cheers Till tomorrow Khoshkeleh and Keep your Next Dance for me !  

And in the meantime :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYzlerGxXJI&feature=PlayList&p=129151CDC9AD18C5&playnext=1&index=1

VIVE LA RESISTANCE !

DK

Since I was deleted

For the better, Otherwise there would be no difference between adults and children.

Master Moderator: My apologies for stooping down to Mr. Kadivars level.

-YT

Participants

Please stay with the subject of this post and refrain from personal attacks and insults on other debaters.  Comments containing such content will be deleted.

Whoa!!! Darius jan

calm down please

of course you had posted it a long time ago. Shah said it way before you posted it too... Iwould even bet that you posted it after he had already died. So now nobody can post anything about Shah anymore?

I guess I am not up to date with the behind the scenes dealings, I recall that the day Reza Pahlavi said he had a lot of respect for Dr Mossadegh a lot of the monarchists had to control their outrage. I always get confused too, like when Reza said surgical attacks are ok and needed, then he said he never wanted military attacks on Iran. I can't keep up... that's why I am asking what is today's monarchist position on Dr Mossadegh and on military attacks? 

Dear Darius

Iran is not anyone's property. The archived videos of Shah and Dr Mossadegh can be posted by anyone who wants if they're available on the net.

Some of us have lived in Iran, gone to school in Iran, worked in Iran and still visit Iran. How can you claim that you're more of an Iranian and patriot than others? Some of these gentlemen have gone to war for Iran, most of us have seen the changes in person and have close family in Iran.

Iran is not just yours or mine. It's our country and we all love her.

Please refrain from claiming ownership of the land, the history and the culture. 

IRANdokht

also...

are you seriously suggesting or implying that shah was "handpicked" by the US?  was he HELPED by the US?  for sure.  but i think the implication that the US has so much control over politics in iran is just a little... exaggerated.  was his father shah of iran or not?  and did the US have a hand in HIS appointment?  me thinks you give us too much credit...;-0