The Lotus
The lotus grows out of the murky waters of swamps and blooms into the most wondrous beauty. It is a symbol of compassion, wisdom and women's emancipation in eastern philosophy.
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
God-awful choice-makers
17-Dec-2009
I was reading the latest garbage on the Economist on Iran’s nuclear programme. I say ‘garbage’ because it is the same Economist that fully and unequivocally supported Bush’s unprovoked attack on Iraq in 2003; the same Economist that only grudgingly criticized sanctions against Iraq for over a decade prior to that murderous attack; a sanctions regime that led to half a million deaths among Iraqi children - ‘justifiably’ so, according to Mad Albright.
Now the same Economist is pushing for sanctions and a military campaign against Iran. So what I want to discuss is not so much the details of Iran’s nuclear programme, rather the colonial mindset of garbage producers like the Economist and their ilk.
To do that, let me quote the closing paragraph of the said article (Economist, Dec. 5 2009 issue, p. 29):
So which will it be: a war with Iran or a nuclear-armed Iran? Short of a revolution that sweeps away the Iranian regime – ushering in one that agrees, like post-apartheid South Africa, to give up its nuclear technology – sanctions may offer the only hope of avoiding the awful choice’.
First, let me address the sanctions/war ‘apologists’ amongst us: please note that the proposed sanctions/war would actually apply to any Iranian regime. It is irrelevant who governs Iran. What the Economist is saying is that Iran should face sanctions or war unless it gives up its ‘nuclear technology’. And if there is a regime change in Iran, the requirement that Iran must capitulate to the wishes of the West will remain.
So, let us all realise that we are dealing with a pig, despite her lipstick. This particular pig is saying that Iranians may not have nuclear technology of the kind that many other countries have, including Pakistan, Israel, Germany, France, Japan etc. Again, please note, it is not the bomb that is being disputed, but possession of the know-how itself.
This brings me to the second point: the Economist wants Iran to give up its ‘nuclear technology’. What exactly does this mean? I don’t want to open a technical argument here. It is far simpler than that: you either know how to master nuclear technology or you do not. The knowledge exists in human resources first, and materials and equipment next.
How is it possible to ‘give up’ such technology? Other than complete capitulation of national sovereignty and the right to self-govern/self-learn, how is this possible?
Actually, it is worse than that: it is not about self-government even. It is about agreeing to an externally-imposed limit on scientific knowledge. It is about giving up the right to learn physics. I for one am not sure how this is even possible in a practical sense. We would basically have to self-censure our learning and textbooks because some other countries told us to do it.
This brings me to the third point: who gave the Economist the right to assume to know or determine who has the right to such knowledge? Or even the right to such weapons?
Of course the Economist is all about the expression of opinion, and they have the right to roll out their garbage year in year out. But it must be clear to you that I am just using the article as a reflection of western double standards and actual (real) policies. So let me turn to the West directly, and ask ‘who has the right to determine such rights’?
What we have in effect is a club of nuclear powers, a number of which (e.g. Japan and Germany) have nuclear weapons capability and could produce bombs quite quickly at any time.
And let us be clear: Iran is actively being prevented from reaching this level of technology development, rather than bomb possession itself. A small group of countries in the world have decided that Iran does not have the right to possess certain aspects of the science of physics.
Essentially, it is about ‘book burning’.
The futility and stupidity - not to mention the insult - of the exercise must be clear to most of us. Sooner or later, the time is coming when nuclear/chemical/biological weapons can be produced in relatively small laboratories and carried in briefcases: how will the ‘elite’ countries manage the situation then?
They could bomb all schools in other countries perhaps?
This brings us to the question of a remedy for the situation. What can be done? Again, I will refrain from attempting any technical discussion, but will stick to the ‘philosophical’: how does one ‘cure’ a disease - a growing problem such as this nuclear proliferation?
Well there are many ways, but dealing with the symptoms (like headaches or inflammation) does not ‘cure’. It simply relieves the discomfort until the disease is cured - often by the body’s defences alone.
Sometimes, the body’s defences do not manage to cure the disease, yet the symptoms are suppressed by medication for a while until the disease spreads and erupts in a much more severe form with added complications from secondary infections. This I guess is how AIDS or cancer can become uncontrollable.
This latter course is where we are heading on the nuclear issue if we continue to be ‘led’ (or better say ‘force-fed’) by the type of elitist, unfair, self-defeating, garbage ‘advice’ given by the likes of the Economist. Why? Simple: there is no trust in the actions of anyside in this dispute. Unilateral, secretive ‘action’ is totally justified.
Both Iran and her opposition – the Security Council, Israel and Germany - are acting as self-serving, manipulative, power-hungry parties that have no real interest in nuclear disarmament at all. What they are fighting over is who should have nuclear weapons technology, and this is a fight that is bound to have more losers than winners. It can only accelerate the rush to building more nuclear weapons, as these seem to bring privileges and unfair advantages for some nations at the direct expense ofothers. So somebody somewhere will break out of the mould and produce something really nasty without anyone noticing it.
One of these advantages is virtual (though not total) immunity from any serious attack by a foreign power. This is why Iran wants it and Israel is so desperate to ensure that it does not get it. Unfortunately for Israel, any fair-minded person would see Iran’s right to self-defence as long as Israel has such weapons.
Any serious person can see that a realsolution would have to be a multilateral one that does not isolate any particular country for chastisement. That way, any country or group that steps out of line would subject itself to discipline. The current path, however, leaves Iran looking like the victim in the eyes of impartial observers.
Not in the eyes of the Economist, mind you. Then again, what is an economist doing giving advice on global security issues? Perhaps best if they would stick to economics? But they could not even manage to see the financial crisis coming, could they?
Pigs can‘t fly, but with the right lipstick, they obviously can imitate economists who dish out global security advice. God-awful choice-makers.
| Recently by Niloufar Parsi | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| US media double standard | 60 | Jul 21, 2010 |
| patriot dog | 4 | Jul 13, 2010 |
| the trouble with capitalism | 99 | May 24, 2010 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
fouzul bashi jan
by Niloufar Parsi on Fri Dec 25, 2009 06:58 AM PSTthanks for that aziz. merry x-mas to you too.
and a great catch there btw! some people do complete u-turns on their own statements just to adopt an opposing position garnished with personal insults and stupid claims.
we have an apt saying: hameh ra barq migireh, maro cheraq nafti! these bullies see themselves as champions of iranian democracy... lol!
Jamshid - You can't discuss, can you? ;0
by Fouzul Bashi on Fri Dec 25, 2009 06:46 AM PSTBut I said that targeted sanctions with a massive focus (simlar in scale to South Africa) on supporting the struggles of the Iranian people for human rights and democracy will help Iranians' cause in the long term.
This is what you say about sanctions. You can't really discuss and debate, can you?! Not even to back up what you yourself have blurted out! loooool
Niloufar jan, Marhoum Kharmagas, Merry XMas ;)
kharmagas re. (*)
by Niloufar Parsi on Fri Dec 25, 2009 06:20 AM PSTre the (*), no am not familiar with the story. tell me pls.
and a fool
by Niloufar Parsi on Fri Dec 25, 2009 06:18 AM PSTposting kitsch as 'nationalist' 'art' (!) and resorting to abusive remarks with excessive use of irrelevant hyperbole that reveal nothing but a delusional mind warped by self-obsession should be laughed at. just as he is.
jamshid
by Niloufar Parsi on Fri Dec 25, 2009 04:03 AM PST'nauseating' and 'disgusting' is how you project yourself. tired of you pathetic childish rants. grow up kid.
Fozul Bashi
by jamshid on Thu Dec 24, 2009 09:20 PM PSTThe people in Iran haven't call for sanctions, because they know their struggles for democracy and human rights mean nothing to the West, and without the human right/democracy factor, sanctions will only serve the IRI, how ever you wrap it in.
"This is not a legitimate call..."
Are you retarded? Where did I call for sanctions? Or are you trying to shove the accusation down my throat, just like the IRI thugs do with their forced "confessions"?
Or perhaps it is just that regime enablers have a tough time shedding old habits.
Jamshid - sanctions
by Fouzul Bashi on Thu Dec 24, 2009 08:21 PM PSTBut I said that targeted sanctions with a massive focus (simlar in scale to South Africa) on supporting the struggles of the Iranian people for human rights and democracy will help Iranians' cause in the long term.
I mentioned Jamshid, in earlier comment, that in S Africa the African National Congress asked for and directed the sanctions. In Iran, the indigenous movement inside Iran, has not asked for any sanctions. You can see them shouting Death to Velaayet-e Faghih and Death to Khamenei, so there is no question of fear!!! This is not a legitimate call, whatever you wrap in it.
Nilourfar Parsi
by jamshid on Thu Dec 24, 2009 03:36 PM PSTThe last two paragraphs must have hit a nerve, didn't they? Is that why you called them garbage? Your similarties with the way IRI treats opposing views, even the use of similar words, is beginning to get scary.
In your haste to condemn an opposing view (like the IRI does), you made your own false conclusions about what I wrote on South African sanctions.
I never said that the exact same methods applied to South Africa will work against the IRI, as no two countries are the same. But I said that targeted sanctions with a massive focus (simlar in scale to South Africa) on supporting the struggles of the Iranian people for human rights and democracy will help Iranians' cause in the long term.
I also said that such focus is not in sanctioners' list of priorities and therefore without that focus, sanctions will fail to help the people's cause.
You wrote, "you actually agree with me and the gist of the contents of the blog."
I couldn't have read anything more nauseating than this sentence claiming that you and I are in agreement. I'll have to go and wash my eyes. What a disgusting claim. Let me make something very clear to you. The fact that we both oppose war and sanctions does not bring us into agreement. Far from it. That will be the day.
You are against war and sanctions because you want to prolong IRI's miserable existence. You care less for the people of Iran. I am against war and sanctions because I believe they will hurt the people's cause and solidify the IRI.
Two opposite reasons.
He might very well come back! (to Niloufar)
by marhoum Kharmagas on Thu Dec 24, 2009 08:06 AM PSTNiloufar says: "now, i am sure you will come back..."
He is the bear hunter (*) ...., very likely he'll come back!
(*) Hope you know the story
jamshid
by Niloufar Parsi on Thu Dec 24, 2009 01:57 AM PSTyour last 2 garbage paragraphs aside, we are pretty much in agreement about the issues of war and sanctions.
i think you totally misunderstand how sanctions against south africa came about and who organised it. what you call 'smart sanctions' related to the case of south africa is a world away from what others mean when they talk about smart sanctions against iran today. that is just your historical ignorance and you trying to fit facts to your own fiction. otherwise i don't have much to argue with you.
now you see why i said you were just moaning? you actually agree with me and the gist of the contents of the blog.
now, i am sure you will come back guns blazing about how i am responsible for the iri. but that is just boring garbage jamshid.
grow up.
Jamshid - sanctions
by Fouzul Bashi on Thu Dec 24, 2009 01:15 AM PSTYou say "smart sanctions accompanied by a vast moral support for the democratic struggles of the Iranian people, and with the goal of helping the people overthrow the current regime, something similiar to what happened in South Africa, would benefit the cause of the people of Iran in the long term".
Your analogy with S Africa is misguided. In Apartheid S Africa, the blacks did not have any share of the economy, they lived in segregated townships and in abject poverty. The boycott of S Africa was directed at an economy which was exclusively owned by the white S. Africans and the Apartheid state. Most importantly, the African National Congress led the demand and the fight for S Africa to be sanctioned. IN IRAN, smart or dumb sanctions, will hurt the population by destroying businesses, creating more unemployment, reduce further people's ability to buy and make them reliant on the state. IN IRAN, the movement inside iran HAS NOT ASKED for imposition of sanctions of any sort.
IRI's resonsibility for war (to Jamshid)
by marhoum Kharmagas on Wed Dec 23, 2009 07:47 PM PSTJamshid says: "Furthermore, I believe that more than any foreign power, it is the IRI that is creating the threat of war in order to justify....."
Although you and I more or less hate each others guts politically (at least), years ago my views on the last part of your comment (pasted above) were similar to yours .... but when U.S went to Iraq and when they said the war would pay for itself, and when Joe Scarborough said one of the objectives of Iraq war was to sandwich Iran (and then go in) ..., etc. I realized that it is the U.S/Israeli desire for domination of region that is almost entirety responsible for wars in the region.
Having said that, if there is going to be a war with Iran, I would say IRI is partly responsible for it because it has been slow/inactive in making Iran nuke capable or nuke have.
Niloufar Parsi
by jamshid on Wed Dec 23, 2009 04:58 PM PSTYou call my arguments "moaning and groaning", others call it debunking your views. You call it "Moaning and groaning" because you have run out of argumentation. Otherwise, you could have replied to my comments using reasoning, instead of name calling.
I will answer your questions on war and sanctions. Unlike you and those who cheer you, my views do not reside in a closet:
I am against foreign interference and imposition through war of any kind and any sort.
Reason #1: History tells us that most wars are a waste of human lives and economy. Most wars have been unethical and immoral.
Reason #2: I am convinced that war does not overthrow the IRI regime. It will only solidify the position of the hard liners in Iran. The green movement would be violently crushed by the sepaah and the West would only watch and do nothing about it. Proof: The Iran-Iraq war in the early 80s solidified the position of Khomeini and his thugs by giving them an excuse to destroy any kind of opposition in the name of national security.
Reason #3: In case of a full-scaled war, even if the regime is overthrown, I doubt the victors would allow an environment in which the people of Iran could prosper. Such an environment may take decades to come into existence, the same amount of time that it could take to destroy the IRI from within.
Reason #4: I served in the Iran-Iraq war for more than a year when it began. I have seen and smelt enough dead corpses to know what war is about. It is about subhuman beings such as Khomeini (may his soul burn in hell), or its versions from other countries, "spending" human lives to further their miserable goals.
Very much like Zahaak and the serpents on his shoulders, the serpents being ideology, greed, power or other similar things.
As far as sanctions, the question is, "are they going to help the people of Iran in the long term?"
The current dumb sanctions are not helping the cause of the people of Iran. Their purpose is not the weakening of the IRI against the people of Iran. Rather, they are in place only to limit IRI's power in the region.
However, smart sanctions accompanied by a vast moral support for the democratic struggles of the Iranian people, and with the goal of helping the people overthrow the current regime, something similiar to what happened in South Africa, would benefit the cause of the people of Iran in the long term.
Unfortunately, there are no current indications that the democratic struggles of the people of Iran are (or will be) high in the list of sanctioners' priorities, as it once was for South Africans.
Furthermore, I believe that more than any foreign power, it is the IRI that is creating the threat of war in order to justify itself as the "protector" of the people of Iran. It also uses the threat of war to divert attention from its lack of competence in every area of economy, technology and so on, and blame it all on foreigners.
Additionally, I believe that you are a regime enabler who spreads IRI's "blame it on foreigner" propaganda abroad. I believe that you are against the will and the democratic struggles of the people of Iran. Your goal is to prolong IRI's life even at the expense of the misery it causes to the Iranian people. You do so by using targeted half truths, lies and varying methods of deception. The contents of your blogs are my proof.
I also beleive that because of people like you in the IRI regime's hierarchy, the IRI will eventually lead Iran to a limited but disastrous war, topped with severe sanctions to follow for many years to come, after which time, its army of traitor enablers will continue to blame foreigners for the ensuing disaster and misery, as well as for IRI's complete lack of competence in protecting its citizens.
jamshid
by Niloufar Parsi on Wed Dec 23, 2009 02:31 PM PSTall i have seen from you is moan and groan about the iri and people like me. what is your position on sanctions and war against iran? which if any santions/war scenario would you support at this juncture and why?
Niloufar P.
by jamshid on Mon Dec 21, 2009 03:29 PM PST"what exactly IS your case? can you enlighten us?"
Well Niloufar, if you still haven't figured it out after reading my last two posts, then I don't think I could ever explain it to you.
Samsam
by jamshid on Mon Dec 21, 2009 03:27 PM PSTThank you for your support. After dealing with so many regime enablers in this site, just about anyone can become an expert in exposing half-truths and targeted lies...
MKM
by Niloufar Parsi on Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:25 PM PSTthanks for the link, and your kind words about this article in the earlier comment that i should have acknowledged before.
from what i gathered from the tape, he seems to support sanctions against the revolutionary guards but is against a military attack or wider sanctions. it is a silly position because we all know that the only form of sanctions that would make any difference to the regime is an oil embargo, which would also impoverish many people and lead to war of some kind: civil or foreign or even both.
so his position is silly, but he really is not a part of something ruthless like the likes of some of our friends here on this site. pls tell me if i misunderstand.
btw, the best part was his advice to obama saying that he is acting like a teeenager. it really cracked me up! he should stick to making movies...
am waiting for my flight home, and wondering what's happening in iran with montazer's funeral. apparently, his 7th will coincide with ashura. i wonder...
Niloufar jAn!
by marhoum Kharmagas on Mon Dec 21, 2009 09:39 AM PSTNiloufar, you have to really "compromise" to make your views similar to the views of this guy. Listen to the audio at the bottom of the following page:
//www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/25/iran-m...
kharmagas jan
by Niloufar Parsi on Sun Dec 20, 2009 06:44 PM PSTno you are totally wrong aziz. it is not opportunistic to share some but not all goals of another person or group. if i have a criticism of your approach - what little i understand of it due to lack of blogs by you - you are too much of a purist in that you do not show any signs of compromise for the views of others. for example, you will not allow for the fact that makhmalbaf may have a positive role to play. i don't think it is fair to call people like him 'traitors' like you would. to me, politics is the art of the possible. it has to be because we all have different views of the world and we Have to compromise. this is a fundamental aspect of democracy in my opinion.
as for JJ, i am sure he loves you really :)
Peace
Right on, Kharmagas
by Souri on Sun Dec 20, 2009 04:41 PM PSTI'm %100 with you on those 3/4 last comments (I haven't read all the comments in this thread).
But about the "Opportunists" people, you are absolutely right :)
I totally agree.
Niloufar jAn!
by marhoum Kharmagas on Sun Dec 20, 2009 05:16 PM PSTNote that I don't/didn't consider your support of green movement opportunistic, I consider your approval of Makhmalbaf opportunistic based on your very own sentence down below.
Montazeri was perhaps one of the least opportunist high ranking supporters of IRI (while he was with IRI). Unlike Karroubi and many others, he voiced his opposition to 1988 murders/executions and many other IRI crimes since many years ago.
BTW, my good opportunist friend, I thought you asked me to write my own blog so I stop making you magassi!? ......... though as I said before, this is a good article, perhaps your best.
P.S, please don't forget the marhoum part of my name, JJ doubAreh choupoughe manA chAgh mikouned!
Kharmagas jan
by Niloufar Parsi on Sun Dec 20, 2009 02:38 PM PSTmarhoum-e Montazeri also supported the green movement. was he an opportunist too?
AO: Exactly. Jaleho is a
by vildemose on Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:43 AM PSTAO: Exactly. Jaleho is a pan-Islamists disguised as a secular. I have no idea why she is tolerated on this site. She keeps repeating Islamic Republic's Intelligenc Ministry talking points like a deranged highschool bully.
AO jan
by Niloufar Parsi on Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:36 AM PSTi understand what you are saying, and am not critical of your position having read what you have experienced. i just wish to remain on good terms with everyone who is friendly with me regardless of differences in opinion. i hope you can appreciate that.
Niloufar Jaan
by Anonymous Observer on Sat Dec 19, 2009 09:49 PM PSTI do not mind having disagreements and discussions with poeple with whom I disagree. In fact, I think you and I have had disagreements before and have discussed them in a civil and respectful manner. But, when it comes to Jaleho, she has proven time and time again that all that she is interested in is personal attacks and condescending remarks toward others (even though she does not appear to have the requisite knowledge or level of intelligence for someone who wants to be condescending to others). Take a look at her attack against me and Samsam on this thread, where she falsely accuses us of propagating this fake "historical" letter, when we were some of the first people calling the letter fake:
//iranian.com/main/blog/hajminator-9
She also has no hesitation in misrepresenting things just so that she can score a cheap point by attacking and belittling someone (as the same comment shows). And I disagree with you that she is a nationalist. She is an overzealous pan-Islamist (you don't need to really be religious to advocate an imperialistic and political vision of a religion), as her blogs and comments have repeatedly shown. And I am not the only person who has brought up these points. They are almost universally accepted on this site. Lastly, when it comes to your point about engaging Islamists, she has shown that she is not interested in dialogue unless you totally agree with her. From what I have seen, all attempts at a discussions with her from her ideological opponents have ended with her ridiculing them, insulting them or falsely accusing them of things that they haven't said, done or stand for, and that usually ends in fights, etc.
SamSam
by Niloufar Parsi on Sat Dec 19, 2009 08:50 PM PSTwhy do you write SO much gibberish? it is impossible to follow your meaning.
btw, i checked out a couple of your 'real iran' videos from one of your links on another blog. i must say, they were meaningless, foolishly romantic, hero worship fantasies of the worst kind.
AO aziz - i sincerely appreciate
by Niloufar Parsi on Sat Dec 19, 2009 08:45 PM PSTthe kind sentiment toward me behind your comment (if i am reading you right).
i hope the day will come when we can agree to totally disagree and still be respectful of each other. jaleh and i have had our disagreements about the green movement before. but i still respect her because she has the right to her views, and she expresses them with conviction even if they sometimes catch me by surprise. she is not always soft with others, but that is a mutual problem, and we all can lose our cool. the same happens in our families, no?
AO, when i first started on this site, one of the first things i wrote about was the need to embrace the hezbollahis (i am NOT talking about jaleh here. she is a secular nationalist in fact) in the sense that we need to make them our friends rather than enemies. that was before the election disaster and all the horrid things that have followed. but even now, i would hold that there are many on the 'other' side ready to make peace with 'us', especially after they witnessed the sheer brutality of their 'spiritual' leaders. but that is a whole different discussion...
mehrnaz jan
by Niloufar Parsi on Sat Dec 19, 2009 08:33 PM PSTyou are way too kind. thank you so much. i will try to be a regular contributor.
MKM
by Niloufar Parsi on Sat Dec 19, 2009 08:31 PM PSTi didn't realise you were so negative about the greens. why don't you write blogs so we get to understand you better?
btw, his credentials are artistic not political. with such a great reputation, many were bound to take note of his views. that is what i meant.
i am sure i an 'wrong' again :)
Niloufar, Jaleho, Kharmagas Marhoum!
by MEHRNAZ SHAHABI on Sat Dec 19, 2009 07:40 PM PSTNiloufar jan, It's so good to see your sane and compassionate writing on this website. You are absolutely right about the intention to deprive Iran of technological know-how. I agree with you in relation to weapons know-how, but also, as Q and Jaleho pointed out it is about the nuclear energy know-how and its intended monopoly, because of the crucial role nuclear energy will be playing in the near future as the only viable alternative to fossil fuel. Just one point, the issue of Iran attempting to make the bomb or learn the technology is an assumption, a hypothesis, and regardless of how justified such an assumption might be, and how justified it might be for Iran to pursue such a course as a deterrence against Israeli nukes in particular, there is still NO EVIDENCE of Iran pursuing such a course. Thank you so much Niloufar Jan.
Jaleh Jan, good to see you! I always enjoy reading your well-informed and passionate arguments, despite our differences and disagreements, which will enable a healthy discussion to take place and to explore important issues in relation to our country and the world. Hopefully the noise can be ignored and left to fade into the background. Come back more often and I try to read the IC more often, if I see you and Niloufar are regular contributors!
Kharmagas Marhoum, khoda bad nadeh! Aaghebat bekhair bashi, in the world of the marhoums and in this impermanent one ;)