This academic year, both of us hold appointments as senior fellows at Yale University’s new Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, which has us teaching at Yale one day a week. (It is in this role that Hillary is teaching the graduate seminar on U.S.-Iranian diplomacy which had the opportunity to meet with President Ahamdinejad last month in New York, see here.) The Jackson Institute’s senior fellows program was set up to bring “scholar-practitioners” to Yale to teach graduate and undergraduate courses on various aspects of international relations. We are gratified to be part of the Jackson Institute’s initial “crop” of senior fellows, which also includes Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley, Marwan Muasher (former Jordanian foreign minister), Rakesh Mohan (the former deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India), and General Stanley McChrystal.
Recently, The Politic—the “Yale Undergraduate Journal of Politics”—asked us to sit for an interview about Iran, focusing on the nuclear issue. Founded in 1947, The Politic “has served Yale and the larger intellectual community by providing top-notch analysis of international relations, domestic politics, strategic-military affairs, and the art of statecraft for over fifty years”. Former editors-in-chief of The Politic include Robert Kagan, Gideon Rose, and Fareed Zakaria—an impressive roster of high-profile commentators on foreign affairs, to be sure, though, from our perspective, that particular troika hardly has a record of positive distinction in commenting on Iranian issues. However, The Politic’s current editor-in-chief—Edward Fishman, a clearly extremely capable Yale senior—did a commendably serious and fair interview with us. The interview was just published today, entitled “Countdown to a Nuclear Iran?” (just inserting the question mark after the words “Countdown to a Nuclear Iran” puts Eddie several notches above most professional journalists in the United States who write about Iranian issues). We thank Eddie and his colleagues at The Politic for reaching out to us, and are pleased to share the interview with our readers; see here to read it on The Politic website (worth a visit) or see below.
You have pushed for a U.S.-Iranian “grand bargain” to resolve existing tensions. In your view, would such a “grand bargain” require the United States to accept an Iranian nuclear-weapons capability?
FL: That depends on your definition of a nuclear-weapons capability. If your definition is uranium enrichment, then yes: the Iranians are already enriching uranium at levels far from weapons grade, but they are enriching uranium. They are stockpiling low-enriched uranium in quantities where in theory, if you took it out of storage, ran it back through the centrifuges and knew what you were doing, you could produce usable amounts of weapons-grade material. So if that is your definition of a nuclear-weapons capability, then yes. But I think that’s a really silly definition of a nuclear-weapons capability. There’s no shortage of countries in the world that by that definition have a nuclear-weapons capability, and I think over time the number of countries that have a nuclear-weapons capability by that definition will only grow. Under the NPT this is perfectly legal, permissible, and legitimate.
HML: That is critical: we’ve already reached a grand bargain with Iran and other countries under the NPT. We are both signatories of it. And the grand bargain we signed up to in the NPT was that countries would be able to have fuel-cycle capabilities. We’ve already agreed to that. If you’re asking whether we should change the agreement to which we are bound by the NPT, that is another question. But the grand bargain that already exists between the U.S. and Iran allows Iran to have those capabilities.
That is fine, but the main issue the United States and others have about Tehran’s nuclear program is the secrecy that hangs over it, not to mention the regime’s aggressive rhetoric. What could the United States do that would convince the Iranian regime to prove its lack of intentions to weaponize by permitting full inspections of all its nuclear facilities?
FL: The Iranians have said to us and others on many occasions that if the United States and its partners would stop insisting on suspension of uranium enrichment—if they would accept the reality and principle that Iran was going to enrich uranium—things such as the ratification and implementation of the Addition Protocol to the NPT and other verification measures that control the risks of fuel-cycle activities would become eminently possible. If the principle of enrichment is accepted, and Iran is not treated differently than other countries, then Iran is prepared to ratify and implement the Additional Protocol, and negotiate other verification measures that should, properly implemented, give the international community confidence that the proliferation risks of its uranium enrichment are under control.
HML: The nuclear component of what we’re proposing for a bilateral U.S.-Iranian grand bargain would try to put Iran’s nuclear program in a context where it could be more transparent and more open to sufficiently guaranteeing the United States that its nuclear fuel-cycle capability would not be diverted.
FL: We have had IAEA officials tell us that the agency gets better physical access to the Iranian facilities that it inspects—Natanz, for example—than it gets to analogous facilities in Western countries. The issue about the veil of secrecy is not really about what’s going on at Natanz, it’s about being able to access facilities that might not necessarily have been declared, which is covered under the Additional Protocol, and it’s about other issues that aren’t directly related to the fuel-cycle program, such as whether Iran has done some level of study, research, and exploration into other engineering issues that have to be solved in order to fabricate nuclear weapons. That’s a different matter than its declared fuel-cycle program.
Many have argued that a nuclear-armed Iran would spark a dangerous arms race in the Middle East. In your view, how would an Iranian nuclear weapon affect the region?
FL: That’s assuming that Iran actually wants to and has made a decision to go all the way to weaponization. I actually don’t think there’s any evidence they’ve decided to weaponize.
If Iran were to weaponize, would it beget a nuclear arms race in the Middle East?
HML: The Arab states have been in various states of war with Israel now for sixty years. Some have made peace, but there have been various states of war going on for sixty years. And for most of that time the Israelis have had nuclear weapons. The Arabs have declared, whether this is genuine or not, that Israel is their enemy. Yet when their enemy acquired nuclear weapons, the Arab states did not rush to acquire nuclear weapons. So to say that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by another enemy of the Arab states [Iran], again whether this is genuine or not, would cause the Arab states to do so ignores history. We have the precedent of how the Arab states reacted when Israel acquired nuclear weapons, and they did not follow suit. To then draw the conclusion that an Iranian nuclear weapon would have a different effect is unfounded. I think what you have here is the Arab states’ antagonism toward Iran operating at the same time that there is a huge incentive for Arab states to develop nuclear power, for issues that have nothing to do with concern for Iran or nuclear weapons, but have to do with the desire not to waste their oil and natural gas on internal consumption.
Nuclear terrorism has emerged as one of the greatest national security fears in the United States. Given that Tehran is a known supporter of terrorist organizations, would a nuclear-armed Iran significantly enhance the risk of nuclear terrorism?
HML: The real concern we have here is with a country like Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, and has a close relationship to the Taliban, which has a close relationship to Al Qaeda. I don’t think there has ever been anybody who has really made the case that Hezbollah or Hamas is looking to acquire a nuclear weapon. It just does not make sense in terms of the conflict they have with Israel, in which their populations are on the same territory, to use a nuclear weapon. So I don’t think that there is really a serious concern that those groups are looking for a nuclear weapon and that Iran would abet such an attempt to get a nuclear weapon. It is not Iran and its proxies but the Pakistan-Taliban-Al Qaeda trifecta that is very, very disturbing in terms of nuclear terrorism. I think it is more of this idea of Iran being threatening that bothers us—not so much a serious concern about their relationships with Hezbollah and Hamas.
If either the United States or Israel attempts to take out Iranian nuclear facilities with air strikes, would a full-fledged war break out? If so, what would this war look like?
HML: First of all I don’t think there would be very much difference between whether the Israelis or the Americans struck. I think the perception in the region, both in Iran and throughout the Arab world, would be one and the same. Israel would be striking because of its connections to the United States, the United States would be striking because it cares about Israel’s concerns. I don’t think there would be any difference between the two other than that an American strike would be much more effective. But either way the reaction inside Iran would be very serious. It would not just be serious in terms of trying to strike back against the United States in all the place that Iran can do so, but also in terms of cutting off our supply lines to our troops in Iraq, cutting off supplies to our troops in Afghanistan, and threatening our troops in both of those arenas.
Would a war break out?
HML: One of the most misunderstood but most important things about the Islamic Republic is that it does not have the ability to project conventional military force in any significant way beyond its borders. So the war that would break out would not be a conventional one; it would be an unconventional one. The two ways that the Iranians could fight back against an attack would be to either dramatically step up their capabilities in the nuclear field, or try to mobilize some of its proxies. And it would not just be Hezbollah, but proxies through their relationships with a multitude of political factions, associations, and militias in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Hamas and others. They would not necessarily retaliate with a big bang in some place, but rather a slow bleed. And it’s something you already see happening. You already see the balance of power in the region dramatically shifting in Iran’s favor: with Turkey, with Lebanon, with Palestine, with Syria, and with Iraq. Slowly but surely there’s a northern tier forming in the Middle East with Iran at its core, with countries that are balancing against both the United States and Israel. If you had a strike on Iran, you would only accelerate that process.
FL: The Iranians’ most strategically effective response, I would argue, would be a political one. I can guarantee that if either Israel or the United States strikes Iran there will be no international legitimation for it. There will be no Security Council resolution or anything else that could be at all plausibly used to justify it. And this is after the larger part of the world thinks that we went to war illegally in Iraq. If we do it again, and we do it again with Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States, I think the image of the United States as this unconstrained, even outlaw military power, would be really ratified in powerful ways for a lot of players around the world. Rising powers like China will not confront the United States militarily over this, but let’s keep in mind that if we’re going to fight a war with Iran, we’re going to be fighting it on borrowed money, and we’re going to fight it on money borrowed in no small part from China, and from other countries that aren’t going to take too kindly to actions that are going to raise their energy prices and put the global economy into turmoil. Are they really going to be willing to subsidize us this time around?
HML: Our concern particularly is that we could face a “Suez moment,” where the U.S. today would be playing the role of Britain in 1956, where we either orchestrate or coordinate with the Israelis to launch an attack that is so widely perceived as illegitimate, and that another power, an emerging superpower like the U.S. was in 1956—today it could be China—says, “You stop that or we’ll pull our money out from under the dollar, just like Eisenhower threatened to pull American money out from under the sterling, and you’ll be bankrupt over night.” The Suez crisis was the beginning of the end of the British Empire. Are we now about to have our own “Suez moment,” where the Chinese threaten to pull their money out from under the dollar and it’s the beginning of the end of American empire?
It has been widely assumed that the Stuxnet worm was a government-backed cyber attack aimed at Iranian nuclear facilities. Do you think that cyber warfare is a good strategic option for dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue?
HML: During the Bush administration there was at least $400 million that was allocated to undermine the government of the Islamic Republic through a variety of both covert and overt measures. This could have been one of those projects, and certainly it is perceived inside Iran as being one. The strategic question is, What do you want to achieve with it? Do you want to achieve the downfall of the Islamic Republic? If so, I don’t think it’s going to be effective. Do you want to achieve a rapprochement with the Islamic Republic? I don’t think it’s going to be effective. Do you want to somehow hold back their nuclear program? I don’t know. I don’t know whether this virus or other forms of cyber warfare could have the impact of retarding their technological progress. I just don’t know. But on the other two questions, it won’t bring about the government’s downfall, and it certainly won’t bring about reconciliation or rapprochement.
Emotions often run high in discussions of the Iranian nuclear issue. Given your positions, some critics have gone as far as labeling you “apologists” for the Iranian regime. How do you respond to these accusations?
HML: They are just ridiculous. What’s interesting though is that one of the most distorting elements of the Iran debate today is not even so much the emotionalism involved, but the fact that the U.S. government has prohibited U.S. officials for the most part from ever having a discussion with an Iranian official. We’re two of the very few exceptions, from when we worked in the U.S. government. I in particular had an extended negotiation with Iranian officials over Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, and Iraq. The problem is that most American officials, pundits, and commentators never seriously consider the Iranian government’s position. You may reject it, like you may criticize the Syrian government’s position on a variety of issues, but at least Bashar al-Assad is heard—other countries and other people are at least heard. The Iranian government’s voice is never heard. What Flynt and I do is say we’ve had this discussion with these Iranian officials, and this is what they say about their strategy, this is what they say motivates them—we are simply reporting and analyzing it. We are not apologists. What’s unique about our perspective is that we took the authority we had in the U.S. government to actually talk to Iranian officials, and we have continued the discussions in what’s called a “track-two process,” in which former U.S. officials meet with similar Iranian officials in their personal capacities. Ten years of discussions with these officials doesn’t make me apologetic, but it does at least allow me to understand the Iranian point of view. The difference between our critics and us is that they can’t even begin to grasp the Iranian perspective because they’re simply not allowed to meet with them.
But is it not possible that Tehran is trying to game the system—that the regime is simply feeding the international community what it wants to hear, while not acting overtly defiant enough to inspire serious opposition, in an effort to buy time for their nuclear program?
HML: First of all, in the discussions and negotiations the U.S. has had with Tehran, they did deliver what we asked of them. They didn’t do everything we wanted, but of the things we asked them to do they did a lot of them. And this track record is true not just in the discussions that I had. Look at Iran-Contra during the Reagan administration—why did Iran-Contra fall apart? It wasn’t because the Iranians didn’t hold up their side of the bargain; it was because Americans tried to divert the proceeds from selling weapons to the Iranians to arming the Contras, in violation of congressional mandates, and provoking a constitutional crisis here in the United States. Every U.S. administration has reached out to the Islamic Republic because they needed Tehran’s help for something. It was not just Iran-Contra. George H.W. Bush reached out to Tehran to get U.S. hostages out of Lebanon. The Clinton administration reached out to Tehran to help get weapons to the Muslims in Bosnia, again because U.S. congress refused. The George W. Bush administration that I participated in needed Iran’s help in Afghanistan and with Al Qaeda. In each one of these cases, the Iranians didn’t do everything that we asked, but they did most of it. We have been the ones to cut off the dialogue.
FL: The Iranians have their own narrative about this. Whenever they try to reach out and cooperate with the United States, they get slapped in the face in return. Take the Bonn Conference in December 2001, for example, where we agreed on the post-Taliban political order in Afghanistan. It literally would not have succeeded without U.S.-Iranian cooperation. And yet six weeks later Tehran gets labeled part of the “axis of evil.”
You are married and have frequently co-authored articles. Is there anything you two disagree on?
HML: We do come from very different backgrounds. We are a mixed marriage. I’m Jewish, Flynt is Catholic. I went to Brandeis, he went to Texas Christian University. In some ways we have a different impulsive approach to issues, but I think for both of us, the experience of being in government and analyzing issues outside of government has made us very firm believers in dealing with reality as it is. We will often disagree in terms of an initial take, but then we both will say, “Let’s step back and think about how this actually played out,” and then, eventually, we basically do come to an agreement.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
R S Hack,
Do you think Hillary Clinton actually understood that the US should support the May 17 Tehran declaration, but that for domestic political reasons she urged Obama to try to undermine that agreement?
Oops, posted in the wrong thread
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…
Persian Gulf:
That was not meant as a personal attack.
Just an observation listening to Iranains nagging about why the sky is blue.
Mr. Canning: “Does anyone know why Hillary Clinton failed to see that supporting the Tehran declaration was in the best interests of the US?”
Do I really need to answer that?
It has nothing to do with “failing to see”. Or “the best interests of the US.”
If that isn’t obvious to you by now…
Binam,
“In this regard, AN has done numerous interviews with Western journalists (a freedom granted to only him and not his opponents) where he has had the opportunity to clear things up. How hard is it to say “I never said wipe Israel off the map” sometimes in the last 4 years?!”
He did say that. You just proved my point since even YOU didn’t know that. I hope this convinces you now (I doubt it though).
“Iran is dedicating millions of dollars to BLOCKING likes of BBC Persian and VOA! Wouldn’t it be easier to just stop jamming the satellite signals – at the risk of hurting average Tehrani citizens exposed to the unnecessary wavelengths – and let the Iranians decide for themselves?! What are they afraid of?”
You are ignoring what I said. “What are they afrad of?” They are afraid of those media manipulating people’s mind! Like yours! Like millions of Americans! Who believe in the false because how much they have been exposed to the untruth! Its as simple as that! I used several examples in my previous post but you completely ignored it, Binam. You don’t WANT to know the truth.
Wait a Minute,
The Leverrets don’t claim to be Iran experts, they are US FOREIGN POLICY experts and in this capacity the issue of Iran is relevant to them. As such they don’t need to speak Farsi to do their work (of course it wouldn’t hurt, but it’s not necessary).
Scott claims to be a Middle East/Iran expert but unfortunately does not have the minimum language requirements for this. He then uses this status as expert to push a very clear political agenda. This is why he is more an activist than an academic. I hope that clarifies it.
Persian Gulf,
If you say that his Ph.D. is fake, OK I’ll take your word for it. BUT he is a good minister of higher education and is helping many professors who were shut out by Moin for not pledging allegiance to the reformists to be part of the heyate elmiye. In this he is better than Moin who was a purely politial person and whose job was to make sure that the Poly Sci and Economics heyate elmiye of the elite unis are in the hands of the reformists.
As far as your other statement, of course politicians have made mistakes- -they do so in every country. That’s why we have elections for President, Majlis, Khobregan, local councils. In these, you and I vote for the candidates we think will do better. If they really do well we re-elect them. If they do poorly we vote for others. That’s why I voted for Ahmadinejad because I felt he did a really good job, especially because of his focus on rural development.
Most people who leave Iran do so for economic reasons because they feel they can get a better salary for their profession in a another country. That is a completely valid reason to migrate. But remember Iran is currently a low-wage country as are comparable developing countries like Turkey and Egypt. Developing countries in general are low-wage countries. This has advantages and disadvantages. And yes inshallah in time Iran will become a high-wage country with the advantages and disadvantages this has.
M. Ali,
“People like Rob O quote “threatening to wipe Israel off the map” even though Ahmadenijad never said that.”
In this regard, AN has done numerous interviews with Western journalists (a freedom granted to only him and not his opponents) where he has had the opportunity to clear things up. How hard is it to say “I never said wipe Israel off the map” sometimes in the last 4 years?! The fact that he never did just plays in to Western media’s portrayal of what he – as Iran’s unfortunate representative may have said about Israel. He has essentially confirmed the Western media’s interpretation of what he said by not correcting them when he had the opportunity to. So you can’t exactly say he “never said that” when he didn’t deny having said that in years following the initial utterance of the words – misinterpreted or not.
“Iran does not have the media range (BBC, CNN, ABC, Fox News, etc) that the west has nor can Iran dedicate the same amount of money to it. ”
Iran is dedicating millions of dollars to BLOCKING likes of BBC Persian and VOA! Wouldn’t it be easier to just stop jamming the satellite signals – at the risk of hurting average Tehrani citizens exposed to the unnecessary wavelengths – and let the Iranians decide for themselves?! What are they afraid of?
fyi:
I agree with you that you don’t necessary need a ph.d degree to manage an office. you certainly don’t need ph.d for presidency. that’s the upper limit. there should,however, be a minimum requirement as well.
however, I strongly disagree with your preposition of not needing ph.d for any office. One MUST have a ph.d for the ministry of “science, research, and technology” as the name says. This is too obvious to comprehend. getting ph.d does not make everybody a researcher. not everybody who holds a ph.d knows the essence of research. so, having ph.d is a necessary requirement for that post. there are many who have ph.d degree and at the same time are manager too. it’s not really that hard to find somebody like this in a country like Iran.
this is what you wrote!
“What I find unpersuasive about your position is the absence of individual responsibility. That somehow, the state, under the Shah and now under the Islamic Republic, is this monster that has usurped all individual initiative and responsibility and sucked it into itself – thus obviating the need for Iranians to be responsible for their own actions.”
Bussed-In Basiji:
Mr.Daneshjoo is a cheater, a thief. he is claiming to have a ph.d from non-existing institution. and he copied more than 95% of a another guy, put his name as the first author. my field is engineering, I saw those papers. he even didn’t re-phrase the sentences. in most of the countries of the world, he would have been expelled from the academia had it been know that a prof made a scandal like this. he had being instead rewarded into the highest level possible in academia!
is this really hard for you to understand? think about it a bit.
“You realize how condescending you sound to Iranians when you’re essentially saying they don’t know any better and are incapable of choosing right from wrong and truth from lies, given choices in news sources.”
Unfortunately or fortunately, Iranians are normal human beings. And normal human beings are influenced by the information they receive. If this were not true, the countries would not spend millions engaging in a PR battle to control hearts and minds and influence public thought. If media influencing people was not an actual fact, then advertising would have been long dead.
However, we can see how years of propaganda against Iran, you can see the results in the American minds. People like Rob O quote “threatening to wipe Israel off the map” even though Ahmadenijad never said that. Are people like Rob O incapable from knowing truth from lies? No, this is reality. Polls showed that high number of Americans believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 before the war. Did he? Of course not.
” You’re saying Iran can only be ruled by one party and all other voices are best drowned out – because in today’s media wars the government must choose what it’s citizens can watch, listen or read.”
I never said that it should be ruled by one party. I supported the elections between the four candidates. Future candidates will also have different personalites discussing different policies.
“1. What role if any does Iran’s English and Arabic language satellite channels play if any? They are free to make their case. Are they weaker because anyone who knows anything about journalism or filmmaking in Iran sides with the opposition and NOT the government?”
Iran does not have the media range (BBC, CNN, ABC, Fox News, etc) that the west has nor can Iran dedicate the same amount of money to it.
And your last statement. Are you arguing that all journalists and filmmakers in Iran are with the opposition? So the thousands of journalists and hundreds of filmmakers are all Basiji stooges doing their jobs for cake and sundees?
“What role did citizen journalists play during the protests last year. Were they ALL puppets of the US and Israel?”
No, not all of them 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 coincidence.
“You need to stop supporting dictatorships my friend… Freedom of speech and expression is the single most vital ingredient for any society.”
Its important, but slightly less important than being bombed to smithereens.
It is not possible to hold a job and continue to work your thesis on a PHD program?, I have a few friends in UCLA that are doing that having an outside job, working on PHD as well as teaching classes in the same school, all this at the same time. If you read, he completed his MS in 1986 managed to be a member of faculty in 1989 (he still is and has said he will go back when his term is finished) and got his PHD 9 years later in 1987, he was governor of Ardabil 93-97, I have never read that anybody including members of the technical school that he teaches in ever challenged his degree, you might have some information that you can share with us.
M. Ali,
You realize how condescending you sound to Iranians when you’re essentially saying they don’t know any better and are incapable of choosing right from wrong and truth from lies, given choices in news sources. You’re saying Iran can only be ruled by one party and all other voices are best drowned out – because in today’s media wars the government must choose what it’s citizens can watch, listen or read.
1. What role if any does Iran’s English and Arabic language satellite channels play if any? They are free to make their case. Are they weaker because anyone who knows anything about journalism or filmmaking in Iran sides with the opposition and NOT the government?
2. What role did citizen journalists play during the protests last year. Were they ALL puppets of the US and Israel? People who captured shootings, beatings, killings, and IRGC vans running over bodies, what role did they play in the media wars you speak of? What role does new media – Facebook, Twitter and Youtube would you say played in getting the message out? Were the millions you saw march the streets on 25 Khordad ALL stooges and sheep?
You need to stop supporting dictatorships my friend… Freedom of speech and expression is the single most vital ingredient for any society.
Binam,
My point was not that full freedom of expression exists in Iran; but to remind you of the exaggerations you put into your first comment in which you claimed that in any case no Iranian people could back the American point of view and exist or be alive anymore. We have had enough of exaggerations (uranium enrichment –> nuclear weapons, very rare stoning verdicts (against both men and women) –> women are oppressed in Iran, etc.).
Now look at what you said again:
“Allow me to reverse this statement to make a point… Assume this was said by someone – ANYONE – in Iran:
“What’s unique about our perspective is that we took the authority we had in the Iranian government to actually talk to American officials, and we have continued the discussions in what’s called a “track-two process,” in which former Iranian officials meet with similar American officials in their personal capacities. Ten years of discussions with these officials doesn’t make me apologetic, but it does at least allow me to understand the American point of view. The difference between our critics and us is that they can’t even begin to grasp the American perspective because they’re simply not allowed to meet with them.”
What would happen to such a person?! Would they still be alive? Free to move about Iran? Would they ever be allowed to appear on Iranian television? Would they be allowed to write articles in Iranian newspapers? Would their websites be accessible to all? Would they be able to meet Obama?
All you Leverett supporters would not dare answer these questions. Because you know fully well that such a person would not be able to exist in Iran. And even if they did, you would be first to call them “spies” or “Americans puppets” or other names. “
Humanist,
Ahmadinejad has noted publicly that nuclear weapons are dangerous, even for the country that possesses them. Libya’s Gaddafi made the same point a number of years ago. Do you think he secretly wants Iran to develop such weapons?
In the interview Hillary refers to Iran-Contra affair.
I remember many years ago reading in ‘Profits of War’ by Ari Ben Menashe how Israelis conspired with Rafsanjanni to foil the efforts of the American delegation to Iran (who had brought along a cake and a Bible)
(In the Index of the book by looking for ‘Oliver North’ one can find the corresponding page number)
Wait a Minute,
Are you arguing that the US is doing itself a good service by squandering trillions of dollars on unnecessary military adventures? Surely the US is weakening itself by engaging is such stupidity. And those who argue that the US can save hundreds of billions of dollars every year, by engaging in an intelligent foreign policy in the Middle East, surely are not trying to injure the US.
I have read if a terrorist group detonates a nuclear bomb, the manufacturer of that bomb can be easily identified (using the bomb’s nuclear signatures). Thus if hypothetically, Pakistan provides a bomb to Al-Quaida and they use it say over USA then experts can ‘quickly’ find that it was a Pakistani bomb, not a North Korean one!
Leverett’s can verify (by contacting expert physicists) if the above is scientifically an indisputable fact. If it is then the scary proposition of “Iran ‘handing over’ the bomb to the terrorists” falls in the domain of The Spooky Fables. Since if an Iranian nuclear bomb is dropped over US or Israel, couple of hours later Iran will be ‘totally obliterated’.
….unless the Iranians are ‘totally’ berserk….and suicidal like suicide bombers…
That reminds me of the broad power of the Ingenious Masters of Propaganda who know so well how to scare the sheeple preparing them for another heinous war.
Wait a Minute,
Surely those who attack the stupidity of US foreign policy in the Middle East do not therefore “hate” the US. The notion is absurd. In fact, those who “hate” the US might well prefer a continuation of idiotic American foreign policy in the Middle East.
FYI: Reading the comments throughout this site I see constant bashing of everything from the capitalist system to Jews (disguised as bashing ‘Zionism’) to people who approve of Ahmadinejad’s views on 9/11. Most of the supporters of the Leveretts I read on this site would love nothing more than to see the US no longer be the strongest nation in the world as well. This is the point I was making…what exactly is the point of a site that wants to see the US and Iran ultimately work together when its main supporters don’t even want anything to do with the US because they feel just having a relationship with America makes them “puppets” like the other countries in the region who do? And no need to answer, it was a rhetorical questions
Liz: So if we agree with what someone says then we can be hypocritical. I agree. Since we like what the Leveretts say, they are correct and an exception to the rule that says you must speak Farsi and know about Iran to comment on it.
Kooshy: Thank you for Mr. Ahmadinejad’s biography. It looks like the biography also states he got his PhD in 1997. So again, how was he governor in West Azerbaijan from 1993-1997, and then received his PhD in Tehran the same time he became a professor (in 1997)? It seems like his credentials are false.
…Again, I just want to be fair here. If you don’t speak Farsi or know nothing about Iran, you have no business speaking about its politics. This would apply to both Mr Lucas and the Leveretts. And if you lie about your academic qualifications, it doesn’t matter if you are Mousavi’s wofe or Mr. Ahmadinejad…then shame on you.
Rob O.,
In fact, the belief that ‘we should bring chaos to the world so that Mahdi returns sooner’ has been sharply criticized by ALL known clerics who rightly point out that in the Shia faith, the goal does not justify the means. You are not the first person to ask that. The revolutionaries themselves had criticized and banned the Hojjatieh Circle years ago partly for allegedly holding that belief (which was not the case, however).
I have no way to prove you that (can you prove me that Obama doesn’t hold that belief?), but to believe that Iranian leaders want to bring chaos to the world themselves to hasten the return of Mahdi, is utterly ridiculous, and in clear ignorance of the Shia faith. And I’m an Iranian, born in a Shia family and living in Tehran. I have not heard of any Shia religious scholar approving that belief; it is in fact frequently rebuffed, and as I said before, sometimes in order to mock people, they are accused of holding that belief.
If you show us any real expression of that belief (‘we should bring chaos to the world so that Mahdi returns sooner’) by any Shia scholar I will hold back my argument. I hope this convinces you.
Paul, I always enjoy reading your comments……..ever thought of writing a book?
So it turns out that if someone doesn’t agree with the policies of ruling elite in the US, that person hates the concept of US itself. I wasn’t aware that is how, the constitution was framed and that is the, concept of believing in values of freedom and independence, which means one must agree with whatever policies that elected or non elected officials set, otherwise you hate the concept of US, very interesting may you be kind enough to tell us who thought you US history, and constitution, by any chance could it be Newt Gingrich
Waite a minute now, here is the Biography of H.E. Dr. Ahmadi Nejad, Honourable President of Islamic Republic of Iran taken from his own site ( in English so you can read) do you notice that he passed the entrance exam during the Shah’s time.
Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad was born in 1956 in the village of Aradan in the city of Garmsar. He moved and stayed in Tehran together with his family while he was still one-year old and completed his primary as well as his low and high secondary education there. In 1975, he successfully passed the university entrance exam with high marks and started his academic studies on the subject of civil engineering in the Science and Technology University in Tehran.
In 1986, he continued his studies at MS level in the same university. In 1989, he became a member of the Board of Civil Engineering Faculty of the Science and Technology University. In 1997, he managed to obtain his Ph.D. on transportation engineering and planning from the Science and Technology University.
Dr. Ahmadi Nejad is familiar with English language. During the years when he was teaching in the university, he wrote many scientific papers and engaged in scientific research in various fields. During the same period, he also supervised the theses of tens of students at MS and Ph.D. levels on different subjects of civil engineering, road and transportation as well as construction management.
While still a student, Dr. Ahmadi Nejad engaged in political activities by attending religious and political meetings before the Islamic Revolution. With the victory of the Islamic Revolution, he became a founder and also a member of the Islamic Association of Students in the Science and Technology University. During the war imposed on Iran, Dr. Ahmadi Nejad was actively present as a member of the volunteer forces (Basij) in different parts and divisions of the battlefronts particularly in the war engineering division until the end of the war.
Dr. Ahmadi Nejad is married and has three children- two sons and one daughter.
Wait a Minute,
You use wikipedia as a source? It has no value whatsoever. Also, don’t compare Scott Lucas who is in the US government’s good book (he’s a sort of third rate Christopher Hitchens) to the Leverett’s who face so much pressure for stating the “awful truth”.
Wait a Minute:
Can you please cite statements in which commentators on this site have indicated opposition or hatred to the “Concept of the United States”?
Wait a minute…Mr. Bussed in Bassiji is criticizing Mr. Lucas because he doesn’t know any Farsi and questioning the academic credentials of Mr. Mousavi and his wife?
Did I read that right?
Then, by his standards, wouldn’t Mr and Mrs Leverett have no clue about Iran since they don’t speak the language or know the culture? After all, until just a few months ago neither had even stepped foot in Iran. And until just a few years ago neither of them even focused on Iran at all.
And shouldn’t we question Mr. Ahmadinejad’s academic qualifications since no one really knows how he got his PhD all of a sudden? According to wikipedia, Mr. Ahmadinejad served as Governor of West Azerbaijan province from 1993 to 1997. He then became a professor at a university of Tehran and received his PhD that exact same year (1997). How is that even possible?
Or should we overlook the Leverett’s lack of Iran knowledge and Mr. Ahmadinejad’s academic qualifications because we agree with that they are saying?
Which brings me to a question for Mr. and Mrs. Leverett. If the people who read your site and agree with what you say are people like Bussed in Basiji, then what is the point? Your whole argument is that the US and Iran should work together and so forth, but the people you seem to be attracting are those who strongly oppose the US and everything it stands for. Most of your supporters vehemently hate not just the US position towards Iran and the Middle East, but the concept of the United States itself. How can you reach more a more mainstream audience when you are currently catering to your current group of supporters?
Rob O.,
Iran is working with Syria, Saudi Arabia and other countries in an effort to maintain stability in Lebanon. Surely you do not think Iran wants an end to the world?
Remember George W. Bush? And his wife, Laura? Don’t people in her church believe they will go directly to heavenly paradise, while Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc etc etc etc go to hell? And isn’t George W. Bush’s own father one of those Episcopalians who get to go to hell?
Dan Cooper,
You implicitly raise the question of whether Obama is intentionally lying about Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons programme, to placate the Israel lobby (and numerous stooges of the lobby in the US Congress), or whether he is being duped by foolish advisers.
What a powerful speech, anybody has found the text yet, if so please post it
Sakineh,
Bravo! I think the focus should be on individual American policy makers, and the degree to which they are intentionally damaging the nation security interests of the US in an idiotic effort to take pressure off Israel and to facilitate insane Israeli attempt to keep the West Bank under Israeli control into perpetuity.
R S Hack,
Ahmadinejad and Khamenei both supported the nuclear exchange (for TRR) more than a year ago, then backed off a bit due to opposition from the so-called “reformers”.
Does anyone know why Hillary Clinton failed to see that supporting the Tehran declaration was in the best interests of the US? What role is James Steinberg playing in this?
RSH,
“The entire “apologist” argument against opponents of US foreign policy toward Iran is precisely intended to provide WAR-MONGERS with some “moral camouflage” to justify raising antipathy toward Iran and thus furthering the cause for another war.
One becomes an idiot by getting sucked into that pointless diversion.”
Well put! I was just to say the very same thing.
If it’s not nuclear issue, it’s human rights. If it’s not human rights, it’s bad pistachios. The nay Sayers will always find something to point to and paint a negative picture of Iran. Scott has been called out for these type of shenanigans. Now we have others.
R S Hack,
I agree with you that much of the attempt to focus attention on so-called shortcomings of Iran and its government, is intended to provide cover for war-mongers trying to defraud the American public with yet more idiotic military adventures in the Middle East.
Several days ago, the Iranian foreign minister said that late this month or early next month would be good, for proceeding with the P5+1 talks re: nuclear fuel exchange for TRR. Why would Lady Ashton say Iran had not indicated in writing it wanted to proceed? Surely someone can set a date that works for both sides.
kooshy:
Yes this just demonstrates the deep gulf that now exists between the world of Islam and US/EU and their local allies.
The alienation is astonishing to behold.
Bussed-in Basiji:
I am not affiliated with the reformists. so, don’t know what kind of backyard you are talking about! I also don’t know whether what you say about the universities profs are true or not. actually, I was not going to vote in 2005. indeed, I was so disappointed for for what happened over the last 8 preceding years and was preparing to leave the country. in the last 2-3 days I decided to vote for Moein because, as a simple university student, I saw his slogans charming.
I am surprised that you guys, conservatives and reformists, are not ashamed of your actions, that brought us to where we are and forced many in my generation to leave, and instead blaming us (with virtually no power to shape the events) for the mess.
دیگه عزیز فرافکنی و تمامیت خواهی هم حدی داره
Who the hell cares who got arrested in Iran for what?
The US starts a war that murders a million Iraqis, displaces 4 million more, destroys a country’s infrastructure and we’re supposed to care that Iran’s judicial system is likely as harsh as every other country in the world? Anyone here besides me been in the US prison system? Anyone here besides me know the effects of the so-called “War on Drugs” in the US?
From an anarchist standpoint, the difference between Iran and the United States in terms of its law enforcement and judicial standing is NO difference. Oppression and corruption by the state and the rich and powerful are the same everywhere.
It’s totally irrelevant to the issue of this site which is to prevent another murderous expensive war that devastates whole regions and kills hundreds of thousands.
Now as a radical Transhumanist, personally I couldn’t care less if hundreds of thousands of chimpanzees get killed – but also as a radical Transhumanist, I recognize that this is not correct and productive behavior for the species.
People here who are intent are constantly bringing up apparent “defects” in the organization of the Iranian state are doing so with the specific and poorly-hidden agenda of drumming up support for regime change – which is not the business of the US population.
The entire “apologist” argument against opponents of US foreign policy toward Iran is precisely intended to provide WAR-MONGERS with some “moral camouflage” to justify raising antipathy toward Iran and thus furthering the cause for another war.
One becomes an idiot by getting sucked into that pointless diversion.
Rehmat
“Unique welcome for Ahmadinejad in Lebanon”
Can you name any western or Arab leader in the world that can receive such a reception in a major Arab city in the world, and drive through Beirut without fear in an open top car like that?
If that‘s not cheering and boosting the spirit of the Arab streets I can’t think of what else would.
Urgent !
For anyone interested , in 2 minutes Ahmadineajd will appear live in South Beirut in front of ten thousands of people.
I am watching it live on Channel 6 of IRIB in Tehran.
Let us also not forget that Mr. Mousavi himself was supervising Political Science PhD dissertations eventhough he himself has a Masters in Architecture. Eminently qualified…
Rob O.:
Nothing you’ve written indicates that Ahmadinejad believes it is his or any follower of Shiism’s job to create bloodshed or chaos. That is just a weird fantasy that you’ve bought into.
No you didn’t invent it. It was invented by people with an anti-Iran agenda – people who are angered or frightened that Iran is no longer under the control of a pro-US, relatively pro-Zionist dictator the way the Shah was and the way Mubarak and the kings of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other US colonies in the region are today.
But in a kind of bigoted ignorance you’ve bought into it. You don’t see yourself being irrational. You don’t see yourself producing quotations that do not say what you think they say.
Nothing you’ve produced has any link at all, not even the most remote link to nuking New York or Israel. It is bizarre that you first refer to Ahmadinejad’s UN speech and then link to this wikipedia article as if either advances your point. Neither does.
Unique welcome for Ahmadinejad in Lebanon
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/unique-welcome-for-ahmadinejad-in-lebanon/
Persian Gulf,
Your beloved Dr. Moin was minister for 12 years and systematically opposed anybody to become tenured professor because of not having allegiance to the reformists. Look for the crap in your own backyard.
With the exception of Imam Sadeq Uni in Tehran and Imam Khomeini Institute in Qom, all heyate elmiye in Political Science and Economics at major universities like U of Tehran and Shahid Beheshti U are controlled by reformists, secular liberals and Marxists. Many of the gentlemen were ministers and deputy ministers in the Mousavi, Hashemi and Khatami governments. Thank God for Dr. Daneshjoo.
And let us not forget the great and eminent Islamic scholar Mrs Zohreh Kazemi (real name of Mousavi’s wife) who was president of Zahra U. Eminently qualified…
Persian Gulf:
If the government of Iran is a dictatorial one and Mr. Khamenei is indeed a dictator, I would have expected large numbers of people to stay away from sham elections as well as from his Eid Fitr speech at Tehran University. It was in this vein that I mentioned Mr. Moein; that the existence of clear electoral choices makes Iran less of a dictatorship and mpre of a restricted representative system. In this connection I would like to point out Mexico which in many ways (ancient and modern) is similar to Iran. For 70 years Mexico had even a more restricted form of representative government. And to this day, the Iranian legal system is superior to Mexico’s in so far as it has the concept of “bail”.
About the fake degrees: I agree with you that many of these doctorate degrees are liars. But I would like to point out to you that that is an indication of the deep weakness that these men (and women) have in their own being – a weakness and an emptiness which they try to fill, unsuccessfully, by fake degrees and bogus credentials. But the Islamic system is not the cause of this – you see it newspaper announcements when some European converts to Islam – thus – putting the needed Western stamp of approval on Islam. You see it in great pleasure that the population takes in the discovery of this or that supposed child prodigy in Mathematics or Physics. The spiritual weaknesses of centuries of stagnation cannot be overcome during 33 years of the Islamic Republic.
I actually think that to be an administrator in a university you should not need to have a doctorate. But the culture of the universities, both in US and in Iran, is in such a way that you have to have a doctorate degree to be an administrator. It is stupid but it is.
If you are a graduate student or a professor in many US public universities, you are often required to sign a paper in which you state that you affirm or support the Constitution of the United States. That is a condition of employment. The Iranian case that you are citing is not qualitatively any different.
I would be curious to know what statement of mine did you consider to be an ad hominem attack on you.
Arnold: With regard to the TRR deal, I believe Ahmadinejad did at one point say that it might be a good idea to let the deal go through as offered by the West – and then when the West reneged, which he clearly thought was quite possible, even probable, then the West’s real intentions would be revealed. And in the end, it would not hurt Iran that much since they would just continue to enrich to 20%.
I don’t have the source in front of me, but I’m sure he did say that at one point.
Which of course is not the same as saying he got “torpedoed”. But he did seem in favor of moving ahead with some form of the deal, more so than some of the other critics of the deal in Iran. BUT ALL the critics in Iran were quite correct in their criticism of the deal.
All of which is irrelevant anyway since with the publication of the letter from Obama to Brazil it becomes quite clear the deal was in bad faith from the get go – not to mention that the IAEA violated the NPT by not offering Iran a source for the fuel as normal.
So the whole discussion over whether Ahmadinejad did or did not support the deal is completely moot.
fyi:
yes, at the end of the day we have to agree or disagree here, but your personal attack was not in that categories, anyway.
as for your question. it once again shows your out of the touch approach. I also don’t know why you should bring Ahmadinejad versus Moin’s vote to the discussion (well, you know that I voted for Moein, but other than that I don’t see any reason for comparison). you also know that Moein received around 4 million and Ahmadinejad, with all the organized Basijies and money that was spent, 5.7 million. I don’t know what can you get out of this rather narrow margin in a country of 70 million. probably, if it wasn’t the turn about in last few days of that election, we would have seen Ghalibaf as the president now!.
by no means, you can legitimize Khamenie with voting. people vote because they care about their lives and their well being. as much as not voting might wrongly be seen as the sign of opposing the system outside of the country, participating in the election is not seen an open check for the system either.
and people go for some of those religious ceremony simply as a fact of life. I myself go to Moharam nights, Ashora, Eide Fetr praying…. That doesn’t mean I agree with whatever Khamenie says and does. these are seen as a matter of socializing as well. people expect to see you there and you get credit somehow (it’s different system than the west). what else can you do? I also don’t deny there are ideologically bonded people to the system which is not surprising given the tremendous amount of money that the system spends and so many tools of forcing individuals to joint those gatherings. in virtually every step in your life in Iran, you have to show your allegiance to the system. at schools, universities ….every single thing the system does, has a very strong ideological motivation (this is the main reason, I think, some of the young ones seem to be ideologically opposed. it’s an anti-thesis of the system. it’s not the scope of this discussion).
as an example, here is one of the requirements to apply for Univ. position in Iran. I hope, you know that they directed all those positions through ministry of science meaning that all candidates should be approved by the ministry of science first and then will be introduced to the universities. and Mr.Daneshjoo (with a fake Ph.D….) is the top of this ministry. can you believe this? millions of university students and profs, staff …are listening to the words of this man. won’t this demoralize the whole educational system? that goes for driving and almost anything you can imagine.
requirement #8 “شرح حال مختصري از دوران زندگي خود با تكيه بر جنبه¬هاي عقيدتي و علمي ”
(a brief introduction of your life with the emphasis on BELIEFS and SCIENTIFIC aspects) (sounds like the scientific aspect is not that important!)
this is an example and a less restricted situation. in every office you apply, the screening is there. apart from the paid ones, will it not force the neutral ones to participate in the state’s days and make a minimum resume?!
As someone pretty familiar with computer security issues, I can safely say that Stuxnet or similar malware attacks are not capable of messing up Iran’s nuclear program sufficiently to make a difference.
Malware is a serious problem in terms of wasted time and effort and cost, but even if this type of malware, which targeted specific industrial control hardware, had caused actual physical damage to an Iranian nuclear facility, it would not be a show stopper short of causing an actual Chernobyl level incident. There has been no evidence indicating it could do so. The hardware this malware was targeting appears to be very common in industrial control circles.
An equally plausible notion is that it was developed to enable “computer blackmail” in the same manner that “denial of service” attacks used to be used – to force a company to pay hackers to have the malware removed or disabled or have to endure an unacceptable loss of productivity costing much more.
Also, it’s STILL not clear if Iran was actually the target, because there were more and earlier infections in India and Indonesia and elsewhere than Iran. The speculation about segments in the reverse-engineered code suggesting an Israel connection is just that at this point – although I certainly wouldn’t rule out Israel as the source of the malware given Israel’s cavalier attitude to “collateral damage”.
It WAS a sophisticated piece of malware, probably the work of professional computer criminals or current or former intelligence officers specializing in computer malware. But there are tons of those people in Eastern Europe – most of the Eastern European country’s intelligence officers went into computer crime after the fall of the Soviet Union. And there are a lot of such people in Israel as well. And scores of thousands in China, Taiwan, and elsewhere in Asia.
Scott Lucas,
As usual you show your ignorance. You are a poor agent of US public diplomacy. If you were literate in Persian/Farsi, you would have an answer. However, your green buddies neither read mainstream newspapers nor do they know much about what’s going on in Iran and you are left blind as usual. You come here and ask questions to get information in order to fill up your junky website. Pathetic.
Rob O,
Did you read my comments at October 13, 2010 at 3:33 am?
If you didn’t, I think it will shed some light on your concern about Mehdi’s return.
If you did and ignored it, then I guess I was too optimistic about your intentions.
@Scott Lucas:
Re your message on October 13, 2010 at 5:59 am
“Just wondering: why was journalist Emaduddin Baghi arrested in December 2009 and subsequently given a six-year prison sentence?”
Ever heard of the phrase “coloured coup” Mr. Lucas? The MOST ridiculous and the most disgustingly dishonest action that the green creatures and their western puppet masters do, is that they pretend to be defending the ideas of “democracy” and “freedom of expression”.
The first and most basic condition for democracy is the rule of majority. It is true, the rule of majority is by no means a sufficient condition for having a democracy, but it is a NECESSARY condition without which one cannot talk about democracy.
The most cowardly way of attacking democracy is pretending to be defending it, while you give your support/instigate a “coup” attempt which would nullify the vote of majority, in favoure of the foreign backed minority’s view.
How can you or any other one of the greens can even speak of “democracy” and “freedom” when you fail to satisfy the very first and most basic principle of democracy: “A respect for the vote of majority”?
How cowardly of the greens to complain about the human rights violation in Iran when they are the ones who have violated the most basic of human rights: the right to vote for all citizens and the rule of the majority!
Now you are asking why Baghi was put into arrest in 2009? Because he was suspected of being in liasion with foreign forces and trying to destabilize the country and bring about a coloured coup in league with foreign powers and topple the LEGALLY ELECTED government!
I don’t know the details of any sort of evidence that court has produced, however, looking at the five-hundred-thousand-dollar Milton Friedman award that Mr. Ganji has recieved (I presume for his services to Uncle Sam and most importantly his services to the causes of M. Friedman which are way above and beyond USA), looking at where the likes of Ali Afshari and Ahmad Batebi work and on whose pay-roll they are, I am fairly confident that IR had EVERY RIGHT to suspect Mr. Baghi’s activities!!
When it comes to Iran, facts and truth play no part. Lies and propaganda rule
“Non-Stop Lies and Ruthless propaganda” over Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons is aimed to turn the international public opinion against Iran.
Crime is a crime, whether it is committed by Israel, Iran or the US, the punishment and the sanction should apply equally to each one of them.
As Israel is already an illegal possessor of nuclear weapons and has a fanatical government that is capable of using them, crippling sanctions should be applied to Israel to force it to disarm and not to Iran.
The West preaches democracy yet violates its fundamental principles. The hypocrisy is almost impossible to stomach.
The extraordinary attention given to the Iranian none-existent nuclear weapon suggests that many American and Israelis have a stake in the outcome.
Much of the uproar, Lies and propaganda over Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons is done by the Israeli lobby.
It is merely a way to paint Iran as a threat in order to brainwash the international public opinion and justify an attack.
Under pressure from Israel lobby, Obama is now employing the same tactic, creating fear over nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons.
If we don’t heed the lessons of history about the evil propaganda that USA and Israel used against Sadaam’s WMD, and if we ignore how sophisticated and evil the present PR campaigns are against IRI and Iran’s none existent nu-clear weapons, then we will have another tragedy in Iran far greater than Iraq.
This will be the catalyst for a million more tragedies in the years to come – the only difference being that you will not see the deaths of those Iranian victims being broadcast on the BBC, Fox News or CNN, as the tragic death of Neda was for propaganda purpose.
Scott,
you are ignoring my post. I have explained the necessity of controlling information in today’s media war, Iran’s situation, and you go back by asking us for evidence. Frankly, what information do you even have on Bagheri’s case aside from some headlines from Roozonline? Have you studied his court case? Do we know what evidence has been studied at the court? I don’t, but my point is not this particular case with certain evidences. My point is that the greater reason why a counrty in Iran’s situation can not certain members of its citizens to engage in a media war.
Binam,
“you want to be on the record for having defended lack of freedom of speech in Iran in line with any dictator who sees it as a threat to their existence? ”
Again, same argument, using manipulative language. My dear, do you disagree that USA controlled its media strongly at the height of the COld War tension? How about the countries during World War 2? What about the immediate situation after 9/11? You take 9/11 and multiply it by 100 and you have Iran’s situation, so you take USA’s reaction after 9/11, multiply it and see how it would act.
I’m comparing it to USA because it is the easiest country to compare it to, but you can take any country you want to. In a strong, media controlled country, that country can usually ignore any descent. Such as in USA again. The Leveretts are one drop in an ocean. It doesn’t harm the country. Let them say what they want. Plus, these guys aren’t major writers for major newspapers nor do they have tv shows at CNN or BBC.
Now, your second point about Khatami. Things went a bit down after the actions of the opposition after the elections. Ahmadenijad actually encouraged criticisms. He was the first President to engage in live debates with candidates and he was attacked 3 to 1. Even in the debates of Karoubi vs Mousavi, the topic was 1.5 hours of attacking Ahmedinijad, instead of debating their points. I remember also an incident before the elections where Ahmadenijad faced a protest at a university and security gaurds tried to break it up, but he didn’t let them. He welcomed the protests.
When you have found out what badbakht means, you will have found the answer to all your questions
Scott, what does “badbakht” mean?
In your view these people they are innocent, in our view they are traitors who deserve punishment, more than they are getting from the very lenient judiciary.
I answered your question, but not the way you wanted it. Go have a little meeting with your greenie friends and ask them what I answered.
Next case where I would appreciate answers:
Why was Shiva Nazar Ahari of the Committee of Human Rights Reporters arrested in June 2009, re-arrested in December 2009, and sentenced in September 2010 to six years in prison?
Thanking all of you….
OK, so no answer so far on any evidence supporting Baghi’s latest conviction and sentencing, or indeed his earlier convictions and sentences.
For what it’s worth, some observers have argued that this was a significant cause of the December 2009 arrest:
http://www.youtube dot com/watch?v=5lRIw8ivIYk&feature=related
Arrival and public hero reception of President Ahmadinijad in Beirut ( photos)
Worth seeing, to understand who won Arab Street’s hearts and minds I bet he will receive same public reception on every Arab city street if permitted by the ruling elites
http://www.farsnews.net/plarg.php?nn=M664569.jpg
And who more badbakht than the western activists, policy makers and academics who count on these clowns as their allies in Iran. It would be better for them to deal with Rahbar and Ahmadinejad as they are.
Of course now that the greenies are counting on Mr. Hashemi they might be reluctant to explain his previous actions towards the reformists to Scott. This you see is what makes them all “badbakht”.
I answered Scott. Unfortunately because of his lack of knowledge of Farsi and Iranian culture- surprising as he is an Iran “expert”- he has to ask his greenie buddies to explain my answer to him.
BiB… Heife noon!
If you all applied the same scrutiny to the Leveretts as you do to Scott Lucas we could begin to have a productive dialogue – instead of name calling when your arguments are week. None of you seem to be able to ask his simple question.
Bussed in from Zafaraniyeh :-)
Imagine that, I favor executions. I know that’s “impossible” for a person with that kind of background in your little universe.
Binam-jan,
Born and raised in north Tehran to cosmopolitan university educated middle-class parents (Hahahahahahah….)
Binam:
Yes, you have enumerated numerous problems in the safety area in the Iranian transportation sector.
I just fail to see how a change in the constitution of Iran will address all of those.
Pirouz-jan,
Scott is an “academic” as much as Baghi is a “journalist”. They are both activists whose vision for Iran is contrary to that of the vast majority of Iranians. Of course it could be that their vision for Iran is the morally better one than the current one.
However thankfully we have a constitution and real elections and it is neither up to me or Scott or Baghi to decide these things for the Iranians. As I tried to hint at in my previous posts, the reasons for Baghi’s conviction or release or re-arrest or re-release should be addressed to the person who from the beginning had possession of this file.
Pirouz-jan let’s hope that Scott understands this indirect Iranian way of explaining the whole story, or he could ask one of his loser greenie friends to explain it to him (also to tell him what “badbakht” means).
Arnold:
You act as if my suggestions about the Twelfth Imam arriving at a time of “chaos and bloodshed” are purely my own conjecture. They are not. Of course Ahmadinejad doesn’t state explicitly at the UN, “Oh Mahdi, please appear soon after we nuke Israel and NYC”, even Ahmadinejad is not that stupid. But his prayers to “hasten the return of the Mahdi” implicitly are prayers to bring about the conditions that are historically said to precede the Mahdi’s reappearance.
I hate to reference Wikipedia, but here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi#Reappearance
“Mahdi is reported to have said:
Shi’as believe that Imam al-Mahdi will reappear when the world has fallen into chaos and civil war emerges between the human race for no reason. At this time, it is believed, half of the true believers will ride from Yemen carrying white flags to Makkah, while the other half will ride from Karbala, in Iraq, carrying black flags to Makkah. At this time, Imam al-Mahdi will come wielding Allah’s Sword, the Blade of Evil’s Bane, Zulfiqar (Arabic: ذو الفقار, ðū l-fiqār), the Double-Bladed Sword. He will also come and reveal the texts in his possession, such as al-Jafr and al-Jamia.”
Again, I’m not making this stuff up. That Ahmadinejad MIGHT believe this stuff is at least a little scary, no? (Particularly given his country is likely about to develop nuclear weapons)
M. Ali, you want to be on the record for having defended lack of freedom of speech in Iran in line with any dictator who sees it as a threat to their existence? Recall early on in the presidency of Khatami and how newspapers blossomed and there was a period of relative freedom. The same outside threats existed back then as they do now. Was Iran weaker then? Don’t you agree that there was a sense of national unity? Where is the sense of national unity now? Do Iranians feel as free and united? Didn’t you feel that foreign powers could not treat Iran the way they are doing now because Iran of 1997 didn’t fit their fear mongering narrative? I don’t understand how someone could possibly JUSTIFY jailing of journalists, filmmakers, students, etc. How on earth was Jafar Panahi’s unmade film a threat to national security? This is the same guy who during Khatami made such critical films as The Circle and Crimson Gold.
Bussed-in-Basiji… perhaps you should take the bus back to the village you came from – you know, the village where they stone people to death. That’s your mentality considering how you “favor more executions, not less.”
And still no one has answered my initial question of what would happen to someone in Iran if they were to say this:
“What’s unique about our perspective is that we took the authority we had in the Iranian government to actually talk to American officials, and we have continued the discussions in what’s called a “track-two process,” in which former Iranian officials meet with similar American officials in their personal capacities. Ten years of discussions with these officials doesn’t make me apologetic, but it does at least allow me to understand the American point of view. The difference between our critics and us is that they can’t even begin to grasp the American perspective because they’re simply not allowed to meet with them.”
Thanks to all:
I still await answers about any evidence that was presented in the 2000, 2003, and 2007 cases.
In the 2010 trial and sentencing, what evidence was presented that Baghi was in contact with foreign organisations that advocated sedition and endangered Iran’s national security?
Scott
These are reasonable perspectives offered by M. Ali and BnB. Let’s see if Scott’s sniffing around here is sincere and these views are actually to be incorporated into his attempted analysis.
I’m betting they won’t be. Reason: they don’t fit into the narrative of his anti-Iran campaign.
“”Any country, in Iran’s situation, would act the same way, AS IT SHOULD.”"
Wrong , in 150 out of 195 countries he would have been ‘ eliminated ‘ , especially if it would serve the interest of the West.
The problem in Iran is how weak the judiciary has dealt with treason and sedition cases, not the opposite. Contrary to Mr. Baghi, I favor more executions, not less.
Scott, ask Mr. Hashemi your new go-to-guy for freedom and democracy in Iran. He is very familiar with the Baghi file :-)
Scott, the charges are they he engaged with foreign organizations in a campaign of spreading information that is against Iran’s security. At a high-risk time like this, the government is responsible for the welfare of the people and needs to stop such campaigns because it helps spread the media war against Iran.
Any country, in Iran’s situation, would act the same way, AS IT SHOULD.
Oh yeah and Baghi is not a “journalist”, he’s an “activist” with all the positive and negative consequences this brings with it.
Scott, I tried to answer your question without resorting to saying the charges were for endangering national security, but instead give a full, detailed answer. But, unfortunately, you seem to want to resort to headlines and bulletpoints.
I wonder why people were against Iran hosting World Philosophy Day when it seems Iran is at least capable of philosophical and original debates in its country, while everything in the west (and it seems by Professors to) is resorted to manipulative headlines.
I have you my detailed answer, Scott. Yes, Iran has to protect itself from the media war. This does not sound good because it is easy for people like you to say “No freedom of express in Iran! Journalist jailed!” without having the honesty to see what freedom of expression means in a country.
Salam Bussed-In Basiji,
Thank you for your reply.
Unfortunately, I don’t the Wikipedia entry gives any reason for or the evidence that supported the 2010 conviction and sentence.
But on the previous cases, could you help me?
1. What was the specific evidence in Baghi’s writing that constituted criminal activity through “endangering national security”?
2. What was the evidence in 2003 that Baghi’s book The Tragedy of Democracy in Iran endangered national security?
3. How did protests against the imposition of the death penalty through hanging — the cause of Baghi’s conviction in 2007 — divulge state secrets?
Thank you,
Scott
Interestingly it was Aghaye Hashemi who initially had him arrested. But alas times have changed and now they are allies. The Farsi word for these type of people is “badbakht” which if you spoke Farsi you would understand.
From Wikipedia:
Emadeddin Baghi’s record as a political prisoner or defendant includes:
A three-year prison term passed in 2000 by a Revolutionary Court on charges brought by the intelligence ministry and the conservative-run state television [4] of “endangering national security” for his writings about the serial murder of dissident intellectuals in Iran in the late 1990s. He served two years of that sentence, and one year was suspended.
A one-year suspended term issued in 2003 by Judge Babayee of Branch 6 of the Revolutionary Court for “endangering national security” and “printing lies” in his book, The Tragedy of Democracy in Iran.
A one-year prison sentence for “acting against national security,” issued on 15 October 2007, when he was summoned by Tehran’s revolutionary court on the charges of “propaganda against the Islamic Republic” and “divulging state secret information.” This imprisonment has been condemned by Iranian lawyer, human rights advocate and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi, and by the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders.[5] Baghi had been protesting a wave of public hangings that was part of a campaign by the authorities to improve “societal security”. A year before his arrest and trial, Baghi had written an open letter to the heads of the reformist parties, scolding them for their silence over the increased number of hangings.
Baghi was among the numerous journalists and reformists detained by the government of Iran on 28 December 2009 in the wake of violent crackdowns on Ashura protests.
Scott, what Baghi did in the fitna was worthy of more than the prison term he got. But with the help of his friend Aghaye Hashemi he will be out and about again very soon and continuing his treason and sedition. No doubt you will be encouraging him and others like him in Iran to do so and spreading the propaganda about it. It will not however have the effect you hope for, as it hasn’t in the past.
Western demagogy works this way.
2 German citizens were captured 3 days ago in Iran/Tabriz . Presumably the 2 Germans were professional journalists ( from the German Gossip daily BILD am SONNTAG ) but entered Iran with tourist visas and their goal was to make it to Tabriz to interview the son of Sakineh. Finally the police captured them during the interview in Tabriz , which was organized by Mina Ahadi in Germany . ( Communist & Ex-Muslima )
So far so good. Now look at the AP News with around 11 000 !!!! comments . Obviously you can not go through them , but I had a quick look at them and my findings were horrifying . I’d better not quote . Very sad world we are living in.
Iran holds 2 Germans linked to stoning case
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101012/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_stoning_10
AT the UN, Ahmadinejad called for an independent public inquiry into 9/11.
Mr Obama and those of you, who criticised Ahmadinejad at the time, should watch this.
US Colonel Alleges 9/11 Coverup
Must Watch – By Fox News
Judge Napolitano’s Ground-breaking interview with Lt. Col, Anthony Shaffer and Former CIA Intelligence officer, Michael Scheuer. — Shaffer’s book, “Operation Dark Heart” was essentially “censored” by the Pentagon in order that some classified details could be “redacted”.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26576.htm
Salam M. Ali,
Thank you very much for your kind words but I don’t think they offer an answer to my question about why Emad Baghi was given a six-year prison sentence.
Scott
The emperor has no clothes and Imam Khomeini and the Iranians were the first ones to say it and prove in action. They have to be punished for this (intellectual) regicide.
In accordance with what M.Ali said about the Anti-Iranian channels broadcasting into Iran it is worthwhile to watch those channels and make own judgments.
The ‘ defenseless ‘ Iranian ‘ masses are bombarded on daily basis with ‘ Goebbels-Style ‘ propaganda to confuse them more and more. In this regard I ignore the MKO channels and the Royalists , as they are just ‘ enjoying’ the money which the US & Israel and other western countries are providing to them. Under no circumstances the Iranian people are important to them , they just got the order from their masters to sow turmoil and chaos in Iran.
Coming to BBC Persia and VOA , they follow the very same target as the others , they just try to give a more formal touch to their daily agitation and demagogy.
Unfortunately these channels have manipulated many people here , as the ‘ average ‘ Iranian still thinks naively of the fairy tale of freedom of expression in the western world and democracy ideals , which died a very very long time ago.
Look at what our dear Scott Lucas has been doing at EA for the past 1.5 years. Every single update has been an attack on Ahmedinjad, you will never read a good news about Iran. Most of his “snap analysis” has been wrong, but he never revisits the wrong ones. He sprinkles his articles with phrases such as, “Our EA Iranian correspondant says” just to add weight to his rumours. This is not unbiased piece of work, it is manipulative.
You take such a website, now see how many similiar western websites exist. I am reading to take them apart one by one. I have dedicated a page in my website to tackling Meir Javedanfar’s articles in the Gaurdian and shwo how incorrect they were. Look at his latest article in the Gaurdian, “Ahmadinejad looks to Lebanon to escape home truths”.
His anaylsis is fully wrong. I don’t want to go through his statements one by one, but look at this,
“However, Khamenei did not send Khatami to southern Lebanon because he was not worried about his unpopularity. In fact, compared with Ahmadinejad, he was far more popular. The opposite is true about Ahmadinejad and this is why Khamenei, for the sake of his regime, is sending him there.”
What kind of stupid analysis is that? Ahmadenijad has from Day 1 visiting places outside Iran and inside Iran, and if Ahmedinijad goes for a visit, they say its becasue he is unpopular, if he sits at home, its because he is unpopular, if he takes a shit, its because he is unpopular. And more amusing than that, KHATAMI DID VISIT LEBANON.
These are not professional work. All articles at The Gaurdian Comment is Free on Iran is negative, full of colorful descriptive terms to make you hate Iran. The media is full of this, completely having shaped people’s percpective of Iran.
And what, you expect Iran to allow this kind of war without any kind of defense? Should we have the western media war times 100 in Iran? Have millions of dollars be invested in channels, newspapers, and websites in Iran constantly having LIES AND LIES AND LIES?
I’m sick and tired of this “freedom of expression” argument. There is no freedom of expression. There is an information war and people like Scott Lucas are its foot soldiers.Saying otherwise is either naivity or dishonesty.
“If we don’t act now, Obama and his people could very well set off a Third World War over Iran that has already been threatened publicly by (President George W.) Bush Jr.,” said Professor Francis Boyle (University of Illinois at Champaign)….
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/washington-all-options-are-on-the-table/
M Ali – “It is not necessary for USA to imprison its journalists. Why?”
My friend you’re trying to hold the devil by its tail instead of its horns. It’s the mass-media which controls the US politicians and thus the government policies and not the other way around. Not only the American journalists are afraid to tell the truth – the most US politicians consider it matter of life and death to cross the powerful Jewish Lobby which in reality control the Western mainstream media. In fact, six Jewish families own 90% of the western media.
The recent crucification Rick Sanchez, Helen Thomas and Octavia Nasr should tell the readers who controls the media in the so-called “freedom of press” America.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/tale-of-three-american-women/
The problem with the freedom of expression argument should not be that Iran is more free than other countries, it is because some of its measures are necessary given the circumstances it finds itself in.
It is not necessary for USA to imprison its journalists. Why?
1) The US media controls the main source of information and there is no major challenges to it
2) There is no real external threat to USA
3) The system is closed system meaning that most freedom of speech does not negatively affect any politician that much. What happened to Bush when it was reported years later that he lied? Was he imprisoned for causing two wars?
4) There is no country surrounding its borders, threatening it constantly
5) An enemy country has not delegated millions of dollars to try to overthrow it
Iran is in a very different situation. It is easy to talk about freedom of speech when the consequences of this so-called “freedom” does not threaten you. How much freedom of speech did USA have when it was being threatened by USSR, which is still miles away from the threat Iran feels. Look at the way it closed down on conflicting thoughts after the 9/11 attacks. Not by imprisoning people, but by destroying careers. Who would challenge the status quo when your whole career is destroyed?
Iran, as a young democracy under constant threat, does not have the strong media network to not be threatened by attempts at a color revolution. Look at how many anti-IRI networks are being broadcast into Iran. We have now more than a dozen channels. What would happen if Iran allowed full access? Israel, USA, UK, pumping millions into the media war, combined with Iranian diaspora with agendas, dozens of papers and tv in Iran 24/7 Neda & Sakina, and soon, you manipulate the people and destroy Iran.
Complete freedom of express exists in an ideal world. This is not an ideal world. It is a world where information war is happening on a daily basis. USA has a strong media army. When Ahmedinijad goes to USA, journalists are denied visa. This is media war. Iranian journalists have never had access to any high US officials. This is media war. Lies are being told in the media about Iran until they become common knowledge (nuclear threat, israel to be wiped off the map, etc). This is media war.
Just wondering: why was journalist Emaduddin Baghi arrested in December 2009 and subsequently given a six-year prison sentence?
M. Ali
Thanks for clarification in your last post , very valuable information , which you expressed comprehensively.
It simply does not make sense to convince someone , who is not familiar with the basics of Mahdism.
In Iran some say very stupid things in this regard , e.g. when ordering meals AN orders 2 , one for him and one for Imam Mahdi and tens of similar stories , which has the ONLY propose are caricaturing and ridiculing him.
I remember , when he was about to become president in 2005 , the opposition spread deadly rumors , that he will cut the internet and wants to dig out the martyrs from of the Iran-Iraq war Beheshte Zahra to bury them in the main squares of Tehran and many other stories of this kind. ( and simple minded people buy this b.s. )
fyi,
I like your way of expression very much and we had some exchange in arguments regarding eschatology , Christian Zionist etc. and you seem to be very well informed.
I think the main and real ‘ danger ‘ for world affairs and world peace comes from that faction , rather than from Mahdism and you made some extraordinary statements in this regard . If possible , please evaluate further.
One more thing “C’mon Binam”
The story you linked to is an Associated Press article featured on Yahoo News! Her side of the story is being reported on. If this was Iran, she would be prison right now and her side of the story would only be reported by news sources inaccessible to many Iranians. She wouldn’t exactly appear on any Fars News or IRNA feeds!
What does firing of Helen Thomas has to do with freedom in Iran? You can’t defend Iran’s actions and lack of freedom so you point out to firing of a reporter in the US? So if US does it Iran can do it too?! First of all, she’s not in prison. Second of all, ironically no one gets in trouble in the US for criticizing the US government, but criticizing the Israeli government gets you in trouble! That’s a hypocrisy worth noting and exploring… But none of this justifies jailing of journalists, filmmakers and critical mullahs in Iran. None justifies attack on a mosque and home and offices of a GRAND ayatollah! Again, all you ever do is justify, when what you should be doing is condemning… Just as you would condemn US government’s missteps, you have you condemn Iranian government’s missteps.
M. Ali,
I personally don’t think Ahmadinejad is planning on destroying the world in order to get the world ready for the 12th Imam. Although I suspect that all the talk about Mahdi is really a political ploy to reduce the powers of Khamenei. I think Rahim Mashayi is really behind this. To say that only the “Hidden imam” has absolute power is to weaken the position of the Leader – who at this point sees himself as a prophet appointed by Allah himself!
Freedom American style:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101013/ap_on_re_us/us_helen_thomas_interview;_ylt=AtLeQ2Wq_gGBIagKxpq8SbADW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTJ1dW9mZTRuBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAxMDEzL3VzX2hlbGVuX3Rob21hc19pbnRlcnZpZXcEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX2FydGljbGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNoZWxlbnRob21hc28-
I think someone here once wrote about “caricaturing Iran”. I like the term and I think that’s what you’re doing Binam.
I’m glad Rob O. is posting at this thread. He seems like a well-intentioned individual that has, unfortunately, been influenced by the mass anti-Iranian propaganda that has been going on for years.
Rob, the Mehdi claims is a western propaganda tool latching on a cultural difference to make it scarier. Even though, when one looks at it, its hardly different than the beliefs of the west. One wonders how much worse the attacks would have been if Iran wasn’t part of an Abrahamic religion.
Iran is majority shia. They believe that Mehdi will return, after a period of really bad tims, to save the world. Might sound silly to athiests, but for this to sound silly to Christians and Jews is hypocritical. The belief is almost identical to Christian and Judaism beliefs.
There will be an End of Days. This is when the Messiah will return and save the world and all of us. It exists in all three Abrahamic religions.
If anything, it even exists in Zoroastrianism:
“..earth is more barren; and the crop will not yield the seed; and men … become more deceitful and more given to vile practices. They have no gratitude.” “Honorable wealth will all proceed to those of perverted faith…and a dark cloud makes the whole sky night…and it will rain more noxious creatures than winter.”"
After this event, there will be a spiritual battle and the world will then be peaceful and all bad things will disappear.
In Christanity, Jesus’ return and 1000 rule of peace and golden age comes after the End of Times, which has traits such as “Mark 13:8: For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom”, “Genesis 6:11: The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence”, “For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. ”
In both Islam and Christanity, in the End of Days there will also be the false prophet, Anti-Christ (Masih ad-Dajjal in Islam)
When a Shia says “May Allah hasten Mahdi’s return”, it is no different than hoping that Jesus would return. But no Shia is stupid enough (well, I won’t say NO shia, maybe there are a few crazies) to believe that they can THEMSELVES bring about the End of Days. For a Shia to believe in Allah and Mehdi, it would be really arrogant of him to think that he can speed up God’s work. That is why the Shia is praying to God, its an expression of his faith, that he loves Mehdi so much, that he wishes him to return and save them from the evil in this world.
Plus, if they really want to bring about the End of Days, there are a lot of other things they have to do,
there are something like 100 signs, so Ahmedinijad has to somehow also do the following:
“The Double Eclipse In Ramadan ”
“The world will not pass away before the Arabs are ruled by a man (referring to Mahdi) of my family whose name will be the same as mine” (Prophet Mohammad)
“In Dhul Qaidah (Islamic Month) the tribes will fight, Hajis will be looted and there will be a battle in Mina in which many people will be slain and blood will flow until it runs over the Jamaratul Aqba. ”
“The shall not occur until the Euphrateswill disclosea mountain of gold, over which people will fight. 99 out of every hundred shall die, and every one of them shall say, ‘perchance I shall be the one to succeed” ”
“”A man will emerge from the depths of Damascus. He will be called Sufyani. Most of those who follow him will be from the tribe of Kalb. He will kill by ripping the stomachs of women and even kill the children. A man from my family will appear in the Haram, the news of his advent will reach the Sufyani and he will send to him one of his armies. He (referring to Imam Mahdi) will defeat them. They will then travel with whoever remains until they come to a desert and they will be swallowed. None will be saved except the one who had informed the others about them.”
“Occurrence of red winds, disfiguration of faces (man to pig), and people being swallowed into the ground.”
and etc.
Mohammad, F., Others,
I like how Zibakalam being free somehow equates there being freedom of speech in Iran. I never thought of his as someone who represents voices of opposition – right now lead by leaders of “sedition.” To use your Khatami example… True, he’s not in prison. But arresting him – a former president – would be a face-up spit (tof sar bala). So instead they have arrested many of his close allies, former ministers, etc. Many are still in jail and some out on bail. He’s also “imprisoned” inside Iran – as he was kept from leaving Iran for a speech in Japan. Furthermore, when is the last time you saw him or other leaders of “sedition” appear on IRIB? Imagine if Carter, Clinton or Bushes were banned from appearing on TV in the US! How absurd would that be? Because that’s how absurd it is in Iran. A former president cannot appear on TV. Simple as that.
Not to mention the kind of thugs and hoodlums a critical GRAND ayatollah like Dastgheib or Sinaei face. In the “Islamic Republic” they attack mosques and offices of Grand Ayatollahs… And here you are saying because someone like Zibakalam is free there’s freedom of speech in Iran.
FYI,
“And who, but the individual drivers, are responsible for road accidents?”
That’s a good analogy. Individual drivers are indeed responsible… But they are not the only ones. Cars aren’t safe – airbags are still not installed in cars Iranians can afford (Kia Pride, 206, Samand, etc.) Most these homegrown cars don’t meet international standards as far as safety features go (mainly because of the corrupt ways Iran Khodro is run by government). And to top this, the roads aren’t exactly safe. And first respondents aren’t exactly up to par either. If you get in an accident on the road, chances of you making it to the nearest hospital on time are pretty slim. And also, there’s no public education about safe driving. Iran has one of the highest rates of drunk driving! People somehow think its cool to drink and drive. But that’s just the type of figure you don’t hear about because in the Islamic Republic – Allah forbid – people don’t drink!
Rob O, I don’t want to scare you away, so I’m being as polite as I can. It is important for non-Western readers who come across this site to see the less polished version of the US world view. You have absolutely crazy ideas about what Iranians believe and about the Muslim religion, but you are much more a typical Westerner than I am.
Rob O.:
Here is Ahmadinejad’s introduction to his speech before the UN General Body this year.
“All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Universe, and peace and blessing be upon our Master and Prophet, Mohammad, and his pure Household, and his noble Companions and on all divine messengers”
“Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam Al- Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those who attest to his rightfulness”
The part about the bloodshed and the chaos and this somehow being related to Iran having nuclear capabilities less than but comparable to those of Japan, Canada or Brazil is just a weird fantasy you’re repeating and that was invented by people who hate, or feel threatened by the fact that Iran is not ruled by the Shah or a pro-US relatively pro-Zionist dictator the way Saudi Arabia and Egypt are.
You may have read the article where Netanyahu describes Iran as some biblical enemy of Jews against whom God calls for genocide. Your accusation could be made far more justifiably against Israel than it could against Iran. You may have read about how George Bush believed God commanded him to wage war against Iraq on behalf of Christianity. Your accusation could be made far more justifiably against the US than it can against Iran.
Persian Gulf:
We have to agree to disagree.
Attributing absolute responsiblity to Mr. Khamenei is inaccurate as he is not absolutely make all the decisions.
And if iran is trulu a dictaorship at level of Mubarak of Egypt, or Syria, or the Greek Colonels, why did all these millions of people vote? And why did they vote for Ahmadinejad and not Moin? And why are all these hundreds of thousands of people – many of them young, men and women – stream out of their homes to pray around Tehran University at the end of Ramadan? Why is not Mr. Khamenei universally despised and hated? As for Greens – they were victims of one of those factions of the Iranian politics.
Why did
Rob O:
I’ve read all of Ahmadinejad’s speeches to the UN. He’s never said that “foundational to their belief, is the idea that the Mahdi will appear at a time of global chaos and bloodshed” and he’s never said that his actions would hasten the appearance of the Mahdi.
The beliefs you present are just an anti-Iranian fantasy that you hold in common with some people who wish ill on the Iranian people.
One way or another, this is what you’d believe about Egypt or Jordan if either was not ruled by a pro-US authoritarian dictator.
About nuclear negotiations, the US and Iran have irreconcilable positions. The US the Leveretts explain in the article above, holds the position that Iran must not have technology that could allow it to make a weapon in theory – so even if the Israel or the US bombs Tehran, Iran must not have the material or technological requirements to be able to build a weapon that it could use to retaliate.
The US position is not supportable by the plain terms of the NPT and is specially held for Iran. Japan, Brazil, Canada and many countries have technologies that could make nuclear weapons. This technology is guaranteed to be available “without discrimination” by the terms of the NPT that the US ratified.
Obama holds the same position that George Bush did, and held that position from before he was elected. As long as the US holds that position and Iran disagrees, as every political actor and faction in Iran does, there cannot be an agreement on the nuclear issue.
If you think something Ahmadinejad said is responsible for that US position, that the US has held from long before either Obama or Ahmadinejad entered politics, or that Obama would have changed that position but for something Ahmadinejad said, what makes you think that? It seems like something you’d like to believe and are not bothered by the fact that you would not be able to support it.
Kind of like your bizarre belief that Iran is motivated by a desire to cause violence and bloodshed to world to bring the Mahdi.
Whoops, fyi you’re correct. That was Arnold Evans. Hopefully he catches that.
fyi:
Gandhi says “honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress”. so, no need to turn to ad-hominem attack. the fact that you may know me does not mean that I have to agree with all what you say or think. I never do this with anybody even very close relatives. and nobody ever told me that I lack a sense of responsibility. contrary to your definition, its was the opposite, here or back there.responsibility goes hand in hand with rights. one can not be taken at the expense of the other.
it’s the same for the accidents. ultimately, the responsibility for the accidents might rest on the drivers’ shoulders. however, it’s a black and white preposition as you like to lecture. this also shows you lack of understanding for the internal complexity of the IR era. you may know the U.S system and the Shah’s era very well, but surely not the IR era. I have explained the death numbers for the accidents in the past. and no, the safety of the roads and the vehicles are also two equal important factors for the accidents. and remember, we are talking about accidents leading to death, not carelessness. true, if you drive in Tehran, you see the majority are driving carelessly. but those are not mostly leading to death. you better check this with government employees next time you go to Iran. There are other reasons for the individuals not having enough regards for the law. when you see the top ones, or the ones having links, easily circumventing the rules (and I have seen that numerous times with my own eyes), there would be less incentives for ordinary people to do so. the same goes for the university degrees, plagiarisms and so on.
forgetting the first few years of the revolution, the rest of what you said was under the absolute rule of Velayate Faghih. Mr. Khamenie is personally responsible for whatever the wrongdoing you have mentioned even the greens’ one as he killed the spirit of democratic changes whenever it was going to arise only then to blame the others for their actions out of desperation.
Rob O.
“Your question about whether Iran is motivated by a desire to bring about the end of the world is stunningly ignorant and actually offensive. Someone who understands Israel as superficially as you understand Iran could, if they chose, ask the same question of Israel. The same question could be asked of the US under Obama.”
I did not write those sentences – you must be making a mistake.
Many US Presidents end their speeches by “God Bless the United States of America”. What, pray, that tells us about US leaders?
Arnold Evans:
The countires that you mentioned are not colonies: US gets nothing out of them; Egypt, Jordan, Israel are like old mistresses (or old wives if you are a Muslim) that you have to support in spite of the fact that your heart is now elsewhere.
These countries are dependencies – not worth anything to US security.
Yes, not even Saudi Arabia.
As for the War in Palestine – it cannot be anylonger settled along the 2-state scenario – 40-years of facts-on-the-ground cannot be overcome. US does not have the power to force such a settlement. Without Egypt, Syria – the only credible threat to Israel – cannot win a war. Thus, just like Iran-US Standoff, the war in Palestine will continue for the foreseeable future.
Eventually, the area between Jordan river and the sea will be re-constituted in a similar manner as that of Lebanon: a confessional political system. That lies still a few decades into the future.
Arnold Evans: “There is no reason to think Iran is motivated in the least by these beliefs you’re attributing to its leadership.”
Have you ever listened to Ahmadinejad’s speeches at the UN General Assembly? Practically every speech ends (or starts) with a call for the return of the (Shia) Mahdi/Islamic messiah/Hidden Imam (whichever name you prefer). Khamenei is on record as believing in this as well. I’m not implying this religious belief is the ’sole’ motivating factor in Iran’s behaviour. But to completely disregard such a bizarre, extremist religious invocation at the world’s leading international gathering would be sheer folly.
As for the USG’s historic stubbornness toward Iran, I also appreciate that this is not a recent development. But with regard to the USG’s “hardball” in nuclear negotiations, I believe Ahmadinejad’s antics certainly have a souring effect on any credibility Iran might otherwise bring to the bargaining table. (And Obama, Sarkozy, Brown, etc are all on record as acknowledging Ahmadinejad’s detrimental effect on negotiations).
fyi:
I’m not sure I fully understand your points here: “Your question about whether Iran is motivated by a desire to bring about the end of the world is stunningly ignorant and actually offensive. Someone who understands Israel as superficially as you understand Iran could, if they chose, ask the same question of Israel. The same question could be asked of the US under Obama.”
As someone witnessing Iran blatantly march toward nuclear weapons capability, scoffing at sanctions while developing a ballistic nuclear missile arsenal, all while invoking calls for the return on some mystical hidden Islamic Messiah that is supposed to arrive amid global chaos and bloodshed, I’m not sure how someone could “ask the same question of Israel…or of the US under Obama.” I don’t see Netanyahu or Obama calling for the end of the world while invoking some obscure radical religious doctrine at the UN. Do you?
In simple terms, I’m more in the camp of, “If we don’t stop Iran now, we’ll (eventually) have to stop them later, and it’ll be a lot harder when Iran has nuclear weapons.” A nuclear Iran will effectively entrench a totalitarian nuclear Islamic state far more powerful than Pakistan ever could be, sitting atop far more oil. How do you think that will play out when oil inevitably starts to get scarce?
I don’t mean this tongue-in-cheek and I do appreciate your respectful reply. I enjoyed Flynt and Hillary’s interview, and truly want to believe that Iran can be convinced to peacefully abandon nuclear weapons aspirations. But it’s a cruel, cruel world out there. Words only fly so far. Nuclear missiles fly much further.
Arnold
I believe that I did see an interview with Ahmadinejad where he was saying that although flawed Iran could accept the deal. I don’t remember the exact words but he was basically saying it would be another opportunity to show the world how dishonest the US is in its dealing with Iran. I remember that he specifically said that ‘if they dont return the LEU we will just enrich new LEU’.
FYI:
Of course, that is now finished and Iran-US position will be akin to that of Cuba-US and North Korea- US position for the indefinite future.
I largely agree with that and you’re the first person I’ve seen write this in these terms.
As you point out, US/Iran is essentially stable now. Iran will make as much LEU as it wants, against somewhat petty US sabotage, it will advance its missile program and before this decade is over will open Arak and have a source of plutonium.
The situation that is in flux now is Israel/Palestine and the US colonies of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Obama thinks the US cost of managing the colonies will become more manageable if there is an agreement between the leadership the US chose for Palestine and Israel.
It is not clear to what degree Abbas will be willing to surrender on behalf of the Palestinians, how the Palestinians will respond, how the indirect rulers of the colonies will respond and how the people of the colonies will respond.
Kathleen:
That is just business as usual.
Truth is the first casualty of War.
Arnold Evans:
A “sense”, by definition, cannot be further articulated.
The deal fell apart becuase factions within US and Iran did not like it.
Of course the deal was flawed – the whole Iranian nuclar file is.
That was not the point – the point was to advance US-iran Agenda.
Of course, that is now finished and Iran-US position will be akin to that of Cuba-US and North Korea- US poistion for the indefinite future.
“The interview was just published today, entitled “Countdown to a Nuclear Iran?” (just inserting the question mark after the words “Countdown to a Nuclear Iran” puts Eddie several notches above most professional journalists in the United States who write about Iranian issues).”
And the majority of these so called professional journalist not only exclude a question mark about a nuclear weapons Iran. Terri Gross and Rachel Maddow etc have both referred to Iran as all ready having nuclear weapons themselves while also allowing guest to get away with inferring that Iran all ready has a nuclear weapons program. As so many MSMers let guest get away with repeating.
FYI:
My sense of this was that Ahmadinejad was willing to make a deal – however flawed it might be in its specifics – so that he could advance and Iran-US agenda forward.
What gives you that sense? When did Ahmadinejad say he was willing to accept a flawed deal – which would have meant exporting the LEU, getting nothing in return and having no recourse to get the LEU back?
If he never said he was willing to do that, what gives you the sense that he was?
You’re far from the first person to say this. But it really does not make sense, and there really is no support for that narrative.
Ahmadinejad is not stupid. The US didn’t almost trick the Iranians into giving away 1200 kgs of LEU for nothing with that deception thwarted by Ahmadinejad’s political enemies.
It was a bad deal, it was clear from almost the beginning that the US would not put simple guarantees in place that Iran would actually get either a TRR fuel or be able to recall its LEU. That’s what killed the deal.
The idea that Ahmadinejad agreed with the US conditions 1) makes no sense 2) contradicts what Ahmadinejad himself has said about those conditions 3) is not supported by any statement anywhere on Iran’s side.
Arnold Evans:
I cannot supply any quotes.
My sense of this was that Ahmadinejad was willing to make a deal – however flawed it might be in its specifics – so that he could advance and Iran-US agenda forward.
The tonnage of the enriched uranium or eventual acquistion of fuel plates were not strategic to Iran since more uranium could be enriched and the Iran could manufacture the fuel plates.
For US, also, the same logic obtained – but they had to sell it to their own faction in US and this they attemoted to do by stating that way they were crippling Iranian’s ability to build a bomb.
Rob O.
Beliefs cannot be attributed to a collective, only to individuals.
The belief in Mahdi is common to both Sunni and Shia Muslims. There are 2 differences: the Shia believe that the Mahdi is the Hidden Imam (12-th or 7-th grandson of the Prophet) and the 12-Imami Shia also believe that Jesus will emerge at the same time and with the 12-th Imam.
Unless you or someone else is extremely close to any of these Doctors of Religion or the President of Iran, you just do not know and will not know what is in their hearts.
You also wrote: “…many scholars of Shia Islam are ….” could you pleae name them? The only scholar that I know that has made such claim has been Bernard Lewis who, in fact, was never an expert in Shia Islam.
The stubbornness of the Iranian leaders, over the last 30 years, in fact has served them well; especially since USG has advanced so much of their agenda across the Middle East over the last 10 years.
I think it will be a good idea for you to look closer to home for the influence of eschatological thinking on US policies both domestic and foreign. You might be surprised at what you find.
FYI:
Ahmadinejad did not take ownership of the conditions the US imposed for the deal. Ahmadinejad pushed for a straightforward exchange. The US, we know now, never offered a straightforward exchange.
At no point, and correct me with a quotation if I’m wrong, did Ahmadinejad say the deal on the table from the US, without guarantees an exchange would actually take place (that the US publicly claimed from the beginning would not be offered) was acceptable.
Rob O:
So when was the US not harsh towards Iran? The US is not more harsh against Iran under Ahmadinejad than it was under the previous president who was not falsely accused of holocaust denial or wiping off the map or claiming the US government orchestrated 9/11 or whatever.
On the other hand, if Ahmadinejad says Israel will go the way of the USSR, Apartheid South Africa, the Shah’s regime of Iran and Hussein’s regime of Iraq – and then that statement is deliberately misrepresented by the Western press as a threat to militarily wipe Israel from the map – that false translation is itself what you’re describing as harshness – not a cause of it.
Your question about whether Iran is motivated by a desire to bring about the end of the world is stunningly ignorant and actually offensive. Someone who understands Israel as superficially as you understand Iran could, if they chose, ask the same question of Israel. The same question could be asked of the US under Obama.
There is no reason to think Iran is motivated in the least by these beliefs you’re attributing to its leadership. Iran’s leadership speaks openly about its motivations and Iran’s behavior fits its declared motivations. Iran believes the US would like to impose pro-US anti-democratic leadership on Iran such as the leadership that is in place in Saudi Arabia (emplaced by the British Empire) Jordan (emplaced by the British Empire) or Egypt (agreed to by Sadat and Mubarak against the clear wishes of their people and maintained since by a US supported dictatorship).
Iran is actually right about that. The US would rather Iran be ruled by someone like the Shah that the US successfully imposed on Iran over 50 years ago and who ruled for nearly 30. Supporters of Israel are open in the fact that they oppose democracy everywhere else in the Middle East because pro-US dictators who are willing to ignore the perceptions and sensibilities of their people are necessary for Israel’s long-term security.
If Egypt was ruled by a leader accountable to the Egyptian people, the US would oppose that person’s rule, would openly oppose its economic and technological development, Western news organizations would exaggerate true stories and concoct false stories to paint the regime in a negative light. That’s what the US does in the Middle East. That’s part of keeping the Middle East secure enough for a politically majority Jewish state to exist there.
Arnold Evans:
Only this: that Mr. Ahmadinejad repeatedly pushed that deal, defended it, and claimed ownership of it.
and the sabotaging Mr. Ahmadinejad’s initiative for TRR
Please spell out what you think happened and what makes you think what you do.
The deal presented by the West, as best I can make out, is that Iran would export to get its stock significantly beneath the level the US wants of one ton. Then Iran would have to, under one pretext or another keep its stock at that level indefinitely and shipments of TRR fuel would begin in a year and would not be complete for at least three years.
I do not think the deal, as I understand it, would have been acceptable to Iran, to Ahmadinejad or to any Iranian actor, which would mean there was no need for anyone to sabotage Ahmadinejad.
If the West had offered a direct trade, 1200 kgs of LEU for its equivalent in TRR fuel, Iran would have accepted that. The US deceptively presented the offer as such about a year ago – but Iran’s insistence on guarantees that would be reasonable if a straightforward trade was on offer and were not acceptable to the US in the actual case caused the US to eventually expose that it did not intend to ship TRR fuel without further until that point unspoken concessions from Iran.
The story of the deal, which by now clearly was a bad deal for Iran, was torpedoed by Ahmadinejad’s opponents seems popular in the West but does not seem to have any factual support of any kind.
So, FYI, I ask, what support do you have for that narrative?
Hillary and Flynt,
You both make an excellent case for an realistic interpretation and assessment of American foreign policy toward Iran. I truly want to believe your neo-idealist perspective on how best to approach Iran and thwart another war in the Middle East. However, I can’t help but feel you are indeed “apologizing” to Iran for the stubborn manner in which Iran is being dealt with by the American government.
This stubbornness, (some would say harshness) towards Iran is a result of the disturbing rhetoric that has emerged out of Tehran in recent years. Whether it’s the Holocaust denials, alleged threats to “wipe Israel off the map”, or most recently the questioning of 9/11 in New York at the UN General Assembly, my belief is that the US Government treats Iran with little respect because, truthfully, the current Iranian leadership behaves so disturbingly aloof and callously ignorant of painful histories.
Closely related to the US Government’s handling of the Iranian nuclear questions is one issue which you did not address in your answers (and was not asked of you), and that is the eschatological beliefs (“End Times” beliefs, if you will) of the Ayatollah and President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly their belief in the “imminent” return of the Mahdi, also known as the Twelfth ‘Hidden’ Imam, or Islamic Messiah.
Foundational to their belief, is the idea that the Mahdi will appear at a time of global chaos and bloodshed. Given the rhetoric emanating from Iran, many scholars of Shia Islam are led to believe that the current leaders of Iran are so defiant in their pursuit of nuclear capabilities, as a result of their desire to hasten to return of the Twelfth Imam through the sparking of either a nuclear war in some kind of showdown with the West.
How do you interpret the Iranian regime’s apocalyptic beliefs?
Do you believe they influence Iran’s behaviour in any way?
How do you account for radical eschatological beliefs in the worlds of realpolitik, political correctness and prolific secularism found in the international diplomatic arena?
Persian Gulf:
I stated my opinion, both about the Office of the Supreme Jurisprudent and the road casualties.
Khomeini went back to Qum – as he had stated that he would – but the factions could not govern and they had to go bring him back to adjudicate among them. The factions are jockeying for power, at times plunging the Iran into political crisis: recent examples were hostage taking of foreigners during Mr. Khatami’s presidency, Aqajeri death sentence, the Green Movement, and the sabotaging Mr. Ahmadinejad’s initiative for TRR. I think the Office of the Supreme Jurisprudent has played a significant role in resolving this inter-faction crisis.
You are suggesting, as many Iranians do, that the political problems of Iran may be resolved through a new constitution. Well, I am deeply skeptical of that position. There has never been a Muslim state in which its internal factions have abided by the rules of the political game for more than 30 years. This is a flaw in Muslim polities and I cannot account for it; I am not a scholar with sufficient depth and knowledge. And, to my knowledge, the recent experiment in Turkey, since the restoration of civilian rule there , is the closest that any Muslim State has come to Democracy.
And who, but the individual drivers, are responsible for road accidents?
What I find unpersuasive about your position is the absence of individual responsibility. That somehow, the state, under the Shah and now under the Islamic Republic, is this monster that has usurped all individual initiative and responsibility and sucked it into itself – thus obviating the need for Iranians to be responsible for their own actions.
fyi:
“The Office of Supreme Jurisprudent has prevented dictatorship from emerging again in Iran.
Do you honestly believe that Iranian factions would play by the rules and – like the United States – conform to the wishes of the electorate and the Elected President?”
so funny of YOU making this argument! never expected you to say something like this. you are defending a dictatorship because you suspect the factions will not abide to the rule of law. you don’t see his office as an impediment for democracy? you ignore the plain fact that the judiciary, Majles and the office of the president are weak, so to invite discarding them by any faction, primarily because of the office of the supreme leader and his stooges that are present everywhere. you seem to be scaring people for a possible anarchy. but like it not, the path for a better representative of the populace goes from dismantling supreme leader’s office altogether. this is an opportunity that ,as always, brings about a great challenge.
what has gone wrong with you to argue this way? what is the tactic about? or it is not a priority for you which is understandable.
p.s, your argument here sounds the same as the one you made for the driving in Iran! blaming the victims.
White House gets facelift
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/white-house-gets-facelift/
Mohammad,
The reporting on Iran by the FT is better than that put out by most English-language newspapers available globally. Maybe it is the best. But by all means send your comments to the FT.
For example, just the other day, the FT reported from Eastern Turkey that local petrol (gasoline) was imported from Iran. That Iran would be able to export petrol or gasoline argues the sanctions are not doing what they ostensibly were supposed to do.
Mohammed,
Thanks. I think you should email the FT with your comments on that story!
James Canning,
Regarding the FT piece about Iranian TV, I think parts of it resemble propaganda. The Black Coffee series could not be distributed in defiance of Iranian authorities; because it has had to gain permission from the Ministry of Culture and also consent from the IRIB itself! (Selling of DVDs is also heavily regulated) The story of the series is not that provocative; a similar series (Barareh Nights) by Modiri with a similar story was aired on IRIB a few years ago. I suspect that IRIB would like to make it seem that Black Coffee is not supported by state-run institutions, and thus make it be watched in Iranian homes as an alternative to foreign TV series whose DVDs have got quite popular in recent years.
And the TV ad (which was not from the Minitry of Culture, but the separate Cultural Heritage Organization which is responsible for attracting foreign tourists to Iran) was presumably supposed to target Arab-speaking people, and no one (even Iran) disputes the fact that Al-Jazeera is the most viewed Arab channel. That’s no big deal, as Iranian Agencies have run their English ads on EuroNews before. So it seems to me that the FT “report” tries its best to ridicule Iranian TV more than it deserves. Based on this and previous reports, Najmeh Bozorgmehr does not seem impartial to me.
Helen Thomas, in an interview with an Ohio radio station, said in effect that one cannot criticise Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, in the US, and not be punished. PressTV has a brief bit on it today.
M.Ali,
Regarding your question about Azad University, I think that both sides have legitimate concerns. Opponents of Ahmadinejad fear that the government can’t handle the management of Azad U. well, ruining its achievements due to all too common government mismanagement. Moreover, they don’t trust Ahmadinejad’s administration, and consider Azad U a balancing power against Ahmadinejad and his allies. Ahmadinejad and his supporters too have the legitimate concern that too much unchecked power outside public supervision can be a source of instability and corruption. Both sides probably do have political agendas, but their stated concerns are acceptable to me.
I think Khamenei’s decision (which is in fact a result of a period of intensive & open public debate and at last an investigation by a committee of legal and Islamic experts in the judiciary) is a fair compromise; it restates the requirement that Azad U. should remain non-governmental, and at the same time trying to increase government supervision on it, nullifying the endowment which does seem to be legally questionable.
Binam, Mohammed:
In Pennsylvania, an Israel-based “security” firm tracked the movements of peace activists at several protests and anti-war rallies.
Police departments all over the US are interconnected with databases created by another Israel-based intelligence and security company.
In Chicago, FBI entered, searched, and removed a large amount of personal and private property from the home of peace activists.
What happened to Norman Finkelstein when he had the temerity to criticize Israel? Denied tenure at his US university.
What happened to University of Mich when it sponsored Pluto Press, which published a critical history of zionism, by Jonathan Kovel? U of Mich was forced to disassociate from Pluto Press.
What happens at Harvard and Yale when voices critical of Israel seek to be heard? Harvard and Yales’s directors are warned to consider their endowments; one way and another, critical voices are silenced.
One more reason to be grateful and supportive of the courageous and rational work of Flynt and Hillary Leverett.
I recall from a lecture several years ago that as his last term of elected office expired, Rafsanjani created a governing body somewhat outside the official, interactive government offices, but with authority to oversee all of them. My recollection of the details is very hazy — would somebody please correct and/or fill in the details of the governing body Rafsanjani created? Thanks.
I’m more certain of the understanding that Rafsanjani established his wealth through pistachio farming, then used his fortune to create a chain of private universities. His colleges are more expensive than the state colleges (iirc, state colleges are tuition-free, but admittance is on the basis of competitive exams). That’s important information for Americans to know, particularly those many young Americans who complete their university career deeply in debt: a. Iran provides free college education to many of its young people (when they’re not stoning adulterers and hanging gays, that is), and b. students who are unsuccessful at gaining a comparatively/competitively scarce seat in the Iranian state university system are thrown on the market-based mercies of the private/capitalist education system.
Binam,
You said “What would happen to such a person?! Would they still be alive? Free to move about Iran? Would they ever be allowed to appear on Iranian television? Would they be allowed to write articles in Iranian newspapers? Would their websites be accessible to all?”
Well, as far as I know nothing has happened to Sadeq Zibakalam except criticism by conservative media. He is safe, alive and free working as a professor in the faculty of political science in the University of Tehran. He has been allowed to appear on Iranian TV and Radio on several occasions (which Pirouz noted), openly criticizing the IRI’s views and policies towards the US. And his website is open here in Tehran, routinely updated: http://www.zibakalam.com/
As you can see there, one of his latest articles is labeled “The pullout of American forces from Iraq and the failure of Iranians’ conspiracy theories” (I’m not good at translation!) It openly criticizes Iranian officials in believing in and spreading fictitious conspiracy theories about US role in Iraq.
It seems that for some narrow minded people it is very difficult to understand , that the Iranian revolution at this stage is not about Khamenei or Ahmadinejad or any other ‘ individual ‘.
Whether they are there or not will not change the fundaments of the revolutionary path. Single destinies doesn’t play a role at all anymore.
Tomorrow Ahmadinejad will be in Beirut and later in South Lebanon and I am absolutely certain , that he will go there knowing the dangers awaiting him . Due to his fundamental revolutionary spirit and his firm will ( a gift from god ) , he will spread the idea of justice and equality all over the country and god willing will return to Iran safely.
Binam:
The Office of Supreme Jurisprudent has prevented dictatorship from emerging again in Iran.
Do you honestly believe that Iranain factions would play by the rules and – like the United States – conform to the wishes of the electorate and the Elected President?
Binam,
you argumentaton is very narrow and small minded…….
Liz,
I think I know if my own family was in prison or not. If you like to believe that she was never jailed, so be it. Continue imagining IRI as a perfect country where everyone is free and respected. See where that takes you.
And just so you know the Leader picks half the people on the council of experts and the other half aren’t exactly elected. Name one instance where the council has questioned anything the Leader has done. It’s unheard of. People like Jannati are now claiming that the Leader is representative of God! They are claiming disobeying him would be disobeying God!
As for AN, sure, whatever. I personally don’t mind seeing him run the country to the ground. Next time we build Iran from scratch we’ll do a better job.
Arnold,
I join you in congratulating the Leveretts on their handling of that question, and the entire interview.
The US suffers gigantic penalties related to its support of Israel, primarily because the US facilitates continuing oppression of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Obama should have endorsed the Saudi peace plan, and focused attention on getting Israeli military and other security forces out of the West Bank.
57 Muslim countries accept Israel within its June 1, 1967 borders. This should be US policy too, as implemented by the US Congress and the president.
Binam,
No one was jailed for taking photos and the Leader is elected by the Council of Experts which is itself elected by the people. Ahmadinejad won the election and there was no fraud at any scale.
“What is not acceptable in Iran is conspiring with US (or UK or German of French) officials to overthrow the elected government of the country. I think the relevant legal terms are “treason” and “sedition” :-), in which case jail time is a mild punishment.”
Suppose there is indeed an “elected government” in power in Iran. Let us conveniently forget about the fraudulent election and assume Ahmadinejad did in fact garner 24 million votes. What good is an “elected government” when there is an un-elected Leader who has final say on all matters?
And frankly, as someone who has a family member who served two months in Evin for simply taking photos during Ashura, I think a government that fears its own university students, filmmakers, journalists, ordinary citizens and even religious figures is a government on unstable grounds who deserves to be overthrown and their overthrow will be good riddance indeed.
By your rational, the 1979 revolution was also an act of “treason” and “sedition” and those responsible should still be serving their prison terms. The only difference between 1979 and now is that the figure on top is a mullah, not a king.
Pirouz,
The Iranian foreign minister does not think either Israel or the US is getting ready to attack Iran. (I exclude the issue of interference with Iranian computers) I think Israel would be very reluctant to attack Iran when Hezbollah would be in a position to cause serious problems, should it choose to do so. I see a strong Hezbollah as being in Israel’s own best interests, by dampening down foolish enthusiasm for an idiotic attack on Iran.
Fiorangela,
The effort to “name and shame” warmongering American leaders should be enlarged, if possible. Is the current Democrat who runs the foreign affairs committee in the House of Representatives, intentionally deceiving the American public? In an effort to set up yet another catastrophe in the Middle East, to “protect” Israel? If the Republicans take control of the House, will yet another warmonger be running the foreign affairs committee, and intentionally deceiving the American public, to “protect” Israel? And are both warmongers Jewish?
Binam;
You don’t seem to know much about Iran. In fact you don’t seem to know anything about Iran!!!
Khamenei, Rafsanjani, Mousavi, Karroubi, Rezaei WERE ALL INVOLVED UP TO THEIR NECK IN THE IRAN GATE SCANDAL, THEY ALL GOT IN TOUCH WITH THE US AUTHORITIES!
AND THEY ARE ALL FREE INSIDE IRAN WITH FREE ACCESS TO MEDIA! (Well Mousavi and Karroubi had that free access up until the election in 2009 when they tried to take thier liasion with USA up a few notches and make a coloured coup and steal an election they had lost)
Apart from that you are more than welcome to look into youtube and find Mr. Zibakalam’s televised debates (via IRIB) where he EXPLICITLY sides up with USA and Obama. He also had an open debate with M. Marandi in one of Tehran’s universities just some 2 months ago or so where he very clearly challenged the very foundations of Iranian foreign policies and almost went on the border of siding with Israel.
He is free inside Iran and has free media access doesn’t he? and so far as I know he still teaches in the university!!!
Fiorangela,
Great points. You might enjoy the report in the Financial Times today about Iranian TV, and the adverse effect on viewership resulting from governmental interference re: programming. The Iranian culture ministry is advertising on al-Jazzeera rather than Iranian TV to gain better coverage of the market.
paul,
You underline a very important point: Iran is the subject of sanctions, not because it is seriously believed to be developing nuclear weapons on the sly, but because it makes statements hostile to Israel.
The US has been running a colossal global scam, intended to “benefit” Israel and enable continuing oppression of the Palestinians, year in and year out, decade after decade. At a cost to the US taxpayers of trillions of dollars.
I agree with the tenor of Paul’s comment — the young interviewer’s perception of Iran seemed to be limited to media talking points. That reflects a larger problem that is both tragedy and crime: information about Iran that most Americans have access to is deliberately slanted to present Iran in a negative light. As well, relatively few American citizens and voters — and almost no elected officials — travel to or interact with Iran and Iranians on a cultural level. Continuing the Bush approach to Iran, the Obama administration conducts only covert and punitive interactions with Iran, such as Stuart Levey destructive campaign to destroy Iran’s economy.
An earlier RaceforIran article, featuring the Crosstalk debate including Alan Kuperman, suggested how the disinformation campaign has made its way into American colleges: Kuperman said, “in an academic setting, you get to study history . . .” In Kuperman’s case, it would have been more accurate to say, “we get to manufacture historographic narratives, and inoculate the next generation of Americans with our peculiar ideological bias.”
Flynt and Hillary Leverett hold their ground valiantly, and deserve the respect and gratitude of all who seek a rational and just foreign policy.
What more can be done to support their informed analysis? How can more young people be exposed to objective and rational information about Iran? What can be done to induce American opinion- and policy-makers to travel to Iran, and to do so with an open and receptive mind?
Binam, hasn’t this been done in the past? Khatami’s dialog of civilizations? He hasn’t been executed.
Right now, in the security realm, Iran is on a war footing. They’ve been threatened with nuclear attack by the US. Their infrastructure has been attacked by means of espionage. Their impression is that an attempt was made against their popular sovereignty by means of a foreign assisted uprising. A Western directed media campaign of demonization is in full effect. Under such conditions, you must expect a tightened security regimen.
But Khatami hasn’t been executed. And folks like the Leveretts have a relationship with academic counterparts such as Mirandi. So even in these circumstances, it isn’t as extreme as you make it out to be.
True, VEVAK has identified groups and individuals that are to be avoided. But here in the US, we also have our lists, such as groups and individuals listed as terrorists. The difference being, Iran faces far more powerful adversaries than we do here in the US. Hence the relative differences.
Funny how the Iranian security forces are supposed to be so vicious and ruthless yet every two weeks somebody manages to smuggle a lengthy political tome out of prison.
Oh yeah and frankly good riddance to them.
Don’t believe a single of these “smuggled letters” from jail, its b.s.
Binam,
To answer your question, yes Iranian officials do the same thing as the Leveretts and they write articles about it and they appear on television.
Of course culturally Iran is not as much a media-oriented society like the US is, so politicians and officials don’t ncessarily always consider the media and public relations angle of their actions or they don’t have the same tradition of being open in the media about their daily jobs as a US officials. But it’s very normal for current or former officials to talk about their meetings with US officials in the context that the Leverrets described in newspapers or news websites. A few months ago the Supreme Leader spoke very matter-of-fact about how US and Iranian officials had consistently maintained contact on issues of Iraq and Afghanistan during the Khatami admin and first Ahmadinejad admin.
What is not acceptable in Iran is conspiring with US (or UK or German of French) officials to overthrow the elected government of the country. I think the relevant legal terms are “treason” and “sedition” :-), in which case jail time is a mild punishment.
M. Ali,
Stick to answering my questions… If someone said that in Iran, what would happen to them? You know fully well what would happen to them… Which is why you’re avoiding answering the questions… Because no one in Iran could be the Iranian version of the Leveretts.
You can’t believe in freedom of speech and say “And frankly, good riddance to them.”
Plus if you were honest with yourself, you too would admit that there isn’t as much freedom of speech in Iran as there is here in the states. The Leveretts are the living proof of that. And those people who are criticizing the government are all in jail… Read the latest Nourizad letter from Evin – 28 questions to the Leader. Or are you one of the people who is dedicating your blood to him for no apparent reason?!
Binam, are you in Iran? There are lots of internal criticisms about government policies in the last few years (after Ahmadenijad came to power). When it goes overboard and it seems the papers are dedicated to lies with the aim of supporting an opposition that aims at overthrowing the elected government, then it is closed down. And frankly, good riddance to them.
“What’s unique about our perspective is that we took the authority we had in the U.S. government to actually talk to Iranian officials, and we have continued the discussions in what’s called a “track-two process,” in which former U.S. officials meet with similar Iranian officials in their personal capacities. Ten years of discussions with these officials doesn’t make me apologetic, but it does at least allow me to understand the Iranian point of view. The difference between our critics and us is that they can’t even begin to grasp the Iranian perspective because they’re simply not allowed to meet with them.”
Allow me to reverse this statement to make a point… Assume this was said by someone – ANYONE – in Iran:
“What’s unique about our perspective is that we took the authority we had in the Iranian government to actually talk to American officials, and we have continued the discussions in what’s called a “track-two process,” in which former Iranian officials meet with similar American officials in their personal capacities. Ten years of discussions with these officials doesn’t make me apologetic, but it does at least allow me to understand the American point of view. The difference between our critics and us is that they can’t even begin to grasp the American perspective because they’re simply not allowed to meet with them.”
What would happen to such a person?! Would they still be alive? Free to move about Iran? Would they ever be allowed to appear on Iranian television? Would they be allowed to write articles in Iranian newspapers? Would their websites be accessible to all? Would they be able to meet Obama?
All you Leverett supporters would not dare answer these questions. Because you know fully well that such a person would not be able to exist in Iran. And even if they did, you would be first to call them “spies” or “Americans puppets” or other names.
I think before you can make a point you have to first answer this very simple question – would your Iranian versions be able to exist in Iran. If you answer is no, then what’s the point of making the kind of arguments you’re making? Because you’re dealing with a government that is irrational and cannot be trusted. You can’t expect Iranians to act the way you expect them to when they would in fact imprison the very people who would say what you’re saying – only from the Iranian point of view…
You’re allowed to ask loaded questions if you’re asking them of someone capable and willing to challenge and correct them as was the case here. I found this an excellent interview.
Q1: That is critical: we’ve already reached a grand bargain with Iran and other countries under the NPT. We are both signatories of it. And the grand bargain we signed up to in the NPT was that countries would be able to have fuel-cycle capabilities. We’ve already agreed to that.
Excellently done. I’ve never seen this point made this way. The United States has already agreed, formally in the NPT, that Iran can be nuclear capable and is going back on its agreement because Iran is no longer ruled by the pro-US anti-democratic Shah.
Iran’s position, on it’s merits, is unassailable and the US position that Iran be prevented from being nuclear capable is indefensible legally or morally. However, making legally and morally indefensible arguments may be the tiniest part of the cost the US pays for its support of the idea that the Middle East must have a politically majority Jewish state.
Q2 was a question with a false premise and the Leveretts corrected it. The reason behind this commonly asserted false premise is that, again the US position is indefensible on its merits and therefore attention must be diverted away from it.
Q3 and Q4 were answered well. The US claims, again in contradiction with its already formally accepted agreement that peaceful nuclear use includes the fuel cycle, that nuclear capability and nuclear weapons are equivalent. Strategically in some ways they are, except that nuclear capability without a weapon impacts a country’s defensive or retaliatory strategic position without giving a surprise first strike ability such as the US or Israel have with their actual weapons.
Q5 on nuclear terrorism – Pakistan being more threatening does not answer the question about Iran even though it is true. The point that nobody has drawn up a plausible scenario in which Iran 1) decides to build an actual weapon and then 2) gives a weapon to Hamas or Hezbollah maybe could be made better.
I can think of four scenarios in which Iran actually weaponizes, as opposed to remaining nuclear capable. 1) The United States masses an invasion force on Iran’s borders the way a force was staged in Kuwait to invade Iraq in 2002/2003. 2) The US or Israel bombs Iranian civilian centers 3) Israel or the US bombs another Muslim civilian center. 4) The US, somehow in a way that it has not yet, convinces Iran’s leadership that the West will not accept Iran’s possession of the fuel cycle as irreversible unless Iran actually builds and tests a weapon
All of the scenarios in which Iran weaponizes are relatively implausible, though the US and especially Israel would like to retain the flexibility to threaten to attack or attack Muslim civilian centers without retaliation. Scenario 4, in which the US efforts to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear capable convince Iran that the best way to end the those efforts is to actually build a weapon may be the most serious risk.
But no plausible or implausible scenario then connects with Iran arming Hamas or Hezbollah with a nuclear weapon. I don’t see that as a serious concern even in theory.
But the idea that Israel can no longer threaten to destroy Cairo, Mecca, Riyadh, Beirut or Damascus without retaliation in some way making Israel’s enemies more powerful relatively is a valid one that is pretty much unavoidable at this point. Israel cannot, at a cost acceptable to the US, maintain its monopoly on nuclear threats any more.
Q6 and Q7 about war or Iran’s response to being bombed is very well done. If this happens, I expect not a Suez moment, but the process of imperial weakening as happened with the USSR in Afghanistan to happen to the US from Iraq through Iran and Afghanistan – much to Russia’s delight and from Russia’s point of view perfect karmic justice for US meddling in Afghanistan originally.
If the US or Israel attacks Iran, eventually the US will leave all of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan in defeat – unwilling to pay the costs by that point necessary to maintain a military presence on the ground in that broad region.
Q8 – Stuxnet does not and cannot change the strategic situation. Stuxnet cannot mean that now Israel could threaten to attack Cairo and Iran would not be able to offer Egypt a promise of retaliation if that was to happen. Stuxnet or other setbacks through sabotage of Iran’s nuclear program are short term events that do not impact the long term strategic balance.
The point made, that these events can temporarily set back Iran’s nuclear program but will not lead to regime change and will not improve the US’ relationship with Iran is valid. It is also a safe prediction that Iran will eventually overcome these efforts. The strategic solution for the US cannot be to try to invent new viruses every year from now on.
Q9 – Apologists was dealt with well.
Q10 – Iran biding its time goes back to the first question and the answer that Iran has a right to be nuclear capable. By now, it is very difficult – pretty much impossible – on a long term basis from here to prevent Iran from exercising that right. An actual weapon is different and would require a US or Israeli provocation but Iran can bide its time to consolidate the nuclear capability it already has by most definitions that have been declared publicly.
Q11 is a pretty good personalizing question that is dealt with in an interesting and informative way.
It was a very good interview and an advance in understanding the Iran situation and the underlying issues probably for everyone who reads it.
This is off-topic, but I wanted to ask some of the Iranian members here about the Azad University controversy. Opposition groups seem to claim it is a bad thing for it to go from Rafsanjani’s control to the government. Even if someone dislikes Ahmadenijad, I don’t understand why they would prefer it to remain in the hand of Rafsanjani than the government of Iran? Does the opposition have a legitimate reason for disliking the change or is it just a classic case of disliking whatever Ahmedinejad does?
I tend to agree with Paul – in that Question 2 is a fine example of an extraordinarily dishonest loaded question. However it is the crux of the US position. I also agree with Paul’s reflections on the validity of the point of view expressed therein.
However, it is easy to forget that Fishman was obliged to ask the toughest policy questions he could muster and, imo, that’s exactly what he did. To have done otherwise would have turned the debate into an exercise in back-slapping. Looking at it from the Leverett’s perspective, the questions could have been supplied to Fishman, by the Leveretts before the interview began – not that I’d DREAM of suggesting such a thing…
The BBC attracts a great deal of opprobrium for the ‘unnecessarily tough’ questions asked on Hardtalk. But this view overlooks the fact that the tough question are never going to be dealt with if nobody asks them.
I actually find it shocking (well, except that I know better than to find it shocking) that a highly placed Ivy Leaguer, whom you praise so well, and who presumably will some day be amongst the ‘policy-makers’ and ’serious people’ himself, asks questions that are so blatantly ignorant, loaded, and shaped by propaganda. Question after question just reeks. Let’s look at the second question …
“That is fine, but the main issue the United States and others have about Tehran’s nuclear program is the secrecy that hangs over it, not to mention the regime’s aggressive rhetoric….”
Wait a minute now, Edward. WHOSE rhetoric has been aggressive? Both the US and Israel have threatened Iran with war over and over and over again. In fact, both have threatened Iran with NUCLEAR attack!!! And as for nuclear secrecy, um, Israel, hello!? And then there’s US nuclear secrecy … in a delightfully humorous mode, a year and a half ago, the US invited the IAEA to continue to NOT inspect its nuclear weapons sites, as a signal to Iran that Iran ought to submit to more IAEA inspection!!
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1451894.php/US_allows_stricter_IAEA_inspections_hopes_others_will_follow
So, whose nuclear program is shrouded in secrecy?
Ok, so, let’s look at Edward’s third question …
“Many have argued that a nuclear-armed Iran would spark a dangerous arms race in the Middle East. In your view, how would an Iranian nuclear weapon affect the region?”
… now let me ask, is it really possible for someone to put forward a question like this with a straight face following news in recent weeks of the US pushing massive military buildups into Saudi Arabia and Israel? The US isn’t just sparking an arms race in the region. It’s turning the region into a veritable US arms dump. Shouldn’t the question be what does Iran make of that?
And so it goes. These questions are drawn straight from propaganda talking points, with no knowledge or critical thinking applied whatsoever. All I can say, Leveretts, is that I hope you hold your students to higher standards.