Twenty years ago, Harvard’s Joseph Nye famously coined the term “soft power” to describe what he saw as an increasingly important factor in international politics—the capacity of “getting others to want what you want”, which he contrasted with the ability to coerce others through the exercise of “hard” military and/or economic power. The question of soft power, when it comes to Iran, is contentious. Most analysts seem prepared to acknowledge that the Islamic Republic’s soft power in the Middle East rose significantly in the first several years of this decade. But many Western analysts now argue that Tehran’s regional soft power has declined over the last couple of years, following the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, the fallout from the Islamic Republic’s June 2009 presidential election, and the imposition of new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear activities.
Others—including the two of us—argue that Iranian soft power remains strategically significant and is perhaps even still growing. In this regard, we are struck by two developments today. First, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad traveled to Beirut—the first visit by an Iranian president to the Lebanese capital since President Mohammad Khatami went there in 2003. Although White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the visit demonstrated that Ahmadinejad was continuing his “provocative ways” and that Hizballah “values its allegiance to Iran over its allegiance to Lebanon”, the Iranian president received what the Christian Science Monitor’s Nicholas Blanford described as a “rapturous” welcome from tens of thousands of Lebanese who turned out to greet him on his drive into Beirut from the airport. We include photographs of Ahmadinejad’s reception in Beirut today at the end of our text below.
During his trip to Lebanon, Ahmadinejad is scheduled to visit Dahiya, a heavily Shi’a southern suburb of Beirut, and tour southern Lebanon. We would anticipate strongly positive and enthusiastic reactions from populations in both settings. As Rami Khouri aptly put it today, see here, in The Daily Star,
“If Ahmadinejad, as planned, goes to south Lebanon and visits Hizbullah-controlled villages near the Israeli border, we should expect political emotions to go through th roof in both the pro-Iranian and anti-Iranian camps. This will not be a surprise, because Ahmadinejad overlooking the northern border of Israel in the company of his Hizbullah allies is a nightmare for most Israelis and many of their friends in the West, while for Hizbullah and its allies in the region this would be a prize-winning moment of defiance to be savored for a long time.”
We do not believe that any Western leader—or even any Arab leader—could travel to Beirut today and move about in an open motorcade, as Ahmadinejad did, let alone do so and attract crowds of tens of thousands of eager well-wishers. Security concerns alone would preclude such a scenario. And this is the reality even though the United States and its European and Arab allies have put significant sums of money and political capital into trying to consolidate a “pro-Western” political order in Lebanon.
If Iran today has substantial soft power in the Middle East—as we believe it does—it has that power in no small part because it has picked winners rather than losers as its allies in key regional theaters. Whether we speak of Hizballah in Lebanon, HAMAS in Palestine, or Shi’a Islamist parties in Iraq, Iran’s regional allies are genuine political forces—that is, forces that win elections because they represent important and unavoidable constituencies with legitimate grievances. And, in many cases, those allies engage in what their constituents believe is thoroughly laudable resistance against what those constituents see as America’s (and Israel’s) hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East. Again, Rami Khouri put it very well:
“The United States and other Western powers are unhappy with the Iranian-Hizbullah link because these two parties represent an advanced form of indigenous Middle Eastern defiance of Western power, threats and sanctions. Western global powers are not used to having smaller Middle Eastern countries or movements ignore the orders or threats that emanate from Washington, London or other Western capitals. Lebanon has been a central test case of American support for the majority in the Lebanese government that confronts Hizbullah in some respects, so this visit represents a blow to Washington’s strategy of bringing Lebanon firmly into its orbit.”
Second, Colum Lynch, of the Washington Post and Foreign Policy, published an interesting piece today, see here, on the United Nations General Assembly’s election of Germany, India, and South Africa to rotating seats on the UN Security Council. (It should be noted that, while Turkey will give up its rotating seat on the Security Council at the end of this year, Brazil will stay on the Council for another year.) As Lynch writes,
“The election provides these emerging powers, all of whom aspire to become permanent members of the council, with an opportunity to show their stuff on the global stage. But it also poses a challenge to the United States. New members India and South Africa, as well as current member Brazil, differ sharply from the United States on everything from the use of economic sanctions to constrain Iran’s nuclear program to the importance of human rights in international affairs. And they plan to be assertive about that opposition.”
All of this underscores an important strategic point that we have been making for some time—in relative terms, the United States is becoming less capable of achieving its stated policy objectives in the Middle East and the Islamic Republic is becoming more capable of achieving its objectives. This reality should prompt a fundamental recasting of America’s “grand strategy” in this critical part of the world.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Nouri al-Maliki has praised Ahamdinejad for his triumphant visit to Lebanon, and mocked Israel for going on high alert during that visit.
Kooshy,
Thanks. My paper is very close to finished. It’s provocative. I think you’ll like it.
Scott Lucas:
Will you just leave it. Go fix your CV and stop pretending you’re an Iran expert.
Salam Iranian@Iran,
“No secret agent as far as I know.”
Ahh, but how much do you really know? The best secret agents are the ones you never suspect.
Best,
S.
Scott Lucas
Nope. No secret agent as far as I know. I think she just hopes you understood that your dishonestly regarding your academic background is something to be ashamed about.
Salam Iranian@Iran,
“In case you didn’t understand, I think Liz was writing about your dishonesty.”
Really?! I think she’s actually a secret anti-Government agent (not to mention my secret fan). She just let her cover slip for a moment.
You can never be too sure who the followers of sedition are….
Best,
S.
Scott Lucas
In case you didn’t understand, I think Liz was writing about your dishonesty. When you lie about your own qualifications, no one will trust you in any other issue. liars do propaganda.
@imho:
You say: “Democracy is not just the rule of the majority, but more important it is the respect of the minority.”
Ok my friend, first of all, rights of minority is not more important than the rule of majority in a democracy. It is AS IMPORTANT AS the rule of majority but it is NOT more important than the rule of majority. Of course, you actually used the word “respect” I changed that to the word “rights”.
So we do agree that minority has certain INALIENABLE rights in a democracy, and now comes my question:
Do these rights of minority also include the annulment of the result of an election that the minority has lost? Do these rights include the right to make a coup (on behalf of a foreign power) to cancel an election whose results the minority does not like? Obviously if the minority did like the election results it would not be a minority it would be a majority, so if the right to annul the election results is among the rights of the minority, then why the hell do we go through the process of election in the first place?!?!?!
You see the “green opposition” in Iran did not protest for its rights, it protested for what was NOT its right, it protested to force an annulment of the election. NO DEMOCRACY WOULD TOLERATE THAT!
Then you say: “The day a person thinks he is able to judge that himself, the regime’s dictatorial pattern becomes obvious.”
I have said this many times before, lastly to Humanist and Persian Gulf: Liberal democracy (or Burgeois democracy if you will) is not about the freedom of the anti-system opposition, it is about truly COMPETITIVE elections. Now I remind you I did not say “true elections”, I said “truly competitive elections”, there is a big difference in between.
If you have truly competitive elections you have obtained the core element of the liberal democracy. And once you have that you cannot be defined as “dictatorship”, at least not in the conventional sense. There is a huge difference between the
France under Louis 16th, and the France under Mr. Sarkozy, just as there is a big difference between today’s Iran and Iran under Shah, or between today’s Iran and Egypt.
One is a “dictatorship” the other one is a liberal democracy.
Then you say: “It is really sad to see two Iranians with opposite views cannot accept each other difference without resorting to name-calling and completely rejecting even the other’s right to exist.”
I did not do name calling, whenever a social class is prospering at expense of the labour and dismal misery of another social class, it is very correctly named as a “parasite”. Whenever, the villagers and the workers and city slummers have to slave and live in misery so that a small minority can prosper, send its own children to expensive schools so that they can “inherit” their parents social status and their parents ownership of the means of production, that minority is RIGHTFULLY called a “parasite”!
What else are you going to call a small minority which gets an obsenely disproportionate share of the oil revenues, and then showing an extraordinary example of cheekiness, shamelessly tries to take away the right to vote from the working-class? I am sorry, I cannot call such people my “fellow citizens”, all I can call them is “shameless parasites”!
Then you say: “When will you ever try to begin to start to understand that the villagers, the basijis, the parasites, mini-skirt and veiled women etc. are all Iranians and must live together and must be respected in their belief and way of life, whether you like it or not.”
I am afraid this rosey picture that you have in your mind exists only in the “fairy tales”, not in real human societies.
In real human societies -whether you like it or not- there is a class antagonism. ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT aspects of the 2009 elections was its underlying class-strugle related dynamic. Unfortunately no one ever went into that aspect. Some very rare Iranian intellectuals (as well as some western intellectuals) “sort of hinted” towards that direction, but no one ever made a THOROUGH analysis of this election from a class-struggle stand point. It is TRULY sad that such an analysis has not taken place (or at least I have never seen one, I would appreciate if anyone has seen any such analysis and can point me to it).
So my friend my answer to your previous question is: “Never!”. For as long as a rulling class oppresses and exploites a working class which constitute the solid majority of the society, there will be class antagonism and you won’t have the rosy picture that you have in your mind. It does not exist in the West, it does not exist in Iran, and in fact it exists NO WHERE.
Then you say: “The very word of parasites suggest they have to be eliminated.”
Well, yes. Parasites have to be eliminated. What else? But not the way that you are suggesting. You see Fuedal lords have been largely eliminated and there is no longer a class called “Serf”. So this “elimination” business is not as ugly as you think it is. Of course when we talk about “elimination” we mean the elimination of a type of “relations of production” and not the physical elimination of people. Once the “parasite-host” relationship has ben “eliminated”, the parasite ceases to be a parasite and becomes an ordinary citizen, and voila you have eliminated the parasite!!
And lastly you say:”The current Iranian consensus around the nuclear fight is the best example. Most Iranians from all sides are united for this cause despite their diverging political views.”
hmmmm….I don’t know about that my friend….Have you ever read the view of people such as Ganji, Hajjarian, Abbas Abdi about the nuclear issue?
Eric
“Thanks for the warm welcome back. I appreciate it.”
Eric- on this from down under (I mean LA) count me in.
Much glad to see you back, we look forward to read the paper you mentioned you are working on.
I concur with you Pirouz_2. I was sent to the site by a friend who said I didn’t really understand what was going on…. Such information on such a popular site (wikipedia) with the backing of the seemingly progressive label of “reporters without borders” makes a more informed sharing of the comparative cases difficult.
That’s why I was hoping for a different list based on more objective criteria.
@Castellio:
Whenever you want to evaluate the accuracy of any such list, look at some cases which are obvious. If the list is giving you an information which is contrary to the obvious, it means that that list is really not worthy of your notice.
Now let us have a look at this list given by “reporters without borders”:
Now according to this list Kuwait, UAE and Bahrain all rank much better than Turkey.
Again according to this list Egypt, Saudi Arabia and UAE all rank far better than Iran.
Inorder to make such a ranking you must definitely not know how to count numbers in an ascending order. Anyone with the slightest of familiarity with the level of freedom in these countries (and apart from being Iranian and naturally being familiar with my own country, I have lived for many years in Turkey and still I read online Turkish press every once in a while) will tell you that this list is PURE RUBBISH!
Rehmat,
Again, thanks for the Lamb report. Jeffrey Feltman is but one of the Iranophobic Jews that Hillary Clinton has filled senior State Dept. posts with. Obama should have the intelligence to see this is bad policy, particularly given the fact Jews are 2% of the US population.
Eric: Hopefully you and Pirouz_2 will forgive my moment of tasteless levity. I too, am happy to see you here again.
I do have a question for you and others.
When one goes to the site below, one finds Iran listed as the 172nd on a list of 175 countries, ranked, apparently, in descending order of press freedoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
Is that accurate? If not, is there another such list?
Rehmat,
Thanks for the link to Franklin Lamb’s report. That Iran provided $1 billion in aid, to rebuild parts of Lebanon smashed by the Israelis, should be given credit by American leaders. But don’t hold your breath.
Let’s remember Condoleezza Rice’s idiotic comment during the last Israeli smashing of Lebanon, that it was the “birth pangs of a new Middle East”!
Franklin P. Lamb PhD is an international law scholar, political writer and author stationed in Lebanon.. He is also director of Sabra Shatila Foundation. Frnklin Lamb has been living in Palestinian refugee camps of Lebanon.
Franklin Lamb covered the two-day visit of Iranian Presiden Dr. Ahmadinejad to Lebanon and and wrote the following report:
He came, he saw, he conquered
http://rehmatpedia.islamunity.net/?p=1362
Salam Liz,
“It will take time for people to forget dishonesty…It as bad as stealing elections and it weakens the legitimacy of one’s arguments in the eyes of the public.”
I am pleasantly surprised — this is one of the most cogent criticisms of the Iranian Government I have read since June 2009.
Best,
S.
Scott Lucas,
It will take time for people to forget dishonesty…It as bad as stealing elections and it weakens the legitimacy of one’s arguments in the eyes of the public. lol
Arnold,
Thanks also to you for the warm welcome.
Eric
James Canning:
Eastern Europe is non-Western, has been since the partition of the Roman Empire in 395. And yes, Russia is a non-Western country that has ben trying, for 200 years and with partial success, to become Western.
Africa does not need Western aide; parts of Africa could benefit if the “White Man” could be brought back to govern – no doubt.
Nothing can be done for vast tracts of Africa by foreigners.
Best that can be done for Africa would be the elimination of agricultural subsidies in US, EU, Japan, and Korea.
And get the French out of Africa – they have supported one group of murderers after another there, the last one being the Hutus of Rwanda.
imho,
When you say most Iranians support Iran’s nuclear programme, do I take it you mean they support Iran’s civilian nuclear power programme?
fyi,
What is a “non-Western” country? My impression is that most poor African countries would prefer that the trillions of dollars squandered on unnecessary military adventures in the greater Middle East, would go instead toward aid progammes.
Do you regard Russia as “non-Western”? This is not the viewpoint of Putin or Medvedev.
Dear Arnold,
Trust me, it’s most intentional humour to wrap up this chapter.
Best,
S.
@imho:
Re your message on October 15, 2010 at 9:14 am
I am afraid I am very busy right now, in fact I am likely busy the whole day.
You have touched some really interesting points, and I am glad that someone is asking them, so that we can bring out the essence of certain concepts into open.
What is more important, is that I feel you are person who is open to a logical debate and “exchange of views”, and are not after distorting reality to pursue your own agenda.
As a result I will be very glad to present you with my opinion, either tonight or during the weekend.
If there is no new post by the Leveretts I’ll post my answer here, and if there is any new post I’ll get back to you probably in there.
At any rate your thoughful message won’t be forgotten and you will get my reply during the weekend.
Scott:
Thanks for all the kind words. When almost all the discussion consists of wild swipes at my credentials and the website rather than answers to my original question — about the Baghi, Nazar Ahari, and Sotoudeh cases in the context of a discussion on freedom of speech and legal rights — then it’s pretty much game, set, and match.
Unintentional humor at its finest. Game, set and match.
Thanks for the warm welcome back. I appreciate it.
Eric, if you appreciate a warm welcome from Pirouz, I hope you’ll appreciate one from me also. Welcome back.
Nasser,
I’m surprised you missed this one:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LJ13Ak01.html
Persian Gulf:
In regards to your complaints about how science policy is formulated in Iran:
The best policy is to have no policy and to fund fundamental research activities at the Department level with government grants to the universities. That way, the Central Government will not be in a position to choose winners and losers. On the other hand, when something similar was done in South Korea, senior faculty took the money that was meant to be used to do research (buying equipment, hiring graduate students, attending international conferences, etc.) and spent it on themselves.
Given the nature of the Iranian society, I would expect a similar result.
The centralized decision making essentially is an attempt at predicting the future – a fool’s errand.
In the United States, science funding at the national level is determined by people whose primary degree has been in non-science fields. I recall one fellow in the lower house of the Congress of the United States who had a degree in Public Relations (i.e. propaganda – Joseph Gobbles would have been prod.) who sat on the science committee.
And in Cuba, as an another example, the state does not fund fundamental research at all since they have concluded that they cannot usefully contribute in that arena and compete against richer states such as US, EU, Russia, China, and Japan. All their funding is at Applied Research.
What is deplorable about Iranian science policy (or lack thereof) is that they could have started where they have an abundance of opportunities:
Climate change, desertification, water management, soil physics and chemistry, petroleum physics & chemistry, biology of oil consuming bacteria, signal propagation in inhomogeneous viscoelastic media, seismology, computer modeling, signal analysis etc..
Additionally there are areas that would be of interest globally in physical and mental health – answering questions such as “Do Iranians suffer from the same mental maladies as documented in West?”, “The frequency of the occurrence of disease X among Iranian populations compared to elsewhere in the world.”.
The problem is not Islamic republic, in my opinion. Just like Persian Music, this is a case of lack of creativity and initiative.
Pirouz_2,
Thanks for the warm welcome back. I appreciate it.
Eric
James Canning:
non-Western states prefer US and to a lesser extent EU to be consumed by the events in the Middle East. Theri time and energies will be consumed in the Middle East while the rest of the world goes its merry way.
Rehmat:
You are living a fantasy life.
Where is Salah al Din?
Scott Lucas
You have done a lot of misleading. I think if you had been satisfied with the truth you would have benefitted in the long run, but by being dishonest you only reinforce the logic of your opponents.
Pirouz_2: “And those “villagers” who have been left underpriviledged so that PARASITIC MIDDLE CLASS could prosper … they can overwhelm the number of vote from those middle class PARASITES!”
Democracy is not just the rule of the majority, but more important it is the respect of the minority.
Even if one may accept the result of the last elections as a victory for AN, given the Iranian realities on the ground regarding its society, one can hardly agree the opponents in Iran are free to express their thoughts (and I’m not comparing to western democracy nor with the Arab nations of the ME). Just where do you put the limit of freedom and who is wise enough to put that limit. I say no one not just in Iran but nowhere. The day a person thinks he is able to judge that himself, the regime’s dictatorial pattern becomes obvious.
It is really sad to see two Iranians with opposite views cannot accept each other difference without resorting to name-calling and completely rejecting even the other’s right to exist.
One uses the word “villagers” pejoratively and the other call his country’s middle class as parasites!!!
When will you ever try to begin to start to understand that the villagers, the basijis, the parasites, mini-skirt and veiled women etc. are all Iranians and must live together and must be respected in their belief and way of life, whether you like it or not.
The very word of parasites suggest they have to be eliminated.
From its very first days, the Iranian regime wanted all people opposed to Islamic Republic to get out of Iran as repeatedly said by its leaders. What is different in this with what baby Bush said about either you’re with us or against us ?
Don’t you see that in politic, it is always wiser to assemble rather than divide ? The current Iranian consensus around the nuclear fight is the best example. Most Iranians from all sides are united for this cause despite their diverging political views.
Before fighting foreigners for whatever cause, Iranians first have to be in peace with themselves and reject firmly any attempt to divide them. Be smarter than what they think you are.
Scott Lucas,
You answered nothing. You lied.
Salam Liz,
I have repeatedly set out the answers to all your questions about my relationship with the University of Tehran both on this thread and on another one earlier this year, so I am going to have to leave you with your dis-belief.
Best wishes,
S.
Scott Lucas,
Also, How many times have you been in Iran as a guest of the University of Tehran and when was the last time you were there?
However, most importantly, you lied. Many months ago you knew that you weren’t an ajunct professor, but on your University of Birmingham page we see something different. Many months ago you said that:
“For the record, I was an Adjunct Professor at the University of Tehran and am honoured to have worked with many fine academics and students there. Some of them are amongst my close friends.”
I quote the University of Birmingham website today:
“He is the Executive Director of Libertas: The Centre for the Study of US Foreign Policy, Adjunct Professor of the Institute for North American and European Studies at the University of Tehran,…”
Scott Lucas,
You didn’t answer the question:
How many courses did you teach in the department?
Also, did you foolishly assume that you were an adjunct member for life?
Salam Liz,
The appointment, as set out in the letter (which I give price of place in my study), was open-ended. It was part of a Memorandum of Understanding between Tehran and Birmingham and a specific agreement for staff and student mobility between the Institute and my School.
In addition to working with Dr Marandi and with staff and students from Tehran who came to Birmingham, I and another colleague from Birmingham have had the pleasure of working in Iran with postgraduate students in a series of seminars on American and Canadian Studies and on US Foreign Policy. I also was fortunate to give lectures in Tehran, Qom, Mashhad, and Mazandaran. My greatest regret is that I was unable on my visits to see Isfahan.
It has been a blessing to remain in touch with the staff and students who I first met in Iran, and I continue to learn from them each day.
Best,
S.
Scott Lucas,
Being an adjunct professor is not a formal position and only lasts one or two years and it can be extended if the professor actually contributed to the department (look in the Ministry of Higher Education website).
Please tell us what courses you taught at the North American Studies Department at the University of Tehran?
Scott Lucas,
For the record, you lied. Many months ago you knew that you weren’t an ajunct professor, but on your University of Birmingham page we see something different. Many months ago you said that:
“For the record, I was an Adjunct Professor at the University of Tehran and am honoured to have worked with many fine academics and students there. Some of them are amongst my close friends.”
I quote the University of Birmingham website today:
“He is the Executive Director of Libertas: The Centre for the Study of US Foreign Policy, Adjunct Professor of the Institute for North American and European Studies at the University of Tehran,…”
Thanks for all the kind words. When almost all the discussion consists of wild swipes at my credentials and the website rather than answers to my original question — about the Baghi, Nazar Ahari, and Sotoudeh cases in the context of a discussion on freedom of speech and legal rights — then it’s pretty much game, set, and match.
(For the record, Fahad has it right. Dr Marandi has been a friend and academic colleague since 2000, when we met at Birmingham, and connections between my department and the Institute began in 2004. At some point after June 2009, without notifying me, dropped me as an Adjunct Professor, but the University of Birmingham is extremely slow in changing its websites —- I’ll certainly send the IT people your best wishes….)
As I said in last comment, if there is any evidence put forth in response to my question or if the discussion returns to Iran’s internal affairs — it appears that the authors of RFI are now going to avoid any consideration of that area, given their latest post — then I look forward to rejoining you.
Best,
S.
Liz,
Sometimes they have got it wrong, sometimes not. They weren’t making any predictions here. I thought it to be an interesting article. You are of course free to disagree.
Nasser,
Over the past few years Stratfor has regularly been proven wrong.
Goli,
C’mon. It’s fun having Scott Lucas around. He’s his own worst enemy.
One cannot talk of Iran and Lebanon and just leave out Syria. Stratfor has put up an interesting article: “Syria, Hezbollah and Iran: An Alliance in Flux”
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101013_syria_hezbollah_iran_alliance_flux
Now, what can Pirouz underscore 2 be up to? Maybe needs a pro bono…
@Eric A. Brill:
Regarding your post on October 14, 2010 at 9:50 pm.
First I never got the opportunity to welcome you back appropriately. WELCOME BACK!
Second, you are one of the most articulate people I have come accross! You truly must be one hell of a lawyer!
Goli,
“Maybe I am missing something, but I am seriously perplexed by the fascination many of you seem to have with Scott.”
Several reasons. First, Scott’s a battle-hardened veterans of many interminable debates on this site. That counts for something. More important, I’m always curious to find what causes Scott some difficulty. Very often, I’ve found that asking him to cite sources works very well. I asked for that this morning, for example, and we haven’t heard from him since. Who knows – maybe he was hit by a truck, or has been stricken with dengue fever, but I’d like to think I’m responsible for his silence.
Maybe I am missing something, but I am seriously perplexed by the fascination many of you seem to have with Scott. Why don’t you all ignore him and let him go away to those other hundreds of websites where he can empathize with his kind. I would say the same about likes of Binam. These types of creatures are not going to engage in sound rational discourse; they just want to vent their hateful rhetoric and spread their propaganda. Think about how many times several of us have had the same conversation with Binam, et al.
“There are Canadian intellectuals?”
I see your point. Well, there are some people who think and care about foreign affairs more (just more) than the majority others.
Iran tries to one-up Iraq:
http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/71909/20101014/iran-iraq-reserve-raise-output-opec-quota-oil-gas-petroleum-natural-gas.htm
Also, “Iraq’s ambitious oil goals questioned by experts”
google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j5DGs84pSYtmG9Dl5V_H0KL2FbSg?docId=CNG.9dd1a1176881e712993720a765eec626.671
There are Canadian intellectuals?
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/146744.html
Patrick Cummins
Canada lost the UN seat in a very embarrasing fashion; 132 votes for Portugal and 32 votes for Canada. Such initial embrassement caused Canada to withdraw form the final voting and accept the defeat. Political analysts, as I watched it on the Canadian National TV (CTV), blamed such lost partly on Canada’s unconditional support for Israel against Palestinians.
When I discuss the issue with my Canadian intellectual friends, they say Canada did not lose, but the Harper’s Government did.
@Binam:
I will tell you a joke here, you go an figure what I mean:
After the end of world war, a former Nazi troop was talking to a Polish resistance fighter, and asks him:
-When we entered your country, why did you people show such a fierce resistance and even died so willingly, and gave us all that trouble? What were you fighting for?
The Polish answrs back:
-We were fighting for potatoe!
And then the Polis guy asks the German former soldier:
-Ok, so why did you guys attack us, start such a devastating war and killed so many people?
And the German asnwers back:
-For our HONOUR (شرف)!
So the Polish guy says:
-Well, everyone fights for what he does NOT have!!!
Replace the Polish with the Ahmadinejad voters and the German with the “middle class educated Tehranis” and the WWII with the Iranian elections and you will get the picture of what went on in 2009 and why you LOST!!
@Scott Lucas;
As someone mentioned here before (I think it was voice of Tehran, but maybe it was M.Ali), if you are truly interested in “why” these people have been arrested, then perhaps you should contact Ayatollah Larijani.
I for one am not going to the details of every single arrest which is made in Iran and try to find the evidence behind it, I simplly don’t have the time.
I have no doubt that some reason must be given before any sentencing is done.
I don’t know what the evidence are, but I am fairly certain that the arrest of Baghi at least is on the suspicion of collaboration with foreign powers to destablize the country. And to be honest I for one share that “suspicion”. Just one look at the likes of Akbar Ganji, Ahmad Batebi, Ali Afshari and where they are and the type of “awards” and money that they receive is enough to strongly suspect Mr. Baghi too. Just one look at Mr. Caspian Makan is enough to get a good feeling about the sort of person N. Agha Soltan was!!
As Eric and others have mentioned, if you have any AUTHENTIC information, provide us with the links and we will have a look at it.
@Binam:
There is nothing wrong with bringing demonstrators to Tehran. Yes they may not be “upper class” Tehranis like you are, BUT STILL THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE!
And those “villagers” who have been left underpriviledged so that PARASITIC MIDDLE CLASS could prosper and go to fancy schools, also have a right to demonstrate and transport inside their country to any destination for demonstration. Hell as I said before they even have a right to VOTE! And guess what? when they vote (for potatoe or sandwitch it really does not matter) they can overwhelm the number of vote from those middle class PARASITES!
I know, it really hurts you that those disgusting villagers with the lice in their hair have a right to vote and prevent you from serving your western masters, but still they do. And when they win the elections, cowards in the middle class show their truly disgusting face and blatantly disregard their vote and start screaming for the annulment of the electrions. As if voting for potatoe is a crime and voting for the right to free alcohol and mini skirt was very democratic!!!
R S Hack,
Abbas is considering asking the US to recognise an independent Palestine with June 1, 1967 borders. This would not require relocating the currently illegal Jewish settlers, and it may be possible for them to stay in an independent Palestine, subject to the laws of that state.
Probably tens of thousands of peacekeepers would be needed, for a number of years.
Let’s hope Hezbollah has a sufficient store of weapons to deter another Israeli smashing of Lebanon.
fyi,
I think you are quite mistaken to claim Russia, China, Japan, India, Brazil etc prefer a continuation of the present Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
Palestine very likely will be obliged to seek UN recognition, and at that point it will be clear which countries are serious about ending the Israeli occupation.
Fahad A.
I know you from German Zeit Online very very well . What is you main objective ? I am a bit confused about your real intentions , but will soon find out.
fyi – “There will never ever be a Palestinian state, the time for that is past”
The Crusaders made a similar statement in 1099 CE. However, in 1186 CE – the world saw them running back to their ancestral western home with their tails between their legs. That was what Helen Thomas meant when she responded to the Zionist Rabbi. The reality which two Jewish writers, Gilad Atzmon and Roger Tucker agreed with.
Another Jew writer, Israel Shamir, wrote a few year ago: “Israel is DOOMED”. However, like a bull, it needs some time to die, which is why its leaders are whining about Ahmadinejad’s visit to South lebanon.
Only ONE DEMOCRATIC STATE with equal rights for both the alien Jews and the Native Arabs would provide peace and security to the coming Jew generations. The Americans are already fed-up with feeding the vultures while their own country is bankrupted. I do hope the American Jews not stupid to wait for the next Hitler.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/two-state-solution-can-you-smell-the-skunk/
Fahad
Why are you so obsessed with Scott Lucas? It’s clear that he is dishonest.
Congratulations to the Leveretts for their excellent website.
Many months ago Scott Lucas new that he wasn’t an ajunct professor, but on his University of Birmingham page today the Liar says something different.
Fahad,
This was not Professor Marandi’s webpage or his Institute for him to fire or hire anyone and anyway adjunct professors in Iran are not hired or fired. It is not an official position and it is a short term thing. There are many of them in Iranian universities and many have never even visited the country.
Again, as I said earlier, you quote Scott Lucas as saying many months ago that:
“For the record, I was an Adjunct Professor at the University of Tehran and am honoured to have worked with many fine academics and students there. Some of them are amongst my close friends.”
I quote the University of Birmingham website today:
“He is the Executive Director of Libertas: The Centre for the Study of US Foreign Policy, Adjunct Professor of the Institute for North American and European Studies at the University of Tehran,…”
Scott Lucas is a liar. Again I ask, since you are a friend of Scott Lucas (or you are Scott Lucas), please tell me how many courses he has taught at the Institute?
Liz, if you like it or not Marandi was head of the department. No need to teach me, either academics or internet. Lucas was an adjunct professor there. If Marandi (maybe he doesn’t know what is an adjunct professor) had fired him, he should have informed Lucas. Simple as that.
There is no doubt that Scott Lucas is dishonest.
Fahad,
This was not Professor Marandi’s webpage. You should learn a bit more about the internet. This belonged to the Institute for North American and European Studies and Dr. Marandi was never head of the Institute or the website (learn to read Farsi).
as I said earlier, you quote Scott Lucas as saying many months ago that:
“For the record, I was an Adjunct Professor at the University of Tehran and am honoured to have worked with many fine academics and students there. Some of them are amongst my close friends.”
I quote the University of Birmingham website today:
“He is the Executive Director of Libertas: The Centre for the Study of US Foreign Policy, Adjunct Professor of the Institute for North American and European Studies at the University of Tehran,…”
Scott Lucas is a liar. Since you are a friend of scott Lucas (or you are Scott Lucas), please tell me how many courses he has taught at the Institute?
Liz, I refer to this page, which I had found when I had googled Lucas and the Institute.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080414210936/http://inaes.ut.ac.ir/Static/detail.php?id=d-ns-s-e
Lucas is not dishonest. Marandi had decorated his Institute’s web page with him for some time. Lucas had had friends there. Maybe he has lost them in the meantime. Marandi seems now more fond of the Leveretts. No wonder.
Richard Steven Hack:
There will never ever be a Palestinian state, the time for that is past.
The most realistic outcome would be the current situation – a de facto apartheid state the existence of which would continue to poison the relationship between US (Canada, Australia, NZ) & EU on on side Muslims everywhere.
This is actually quite attractive for those not involved in this war; the Oriental states of Asia, the Brazils and Indias of this world, and the Russian Federation.
Liz
Thank you for the information. Scott Lucas has often been dishonest in his comments on this website as well.
Fadad,
I’ve never seen Professor Marandi’s webpage. Where is it?
Fadad,
You quote Scott Lucas as saying many months ago that:
“For the record, I was an Adjunct Professor at the University of Tehran and am honoured to have worked with many fine academics and students there. Some of them are amongst my close friends.”
I quote the University of Birmingham website today:
“He is the Executive Director of Libertas: The Centre for the Study of US Foreign Policy, Adjunct Professor of the Institute for North American and European Studies at the University of Tehran,…”
Scott Lucas is a liar.
Fyi: “I am saying the translation of his speech that I read implies more war with no hope for peace.”
Ah, I understand you now. And I would say that’s a correct interpretation of the future – more war. Certainly Israel intends to attack Lebanon and attempt to destroy Hizballah in the future. Nasrallah certainly knows this as does Ahmadinejad and anyone else with eyes. After or during which Israel will probably attack Iran if the US doesn’t do it first.
If the Fatah faction wants the UN to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state, that would be interesting. Unfortunately, what that would mean is that the next time someone in Gaza launches a Qassem, Israel can bomb the crap out of the Palestinians and claim they were merely defending themselves from an “Arab state” like in 1973 or whatever. The Palestinians will end up worse than before.
Not to mention that a Palestinian state under the current situation is a non-starter economically and geographically.
There can be no Palestinian state absent Israel being forced to lift the Gaza siege and removing the settlers from the occupied territories. Which isn’t going to happen until someone forces the UN to reverse its 1947 partition or at the very least declare Israel an outlaw state and uses international forces – including the US – to forcibly remove Israel back to its 1967 borders by means of a air and sea blockade.
Which of course isn’t going to happen either. So the future is more war until one of three things happens: 1) Israel is destroyed by nuclear terrorism (i.e. some terrorist group gets hold of one or more Israeli nuclear weapons and destroys Tel Aviv); 2) the Palestinians are ethnically cleansed into Lebanon and Jordan; or 3) the Palestinians are genocided out of existence. Of course, eventually before any of these 3 occur, it’s just possible that an international boycott of Israel may force Israel to negotiate honestly. But I suspect it will take years if not decades for that to happen.
The bottom line is that, unlike Hizballah, the Palestinians are weak and have no means to force the international community to do anything on their behalf, as long as the US is solidly in Israel’s corner. They really should get back into the business of international terrorism since that’s the only thing the West seems to understand. But since 9/11 the world has been even more brainwashed to denounce terrorism so even that probably wouldn’t help any more. The US would just use Palestinian terrorism to bomb Palestine out of existence like it did with Iraq and wants to do to Iran. Israel would just love that – getting the US to do its dirty work for it as usual.
Liz, by the way, Marandi was decorating his web page with Lucas, compared to him a celebrity. ;-)
Fahad,
Who said he was fired? He is simply a liar.
Liz, if he had been “fired” (how do you fire an adjunct professor? You know, what is an adjunct professor, don’t you?), Marandi should have told him. Is that so difficult to understand? It’s not an issue. Lucas will clarify it next time he is updating his webpage. I am doing that every now and then as well.
James Canning:
US will never ever recognize a Palestinian state unless and until it is approved by Israel. Neither would UNSC.
The fact is, at different times, Arabs, Israelis, or Americans could have ended the war had they chosen to do so. But they did not for a variety of reasons.
Now, just like prostate cancer, the war in Palestine has metastasized into a religious war between Israel and Islam.
As the Christian populations of the Middle East decline (Did you know US government is paying the Jewish Agency to help Christians and Jews to leave Iran?), the war and the confrontation will be further transformed into a war of (Protestant) Christians and Jews with Islam as each side tries to live their fantasy life.
We need statesmen who can avoid this but we do not have them.
This is not hyperbole.
Hence, Scott Lucas lied.
Fahad:
http://www.uscanada.bham.ac.uk/staff/lucas.shtml
“He is the Executive Director of Libertas: The Centre for the Study of US Foreign Policy, Adjunct Professor of the Institute for North American and European Studies at the University of Tehran,…”
He claims that he currently IS an adjunct professor (do you know what that is?) :)
James Canning:
Neither US nor EU can any longer help usher in any form of settlement.
They can help to financially underwrite such a settlement, but in that capacity they are not different than Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and others.
US, in her unipolar moment during 1990s could not, much less so now.
And withdrawal to the 1967 borders is not in the cards.
We should expect more wars in that part of the world; albeit inconclusive ones.
The best you can try to do is to limit these wars to the main antagonists and resist the participation of the extra-regional powers in them.
Just in case you are curious. You can see Professor Marandi here:
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2010/10/2010101491617490142.html
“For the record, I was an Adjunct Professor at the University of Tehran and am honoured to have worked with many fine academics and students there. Some of them are amongst my close friends.”
Lucas in the comments section to the Leverett interview. I have been angry as well,I can tell you. You may read it here:
http://aliqapoo.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/calculated-talk/
Well, Liz, do you want to dispute that he was an adjunct professor (you know what is an adjunct professor, don’t you?)?
Fahad,
You sound like you are Scott Lucas. How do you know how many articles Professor Marandi has written? This is an old Cv of his:
http://fws.ut.ac.ir/rtl/Default2.aspx
Scott Lucas has lied about his relationship with the University of Tehran before. Many months ago when the Leveretts were on Charlie Rose, Scott Lucas became very angry and attacked the Leveretts on a thread on the Charlie Rose website. There he also claimed that he was an adjunct professor at the University of Tehran. The same thing happened then as happened on this thread and someone found the old link that he used today!! What is amazing is that Scott Lucas shamelessly makes the same claims even now. In Persian they say, “ajab rooyee dare!”
“Professor Marandi is an associate professor.” Congratulations. Here you need at least a few relevant papers to get promoted.
Ali, I guess. Lucas has mentioned some time ago here or elsewhere that he is probably still listed at the Tehran University webpage as staff since he had been teaching there as an adjunct professor some time ago. I suppose you know what is an adjunct professor, don’t you? I have googled (not more than 1 year ago) and found him at TU immediately (a web page, now archived). Lucas wrote about academic credentials of Assistant Professor Marandi (there are few published papers, so he has not been promoted yet). Lucas insisted that Marandi is an academic. Why? Well the guy had been visiting Birmingham University. I am sure that Marandi is mentioning that in his CV too.
Professor Marandi is an associate professor:
http://ffll.ut.ac.ir/News_User.asp?codeNews=262
In Iran out of respect we call all academics “professor” out of respect. Of course, if they lie about their resumes like Scott Lucas did, they lose their respect.
fyi,
Abbas is considering seeking approval from the US for a declaration of its own independence. Probably Palestine will be obliged to seek UN recognition of its independence, and the focus of attention can then be on finding ways to get Israel’s military and police out of Palestine.
fyi,
I think it is fair to say that the EU is trying to help end the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. This is the core issue (including Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and a sliver of Lebanon).
Israel can be a rich country, living at peace with its neighbors. If it gets out of the West Bank etc.
Fahad
How do you know Professor Marandi informed Scott Lucas or not? How do you even know if Marandi is responsible for informing Scott Lucas or not? Are you Scott Lucas trying to use another name again? How would you know who contacts who in this world? Obviously Scott Lucas is being disgracefully dishonest, otherwise he wouldn’t have used archived information.
James Canning:
I am saying the translation of his speech that I read implies more war with no hope for peace.
That it is made by him, in front of the Iranian president, indicates that they do not see any possibility of the end of the communal war in Palestine. By implication, it means that they do not expect any positive moves towards the end of the war in Palestine coming from US, EU, Israel or any other international actor.
As I stated before, the so-called Western Alliance has no positive program or vision for the Levant and the Persian Gulf. Only more confrontation and more wars.
James:
What should he be doing that he is not doing?
Relinquishing political power onto institutions that are, unlike him, accountable to the Jordanian people.
But also specifically, since Hamas won the election, he should not be participating, at the demand of Israel and the US, in the isolation of Hamas. An elected Jordanian ruler, one who needed popular support to remain in power as Ahmadinejad does in Iran, would not be doing that.
The Iranian oil minister has been elected president of Opec for the coming year. I see this a good thing.
irshad,
When you claim the leader of Jordan “has no legitimacy with his people”, are you questioning King Abdullah II’s efforts to get Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank? What should he be doing that he is not doing?
Patrick Cummins,
Would it be fair to say Canada has followed the neocon line regarding Israel, and that this contributed to Canada’s defeat for the UN Security Council seat?
fyi,
Hezbollah has made clear it is primarily interested in improving social, political etc conditions of the Shia community in Lebanon, and that it would not launch a first-strike attack against Israel. Are you arguing this is not the case, and that Hezbollah is part of a scheme to destroy Israel? Even if Israel does not launch another attack on Lebanon?
R S Hack,
The Finacial Times report today on Ahmadinejad’s visit to Lebanon is headlined: “Iran takes soothing tone to back Lebanon unity”. The story mentions Iran’s paying for some of the reconstruction (after Israel’s 2006 smashing of Lebanon).
Hamed, I don’t make accusations. Marandi should have informed Lucas that he was no longer adjunct professor in his department. By the way, isn’t Marandi an assistant professor, not a professor?
Voice of Tehran:
The world is a strange place.
The democratic and nationalistic government of El Presidente Dr. Allende was overthrown through the machinations of US, including economic warfare to destablize Chile’s economy – which – lile Iran – was driven by mineral exports.
It is not clear that a liberal democracy in a medium size country can maintain her independence from assorted powers such as US, Russia, or China.
The Americans, however, became very worried after the Iranian and Nicaraguan Revolutions in 1979 and forthwith rolled-out a restricted democracy in South Korea. The current political dispensation in Korea and also in the Philppines owe much to Iran and Nicaragua.
Venceremos!
Fahad
Don’t be childish and silly. You can’t even read Farsi and you make silly accusations. Professor Marandi, who is a pretty popular person over here, doesn’t even run the Institute a person called Professor Shokrkhah does:
http://inaes.ut.ac.ir/rtl/Default2.aspx
The point is that Scott Lucas has made a claim about himself that is false, apparently and he uses an old internet archive page to mislead us.
Fahad, correct me if I’m wrong, but Scott is referencing an archive of the UT site, provided by an archiving site. It’s dated 2008.
The current UT site does not list Scott.
Isn’t Scott claiming that his status at UT is current? If so, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Fahad:
This is a serious issue. What Scott Lucas has done could be illegal.
Fyi: I’ll wait to comment on the speech until I see a reputable translation in full text. So far, what I’ve seen quoted in the mainstream media says nothing about starting a war even when the media try to represent it that way. As for expecting a war, an Israel MP has stated yesterday that someone should make sure Ahmadinejad doesn’t leave Lebanon alive. That’s the sort of people running Israel – assassins.
Actually, the part of the speech I saw on YouTube was fairly banal and general, a typical visiting politician speech much like you get from Obama.
I find Nasrallah’s speeches more interesting as he usually pulls no punches but is pretty precise in his remarks.
Iranian, does it really matter? That Marandi had to remove him from the page after EA was clear. Just orders from his boss. I would rather blame Marandi, he is dishonest. Maybe Leveretts want to replace Lucas and join the department?
Binam,
“Mousavi supporters outnumbered AN supporters at east 15 to 1. In all parts of Tehran. 30 to 1 in northern Tehran.”
Now that’s one of the worst exaggerations I’ve heard about the ratio since the election. You should really read this: یک بحث آماری درباره فراگیری موج سبز (“A statistical inquiry into the [perceived] widespread-ness of the Green wave”)
I also don’t think that the 45% figure by Bussed-in-Bassiji is right. According to the MOI data, Ahmadinejad got about 30% of the votes in Shemiran (north Tehran). I live in north Tehran, and about 40% of my friends voted for Ahmadinejad (and another 40% for Mousavi). But Mousavi’s supporters were much more active and loud in their support of Mousavi. Also it seems that you have forgot the massive crowd of Ahmadinejad’s supporters gathered in Mosalla on the same day that Mousavi’s formed their Green chain in Valiasr street. I didn’t count them but I remember reading Guardian which estimated their number at 600000.
And about the 25 Khordad demonstration, what’s your take on this report which estimates the crowd, using the area of the streets, to be between 390,000 and 624,000 people?
“the United States is becoming less capable of achieving its stated policy objectives in the Middle East”
Actually the US is simply not actually interested in achieving its stated policy objectives, and instead pursues entirely different objectives than what they state. That’s not Iran’s doing.
Binam: “They can’t answer your questions because answering them would mean actually confessing to all the wrongdoings of the Ahmadinejad government – something they would rather avoid.”
As I said, his questions are both irrelevant to the site and an intent to demonize Iran for the purpose of promoting regime change. Since you clearly approve of regime change, it’s no surprise that you support Scott. However, the US has no business promoting regime change in Iran and the purpose of this site is to discourage the US from doing so if it leads to another major war. So anti-Iran, pro-regime change rants aren’t particularly useful here.
I could go on endless rants about Israel’s lack of civil rights toward Palestinians, but I don’t because it’s not relevant to this site or the subject under discussion. Israel’s military behavior towards Iran is, and I would discuss that here.
“So instead they go on personal attacks. They point out that you’re not Iranian and therefore don’t qualify to comment – forgetting that their idols, the Leveretts aren’t exactly Iranians either.”
MY comment on Scott was that if he has conclusive evidence of political prisoners in Iran, he can cite it, rather than snidely asking others to cite it for him in order to prove his point that Iran is an oppressive regime. But in any event, whether Iran is an oppressive regime or not – and it IS, just like the US, Israel, the UK and every other state in the world – none of that is relevant to the purpose of this site.
“They question where you get your funding – having never questioned the Leveretts sources of income.”
I don’t care where Scott gets his income, even if he’s a bank robber. I care about whether his positions are either correct or relevant to this site.
If he wants to explicitly argue that Iran is an oppressive state and thus the US should be promoting regime change there by any means necessary, then he should say so and stop snidely provoking other posters here by asking them unnecessary questions about Iranian legal matters.
He should make his statement. Piss or get off the pot.
Another point which comes to my mind , when thinking of legitimacy of a government.
When the colonial masters decided to ‘ allow ‘ free elections the first time in history of Arab Nations , the people of Gaza went to the polls and we know the outcome. Hamas clearly won the elections and was the first ‘LEGITIMATE ‘ government in the Arab world . What happened then was another disgrace from the West towards their claim of democracy. Boycott after boycott followed from the US and its allies as a punishment for disobeying the will of the West and Israel.
During the election in Iran , they did not intend to repeat the same mistake and poured immense amounts of money and other means to support the opposition with a simple aim to show the legal elected president of Iran and his government as illegitimate under any circumstances . I could cry , why a blinded minority cannot perceive this dirty and simple trick.
Binam:
Of the 295,000 dead soldiers in the Iraq-Iran War, 45,000 or so were members of the Iranain Army.
The rest were Pasdaran and Basiji members that literally walked over the mine fields, inspired by religious zeal and youthful idealism for their religion, their comrades, and their country.
Richard Steven Hack:
The speech is noteworthy in stating:
The liberation of the area between Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea as the joint objective of Iran and Hizbullah
and further that the Liberation can only be achieved by military force.
This is the speech of men who only expect more war.
Fahad
Scott Lucas is dishonest. This is an old, disused, and nonexistent website.
Binam
The rally on Bahman 22 in Tehran was much much larger that the 25th of Khordad. Also the 25th of Khordad was in Tehran while the Bahman 22 demos were held it all Iranian cities (so only Mousavi could have bussed in people!). The 25th of Khordad croud quit Mousavi when he failed to produce evidence of fraud. Now only a small number of extremists support him.
I think the worst thing to happen today was to see Scott Lucas making dishonest claims about himself.
Kamran
Interesting program. Thanks.
VoT,
“Who protected this country for 8 years from a ‘ Monster ‘ like Saddam , who was a creation of the West. If this Satan would have succeeded in occupying Iran , would any world body force him out of the ‘ occupied land ‘ ?? NEVER !!!!
If you claim to ‘ love ‘ Iran , would you agree to have a bunch of Saddamists ruling in Tehran.
It is just absurd , you have disqualified yourself in the worst possible way.”
I believe Bakeri and Hemmats of Iran defended the country for 8 years. The very same people who are now being attacked by janam-fadaye-rahbar thugs these days. The Iran-Iraq credentials of Ahmadinejad and his gang pale in comparison to those of the oppositions – the reformers and such.
Iranian@Iran, please don’t mess around with Scott’s credentials. He is still there, see here: http://web.archive.org/web/20080414210936/http://inaes.ut.ac.ir/Static/detail.php?id=d-ns-s-e
Voice of Tehran, I have compared Neda’s death with that of Benno Ohnesorg, not Jubelperser. Jubelperser are a Persian phenomenon. Among the Good, the Bad and the Ugly they belong to the last and second last. Please specify what you mean with Hassan Nasrallah’s role in my comparison.
Kamran,
The crowds were enormous and you were standing in the center of Universe, weren’t you?! As far as the numbers game goes 25 Khordad crowds outnumber and dwarf all other rallies – from Imam Hossein sq to Azadi sq, (22 Bahman was just part of Azadi sq). But we’re all tired of playing the numbers game.
BiB,
45%? I don’t believe you for a second. I was in Iran on the days leading up to the election. Mousavi supporters outnumbered AN supporters at east 15 to 1. In all parts of Tehran. 30 to 1 in northern Tehran. If you say otherwise you weren’t there. You forget Valiasr street from Tajrish to Parkway at nights?! In Kaj Sq where I was at AN supporters were in one tiny corner by the mosque, while the entire square was filled with Mousavi supporters.
M. Ali,
I don’t see anything wrong with Scott’s approach. I just don’t see how no one seems to be able to answer him. You say you do, but you’re not. You’re just attacking him.
“”They are a khorafati misinformed bunch”"
Not a nice statement .
Who protected this country for 8 years from a ‘ Monster ‘ like Saddam , who was a creation of the West. If this Satan would have succeeded in occupying Iran , would any world body force him out of the ‘ occupied land ‘ ?? NEVER !!!!
If you claim to ‘ love ‘ Iran , would you agree to have a bunch of Saddamists ruling in Tehran.
It is just absurd , you have disqualified yourself in the worst possible way.
Scott- I kind of understand, and think the position of majority of regular commentator on this site is, that you can’t just pick your subject and try to hammer Iran with it, without at least talking about equivalent instances in US, EU and Israel, This folks here on this site, got to give it to them; they are doing a fairly good job to stop you and your crew’s storming to change the subject every time Iran is making a FP headline like yesterday in Beirut, don’t believe me just compare the number of comments for every tread on this site with yours EA, I suspect that is the reason you feel necessary ( I also suspect is your job) to come to this site and try to change the subject, I haven’t seen Levretts commenting on your site, that is because their argument and cause is stronger than yours.
To me the biggest insult to Iranians, were the free sundees and biscuit comments. Thats when the Greens really showed their true colors…
@ Binam (October 14, 2010 at 11:20 am)
Transcribing anti-Iran hasbara tropes is neither clever nor persuasive. Iran’s neocon-perceived sins, shortcomings and HR breaches pale into insignificance when compared with those of the U.S.A. and Israel which, it shouldn’t be necessary to remind you, are imposed on people both within and without each entity’s national borders.
It’s always amusing to hear people who are more than ‘a little bit pregnant’ accusing others of fooling around.
Binam
I think it’s awful for an “academic” like Scott Lucas to be misleading, to say the very least, about his CV on a government owned website. It reveals a lot about his research and integrity. However, I agree that I should have used more politically correct language.
I think you know that Azadi Sq. and all the roads surrounding it for miles were full of people.
ALso, Binam,
I am really sorry about your “dehati” comments and how they don’t know any better. The reason they DO KNOW BETTER is because Ahmadenijad has touched their life in a personal, day to day basis. In my home town (you can call it a dehat if you want, although I’m terribly proud of it and will say that they are educated, well-traveled, and definitely better informed than some Tehranis, but it has a population of 15,000 only). When I visited my hometown a few months back, I saw a row of apartment buildings being built. It caught my idea because we don’t really have that many apartment buildings in that city (most being traditional one or two level houses) much less a row that look similar, which to me looked like a project. I asked what they were, and they told me it was a project headed by Ahmadenijad administration as low-cost housing to people who couldn’t afford it.
And the people who will eventually make use of that project, are they uninformed if they support the government that supports them, or should they instead tune in to VOA to listen to how they should think?
You have a low opinion of non-Tehranis. You also have a low opinion of developing countries in general. It is a prevalent attitude among the Greens. I hope they will one day have the courage and decency to get over themselves and respect their Iranian and non-Iranian brothers a bit more.
Binam:
I was at the demonstration held in Mashhad on that day and the crowds were enormous. I sort of feel insulted when you write such things. The crowds in Tehran were beyond belief. Did you expect people to walk home?
Moving away from this boring topic (for me at least), as I wrote before, this is a very interesting debate on the Ahmadinejad trip to Lebanon (all three guests were civil):
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2010/10/2010101491617490142.html
Binam,
Scott’s tone is always respectful and I appreciate that of him. However, his debating style, unfortunately, isn’t, because he does not debate in an honest manner. When we address his points, he usually sidetracks and moves on another aspect. Sometimes he politely will thank you for giving him a new information, making you feel hopefully and appreciative that your points have been appreciated, but in his next work, you realize that he has ignored it completely.
When Scott and Eric were discussing the elections, Eric gave him many points on why he had concluded the elections were not fraudulent. Eric’s major point was that Form 22s were approved by the opposition, confirming the counts. In case the forms were incorrect, all Mousavi & co had to do was show their forms. Unfortunately, Scott’s position was, to prove the elections were true, why not have the government scan and publish every form on their website, which to an unbiased person seems like a silly position to take. I even commented to him that even if the government did that, what would stop Scott saying the forms were not authentic. He basically said that let them first do that, then he’ll address that.
I am mentioning this because I have the same problem with Scott’s issues with Iran as Ahmadenijad has with the nuclear issues. Ahmadenijad said that some groups ask Iran to prove they don’t nuclear weapon ambitions. How can they prove that? Let them prove they have it, or let them ask questions, or let them ask for information, to let them bring forward evidence. But what evidence can a person bring to prove a negative?
Binam,
The only one in khiayalat is you, my dear. Incidentally support for Ahmadinejad in northern areas of Tehran is around 40-45%. How do I know? Because my family and I were members of the Ahmadinejad re-election comittee for northern Tehran areas (yes they were very proud of me). Many middle-class educated non-religious people voted for Ahmadinejad. What’s more many Iranians living abroad voted for him, many for the first participating in elections.
If anyone is ignorant it is you and not the people you are so condescending about. Spend a little time away from your normal groupthink crowd and start living in reality. But again what does it concern you in NY what we ignorant dahatis and dahati lovers do in Iran? Let Ahmadinejad take care of the dahatis who are so unworthy of your attention. Hey as long as the educated rational elites in Tehran are running the country, who cares about the rabble. You don’t realize how pathetic your views are.
Iranian@Iran,
You mean footage of the buses lining the streets or footage of people being bored to death in Azadi square?
While Scott does have a EA section for USA, it is interesting to compare and contrast both countries’ coverage on his site. In the US section (and others), it is a big picture look, focusing on bigger issues. While in Iran, there is a daily blog, taking issue on every single negative (some true, some exaggerated, some false) on Iran. Did the American women on deathrow in USA get the same coverage at EA USA as with the Iranian woman in EA Iran?
Every opposition interview gets a feature at EA Iran. Every political letter, every sentence, any person who loses a job in Iran, any economic woes, any political issue for Ahmadenijad, they all get constantly reported, analyzed (usually badly, like the dollar “crisis”, which lasted a week, but Scott treated it as some sort of downfall of the economy), but for EA US, we have articles such as “Afghanistan: US and NATO Support Taliban Talks with Government (Shanker/Sanger/Schmitt) ” (latest article in EA USA)
Yes, there are negative articles on USA, but this is a typical propaganda trick that US is well-versed in. By acting like both sides are getting criticism, then readers are more willing to believe the work’s sincerity (I wish Iran could study this better). Could we compare the coverage of the “political prisoners” that Scott reports on in EA Iran and EA USA (e.g. Guantanama Bay)? Do they have the same coverage? Or does the latter have, I’d guess at best, one article for every 100 ones in EA Iran?
I’m not even touching the other countries, such as, how much did Scott report on the protests of the other countries I mentioned between 2008 to 2010 compared to Iran?
I wont claim that Scott is on anyone’s payroll, but it does seem likely that because the west is interested in Iran, it is better for Scott to focus on Iran. Because while him “specializing” in Iran might get the media to call him for quotes and maybe help his resume, I doubt him focusing on other nations would bring him the same kind of attention. So, yeah, follow the money…
This is a very interesting debate on the Ahmadinejad trip to Lebanon:
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2010/10/2010101491617490142.html
RSH
Full speech was broadcasted live on PressTV with English translation, I don’t know if they have posted it on their site yet
Binam
Instead of defending a dishonest academic like Scott Lucas go and look at the footage of the 22nd of Bahman demos.
Binam
Instead of defending a dishonest academic like Scott Lucas go and look at the footage of the 22nd of Bahmad demos.
Scott Lucas
The question wont go away. Why are you lying about your own CV on the University of Birmingham website?
Scott Lucas,
You’ve been nothing but respectful on your posts here and these people have been nothing but disrespectful. They can’t answer your questions because answering them would mean actually confessing to all the wrongdoings of the Ahmadinejad government – something they would rather avoid. So instead they go on personal attacks. They point out that you’re not Iranian and therefore don’t qualify to comment – forgetting that their idols, the Leveretts aren’t exactly Iranians either. They question where you get your funding – having never questioned the Leveretts sources of income.
BiB,
If there’s any group of Iranians that “don’t know any better” it’s the uneducated villagers (dahati) without access to information. So if I sound condescending towards them so be it, they literally don’t know any better! They are a khorafati misinformed bunch. You on the other hand are condescending towards the educated middle class. People who DO know better! People like your own parents. How many people in your Zaferanieh neighborhood are pro-Ahmadinejad would you say? 63%?! More like 5%. Same applies to all middle-class neighborhoods in all major cities across Iran. “Landslide” victory – be hamin khial bash! There’s a reason why the student movement, the women rights movement, artists, filmmakers, doctors and nurses, teachers, etc. etc. are all opposed to Ahmadinejad – they can’t be fooled by him as easy as the handful of villagers who support him. Accept it and move on with your life! Make your parents proud!
Scott Lucas
Why are you lying about your own CV on the University of Birmingham website?
“” I still would appreciate any evidence on the cases I raised, given that my current position is that there is none to challenge the lack of justice and the notion that Baghi, Nazar Ahari, and Sotoudeh are political prisoners. However, since there may not be such evidence, I thank all for the discussion”"
My strong suggestion to Scott , if he is really so concerned as he claims , would be to write to Ayatollah Larijani directly , with copy to the president’s office and the office of the Supreme Leader.
He could insist to receive a reply on urgent basis , otherwise he could say , that he will lose his job irretrievably.
Scott Lucas
Why are you lying about your own CV?
So what exactly are you proving, Scott?
Let’s say that you’ve introduced some names, and have demonstrated that nobody at RFI can prove the names you’ve introduced are not political prisoners.
Let’s say you prove that Iran has political prisoners, which could not validly do using the procedure you’re employing here.
That does not mean Iran is not legitimate, unless the existence of political prisoners held by the US establishes that the US is not legitimate. The Leveretts have not said there does not exist anyone in Iran who could be considered a political prisoner, so proving the opposite does not impact any statement they’ve made.
In fact, you have access to previous articles here. What direct quotation by the Leveretts do you think you are refuting?
Per RSH’s valid point, there is nobody under the power of the Iranian government who has as few rights as the people of Gaza or the West Bank with respect to Israel. If Iran has fewer political prisoners than Israel, then Iran has few enough political prisoners that that issue itself demonstrably does not preclude a supportive relationship with the United States.
So since you’re invested in the details of individual Iranian prosecutions, why are you not equally invested in, for example, the Palestinian members of Parliament who were captured and held by Israel specifically to prevent Hamas from having a Parliamentary majority?
It is clear that you don’t care about these prisoners or human rights itself, except as a tool to disparage Iran. It is also clear that if Iran was under pro-US, relatively pro-Zionist leadership the way Egypt is, you would not feel this impulse to disparage Iran, any more than you do to disparage Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Jordan, each of which offer far less recognition and consideration for human rights, civil rights or rule of law.
You could only be happy with Iran if it was under an authoritarian dictator like the US allies in the region, or if it was under the Shah again, or if it was liquidated and the most powerful organized force in the country was the occupying US army as is the case in Iraq.
Your participation here, as well as your entire website is one extended lie that you have any concern at all for human rights. You’re really a proponent of the US holding the entire Middle East – including and now especially Iran – under a colonial relationship on Israel’s behalf.
Yes, that’s an archived rendition of the UT site.
It appears Scott is no longer affiliated with UT. (I wonder why he doesn’t make that apparent.)
Scott’s response at 10:30 is a masterpiece of evasion.
Admit it, Scott, you’re just another Iran hater with a hidden agenda. Are we going to have as much trouble prying this admission out of you as we did with Eric Brill?
You say your site concerns itself with the US and Israel. I just looked at your front page. The headings are:
EA Global
EA Iran
EA Middle East and Turkey
EA Afghanistan-Pakistan
EA USA
While the US is there, I don’t see Israel.
“”In that sense, I may be nearing common ground with Hillary Leverett, who told an interviewer recently — in a shift of position from earlier writing — “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.”
Could any individual or private group etc. ‘attest ‘ the legitimacy of Bush Junior’s government after the fraud in Florida , or likewise in Georgia , Ukraine , Kyrgysistan or any place in the world ??
What Mrs. Leverett stated , was the best possible reply and we can not make any conclusion from this response.
Scott Lucas
Unfortunately, you are being dishonest about your own CV. You have shown an old website that seems to have been non-active for a very long time.
Scott,
As Richard has suggested, it indeed would help if you could post links to information about various cases you raise. You may find it easy to locate it, but the rest of often don’t, despite trying very hard.
For example, in the stoning case, it was not until our very own Reza Esfandiari mentioned it that I learned the woman hadn’t been punished for murdering her husband only because her son had pardoned her, which, I gather, is permitted under Islamic law. I don’t think anyone here condones stoning – no matter what the woman may have done – but information such as Reza provided makes clear that her punishment had been meted out for more than merely adultery. That’s important to know, since it changes the focus of the debate from whether she deserved the death penalty to the particular method of carrying out the death penalty (stoning – versus, say, asphyxiation, poisoning, electrocution, hanging or firing squad, as it’s done here in the US). Though others here may have known about the son’s pardon, at least one person (I) did not. It’s not easy to find.
The same goes for other stories, Scott. I used to try to track down various “human rights” stories mentioned here and on your website, but too often I ended up in a dead-end circle where A quoted B and C and C quoted B and A and nobody actually seemed to have concrete information.
If you’ve got some of that concrete information (not just the “A quoted B and C and C quoted B and A” variety – even if D quoted E and E quoted B and C, and then they quoted D and E), everyone here, I’m sure, would appreciate your posting links.
A translation from MEMRI of Nasrallah’s speech at the rally for Ahmadinejad. Be warned that MEMRI is an Israeli front.
Nasrallah Addresses Hizbullah Rally, Honors Ahmadinejad
http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/31111.htm
Scott Lucas
Where is your name?
http://inaes.ut.ac.ir/rtl/Default2.aspx
“Khak tu sare daneshgah Tehran”. If you spoke Farsi, you would know what that means.
Scott Lucas
You claim you are currently an adjunct professor. You are lying according to the website.
Salam Iranian@Iran,
Re my tenure as Adjunct Professor at the University of Tehran….
http://web dot archive dot org/web/20080414210936/http://inaes.ut.ac.ir/Static/detail.php?id=d-ns-s-e
Scott
Attention all
Do you know what I just discovered? On the University of Birmingham website Scott Lucas claims that he is an adjunct Professor of the Institute for North American and European Studies at the University of Tehran.
http://www.uscanada.bham.ac.uk/staff/lucas.shtml
However, I just went to the University of Tehran website and his name isn’t there.
How sad.
Kooshy that’s just such a beautiful tune, I’m gettin teary-eyed…
EA WorldView specialises in coverage of the US and Israel, including examination of human rights, and we are looking to develop a specialism on Egypt, having begun coverage of political, legal, and cultural issues. Happy to have input from all here on those topics in discussion on the site.
My queries on the cases were genuine, i.e., whether there was evidence to support the convictions and sentences and thus establishing that justice and rights were observed. There are hundreds of other cases in the post-election period which could also be raised.
If RFI takes the line, “Such issues are irrelevant to this site”, then RSH is right: no need for discussion. However, I suggest that one cannot then invoke the notion of a Government as abiding by the law and upholding the Constitution in support of an argument.
So, using RSH’s formula to “encourage bringing Iran [in] as a legitimate member of the international community and avoiding military or economic confrontations” — a goal which I support — that has to be done on grounds other than the legitimacy of a particular Government or Presidency.
In that sense, I may be nearing common ground with Hillary Leverett, who told an interviewer recently — in a shift of position from earlier writing — “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.”
I still would appreciate any evidence on the cases I raised, given that my current position is that there is none to challenge the lack of justice and the notion that Baghi, Nazar Ahari, and Sotoudeh are political prisoners. However, since there may not be such evidence, I thank all for the discussion.
Best,
S.
Attention all
Do you know what I just discovered? On the University of Birmingham website Scott Lucas claims that he is an adjunct Professor of the Institute for North American and European Studies at the University of Tehran. However, I just went to the website and his name isn’t there:
http://inaes.ut.ac.ir/rtl/Default2.aspx
BIB
“Scott, We also got the e-mail from regime change central command to focus on human rights and ditch the nuclear issue. Don’t get a hernia trying so hard.”
Did you actually, mean The Department of Information (DOI) at Langley, oh how sweet, I was not aware that the good folks, like our own Enduring Scott at DOI, now days are sending out talking memos. How sweet of them to be thinking and Wanting to help protect the Human Rights in Iran more than their own country. Iranians should love good folks like Scott as much as they love Kermit Roosevelt.
I think we Iranians should even have our own “my friend John where have you gone song” like this “my old friend Kermit, where have you gone”, and next line could be “my old friend Scott where are you taking us “ or “my old friend Scott what are you trying to do to us” and so on.
Ahmadinejad’s address in Lebanon with minimal English translation – only five minutes worth. I can’t find any full text of the speech anywhere via Google yet.
The Great Iranian leader President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad address in Lebanon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrujjUsL70I
Arnold: Let’s ask Scott if he wants to discuss the civil rights record of Israel with regard to the Palestinians. That should be fun. I’m sure he he’d like to attack Egypt for its civil rights record but that’s an easy target. Let’s try Israel. Or the US.
I’d like to reiterate the request that others have made earlier for the full text of Ahmadinejad’s speech or speeches in Lebanon, if anyone has access to them.
How about a website “RacefortheUSA” where we discuss how the Zionists and the financial criminals on Wall Street have destroyed the American republic. Now that is something Scott could really get behind, cause you know, it might be more relevant to him than what goes on the ME.
Or how about a website “RaceforIsrael” where we discuss how Netanyahu and AIPAC are destroying Israel- we could use Mearsheimers article as way to get things started. Of course unlike Scott my main worry is about Iran so I leave it to the participants from the USA and Israel to worry about their own countries. Of course I am an “expert” on the US and unlike some other experts I speak the local language ;-)
Scott Lucas
Where does your logic lead us?
The human rights abused carried out by the hand that feeds Scott Lucas makes both “illegitimate”.
Scott Lucas: “The news and analysis on the three cases that I raised can easily be accessed and considered.”
Then I would suggest providing cites rather than merely raising pointless questions to others here as a snide way of arguing.
“The reason why I brought them up was because of the issue, raised on the previous thread, of whether freedom of speech and the press had been curtailed in Iran through detentions and intimidation.”
And I have pointed out that such issues are irrelevant to this site and in fact irrelevant in general if you’re not an Iranian citizen.
“If RFI sticks to issues about geopolitics and Iran’s position in the region — as it appears Flynt and Hillary are now doing — and acknowledged that rights and justice are peripheral and even irrelevant, then fair enough.”
Which it would seem we do here.
“When, however, legitimacy for the Government is invoked by claiming these rights and justice have been defended and upheld, then that claim is open to challenge.”
Ignoring for the moment again that these issues are irrelevant here, the fact remains that 1) the government of Iran is no different from any other government – they are ALL corrupt, authoritarian, and oppressive – they only differ in minor degree; 2) the “legitimacy” of the Iranian government is established by the fact that they had free elections and it has never been established that Ahmadinejad did not achieve a legitimate majority in the elections; 3) since there is no such thing as a “legitimate” government in the first place in my view, the whole question is moot.
I will agree with you that the arguments of several persons here that the Iranian government has a right or responsibility to control access to foreign media or to suppress political opinion by certain Iranians whether as agents of a foreign power or not are incorrect. However, the US has allowed agents of a foreign power – AIPAC and the Israel Lobby – to engage in this behavior and in fact the US Senate under Senator Fulbright once considered requiring them to register as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act – an Act remarkably similar in intent to what the Iranian government is doing, namely controlling the actions of citizens operating as agents of a foreign power. So far AIPAC has avoided being so required to register but there are few other lobbies in Washington so clearly operating under the control – even to the extent of actual espionage against the US – of a foreign power.
However, again, this is utterly irrelevant to the fact that the sole reason to bring up these matters is to encourage the OPPOSITE of what this site is about – to encourage bringing Iran as a legitimate member of the international community and avoiding military or economic confrontations.
Which is the behavior of a troll.
So either establish that under actual Iranian court decisions and a complete presentation of the evidence that Iran has violated its own laws, and then establish WHY WE SHOULD CARE HERE or take it back to your own blog.
Scott Lucas
No it just means that as someone who receives funding for propaganda you are not worth responding to.
Have you perhaps forgotten about Judith Miller? Wish you could? Fox News won’t let us:
http://www.judithmiller.com/8055/ahmadinejad-lebanon
The title of Ms. Miller’s piece: “Who Invited You? Ahmadinejad Visits Lebanon”
It would appear from the title that nobody actually invited Ahmadinejad. Turns out he just sort of showed up at the airport, and every Lebanese official assumed that some other Lebanese official must have invited him, but no one was quite sure who had and so, to be safe, they hurriedly put together a big parade and – wouldn’t you know it? – word got around and the next thing you know thousands upon thousands of people were lining the street, cheering for this guy that no one had invited! No one in the crowd really wanted to be cheering him, but they saw that everyone else was and so they figured they might as well too. I think there was some story circulating that the government was giving out free bus passes and chocolate milk.
Welcome back, Judy!
Not one article on EA worldview criticizing Egypt’s lack of human rights. Are you going to lie to us and say it is because the Leveretts have not made a website focused on Egypt? Nobody believes that.
You tried lying. It didn’t work. What is the real reason you’re criticizing Iran in such minute detail and not doing the same regarding Egypt’s worse civil and human rights record?
Some human rights campaigns that Scott with his incredible expertise can get behind:
Egypt:
Govt. cracks down on Muslim Brotherhood and other candidates before elections, cracks down on independent newspapers.
Saudi:
Former Ambassador to US and National Security Advisor Prince Bandar bin Sultan together with dozens of senior security people missing for two years.
Bahrain:
Human Righst Watch and Amnesty International says govt. imprisoning democracy advocates.
Jordan:
Letter from retired military officers warning King Abdullah not “hand over Jordan to the Palestinians”.
Kuwait:
Emir dissolves parliament for the nth time when MPs question Emir appointed ministers.
Yemen, Tunisia and the PA also have human rights “issues”. Oops, I forgot they are US allies.
Arnold,
When the Leveretts start their new site Race for Egypt, then I will be glad to join in the discussion on those pages of Egypt’s civil rights record.
We have begun covering Egypt on EA WorldView and hope to expand this coverage in the near-future.
S.
RSH,
The news and analysis on the three cases that I raised can easily be accessed and considered. The reason why I brought them up was because of the issue, raised on the previous thread, of whether freedom of speech and the press had been curtailed in Iran through detentions and intimidation.
If RFI sticks to issues about geopolitics and Iran’s position in the region — as it appears Flynt and Hillary are now doing — and acknowledged that rights and justice are peripheral and even irrelevant, then fair enough. When, however, legitimacy for the Government is invoked by claiming these rights and justice have been defended and upheld, then that claim is open to challenge.
S.
Salam Iranian@Iran,
The information and research on the Baghi, Nazar Ahari, and Sotoudeh cases — indicating an absence of due process of law and a failure to meet the guarantees in the Constitution — has been published.
Forgive me, therefore, for concluding that your invective is a substitute for your inability to provide any information in response.
Best,
Scott
Scott:
You’ll agree that Egypt has a far worse civil/human rights record than Iran. Care to explain why you are so involved in the details of individual Iranian cases but are not willing to make even a broad criticism of Egypt?
The same question holds for Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE.
Lucas: You are acting as a troll on this site.
If YOU have any evidence of wrong doing in the Iranian legal cases you have repeatedly asked others to provide evidence of, then PROVIDE IT and make your case.
Which case in any event is as I have said repeatedly here is NOT RELEVANT to the point of this site which is to encourage engagement with Iran and avoid another pointless war.
Or do us all a favor and go away. No one here cares about your pointless trolling.
Look, this has nothing to do with Ahmadinejad’s popularity or legitimacy within Iran or without. It has everything to do with how it fits the western narrative re Iran. By all accounts, he received a rapturous reception. But, the “nattering nabobs of negativism” (W. Safire) will have you believe that those were not Lebanese cheering. They were “Hezbollah supporters”. Ahmadinejad has been vilified from day one in the office, tagging him as an embassy hostage taker. Day one, the rest is history.
“Would you for example defend the Taliban because they too never get “fair” media coverage?”
Disgusting statement…..
And yes if Eby, Dariush and Googoosh came they would attract large crowds as singers/celebrities do in every country. The point is that unlike most other politicians, Ahmadinejad attracts crowds as large as the crowds that celebrities do. That’s the difference between Ahmadinejad and other politicians. But none this is proof of popularity. Winning two elections with landslide victories is proof.
For your own sake, move on with with your life, come back for the next battle. We will have new Presidential elections in a few years where you can try to overthrow the legal government again.
Binam
I hope you realize that your constant degradation of rural people in Iran is very bad (it also proves the point that many anti-IRI people are arrogant classists). But you are now in NY, no need to worry about the dirty stupid dahatis in Iran. It’s OK, Ahmadinejad is taking care of them.
Besides the only one saying that attracting crowds is evidence of support is you. Winning two elections with landslide majorities- now that’s proof of popularity! Get over it and get on with your life in NY and let Ahmadinejad worry about Iran and its dahati people.
“There will never be fair coverage, best we can do is be fair and balanced ourselves. Fair and balanced starts with us – not Fox News or Press TV.”
We are the balancing act, instead of tipping the level unfairly. For example, I spend my time dismantling false information on Iran. I don’t lie. When I defend IRI, I’m not doing it by lying or giving false information. As far as I now, what I argue is correct.
“Remember how much people were hating on BUSH in the US media in his final years of his presidency? He’s probably the worst US president in history and he deserved the kind of coverage he was getting (outside of Fox News). But that doesn’t mean one would have to go on defending him or any of his stupid decisions because his coverage wasn’t fair!”
What was the coverage on Bush on days after 9/11?
Think about this a bit. I don’t mean this to sound condescending, but please ponder on it for a bit.
“Would you for example defend the Taliban because they too never get “fair” media coverage?”
If I don’t think there were unnecessary lies about the Taliban for some agenda, I would sure as hell defend them. But in Taliban’s case, I don’t find that I have a strong case to dispute the established viewpoint on them.
Binam
Anyone who has seen the rallies on the 22nd of Bahmam, among others, would know that you know little about Iran, Iranians, and current affairs in Iran.
Iranian@Iran
In remote parts of Iran it’s not hard to have crowds gather around to see you if you have any sort of a celebrity status – crowds that come to see AN have in the past gathered to see Queen Farah or the Shah, it doesn’t prove anything. You think Ahmadinejad is popular based on the crowds that gather around for him, try having someone like (singer) Ebi or Daryoosh show up anywhere in Iran and only then you’ll see what really being popular means! In their case not only they won’t have to bus people in – people would sell their cows and pay for tickets to see them! I’m personally not a fan, but I’m always amazed at how much Iranians love these two singers! Them and I guess Googoosh! She would probably bring millions to the streets as well.
M. Ali,
“I take a more fervent pro-IRI approach than I should because of necessity of the imbalance of fair coverage given to both sides of the argument in western media. If there were a more honest, unbiased, and fair environment when it came to Iran, trust me, I’d be more critical of IRI. ”
There will never be fair coverage, best we can do is be fair and balanced ourselves. Fair and balanced starts with us – not Fox News or Press TV. Remember how much people were hating on BUSH in the US media in his final years of his presidency? He’s probably the worst US president in history and he deserved the kind of coverage he was getting (outside of Fox News). But that doesn’t mean one would have to go on defending him or any of his stupid decisions because his coverage wasn’t fair!
Would you for example defend the Taliban because they too never get “fair” media coverage?
Scott Lucas
You rely too much on this website. Go to a Farsi class and then maybe you can write better propaganda on your own without the help of others.
Scott Lucas
They were. You can go and do your own reading and research can’t you? Too lazy to do your own work?
M. Ali,
It is excellent to find we are in agreement on the significance and articles of the Iranian Constitution.
So how were that Constitution upheld in the legal procedure followed in the Baghi, Nazar Ahari, and Sotoudeh cases?
S.
“I apologize if at any point I overlook something you say… But to me you are constantly trying to JUSTIFY actions of the Islamic Republic. You could make a much stronger case if you were to recognize their wrongdoings while at the same time making your case about how legitimate they are… All I hear from you is that Iran in order to survive in today’s dog eat dog world must have a dictator that controls the kind of information its people are exposed to. I disagree because I respect Iranians more…”
I take a more fervent pro-IRI approach than I should because of necessity of the imbalance of fair coverage given to both sides of the argument in western media. If there were a more honest, unbiased, and fair environment when it came to Iran, trust me, I’d be more critical of IRI.
“I sure hope you don’t think Guinea deserves the same kind of attention Iran gets. Maybe it’s just me, but I think Iran is pretty much the center of Universe! Look at its place in world history and culture and look at where it’s located on the world map.”
I’m a very proud Iranian, but when a country gets more negative press than others, something is wrong. How much positive press that Iran get? This is not an coincidence, Binam. If you love Iran, you should know that IRI’s achievements are Iranians achievement and IRI’s failures are Iranians failures, and we should not let anyone abuse it for their own agendas.
And oh, yeah, I’m sorry, but I’m not a nejad parast. I have used the Guinea protests example for some Iranian Greens and I could see their look of distaste and contempt. “Guinea?”, they say, annoyed that I’m even bringing an African country up to make my case. People that have just low opinions of African countries is not a group I want leading Iran.
Binam,
Ahmadinejad is extremely popular in Iran evidenced partly by two elections which he won by landslides. Like I said, get on with your life.
Scott Lucas
There is a great deal of open debate in the Iranian media, but if you admit that too often, you may lose your funding! The people you named were not arrested for speaking out. However, personnally, I’m not going to help you with your research. Learn how to do it yourself.
Binam-jan,
First of all I asked Scott, not you because I know you know what badbakht means.
Second, please read the posts carefully before answering. Like I said, the Leverrets are US FOREIGN POLICY experts, not Iran experts. I’m glad we agree on that one.
Third, the host nation provides transportation for visiting guests. Besides, Ford SUVs are excellent cars. Let’s hope it was a hybrid model (you know because of our dependency on oil from crazy countries like Iran and air pollution).
Lucas, your post seems to argue in favor of my position,
“The dignity, life, property, rights, residence, and occupation of the individual are inviolate, except in cases sanctioned by law. (Article 22)”
Sanctioned by law. Check.
“Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public.”
“fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public.” Check.
“The inspection of letters and the failure to deliver them, the recording and disclosure of telephone conversations, the disclosure of telegraphic and telex communications, censorship, or the willful failure to transmit them, eavesdropping, and all forms of covert investigation are forbidden, except as provided by law.”
Provided by law. Check.
“Innocence is to be presumed, and no one is to be held guilty of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent court. ”
Established by a competent court. Check.
“Political and press offenses will be tried openly and in the presence of a jury, in courts of justice. The manner of the selection of the jury, its powers, and the definition of political offenses, will be determined by law in accordance with the Islamic criteria.”
Determined by law. Check.
Thank you, Scott.
Binam
Ahmadinejad gets crowds like this when he goes to any provence in Iran. Scott Lucas is not worth answering. He is paid to produce propaganda.
Scott Lucas
There is no doubt that you don’t know much about Iran. You gather much of your information through a couple of hotheaded Iranian kids who don’t understand Iran themselves. You come to this forum (because yours is garbage) to ask questions so that through our answers you can write a twisted propaganda piece.
Bussed-in,
بدبخت means Ahmadinejad driving around Lebanon for the kind of reception he can’t get back in Iran in an American Ford SUV! بدبخت is you not being able to answer any of Scott Lucas’ questions and you resorting to disrespectful debauchery. بدبخت is you assuming Hilary and Flynt are Iran experts.
M. Ali,
I apologize if at any point I overlook something you say… But to me you are constantly trying to JUSTIFY actions of the Islamic Republic. You could make a much stronger case if you were to recognize their wrongdoings while at the same time making your case about how legitimate they are… All I hear from you is that Iran in order to survive in today’s dog eat dog world must have a dictator that controls the kind of information its people are exposed to. I disagree because I respect Iranians more…
I sure hope you don’t think Guinea deserves the same kind of attention Iran gets. Maybe it’s just me, but I think Iran is pretty much the center of Universe! Look at its place in world history and culture and look at where it’s located on the world map. I think it doesn’t get ENOUGH attention and if it wasn’t for Michael Jackson the green movement’s 15 minutes of fame would have lasted longer!
Flynt and Hillary,
Do feel free to jump in if you are taking heed of any information on internal matters in Iran.
Cheers,
S.
Salam M. Ali,
“In Iran’s situation certain actions have to be taken given the unique situation Iran is in….”
Using this criteria, no individual in Iran has legal rights. They are suspended because of your claim of emergency.
However, to my knowledge, the Constitution of the Islamic Republic has not been suspended by the authorities:
The dignity, life, property, rights, residence, and occupation of the individual are inviolate, except in cases sanctioned by law. (Article 22)
Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public. The details of this exception will be specified by law. (Article 24)
The inspection of letters and the failure to deliver them, the recording and disclosure of telephone conversations, the disclosure of telegraphic and telex communications, censorship, or the willful failure to transmit them, eavesdropping, and all forms of covert investigation are forbidden, except as provided by law. (Article 25)
Innocence is to be presumed, and no one is to be held guilty of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent court. (Article 37)
Political and press offenses will be tried openly and in the presence of a jury, in courts of justice. The manner of the selection of the jury, its powers, and the definition of political offenses, will be determined by law in accordance with the Islamic criteria. (Article 168)
I know the cases of Emaduddin Baghi, Shiva Nazar Ahari, Nasrine Sotoudeh, and others very well. So I ask again, given the importance of this judicial and political legitimacy as you have acknowledged, for the presentation of evidence — remembering that “political and press offenses will be tried openly”, according to the Constitution — supporting the prison sentences.
S.
Scott come on, what does “badbakht” mean?
And also, Lucas, “Bolstering legitimacy at home is often a consideration for leaders when they make trips abroad. ” Seriously? Its like you are basically against leaders that take the effort to visit other countries to foster good relationships. Was Ahmadenijad visiting so many cities in iran also for legitimacy? Should he just stay at his office like a 9-5 job? Punch in, punch out, and go home and play with his kids?
Scott, you are being very dishonest. In the previous thread, myself and other posters, took the time to make a clear case why in Iran’s situation certain actions have to be taken given the unique situation Iran is in. One would expect that a professor would be to think analytically. If you were really approaching Iran in an unbiased, professional, and academic manner, you would take the approach we have given you and think about it.
But instead you resort to typical layman’s understanding of politics. At worst, as people like Liz say, you really are on the payroll. At best, you approach the issue like a 17 year old good intentioned but naive teenage (duuuude, they arrest journalists duuuuuuuude not cool).
First of all, most of us here do not have access to the case studies and evidence used in the court cases of these individuals. Most of these verdicts have taken months and I doubt any member here were involved in the courts to give you a detailed summary of the evidence used. I doubt you have either.
But more important that, I repeat again, that Iran has to take certain drastic actions to protect its country. Iran, if it does not take proactive actions, will be overwhelmed (as it is now) by the propaganda war that has its sign on Iran.
In the previous thread, I used this example for Binam and I will repost here, as I think it helps to highlight my point,
“No, not all of them [citizen journalists] were puppets (some probably were), but the western media used them to a great extent and ignored pro-government rallies. Neda’s film was broadcast around the world and documentaries were made on it. However, 2009 had other countries with such protests and none of then had even a slight coverage of Iran’s “citizen journalists”. In Guinea’s protests (a few months after Irans), 157 demonstrators were killed in one day, thousands injured. Women protesters were raped at the protest scene, right in the streets, estimates put it above 100. Did that receive the same coverage? Did we have an avalanche of anti-Guinea reports? Did we have liveblogs? Did major news outlets constantly report on it? Did YOU EVEN HEAR OF THE INCIDENT? In 2009 Peru, over 20 civilians were killed in two days of protests, above hundred injured. 2010 protest in Kyrgyzstan, in one day, above 88 dead, above 1000 injured. 2000 Mongolia, in one day, 5 dead, above 300 injured, 800 arrested. In 2009 China, between 200 and 800 dead. 2009 Madagascar, 135 dead.
But it has been Iran, 24/7. This is not a coincidence. “
Salam Iranian@Iran,
I know the Sotoudeh very well, which is why I ask on what grounds, given the rights set out in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, she was detained and remains in prison. Any evidence would be most appreciated.
S.
Scott Lucas
I think Liz was correct to state that your very limited knowledge of Iran reveals itself when you repeatedly ask such simple questions on this website. It shows that your one website is reliant upon information that you get from people who you don’t even know and who write their comments on an English website. Your questions can easily be answered in you could read Farsi and I for one am not going to bother helping you, because you are dishonest in the way you twist the truth to serve US government interests. Your actions and methods of “research” make a mockery of higher education.
Scott Lucas Says:
“M. Ali,
Bolstering legitimacy at home is often a consideration for leaders when they make trips abroad. It just so happens that, in this case, the leader is Ahmadinejad.”
It is so obvious you don’t understand the Iranian mentality. Nothing can persuade Iranians to change their mind, if a leader is not popular at home. He is already considered to be the legitimate President of Iran – get over it; the Iranians have!!
“Ahmadinejad is popular in Iran, Lebanon and every country he visits except the US.”
Who said that , except the US ?
On the contrary , I think that AN is very much popular in the US.
I strongly suggest to the Leveretts to try to make a poll regarding the popularity of Mr. Ahmadinejad & Iran in the US .
Please give this request a serious consideration and everybody would be ‘ amazed ‘ about the outcome.
In the German weekly magazine ” Der FOCUS ” , they did they the same and among all world leaders AN was leading with high margins. Unfortunately they stopped the online voting , once they noticed , that the voting is making too much fuzz and probably under the Zionist influence in Germany they ‘ terminated ‘ the voting from one minute to another.
Interesting to note , that in only 3 weeks 62 000 users took part in the online voting and FOCUS is considered to be a outspoken Anti-Iran Magazine.
If you go today to the online voting page , it shows : FEHLERSEITE = ERRORPAGE
whilst at the same time working to improve the lot of their fellow brethrens in occupied Muslim nations.
Frankly, the leaders of KSA, Egypt, Jordan have no legitimacy with their people hence they can be in the pockets of Western countries as they have no constituents to answer to except to Washington, London or Paris.
There is great changes taking place in the ME, something that Ahmedinejad mentioned in his speech yesterday and Aistair Cooke wrote about in an aticle that was posted on this website previously.
The thing I am waiting for is can Obama see and hear this and what is he going to do to improve the relationsip between US and countries like Iran and work with all countries to resolve long standing issues, e.g. Palestine that meets the hopes, and aspirations of the local people and not rich Zionist Jews living in Miami, Boston, New York et.c
Scott,
We also got the e-mail from regime change central command to focus on human rights and ditch the nuclear issue. Don’t get a hernia trying so hard.
Rehmat,
In asnwer to your question of Sunni leader not in US pockets:
Prime Minister Erdagon of Turkey
Khaled Meshal of HAMAS
Diposed HAMA PM Ismail Haniye
The Emir of Qatar HE AL-Thani
The thing you have to understand is that some countries, like Iran, openly defy Western powrs and design in the ME. Other countries such as Egypt and Jordan will paly along with it in the hope that they can moderate or influence it, whilst others will not openly defy Westernn powers but will use diplamatic chanells with with, say USA, to express their concerns and displeasure with their policy. Their maybe instances where they openly defy the US – for e.g. when Qatar hosted the Gaza summit during Operation Cast Lead. and same with countries like Malaysia, Turkey, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Indonesia, etc.
Open confrontation will lead to more Muslim nations been sanctioned, bombed, threathened with invasion or destructions – something that Muslim nations cannot afford to do as they work to improve the wellbeings of their citizens.
Binam
Ahmadinejad is popular in Iran, Lebanon and every country he visits except the US. He was elected by a significant majority of Iranians in two fair and clean elections. Now get on with your life.
“Bolstering legitimacy at home is often a consideration for leaders when they make trips abroad”
Then Obama , Sarkozy , Merkel , Berlusconi etc. should be on tour the rest of their presidencies……
Fahad A.
you compare the masses in Beirut to the Jubelperser in 1967 and the death of Benno Ohnsorg.
And where does Nassrallah fit into this ?W
Wake up Fahad .
M. Ali,
Bolstering legitimacy at home is often a consideration for leaders when they make trips abroad. It just so happens that, in this case, the leader is Ahmadinejad.
S.
Good morning to all,
Just to follow up on the theme of “legitimacy” — legal as well as political — and discussion on the previous thread….
I note that, in the end, there was no information on the evidence behind the six-year prison sentence for journalist and activist Emaduddin Baghi and the six-year sentence for Shiva Nazar Ahari of the Committee of Human Rights Reporters.
Does anyone have any information on why prominent defence attorney Nasrine Sotoudeh was detained in early September and is still in prison?
Thanks….
Fahad,
Keep your eyes closed to reality.
There was a very good debate this morning on Aljazeera’s Inside Story about Iran and Lebanon. Surprising for Aljazeera (English) which is usually negative in its coverage on Iran.
“Don Bacon says:
Soft Power or Smart Power?
to quote the Iran expert Hillary Clinton:
We must use what has been called smart power, the full range of tools at our disposal—diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural—picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy. This is not a radical idea. The ancient Roman poet Terence declared that “in every endeavor, the seemly course for wise men is to try persuasion first.””
Isn’t it important to point out the perversity of what Hillary Clinton, “the Obliterator”, she who promised to “cripple” Iran, is saying here? She’s not talking about anything that is smart, or that has to do with persuasion. She is talking about COERCION. Having seen the Bill Clinton administration’s ’soft’ slaughter against Iraq (was it 500,000 Iraqi children indirectly Killed by Bill?), she knows better than anyone that ’soft’ coercion can be an even more powerful tool than ‘hard’ coercion, and the truly devilish beauty of it is that, with any luck and the right PR, you just might be able to get the country you are attacking to believe that it is the cause of its own suffering. Sometimes even victims like to Blame The Victim.
And while Terence’s dictum seems highly preferable to any dictum coming from Hilary Clinton, a better dictum would be that “the seemly course for the wise is to speak and listen, persisting sincerely, knowing that whatever confrontation occurs between people, their feet must be, though sometimes it’s hard to see it, on common ground.”
Liz, when the Shah visited Westberlin back in 1967, so-called Jubelperser, or bribed- for-cheering Persians, were flow-in as well. SAVAK (then operating more or less free in the FRG) and flown-in basiji in Lebanon are the two faces of the same coin.
He’s just as popular in Iran. The fool Mousavi is reported to have said the crowds in Beirut were sent by plane, ship, and bus from Iran!
How impressive. All this without a single bus to bring in basijis or villagers from remote parts of the country. Ahmadinejad should really be the president of Lebanon!
Patrick, thinking Canadians should cheer the result. It would have been a disaster to have the Harper government using its “seat on the Council” for domestic political leverage.
The Canadians were defeated for the best of reasons. Their government, both under the recent Liberals and the Conservatives, has been nothing but a US footstool and a true lackey for Israel. Harper insisted that the Bombing of Gaza was proportionate, and insists that the Siege of Gaza is legal. The only western prisoner still in Guantanamo is a Canadian child soldier (at the time he was captured he was 15) whom the Canadian government refuses to repatriate, in spite of the Canadian Supreme Court’s ruling that his rights were being violated.
What a shameful country!
Another blow to U.S. influence in the Security Council is that Canada failed get win one of the rotating non-permanent seats on the Council. Canada lost to Portugal in the voting, despite lobbying intensely for the seat. Canada has held a non-permanent seat on the Council six time before and this is the first time it has failed in a bid to win a seat.
This is a loss for the U.S. because the Harper government of Canada could be counted on to adhere closely to U.S. positions in many matters, in particular those related to the Middle East. This may also have been an significant factor in Canada’s failure to win the seat.
Survey: Obama loses Jewish confidence on Iran
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/survey-obama-loses-jewish-confidence-on-iran/
Mohammad – Are you not showing your ignorance of Islamic history too? The first so-called ‘Shia’ community existed in Medina under the leadership of Imam Ja’afar Sadiq.
However, I don’t give a hoot whether someone is a Shia or Sunny or Wahhabi or Salafi. What matter to me is who is standing-up to the non-Muslims’ aggressions on the Muslim lands. Can you name a single Sunni Muslim leader who is not in the Zionists’ pocket?
What I found a bit odd in this post from the Leveretts is the absence of any mention of the repeated invasions of South Lebanon by Israel, and the death and destruction they caused. More than any other factor, that informs the current reception of Ahmadinejad.
Soft Power or Smart Power?
to quote the Iran expert Hillary Clinton:
We must use what has been called smart power, the full range of tools at our disposal—diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural—picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy. This is not a radical idea. The ancient Roman poet Terence declared that “in every endeavor, the seemly course for wise men is to try persuasion first.”
Let’s not be unfair; BBC has this good headline:
Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ‘backs united Lebanon’
But the content is not that positive.
Other headlines,
“US: We suspect Iran may not have Lebanon’s interests at heart”
“LEBANON: Arab media slam Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over visit”
“Hezbollah Welcomes Iran’s President To Lebanon” (see, its not Lebanese welcomes, but Hezbollah)
“ANALYSIS-Iran leader cheered in Beirut, skewered at home”
“Ahmadinejad on Israel’s Doorstep: His Lebanon Visit”
“U.S.: Ahmadinejad visit to Lebanon is “provocative”"
“Barak: Lebanon might lose independence”
“White House: Ahmadinejad continues his ‘provocative ways’”
“President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Visit to Lebanon Seen as Warning to Israel”
“Ahmadinejad in Lebanon: I feel right at home” (an innocent comment, but you can see what the headline sounds to certain readers…)
“Iranian Leader’s Visit Raises Tensions In Lebanon”
“Iranian leader aims to provoke Israel with border visit”
Headlines will be amusing! And some people still will claim there is no anti-Iranian agenda. Look at our favorite professor, Scott Lucas’ headline,
” Ahmadinejad’s Trip for Legitimacy ”
I guess Ahmadinejad is the only President in the world that when he visits his allies, its a “trip for legitimacy”.
Its interesting that in Beirut, its not only the Shia that support Lebanon. Anyone who does not like USA or Israel, is attracted to Iran rather than Arab countries (I’ve found that the Lebanese that DON’T like Iran dislike the gulf countries)
One of my Lebanese friends, back when I was in Dubai, was a communist and came from a communist family and background. He was a staunch Ahmadenijad supporter. He didn’t believe in Hezbollah as a religious entity, but respected and supported them for being the only force protecting his homeland against Israeli aggression.
Rehmat,
fyi is quite right in the large sense (I won’t argue about whether 500 years or 400 years is right). Not only Lebanon and Iran, but Iraqi Shias have had ties with both going back centuries.
Abuzar, a revered follower of the Prophet went to south lebanon 1400 years ago and seeded the roots of the Lebanese Shia. Persian Salman who was another close follower of the Prophet and Ali, went back to Persia and laid the roots of Shia in Persia. Ali based his government in Kufa, Iraq which contributed much to the spread of Shiism in Iraq. Over centuries, there has been extensive ties between these three Shia communities. Sheikh Bahai, an influential figure in the Safavid Dynasty (the architect of many of Isfahan’s amazing architecture) was in fact Lebanese. Shahid Sani (a top Shia scholar of the 17th century who is frequently cited in the Shia seminaries) was Lebanese but frequently went to Persia.
And look at the current day; in the modern Shia tradition, there has been no border between Iran and Iraq; all of the Grand Ayatollahs have almost a dual nationality of Iranian-Iraqi, many having studied and teached at both Qom and Najaf (Ayatollah Sistani is originally from eastern Iran). Imam Musa al-Sadr was an Iranian-born, Iraq-studied Lebanese whose activities transformed Lebanon into what is today (including inspiring Hezbollah and establishing the Amal movement). The Sadr family have been one of the most influential families in modern-day Iraq (Saddam almost massacred them though).
You should consider the Shia in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon part of the same culture, being tied together regardless of the borders, since centuries before Israel and modern-day West existed. These are truly deep ties, and the special relationship between Hezbollah and Iran is just a manifestation of them.
Ahamdinejad made it clear, before going to Lebanon, that he wanted to work with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and other countries, to foster stability in Lebanon. Is this what Robert Gibbs regards as being “provocative”?
It should be noted that the UK has been trying to improve its relations with Hezbollah, a policy the US should emulate.
What utter rubbish from Robert Gibbs, that Hezbollah is more loyal to Iran than to Lebanon itself! Total crap. Saad Hariri says Lebanon needs a strong Hezollah to deter another insane rampage by Israel.
And why is it “provacative” for Ahmadinejad to visit Lebanon? More rubbish from the presidential spokesman.
fyi – Your ignorance and distortion of Islamic history is laughable. 500 years ago – Persia was a Sunni-majority country. It was in the middle of 17th century under Safvid Dynasty that Persia became a Shia-majority nation. And for the readers’ information – Safvid ‘royals’ were not Persian but Turk Sufis.
But, then – Israel Hasbara is based on lies, distortion and strangling of the ‘freedom of press’. Who would know better than US Christian Helen Thomas.
Helen Thomas: ‘U can’t criticize Israel in the US’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/helen-thomas-u-cant-criticize-israel-in-the-us/
Although I watched the speech of Ahamdinejad live on TV , I would appreciate if anybody could post the link to the speech.
fyi
I think you would like very much what he said , in my opinion it was one of his best speeches .
Let’s see what happens tomorrow , which I expect to be a historic day in recent history of the whole NME Region.
Fpr 500 years the Shia Fortress of Iran has maintained ties of blood and religion with the Shia of South Lebeanon.
There are Lebanese Shia with Iranian passports that they have been updating for more than 120 years – from the time of the Qajar dynasty.
Once Israel invaded in 1982, Iranians found their openning.
And the Shia of South Lebeanon discovered – yet again – their savior.
This dynamics will not cease to operate because US, EU, or Israel do not like it.