Alternative Iran Policy Advice to Obama

Share/Save/Bookmark

Jaleho
by Jaleho
03-Apr-2009
 

I just watched Iran Debate link on Iranian.com now, and noticed that bunch of people with failed past policy advice are giving each other the illusion of importance! It is good to know that Obama gets and is willing to listen to other ideas, some like the following, which are good for the US. Hopefully he will act reasonably within his power.

Dear President Obama,

I am an Iranian American. Our community was extremely charged up about your candidacy, and with an immense hope for a change in US foreign policy towards Iran voted overwhelmingly for your election. Your victory was not only celebrated by Iranian-Americans, but by almost all household inside Iran who are now anxiously awaiting a real change in US-Iran relations.

It was with great pleasure that we listened to your Norooz message to the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Norooz is a celebration of the arrival of spring, rejuvenation of earth and human spirit; a celebration that ushers the end of an icy and cold winter. Traditionally, family members who might have developed a case of dispute or hurt are encouraged to reconcile. Mr. President, by quoting the words of Iranian poet, Sa’adi, in your Norooz message, “The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of the same essence,” you proved how genuinely you appreciate the spirit of Norooz that now can be extended to the larger family of nations. Those words of Sa’adi are engraved in stone on top of the United Nations building, reminding us that all of humanity is one large family. You underlined that tradition of renewal in the dawn of the “New Day” that behooves every family member to set the grievances of the past aside, and on top of the molten ice of a distressed past, welcome the buds of a new friendship.

There are plenty of urgent reasons to revive a healthy US-Iran relation. Iran by its strategic location; its cultural and economic influence in the region, its historical imprints on many countries of the region, and its sheer size and power, can be an important partner for the US in a tumultuous region of strategic importance to the United States. But, after years of unconstructive policies and missed opportunities, misconceptions and mistrust are abundant and make the road to reconciliation rough. To achieve a steady progress, one must first understand the wrongs done in the past, and build a mutual trust which paves the way for a new era of cooperation for the common good.

US-Iran past relationship and the root of problems

As you are well aware, Iran and the US have had an icy relation for thirty years. For majority of Americans, this difficult relation has been crystallized during the Hostage Crisis following Islamic Revolution of Iran. For most Iranians though, the enmity started by the CIA assisted coup of 1953 which toppled democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mossadeq, and installed Shah to power. Following the publication of Kinzer’s popular book, “All The Shah’s Men,” many in the US learned about the coup, but incorrectly attribute the bringing down a democratic secular regime as the reason for the success of the “unwanted” Islamic Revolution of Iran. This is a very superficial and unfortunate interpretation which tarnishes a clear understanding of Iranian revolution, and the true aspirations of the Iranian people.

In fact, Islamic Revolution of 1978-79 was a continuation of the anti-colonial struggle of Iranian people dating back to the Constitutional Revolution of 1905. It was founded on the rejection of colonial designs on Iran’s natural resources exemplified by D’arcy’s oil concession given to the British in 1901. Then the 1905 revolution in Russia, the other player of the “Great Game” in Iran, provided the catalyst for the Iranian Constitutional Revolution. All the other Iranian struggles of the last century including the “Oil Nationalization Movement” of 1950s, the Islamic Revolution of 1978-79, and the present struggle for” Nuclear Energy” have that underlying “anti-colonial” tint for progress and “independence.” It is this unique combination of “anti-colonial” and “class struggle” that gives Iranian revolution a “paradoxical” look in which every strata of the society ironically participated: the intelligentsia, the cleric, merchant class of Bazaar, the comprador, peasantry and the urban workers; all united.

Real understanding of Islamic revolution, not as commonly perceived in the US as a religious backlash of 1953 coup against a secular democracy, is urgently needed. Iranian clergy, with their heavy influence on Bazaar and thus Iran’s commerce, have been an active participant in Constitutional Revolution; Oil Nationalization Movement as well as Islamic Revolution. The former had a more secular façade of National Front of Mossadeq whose strong popular base was Ayatollah Kashani; the latter had a more religious façade of Ayatllah Khomeini who appointed the National Front’s Bazargan as the first post revolutionary leader. Throughout all these struggles, famous religious leaders who did not have an “anti-colonial resume,” were quickly purged from power together with the secular and communist leaders who were perceived as “colonial collaborators.” President Ahmadinejad replaced the popular president Khatami on that anti-colonial platform for insisting on Iran’s right to nuclear energy, and this afforded a relatively unknown political figure an overwhelming victory in the election. Recently, Khatami removed himself as a nominee for the upcoming elections in favor of another candidate from his party who shares Ahmadinejad’s stance on Iran’s nuclear energy. Mr. Khatami understood that Iranian perception of him being lenient on nuclear issue would not give him a chance against Ahmadinejad’s proven stance on Iran’s right to nuclear energy.

Dear President, I read your book “Dreams From My Father,” and I am heartened by a background that affords you to be a compassionate person with a rare humanity. Growing up a portion of your childhood in Indonesia, has given you an immense advantage in understanding the nuances of other cultures, religions, and traditional sensibilities. When you went to Kenya, searching for all of your identity and heritage, your description of the “railroads,” and the internal struggle and soul searching of your grandfather, and you father after him, reminded me that you understand the colonial injustice with your bones, not just on an academic level. I was pleasantly surprised to read a passage from your time in Occidental, when your friend Marcus is reading a book on economics of slavery. You describe an Iranian student who asks Marcus why the slaves did not fight back en masse, and to death. And you turn the question to the Iranian, “Was the collaboration of some slaves any different than the silence of some Iranians who stood by and did nothing as Savak thugs murdered and tortured opponents of the Shah?” That quote reminds me how deeply you understand the real struggle of Iranian people. For an Iranian who is used to associate American presidents with clandestine coups in Iran, or an open call for regime change, a regime that despite all its shortcomings is a representation of the collective will of seventy five million Iranians; that quote brought the fresh air of hope. Hope that an American president indeed understands a nation and its aspirations.

Road to Reconciliation

The path to reconciliation with Iran is indeed bumpy, and there are many from both sides who would like to see that renewal failed. The Iranian regime has lived with the policy of tolerating hardship of isolation and sanctions, and will not give up the status quo of “no war and no peace” easily. In America, there is a plethora of powerful interest groups who are opposed to any rapprochement to Iran; Iranian leadership is not even certain that you would have the required power to overcome the internal politics of the US, and offer a genuine friendship to Iran. This suspicion was reflected in Khamenei’s reply to your recent message.

Advice to initiate a policy towards Iran cannot come from some office in Washington with ties to Iranian opposition groups, and defectors living in the west who have absolutely no popular base in Iran. Most of these individuals are known inside Iran as “collaborators.” Iran’s former history of foreign interventions has made Iranians weary of foreign power overtures with these anti-Iranian elements abroad. And the American side must have learned its lessons from the ill advice gotten from Iraqi opposition groups who helped build the case for Iraq invasion. The arguments of neoconservatives, Ahmad Chalabi, those with ties to the Pentagon “Office of Special Plans,” and academics like Makyia who assured president Bush that “ Iraqi people would embrace the American liberators with open arms and flowers,” did not warn the president of real dangers of the invasion. They did not warn the president of the other kind of “open arms “ once the initial euphoria of the “mission accomplished” would wane, and the dangers waiting for the American servicemen who went to Iraq on false promises and concocted lies.

Your leadership should instead focus on 1) the reasons why a US-Iran cooperation is beneficial for US, and what are the areas that one can work on a common interest; 2) recognize the grievances, and work on those which can be remedied while putting the more intractable issues for a later date; 3) note what policies have failed in the past to achieve those goals, and avoid repeating the same mistakes.

1) The most obvious area that Iran can help the US is in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran has already helped the US in its defeating Taliban in Afghanistan and the establishment of regime of president Karzai. Unfortunately, President Bush included Iran as part of an “axis of evil” right after that cooperation! Your government can emphasize the common interest of US-Iran in preventing Taliban resurgence, and curbing the threat of Al-Qaeda which is the common goal of both countries. Your Norooz message prior to arrival of Iranian delegation to discuss Afghanistan on March 31st was a great start.

Iran and the US similarly share a common interest in a stable and non-militaristic Iraq which would be a healthy partner in regional stability and commerce. The centuries old Iran-Iraq relation goes well beyond the recent enmity that was created by the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Iraqi Shiite leaders have ties to Iran, the Iranian born Ayatollah Sistani being the most prominent one among them. For the religious leaders, Najaf and Qom are interchangeable, and one cannot artificially put a wedge between them. The Sunni and Shiite division although it exists, is also over-emphasized. The massive street demonstrations in Egypt in support of Nasrallah following the Lebanese –Israeli war, was a good example of that. The Persian-Arab conflict has more historical basis, but unless the Arab-Israeli problem is solved with more attention to Arab sensibilities, the Arab street would have more sympathy to the Persian Iran than its own Arab government.

Additionally, the unfriendly US-Iran relation puts severe restrictions in America’s policy in the larger Middle East and South East Asia. The US is pressed to adjust its policy towards Russia and former Soviet Republics in order to get them more on board with America’s policy towards Iran. In many cases, concessions given to these other countries for accommodating a hostile Iran approach, is more costly to the US than any direct approach to Iran itself.

2) The list of grievances is long and it goes far back, but should not be discouraging you. Iran’s list of complaints coming directly from Ayatollah Khameniei in response to your message actually showed the desire on Iran’s part to begin a constructive high level talk.

Starting from the 1953 coup, Iranians consider the US to be constantly on the side of anti-Iranian elements trying to prevent Iran from reaching its potential in the region. They consider US enmity towards Iran heightened by the Islamic Revolution which removed the “US stooge,” Shah. While the US considers the hostage crisis as the epitome of Iran’s bad behavior, Iranians consider US accepting Shah after the revolution an intention to repeat another clandestine coup to bring Shah back to power. Iranians never properly and officially apologized for the hostage taking. Instead, America’s freezing Iranian assets in retaliation for Iran’s bad behavior became the centerpiece of America’s perceived anti-Iran designs.

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran had legitimate complaints against the US. The US fearing that a victory of Iran would export a dangerous Islamic revolution to other countries in the region; supported the brutal invasion of Saddam Hussein. The US tacit support of Saddam in the form of intelligence, political support by using US prowess in the UN, military support and even provision of material needed for chemical weapons to Iraq which Saddam used profusely against Iranians and his own Kurdish rebels, and the final direct US military involvement in the war in support of Saddam and the downing of the Iranian Air line at the end of the war, are real grievances of Iranian people and government against policies of Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations.

The US policy after the war was no friendlier to Iran either. The sanctions imposed by President Clinton are considered a reflection of the “same” US anti-Iran policy regardless of a Republican or a Democratic US president.

Iranians believe that the problem with the United States stems from America’s “imperialistic arrogance” and “neo-colonial behavior,” its enmity to Iranian “independence” and advancement; an animosity signified by its “double standards.” From Iranian point of view, some of the US grievances against Iran are also one-sided and biased. While the US worries about nuclear proliferation because of a possible diversion of Iran’s nuclear program, the Islamic Republic considers Israel, Pakistan and India who have stockpiles of weapons already, a clear danger. Iranians are perplexed that their country is considered a threat to regional security whereas Iran was one the first signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); Iran has not invaded any country for 250 years, and in fact has been invaded by Iraq in a bloody war in which the west supported Saddam. Iranians cannot understand why Israel, a country with a nuclear stockpile; a country which has invaded all of its neighbors and is sitting illegally on land acquired by force; a country which even refuses to sign to NPT, is not considered dangerous and Iran is.

The US considers Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. Iran considers Hamas as the legitimately elected representative of Palestinian people, and Hezbollah and Hamas as “freedom fighters” defending their homeland against illegal occupation. US consider Islamic Republic as an obstacle to Arab-Israeli peace. Iran contends that the Arab-Israeli peace initiatives have all failed even before the Islamic Republic was born. Iran attributes the failure rather due to Israeli refusal to accept UN resolution 242 which calls for Israel to 1967 borders in exchange for peace and recognition by the Arabs.

Iranians attribute all of this to a half century of Israeli-centric US foreign policy, and are suspicious that any US president can have the political will or power to overcome the obstacles for a real peace. Some actions of your own young administration also ignite those suspicions. The choice of Hillary Clinton at the State Department and Dennis Ross as the envoy, the fact that you renewed the sanctions imposed on Iran by President Clinton, makes Iranians afraid that you policy towards Iran is a continuation of the enmity of President Clinton, although your tone is different from the belligerent Bush administration. The fact that Stuart Levey, the treasury official who pushed the banks around the world to deny credit lines to Iran, and he is one of the few senior Bush era personnel who remained in power in your administration also raises suspicion about any real change coming from your administration. More recently, the Israeli lobby’s effort in preventing Chas Freeman from the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council was interpreted in Iran as the Israel lobby’s wish to make sure that another National Intelligence Estimate like that of November 2007 indicating that Iran was not building nuclear weapons, will not be released by the council. The uniform and typical support the Congress offers AIPAC, your refusal to defend Freeman on the face of tough opposition, in line with your silence during the Gaza war makes Iranians worry that you might not have the will to challenge any Israeli-centric policies.

3) One must review the previous Iran policies which failed to give a productive result. All those failed attempts were founded on the wrong premise that “a strong Iran is a bad Iran.” In fact, history shows that a strong Iran has always been a source of stability and security in the region. For thirty years, this wrong assumption has led every American president to take a non-constructive approach towards the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The coercive and militaristic approach to the degree of supporting Saddam Hussein’s war, backfired not only as a mean s of controlling Iran, but it created a monster in Iraq who threatened the security of Kuwait and Saudis and his very own people. The policy of “dual containments” advocated by people like Indyk, Hass and other Clintonites, the imposition of sanctions to weaken Iran’s economy, clearly failed. Its immediate result was only hurting the Iranian people, and in the long run helped the Iranian government become more self-reliant. The Bush policy of “carrots and Stick” in regards to Iranian nuclear program, a language considered by Iranians only appropriate for donkeys, was the epitome of his lack of understanding of Iranian people and their sensibilities. It brought the anti-colonial memories to fore. It solidified the belief that the west is opposing Iran’s progress the same way that it opposed Iran building its railways in 1920, steel mills in 1960, mastery over its own oil industry in 1950 and beyond. Now it was the west opposition to Iran acquiring knowledge in nuclear industry and uranium enrichment, and advancement in space technology.

Dear President, indeed clouds of misunderstanding and distrust have thickened for thirty years, and you are dealt a difficult hand to amend all the long standing issues of contention. However, there are some easier and more immediate issues that can start to remove the clouds of suspicions, and pave the way for a constructive dialogue.

One preventable obstacle is the effort of some in the US to auction ancient Persian artifacts which was loaned to the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute in order to compensate victims of a terrorist act occurred in another place! A decision by the courts to auction these ancient treasures of Iran will undoubtedly create a crisis between Iran and the US. This will severely jeopardize your vision of diplomacy and America’s national security. While terrorism must be condemned, targeting the cultural heritage of an entire people for a terrorist act committed elsewhere is simply wrong and must be prevented. Mr. President, you can prevent this seizure in the same manner that President Clinton stopped a similar action in 1998, and remove a significant cause of future bitterness between the two countries.

Another manageable issue is that of Iranian frozen assets. The monetary value is paltry compared to Iraq war damages that Iran believes were denied because of US actions in the UN. However, release of Iranian frozen assets by the US is of tremendous symbolic value. It has been the centerpiece of Islamic Republic’s demand for any reconciliation. Iran’s helpful actions in Afghanistan and Iraq in return should be an amicable start.

Dear President, Norooz predates US-Iran enmity. It goes back to thousands of years ago when an Iranian prophet Zoroaster, whose teachings were the foundation of not only ancient Iranian culture, but also our common Abrahamic faith. Zoroastrian theme of “Good vs. Evil” was used by President Bush towards Iranian people and regime in a manner that ignited our sensibilities, resulting in a new trough in US-Iran relations. Your Norooz message stroke the opposite chord of Zoroastrian central tenet which is equally engraved in Iranian psyche: “Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds.” As Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, promptly acknowledged, all Iranians were heartened by your personal Good thoughts and good words which must be well established as a path to the future good deeds. The world, Iranians included, is anxiously awaiting your good deeds.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by JalehoCommentsDate
No revolts, mayhem or bloodshed
4
Apr 01, 2010
Norooz 1389 in Tehran
175
Apr 01, 2010
The STINK grows as Dabashi stirs it more!
23
Feb 01, 2010
more from Jaleho
 
Ali P.

Darn it...!

by Ali P. on

Getting older; not wiser.

Got duped!

Thanx SamSam!


default

SamSamIIII

by Kurdish Warrior (not verified) on

You are ab right my friend. I like the admin to remove that comments
"Obama should support the minorities" where an idiot used my name to spread hatred.
thanks for support


SamSamIIII

Ali jaan, the 2nd Kurdish Warrior is an imposter

by SamSamIIII on

I,m pretty sure that The 2nd KW is not the real KW . As in other instances with other bloggers the Ommatie/hezbollahies impersonate opposing sides with their id,s & attribute fake views to them . they done it to me too so it,s nothing new . cheers !!!

JJ pal , You are short staffed & I know it,s hard to scan all comments but keep a closer eye on nick names being misused . pretty dishonst and degenerate on the count of those who practice it .cheers!!!

//www.iranianidentity.blogspot.com/

//www.youtube.com/user/samsamsia


default

Ali P

by kurdish Warrior (not verified) on

that massage which advocates Kurdish and Azerbaijan independence wasn't from me..I'm against Kurdistan independence, federal yes. Who ever wrote in my name should be ashamed of himself for creating hatred and propaganda.


Ali P.

To:Kurdish Warrior

by Ali P. on

Hmmmm...

Did not know your position on Iran. 

This is IRANIAN.com.

With all due respect, what you are advocating, is offensive to most Iranians, even to the Iranian Kurds that I know.

Are you aware of that?


default

Obama should support the minorities' movement in Iran

by Kurdish Warrior (not verified) on

He should help the Kurds to fight the central government and cede from Iran. He should help the Arab population to cede Khosestan from Iran. The Baluchiie' could have their own little state too. Azarie's can separate from Iran and join the Republic of Azabaijan. This is the real solution for Iran. US can help these minorities and Mojahedeens with money, logistics and arms. Meanwhile no more arms or financial aid should be sent to Israel. Israeli Lobby has too much power in USA and tries to dictate the policy. This is my message to Obama.


default

Mammad

by Kurdish Warrior (not verified) on

You miss understood me..I'm not going in circle...I said the revolution supposed to be for our independence but we were lied too and was given empty promises. You didn't read my comments carefully. As for Hamas, well at least I don't speak on behalf of Iranians as whole like the author do. I was more specific. When I say western Iran, I mean the Iranian Kurdistan. I can assure you that majority of Iranian Kurds see Hamas not only as terrorist group but a group who is using our country resources while that part of Iran is under developed and ignored.
No one likes for another country to interfere in their Internal affairs however having a Racist regime who only respond to criticism violently I have to say with regret that we do need USA to help oppositions (financially and moral support) to bring an end to this regime.
The only way to tackle is not for USA ti=o invade Iran but support the oppositions Students org, Ethnic groups, woman and others activists financially and morally. I do believe that arming the oppositions and their unification for a goal is good start.


default

bot shekan

by Anonymous bi-khial (not verified) on

mr molla ro bikhial. arabeh khouzetanieh .eshgheh felestine o molla republic va mashallah 2 ta passport ham dareh yekii felestini yeki irooni . shoma gol gofti . javabeh ablahan khamoushist .


default

Mammad: No one who is

by puzzled (not verified) on

Mammad: No one who is conversant in militant shia Islam will ever expect "forgetfulness" of the true believers. Thank you for confirming my point.


default

So, let's support Israel and

by puzzled (not verified) on

So, let's support Israel and allow it to do what it wishes to Palestinians, because, hey, we have not forgotten what happened to us hundreds of years ago!

My support or your support are irrelevant. The non-muslim world supports Israel whether we like or not.

Is it safe to conclude from your writings that you ,as a dutiful muslim, support IRI's funding and arming of Hamas and Hizballah?


default

rationalizing and justifying your one evil with another

by puzzeled (not verified) on

Mammad: I understand that it must be extremely difficult for you to accept facts when they don't corroborate your dogmatic Islamist-Marixts indoctrination.

Even khomeinie, the militant Islamsits' beloved, asked for the help of the West and he got it through BBC, jimmy Carter, and even Nixon. You can find the related links on the archives of this site. There is actually a video of that monster on you tube asking for help from government and all the people of the world.
Chirac Assisting Khomeini
//www.jcpa.org/israel-europe/ier-eytan-05.htm

//www.amazon.com/Enemy-At-Home-Cultural-Respo...

Carter's Habitat of inhumanity:

//www.investors.com/editorial/editorialconten...

Complicity of France //www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1857

//iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/khomeini-1...

It seems to me that your ilk are impervious to facts. Regurgitating half-truths and misinformation do not fool anybody on this site anymore, unless you are targeting the naive non-Iranians or trying to deceive yourself. I tend to believe your real motivation is the latter rather than the former. It's called Cognitive Dissonace or difficulty accommodating new sets of information that contradicts your belief and value system.

This repetition of Islamists talking points on this site is really getting to be very boring.


Mola Nasredeen

Botshekan, so does it mean you like Obama? or you don't?

by Mola Nasredeen on

You say: "And more thankfully, Mr obama is not taking notice of such disappointed suckers". So do you like him or not? He looks Abadani, doesn't he? C'mon make up your mind it's never too late to admire the guy for his peaceful wise approach to solve political and economical problems.

The nightmare created by the Idiot from Texas and his party of "We are white, We are right" is over. That's why everybody is trying to communicate with Obama and this article is doing exactly the same thing. There has been a regime change but not in Iran, it has happened here and you are not dreaming. Now my 4th question for you:

4. What don't you like about Carter? Is it His teeth? 


بت شکن

ملاّ

بت شکن


شتر در خواب بیند پنبه دانه

گهی‌ هف هف خورد گه دانه دانه


default

Here we go again

by Concerned (not verified) on

Azadeh,

It would be wise not throw the baby out with the bathtub water. I am sure, you realize that, as far as the rapprochement between the two countries are concerned, your demands from Pres. Obama are nonstarter. Is that what you are after?

Ali P.,

FYI. All you need to do is to read page 117 of the 2004 paperback edition of “Dreams from My Father”. Jaleho’s quotation is original and accurate.

Jaleho,

I respect your right to BELIEVE that contemporary Iran is democratic. And, that’s as far as I am willing to go. I doubt that you can substantiate any such claim despite the overwhelming contrary evidence -- a few of which were referred to by Azadeh. By making such a bombastic statement, you opened a floodgate through which barbarians with a grudge against IR rampaged your otherwise well-intentioned ‘memo’ to Pres. Obama. Shall I say you brought it upon yourself?


Mola Nasredeen

Botshekan: "implosion is about to happen!" I'm covering my ears

by Mola Nasredeen on

What implosion? Where? Does anybody feels the "coming of the implosion"?

couple of questions:

1. Do you like Obama?

2. What do you want Obama do? 

3. What's your point? 


بت شکن

Is sucking up to Obama the last resort?

by بت شکن on

Not so long ago the same club of which the author of this blog and a number of her pals who have written on this blog are member, were hailing Obama in the same way as thirty years earlier their parent generation was hailing another false prophet, Jimmy Carter.

Thankfully, Mr Obama did not waste their time more that his predecessor did and before his first hundred days into his tenure is over, he showed his true hand. Now his hapless supporters, like headless chickens, are resorting to any means to persuade their false prophet to honor his promises. 

And more thankfully, Mr obama is not taking notice of such disappointed suckers. He knows full well that the Islamic Republic is no longer self-regulating itself. Implosion is inevitable.

 

So long suckers!


Mammad

Puzzled

by Mammad on

No wonder you are puzzled!

Aah, now we know why Israel is supported (and may be even created): As an outpost of the powers that have not forgotten what the Islamic fighters supposedly did hundreds of years ago, the same powers that want Iranians to forget what happened in 1953, 1964, and during the entire Iran/Iraq war period!

So, let's support Israel and allow it to do what it wishes to Palestinians, because, hey, we have not forgotten what happened to us hundreds of years ago!

Mammad


Mammad

Kurdish warrior

by Mammad on

Obviously, you do not see the contradiction in your comment. Let me explain:

You agree with the author that the 1979 revolution was anti-colonial, and for Iran's independence. That the Revolution deviated from where it was supposed to go is a different issue. So, if you believe in the nature of the 1979 Revolution, then, the question is: Which country was the colonial power against which the Revolution started? I can think of one and only one country: the U.S. What do you think?

Then, you advocate the U.S. interference in Iran's domestic affairs by saying that it should help this group and that group, this movement and that movement, etc. Are you not closing the circle, going back to the same reasons against which you agreed the 1979 Revolution occured? Are you not saying that the same country against which the 1979 Revolution occured should now intefer in Iran's affairs? 

In addition, aside from its illegal and counterproductive nature, tell us how the help should take place. By what mechanism? Give us a practical way that this can be done, without being interpreted as interference by a world power in the domestic affairs of a nation (or even with it). 

I do not even want to remind you that the US political/military/intelligence establishment does not give a hoot to helping any democratic group in any undemocratic country. Its goal is one, and one only: Preserving and expanding what it considers as the vital interests of the establishment. So, if that entails going to bed with the dictators, so be it. The US has done that too many times.

Finally, can you give me a credible source - a link, an article by a credible expert, a scientific poll, ... - that indicates that the majority of Iranians living in Western Iran have the same view as yours about Hamas and Hezbollah, as you claim? What scientific poll or indication has indicated that? Or is this your view and your friends', but you are extending it to the entire Western Iran (good thing you did not extend it to entire Iran).

Mammad


default

The US will outlast the mullahs--Obama

by richbasiji (not verified) on

Khamenei appears to be signaling that he knows what Washington is up to — and that he has no intention of backing down. Thus the new diplomatic game between the U.S. and Iran: Neither side wants to negotiate from a position of weakness, which is why the U.S. is keeping in place, and trying to increase, its leverage in the form of economic pressure on Iran to desist from enriching uranium. But Iran sees the U.S. game plan and believes that Washington won't be able to muster the level of economic pressure necessary to force its hand — and the U.S. can hardly afford to initiate hostilities with the Islamic Republic, because it needs Iran's cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan. A dialogue has clearly begun, but on current indications, that dialogue will — at least for now — remain just another theater in the ongoing battle of wills between the U.S. and Iran.

//www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1887...


default

to: Puzzled

by anonymous230 (not verified) on

Dear militant Islamist:
When the IRI stops to engage in Regime Change in the ME region, (e.g. Jordan, SA, Bahrain, Yemen, Morocco, Guyana, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq by funding and arming their minority shia population or building shia..

Excellent observation. That is so true and it exposes the hypocrisy of IRI's holier-than-thou rhetorics.


default

Does anybody think that

by News (not verified) on

Does anybody think that Obama would like his daughters and wife to grow up under Shaira laws of Khomeinist's version of Islam??

If you don't know the answer to that then you don't know the Obamas.


default

Yes, Obama knows probably so

by Local (not verified) on

But as Tony Sopranos puts well: "What are you gonna do?"

This is the question.


default

Jaleho: Do you really think

by global (not verified) on

Jaleho: Do you really think that Obama doesn't know about Evin, VEVAK, SAVAMA or MOIS??

Do you really think that Obama doesn't know the IRI's human rights records is far worse than the Shah's?

Do you really think Obama doesn't know the barbaric nature of the IRI and the curel shia version of Islam that they practice?

Do you really think Obama hasn't read Khomeini's "Islamic Government"??

Do you think Obama doesn't know about stoning, limb cutting, eye-gouging of women and men under Sharia in IRI?

How long are the mullahs are going to milk the 1953 coup???


default

Azadeh Jan: Greatg rebuttle

by ibc (not verified) on

Azadeh Jan: Greatg rebuttle and factual.

The refrendum did not actually offer a choice at all.
There was no other choice but Islamic republic on the ballot.

I also think Iranians having lived under a secular Islamic Shah had forgotten what real Islam was like.

I don't know if prior to Pahlavi, Iranians were stoned to death. Does anyone know if before the Pahlavis, the Qujars operated under Sharia laws?


default

Jaleho

by Iranians' friend (not verified) on

Your comprehensive message to President Obama is right on the money. The way you explain Iranians' attitude towards Americans is very thoughtful. You are telling it as it is. President Obama is an intelligent man who gets it. As a multi-racial kid living in USA and a Muslim country he has experienced the meaning of tolerance and intolerance. He's aware of the grips of the Zionist supporters of Israel on American Foregin Policy but he is not going to be another tool in their hand. Of course time will tell but as far as his integrity is concerned I have to declare: So far so good.


Ali P.

Obama said that?

by Ali P. on

 “Was the collaboration of some slaves any different than the silence of some Iranians who stood by and did nothing as Savak thugs murdered and tortured opponents of the Shah?”

 

 

Yes! Very very different!

One was a 16th century exploitation of a large number of the members of a race by another race, with no political motive for it ,(Million were slaved over the centuries)  and the other one was the security forces of a 20th century government, exercising inhumane technics on political prisoners for interrogation, with no racial componant in it ( Less than 10 thousand over 23 years!)

I still can't believe how this statement is contributed to Obama. Next he might say:

 "My victory over McCain is not different than Mohammad's victory against Koffaar!"

 Now THAT would make more sense!


default

Dear Jaleho

by Balah Tar Az Khatar (not verified) on

You do a better job of attacking Zionists and Jews "who control the economy and America" than making excuses and propaganda for the IRI. I suggest that you stick to your anti Jewish anti Zionist shtick. It was more fun reading that part of your senseless propaganda than these pro IRI excuses you make for the fascist akhoonds.

Look, even other "anti colonialists" who ignorantly feel that the Iranian revolution was an "Anti Colonial" act are perplexed by your twisted logic and attempts to white wash the EVIL that is called THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC.

This Anti Colonialist mindset of Iranians is nothing more than a brain disease which unfortunately many of us suffer from. Free you mind from such garbage. Wake up and smell the coffee. The only colonialists are the Akhoonds. Iran is one of the least effected nations by western colonialism yet the IRI and its excuse makers use it as a tool to suppress the freedom seeking sentiments of our Hamvatans.

Khejalt bekesh!


Azadeh Azad

Your views

by Azadeh Azad on

Dear Jaleh,

Thank you for the response. I now understand where you stand and I think we need to agree to disagree :-).

I agree that discarding the dictatorship of the Shah was what the whole Iranian nation desired and achieved, but the goal, among the majority of the population, was never an Islamic Republic with Sharia laws - it was so only among the militant Islamists of different types that did not constitute the majority.  I believe that the Referundum on "Do you want the Monarchy or an Islamic Republic" was a fraudulous act. In a context where people have *already made a revolution against the Monarchy*, posing the above question shows nothing but BAD FAITH, because it is like asking "Do you want an Islamic Republic or an Islamic Republic." I was not in Iran during the Revolution, but I remember having noticed this trickery!  I do believe that this was the first undemocratic and Machiavellic gesture by Khomeini. And I don't believe that the innocent people that he murdered later on were guilty of being pro-colonialism! That would be too distorted a view.

When I went back to Iran during the early 90's and worked there for a couple of years, I was in contact with individuals of different social classes. No one, and I mean no one, believed that there was a democracy in Iran; neither the emerging reformists, nor the fundamentalists (the latter believed democracy is a Western and imperialistic concept!!!) So, your position is quite unique; maybe it is a more recent narrative, I don't know.

I met with individuals at the Ministry of Higher Education who were against Velaayat-e Faghih, because they *wanted democracy*. In villages, people were complaining against the Mullahs - villages that Mullahs had helped bring good water, electricity and TV sets, because they were witnessing the corruption and dictatorship of individual Mullahs; they spoke of Mullacracy and not democracy. Most of the urban, middle-class practising Muslims I met were against the regime. The only people who were not against the regime were those who held high jobs in the government and a few cousins here or old friends there. Iranian people are emotional, but not politically stupid! Everyone knew about the oppressive nature of the Islamic State, the SAVAMA and Evin!

You speak of women's achievement. I believe that these achievements are DESPITE the Islamic Republic and its Sharia Laws. There are more female students at universities than males, but what is the percentage of working women? Furthermore, the existence of a women's movement that is being systematically suppressed by the Islamic State speaks louder than any discussion between you and me.

How could the Islamic Republic be an incomplete democracy when there is no freedom of association, no freedom of speech? I'm speechless! You're being more catholic than the Pope!

Finally, it is amazing that you believe that having a referendum every 4 years for the type of a government would be "chaotic and unrealistic." Why? Was there a chaos after the referundum of 30 years ago? Is real (or "complete") democracy unrealistic for Iran? This is exactly what the late Shah thought of Iranians, isn't it. In French, they say "Les extremes se touchent" -  something like "extremes are alike!" Oh, well!

Azadeh


default

Obama's Answer: Learn from Japan!

by hossein.hosseini on

Hello Jaleho:
I got your long letter and gave it to Hillary as it is her department.  Just  a quick note to tell you that I am very busy with the econ mess and haven’t had a chance to even answer Mahmoud’s letter!.  When Hillary and I were running, we were invited to many rich Iranian-American homes for fund raising and have heard all of these gripes.

As a suggestion: rather than griping about all the bad things we did, it can not be worse than what we did to Japan.  We actually nuked them!  What did they do?  They got over it, became our friend, progresses and took the auto and electronic industry from us.

Simply put, U.S. is like a huge milking cow with two huge horns, some milk us, others want to fight us (Sahkh to Shaakh). Choice is yours,
Best,
Barak.

P.S. My messenger has the same first name as my middle name and that’s a pure coincidence!


default

The Islamic republic of Horror produces monsters!

by news (not verified) on

It's interesting that you can impose stone age mentality of Islamists at the gun point everyday done by the Gestapos (basij,irgc) of the IRI but not freedom and liberty. What a profound revelation.

It's also astounding to find out that the "collective interest" of Iranains are aligned with the interest of the blood drenched monster Khamenie...