Victims of Economic Sanctions: The People and the Green Movement
Tehran Bureau / Muhammad Sahimi
25-Nov-2010 (4 comments)

...It is instructive to see how such Iranian supporters of the sanctions rationalize their position.

Economic pressure on the people will be transferred to the ruling elite and change their behavior.

First of all, there is no credible evidence that this will happen. In fact, based on historical trends, both in Iran and elsewhere, the opposite is true. Not only will the hardliners not change their position as a result of the sanctions, they will almost certainly become more tightly bound to it. ...

As the government's pressure on the people increases, their protests will also increase, ultimately forcing the government to change its behavior or even change the political system.

Such an argument assumes that both the people and the government behave rationally under pressure. In fact, as Payman put it, there are two types of behavior and reactions in a pressured atmosphere. One type is emotional, or irrational. ...

There is the threat of military attacks on Iran. Economic sanctions make such attacks less likely.

This is a totally bogus argument. First, tough economic sanctions are tantamount to war. Recall that the terrible economic sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s ruined that society and caused a large number of deaths... Second, sanctions can be a prelude to military war. Iraq is again a good example. When George W. Bush was elected president, he was d... >>>


Treasure trove of facts and arguments

by DelilahNY on

Mammad (Sahimi) once said here when asked that he did not post blogs here for a specific reason which he didn't state. People should encourage him to rethink his position. His writings are a treasure trove of facts and well-thought out arguments.  The number of comments would probably be off the charts and the discussions would definitely not be boring.




by DelilahNY on

I really didn't expect an eplanation but good that you gave one. I'll try to address it.

Of course you are absolutely right that here there is a lot of ugly name-calling and accusations but it happens on both 'sides'of the false dichotomy that is perceived by many who see things in black and white. I could give many examples.

Basically the site is what it is and you know the reasons why—demographics , 'mission', structure/lack thereof, leadership/lack thereof, etc. I also understand you prefer to devote your time to reaching a larger, and non-Iranian, audience, and I congratulate you on your partnership, but this cocamamie place has its own value too. And you must think so on some level because you've been here for a long time continually. But not continuously. And you often do things piecemeal, imho. You get involved in good discussions, raise the ante, and then you have to jump ship due to your other commitments. (Or to the slings and arrows of those 'vicious culprits' whom you yourself call 'a few', which means they are manageable because they can be ignored--first and foremost among them being we-know-who; this is a source of endless agita for you and it could end immediately if you kept on doing what I saw you just did on Shifteh's repost of this article,which was ignore.

I don't know if you fully realize it, but you happen to be respected by many who do not respect others with ideologies similar to yours much at all. And they have articulated their reasons for this, and again I could give examples. These people want to engage with you.

This site will never be as 'civil' as some others--and maybe it shouldn't be--but it has improved and since you keep coming back anyway, it seems a more effective way of both furthering that progression and causing yourself less stress would be, instead of frittering yourself away, if you would periodically write blogs which you would commit to seeing through. With the new system where people get informed by e-mail of new postings of blogs they're on, there isn't even the pressure anymore to see blogs through in a matter of days, They can be put on hold and the discussions fully resumed sometimes even weeks later. So basically that is my two cents.


On another note, please take into careful account my second post here. 'Wipe off the map' has surely been the statement of most seismic geopolitical dimensions regarding Iran of the past decades and the wording has been beaten to a pulp, but few people seem to be aware of the actual origin of the translation. I don't know why.

And here I'll just throw in that I think the translation for Quds should be Holy Jerusalem.


Sahimi does not post here

by Mammad on

because, (1) there are a few in this site that label anybody as an IRI agent, or lobbyist, or supporter, simply because the views expressed are opposite of what they think, regardless of how rational and well-thought they are, and (2) is not visited that much by the larger readership of non-Iranians.

These reasons are personal, and remain valid. He also posts articles regularly on and, because those sites, in addition to have huge readership, are also not like IC. People can criticize the authors, but not in the unprincipled, vicious way that a few well-known culprits do on this site.

In addition, Sahimi helped Tehran Bureau website start two years ago, which is now recognized globally. Therefore, TB is now his "home," in addition to the fact that he will be a partner there.



Oops...well, not aaall facts....

by DelilahNY on

The translation 'wiped off the map' was done by IRI's own impeccably incompetent translators at IRIB and sent out immediately after the speech. By the time they sent out a corrected version it was already  too late, their bumbling had spread like wildfire all over the globe. It wasn't an 'intentional mistranslation' as Sahimi and so many others believe, although obviously the correction wasn't widely broadcast either. I have no idea why so few people know this, and it drives me crazy every time I see it. Here is the IRIB article where it first appeared: