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 |
Sorry Niloufar
by Anonymous Observer on Sat Dec 19, 2009 03:16 PM PSTbut a blog loses all its credibility when "Jaleho", the author of this piece of garbage
//iranian.com/main/blog/jaleho/moral-bankruptcy-green-leaders-and-quds-day
crawls out and supports the blogger. It's the kiss of death for the blog. :-(
Jamshid
by SamSamIIII on Sat Dec 19, 2009 02:49 PM PSTJust like their empty rethorical based arguments such as the made up cliche about US invading Iraq for milking their oil that turned up to be yet another grade 4 logic and was proved baseless when Iraqi government left out all American oil companies in favoure of Malaysian Petronas & Russia's Lukoil just a week ago , the sit home, cluless ommatie leftist crowd is busy writing their BS filled perscriptions to rescue the world in general & Iran in particular . These are the same ilk who like herds of Sinai went to do Paboosi for Obama and gang lynched every one who disageed & yet the same clueless ommaties are dissing him now . Every time I read any sort of pacifist propaganda by these crowd ,it reminds of those dahan kaff kardeh hezbo ideologues on U of Tehran who had just read some mumbo leftist arabo ommatie junk and wanted to preach every one about the dangers of Jews , white man & imperialism. impressionable ommatie zombies .
Thanks for your Great point of view & well researched item patriot.
Cheers pal!!!
Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan //iranianidentity.blogspot.com //www.youtube.com/user/samsamsia
You got it all wrong NP
by marhoum Kharmagas on Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:53 AM PSTCalling Makhmalbaf, or many other former or current regime personalities (Khamenehi, Rafsanjanii, Mousavi, karroubi, Ahmadinejad,Sazegara, and rest of them) opportunist is way too mild. People who participated or were complacent in killings of 1981 and murders of thousands in 1988, and ....., and created an Iran with such an appalling level of poverty were/are not just opportunists and Machiavellianists!
I used those mild adjectives for the person who said:
"no i don't agree with his position exactly, but the pressure someone
with his credentials exerts on iran and the embarrassment he causes for
the regime is quite useful."
I find it very unpatriotic and wrong to align myself with the military corporate fascism that has surrounded Iran and is responsible for death of hundreds of thousands and $trillions of damage, but I have no illusion about IRI personalities with any color and "credentials".
MKM
by Niloufar Parsi on Sat Dec 19, 2009 09:23 AM PSTyou should be more careful with your chosen names here as your initials are getting close to the mujahids.
not sure about the merits of opportunism. you are choosing to call him an opportunist. he probably sees himself as an upright, moral, dissident.
you know, many of those who went out in the streets did so to embarrass the regime in the eyes of the world knowing that they would not manage to remove the regime yet. what are you going to call them?
Opportunism ... is very good! (to NP)
by marhoum Kharmagas on Sat Dec 19, 2009 08:54 AM PSTNP says: "no i don't agree with his position exactly, but the pressure someone with his credentials exerts on iran and the embarrassment he causes for the regime is quite useful."
... ya, opportunism and Machiavellianism are good things! :)
MKM
by Niloufar Parsi on Sat Dec 19, 2009 08:32 AM PSTno i don't agree with his position exactly, but the pressure someone with his credentials exerts on iran and the embarrassment he causes for the regime is quite useful. i think this may be deliberate on his part and supported by the Green leadership inside iran. pure speculation on my part.
jamshid
by Niloufar Parsi on Sat Dec 19, 2009 08:27 AM PSTwhat exactly IS your case? can you enlighten us?
can you clarify (to Niloufar)
by marhoum Kharmagas on Sat Dec 19, 2009 06:12 AM PSTyou say: "btw, ever occurred to you that perhaps makhmalbaaf has been tasked with embarrassing the regime by the Greens knowing that he would not actually succeed in getting sanctions?"
No, can you tell me what you mean by that? Do you agree with Malkmalnaf's views on sanctions (I take it you don't)?
Don't have to answer as they are not that much related to the topic.
no more sanctions
by Fatollah on Sat Dec 19, 2009 04:41 AM PSTNo sane Iranian would want sanctions or a war imposed upon their people/country!
to Jamshid
by amirkabear4u on Sat Dec 19, 2009 04:30 AM PSTyou forgot to say IRI is also responsible for plastic heaven keys!!
haha
Niloufar Parsi
by jamshid on Sat Dec 19, 2009 02:45 AM PST"you could have said all that in two paragraphs"
Ditto.
"your 'dream' is a little like a nightmare. i for one dream we, as a nation, never develop the bomb"
We are in disagreement. I am against an irresponsible regime like the IRI having the bomb, but I have absolutely no problem with a stable democratic regime to have one. If the people will it, then it is their right, regardless of what your dream is.
"my dream is a world free of self-annihilating habits."
Then you can keep on dreaming. It won't happen. It pays to be realistic. My dream of a democracy in Iran however, is very realistic.
"you like to claim that iran's troubles in the region are only caused by the current regime..."
And you like to claim that Iran's troubles are only caused by foreigners. I claim that under a secular democratic regime, Iranians can be a capable and empowered people, and they can ward off foreign influences on their own. You claim that Iranians are incapable children in need of protection, with the protection coming from the IRI.
"are you really ignorant of the fact that since the discovery of oil in iran, there has been non-stop interference in iran's affairs by foreign powers?"
The ignorance comes from you dear, as Iran has been subjected to non-stop foreign interference well before the discovery of oil.
"or is that a little inconvenient for your own agenda?"
And what would that agenda be? Since you seem to know my "agenda" so well, I challenge you to state it, a challenge I know you will fail to meet.
"no matter how much you scream and pull your hair out, the fact is that this regime is an IRANIAN regime, and it has to be changed by IRANIANS."
Scream and pull my hair out about what? Are you implying that I want foreigners to change Iran's regime? And where did you get that notion? Isn't it enough for the regime to arrest and torture innocent people based on the same type of false implications than yours? And then you write:
"the answer is in the need for iranians to wise up"
Tell me about it! You can start wising up by not imitiating the regime's behavior in here.
"one of the first steps in dealing with our own shortcomings is by owning up to them rather than pretending they come from elsewhere."
Wow! So you have gone full circle only to come back and agree with me in that our own IRI is the main source of our shortcomings, not foreign meddlers. Am I correct?
I rest my case.
What a crowd!
by ramin parsa on Sat Dec 19, 2009 02:06 AM PSTWith modern-day Jeffersonian democrats like Jaleho, Irandokht, Niloufar Parsi, Q, Fozul Bashi and the rest, who needs the IRI to molest the cause of freedom in Iran.
This is sad.
Well said, Jamshid -- I agree with you 100%, but this is the wrong crowd if you're searching for intellectual honesty.
mersi
by Niloufar Parsi on Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:31 AM PSTvildemose, for the great link
Fouzul Bashi, for the kind encouragement
:)
kharmagas-e marhoum
by Niloufar Parsi on Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:26 AM PSTam glad someone noticed my right wing tendencies at last!
btw, ever occured to you that perhaps makhmalbaaf has been tasked with embarrassing the regime by the Greens knowing that he would not actually succeed in getting sanctions?
who said i lived in england? i used to but left the benaamoosha long time ago!
CoP out
by Niloufar Parsi on Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:15 AM PSTyou mean 'peaceful civilized' regimes like apartheid israel, feudal pakistan, stalinist russia or maoist china? iran should follow their fine examples in order to develop nukes trouble-free? poor attempt, cop out.
jamshid
by Niloufar Parsi on Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:35 AM PSTi am glad you came forward with your line of reasoning. you could have said all that in two paragraphs, but at least you did make your case.
first, your 'dream' is a little like a nightmare. i for one dream we, as a nation, never develop the bomb, and that we become a positive force for influencing others against it. my dream is a world free of self-annihilating habits.
you like to claim that iran's troubles in the region are only caused by the current regime, but are you really ignorant of the fact that since the discovery of oil in iran, there has been non-stop interference in iran's affairs by foreign powers? or is that a little inconvenient for your own agenda?
these powers will NOT stop their games regardless of the regime. the answer to this problem Was not the shah and Is not the islamic republic. the answer is in the need for iranians to wise up and learn the game and out-fox their foes.
the job of removing the regime is ours and ours alone. it is our own cowardice and cultural and political failure that has landed us with this regime. no matter how much you scream and pull your hair out, the fact is that this regime is an IRANIAN regime, and it has to be changed by IRANIANS. it is our own responsibility. one of the first steps in dealing with our own shortcomings is by owning up to them rather than pretending they come from elsewhere.
you also seem to imagine that as soon as we have democracy, then all these troubles will be over. ever heard of mossadegh?
The circus has arrived
by Mola Nasredeen on Fri Dec 18, 2009 07:16 PM PSTSaid Hazrate shotor.
jamshid jaan....
by shushtari on Fri Dec 18, 2009 05:27 PM PSTthanks brother....finally we have some logic around here....
Niloufar Parsi
by jamshid on Fri Dec 18, 2009 05:25 PM PSTIn the 20s and 30s in the US, it was common to see shopkeepers getting beaten up, their windows broken, their shops vandalized and so on. These were always the work of Mafia thugs.
The same thugs would then go the shop owners and tell them how for a fee, they could be "protected". If a shop owner refused to pay the protection fee to the thugs, then those same thugs would later attack him and his shop, and brutalize him into submission.
Today in Iran, the IRI is taking a page from those Mafia thugs. Through irresponsible behavior and foreign policies, Iran has become subjected to sanctions and other foreign exclusions, even subjected to the threat of war.
You hope that your readers would indirectly "see" the need for its protector, the IRI, to step in and "protect" the Iranian people.
You are wrong on both counts. The people of Iran don't need a "ghayem". If the IRI allow a true democracy to flourish in Iran, the new people representative leaders, would re-enter and re-engage Iran into the global market, and through intelligent foreign policies remove all sanctions and remove the threat of war as well.
Why isn't Japan or India under sanctions or threat of wars? Why isn't Turkey or Argentina? Why only Iran? Why should the people of Iran be isolated and be hostage to IRI's policies and views?
The Iranian people can perfectly have any kind of technology they want, including nuclear technology. They have the smarts and the capability and the will. If Pakistan did it, so can Iranians. But through irresponsible foreign as well as domestic behavior, the IRI thugs are limiting Iran's great potentials, any you Ms. Parsi are diverting attention from IRI to foreigners for these shortcomings.
An atmosphere of crisis is IRI's bread and butter and greatest means of survival. By putting Iran under constant threat, the IRI can justify its shortcomings and blame it to "others".
Ms. Parsi's piece works along the same lines.
You write, "How is it possible to ‘give up’ such technology? Other than complete capitulation of national sovereignty and the right to self-govern/self-learn..."
Exactly! How is it possible that Iranians must give up such technology? I'll tell you how. By having the IRI "completely capitulate" the Iranian people, and by having the IRI destroy our national "sovereignity and right to self-govern".
Let's face it and be honest here. The IRI is not a democracy. Therefore, it does not represent the will of the people. It does not represent Iranians' foreign or domestic policies. It is against the people's "sovereignity" and it has been definitely crushing the people's "right to self-govern."
And by doing so, it is depriving the people of Iran from being able to obtain and use various forms of technologies, among other things.
You talk as though the Economist and its masters are Gods and the Iranian people are just little weaklings and pawns who are unable to control their own destiny and therefore are in need of a "ghayem", a protector called the IRI. You are wrong. Both you and the regime underestimate and undermine the true potentials of the Iranian nation.
You wrote, "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."
The most dangerous opposition to Iran and its people is the IRI who acts as "a self-serving, manipulative, power hungry" entity, stepping on the rights and will of its citizens as though they are nothing.
Based on your views, I have no doubts that you are a regime enabler and your goal is the prolongation of the regime. You meet this goal by taking advantage of the foreign threats the IRI creates and by diverting attention away from IRI's unexcusable shortcomings.
I am hoping that one day after the IRI is gone and replaced by a democracy, and after our brains and inteligencia gradually return home, Iran will not only have the most advanced nuclear technologies, but also the bomb, and does so without ever putting Iranians under any risk.
But there is only one thing that is stopping this dream from being realized for me and many other Iranians: The IRI, the veryregime you support.
Ghazanfar...I Mean Niloufar
by Cost-of-Progress on Fri Dec 18, 2009 04:44 PM PSTI believe that it is the Islamist Regime that is the problem here....and hence..."no Nukes for you", but you would not understand... If this was a peaceful, civiliz(s)ed regime...we'd have a different discussion, or not................ You would not be blogging for one thing!
Too bad you wasted your breathe on this worhtless blog..Don't you people ever give up??
Oh, the nebula photo is a nice touch...is that Imame Zaman face I see there in the middle?
____________________
IRAN BEFORE ISLAM
____________________
How sad.....
by Souri on Fri Dec 18, 2009 04:19 PM PSTI'm sorry to hear this. I don't want to derail the subject of this blog.But honestly I got frustrated hearing this happened to you.
If by Mnoarchist represantative, you are talking about DK, I can say, i remember he also said very bad words to you, some while ago.
You always forgive and forget and want freedom for everybody. But as you see, if the abusers are not stopped, then they will repeat their abusive manners and it get worse.
I am so sorry you had to go down to the level of those dirty minded people. Hope this won't happen again in the site.
Any how, I'm glad you are back.
Souri jAn
by marhoum Kharmagas on Fri Dec 18, 2009 04:10 PM PSTRepresentative of monarchy in this site called another member of this site gay, Kharmaghas then said "kAfer hame rA be kishe khod pendArad" to him....., and both him and kharmagas marhoum shodand. JJ rahmateshon koned!
Kharmagas : what happened to you?
by Souri on Fri Dec 18, 2009 03:56 PM PSTWhy you became "marhoum"? and when?
Why didn't you tell us so we could give a "funeral ceremony" for you.Who beat you my dear? (or maybe better say who did bite you?)
Corporate military fascism mindset (to Niloufar)
by marhoum Kharmagas on Sun Dec 20, 2009 07:08 AM PST..... one thing that is stamped into the mind of many ordinary Americans even many progressive ones, is that war brings prosperity. Since you live in England you may not believe me, but that is what Q rightfully calls 'corporate military fascism' has done to people! .... that is why I strongly wish for Iran's total success if IRI really wants to be nuke ready or nuke have.
BTW, for a pro Makhmalbaf right wing leftist, you wrote a good article!?
Niloufar-e aziz!
by Fouzul Bashi on Fri Dec 18, 2009 01:14 PM PSTThank you for your excellent article!
jaleh jan
by Niloufar Parsi on Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 PM PSTi am humbled. and re. the deleted comment, i am used to discussions being disrupted here and do not see it as an insult at all.
i find you very resolute and clear, and it is always nice chatting to you, whether or not we agree :)
Niloufar besyar aziz,
by Jaleho on Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:28 AM PSTThat's right, it has been a long time since we have argued! It is always a pleasure to chat with you regardless of agreements or disagreements. I always end up learning something good from you.
BTW, an off topic, and sorry for it: Once you asked me a question about Orhan Pamuk, I answered it but my answer got deleted. I never understood why a literature comment would be deleted except by a mistake. The only other reason that came to my mind was my agreeing with you about Arrundahti Roy's great talent, and the fact that I believe that the Nobel prize in particular in peace and literature has lost its luster and has become political to a funny degree. I though that might have casued my comment get erased, although months later everyone talked like that about Obama's prize!
Anyway, sorry for the off-topic, I just wanted to tell you that I was not rude enough not to answer you!
NP: Read the article below.
by vildemose on Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:18 AM PSTNP: Read the article below. It's about health care but it's applicable to foreign policy too.
//www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/16/815429/-No-One-Is-Going-To-Save-You-Fools
Dear Faramarz,
by Jaleho on Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:18 AM PSTNo, I have no relation to Capt-Ayhab except the one he described:
"We mutually hate each others guts."
As such, I understand why you might be missing him :-)
FF khan
by Niloufar Parsi on Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:28 AM PSTam sorry, but you are being neither funny nor interesting with such diversionary comments.
i stated that this is not about the regime, and the likes of the Economist make it clear too, but you insist on debating within a false zone while making fun of this website.
your prerogative, but makes it difficult to engage with you.