The meeting last week between Hillary’s Yale University students and President Ahmadinejad has attracted a measure of critical attention from far-right commentators like Ann Coulter, Michael Ledeen and Michael Rubin. Yesterday, Hillary received an email from Charlotte Allen, who described herself as a contributing editor for “Minding the Campus,” a “higher education website” sponsored by the Manhattan Institute. The Manhattan Institute is a neoconservative think tank (Bill Kristol is on its board). Ms. Allen was writing a story about the meeting between Hillary’s students and President Ahmadinejad. Readers may judge for themselves, but our impression of the questions was that Ms. Allen might not really be interested in writing an objective story about this meeting. We append below the questions that Ms. Allen sent, verbatim, as well as Hillary’s answers, in full. Hillary requested that the Manhattan Institute publish her answers in full but this request has been explicitly rejected and we are told that “Minding the Campus” will be publishing its own version of Hillary’s answers. Nothing like accuracy in media.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
1. How did your students get from New Haven to New York and back? Did Yale (through the Jackson Institute or otherwise) pay their way?
To the best of my knowledge, each student who participated in the meeting took the train from New Haven to New York and back. Yale University did not pay for their transportation.
2. Did you know at the time your students met with him that he had made his 9/ll remarks at the U.N.?
Yes, I watched his address to the General Assembly and discussed his remarks with the students prior to our meeting with him.
3. Ahmadinejad is well known for saying things that are inflammatory and non-evidence-based, to say the least: denying the Holocaust and declaring that there are no gays in Iran. When you told your students (as the Yale Daily News reported) that Ahmadinejad was “not a crazy, irrational leader” and that the U.S. ought to engage with him, how did that square with the above statements by Ahmadinejad?
It is a mistake to simplify and caricature what President Ahmadinejad says about a range of issues on which his statements generate controversy in the West. Both the United States and Israel are in a virtual state of war with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ahmadinejad is very careful and deliberate in choosing what he says in the context of this virtual state of war. Among other things, polling data from the Middle East clearly indicate that his statements about Israel, the Holocaust, and the 9/11 attacks have bolstered popular support across the Muslim world—not necessarily elite support, but popular support—for Iran’s position.
As Americans, we need to understand that what Ahmadinejad says calls into question, for many in the Middle East, the entire legitimacy of U.S. and Israeli actions there. This is a strategy which yields tangible strategic gains for Iran. Since Ahmadinejad came to office in 2005, Iran has solidified its relations with Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, and, on some issues, Qatar, in ways that increasingly balance effectively against the United States and our traditional allies in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel. This is a potentially very significant shift in the Middle East’s balance of power. It is critically important for students of diplomacy and U.S. national security and foreign policy to understand how and why this is happening. Acting as if the United States can somehow disqualify and marginalize the Islamic Republic may make some feel good in the short run, but it is very dangerous for the American position in the Middle East over the long run.
4. You and your husband, Flynt Leverett, have worked tirelessly over the past few years in op-ed articles and on your website “Race for Iran” to promote the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad government. Do you think that your classroom stance regarding Iran can be neutral and fair to all points of view? What do you do about students who might disagree with you inside or outside the classroom?
My husband and I do not attest to the “legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad government”, as it is not our place or function to do so. What we have said and written is that there is no hard evidence Ahmadinejad’s re-election was the result of fraud and that polling data (including from Western polling organizations) and anecdotal evidence indicate that his re-election was highly plausible.
With regard to my classroom stance, the subject of my seminar is U.S.-Iranian Diplomacy. My seminar explores the multiple episodes of U.S. engagement with the Islamic Republic over the past 30 years and, in particular, what has gone wrong between the United States and the Islamic Republic that has prevented these episodes of engagement—involving every U.S. president, Democrat and Republican, since 1979—from producing a sustained improvement in U.S.-Iranian relations. The subject of the seminar is not warmaking or regime change. It is diplomacy. Therefore, the opportunity for students to meet with, and question, the President of the country they are studying in a course dealing with diplomacy toward that country was for many of them (in their words), “the opportunity of a lifetime.”
The meeting with the President was an optional opportunity; it was in no way a requirement for the class. I made clear to the students that it was not mandatory, and that I would respect the decision of any student who chose not to participate. I don’t “do” anything about students who disagree with me. The point of the seminar is not to get the students to think like me, it is to help the students think more clearly and rigorously for themselves.
If my class were about U.S.-China Diplomacy and my students had the opportunity to meet with President Hu Jintao, I do not believe that you or anyone else would be asking questions about the appropriateness of such a meeting, whether that meeting conveyed “legitimacy” to the Chinese government, etc., That you, Michael Rubin and other neoconservative propagandists are distorting the record of the work of my husband and me and trying to distort what was a remarkable opportunity for some Yale University students raises very disturbing questions about your agenda and bias. Isn’t one fraudulently instigated war in the Middle East enough?
5. Just this past week Hossein Derkakhshan was sentenced by an Iranian court to 19 1/2 years in prison for the crimes of blogging about the government and encouraging others to do so? Does this lengthy punishment for trying to exercise freedom of expression give you any second thoughts about the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad government?
I don’t know the details of this case and, consequently, do not want to comment on it. Again, if my class were about U.S.-China diplomacy, I do not believe you would be asking me whether a particular human rights case gave me “any second thoughts about the legitimacy” of the Chinese government. And, again, it raises serious questions about your own professionalism as a journalist.
Glad to see we agreed on something :-)
“Also, you keep trusting in the US Navy and I’ll keep trusting in God.”
:)
Nasser-jan,
So I see the only argument you have against Baer is that he is an idiot. Good for you, excellent “rational” argument.
Also, you keep trusting in the US Navy and I’ll keep trusting in God. You believe what you want to believe about the incredible US armed forces and I’ll believe whatever I want to believe about the incompetent Iranian armed forces. The incompetent Iranian armed forces whose special forces alone have kicked America’s ass in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon- of course according to US experts who are idiots, not just me.
The difference to divine rights monarchs is that the Supreme Leader is selected by an elected congress of Islamic scholars- elected by universal suffrage. Divine rights monarchs are determined by the sperm lottery and that’s why we ended up with idiots like the Qajars and the Pahlavis as opposed to capable leaders like Imam Khomeini and Ayat. Khamenei who kicked America’s ass out of Iran.
Ha, “Iranian anti-revolutionaries”, can’t even say it without laughing.
Bussed-in Basiji,
“My point is that when US leaders prefer the advise of Israelis, Zionists and Arab lobbyists to that of an American with thirty years of experience in the ME this says more about those politicians and their idiocy than it does about the merits of Baer’s argument.”
- Good field agents doesn’t necessarily equate good foreign policy strategists. The US doesn’t have Qassem Suleimanis running its foreign policy. The fact that you attribute this to Israeli Lobbyists (or Arab Lobbyists wtf?) shows how little you know. Robert Baer says a lot of outrageous things and he should just stick to making movies!
“And yes of course Sepah can take on the Fifth Fleet (and the Sixth, and Seventh…). As I told you before you overestimate US strength and underestimate Iranian strength. I got news for you, Naval Basij of Persian Gulf provinces alone can take on the Fifth Fleet. We are looking forward to “meeting” the Fifth Fleet.”
- I really have nothing more to say. I should have expected this much from someone that believes in a guy who claims to be God’s Representative on Earth! Haha seriously I can’t even say that “God’s Representative on Earth” without laughing. How is that any different from divine right of monarchs?!
Nasser,
You are not addressing my point. I don’t care if Baer calls us superpower or whatever, we don’t need Baer or whoever to tell us what we are. He has said that in the ME, Iran has won the political war against the US and that the US should shift her alliance away from the Arabs towards the Arabs. This has little to do with with how much oil Iran, Iraq or Saudi have compared to each other, so I don’t know why you keep going on about that.
My point is that when US leaders prefer the advise of Israelis, Zionists and Arab lobbyists to that of an American with thirty years of experience in the ME this says more about those politicians and their idiocy than it does about the merits of Baer’s argument. Do you understand this or do you want me to keep explaining it until you understand? The fact that the politicians continue to be allied with the likes of Saudi and Israel is evidence of their stupidity, not evidence that Baer’s argument is wrong. Did you get that Nasser-jan or should I explain again?
Regarding the three goals as I said:
1.Flow of oil is not “secure”, if “secure” means US controls it. The truth is that you have no real idea if Iran can or cannot stop the global flow of oil or not, (yes I said global, not just PG).
2.Israel is not safe and next time if it makes the mistake of attacking Lebanon the fighting will be in northern Israel. Israel is not safe and its existential threat is from the millions of Palestinians it occupies, more than Mubarak or other lame-asses like Mubarak. In fact that’s why the Israelis are so desperate to draw their borders. If they don’t Israel, in the words of Olmert and Barak, will become an apartheid state and loose its US support. I recommend you read Mearsheimer’s analysis of the future of Israel.
3.Nobody controlling all hydrocarbons applies in the first place to the US itself and Iran has been succesful in preventing a monopoly on hydrocarbons by US and its allies in the region.
So not only is Iran “capable”of threatening these 3 goals, it’s currently controlling these directly or through proxies. That’s what Baer means when he says Iran has won.
And yes of course Sepah can take on the Fifth Fleet (and the Sixth, and Seventh…). As I told you before you overestimate US strength and underestimate Iranian strength. I got news for you, Naval Basij of Persian Gulf provinces alone can take on the Fifth Fleet. We are looking forward to “meeting” the Fifth Fleet.
Contrary to your view, every analyst not connected to Bush-Cheney considers Iraq as one the greatest strategic blunders in US history. So go ahead lick you wounds and keep telling yourself it was nothing.
Yes the US government is PARTLY responsible for the chemical attacks because its officers taught the Iraqis how to use it and then taught them how to assess its effectiveness in the battlefield. And this was done as official policy (“official” different than “public”) meaning it wasn’t some rogue operation which leaders did not know. So yes the US, Germany and Baathis are morally and legally responsible for the chemical attacks on Iranian soldiers- contrary to the international law and the domestic law of the US and Germany.
I told you before if you call not wanting to do whatever the US and Israel says as “extreme” than yes Iranians are “extremely” independent compared to the lame governments in Egypt, Jordan and various Arab Persian Gulf states. However your use of “extreme” is perjorative implying something is wrong with wanting to decide one’s own foreign and domestic policy.
Their is nothing wrong with that and we made a revolution and fought many battles and gave many of our fathers, brothers, sisters and other loved ones to be “extremely” independent. We did not do this in order to be threat to the US so I don’t know what your point is about the Iran being or not being a genuine threat to the US. Unfortunately it seems that the US perceives “extreme” independence as a threat. And that’s the point Nasser-jan.
The US and its local allies perceive Iranian independence and its historical example as a threat to their wealth and power (let’s call it “empire”). Each person can choose on which side of this conflict they want to be. In fact this is precisely the reason the US is putting so much pressure on Iran. If the Iranian experience vis-a-vis US imperial management is even partially followed in Egypt, Jordan or Arab PG states, then not only will the US have lost its ME empire it will have lost its global status.
Nasser-jan, each one of us has to make a choice in this life about which side we are on. I hope you make the right choice.
Bussed-in Basiji. Thanks again for your reply and I hope to give you a detailed response.
You said: “If you pay attention to Baer’s argument he says that with the help of proxies in various ME countries Iran was able to defeat the US strategically and that the US should shift its alliance to Iran in the ME over the Arabs.”
- I can understand why Iranians find Robert Baer to be so flattering when he talks of an “Iranian Superpower”. But American policymakers obviously have not acted on his advice and you are wrong to attribute this merely to the Israeli Lobby. The reason for this is that once the Soviets were gone, Iran’s geostrategic worth became significantly diminished in American eyes. The US now feels that they can just work around Iran. They say, you wanna get to Afghanistan go through Pakistan, the Caucasus through Turkey, and the Caspian via Azerbaijan. In the Gulf, the US values its relations with those that have higher reserves of hydrocarbons (the Gulf Arabs) than Iran. If you dispute this, let me just point out to you that this is exactly what the US is doing.
- America’s three prime strategic objectives in the region include: 1) securing free flow of oil, 2) making sure no one controls all those resources and 3) the security of Israel. That’s it! Everything else is tactical. Those three are still intact and so Iraq which undoubtedly has been a failure thus far was only a tactical setback not a strategic one. It is not within Iran’s capability to threaten any one of these.
- You claimed in an earlier post that Iran can threaten the free flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz. This is only partially true. You are right though that this is the main reason why the US doesn’t attack; they do not want to risk a major disruption in energy supplies. I am just sorry that you dismissed the Stratfor piece on this subject so easily (I at least did read Robert Baer’s book) simply because it is a commercial enterprise because American policymakers take them more seriously than anything by Robert Baer. Iran is not a serious threat to the US in this regard because their ability to threaten the free passage of oil is limited. First, blocking the Straits would harm Iran as much as anyone. Second, Iran can only do this temporarily. The US will eventually reopen the passage unless you are confident that your Sepah can take on the Fifth Fleet! Third, Iran can only do it ONCE because as soon as Iran does this they will face a swift military response which will leave most of their naval assets destroyed.
- The US also does not want any one entity to control all the resources of the region. The threat can come in various forms be it Pan Islamism, Pan Arabism, Pan Shiism, or just direct military conquest like Saddam Hussein. You admit yourself (and I agree) that “well that’s not a real difficult ‘goal’ because that was never an goal of the Iranians.”
Regarding Israel you wrote: “Also, I wouldn’t say Israel’s security is that good at the moment when can’t sleep at night from fear of 1000 southern Lebanese ‘ignorant peasants’. Israel has a lot of weapons and no peace of mind- that’s the definition of insecurity.”
- If you look at the wars Israel has fought in the past they were real actual existential wars. Compared to then they are infinitely safer now. Israel today does not face any serious military challenges. The Mubarak regime is an ally in blockading the Gazans. The Hashemite Kingdom is an ally against the West Bank Palestinians. And given the right price (Lebanon and Golan) Syria too can be bought. If Iran decides to launch missiles in its direction that will be militarily about as insignificant as Saddam’s Scud launches during the First Gulf War. Little insurgencies and terrorist attacks sure are unpleasant but they hardly represent a serious threat to the Jewish State. Regarding Lebanon, there’s quiet on that border now and here’s to hoping Israel doesn’t feel the need to resort to its genocidal Dahiya Doctrine. Their sense of insecurity and paranoia though is very real, I will give you that.
- You also haven’t given up in your efforts to blame the US for the chemical attacks. This is similar to the arguments that some make that Iran was “PARTLY” responsible for 9/11. No one can definitively prove either of these because they are untrue!
“This should be up your alley. The reson you will never concede to his argument is because you would have to then concede that the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic and the irrational religious mullahs has been SUCCESSFUL according to the standards of western IR.”
- Iran has been successful in achieving its form of extreme independence. I never denied that. This comes with a cost that Iranians seem willing to pay. You are mistaken though if you feel that this represents a genuine threat to the West.
“CSIS not Zionist?”
- Are you serious?!!!
Nasser,
If you pay attention to Baer’s argument he says that with the help of proxies in various ME countries Iran was able to defeat the US strategically and that the US should shift its alliance to Iran in the ME over the Arabs. This should be up your alley. The reson you will never concede to his argument is because you would have to then concede that the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic and the irrational religious mullahs has been SUCCESSFUL according to the standards of western IR. That Nasser-jan, you will never do even if it kills you and that is the definition of irrational. Your arguemnt serves to prove your predetermined assumption, regardless of any arguments to the contrary.
Stratfor is a commercial enterprise, its analyses are usually incorrect. CSIS not Zionist?
Again, the fact that politicians prefer to listen to Israelis and Zionists rather than an American 30 year veteran takes nothiung away from the cogency of his argument
M.Ali,
“(and sometimes, like dear old Saddam,they do, heh heh)”
- US interests in the Persian Gulf is basically to make sure that the oil flows and that no one controls all of it.
- America’s ultimate nightmare is that someone will gain control of all the resources of that region. After the Iranian Revolution the US tried to keep this from happening by tying down the putative power in the region (Iran) by strengthening Iraq. Unfortunately, that nightmare was realized not from Iran but Iraq. Within ten years time, Saddam had attacked all the major oil fields of that region. First Khuzestan, then Kuwait and was then in a position to threaten the Saudi oil fields. That’s why the US turned on him, they really had no choice.
Bussed-in Basiji: Thank you for your response.
- You are right that my dismissal of Robert Baer’s work doesn’t prove a damn thing. But when US policymakers are so dismissive of him, that must tell you something. His analysis and recommendations are not taken seriously as you yourself admit that no American administration has ever acted on it. The title of his book must be really flattering for Iranians (Iranian Superpower!) but it is obviously a massive exaggeration and a sales pitch. The only people that cite his work are the warmongers that want to make Iran out to be a threat that needs to be confronted and I think you unwittingly are helping their cause by pushing Robert Baer’s work.
- A much more serious analysis of Iran’s military capabilities. Not exactly from a Zionist or neocon think thank you must agree:
http://csis.org/files/publication/100812_IranGulfThreatBrief-ConvBal.pdf
- And this:
stratfor.com/memberships/146596/analysis/20091004_iran_and_strait_hormuz_part_1_strategy_deterrence (There’s two other parts to this article that you should be able to find through google)
Kagan & Kristol predictions circa 2000.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/department-terrible-predictions-4185
Nasser-jan,
Whose yelling and calling people idiots and obssessed? Me or you?
Unfortunately you don’t carefully read what I write.
Baer was a person who was an agent was operating against Iran and who after thirty years has said that Iran has won and that the US should shift its alliance to the Iranians. As an expert opinion his opinions are credibility regardless of whether Bush or Obama and their advisors act on it or not. Besides given his real world experience, I have more trust in Baer’s assessments of Iran’s strengths and weaknesses than some Iranian exile who hasn’t been to Iran for years or a think tank Zionist in Washington. Dismissing him with labels is not gonna do it for Nasser.
I said the US was PARTLY responsible for the chemical attacks, partly responsible as Saddam and the Germans are partly responsible. Nasser-jan I know its hard to digest but the US taught the Iraqis how to use it and how to assess its effects in the battlefield. Denying doesn’t change reality.
I said the US has lost POLITICALLY vis-a-vis Iran. Also, I wouldn’t say Israel’s security is that good at the moment when can’t sleep at night from fear of 1000 southern Lebanese “ignorant peasants”. Israel has a lot of weapons and no peace of mind- that’s the definition of insecurity.
The flow of oil is in no way guaranteed. The “free flow of oil” in the Persian Gulf is by the grace of our beloved Sepah. It flows and stops whenever we want it to flow and stop and the US and the Arab leaders know this well. It’s one of the reasons they don’t attack.
You seem to have forgotten that Iran also does not want a single entity to control all the hydrocarbons- namely the US. In that the Iranians have been successful in great part due to expelling the US from Iran. Of course if you mean that the US does not want Iran or the Shias (funny how oil in the region and Shias always seem to go together Iran, southern Iraq, eastern province Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan) to control the oil, well that’s not a real difficult “goal” because that was never an goal of the Iranians. And remember the Soviets passed on in 1989 so can’t really use them as an excuse anymore.
The Iraq war is over and you overestimate Arab-Ajam. Just ask the “anti-Iran candidate” Iyad Allawi about his recent trip to Iran. Iraq’s future is with Iran, Turkey and Syria and everyone in Iraq has reached this conclusion.
I think the misunderstand was, Nasser, than when you said USA’s friend, I assumed you meant the country, not specific people in that country. So yes, if you think of specific people, then sometimes USA does not screw them (and sometimes, like dear old Saddam,they do, heh heh)
M.Ali,
“Nasser dear, I’m sure if we had a government that wanted to REALLY screw the people over, all they had to do was agree with whatever conditions USA sets on them. That government will have specially autographs Obama posters, lots of good press for him, and heaps of money in his account. But it will probably not be THAT helpful to the people and more importantly, won’t be useful for the country in the long term.”
- I think you missed the point of that post which was a counter to Bussed-in Basiji’s claim that the US has screwed over all its Arab friends which is just not true.
Bussed-in Basiji,
I am not going to get into a shouting contest with you or engage in personal insults that you seem to like. But I will say this:
- Robert Baer is an idiot because his book “The Devil we Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower” is filled with inaccuracies and grossly overstates Iranian capabilities and so has been totally dismissed by any serious analyst. I was thus surprised that you even thought it worthwhile to bring him up. Maybe you like it because it strokes your ego. His policy recommendation that “the US should shift its alliance from the Arab states to Iran” is completely ludicrous and so have been totally dismissed by US policy makers. Need I remind you that your neighbors have more a lot more oil than you do?
- The US was not responsible for those chemical attacks. They did not train the Iraqis on their use as you claim. You can blame the US for providing diplomatic cover to Iraq because that is something they DID do. The attacks themselves, they were not responsible for.
- US has not lost in the region as you claim. Its three primary interests being the free flow of oil, making sure no one entity controls all those hydrocarbon resources, and the security of Israel are still intact. It is not within Iran’s capabilities to challenge these no matter how clever you think yourselves to be.
- There is a widespread consensus in the US that the second Iraq war a serious strategic blunder. But Iraq is not yet over. Iranians overestimate their influence there and continue to underestimate Arab ajam.
Nasser,
1. Gee, how convenient, Bob Baer is an idiot when he doesn’t agree with you. Whatever you or I might think, he was a CIA operative in the regions for thirty years and that Nasser-jan means that when he says in his book that the US should shift its alliance from the Arab states to Iran, it has credibility as somebody who wasn’t sitting in Washington making policy but as a participant in the (intelligence) wars with Iran. A person with this background says Iran won the US lost. But hey, he’s just an “idiot”.
2. Of course Francona is not gonna admit it because he would be subject to war crimes prosecution. Of course you didn’t pay attention again, the Germans gave the Iraqis the chemical weapons, US officers including Francona taught them how to use it and assess its effectiveness. I know its painful to have your beloved US master be partly responsible for gassing your fellow Iranians, but unfortunately that is what happenend. But hey according to you Francona is just “obsessesed”.
3. I said the RESULT of the wars in the region in the last 30 years has been that Iran won strategically. Part of it has to do with Iranian actions, part of it with actions by other actors.
In the case of Iraq, Iran’s thirty year policy of supporting individuals, parties and movements in Iraq who opposed Saddam, was the reason Iran was able to win against the US in Iraq, not just because the US removed Saddam. Our goals in the war was defense of our territory against an enemy supported by US/USSR/Europe so you are incorrect in saying Iran failed to remove Saddam. It wasn’t the primary objective. After the shooting war ended, in 1991, Iran sent all its allies into Iraq and when the US made its mistake (yes, even though it benefited Iran it was a mistake for the US to attack and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people) Iran was able to take political control of Iraq. Of course the fact the US after 1991 decided to support the very same individuals, parties and groups that a year previously it had vilified as “Iranian agents” speaks volumes about how stupid US policy vis-a-vis the region was previously and how wise and effective Iranian policy vis-a-vis Iraq was. But according to you this is not possible, as these irrational self-centered Iranians are culturally incapable of devising long-term strategies and policies and outwitting the superior US/UK strategists.
3. It didn’t call the citizens inbred idiotic perverts, I called the royal families that. We in Iran also had our inbreed royal idiots, as do the Europeans. Nothing to do with race or Arab or Ajam. Like us, the Arab brothers should get of their inbred idiotic pervert royal families.
4. Excuse me did you forget that the US supported Saddam during the 1980s, doesn’t Mahmoud Abbas continue to rule by the grace of the US? He was supposed to have called elections two years ago? And of course the Israeli occupation has NOTHING to do with why the Palestinians are not doing great. It’s all their own fault. And of course 30 years of insane rule by Saddam and the US invasion has NOTHING to do with why the Iraqis are not going great- besides Iraq and the US are officially allies right now.
Well you said it best “the … regimes are doing well”, but the people are not doing that well. As I told you, having luxury toys for the princes and buying 60billion dollars worth of weapons which you don’t know how to operate does not substitute for having national dignity. The rulers and elites of Jordan, Egypt and the Arab Persian Gulf states have no dignity. They sold that in return for material objects and being able to be above the law in their little fiefdoms. Their own people despise them. Nasser-jan, it’s a crap deal that Iranians and Syrians have correctly rejected. The US has been very shitty to its “friends”.
It’s easy to dismiss people whose views are different than yours as “idiots” and “obsessed”, but when you begin doing that, don’t be surprised if one day somebody responds to you by dismissing you as an “obsessed idiot”. Of course I’m not doing that , I only pointing out to you that it might happen to you.
” I specifically mentioned “the Mubarak regime” and “the Hashemite Kingdom,” and made no mention of their public. ”
Nasser dear, I’m sure if we had a government that wanted to REALLY screw the people over, all they had to do was agree with whatever conditions USA sets on them. That government will have specially autographs Obama posters, lots of good press for him, and heaps of money in his account. But it will probably not be THAT helpful to the people and more importantly, won’t be useful for the country in the long term.
“- Egypt and Jordan are indeed pretty poor countries and they would probably be even worse of without US help. But they haven’t been blessed with all that hydrocarbons wealth that the PG countries (including Iran) have. Turkey, Israel and Lebanon are the ones in that region that have been successful despite not having a lot of endowments.”
I like Turkey, I think Iran could learn a lot for its balance of handling East & West. But Israel & Lebanon are not two countries that I would want Iran to emulate.
M.Ali,
“How is Egypt and Jordan doing well, Nasser? Egypts GDP is 6k and Jordan’s is 5k, while Iran’s is 11k. And the billions of US Aid Egypt and Jordan has been receiving and all the help and goodwill, their people are still ways behind Iran, in terms of living standard, scientific achievments, and political progressiveness.”
- I specifically mentioned “the Mubarak regime” and “the Hashemite Kingdom,” and made no mention of their public. Only the Southern Persian Gulf countries I referred to “states” as a whole. So I stand by statement that America has been good to its friends as they are doing quite well.
- Egypt and Jordan are indeed pretty poor countries and they would probably be even worse of without US help. But they haven’t been blessed with all that hydrocarbons wealth that the PG countries (including Iran) have. Turkey, Israel and Lebanon are the ones in that region that have been successful despite not having a lot of endowments.
How is Egypt and Jordan doing well, Nasser? Egypts GDP is 6k and Jordan’s is 5k, while Iran’s is 11k. And the billions of US Aid Egypt and Jordan has been receiving and all the help and goodwill, their people are still ways behind Iran, in terms of living standard, scientific achievments, and political progressiveness.
James Canning, have you actually read the 50s Times article? Its very anti-Mosaddeq, and they did the same thing with Khomeini in 79.
Bussed-in Basiji (Nasser-ud-Din),
Thank you for your response. It was very thorough.
A few comments:
- Robert Baer is an idiot.
- Rick Francona has commented on this site a few times before and made it very clear that the US was in no way responsible for those chemical attacks. He also makes clear that the Iraqis already had their own chemical weapons when he got there. The man seems to have an obsession with Iran though for some reason.
- Iran’s strengthened position in Iraq has largely been a US doing. So it is pretty funny to hear you take credit. It was the US that destroyed the Sunni power structure in Iraq and removed Saddam, not Iran. In fact, when Iran tried they were humiliated.
- You accuse me of racism but you are the one that describes your neighbors as a bunch of “inbreed idiot perverts.”
- The only Arabs that are not doing too well are the Palestinians, the Syrians and of course the poor Iraqis. Never really American allies. American friends the Southern PG states, the Mubarrak regime, the Hashemite kingdom are all doing very well. America has been good to its friends!
kooshy,
Your point that it was in effect all about the nationalisation of Anglo-Iranian Oil is likely true enough, and that the fear of Communism was at least partly a cover story. The president of Aramco was the father of a friend of mine. I’m sure the owners of Aramco did not want the virus to spread.
kooshy,
Very interesting comments. Henry Luce of Time Magazine was a crusading “anti-Communist”, to say the least. His magazine would not have put Mossadegh on the cover if the US was not supporting the nationalist movement in Iran at the time.
If your point is that the US made bad policy decision, generated through an excessive fear of further Communist domination of the world than already obtained, I agree with you. The Vietnam catastrophe is perhaps the best example.
It should be borne in mind that many US policy makers, in the area of foreign affairs, were anti-British, or anti-Colonialism, or both. Fear of Communism trumped that.
James
Thanks for your reply, let say your version of history and mine just don’t match up, I know a thing or two about Dr. Mossadegh, his family and mine were close friends since 1919, and neighbors, he studied with my grandfather, my father was trusted to edit and publish his memoirs, what I have read and heard doesn’t add up to your perception of US policy after Truman, and is not correct to say US was only concerned with activities of Tudeh party, The 1953 coup was only about nationalization of Iranian oil and its broader effect in the region, a few days before the coup in state department it was explicitly told to Iran’s ambassador at time Alahyar Saleh (who I personally knew) that we can’t allow this to go on since it will affect our broader policy with the rest of the region. It was the same old domino theory with Tudeh treat to make it spicy and digestible.
Bussed-In-Basiji,
“increase of Iranian power has been its military development,”
And who in their right mind could blame Iran for increasing their military power with the way the U.s. and Israel have been throwing around their weight in that part of the world. Lots of people dead, injured and displaced because of the U.S. and Israel. Who could blame Iran for standing up against or protecting themselves?
kooshy,
I hope you are familiar with Time Magazine, and the importance of that magazine 50 or 60 years ago. Are you claiming Mossadegh was not “Man of the Year” in 1952?
Historians try to establish the facts, so correct conclusions can be drawn from them. Dulles, Roosevelt and Henderson all were favorably disposed toward Mossadegh – - until he embraced Tudeh and the communists. They then worried about Communist subversion in other Gulf countries.
Dulles forced the British to pull out of Egypt after Nasser’s revolution overthrew the monarchy. And surely you recall that Eisenhower forced Britain, France and Israel to get out of Egypt in 1956 (after Suez war).
James
Sure like your insistency, don’t give up, are there any newer innocence with past US and UK policies that you can feed us today?
Bussed-In-Basiji,
The Eisenhower administration (early 1950s) supported the nationalist movement in Iran, and the US ambassador (Loy Henderson) and the CIA chief in Iran (Kermit Roosevelt) were initially favorably disposed toward Mossadegh (Man of the Year for Time Magazine). The American secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, was ardently anti-Colonialist, and he pressured the French to get out of Tunisia and Morocco, and refused to give assistance to the French in their war in Algeria.
This beats the beating the Emirati prince gave that poor Afghan guy
Wouldn’t you know it, I didn’t read this report before “insulting” the decrepit rulers of the Arab Persian Gulf states.
Report in today’s The Independent newspaper (UK)
Saudi prince beat servant to death
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
“A gay Saudi prince killed his servant in a murder of “ferocity” which had a “sexual element…”
Nasser,
I’m not “eager” for war but I am ready if they attack which I think they will, and then Nasser-jan the pressure is on you to choose sides- don’t screw up. But get this through your head: Iranians are not afraid of the US and they have a few “surprises” waiting for them if they make the mistake of attacking.
Nasser,
Iraq did not “kick Iran’s ass” nor did the US “kick Iraq’s ass”. You don’t want to accept that Iran was the strategic victor of the Iran-Iraq war and of the US “ass- kicking” in the region of the last 10 years. Unfortunately for you, most US experts don’t see it your way (never mind us irrational Iranians). So you keep insisting on your wrong assumptions (as I pointed out to you in the first reply I gave you).
Very simple Nasser-jan, the US has lost power and Iran has gained power in the last thirty years. Iran is not as “weak” as you assume nor is the US as “strong” as you assume. Hey, according to people like Bob Baer (former CIA) and Alistair Crooke (former MI6) Iran has ben able win all major POLITICAL battles in the Middle East against the US and Israel. Crooke says the main reason for the increase of Iranian power has been its military development, if you had read the article which you probably didn’t. And we did it while maintaing social spending and investment into basic infrastructure and education (unlike US friends such Egypt nor Pakistan). I mean you don’t need to take the word of an irrational Iranian on this.
Even Ret. Lt.Col. Rick Francona (a former US “inspector” of battlefields were Iraqis used chemical weapons according to his own words, sorry Germans just supplied the chemicals, US officers taught the Iraqis how to use it and assess its effectiveness) says that all of US actions in the ME after WWII have been about controlling and containig Iran’s potential rise as the regional superpower. OK so there he have it Nasser-jan three former US/UK intelligence people whose life work has been in the ME say that Iran is powerful. I know these self-inflated Iranians are so irrational to assume that they could speak to the Americans as equals, I mean how idiotic of us!
Also I don’t blame the CIA or Mossad for the torture, I’m simply pointing out that wanting to “bury the hatchet” without acknowdging past crimes is not going happen.
Also, unlike their crappy leaders, most citizens of the Arab Persin Gulf states prefer that there governemtns would be less sycophantic with the US and maintain a minimum level of national dignity. I’m saying it mildly because if I said that they would prefer leaders like the Supreme Leader or Ahmadinejad to their current band of inbreed idiot perverts might be too painful for some. In fact giving up your dignity for luxury and weapons you don’t know how to use is a really crap deal and most Saudis, Egyptians, Kuwaitis etc. know this from experience just as the Iranians who lived in the Pahlavi era know this (maybe you are too young to have experienced that).
Maintaining your assumptions despite evidence to the contrary- now that’s irrational.
Nasser
“- I simply argue that fostering enmity with Israel is completely unnecessary and strategically unwise but if you insist on having a say in Palestinian affairs then the Saudi Peace Plan should be an acceptable middle ground.”
That’s not true , and no not a good idea,( see also the excellent comments Arnold made with regard to camp david) many times in past I have argued here, which I am sure you must have read, the most important strategic policy for Iran’s balance of power in its immediate region is to win the hearts and mind of the Arab street (Ahmadinijad in UN), and Muslims in general not Israel’s for as long as possible and necessary, I am not saying this for any religious purposes but purely for national security of Iran, there is no possibility of a direct military action by US or Israel but a proxy war by a Muslim country is very possible if Iran is not careful (Iran-Arabs2) , was Glad to read today that Ayatollah Khamnai sent a Fatwa regarding respect for Sunni sect believes that was apparently very well received in Al-Azhaar.
Pirouz-2 thanks a lot, if I keep reading James’s comments after a while I may end up believing Brits wanted to give democracy to Iran back in 1919, and Iranians were Bloody Fools not to take it, similar to the democracy they took to Iraq via Bush’s lap dog Tony, just a few years back, James stop the BS there are too many educated and informed Iranians here they wouldn’t go for this BS’s you write. You don’t have to defend every action by the Brits and spin it, do you?
Nasser, regarding the letter, why not acknowledge it and if its not Iran’s intention, Iran could have said, “sorry, we didn’t really mean it” showing Iran to be in the weaker, less diplomatic position, acknowleding US’s attempt at diplomacy.
But by ignoring it, US showed that it just didn’t really care that much.
I disagree that it would have a significient affect on the relationship. You say, “would go to great lengths to reduce hostilities between Israel and Iran and would massively impact how Iran is perceived internationally and in the American domestic scene. ”
I disagree with all three points.
1) The Iran-Israel relationship, I believe, is not something either side would actually want to improve given the current geopolitics situation. And, aside from the obvious political showmanships, their lack of relationship is not harming neither of them very much. Iran won’t gain much from an Israel relationship. Iran does not need to go to the Egypt/Jordan route, because as a Islamic Republic, it is more accountable to its people’s wishes than the monarchies of those two country. A relationship could be fostered in the future, but not in the short term, which does not benefit Iran at all at the moment.
2) “would massively impact how Iran is perceived internationally” You seem to be in line with America’s lie about the “international community”. Iran is perceived positively by a great number of countries. The Non-Aligned Movement, consisting of 118 countries, support Iran’s ambitions.
If other countries are sometimes standing in the way of Iran, it’s only due to US’s request. So, if USA ever changes its attitudes towards Iran, the rest would easily and quickly (and happily!) get behind USA.
3) “in the American domestic scene.” The US administration and media has gone a long way of demonizing Iran, and you think such an initiative would suddenly be strongly highlighted in Iran’s favor in the media? When past positive actions of Iran were either ignored, downplayed, or mocked by US politicians and media, you think suddenly the media and politicians would shower praise on Iran for the domestic scene? This is a situation where there was a media and politician uproar over Iran’s “attempts at forcing Jews to wear badges” only to be found out there was no such attempt.
There is a lack of sincerity from USA. If one party does not want to engage, it does not matter what the other party does.
M.Ali,
“Iran even sent a letter in 2003 through the Swiss embassy actively calling for talks and readiness for Iran to talk about US concerns. American didn’t even RESPOND to the letter.”
- Hearing this complaint from the Leveretts is what convinced me to pay attention to them
- But the Americans had valid criticisms though and good reasons to doubt the authenticity of the letter.
Richard Armitage on the “Grand Bargain” letter: “Our discussions with Iranians were handled by the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, for which we were very grateful, but it had been our view that the Swiss ambassador in Tehran was so intent — and I mean this positively — but he was so intent on bettering relations between “the Great Satan,” the United States, and Iran that we came to have some questions about where the Iranian message ended and the Swiss message may begin.
I remember talking with people from our Near East division about a fax that came in from the Swiss ambassador, and I think our general feeling was that he had perhaps added a little bit to it because it wasn’t in consonance with the state of our relations. And we had had some discussions, … particularly through intelligence channels with high-ranking Iranian intelligence people, and nothing that we were seeing in this fax was in consonance with what we were hearing face to face. So we didn’t give it much weight.”
M.Ali,
- I never argued that the Saudi Peace had a strong chance of success. Or that Iran’s participation or lack thereof is important to its success or failure.
- I simply argue that fostering enmity with Israel is completely unnecessary and strategically unwise but if you insist on having a say in Palestinian affairs then the Saudi Peace Plan should be an acceptable middle ground.
- Backing the Saudi Peace Plan would go to great lengths to reduce hostilities between Israel and Iran and would massively impact how Iran is perceived internationally and in the American domestic scene. Iran can still claim that it still wants there to be a Palestinian state and so hasn’t really betrayed them.
- Not at all a radical idea you must agree
Iran even sent a letter in 2003 through the Swiss embassy actively calling for talks and readiness for Iran to talk about US concerns. American didn’t even RESPOND to the letter.
“- I gave you a plan. Alter your relations to Israel by backing the Saudi Peace Plan and show an openness to change by ceasing the extremist rhetoric and showing a greater willingness to cooperate. Or you can just go on as before.”
Again, I answer, what has this plan got to do with Iran? Is Iran standing in its way? Does its success depend on Iran?
And anyway, what if THEY did accept it? At best, US would say, “We welcome Iran’s support of this…bla bla…but they should stop supporting terrorism…bla bla…their nuclear ambitions are a concern…bla bla…wiping israel off the map…bla bla…human rights violation…bla bla…international community…bla bla…more sanctions…bla bla…nothing is off the table…”
And its not like Iran is actively trying to obstruct it. No one came knocking at Iran’s door asking for Iran to get involved. And to be honest, not even ISRAEL has officially backed the Saudi Plan and thats certainly does not seem to be harming US-Israel relationships, so I doubt US chooses his friends based on their reaction to the plan.
Persian Gulf,
“I don’t see any major change in the region now compare to 2 years ago.”
- Relations between Russia and the USA dramatically improved
- The US largely withdrew from Iraq
- Present efforts in Afghanistan is concentrated on the South East of the country where Pakistan holds the influence and Iran can’t help
Humanist,
Thank you for your kind words.
I’m also pleased to see that not a single scholarly work claiming fraud in the 2009 Iran election has appeared (though it’s possible I’ve overlooked one) – even from Dr. Ali Ansari, who’d solemnly promised to follow up his “Preliminary Report” with a more thorough work but seems to have abandoned the effort entirely. We’ll inevitably continue to see the same sort of shoot-from-the-hip allegations from journalists and politicians that we’ve seen since the day after the election, but eventually that sort of fluff dies away if it’s not supported by some serious research and writing.
I’m neither inclined nor qualified, though, to delve into who spread the “big lie.” Frankly, I think the vast majority of people who protested, and even the vast majority of those who encouraged them to do so, were entirely sincere. Even “vast majority” probably understates the percentages in each group. Mistaken, but entirely sincere. Certainly there were some who spread the fraud allegations with knowledge that they were false, but I see little to be gained, and much to be lost for everyone, by trying to track them down and punish them. Time to chalk it up to politics, and move on.
But I do see a continuing need not to let intelligent people, like Nasser, mislead others with vivid images such as the “ballot boxes on a camel” cartoon. If those of us who took the time to debunk the election-fraud allegations are prepared to move on, we have a right to ask that those on the other side give up spreading those false allegations.
fyi:
you are right. it’s hard for the oppositions and also westerners to see the calmness in that region. IR has changed that landscape. it’s very painful for the opposition to believe it. they got it so late! what do you expect from a bunch of idiots?
Nasser:
you have managed to talk about a lot of things in response to my question, and yet did not address my core concern. this is not a good sign for a man of your intelligence.
I didn’t ask for the analysis of the election. however, you must respect the vote of the majority of the people, specially the ones who I know from the lower income class of the society and liked Ahmadinejad’s style. it’s their rights, as human, to be heard. you should know this as a man with “human rights” violation in mind. this is actually, the main reason I don’t LIKE greens (and I say this openly to many of my close green friends-they have no principles indeed-this is their main problem). many of the greens and the oppositions, DON’T respect others’ lifestyles, votes, belief… and yet they cry wolf for the violation of their rights. you can’t be that selective here. the ones who failed in the exam of the democracy are by no means in the position to be trusted for being the champions of liberal values. as much as I detest IR’s suppressing of the upper middle class, I do so for the upper middle class’s IGNORANCE and RACISM toward the rest of the population. I have no place in the IR. in fact, I get discriminated by IR more than here even. but that doesn’t mean to believe the insanity of the oppositions.
as for your geopolitical analysis, I don’t see any major change in the region now compare to 2 years ago. it is all too clear that the internal events in Iran have brought us to where we are now; basically killed the prospect of rapprochement and opened the door for dividing the population. Georgia’s situation didn’t change and instead Washington had to forget what it wanted from there originally. the fact that Russia is being tolerated means Washington is in a weaker position discrediting your analysis. Afghanistan is obviously in very bad shape, and Pakistan is in a deep sh**, making the role of Iran, if it ever was any, more important than before. what has changed in Iraq since 2 years ago really? Iran’s friends are on the position of power still and Iraq is dependent on Iran more than ever. The U.S dared to even declare a formal victory for even propaganda purposes. and Iran’s relation to Turkey is strengthen.
for one thing your are right. those who created the the mess of hostage crisis and disillusioned American politicians toward Iran and Iranians for nearly 3 decades, destroyed Iran’s future again for years to come with the stupidity of not accepting an obvious election result. the reformists are very shortsighted people. despite their relatively high education, they are by no means strategic thinkers. they are very good in propaganda war indeed. the conservatives on the hand are eternal opportunists. they don’t get it quickly, but when they get it, they stick to it to the end.
James;
I told you that that was my last message. Still since you ask, and still since unlike some Iranian readers of this site who are really not worth of my time, I actually do believe that you have a good will, I will answer your question.
You ask:”Are you contending the conservative religious leaders in Persia did not block the republic favored by Reza Khan?”
What you have to understand is that the British did not want a real Parliament in Iran as it would have meant an INDEPENDENT Iran ruled by its people. So the British wanted to get rid of Qajar and to replace them with their own “puppet”. On numerous occasions they tried to get Ahmad Shah for that purpose but each and every time he refused to go beyond his constitutional authority and always insisted that the Parliament was in charge and his role was just ceremonial.
Therefore getting rid of Qajar and that “annoying” parliament was their first priority (the Parliament annoyed the British first in 1907 as I mentioned it before).
However, they had a big obstacle ahead of them: The Iranian constitution which gave Irans monarchy to the Qajar dynasty. Their (the British) plan was very shrewed: They would get the Parliament to make a regime change from monarchy to Republic and then of course Reza Khan would be “elected” (!!!) as the new president and then after a very short time they would declare that the country is not still ready for the republican ideas, and they would switch back to monarchy, with this time Reza Khan being the “monarch”!
Parliament of course knew what was going on, furthermore if they were to vote for such a change of regime (ie. annulment of the constitution) they would have also annuled their own parliamentarian position too (which was only valid due to the existing constitution.) Furthermore the main idea behind the pro-republic jig was fairly well known to people too, and the MPs didn’t want to go against their own electorate’s will.
So no it was NOT the conservative “mollahs” it was the Parliament and the majority of Iranians who were against the idea because they all knew what was actually going on!
In fact pretty much ALL INTELLECTUALS who in fact in their hearts were radical republicans were lobbying AGAINST this republic idea supported by Reza Khan and the British, because they KNEW very well what was going on.
The result was that Reza Khan brought the army to the parliament (can you imagine??) to force the MPs to do what he wanted. In reaction people poured into the Parliament and got into fight with the armed forces (which were under the control of Reza Khan/British). Therefore Reza Khan had to retreat from his demand “temporarily”.
I really think we are going off topic here. If you are this interested in our early 20th century history I can point you to some references (but I am not sure if they have been translated into English).
One last thing: This version of pseudohistory is the pure BS which is only supported by the likes of half-a-million-dollar-man called Ganji (Kooshy my friend, WAY TO GO! EXCELLENT NAME SELECTION! I admire your witticism so much!)
Eric A. Brill,
“How would you answer the last question if Ahmadinejad had lost, his supporters had taken to the streets in protest, and the Iranian police had cracked down on them exactly as they cracked down on Mousavi’s supporters? How do you think the US would have reacted in that event – would Iran still have “lost a genuine opportunity to bury the hatchet with the Americans?”
- If that crackdown received that kind of TV coverage in America and those protestors were portrayed in that kind of sympathetic light, then yes.
- Are you saying that the American policy makers acted wrongly? Since the election was fair and the crackdown was necessary to restore order the Americans should have just kept to their earlier expressed desire to have “change” in their relations with Iran? I never passed judgment on the actions of the Americans and so I don’t really know what exactly you are trying to argue with me. I merely point out how the Americans reacted. And that after those images began to air it became nearly politically impossible for Obama then to have a fundamental rapprochement with Iran. That is why I said that this episode hurt Iran’s foreign relations.
- Is your criticism of that point that Iran should not be faulted for the missed opportunity because these events were beyond Iran’s control and the government only acted in a “necessary” manner?
Eric A. Brill,
Sorry, the CBS video is not what I had saved. (Although in it Mirdamadi tells Elizabeth there will be trouble if Mousavi is not elected).
I’ll let you know the URL of CBS video I had in mind after I find it in my notes.
Eric A. Brill,
Your great investigative report on “Iran 2009 Presidential Election” is a devastating document refuting enormous volumes of deceitful articles describing the election as “rigged or fraudulent”.
( iran2009presidentialelection dot blogspot dot com/ )
It forced the aggressive, assertive corrupt media to re-label the election from “fraudulent” to “disputed”. Many of the less corrupt ones stopped repeating their false accusations.
I, as a fervent anti-war person salute you full heartedly for that extremely valuable work. I have no doubt your report will enlighten the conscientious people now and in the coming generations on the ruthlessness and mendacity of present time brazen warmongering camp.
However I wish…
I wish you, with your rational and authentic style have also investigated “Who were those who fabricated that big lie? Who were those who fomented the riots? and so on”.
When I read this post ( counterpunch dot org/roberts06162009.html), watch this CBS video ( youtube dot com/watch?v=mfl9Tguoc_8&feature=fvw ) and this video
( youtube dot com/watch?v=Nhp6d3qU2z4 ) I could see the first clue.
The CBS video was recorded couple of ‘days before’ June 12 and the second video couple of ‘hours before’ closing the polls. I think the above three evidences are very telling.
I am sure there are 100s of similar documents on the Internet….too bad I have quite a few disabilities and am not qualified to assuredly expose the culprits.
You have all those abilities and qualities…..I wish you consider to take the task…it is a historical one.
Look at who Campus Watch/Daniel Pipes has up as their Howler of the Month?
http://www.campus-watch.org/
Hillary “The point of the seminar is not to get the students to think like me, it is to help the students think more clearly and rigorously for themselves.”
And it is clear that Micheal Ledeen, Michal Rubin, Charlotte Allen and others want to be able to continue to repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran without anyone getting in the way with facts or legitimate questions. They clearly do not want these students or the American public to hear the Iranian President for themselves. Or for people to listen to his speech at the UN or Charlie Rose’s interview with the Iranian President.
So clear that these warmongers are resistant to comparative information and do not care if what they are repeating has no factual basis. They have a dangerous agenda and Flynt and Hillary Mann as well as others (Juan Cole, Bacevich etc) are getting in the way
They want the public to hear their interpretations and misrepresentations. Period.
Hillary your students are very fortunate to have such a teacher.
I keep wondering when any of the MSM (Rachel maddow, Olbermann, Chris Matthews will have both Flynt and Hillary on their programs to discuss the situation with Iran?
Some historical documents (Farsi and English) about Iran can be found at http://iichs.org/index_en.asp?id=696&doc_cat=25
The Institute for Iranian Contemporary Historical Studies (IICHS)
The archives of the institute hold public and private collections, memoirs of prominent individuals in various languages, historical slides and films and official decorations belonging to the Qajar and Pahlavi Dynasties as well as tens of thousands of photographs of Iranian and foreign dignitaries, events and buildings. This collection, which is being kept up-to-date through new acquisitions from local and international sources, has been catalogued and computerized, ready to be used by researchers.
Nasser,
“I simply stated how this episode (you seem to make a distinction between the election itself and the whole event) adversely affected Iran’s foreign relations, particularly with the United States – which it undoubtedly did or otherwise you and others wouldn’t spend so much time on it. I simply pointed this out but apparently now you don’t find this to be at all relevant.”
I do indeed “make a distinction between the election itself and the whole event” – assuming that “whole event” includes the post-election protests and the government’s reaction to them. In fact, that distinction was pretty much my whole point.
When you wrote that “the important thing about that election was not so much which candidate won or lost but that the Iranians lost a genuine opportunity to bury the hatchet with the Americans,” I naturally wondered how the election had figured into your conclusion that the Iranians had lost this genuine opportunity. I had noted from one of your earlier comments that a Mousavi victory might have made the US like Iran more. That too made me wonder whether the election itself had figured into your conclusion that the Iranians had lost this genuine opportunity.
It occurred to me, frankly, that your point was that the Iranians had lost this “genuine opportunity” by not electing the US’ preferred candidate. Or perhaps they’d lost it because the government’s reaction to the post-election protests had been inappropriate because the protesters were merely protesting a fraudulent election.
If you’re arguing simply that the government’s crackdown on post-election protesters was excessive without regard to what they were protesting, I’ll concede that I don’t claim to have an answer to that question, and never have. I have long been a strong supporter of free expression, but I also recognize the need to maintain law and order. I suspect I’d draw the line not far from where you would – if anything, more toward the “free expression” end of the spectrum. But I’d draw a line.
Are you saying that no line should be drawn? Or that a line should be drawn but it was drawn in the wrong place? If the latter, are you saying that because of what the protesters were protesting, or would you say it regardless of that?
Here’s probably the best test: How would you answer the last question if Ahmadinejad had lost, his supporters had taken to the streets in protest, and the Iranian police had cracked down on them exactly as they cracked down on Mousavi’s supporters? How do you think the US would have reacted in that event – would Iran still have “lost a genuine opportunity to bury the hatchet with the Americans?”
In Obama’s address to the people of Iran, broadcast by the BBC, the US president said: “[T]he Iranian government has said. . .it’s more important for [Iran] to . . . engage in a covert nuclear weapons programme. . . than it is to make sure our people are prospering.” Who, among the group of incompetent Obama advisers, put that line into the president’s address? Obama is aware the CIA has no intelligence the Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. So, why would he say outright it in effect is a known fact, that Iran is building nuclear weapons? Got to please the Israel lobby, and idiot Democrats in the US Congress (in addition to idiot Republicans)?
Pirouz_2,
Are you contending the conservative religious leaders in Persia did not block the republic favored by Reza Khan?
I recommend Melvin A. Goodman’s comments on Bob Woodward’s new book, Obama’s Wars.
http://www.truth-out.org/bob-woodwards-obamas-wars-and-importance-reportage63831
“Woodward. . .reveal[s] a startling lack of wisdom, vision and leadership” on the Obama team – - especially Hillary Clinton and Bob Gates.
Dear James;
I give up. Believe and say anything you want. :-)
M.Ali,
“Nothing you have offered is a solution. You’ve just basically said, try to appeal more to western desires of a third-world uncle tom and we’ll see in a few years if you’re talking to. Give me a PLAN and a workable SOLUTION, not vague, generic changes that has no or very little affect on the US-Iran relationship.”
- I gave you a plan. Alter your relations to Israel by backing the Saudi Peace Plan and show an openness to change by ceasing the extremist rhetoric and showing a greater willingness to cooperate. Or you can just go on as before.
kooshy and Pirouz_2,
Google Reza Shah and see a brief bit about his effort to establish a republic in Persia, blocked by the conservative religious leaders. In a way, he became king or shah because it was the only alternative that seemed to him to address the situation adequately.
kooshy,
Thanks. My understanding is that the British wanted someone with sufficient power to keep the Russians out of Persia, and at little cost to Britain (which had its hands full in Iraq), with protection for British commercial interests in Persia.
The available budget for dealing with the situation in Persia, was very modest.
Eric A. Brill,
How does your point have anything at all to do with the elections? But regardless of who has the better argument on that point, I don’t understand what it has to do with the elections?
- It doesn’t. I thought I already conceded to you that you are right regarding the winner of the election.
“Actually, I think I do, but I’d like to hear you actually say so and defend the point. If you’re simply repeating the stated and unstated argument of very many others, the post-election protests showed that the election was unfair, and the government’s harsh crackdown eliminated what few doubts may have been left. Is that what you’re arguing?”
- No I am not arguing that at all. I wasn’t arguing anything! I thought I already said I didn’t care too much about the election itself. I simply stated how this episode (you seem to make a distinction between the election itself and the whole event) adversely affected Iran’s foreign relations, particularly with the United States – which it undoubtedly did or otherwise you and others wouldn’t spend so much time on it. I simply pointed this out but apparently now you don’t find this to be at all relevant. Then why did you ask me to “elaborate a bit” for?!
More on Iran “mocking” American tragedies,
“President Khatami was among the first to lend his voice to the chorus of world leaders condemning the September eleven attacks : ‘on behalf of the Iranian government and the nation, I condemn the highjacking attempts and terrorist attacks on public centers in American cities which have killed a large number of innocent people.’ 7
Even the conservative media and authorities followed the people by condemning the terrorist acts. A hardliner magazine Siyasat-e-Ruz observed, ‘any act that victimises innocent people, whatever their race or nationality, for achieving the goal of greedy international politics, is severely condemned and is a terrorist and anti-human act.’8 More important, sixty thousand spectators observed a minute of silence during a soccer match in Iran’s Azadi stadium, and hundreds of young Iranians held a candlelit vigil in Tehran for the victims of September 11 attacks.9 Even the routine chants of ‘death to America’ that have become a staple part of Friday prayers in Iran ceased. To exhibit such a degree of unanimity over a foreign policy issue was simply unprecedented in the recent history of the Islamic Republic.
Tehran did not stop there and went a step ahead by offering logistical support to America. Following the US decision to wage war on the Taliban and al-Qaeda, Iran offered the use of its territory to carry out search and rescue missions for American soldiers.10 Iran expressed its willingness even to join the UN-led anti-terror campaign. Former President Akbar Hashami Rafsanjani said, ‘if the United States decides not to impose its own will, we are ready to join the anti-terrorism coalition under the umbrella of the United Nations despite our differences with the United States.’11 Notwithstanding the ‘with us or against us’ atmosphere created by the White House after September 11, that was a remarkable concession on the part of the Islamic Republic. “
Nasser,
“- Back the Saudi Peace Plan. That by itself should be enough”
What has that got to do with anything? So, if Iran backs the Saudi plan, sudenly US would be friendly with Iran? Whats the latest on that anyway? Did it succeed? Is Iran’s lack of support blocking it? It has nothing at all to do with Iran!
“- Quit naming a street dedicated to Sadat’s assassin.”
What has this got to do with US-Iran relationships? This isn’t discussion on Iran-Egypt relationships! Which, by the way, seems that Iran and Egypt are going to resume direct flights after 3 decades, news seems to be very recent.
“- Quit making fun of historical and American national tragedies.”
Which historical and national tragedies has Iran made fun of?
After the aftermath of 9/11, I remember Khatami condeming the attacks (“expressed “deep regret and sympathy with the
victims” )and Iranians holding a moment of silence and candle light vigils.
They also shared intelligence with US.
Ahmedinijad also wanted to pay his respect at Ground Zero a few years back, but there was a ridicolous media backlash.
“If you are gonna demand a response from America’s chief executive how about a
greeting from someone ranked higher than the Iranian president; perhaps
maybe your own chief executive”
You mean, Khameini? He is not involved in such tasks. There is a role for everyone in Iran’s political structure. You don’t see Khameini traveling to UN every year, do you? Why not? Its not his job.
“Quit suggesting such absurd things as “How about if they ask for talks with USA,
both formal if possible and maybe, even a media debate?””
Formal talks is absurd? Or do you mean media debates is absurd?
“When you make attempts to embarrass the US in the international scene when “in case
USA ever asks for a deal over the nuclear issues, and somehow, Iran decides to
engage with third parties to resolve a lot of these issues,” don’t be surprised if
you get zinged”
Why is that an attempt to embarrass US when Iran was finding all available avenues to try to resolve the situation, when US is always talking about how they will exhaust all dipolomatic channels and all that bullshit.
“Quit saying stupid things at the UN!”
Like what? Like every year talking about how they don’t want nuclear weapons and how they think that the world should work together and be more peaceful and all that stuff?
“lose the attitude (it really doesn’t suit such a weak state) and be more
diplomatic”
By lose the attitude you mean be a grovelling Tehrangelese?
Nothing you have offered is a solution. You’ve just basically said, try to appeal more to western desires of a third-world uncle tom and we’ll see in a few years if you’re talking to. Give me a PLAN and a workable SOLUTION, not vague, generic changes that has no or very little affect on the US-Iran relationship.
Paul,
re: your 2:05 am post
The segment of your note on the role of “arms sale” is supported by the following inclusion in Iran-sanctions:
In second (or third?) UNSC resolution against Iran, the country is prohibited to sell arms to other countries.
Nasser,
How does your point have anything at all to do with the elections? One can argue that the Iranian government cracked down too hard on post-election protesters, and someone else can argue that they didn’t (needless to say, both viewpoints have been argued a great deal). But regardless of who has the better argument on that point, I don’t understand what it has to do with the elections?
Actually, I think I do, but I’d like to hear you actually say so and defend the point. If you’re simply repeating the stated and unstated argument of very many others, the post-election protests showed that the election was unfair, and the government’s harsh crackdown eliminated what few doubts may have been left.
Is that what you’re arguing?
Pirousz_2 , James Canning,
Mohammad Gholi Majd is an Iranian-American researcher (historian) who often uses the declassified US documents for writing his books or articles.
His most explosive book is “Great Famine and Genocide in Persia 1919-1917″. The book is about a tragic ‘holocaust’ when 8 to 10 million Iranians were (deliberately?) exterminated by the occupying British.
About the subject you are discussing three of his other books could interest both of you:
1- From Qajar to Pahlavi: Iran 1919-1930.
2- Persia in WWI and its Conquest by Great Britain.
3- Great Britain and Reza Shah, the Plunder of Iran 1921-1941.
On the topics of “Foreign influence and Shah the stooge of the West” I think:
1- Since 19th century, the foreigners have played major (decisive) covert role in the internal affairs of Iran. Since they were covert we would never know the exact nature and significance of those interventions.
As an example, I have heard convincing accounts of the instigation of 1979 revolution by foreigners ( and/or its diversion to an Islamic state). I am convinced some of the members of the ‘Revolution Council’ were citizens or spies of foreigners. (To me the joke of “Mossad, CIA and MI6 knew about the decisions of the Council well before they were reported to Khomeini” is more than a joke, it might represent a harsh reality)
I have reasons to believe even today, too many individuals in Iran have covert ties with foreign agencies.
2- Most probably up to early 70s Shah was a consistent stooge of those who installed him to the throne. How Iran was run and the contracts signed with foreigners are clear proof of that assertion. Some of his remarks from 1974 onward (about the influence of Jews in US, or what he would do after termination of Amini Oil Pact in 1979 or his crazy books on Iran) must have caused concern in the West /Israel on the low level of his obedience in the coming years
Shah was ever-increasingly more delusional and more megalomaniacal. From mid 70s onward he must have been reluctant to take orders, thus I think the degree of his slavishness was not constant, it was ever-decreasing.
Eric A. Brill,
“Can you elaborate a bit?”
- Certainly. As I wrote to Persian Gulf earlier: “But you are right, in America there was a genuine hope for a breakthrough with Iran. There was a sense that the Bush years were really really bad, the Islamic Republic is democratic enough (the Leveretts had a lot to do with this perception) and 30 years of ostracization is punishment enough. What was geopolitically significant was that the US wanted to draw down from Iraq, and Russia had recently invaded Georgia and the US thought maybe they could use help from Iran in these two theaters and perhaps maybe in Afghanistan. None of these conditions really apply today. Had Mousavi or just someone more agreeable than Ahmedinejad won [and the crackdown not followed] I am sure relations between Iran and the US would have improved. But after the scenes of street demonstrations began to air this was no longer possible.”
- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/12/obama-excited-about-iranian-election/
The mood was set. But after what happened next no way in hell could he have turned around and said to the American people, “hey these guys aren’t so bad”
- You might also want to read Bussed-in Basiji’s last post to have a completely different take. It seems some Iranians are not too keen to “bury the hatchet.”
James, you may want to Google for General Ironside to have a better understanding of british involvement in 1921 coup.
Field Marshal William Edmund Ironside. 1st Baron Ironside of Archangel and Ironside (b. Edinburgh, 6th May, 1880; d. London, 22nd September, 1959) was the second child of Surgeon-Major William Ironside, and was educated at Tonbridge School. He was a British military figure, who served as Chief of the Imperial General Staff during World War II, but is noted for his important role as commander of British forces in Persia in 1920-1921.
In 1920 Ironside served with the British forces in Izmit, Turkey. He commanded some 6000 British forces in Persia (NORPERFORCE) with headquarters in Qazvin from 4 October 1920 to 18 February 1921. Ironside’s four and a half months in Persia were known primarily for two accounts. First, his role in the discharge of more than a hundred Russian officers and NCOs of the Cossack Division and their replacement by Persians under the command of Reza Khan, founder of the Pahlavi dynasty; and second, his encouragement of Reza Khan’s coup d’etat of 1921.
Bussed-in Basiji (Nasser-ud-din),
“…which was the case during the Pahlavi years and is the case currently for many Arab Persian Guilf states.”
- American friends are doing just fine. They are rich and have access to all the modern weapons they can wish for. Most rational people (which would exclude most Iranians) think that to be a pretty sweet deal.
“Maybe if you talk to some of the people who were tortured during the Pahlavi era in the presence of CIA and Mossad people who might begin to understand why the hatchet is not going to bet buried for a while.”
- Yes torture. That and going after people’s families has been in Iranian nature since forever. Its going on now, went on during the Pahlavi era and was there long before that. How about you take some self responsibility instead of blaming all this on Western intelligence agencies.
“Maybe if you talk with some of the veterans from the war coughing up their lungs (if they can even talk) who have photos of US officers “inspecting” the battlefield after a chemical attack, you might understand why the hatchet is not going to be buried for a while.”
- The US was in no way responsible for those chemical attacks. Most of the substantial help to Iraq came from the Soviet Union and France. Yet Iran has relations with these countries; as it should.
“In fact, Iranians are doing the exact opposite of being victims by building up their military, terchnological, research and economic capabilities.”
- Actually they are blowing most of their money on wasteful consumption patterns and social welfare system. Reverse engineering a bunch of obsolete weapons from the 60s and 70s is not technologically impressive.
“Unlike vivtims they have learned form the past and are now ready to defend if they are attacked.” You said in an earlier post: “Besides you seem to really think that the US and Israel can do somenthing? Watching too much FOXnews and Hollywood movies?”
- It is really sad how eager you seem for a confrontation. Especially after having a ring side view of what the US did to a country that kicked Iran’s ass for eight years.
M.Ali,
“Nasser, I’m very interested in what course of action would you prefer Iran to take to be BFF with USA?”
- Back the Saudi Peace Plan. That by itself should be enough
- Quit naming a street dedicated to Sadat’s assassin.
- Quit making fun of historical and American national tragedies.
- If you are gonna demand a response from America’s chief executive how about a
greeting from someone ranked higher than the Iranian president; perhaps
maybe your own chief executive
- Quit suggesting such absurd things as “How about if they ask for talks with USA,
both formal if possible and maybe, even a media debate?”
- When you make attempts to embarrass the US in the international scene when “in case
USA ever asks for a deal over the nuclear issues, and somehow, Iran decides to
engage with third parties to resolve a lot of these issues,” don’t be surprised if
you get zinged
- Quit saying stupid things at the UN!
- lose the attitude (it really doesn’t suit such a weak state) and be more
diplomatic
An article published last week in Israeli daily Haaretz had suggested that Israel could kidnap President Ahmadinejad when he visits Lebanon….
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/israel-threatens-to-kidnap-ahmadinejad/
Dear James;
I will try and explain this one last time for you. If you still don’t understand my position then I give up because I dont know how else explain it to you, so this is my last message to you on this particular subject:
1)THE QAJAR DYNASTY DID NOT (I REPEAT DID NOT) COLLAPSE BY ITSELF LIKE A HIP OF POTATOES. IT WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY THE BRITISH!!!! THEY (THE BRITISH) BROUGHT IT DOWN AND THEY INSTALLED REZA SHAH IN ITS STEAD.
I DON’T KNOW HOW ELSE I CAN MAKE IT ANY CLEARER.
2)MOLLAHS WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO DEMAND A “DIDDLEY SQUAT” LET ALONE MONARCHY INSTEAD OF REPUBLIC! REZA SHAH DID WHATEVER THE HELL THE BRITISH COMMANDED HIM TO DO AND RULED WITH AN IRON FIST BRUTALLY SUPPRESSING ANY OPPOSITION.
3)WHAT IS THE POINT OF HAVING A REPUBLIC WHEN THERE IS ALREADY A PARLIAMENTARIAN DEMOCRACY IN THE COUNTRY. AT THE TIME OF THE BRITISH COUP THERE WAS ALREADY A PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY IN IRAN!
4) THE BRITISH DID DO THEIR BEST TO DIVIDE IRAN INTO THREE AND GUESS TO WHOM THE NORTHERN PART WAS GOING??? TO THOSE EVIL RUSSIANS!! THE ONLY THING WHICH STOPPED THEM WAS THE FIRST IRANIAN “PARLIAMENT” WHICH ACTED AS A SOVREIGN STATES PARLIAMENT WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE ONLY TO ITS OWN PEOPLE. THAT WAS WHEN THE SEEDS OF THE MILITARY COUP WHICH BROUGHT REZA KHAN INTO POWER WERE SOWN. AND GUESS WHAT HAPPENED? REZA KHAN CAME TO POWER AND WE STARTED LOSING TERRITORY AFTER TERRITORY LEFT AND RIGHT!
Nasser, I’m very interested in what course of action would you prefer Iran to take to be BFF with USA?
I’ve had this discussion with several Iranians who seem to blame Iran for everything. I’m interested how exactly can Iran, since it seems that only Iran is the trouble-maker, resolve the differences?
Would you say that they should suspend the nuclear activities for a few years as a sign of confidence building? How about helping them in a neighboring country is America is ever attacked by a terrorist action and wants to pursue it? If this happens, its possible that USA will thank then and its highly doubtful they would demonize and threaten Iran right after it, right? How about in the next US elections, the Iranian President sends a congratulation letter to the new American president, do you think that would help? How about if, maybe as a new, untried strategy, Iran’s future president writes several letters to the US President, I’m sure that would certainly get a response, right? How about if they ask for talks with USA, both formal if possible and maybe, even a media debate? In case USA ever asks for a deal over the nuclear issues, and somehow, Iran decides to engage with third parties to resolve a lot of these issues, its possible that USA will act positively towards it and they will certainly not suddenly impose sanctions on Iran and instead use the discussion as a springboard for honest, negotiations?
Nasser,
“I thought the important thing about that election was not so much which candidate won or lost but that the Iranians lost a genuine opportunity to bury the hatchet with the Americans.”
Interesting comment. Can you elaborate a bit?
Bussed-In Basiji:
Mr. Obama’s diplomatic outreach has also failed with Syria, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.
It is not the messenger, it is the message.
When we talk about Mousavi, I suspect we would be better off recognizing that we are really talking about a toxic blend of the CIA with Rafsanjani.
Right. How can Iran bury America’s hatchet? Obviously, as everyone knows, they can’t. Only we can do that.
Nasser,
As the global strategist that you are you know very well that the problems between Iran and US and “burying the hatchet” have very little to do with Mousavi, Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Khomeini etc. The differences are about the US losing power in one the 4 key countries of the ME (Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi). The US prefers people like Khatami and Mousavi because US policy-makers (rightly or wrongly) believe that these characters are more likely to roll over for the US than people like Ahmadinejad.
The US doesn’t care if Iran is a secular democracy, a Wahabi absolute monarchy or a socicalist state. It only cares about Iran getting in line with US military and economic strategy in the region. “Burying the hatchet” for Iran effectively means subsuming your nationall interests to that of the US- which was the case during the Pahlavi years and is the case currently for many Arab Persian Guilf states. In that sense, the majority of the Iranians want the hatchet to be out and not buried for a few more generations (long after me and you are gone).
Maybe if you talk to some of the people who were tortured during the Pahlavi era in the presence of CIA and Mossad people who might begin to understand why the hatchet is not going to bet buried for a while. Maybe if you talk with some of the veterans from the war coughing up their lungs (if they can even talk) who have photos of US officers “inspecting” the battlefield after a chemical attack, you might understand why the hatchet is not going to be buried for a while. Of course according to you its all the Iranians fault, who just dwell on the past, on victimhood.
In fact, Iranians are doing the exact opposite of being victims by building up their military, terchnological, research and economic capabilities. Unlike vivtims they have learned form the past and are now ready to defend if they are attacked. Doesn’t sound like victimhood to me.
Eric A. Brill,
“You’re avoiding (one is tempted to say “evading”) the main question here: Do the two passages you and I have quoted not undercut your “ballot boxes on a camel” cartoon, or don’t they?”
- You got me. I have no way of proving that they just pulled those results out of their asses or that a rapid vote count was impossible. I therefore have to admit that you are right.
“Can you honestly cling to the “fraudulent election” belief you claim to hold if you’ve really examined the election as closely as someone of your caliber ought to?”
- Ok Eric I’ll be honest. I never really examined the election, “closely” or otherwise. I didn’t really care (still don’t), which is why I never commented on it before. I thought the important thing about that election was not so much which candidate won or lost but that the Iranians lost a genuine opportunity to bury the hatchet with the Americans.
Charlotte Allen asked:
“You and your husband, Flynt Leverett, have worked tirelessly over the past few years in op-ed articles and on your website “Race for Iran”…”
I just noticed another possible error in Ms. Allen’s question: I suspect Hillary and Flynt would say that all this gets rather tiring at times.
The Latest person to declare that the Green Movement is now dead, is none other than the half million dollar man himself, Agha (sir) Akbar Gangi (Gangi means, the one who has the treasure, how becoming)
http://www.farsnews.net/newstext.php?nn=8907120805
Pirouz_2,
During the collapse of the Qajar dynasty, there were contending schemes swirling around ruling circles in Britain. Put a different prince on the throne? Bring in a new dynastry from abroad? Create a new one in Iran? Have a republic? The mullahs did not want a republic. So, what were the other choices at hand?
Pirouz_2,
I am very much aware of the events of 1907. And do you contend the Russians did not in effect crush the constitutional changes in Iran?
In the Ottoman Empire, a so-called constitution was adopted in 1908, but by 1911 a military dictatorship was in place.
Is it your position the British did not do their best to keep the Russians from taking over Iran? Obviously, part of the British motive was to protect the oil concession.
Liz,
Bravo! Yes, the arrogance and stupidity of Ariel Sharon has proved a disaster for the entire Middle East. How many trillions of dollars have been, and will be, squandered by the US, in no small part due to the foolish actions of Sharon?
Paul,
Why do you describe Russia and China as “UN Security Council enemies of Iran”? How can this make sense? And for that matter, when the British PM and foreign minister make clear Iran is not seen by the UK as an “enemy”, why do you describe the UK as an enemy of Iran?
Nasser,
You’re avoiding (one is tempted to say “evading”) the main question here: Do the two passages you and I have quoted not undercut your “ballot boxes on a camel” cartoon, or don’t they? Can you honestly cling to the “fraudulent election” belief you claim to hold if you’ve really examined the election as closely as someone of your caliber ought to?
Persian Gulf:
In fact, the Azeri areas of Iran were quite quiet after 2009 elections.
Iranian,
“How about Rick Sanchez, Helen Thomas, Octavia Nasr, the Brooklyn businessman Javed Iqbal, Seyed Mahmood Mousavi…? and the hypocrites worry about human rights in Iran.”
I agree completely, although I’ve never heard of Javed Iqbal or Seyed Mahmood Mousavi.
Eric A. Brill,
“I miss your point in quoting the additional passage from my piece, without comment from you. Doesn’t that make the same point as the passage I’d quoted, and undercut the misleading message of your “ballot boxes on a camel” cartoon?”
- Yes sorry. One thing in particular jumps out.
“Nor would they pointlessly ruffle the feathers of the pre-determined loser by misleading him to believe he had won.” – Why not? That sure made him look like an idiot.
Nasser,
My apology for thinking you had participated in those discussions. It’s never too late, though.
I miss your point in quoting the additional passage from my piece, without comment from you. Doesn’t that make the same point as the passage I’d quoted, and undercut the misleading message of your “ballot boxes on a camel” cartoon?
Eric A. Brill,
I don’t remember us having a discussion on this issue at all. Or with anyone for that matter.
I have read your blog though and yes this segment as well:
“This charge almost certainly has no merit. Most obvious, any election-riggers worth their salt would wait for the “cover” of a completed vote count before announcing that their preferred candidate had prevailed.Nor would they pointlessly ruffle the feathers of the pre-determined loser by misleading him to believe he had won. Most important, the timing of these announcements provided no support for Mousavi’s key argument: that the premature announcement was proof of fraud because 40 million ballots could not have been counted so quickly. The Interior Ministry’s job was not to count ballots (see above), but rather to tabulate the field counts reported by 45,692 polling stations, a far less time-consuming task. The field counts certainly could have been completed well before the morning announcement, and routinely had been in previous elections. After all, election-evening field counts were conducted simultaneously at 45,692 polling stations across Iran, in nearly all cases under the watchful eyes of opposition observers.”
Nasser,
You linked to the “ballot boxes on a camel” cartoon (http://www.anchorrising.com/Hall%20Iran%20Election.jpg) that so many 2009 election-doubters feel is proof of election fraud. I had understood from our exchanges a few months ago that you’d moved beyond that level of understanding of how votes were counted. In case I’m mistaken, you should consider this passage from my longer piece on the election (or click on my name to read the whole thing):
“The ballot box is not delivered to the Interior Ministry, even if a recount occurs. Many analysts mistakenly believed that the 45,692 ballot boxes in the 2009 election were to be physically transported to Tehran for counting – under “police escort” in some accounts, sometimes with stop-overs at “local wards” and “provincial committees,” and even with multiple observers along for the ride. Some analysts even considered it evidence of fraud that Mousavi observers had been barred from riding along on these imaginary journeys to Tehran.”
Bussed-In Basiji:
You are right of course.
Minus the harrassment of young women who stick their pants’ legs into their booths.
And the absence of the Rule of Law.
Nasser-jan,
I really feel sorry for you. Whenever you are making sweeping generalizatins about “Iranians this and that” you are also talking about yourself.
During the Pahlavi era, there was an attempt by the British and the US together with the secularized, westernized elites in Iran to define Iran as a “western”, secular country. It didn’t work. It didn’t work because it was not based on a realistic understanding of what Iran and who Iranians are. Opposed to that was a vision of Iran as part of the Muslim and third world which was closer to the reality of Iran. Of course like in every developing country there are elites who are thoroughly socialized in the politically, economically and militarily dominat western culture. Of course these types of people also exist in Iran but they are not representative of Iran.
I recommned to you to get over this one issue because it is an issue that was solved thirty yeears ago in Iran. We are now building society based on our own culture- with all the joys and difficulties this process has. As I told you earlier your views on this issue are not really relevant to the reality in Iran today (maybe they are among some exiles).
Also your “feelings” about the elections are totally irrelevant. When you claim a major thing such as fraud, you have to prove it- not just what your “feeling” is. You seem so upset about the irrationality of Iranians, well a rational person offers proof, an irrational person “feels” there was fraud. Again, there was no fraud, the vast majority of Iranians voted for Mahmoud-jan (may God protect him) and the vast majority of Iranians want an Islamic Republic and the vast majority of Iranians do not trust the US and westerners for good historical reasons. As Mahmoud-jan said to Aghaye Larry “We have developed since we became independent from the US, when we were dependent on the US we were underdeveloped”.
Also it was not necessary for you to answer the main question put to you about class differences as you unfortunately made your views about poor and rural people abundantly clear in a previous post. Again, if you are young please reconsider your views, these views are ethically no different than the views of racists.
Also, Iran has cordial relations with most countries in the world and only when we don’t want dance to the tune of the US and Israel do you throw out b.s. such as Iran wants EXTREME independence. If not wanting to dance to the tune of the US and Israel is wanting EXTREME independence then yes, we want EXTREME (sorry the fonts don’t get bigger than this) independence. Besides you seem to really think that the US and Israel can do somenthing? Watching too much FOXnews and Hollywood movies? Well if you knew something about Iranian history after the revolution you would know what Imam said about what America can and can’t do.
Please go back and read some of things I wrote about how Iranian society has developed positiviley in the last thirty years and just for a moment reflect on it.
I told you in a previous post, that in my humble estimation the US and Israel will attack and at that time, you and every other Iranian will have to pick sides. In my generation I saw the poor, ignorant, arrogant fools who sided with the enemies of their own country and who are now leading navel-gazing exile lives in London, Paris, LA and who will never be relevant to their country for the rest of their pathetic lives. They themselves know best the price you have to pay for making a stupid decision in one’s youth. Learn from their experience and don’t make the same mistake.
Liz
How about Rick Sanchez, Helen Thomas, Octavia Nasr, the Brooklyn businessman Javed Iqbal, Seyed Mahmood Mousavi…? and the hypocrites worry about human rights in Iran.
This is the main reason why the region has beeen in a mess for decades:
http://english.aljazeera.net/photo_galleries/middleeast/2010103132115872256.html
Paul,
- Iran does have a notion of extreme independence. It is similar to how North Korea calls South Korea a colony.
“Isn’t this the real point for the US, UK, France, Russia, China – and add Germany and Israel – that’s pretty much a rundown of all the big weapons traders of the world – isn’t it? If other nations started manufacturing their own weapons, the big seven would be out a lot of trade.”
- Iran would very much like to have access to advanced weapons such as the S-300 which it would not get.
A very painful read:
http://english.aljazeera.net/photo_galleries/middleeast/2010103132115872256.html
James Canning,
“I am a bit fascinated by your sense of grievance.”
- Fascinates me too. This angry victimhood. Seeing conspiracies everywhere and extreme suspicion of Westerners. The Turks got over it and moved on with their lives! The Iranians can’t seem to be able to do this. I think this has a lot to do with their sense of self importance.
Quite untrue that Iranians have a notion of ‘extreme independence”; this is, of course, only the perspective of those who refuse to recognize any ‘networking’ amongst nations that isn’t US- oriented. When Ahmadinejad travels to other regional countries, and to Africa and Latin America, quite rationally trying to develop strong interconnections with other countries, trading relationships, etc., this is invariably depicted by those who only recognize US-centered globalism, as some form of Krazed Globetrotting Grandstanding.
But the ridiculous accusation against Iran of wanting ‘extreme independence’ DOES point ominously to one of the things that really bothers Iran’s Security Council enemies (isn’t it time we renamed the Security Council? We should call it the US War Rubber Stamp Section), it would seem: Iran’s relative military independence. Isn’t this the real point for the US, UK, France, Russia, China – and add Germany and Israel – that’s pretty much a rundown of all the big weapons traders of the world – isn’t it? If other nations started manufacturing their own weapons, the big seven would be out a lot of trade.
Persian Gulf,
“it also seems that the re-elected of president Ahmadinejad had a great impact on your views and enmity toward IR. it has made you quite obsessed with whatever Iran’s system of governance does these days.”
- No, I don’t think so. Unlike most anti IRI types I usually don’t make a distinction between Iran and the Islamic Republic. I stopped believing in the mythical moderate democratic majority long ago. I always said that the heart of the problem when it comes to Iranians misbehaving on the international scene has to do with their self perception of their country that is just not in touch with reality. Iranians have a goal of EXTREME independence which is really absurd. They also can’t seem to be able to keep domestic politics separate from their foreign policy dealings.
“…you might have wished other candidate to come out, probably because Ahmadinejad was hated by American officials (and hard to sell to public consequently).”
- Honestly I really didn’t care. I hate the IRI period. That doesn’t mean I expect some sort of revolution! I found Mousavi and those idiots shouting Khoemini slogans to be just as repulsive as Ahmedinejad. Many of these Green types are hardcore Islamists, hostage takers and such and so definitely not my type.
- But you are right, in America there was a genuine hope for a breakthrough with Iran. There was a sense that the Bush years were really really bad, the Islamic Republic is democratic enough (the Leveretts had a lot to do with this perception) and 30 years of ostracization is punishment enough. What was geopolitically significant was that the US wanted to draw down from Iraq, and Russia had recently invaded Georgia and the US thought maybe they could use help from Iran in these two theaters and perhaps maybe in Afghanistan. None of these conditions really apply today. Had Mousavi or just someone more agreeable than Ahmedinejad won I am sure relations between Iran and the US would have improved. But after the scenes of street demonstrations began to air this was no longer possible.
“if this is true, I have a personal question to ask from you. I have seen many people with that feeling over the past 16 months. why should his re-election be unbelievable (not unacceptable)?”
- Yes I suspect the elections were rigged. I didn’t understand what was so unacceptable about a figure like Mousavi; he seems like an establishment figure and just as radical as anyone else. I admit that this is only a suspicion (though a strong one) and I do not know for sure what really happened. As to why I feel this way, this might have something to do with it: http://www.anchorrising.com/Hall%20Iran%20Election.jpg
“I mean, forgot about fraud allegation and stuff like that. the people I refer to seem to be in a denial mood to even see this guy on the position of power.”
- My overall feelings towards the elections and the Iranian domestic scene are pretty similar to this article. Please don’t let the racial stereotypes throw you off hahaha; it really is a good piece.
exiledonline.com/war-nerd-irans-cedar-show-aka-dont-get-excited-the-protestors-are-just-letting-off-some-steam/
Nasser:
I haven’t read all the many comments you made here. but from the ones I have looked at, you seems to be highly critical of Iran’s foreign policy.
it also seems that the re-elected of president Ahmadinejad had a great impact on your views and enmity toward IR. it has made you quite obsessed with whatever Iran’s system of governance does these days. you might have wished other candidate to come out, probably because Ahmadinejad was hated by American officials(and hard to sell to public consequently).
if this is true, I have a personal question to ask from you. I have seen many people with that feeling over the past 16 months. why should his re-election be unbelievable (not unacceptable)? I mean, forgot about fraud allegation and stuff like that. the people I refer to seem to be in a denial mood to even see this guy on the position of power. if you went to a polling station, why should you not expect his re-election? there were 4 candidates, so, there was 25% chance for each of those guys to be elected. I supported Ahmadinejad in the last election. however, before going to vote, I expected to see any of those name to come out of the ballot boxes at the end. I might not have been happy to see, for example, Karroubi is expected. but the fact that he was one of those 4 gave him the chance of election regardless of my preference. to the eyes of Ahmadinejad’s opponents, this little chance is totally denied. it is as if Ahmadinejad had any little chance of being elected. this makes me really surprised.
for some, the ideology of not seen Ahmadinejad is a very strong and rigid one. I get the feeling that this is a class issue. what do you think? could you explore this a bit?
@James Canning:
Well your understanding is not very correct. If mollahs had any say in the matter, Reza Khan would not have become Reza Shah in the first place. So this idea that somehow it was mollahs who prevented a republic is an absolute non-sense. And later on during the time of Mohammad Reza Shah, uttering the word “republic” was enough to find yourself in one of the torture chambers of SAVAK.
It really doesn’t matter where Ahmad Shah spent his time. Do you care what the Queen of England does?!?!?! What mattered was that he was just a figure head and nothing more and it was the PARLIAMENT which was in charge!!! And that was the case until the British made the coup and brought Reza Shah to power!
Again you are creating some pseudo history in your head regarding the righteous fear of those brave and heroic British who were so worried about Persia being annexed to Russia. What I don’t understand is why you feel it is so hard to just type in the phrase and google: “The Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907″ ????
Here let me do it for you:
“Formally signed by Count Alexander Izvolsky, Foreign Minister of the Russian Empire, and Sir Arthur Nicolson, the British Ambassador to Russia, the British-Russian Convention of 1907 stipulated the following:
1.That Persia would be split into three zones: A Russian zone in the north, a British zone in the southwest, and a neutral “buffer” zone in the remaining land.
2.That Britain may not seek concessions “beyond a line starting from Kasr-i-Shirin, passing through Isfahan, Yezd, Kakhk, and ending at a point on the Persian frontier at the intersection of the Russian and Afghan frontiers.”
3.That Russia must follow the reverse of guideline number two.
4.That Afghanistan was a British protectorate and for Russia to cease any communication with the Emir.”
Does this seem like the British were very worried about Persia being annexed to Russia?!?!?!?
And gues what it was which prevented this convention from realization???
It was the first Iranian majlis (Parliament) which as it’s first act as a Parliament which had been established for the first time, threw that convention back into the British’s face and formally declared it void and unacceptable!
That was when the seeds of the British coup against the “constitutionality” was first sown and that was when the seeds of Reza Khan coming to power through a coup were sown.
The pot (US) calling the kettle (Iran) black
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black/
Pirouz_2,
The last Qajar shah spent most of his time in the country, gathering money to send out of the country. Otherwise he was not in the country.
The British had good reason for concern that Russia would try to annex Persia. After all, many Persian provinces in fact were annexed by Russia over the years.
My understanding is that the mullahs blocked the establishment of a republic. Later, of course, the mullahs grew to resent the shah (and his son). And to plot revolution.
james;
I cant talk right now. for now google and learn a bit about “The Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907″, and see what was the role that the “independent” Iranian “Parliament” played in that affiar. That was when the seeds of the British coup which brought Reza Shah into power were sown.
Talk to you later.
James I am busy right now, I will get back to you a bit later…wait for my reply.
James;
I don’t know how much you know about the history of this region, but:
Reza Shah disposed of mullahs; mullahs simplly were not in a position to demand a “diddly doo” at his time let alone not accepting “republic” and pushing for “monarchy”!!!!
He successfully suppressed Mullah resistance completely and ruled by an iron fist!!
By the way there were a lot of “Mullahs” who were not as reactionary as you think! Ever heard of the name “Yahya Dowlat Abadi”??
And again Qajar did not fall all by themselves like a hip of potatoes! Qajar were DEPOSED by the British coup which brought Reza Shah into power.
And no Iran would not have been occupied by anyone if Iran were to be ruled by its Parliament! Just as it is not occupied today as it is being ruled by a “Tehran” based independent government and not by a foreign satrap!
It is amazing that you say this because Iran was occupied by the Russians from the north and by the British/Americans from the south DURING THE TIME OF REZA SHAH!!
Afghans were able to force the USSR out you think Iranians couldn’t??? Again I dont think you know the history of this region that well: at the time, Pishehvari was not an “unpopular” figure. Most definitely he was not any less popular than the Pahlavi kings in Azarbiajan.
Pirouz_2,
The British wanted to keep the Soviet Union out of Persia, and to protect the oil concession (Anglo-Persian Oil Co., 60 % owned by British government). I am a bit fascinated by your sense of grievance. What if the British were hostile toward the ?Germans, today, on grounds German bombers blew much of London to pieces 60-odd years ago?
Pirouz_2,
Are you claiming the mullahs would have accepted a secular republic in Persian, in the wake of the fall of the Qajars?
Do you think Persia would have been occupied by Russia, if Britain had not prevented this?
Would the Soviet Union have occupied Iran, if the US had not forced the USSR out?
@James Canning:
You say:”Reza Khan favored a republic, modeled along the lines of Turkey. The mullahs refused to accept one, forcing the creation of a replacement dynasty for the collapsed Qajars.
I think historians would say Reza Shah did a fairly good job of dealing with the British regarding Iranian oil. In fact, during the early 1930s, the problem was Anglo-Persian was not producing enough oil – – cutting government revenues.”
I don’t know which historians you are referring to (perhaps you will be kind enough to name a few with where they have said so?).
No D’Arcy was extended during his reign, Iran lost territory and shipping rights during his reign.
D’Arcy was exactly the same agreement which gave pretty much all of our oil revenues to the British. It was that exact agreement which was nullified by Dr. Mosaddegh, (and Shah resisted as much as he could at the cost of killing Iranians when he tried to suppress demonstrations -especially during the 30th of Tir) and that was the reason he was deposed in a military coup to keep the Western satrap in power and keep the Iranian oil under the control of the West.
By the way, Reza Shah was NOTHING even remotely similar to Ataturk, only some people who know absolutely nothing about History of Turkey and Iran claim otherwise.
Once again at the time that Reza Shah was brought to power by a British military coup, Iran already was being ruled by an “elected” parliament. It already had a democratic system. Reza Shah killed that system!
Very contrary to Ataturk who fought against the British (Literally by guns) and commanded Turkish Armies/guerilla forces against the allies from the WWI and created Turkey DESPITE the British who were supporting the last Ottoman king (who was in favoure of Turkey being divided into pieces with him ruling only a small piece surronding Istanbul, and even that under the British rule), Reza Shah was brought to power BY THE BRITISH to end the independeent Iran ruled by the elected Parliament.
Pirouz_2,
I totally agree it would be a catastrophe for the US to try to overthrow the government of Iran – - for any reason. And trying to restore the monarchy by gunpoint would be an act of utter lunacy. But we know there are plenty of fools in Washington trying to overthrow the government of Iran.
Pirouz_2,
I’m not calling for a restoration of the monarchy. My point is that, had the monarchy not been overthrown, it likely would have evolved into a constitutional monarchy. Over time.
Pirouz_2,
The decisive element blocking a republic in the wake of the fall of the Qajar dynasty, was the religious leadership in Persia.
@James Canning;
By the way, Shah’s son is the same thing as his father and Grand father.
I am so surprised that you can still not recognize “Ahmad Chelabi”! One devastating war for your country was not enough for you to learn to recognize “Ahmad Chelabi” and his likes in other countries?!?!?
Pirouz_2,
Reza Khan favored a republic, modeled along the lines of Turkey. The mullahs refused to accept one, forcing the creation of a replacement dynasty for the collapsed Qajars.
I think historians would say Reza Shah did a fairly good job of dealing with the British regarding Iranian oil. In fact, during the early 1930s, the problem was Anglo-Persian was not producing enough oil – - cutting government revenues.
@James Canning;
No Reza Shah became the King because an independent Iran ruled by an “elected” parliament responsible to Iranian nation was NOT acceptable to the West.
It was not about “Republic” vs. “Monarchy”, it was about foreign dependent dictatorship and a colony vs. independent democratic Iran.
At the time of Reza Shah’s coup Iran ALREADY had an “elected” parliament and a real “constitutional” monarchy, in which the monarch was a truly ceremonial figure and nothing more. Reza Shah was the British instrument to kill that already existing system.
fyi,
“I do not understand why the religious dimension of the war in Palestine is so difficult for you and others to grasp.”
- Maybe cause you are imagining things. There was never a pan Islamic conflict. There was a pan Arab conflict which is no more.
- You mistake popular antipathy as war. There were wars in the past. Real actual wars. A large alliance of Arab countries were engaged in actual warfare with Israel. This is no more. Whats happening now is more like a pillow fight (maybe thats why Iran calls it soft war) compared to then.
- Israel has been successful in its Grand strategy of keeping its Arab neighbors divided. The Mubarak regime is an ally against the Gazans and the Hashemite kingdom is an ally against the West Bank Palestinians. And yes given the right price (Lebanon most importantly, also Golan for domestic legitimacy) Syria too can be bought.
fyi,
Syria has made it very clear it will sign a peace treaty with Israel, if Israel gets out of the Golan Heights. Assad says his country would not have friendly relations with Israel, however, while the occupation of the West Bank continues.
Pirouz_2,
The successful establishment of a constitutional monarch, or re-establishment if you prefer, would have been a matter for the late Shah’s son – - who I understand favors constitutional monarchy for Iran.
Reza Shah became king because the Iranian religious leaders blocked the republic. They did not want Iran to follow the secular example set by Turkey.
fyi,
Please remind me why the $1 billion was impounded by the UK.
Arnold Evans:
Syrian cannot and will not sign a peace treaty with Israel unless and untill the Al Haram Al Sharif is in Muslim hands.
The Allawaite sect will not become the Judas of Islam.
I do not understand why the religious dimension of the war in Palestine is so difficult for you and others to grasp.
imho:
There will be no nuclear negogiation this October.
That game is over.
James Canning:
I ask again, if UK is not an enemy of Iran when is she going to release that $ 1 billion?
James;
Asking “what alternative did Shah have, other than doing US/UK’s bidding?” is EXACTLY like asking “what alternative does the Ambassador of US to China have other than complying with the directives of the US foreign affairs ministry?”. Well an ambassador has no other choice but to comply with his country’s foreign affairs ministry, because that is an “ambassador’s” definition. By definition he is subordinate to his country’s foreign ministry. THE AMBASSADOR IS APPOINTED BY THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTRY. AND HE IS APPOINTED PARTICULARLY FOR THAT PURPOSE, TO REPRESENT THE INTEREST OF THAT COUNTRY. As such the US ambassador to China, could not possibly be expected to do what is in China’s interests! He is a representative of US in china and therefore does what is in the best interests of US and not China.
Now that was EXACTLY the situation with the Shah. In fact he was not even the “ambassador” of US/UK in Iran. That contemptible creature (Shah) was only a “subordinate” to the US/UK embassies! That was why he was looking for orders from those embassies on a weekly basis!
Now you say:”I think the late Shah believed constitutional monarch would come to Iran in later years, not during his own reign. And he was probably, if not certainly, correct – – provided the monarchy itself was not overthrown.”
Again I disagree, Shah and his father were the ones who KILLED the constitutional monarchy in Iran. Ok, let me rephrase that, neither he nor his father was in any position to kill anything, they were both “puppets”. So let me rephrase my earlier sentence:
UK (and later on US/UK) killed the constitutional moarchy by making two military coups, one to bring Reza shah into power and the other to keep M. Reza Shah in power.
Before the British coup which brought Reza Shah to power, Iran had a real “constitutional monarchy” exactly the way UK has one today. The King (Ahmad Shah) had no authority and the authority fully rested in the Parliament. Since Parliament did not represent the British interests and instead was responsible to the Iranian nation (and therefore represented our interests), it was got rid of with a military coup and the puppet called “Reza Shah” was brought into power.
Then again similarly in the early 50’s there was a very strong “constitutional” factor in the monarchy. In fact that was the whole argument between Shah and Mosaddegh.
Shah and his court were the “apointees” of US/UK and therefore represented their interests. Mosaddegh on the other hand was the “apointee” of the “people” and therefore represented “people’s” interests.
Result? The 1953 military coup and the execution style single bulloet which was put into the “head” of the constitutional monarchy.
Some naive westerners tend to think that Islamic Republic started in 1979. That is not true. In reality it’s seeds were sown in 1953 when the British/Americans Killed the “constitutional monarchy” in Iran FOR EVER (never to be revived again!).
Shah’s function (which was tailored for him by the West) was NOT to “postpone” the constitutionality of the monarchy, it was to KILL the constitutionality ONCE AND FOR ALL. And indeed he SUCCEEDED in doing that!!
Do you think Syria should not be offering peace to Israel, if Israel ends the occupation of the Golan Heights?
Assad is not a democratic leader and not one who is held directly accountable to his people. On the other hand, he does not seem particularly more pro-Israel than his people and it not supported by Israel’s backers in exchange for restraining anti-Israel impulses of the people under his rule.
If Assad reaches an agreement that could pass a Syrian referendum, he should do so. If he cannot, she should not.
James Canning,
“I agree with you the late Shah blundered by squandering tens of billions of dollars on unncecessary weapons, bought from “the west”. I thought at the time this was a serious error of judgment.”
- As soon as Iran downgraded their military, Saddam pounced!
Arnold,
Do you think Syria should not be offering peace to Israel, if Israel ends the occupation of the Golan Heights?
Pirouz_2,
I agree with you the late Shah blundered by squandering tens of billions of dollars on unncecessary weapons, bought from “the west”. I thought at the time this was a serious error of judgment. For that matter, I think the Gulf monarchies are blundering badly if they squander scores of billions of dollars on unncecessary weapons.
I applaud Iran’s good sense not to waste billions on unnecessary weapons. Contrast this with the idiotic spending on “defence”, by the US! Organized theft on a grand scale, to be sure.
Pirouz_2,
I think the late Shah believed constitutional monarch would come to Iran in later years, not during his own reign. And he was probably, if not certainly, correct – - provided the monarchy itself was not overthrown.
Pirouz_2,
The Soviet Union collapsed almost 20 years ago, and for years before that, it was not in a position to threaten Iran.
Has Iran’s hostility toward the Arab countries worked against the effort to end the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights?
@James Canning:
You are asking what alternatives did the Shah have?
Well your short answer:
His alternative was what Islamic Republic has been doing! Do you see them relying on any foreign power?
The difference is that the “Islamic Republic” is independent and Shah was a puppet!
That is the difference!
@James Canning:
You said: “What alternative was open to the Shah of Iran, for support? The USSR? Shouldn’t one keep in mind that, but for the UK and later the US, the Soviet Union would have occupied Iran?
Didn’t the Shah obtain the highest price possible for Iranian oil?”
What alternatives?!?!? How can you even ask?!?!?! What alternative does the Islamic Republic have? Do you see them asking the “master” what they are supposed to do next??? Shah was brutally prosecuting/murdering any national opposition, on behalf of the west! His father sent all Iranian intellectuals into exile and killed quite a few through assasination. He was the one who extended D’Arcy concession for his masters, he was the one who was brought to power by a British military coup, purging and killing all opposition and murdering the “constitutional monarchy” in Iran!
And when Iranian people rose up and nationalized their oil wealth, it was Shah who acted as a puppet and became the US/UK satrap to come to power with a military coup and bring consortium (effectively killing the result of the Oil Nationalization) in a service to his masters!
He was the one who saved the day for the West by selling oil unrestricted when arabs were trying to put an oil embargo on the west in the 70’s.
He was the one which destroyed Iran’s economy to serve his masters and created a uni-product colonial economy which was dependent on the west for EVERYTHING from basic food, to medicine with NO PRODUCT EXCEPT OIL.
You don’t seem to have got my point: Shah was BROUGHT TO POWER by the West, he was kept in power by the West, and very naturally he was doing ONLY what he was told to the letter! And then you ask what other alternatives did he have? It is like asking
what alternative does a hired killer have except fulfilling his contract? A contract killer BY DEFINITION is puppet and does what he is PAID to do! If he were to be independent he would not become a “contract” killer to begin with! “contract killer” means “puppet”!
I told you this a few times before but perhaps you didnt read it? IT IS NOT ABOUT SELLING THE OIL, NO ONE IS GOING TO LET THAT OIL AGE UNDER THE GROUND! IT IS ABOUT WHAT YOU DO WITH THE REVENUE! DO YOU BUY WESTERN MILITARY CRAP WHICH ARE GOOD FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, OR WILL YOU SPEND IT ON EDUCATION, ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION, SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (AS ISLAMIC REPUBLIC HAS BEEN DOING) AND HEALTH CARE? THAT IS WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE!
Don’t you know that the biggest buyer of the venezuelan oil is USA? if it were about just selling the oil right now US/Venezuela relationship should have been just fine and dandy!
James, you’ve already read my position, which is that Sadat’s demands were different and less difficult for Israel to meet Egypt’s demands would have been if Egypt’s leadership was accountable to its people.
Arnold,
Sadat was demanding that Israel get out of the Sinai entirely. Is your position that Egypt should not have made peace with Israel, even if Israel met Egypt’s demands, in order to attempt to force the Israelis to end the occupation of the West Bank, and Gaza?
Do you think Syria should not be offering peace to Israel, if Israel gets out of the Golan Heights?
Pirouz_2,
What alternative was open to the Shah of Iran, for support? The USSR? Shouldn’t one keep in mind that, but for the UK and later the US, the Soviet Union would have occupied Iran?
Didn’t the Shah obtain the highest price possible for Iranian oil?
This was a quote:
Personally, I never much cared whether Israel’s neighbors were democratic so long as they were willing to live in peace with Israel.
Jordan, for instance, is not a democracy in the western sense but it is precisely the kind of neighbor Israel needs. Egypt is not a democracy but is at peace with Israel. A democratic Egypt probably would not be. So let’s lay the democratic crusade aside (which, of course, we do anyway if we don’t like the choices made by the voters in these various countries).
Do you think a majority of Egyptians believe Sadat should not have made peace with Israel, to end the occupation of the Sinai?
I make that guess with a lot of confidence. It is a guess that could be verified with elections. The US support for Sadat’s and Mubarak’s denial of political rights to their people is based on US policymakers making the same guess.
I’m reminded of supposedly liberal Zionist MJ Rosenberg’s position on Egyptian democracy:
I don’t have a specific poll taken the year of Sadat’s treaty, but the common assumption on both sides is that Sadat’s decision was not supported by the Egyptian people.
A democratic Egypt today would certainly be more hostile to Israel and more friendly with the Palestinians, including and especially Hamas, than the authoritarian Mubarak regime. Which is why the US supports the authoritarian Mubarak regime.
“Why do you waste your time talking to people who are not worth it?”
Good point. I keep telling myself that.
@James Canning:
RE: you message on October 2, 2010 at 1:35 pm
James,
I can go on and on for page after page to give you each and every act of Shah as a western “puppet” but for now the following should suffice:
1) Shah was brought to power by the British/US who disposed of his father in 1941.
2) He was kept in power by the 1953 coup, after which he openly thanked US/UK and said that he owed his “crown” to them.
3) He kept selling Iranian oil during the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, when Arabs were trying to pressure west by an oil embargo. HE SAVED THE DAY FOR THE WEST.
4) According to the explicit statement of the British ambassador to Iran in 1978-79 (in an interview with BBC), Shah on a weekly basis was calling the UK embassy, and ask for orders on what he should do in the face of the 1978 revolution.
If a monarch’s calling a foreign embassy to recieve his weekly orders, does not mean being a “puppet”, would you be kind enough to tell me, what is the meaning of the word “puppet”?
@Richard Steven Hack;
RE:your message on October 2, 2010 at 7:07 am
First, I am glad to see both you and Eric back. Welcome back.
Second: Why do you waste your time talking to people who are not worth it?
When I talk to someone, I do so for one of the following reasons:
a) I think he maybe able to teach me something, which would require him to know a bit more than I do.
b) I maybe able to teach him something, which would requie in turn for him to have the good will to learn
c) A combination of a and b
d) He doesn’t have a good will, and he means harm, and furthermore he is smart and knowledgeable enough to fool people and gather supporters for his own agenda, then I will try to talk to him and expose him.
In case of the Greens/Royalists/MEK, I can tell you straight away:
1)They are IGNORANT, so they cannot teach me anything.
2) They lack the good will so I can’t teach them anything (they do what they do for their own interests, not out of an honest belief)
3) They pose no danger, as you can see with ALL WESTERN PROPAGANDA AND MONEY BEHIND THEM, all they could muster was 33% of the Iranian society and I strongly think not even that many (a lot of green supporters changed their mind shortly after the elections). They simply lack the necessary brain and political vision to be able to gather Iranian masses.
So why do you even bother?!?!?
No matter how many nuclear bombs Israel possesses,
No matter how many war crimes Israel commits,
No matter how many women and children Israel murders,
No matter how many Palestinians, Israel makes homeless,
No matter how many UN resolutions, Israel violates,
The USA and the European countries will not impose any sanctions against Israel but they are so eager to impose sanctions against Iran.
The sanctions against Iran are illegal, unjust and immoral.
We, the international community who were educated on the values of liberty, justice, honesty and peace, cannot accept it.
The Zionist government of Israel is not only the obstacle to peace but also a monster apparently beyond control.
This rouge, racist and apartheid regime also possesses well over 200 illegal nuclear bombs.
George Galloway, former British MP, is finally in Canada. He will give speeches.
news dot ca dot msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=25803670
Mohammad,
“What I have heard from Iranian officials (most importantly Ayatollah Khamenei) is that Iran wants equal, warm relations with any country in the world, except Israel (which Iran doesn’t recognize as legitimage). That includes US, and Iranian officials have repeatedly said that if US respects Iran and treats it in equal grounds (which is a very shaky, maybe impossible condition given US military presence at Iran’s neighbors) Iran won’t hesitate to have relations with the US. Iran has also always said that it doesn’t seek military confrontation with any country (including Israel).”
- What in your opinion would the US gain from such a rapprochement?
- After 9/11, when the Americans thought themselves to be in war with many Sunni Jihadists, they temporarily cooperated with Iran. After Russia’s invasion of Georgia even Bush flirted with the idea of opening up an interest section in Iran. Today, there really is no strategic impetus for either side to break with the status quo.
Mr. Canning: “If the late Shah of Iran was a US “puppet”, why was the US unable to persuade him to increase Iranian oil production to undermine Opec?”
For the same reason the neocons were unable to get Iraq to undermine OPEC – because the oil companies forced Bush to pass a law saying Iraq’s oil industry must follow OPEC guidelines.
Read this:
Bush Didn’t Bungle Iraq, You Fools
www dot gregpalast dot com/bush-didnt-bungle-iraq-you-fools/
Harper’s: Baghdad Coup D’État For Big Oil
www dot gregpalast dot com/harpers-baghdad-coup-detat-for-big-oil/
Now the neocons want Iranian oil for the same reason. And the oil companies will be happy to support the war as long as the oil stays expensive afterward. Not that Iranian oil will ever be available because the war will be lost – but as long as the war lasts, it will be expensive – and the oil companies will profit along with the military-industrial complex.
It’s about MONEY. Obama is owned and operated by the Pritzker and Crown families in Chicago.
“US war with Iran has four ingredients; Iran is the only independent government which doesn’t take orders from the US; Israel wants to destroy Iran so that it doesn’t face a third defeat once it attacks Southern Lebanon for water resources; US military complex and the US ‘prostitute’ media,” Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/cyber-war-on-islamic-iran/
those of you who think that much of US foreign policy toward Iran is driven by Israeli and advocates for Israel in the US, as I do, and who further think that Israel’s major conflict is based on psychological dysfunction perpetuated amongst both Jewish Israelis and Jewish Americans, as Haggai Ram argues in “Iranophobia,” may be interested to read these comments of one American Jewish blogger.
While the article does not refer to the antipathy between Jews and Iran, it does discuss from a first-person point of view, the very concepts that Haggai Ram describes.
Neocons just don’t get it, they cannot isolate Ahmadinijad or Iran no matter how much they wish for it. It is just a fantasy that will remain in their minds only. Iran has curved its place in middle east and has become a strong regional player. The struggle that started with 1979 Islamic revolution has begun to bare fruits now.
Bashar Al-Asad today received “Grand National Order” – Iran’s highest award to a head of state. Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Turkey are one large part of middle east more unified than ever. Israel and US just have to accept this reality.
However, the reason that neocons do not give in is because there is a DEMAND for NONSENSE PROPAGANDA among US public. The neocons are simply SUPPLYING to meet the demand. The true culprite is the US tax payers who just cannot think rationally or critically. They will any trash beamed to them they through neocon propaganda machine.
James Canning,
“Are you referring to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, when you mention “raping and pillaging”?
Only partially! Only partially! Far more resources flew out of Iran under the shah’s regime than what BP could pillage. So whether Hague want war or not, Iranians have not forgotten yet.
Do you agree that they (powers that be) want to soften Iran with sanctions?
Do you agree that they don’t want to come to the proverbial table as an equal partner in negotiation?
Do you agree that Iran has its own calculus and national security to worry about?
Do you agree that demonization has more to do with more nefarious reasons than the nuclear issue?
Do you agree that cases like Darakhshian and Ashtiani are highlighted to show good will? Or are they, do as I say not as I do? (this is not to say that I agree with subject matter of either of these cases)
So, yes, they are hard to deal with, because they see clearly what’s behind the thin veil.
Mohammad – thanks for reply, I didn’t think your original comment misleading, just wanted to know your take from a slightly different angle. Thanks.
As many who follow this site may know, the general who runs Centcom (as replacement for Petraeus), was quoted five years ago as saying: “It’s a hell of a hoot [and] fun to shoot some people” – - referring to fighting in Afghanistan. A great way to win “hearts and minds”. . .
Mohammed,
I agree with you the US could engage in direct negotiations with Iran, provided it had the right approach. I also think Hillary Clinton is fundamentally incompetent, regarding an ability to ascertain what courses of action are available to the US.
Arnold,
Do you think a majority of Egyptians believe Sadat should not have made peace with Israel, to end the occupation of the Sinai?
Arnold,
Thanks for lengthy response. I take it you think Sadat blundered by not trying to continue the former Arab hope of destroying Israel. And you think it could have succeeded.
Do you think Bashar al-Assad should not be offering peace to Israel, if Israel gets out of the Golan Heights?
Do you think it was not in the best interests of Egypt, for Sadat to get the Israelis out of the Sinai?
1 – No, Sadat’s agreement was not in the best interests of Egypt.
2 – If I thought it was in Egypt’s interests and the people of Egypt thought it was not, the people of Egypt would be right and I would be wrong.
Arnold,
The Syrians were furious with Sadat, for his making a separate deal with Israel, leaving the Golan Heights under Israeli occupation. Do you think it was not in the best interests of Egypt, for Sadat to get the Israelis out of the Sinai?
Sakineh,
William Hague and David Cameron do not want another war in the Middle East. Hague was referring to difficulty in negotations, when he said a country should not be regarded as an “enemy” because it was not as easy to deal with, compared to other countries. So, he is talking about today.
Are you referring to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, when you mention “raping and pillaging”?
Excellent comments Hillary! Keep’em coming.
James Canning,
“Yes, William Hague is quite right to say that some countries are not as easy to deal with, as other countries.”
Yes, when other countries come to rape and pillage your country and its resources, it is often to not easy to deal with them, is it?
“I wonder if one should say the US is virtually in a “state of war” with Iran, when the UK continues to make it clear it does not regard Iran as an enemy.
It is more accurate to say that, goaded by the warmongering neocons and other idiot elements of the Israel lobby, the US is often rude or hostile toward Iran.”
I don’t know why you don’t see sanctions as economic warfare. Rude and hostile don’t even cut it. Let’s call it what it is warfare, trying to weaken Iran from within and without.
RSH,
Good to see you and Eric back! This site is the better for it.
Alan,
Well, I may have been inadverdently misleading. I didn’t mean unconditional diplomacy. What I have heard from Iranian officials (most importantly Ayatollah Khamenei) is that Iran wants equal, warm relations with any country in the world, except Israel (which Iran doesn’t recognize as legitimage). That includes US, and Iranian officials have repeatedly said that if US respects Iran and treats it in equal grounds (which is a very shaky, maybe impossible condition given US military presence at Iran’s neighbors) Iran won’t hesitate to have relations with the US. Iran has also always said that it doesn’t seek military confrontation with any country (including Israel).
What I was trying to say in the context of my previous comment was that supporting diplomacy with US, at least in theory is Iran’s sole declared option in dealing with US and is currently in no way a taboo. Yes, Iranians almost always add that the current situation is not suitable for negotiations with US since they are threatening Iran. But there have been exceptions to that; after all, Iranian representatives have met American counterparts several times since the 2007 ambassador-level talks on Iraq, and Ahmadinejad has made public efforts to at least appear as trying to engage Obama, e.g. congratulating him on the beginning of his presidency. My main point was that talking about diplomacy with US is currently in no way a taboo in Iran (where I’m living, exposed to our leaders’ stances on a near-daily basis). It was a taboo back in Khatami era (esp. for high-ranking reformist politicians, probably out of fear that they may challenge the Supreme Leader’s final say on relations with US), but not now.
Sorry if I was not clear enough in my previous comment.
What do you think Sadat should have done, instead of signing a peace treaty with Israel in exchange for a total Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai?
First, that misses the really really important point that what I think Sadat should have done is unimportant compared to what the people of Egypt would have had Sadat do. Just as my belief that the United States should cease its support for Israel as a Jewish state and push for a one-state post-Zionist solution similar to the post-Apartheid solution in South Africa does not justify overriding the democratic processes in the United States.
But if an Egyptian government that was accountable to the people of Egypt was to make peace with Israel, that peace would have required not only the Sinai, but also in some form, to be determined by Egypt’s people and the negotiators they choose to represent them, of restoration of the rights of the Palestinians.
An independent Egypt would have demanded more from Israel than Sadat’s Egypt did. If Israel is unwilling to make peace with Egypt on terms that the people of Egypt would accept, then there should not have been peace.
Assuming Israel would be unwilling to accept the terms an independent Egypt could offer, Egypt’s foreign policy should look a lot like Iran’s today. But because Egypt is closer to Israel and has closer ties, an independent Egypt would pose a greater strategic threat to Israel than Iran does.
When Flynt Leverett says Sadat’s peace with Israel is the greatest achievement in Israel’s security since its formation, he is right. He doesn’t mention that Sadat’s peace comes at the expense of the freedom of over 60 million Egyptians, or over ten times the amount of Jews in Israel. But without that peace, if Egypt remained independent, then together with Iran, Israel as a Jewish state would by now be visibly and clearly non-viable.
But for Sadat, Zionism could well have fallen shortly after or even before Apartheid fell. That would have been of tremendous benefit to the Egyptians and all of the over 200 million people in Israel’s region who are not Jews.
Everything I’ve written also applies to the colonially-emplaced Jordanian dynastic dictatorship.
Ann Coulter, Michael Ledeen and Michael Rubin are well-known ‘Islamophobes’ and have links with the Jewish Lobby groups. Therefore, they are doing ‘day’s work’ for which they’re paid for.
Most of the Campuses in the US, Canada and the UK are controlled by the Zionist mafia groups.
“Why discredit, defame and silence those with opposing viewpoints? I believe it is because the Zionist Lobby knows it cannot win based on facts,” – Dr. Joel Beinin (Jewish professor at Stanford University in his article “Silencing critics not way to Middle East peace”, San Francisco Chronicle, February 4, 2007).
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/zionists-academic-terrorism/
James Canning – Reza Shah was as much a “US puppet” as is Egyptian Hosni Mubarak. The story of Shah’s refusal to increase oil production to undermine OPEC is as much Mossad’s lie as was the Iran-Contra hoax.
The truth is Washington wanted groom Shah as its bully in the Middle East but did not want to give military hardware free of cost as it has been giving to the Zionist regime for over four decades. The confiscated documents at the US Embassy in Tehran (1980) showed that it was the US government which advised Shah to reduce oil supply, resulting in the increase of oil revenue – which Shah used to buy the US arms.
A nice Shylock plot, would not you say!
Chris,
You are right on target: US national interests are not threatened by Iran, but Iran poses a problem for Israel, by helping the Palestinians defeat Israel’s effort to engage in an ethnic cleansing of the West Bank.
American politicians deceive the American public on a daily basis, to conceal the fact the US has squandered trillions of dollars in insane military adventures, to “protect” Israel! The destruction of the American middle class, and the undermining of the Republic, to “protect” Israel! What utter lunacy!
Dan,
If the late Shah of Iran was a US “puppet”, why was the US unable to persuade him to increase Iranian oil production to undermine Opec? The Shah sought maximum revenues from Iranian oil, even if that caused or helped to cause global recession.
Dan,
We should bear in mind that the late Shah’s father became Shah of Iran, because Iranian religious leaders would not allow a republic.
Is it not fair to say the late Shah believed economic growth in Iran, and education, would set the stage for a subsequent slow transition to constitutional monarchy?
Arnold,
Are you arguing that the late Shah of Iran was not an Iranian nationalist?
What do you think Sadat should have done, instead of signing a peace treaty with Israel in exchange for a total Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai?
An article which may indicate how Netanyahu is looking forward to the Nov. election in US.
“Netanyahu humiliates Obama again”
english dot aljazeera dot net/indepth/2010/10/2010102103847283685.html
Whats amusing to me is that neo-cons in USA seem to care about a few imprisoned prisoners so much that they are willing to destroy our country and kill us for it.
Um, thanks?
Richard Steven Hack
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas , something like :
Happy is he who has been able to learn the causes of things.
You are absolutely right and you addressed a very essential point :” No one on the far right gives a damn about Iranian dissidents ”
True statemnt which some of my dear fellow countrymen fail to understand , although this is the core matter of the whole Regie Change ‘ theater.
They ( Zionist Christian and the war fraction among the US-Govenrnment ) never have the intention of turning Iran ino a ‘ flourishing ‘ democracy.
At best they consider Iran as a useful military & energy base , after the ‘ WAR ‘.
In Irak they had no problem with 1 million killed and 4 million displaced , in the case of Iran they would be willing to work with a 10 multiple factor , “WHO CARES”.
I can’t resist.
Derakhshan?
Someone mention Leonard Peltier? Everyone here know HIS story? Thought not.
Cut the crap. No one on the far right gives a damn about Iranian dissidents. Nor should they. It’s not a US mission under the Constitution to insure “democracy” or anything else for anyone but US citizens. Whatever your personal opinion on any given situation in Iran, it’s IRRELEVANT to the issue this site is devoted to: avoiding another war.
For people here to be bitching about Iranian oppression when Obama wants to open the entire Internet to government spying and his DoJ is conducting armed “fishing” raids on antiwar people is just stupid. Not to mention slaughtering children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan – and apparently getting ready to INVADE Pakistan to boot.
Get a clue.
This site has just been introduced to me. Your responses to the somewhat awful questions were quite good. Thank you.
One can see over and over again, that the beef that the US is supposed to have with Iran all relate to Israel. Whether it is they “want to wipe Israel from the map” or “they deny the holocaust,” or “they are developing a nuclear bomb to threaten Israel,” Americans are once again being baited to pick a fight with another country in the Middle East over issues that neither relate directly to Americans nor relate to facts.
And this has happened before. In Iraq.
Isn’t it time to put an end to this nonsense?
James Canning
Re: “Shah…….pushing too fast and hard for changes in Iranian society”
I disagree with your interpretation.
The lie of “rigged June 2009 Iranian presidential election” was not the first big Western lie about Iran.
If you study the history of that country you’ll find lots of false reporting (with varying degree). In their recent history, the big lie of “The 1979 revolution was in reaction to fast pace of Shah’s modernization efforts” was one of those big lies.
I believe in 25 years after the 1953 coup both Shah and the West deliberately stopped any fundamental progress of Iran in all areas of social, economical, educational, industrial, scientific, and technological fields.
I give you one clear example:
In the Shah’s years the average rate of literacy and modern Western style education rose roughly 0.5% per year (say from about 10-15% in 1953 to around 20-25% in 1979) but in the same time interval after the revolution the same rate was approximately FIVE times higher. (In Khorasan province quickly after the revolution 1000s of schools started to function. In one of them a mullah tried to stop the Western system of teaching biology, physics, chemistry and instead start teaching religious studies, he was sort of snubbed by the whole community. People were telling him “we only want our children to become doctors or engineers, teacher, lawyers etc and nothing else).
The realization of the dream of modern education by all Iranians bore many fruits. First, Iran is achieving the shift from the superficial “parts assembling industries” (parts were made in US or Europe) towards a fundamental industrialization. The second was scientific progress. Refer to the following article in the February issue of the NewScientist:
newscientist dot com/article/dn18546-iran-showing-fastest-scientific-growth-of-any-country.html
Iran outperformed all of the countries in the world in scientific contributions in 2009! China included!
If you study the linked PDF file of the above URL you’ll notice Iran’s scientific contribution jumped from below 100 in 1980 to over 10′000 in 2009. This progress is indeed quite impressive and totally negates the assertion that Iran resisted Shah’s fast modernization programs.
The revolution was a ferocious one against the Western interference. The stunned corrupt Western media (or academia) had to manufacture a clever lie to convince their audience that “the dynamics of the revolution was driven by clashes of pro and anti West or it was a by-product of their own internal conflicts and in no way any fault of the West can be seen in that picture”.
Now if this was Iran…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101001/bs_yblog_upshot/cnn-fires-host-rick-sanchez-over-controverial-remarks
Hillary,
What you and your husband are doing here gives anti-war people like me some hope that maybe your voices of reason and your calls for dialogue are heard by those who sit on the thrones of power.
I found your line of “Isn’’t one fraudulently instigated war in the Middle East enough?” powerful (and touching).
I strongly believe the war camp is sort of obsessed with primitive, barbaric goals that are destructive to both sides while using our intelligence to resolve the international disputes by dialogue is always beneficial to all.
well done
Video –
How Israel Controls Your Media:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26495.htm
@KOOSHY
The Leveretts do have their supporters at Langley: I can’t believe that people with masters degrees and doctorates who speak several languages could be as stupid as the
neocons who abused their services during the Bush era.
Because of these foreign wars of aggression, the very long-term survival of the United States is in serious doubt as secessionist movements in Texas and California are growing in response to the damage inflicted.
James Canning
RE: My post, October 1, 2010 at 2:04 pm
“For 37 years that the shah of Iran was a puppet of USA, there was no democracy or freedom in Iran, human’s right were abused on a daily bases but the “so called” freedom loving American government and the west media did not condemn or demonize the shah, but Now they are so keen to get involve in internal Iranian affairs by pretending that they care about the democracy and freedom in Iran.”
In defense of the Shah, Which of the followings do you consider harsh?
1) Puppet of USA.
2) No democracy or freedom in Iran.
3) Human’s right was abused.
Shah ruled Iran for 37 years, he was America’s closest ally, during his reign there was no economic sanctions, no wars, but Iran did not improve at all, perhaps you would be kind enough to enlighten us as to his achievement?
The Islamic Republic has survived “31 years of unjust sanctions, 8 years of a devastating US-baked war and immense international pressure” but despite all that Iran has improved tremendously in field of science, technology and medicine and her standing in “the Middle East and none alliance countries” is immense.
If there were no sanctions or wars during the past 31 years, Iran would have been one of the most prosperous countries in the world by now.
@KOOSHY
I actually had not been following the Derakhshan case.
I was not aware of this case and not heard about it before. So do you know what I did? I googled it and read about the case. Crazy concept, I know. Looks like he said he was going to kill the President, which is a crime (as it should be). And for that he was sentenced to 5 years in prison, and will be released next year. Mr. Derakhshan was sentenced to jail for 20 years for speaking out against the government. His charges included “managing obscene websites.” Can you with a straight face compare these two sentences??
His charges “included” that. Hmmm. Did they “include” anything else? My first google search of that name turns up:
The 15th District of the Islamic Revolutionary Court, chaired by Judge Salavati, has found Derakhshan, who was arrested in Mehr 1387 (Oct 2008), guilty of collaborating with hostile governments, propagating against the Islamic state, propagating in favor of anti-revolutionary groups, insulting sacred beliefs, creating and managing corrupt and immoral web sites, and sentenced him to 19.5 years in prison, five-year ban on participation in political parties and the media, and the return of funds received amounting to 30,700 Euros, plus 2,900 Dollars, plus 200 UK Pounds.
I don’t know enough to say if he is guilty or not of the most serious charge of collaborating with hostile governments, and if so, in what way. I suspect pretty confidently that there was at least some foreign involvement in the post election protests and that some parties in the US, Israel and the West hoped at the time that those protests could be part of a process that would eventually lead to the dissolution of the Islamic Republic and its replacement with a government more willing to depart from populist policies regarding Israel and Palestine.
I don’t know Derakhshan was involved in that plan or any other but if he was, then 20 years would be a reasonable punishment if he was caught. He should get a trial by Iranian law and if he has not, that is a valid criticism. He’s far less likely to be tortured for suspicion of crimes against the state in Iran than he would in Jordan, and has far more extensive rights.
Iran is more free, and more respectful of human and civil rights than any of the US allies in the region. That is a fact that must be kept in sight.
If Levretts keep doing this a bit longer, soon they may politely be asked for a one on one friendly Q&A in the (DOI) Department Of Information at Langley, and this time not as an employee.
@OBSERVER
Well, surprisingly enough, Mr Buddhi and his family maintain he never made such a threat agains the President’s life. There is much information on the case to suggest a complete miscarriage of justice. In any case, the fact is he was jailed for comments made on a blog – that is something American neocons have claimed can never happen in their country. If an Iranian was jailed in Iran for threatening to kill Ahmadinejad or Ayatollah Khamenei on a blog or email his case would be championed by HRW, Freedom House and the rest of the crowd for sure.
Regarding Mr Derakhshan, the case has not been publicised in the Iranian media like that of Miss Mohammadi Ashtiani – his lawyer has purposefully refrained from making comments for fear it could jeopardize his client’s welfare. It seems he has been sentenced on a number of different charges and these are not clear at all – the main thing being mentioned by the news agencies is that he is going to make a full appeal. In many cases, the appeals court in Iran has commuted or even quashed the sentence.
This really is not a high profile case within Iran like that of Sakineh Ashtiani.
It is therefore wise of Mrs Leverett NOT to comment until the judicial process has been completed. In any case, her expertise is on foreign relations and diplomacy and not these sorts of legal cases and civil rights issues. The Leveretts have consistently said that they are interested in the strategic ties between Iran and the United States. They have had to make some comments on the election and opposition green movement only because they were concerned Iran’s internal politics was affecting policy making towards Iran in the American poltical establishment.
I doubt the Leveretts can talk about many domestic Iranian issues such as the subsidies reform plan, water pollution in Tehran, the decentralization program for the bureaucracy, corruption and many internal other affairs for which they don’t have the requistite expertise.
James and imho, via Binam
You could make your case much better if you at least ACKNOWLEDGED wrongdoings of the IRI in general and Ahmadinejad in particular.
It is very difficult to be an independent nation in the Middle East. The United States has a vehement interest/agenda in turning countries in that region into colonies that would not threaten Israel. An agenda the US succeeded in implementing in Iran in the past that was overturned at great expense. The US clearly successfully pursues and accomplishes that end with respect to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the gulf dictatorships.
Iranians are vastly more free than Egyptians, Jordanians or Saudis. US criticisms of Iranian wrongdoings are not motivated by a desire to see freedom for the Iranians, but by a desire to weaken Iran’s regime so that it can be transformed into or replaced by someone like the Shah. (Iranians are also more free than they were under the Shah.)
The question for those criticizing Iran is how should Mossadegh have dealt with threats to that Iranian regime? Because clearly the IRI, to survive and to ensure the Iranian people continue to have more political representation than Egyptians, must do something that Mossadegh did not.
The United States is at the top of the food chain. There is no country with over 100x its GDP that is calling for the US government to be replaced with one more pliable to that foreign power and less accountable to its people. Even at that, examples of US political repression can be found. The United States (I’ll look it up later) may spend more on its military/security apparatus than Iran’s entire GDP.
It’s one thing to acknowledge that the Iranian government is not perfect, but it is another to find the right balance that it come as close as possible to perfect while at the same time avoiding someone coming to power in Iran who will sell the country to a US which is eager to buy the way Sadat did.
Mr. Esfandiari,
No need to throw labels around here. I made a suggestion to Mrs. Leverett, that is all.
Also, in regards to this Mr. Buddhi. I was not aware of this case and not heard about it before. So do you know what I did? I googled it and read about the case. Crazy concept, I know. Looks like he said he was going to kill the President, which is a crime (as it should be). And for that he was sentenced to 5 years in prison, and will be released next year. Mr. Derakhshan was sentenced to jail for 20 years for speaking out against the government. His charges included “managing obscene websites.” Can you with a straight face compare these two sentences??
And please don’t lie by saying even you as a Farsi speaker do not have details of his case. In fact, his case has been covered in much more depth by Farsi blogs and news sites than it has been in the West. Again, no need to lie, credibility is an important thing.
Hillary,
I constantly read your posts and I agree with most of the arguments you present in them.
I cannot help notice that the questions posed by the neocon NGO have a striking resemblance to former Soviet secret police interogation methodologies, both in substance and style. As much as Trotsky is the intellectual father of the neoconservative movement in America, and also a historic opponent of Stalin, I think that counterattacks like those launched by the neocons against you, by which your very First Amendment rights have been bluntly denied, actually create an (un)intended but solid synthesis between the trotskyst and the stalinist political approach.
You don’t need to go back to mccarthysm. Trotsky and Stalin are breathing through every one of the five questions.
james,
“Don’t you think you are a bit harsh in your assessment of the achievements of the late Shah of Iran? Wasn’t his overthrow in part the result of pushing too fast and hard for changes in Iranian society?”
what achievements are you talking about?
all the money that was spend on the american and EU defence industry?
or that at the end of his time there was only one political party?
or was is that he could not step aside to preserve the 2500 year old kindom?
or was it his so called white revolution that send all the people from the county side fill the cities?
mybe it was his SAVAK that were so niceto the oposition?
history tells us that one man cannot run a counrty no matter how goos or nice he may be
and if the is no war with Iran its because wars are fought in many dimentions:militarly,economicly,politicaly,and the new one is electronicly
so far the US could only win militarly
jut look at Iraq!
@OBSERVER
Mrs Leverett is not aware of the exact details pertaining to the case of Mr Derakhshan. That is all that she said. I am an Iranian with access to the Farsi sites and I do not have enough information to pass comment so why should Mrs Leverett?
Also, when Vikram Buddhi was sentenced to jail 4 years ago in the United States for allegedly threatening President Bush on a blog did Freedom House, Fox News and the Institute for the Defense of Democracies make noises about his case?
No.The Far Right has stayed silent as bill after bill has been passed by Congress effectively removing many of the civil rights of Americans under the guise of “protecting” them from enemies that don’t exist.
As such, neocons are in no position to preach the gospel of human rights to others when they are busy eroding the freedoms and rights afforded to citizens of the United States by the Constitution.
Binam:
I would have more respect for you if you came out and said “we need to talk with Ahmadinejad regardless of his track record in Iran and whether he’s a just or popular leader.”
Do you think Ahmadinejad is not popular? What makes you think so?
Mrs. Leverett, you are a so-called “Iran specialist” and present yourself as such to the media. You and your husband follow what is going on in Iran on a daily basis and micro-analyze just about everything that you feel defends your point of view.
Yet, you claim you do not know the details of the Iranian blogger sentenced to jail for 20 years? The case that has been all over the internet and has been picked up by EVERY SINGLE media outlet in America? Assuming you truly did not know the details of this case, you, an academic with a research background, could not have done a basic google search to become up to date on the details of this case?
Please do not make such comments in the future Mrs. Leverett, it hurts your credibility.
I also don’t know the details of the Derakhshan case.
It is a real mystery. But let’s see what the appeals process yields.
imho,
You make an excellent point, that some of those commenting on this site are not disposed to dwell on shortcomings of the Iranian government, where it seems this does nothing to improve matters at a time of numerous threats of war (by Israel, and bombastic American fanatics).
Nasser,
The Financial Times reports today:”Maliki gives Iran and US joint cause”, noting both America and Iran are pressing for Maliki to be accepted as continuing PM. This looks like it is going forward, and Muqtada al-Sadr apprarently is going along with it.
Iran and the US have an interest in stabilising Afghanistan, though of course Iran wants all US forces out.
Israel lobby continues to do its best to jam a monkey wrench into the gears of American diplomacy with Iran.
Who are these Minding the Campers people anyway? Tell them to stick to tents and gas barbeques I say.
Mohammad – Everyone in Iran is asking for diplomacy with the US (that’s the official stance of Iran) except the most hardline of all.
Can you elaborate on that? I know the idea is popular, but how does this “official stance” manifest itself and in what way does the leadership follow through with it?
The Leveretts wrote:
“Hillary requested that the Manhattan Institute publish her answers in full but this request has been explicitly rejected and we are told that “Minding the Campus” will be publishing its own version of Hillary’s answers.”
Consider that a high form of praise, much-deserved.
Charlotte Allen asked Hillary:
“You and your husband, Flynt Leverett, have worked tirelessly over the past few years in op-ed articles and on your website “Race for Iran” to promote the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad government. Do you think that your classroom stance regarding Iran can be neutral and fair to all points of view? What do you do about students who might disagree with you inside or outside the classroom?”
I’d say those students are pretty well-covered. It might take them a long time on the Internet to find someone who’s got a different point of view from Flynt and Hillary. But if they search long enough – at least a second or two – they’ll come up with something.
Binam,
“You could make your case much better if you at least ACKNOWLEDGED wrongdoings of the IRI in general and Ahmadinejad in particular. In my opinion you could still make the case for diplomacy with Iran while at the same time ACKNOWLEDGING human rights abuses, existence of jailed journalists, jailed students, jailed filmmakers, jailed protesters and not to mention protesters who were killed or tortured”
You are right.
I think, the intent here is to avoid war and give a chance to diplomacy. If there weren’t risks of war, I don’t think anyone could not acknowledge wrongdoings of the IRI. Also, one’s response depends partly on who ask the question. I don’t take it as hypocrisy.
Beautiful responses, Hillary. Thank you for your (and Flynt’s) continued excellent, and fact-based, work. It’s certainly a welcome and vital rarity these days.
For other readers/commenters here, this might be of interest:
http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2010/09/international-flaw-with-new-iran.html
I personally appreciate the work of this blog very much and I like to thank the Leveretts for their honest work ( and special thanks to Hillary regarding above )
As a ‘ normal ‘ person living in Iran , I am always amazed when people speak ( dream ) of ‘Regime Change ‘ both domestically and abroad.
Regime Change with who , with what outcome and what purpose ? No matter how much a person is away from the facts on the ground in Iran , how can any logical thinking Iranian or non-Iranian think , that a ‘forced ‘ Regime Change will ever work in Iran . Anyone who claims the opposite , is simply dreaming or does understand nothing about the dynamics in Iran.
The ONE and ONLY ‘option’ for Iran enemies ( no matter which couleur ) will be the war option without the slightest doubt.
This is the point , where Israel comes into play , as they know the Iranian realities better than any other nation in the world. They are pressing for war , because in their logic it is the last remaining solution , if they want to prevent a new super-power in the region from emerging and consequently ‘accept’ their own demise .
We hope that it does not come to that point , as this war would not fit our worst imagination.
Liz
Flynt and Hillary Leverett are paying the price for their courage and wisdom.
“I continue to expect war with Iran to be avoided…”
- From a US perspective there is no strategic impetus at the moment to break with the status quo; either by engaging in direct warfare or having a genuine rapprochement with Iran. It is possible that there might be a ratcheting up of sanctions and other forms of diplomatic and political pressures.
Of course, Ahmadinejad never denied the Holocaust or declared that there are no gays in Iran, but Hillary’s answers were quite good.
If a Jewish academic who worked in George Bush’s White House faces such pressure, what does that say about the situation in the US?
Dan Cooper,
Don’t you think you are a bit harsh in your assessment of the achievements of the late Shah of Iran? Wasn’t his overthrow in part the result of pushing too fast and hard for changes in Iranian society?
I continue to expect war with Iran to be avoided, especially of intelligenct concerned people such as yourself continue to follow the situation closely, and comment on it publicly.
Iran’s crime is its independence.
Iran is an independent state and it has maintained itself as an independent, major state in the Middle East. That is intolerable to the U.S.A.
The most important foreign policy of USA and Israel is to prevent Iran from becoming a super power in the Middle East.
In pursuit of this policy, they have imposed an unfair economic sanction on Iran.
The U.S. government hides its antagonism behind moral veils such as “women’s rights”, “democracy”, “human rights”, and so forth, but the real intention is to bring Iran to heel.
“Human rights” in Iran is far from perfect but “comparatively speaking” it is one of the best in the Middle East.
For the past 30 years, Israel and USA have done their utmost to weaken Iran economically.
They have imposed an unfair economic sanction and unjustly accusing Iran of wanting to build a nuclear bomb without a shred of evidence.
The US has laid economic siege to Iran for 30 years, blocking desperately needed foreign investment, preventing technology transfers, and disrupting Iranian trade.
Non-existent nuclear weapons or facile concerns for democracy have nothing to do with the coming American onslaught on Iran.
For 37 years that the shah of Iran was a puppet of USA, there was no democracy or freedom in Iran, human’s right were abused on a daily bases but the “so called” freedom loving American government and the west media did not condemn or demonize the shah, but Now they are so keen to get involve in internal Iranian affairs by pretending that they care about the democracy and freedom in Iran.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt are ruled by one of the most repressive regimes on the planet, they do not even have elections.
Have you ever heard Mr. Obama publicly condemn the lack of freedom and democracy in those countries? Have you ever heard any media outrage for the people of Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Offcours not, they are US allies.
Hypocrisy is almost impossible to stomach.
How much more evidence do you need to be convinced that America has no intention of rapprochement with Iran and is using all her might to destabilize the Iranian regime and create another hell like Iraq in the Middle East.
“Isn’t one fraudulently instigated war in the Middle East enough?”
“you, Michael Rubin and other neoconservative propagandists are distorting the record of the work of my husband and me and trying to distort what was a remarkable opportunity for some Yale University students raises very disturbing questions about your agenda and bias. Isn’t one fraudulently instigated war in the Middle East enough?”
“The subject of the seminar is not warmaking or regime change. It is diplomacy.”
Excellent remarks, Hillary
Mohammad,
“I’ve become sensitive to any statement which demonizes Iran further than it deserves.”
If by “demonize Iran” you mean demonizing the Iranian government, well that’s not very hard to do. The Iranian government itself is the biggest demonizer of itself – simply by how it acts and governs! If you mean demonizing the Iranian people, well, I would be against that too. And I think the more we’re able to separate the Iranian people from the Iranian government the more we can put a stop to this demonization (I’m just making up words now!). If people are making the case that Iranians are one with their unelected government, and the government is doing evil things, then wouldn’t that be demonizing Iran? Isn’t that the line Israel is taking? They want the world to believe that all Iranians are like Ahmadinejad so that they can make the case for war with Iran.
If it wasn’t for the Green Movement and images of young Iranians standing up to likes of Ahmadinejad, the basij and the Supreme Leader the demonization of Iran that both of us are against would have been complete. But the best thing that came out of that whole movement was separation of the Iranian government from the Iranian people…
Nasser,
Thanks. Yes, William Hague is quite right to say that some countries are not as easy to deal with, as other countries. But this does not make them “enemies” of the UK! The idea is absurd, yet the warmongering neocons (and other idiot elements of the Israel lobby in the US) try to sell it to the grossly ignorant American public, on a daily basis! Hague has a solid understanding of world history, and a deep understanding of diplomatic history and the couse of events in the Middle East. A sharp contrast with Hillary Clinton, as I have mentioned before.
Nasser,
I agree with you Iran is unwise to be needlessly hostile to other countries, both in the Middle East and elsewhere. The warmongering neocons in the US employ this sporadic hostility to deceive the American public about the true state of affairs in the Middle East.
James Canning,
“I wonder if one should say the US is virtually in a “state of war” with Iran, when the UK continues to make it clear it does not regard Iran as an enemy.”
- Exactly. Theres no war! Like Willam Hague said Iran is a country that is very difficult to engage diplomatically.
I recommend Taki Theodorocopolos’s comments on William Kristol in “If Only Bush Had Listened” (Takimag.com, Sept. 15, 2010). Bill [Kristol] is a tiny, ugly rat of a man who always backs the wrong horse, but very clever.” Kristol and the other warmongering neocons “ignored what happened to the French in Algeria” when they pushed for invading Iraq.
The foolish Tony Blair was told by Jacques Chirac what to expect if the UK and the US invaded Iraq, and even now argues he had no expectation of disaster! Chirac served in the French forces in Algeria, and he knew what he was talking about.
“Both the United States and Israel are in a virtual state of war with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
- Theres no state of war between Iran and the US! If there were, Iran would not survive such a thing. The US has been quite restrained; even in applying economic and political pressure.
“As Americans, we need to understand that what Ahmadinejad says calls into question, for many in the Middle East, the entire legitimacy of U.S. and Israeli actions there. This is a strategy which yields tangible strategic gains for Iran.”
- Needlessly fostering enmity with powerful countries is not strategically wise! Especially when you don’t have sufficient military defense to protect yourselves if those said countries were to attack. What tangible strategic benefits has Iran gained from this?!
“if there were Iranians inside Iran asking for diplomacy with the US (the exact line you’re taking) they would be jailed, called spies. Their blogs would be filtered and their newspapers shut down. ”
Binam, although I appreciate your point, you are exaggerating in the particular saying above. Everyone in Iran is asking for diplomacy with the US (that’s the official stance of Iran) except the most hardline of all. Some have even called into question the entirety of Iran’s criticisms and allegations against US (remember Sadeq Zibakalam’s remarks?) and nothing happened to them except criticism by conservative media.
I think that in the current situation, merely asking for diplomacy with the US won’t have any consequences for any Iranian. I get your message (as we say in Persian “Dar masal monagheshe nist“) but I’ve become sensitive to any statement which demonizes Iran further than it deserves.
I wonder if one should say the US is virtually in a “state of war” with Iran, when the UK continues to make it clear it does not regard Iran as an enemy.
It is more accurate to say that, goaded by the warmongering neocons and other idiot elements of the Israel lobby, the US is often rude or hostile toward Iran.
Hillary-
It is very easy to claim lack of knowledge, as you have done. It is very difficult for anyone to accept your lack of knowledge when we know your background and access to information. Please, do not assume everyone is stupid!
Neil M,
The militarist side of the Israel lobby funds numerous “think tanks” that in fact are propaganda organs intended to deceive the American people about the reality that obtains in the Middle East, especially the fact that Israeli oppression of the Palestinians is the primary threat to peace.
Charlotte Allen: proponent of the BIG LIE, repeated endlessly. That Ahmadinejad “denies the Holocaust” when in fact he has said the crimes of the Nazis against the Jews, in Europe, do not provide a moral basis for punishing the Palestinians.
Hillary,
“I don’t know the details of this case and, consequently, do not want to comment on it.”
You could make your case much better if you at least ACKNOWLEDGED wrongdoings of the IRI in general and Ahmadinejad in particular. In my opinion you could still make the case for diplomacy with Iran while at the same time ACKNOWLEDGING human rights abuses, existence of jailed journalists, jailed students, jailed filmmakers, jailed protesters and not to mention protesters who were killed or tortured. If you defend the Iranian versions of yourselves who pay the price of asking for diplomacy with the US by being jailed or punished, your case for diplomacy talks would make sense. But as is, if there were Iranians inside Iran asking for diplomacy with the US (the exact line you’re taking) they would be jailed, called spies. Their blogs would be filtered and their newspapers shut down.
If Flynt got a 20 year prison sentence in Iran, would you still take the position you’re taking now?! I think not.
What you’re doing is turning a blind eye towards the wrongdoings of Ahmadinejad’s government in order to make your case for diplomacy and in the process you lose credibility. I would have more respect for you if you came out and said “we need to talk with Ahmadinejad regardless of his track record in Iran and whether he’s a just or popular leader.”
Continued from my previous comment:
Pro-Islamic Republic and human rights activists are campaigning to reduce Derakhsan’s sentence in the appellate court (the sentence is not final yet). A pro-IR blogger is saying that at least one high-ranking conservative politician, Saffar Harandi, is lobbying for Derakhshan.
Ahmadinejad’s statement on 9/11 may signal the coming nuclear negotiation in October. The US move to enforce unilateral sanctions in addition to blackmailing other nations doing business with Iran (particularly recently on oil), the Stuxnet worm, and in general the rising effects of financial sanctions as viewed by the US angle, are all indications (whether true or not) that Iran would be in a position of weakness. And the US wants the world to know it so that Iranians will come to the negotiation table feeling the US in a position of strength.
Ahmadinejad’s counter attack may be just a way to signal the US it is wrong on its perception.
Excellent responses, Hillary; made so in large part by their merciful brevity.
On the subject of so-called think tanks, the term is becoming a rather tiresome misnomer. Would it not be more accurate to refer to them as spin tanks – at least in the context of informal discussions? The signs that their general output is the product of coherent or wide-ranging thoughts are few and far between.
Regarding Hossein Derakhshan, it is noteworthy that in recent years, he had actually turned into a supporter of Islamic Republic, defending its legitimacy in general and also Ahmadinejad, and attacking the opposition, thus becoming hated by many of the opposition bloggers. According to a reformist activist who met Derakhshan in jail, even after he was arrested in Tehran, he was still supportive of the Islamic Republic and Ahmadinejad. Also he claims that Derakhshan had negotiated with Kayhan (KAYHAN!) and Press TV to work there, and had started working at Press TV just before he was arrested. Even more remarkably, apparently he was invited to Iran by Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei!
The case remains an enigma to me. Or merely a very tough judge trying to firmly and blindly apply the law, regardless of the context and situation.