Sarah Palin—former governor of Alaska and Senator John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 U.S. presidential election—published an Op Ed in USA Today, see here, that takes the most fanciful neoconservative myths about the Islamic Republic and turns them into a tortured argument for “truly ‘crippling’ sanctions”, U.S. support for regime change in Tehran, and military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.
Given the disastrous consequences of neoconservative foreign policy ideas regarding Iraq and other Middle Eastern issues in recent years, those ideas and the people who framed them should have been discredited and should now be marginalized—meaning, not taken seriously—in future policy debates. But that is clearly not the case. The neoconservatives and their particular approach to American foreign policy in the Middle East are back in force, and the current focus of their advocacy and activism is pushing the United States into a military confrontation with Iran.
It is even more striking that many “progressives”, “liberal internationalists” (we like John Mearshimer’s description, “liberal imperialist”, better), and “human rights advocates”—who would recoil at the suggestion they were conservatives of any sort, neo- or otherwise—are buying into and helping to legitimate bad neoconservative ideas about the Islamic Republic. By doing so, these left-of-center forces are bolstering the neoconservatives’ drive to war, whether they intend this or not. We saw this happen in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, too.
Interestingly, one of the few pockets of politically engaged people in the United States who are prepared to raise serious questions about the wisdom of another ill-conceived U.S. military adventure in the Middle East is found within the “Tea Party” movement, of which Sarah Palin is a leading light. Notwithstanding Palin’s acceptance of the neoconservative narratives that have come to dominate foreign policy discussions within the Republican Party in recent years, the Tea Party is, in fact, deeply divided on foreign policy. Some of the movement’s other leading lights—including at least a couple who will be sworn in as United States Senators in a few days, like Rand Paul (R-KY)—are stalwart in their criticism of the Iraq war and their determination that the United States not launch another “war of choice” in the Middle East that will end up doing even greater damage to America’s interests and international standing.
It seems a daunting challenge for truly principled conservatives to take on what has become the entrenched consensus on foreign policy in GOP circles. But to the extent some of the Tea Partiers are inclined to try, we wish them well. It would be one of the great ironies of recent American history if the most outspoken congressional opponents of potential moves by the Obama Administration toward military confrontation with Iran turned out to be serious conservatives who actually care about the U.S. Constitution.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Pak,
John Bolton has ZERO interest in promoting democracy in the Middle Eastl, and he has a great deal of interest in “protecting” Israel, right or wrong, by using US power even if such use is contrary to the best interests of the American people.
Scott Lucas,
Just so that you know (as you seem so ingrossed in the minutest day to day affairs of IR1) that:
- In Haiti there is a dispute between the candiadates and th incumbent in the recent Presidential election, that everyone agrees was “flawed” to say the least thats left the country in limbo.
- In Ivory Coast there is a major dispute regarding the who actually won the recent presidential election that may lead to civil war.
- In Belarus – the incumbent has been declared the winner and countless opposition supporters and figures including presidential canditates have been beaten and detained.
- In Thailand – the red shirts are still out and about demanding new presidential elections
- In Egypt – recent parliamentary elections was held were the main opposition party, the Muslim Brotherhood was banned and its members arrested before the election and guess what the NDP won the vote!
Unfortunately, I find it difficult to accept any of your arguments and concerns about Iran and its political system as you forget about whats going on in other countries, especially those that are close US allies, showing you to be a political agent thats part of US soft power against Islamic Republic of Iran.
I will give you this honest, brotherly advice (brotherly in the sense we are children of Adam and Eve) is: let go of your hatred of IRI and move on. This hatred has consumed you and is changing you for the worse. Your work has not changed the policies or the behaviour of IRI – it still is going on the path that its people have set for itself. Its not too late – log off, go out take a deep breath and enjoy life. If you feel very strongly about human rights then look at whats going on in your own country, United States of America, that sourly needs genuinely people to change the direction of that country as its destroying itself by letting the agendas of “interests groups” overides the national interest of everyday people.
Peace out and a happy new year.
Injustice in the age of Obama
Barack Obama, a former law professor, should have a healthy respect for civil liberties, but his actions suggest not.
Cindy Sheehan
The treatment of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui is symbolic in the minds of many Muslims. Her treatment has caused more damage to US-Muslim relations (particularly in Pakistan) than any ’soft power’ state department program could undo [EPA]
Since being the defendant in about six trials after I was arrested for protesting the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, it’s my experience that the police lie. Period.
However the lies don’t stop at street law enforcement level. From lies about WMD and connections to “al Qaeda,” almost every institution of so-called authority – the Pentagon, State Department, CIA, FBI, all the way up to the Oval Office and back down – lie. Not white lies, but big, Mother of all BS (MOAB) lies that lead to the destruction of innocent lives. I.F Stone was most definitely on the ball when he proclaimed, “Governments lie”.
Having clarified that, I would now like to examine a case that should be enshrined in the travesty of the US Justice Hall of Shame.
In February of this year, Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani mother of three, was convicted in US Federal (kangaroo) Court of seven counts, including two counts of “attempted murder of an American.” On September 23, Judge Berman, who displayed an open bias against Dr. Siddiqui, sentenced her to 86 years in prison.
The tapestry of lies about Dr. Siddiqui – a cognitive neuroscientist, schooled at MIT and Brandeis – was woven during the Bush regime but fully maintained during her trial and sentencing this year by the Obama (in)Justice Department.
Before 9/11/2001, Aafia lived in Massachusetts with her husband, also a Pakistani citizen, and their two children. According to all reports, she was a quietly pious Muslim (which is still not a crime here in the States), who hosted play dates for her children. She was a good student who studied hard and maintained an exemplary record, causing little harm to anything, let alone anyone.
After 9/11, when she was pregnant with her third child, she encouraged her husband to move back to Pakistan to avoid the backlash against her Muslim children – which was a very prescient thing to do considering the Islamophobia that has only increased in this country since then.
Tortured ‘truth’
Following the move to Pakistan, Dr. Siddiqui and her husband divorced. Her life took a horrendous turn justly after. While Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) – supposed mastermind of the 9/11 plot – was being water-boarded by the CIA 183 times in one month, he gave Dr. Siddiqui up as a member of al-Qaeda. Was this a case of stolen identity, or was Mohammed just saying random words like you or I would to stop the torture?
There is some disputed “intelligence” that Aafia had married KSM’s nephew, a tenuous allegation at best, and even so, guilt by association has no place in the hallowed US legal system.
Following KSM’s torture-induced ‘insights’, Dr. Siddiqui was listed by Bush’s Justice Department as one of the seven most dangerous al-Qaeda operatives in the world. A mother of three equipped with a lethal ability to ‘thin-slice’ your cognitive personality in seconds. If alleged association and a healthy interest in neuro-psychology are the definitive hallmarks of a ‘terrorist operative,’ then Malcolm Gladwell better start making some phone calls to Crane, Poole and Schmidt.
A culture of falsehoods
Face it, we all know that since 9/11, there have been numerous false “terror” alerts and lies leading to the capture and torture of hundreds of innocent individuals – and the heinous treatment we have all witnessed to from Abu Ghraib. Additionally, we are supposed to believe that multi-war criminal, Colin Powell, was “fooled” by faulty intelligence so much so that he paved the way for the invasion of Iraq by his false testimony at the UN but we are also supposed to unquestioningly believe the US intelligence apparatus when they lie about others such as Dr. Siddiqui.
In any case, in a bizarre scenario – to make a very long story short – Dr. Siddiqui and her three children disappeared for five years from 2003 to 2008, resurfacing in Ghazni, Afghanistan with her oldest child, a son who was then 11. She claimed that for the years she was missing, she was being held in various Pakistani and US prisons being tortured and repeatedly raped. Many prisoners, including Yvonne Ridley, maintain she was incarcerated in Bagram AFB and tortured for at least part of the five missing years.
After Dr. Siddiqui resurfaced, she was arrested and taken to an Afghan police station where four Americans – two military and two FBI agents – rushed to “question” her through interpreters. The FBI and military, claim that they were taken to a room that had a curtain at one end and that they did not know that Dr. Siddiqui was lying asleep on a bed at the other side of the curtain. As you read below it will become blatantly obvious that personnel involved from both institutions totally fabricated their stories.
This is the Americans’ version: They entered the room and one of the military dudes said he laid his weapon down (remember, they were there to interrogate one of the top most dangerous people in the world), and Siddiqui got up, grabbed the weapon, yelling obscenities and that she wanted to “kill Americans.” All 5′3″ of her raised the weapon to fire and she fired the rifle twice, missing everyone in the small room – in fact she even missed the walls, floor and ceiling since no bullets from the rifle were ever recovered.
Then one of the Americans shot her twice in the stomach “in self-defence.” It was shown at the trial that her fingerprints were not even on the weapon. The only bullets that were found that day were in Dr. Aafia’s body. How many stories of military cover-ups have we heard about since 9/11? I can think of two right away without even trying hard: Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch.
Hopeless injustice
Dr. Aafia’s side is this: After she was arrested, she was again beaten and she fell asleep on a bed when she heard talking in the room she was in so she got out of the bed and someone shouted: “Oh no, she’s loose!” Then she was shot – when she was wavering in and out of consciousness, she heard someone else say: “We could lose our jobs over this.”
Even with no evidence that she fired any weapon, she was convicted (the jury found no pre-meditation) by a jury and sentenced to the aforementioned 86 years. It’s interesting that the Feds did not pursue “terrorist” charges against Dr. Siddiqui because they were aware that the only evidence that existed was tortured out of KSM – so they literally ganged up on her to press the assault and attempted murder charges.
Even if Dr. Siddiqui did shoot at the Americans, reflect on this. Say this case was being tried in Pakistan under similar circumstances for an American woman named Dr. Betty Brown who was captured and repeatedly tortured and raped by the ISI – here in the states that woman would be a hero if she shot at her captors – not demonized and taken away from her life and her children.
I believe Dr. Aafia Siddiqui is a political prisoner and now the political bogey-woman for two US regimes.
In Pakistan, the response to her verdict and sentencing brought the predictable mass protests, burning of American flags and effigies of Obama and calls for Pakistan to repatriate Dr. Siddiqui. They know who the real criminals are and who should be in prison for life! At present, Hilary’s state department harps on about ’soft power’ and diplomacy, but what better way to quell US distrust in the Muslim world than to try such cases with due diligence and integrity.
In the US, not many people know about this case. Obviously many people were Hope-notized by the millions of dollars poured into the Obama PR machine – and believed when he said that his administration would be more transparent and lawful than the outlaws of the Bush era.
I guess they were mistaken.
fyi,
Thank you for your understanding reply — the court hearings have been before juries and have not been closed-door sessions, although there have been questions in a number of cases about how evidence has been handled and presented.
S.
Scott Lucas says: December 27, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Thank you for your reply.
My understanding was that the procedures were secret and thus defeated the major component of the Rule of Law viz. Law openly applied.
Moreover, in the United States, Fedearl Indictments have been used politically to ruin people financially due to the expense of defending against a Federal case.
The Legal repsone to the attacks on the Unitred States on 9/11/2001 was, in turn, an attack on the some aspects of the Rule of Law. US lost 3000 people on that day; Iranian government claims 13,000 souls lost to terrorist attacks over the last 30 years.
I wish you luck in your legal structures if and when you have experienced proportinate (to the population) casualties.
Scott Lucas,
We are not children. You didn’t answer the question that was asked. Provide evidence that he was detained merely because of the interview.
You seem to know little about the election.
What was strange about the speed in which the ballots were counted? What was “strange” about the number of spoiled ballots? What do you mean by “absent number”? How was the “opposition’s” campaign communications disrupted?
Also:
Provide evidence of messages from Ali Larijani and Sadegh Larijani to Mousavi on Election Day, especially as both have denied that they have sent any such messages.
Scott Lucas:
Propaganda doesn’t work here.
“I didn’t say that this directly encouraged violence.”
Yes you did. You called it Khameini’s “threat”. So it was threat, but didn’t encourage violence? You really would be more credible if you just came out and said “I say all kinds of things I don’t mean, you shouldn’t expect me to keep track of them all”.
masoud,
Re the imprisonment of economist Fariborz Reisdana….
I did watch the interview which got him detained. That’s why I know he did not pose an imminent threat to national security.
S.
masoud,
The Supreme Leader in the Friday Prayer of 19 June 2009 — in advance of the supposed review by the Guardian Council — declared that Ahmadinejad had won the election.
I didn’t say that this directly encouraged violence. What I pointed out was the flaw in the logic of those criticising Mousavi: if his statements on and after 12 June challenging the election “encouraged violence”, why did this not apply to Ayatollah Khamenei supporting the election of Ahmadinejad on 19 June?
Later….
S.
Eric,
No mud here. The comment is straightforward: you make sweeping assertions about the “opposition” while knowing very little in particular about their activities and their objectives.
Instead, you fall back on the tired claim, “Prove the election wrong”, ignoring 1) that the burden of legimitacy falls on “Proving the election right” and 2) the sweeping claim, “You never offer any evidence of election fraud”.
This, of course, ignores all the points made by the opposition that you have been able to meet — the Form 22s; the speed of the supposed count on Election Night; the strangely low or even absent number of spoiled ballots on official returns; the detentions and intimidation of opposition supporters and campaigns just before the election, on Election Day, and afterwards; the disruption of opposition communications; the raids on opposition headquarters; the claimed messages from Ali Larijani and Sadegh Larijani to Mousavi on Election Day; and more….
On to the next thread with hopes that the focus of RFI authors and commenters is on the safer ground of geopolitics…..
S.
“The Leveretts have already explained their bipolar characters..”
-Pak
I wonder if it ever registered with you that your campaign against name calling would be a little hurt with that little shot. I would bet that it didn’t. I think that you greens just might genuinely confuse the ability to learn and move with schizophrenia, and vice versa.
The piece by Mann-Leverett didn’t mention the sanctions at all. It merely characterized a series of national security policies taken by Iran as ‘terrorism’, and falsely attributes Argentina bombing’s to Iran, which is terminology and mythology to which Takeyh clings even today. Why demand from Mann-Leverett apologize, but praise Takeyh?
Dear masoud,
As far as I am aware, and correct me if I am wrong, Takeyh does not have an anti-Iran past, unlike Hillary Mann. And I have never seen Professor Lucas promote sanctions against Iran, or promote an agenda to deny Iranian students from studying in the US.
The Leveretts have already explained their bipolar characters, so kudos to them. But an apology would offer closure, and would confirm that they admit their previous wrongdoings. Otherwise they are no different to John Bolton, the wolf in sheep’s clothing who wants to “promote” democracy in the Middle East.
*ahem*
without addressing how that moral drive your hamper your championing of Takyeh with,
=
without addressing how that moral drive would hamper your championing of Takyeh with,
Eric
The point is, in this past year, this folks (Scott and Co.) on every tread purposely and consistently rant on a planed divisive subject (Iran’s election aftermath) without actually having any persuasive argument, again in a planed and organized way, they did this so regularly and we the commentators here in RFI fell for this every time, that now (if you read this next tread) is making the leverets to consider a way to change this excellent web site (hopefully for the better). This notion, that these guys are causing and effecting a change on this web site, which Mr. Lucas and his goons, just again today, admitted they resent its analysis, recommendations and its principals.
I personally didn’t appreciate that this folks may have caused a change on this forum’s structure, that’s all. At the end of the year looking back at it, I think we should have fallowed the Levretts, and had them ignored, I am not against discussing the elections in a informed way like your own excellent work, but what purposely they are doing, is to stall the real debates on this excellent forum, that is not fair to the real readers.
“And I must say that Dr. Ahmadinejad, scholar of traffic management, has totally outmanoeuvred me ”
I wouldn’t say so. You’ve successfully run away from your assertion that readers should demand apologies from Mann-Leverett, without addressing how that moral drive your hamper your championing of Takyeh with, and i hope the irony isn’t lost you, a laughably desperate attempt to stifle speech on this forum. It’s the kind of trick which pays great dividends in the pre-web 2.0 world. The problem is that in settings like this, it’s not too hard to bring it back up:
Why do greens demand realists like Mann-Leverett apologize for statements made over a decade ago, but not from people who make them at present like Takyeh or Lucas?
Masoud
Dear masoud,
I take it all back. I did not realise you were simply calling me anachronistic! And I must say that Dr. Ahmadinejad, scholar of traffic management, has totally outmanoeuvred me with his linguistic prowess. No pun intended.
Pak,
“Furthermore, many people argue that Ahmadinejad has only increased the likelihood of conflict, so he is also feeding the war narrative. Why are you not criticising him? Why again are you blaming ordinary people?”
I’m not blaming “ordinary people.” The “ordinary people” in Iran don’t doubt the election results. It’s the extraordinary people like you and Scott and Binam that do.
Pak,
“It is the government’s responsibility to prove its legitimacy to the people; if the government cannot prove its legitimacy, then it is the government’s fault.”
I couldn’t agree with you more. The government did just what you say it must do. Not to your satisfaction, certainly, but I doubt any degree of proof would satisfy you. This I can tell you: If an election were held in the US, observed without obstruction by 40,000+ observers of the losing candidate, and the results of each ballot box were published without any of those 40,000+ observers challenging the count at his polling station, I can all but guarantee you that 99.9% of Americans would say: “That’s good enough for me.”
‘Sorry, I did not read past “aghaboftadeh”’
Sure you didn’t. And the for the linguistically less-abled, the understood meaning of Ahmadinejad’s use of Aghaboftadeh, is ‘Anachronistic’, though he does get bonus points for his delicious double entendre.
Dear Eric,
“You’ve missed my point. I acknowledge that you convey both messages – the West should not be kicking around Iran, and Iran has an illegitimate government. My question was: Which of those two messages do you think sticks most firmly in the minds of those Western readers who would like to bomb Iran and replace its “illegitimate” government? Do you think John Bolton is moved by a plea to stop kicking around Iran? Do you think his heart is warmed by an Iranian who writes that his government is illegitimate?”
You are essentially blaming ordinary people for the shortcomings of the government. It is the government’s responsibility to prove its legitimacy to the people; if the government cannot prove its legitimacy, then it is the government’s fault. If this weakens the government, then it is the government’s fault.
Furthermore, many people argue that Ahmadinejad has only increased the likelihood of conflict, so he is also feeding the war narrative. Why are you not criticising him? Why again are you blaming ordinary people?
Eric, there’s another thing that Scott and his organization are doing,and that is contributing to the environment where Iran’s law enforcement and security agencies see the need to put in place efforts to protect national security.
These efforts may be seen as extreme. But when VEVAK declares that foreign elements are directing a campaign of undermining Iran’s national security, and here we have Scott and his Iranian team at EA doing exactly that, what are we supposed to think?
Although he’ll never admit it, the ongoing arrests in Iran based on security concerns are being made as a response to the anti-Iran activities of external elements such as Scott directing an organization staffed by self-declared seditionists. Are we to expect VEVAK and NAJA to take this lying down?
http://www.raceforiran.com/key-documents/rules-and-regulations-for-www-raceforiran-com
Dear masoud,
Sorry, I did not read past “aghaboftadeh”. For Eric and other non-Farsi speaking people, aghaboftadeh means backward or disabled.
As I said before, name-calling such as “aghaboftadeh” or “bowel-dwelling parasite” is quite childish, not to mention rude. And the fact that Ahmadinejad uses the same tactic speaks volumes. I am young and open to a bit of banter, but I still maintain a level of maturity that others here fail to do.
Surely this name-calling falls under “personal attacks against other contributors” and fails to uphold a “respectful tone with others” (Rules and Regulations, available: http://www.raceforiran.com/key-documents/rules-and-regulations-for-www-raceforiran-com).
Pak,
“I am not quite sure what you mean, but I try and convey both messages.”
You’ve missed my point. I acknowledge that you convey both messages – the West should not be kicking around Iran, and Iran has an illegitimate government. My question was: Which of those two messages do you think sticks most firmly in the minds of those Western readers who would like to bomb Iran and replace its “illegitimate” government? Do you think John Bolton is moved by a plea to stop kicking around Iran? Do you think his heart is warmed by an Iranian who writes that his government is illegitimate?
Kooshy,
You and Richard Hack have recently made essentially the same good point:
“One should not worry much about [Scott Lucas'] operations, just don’t need to get engaged with him and his staff. See and learn what professionals like Leveretts do, they don’t let themselves to get engaged to him no matter how much he rants.”
Scott is useful because he is provocative but rarely persuasive because he so often retreats to a defensive vagueness in his writing – lately so much so that I often cannot understand what he writes.
More important, Scott helps to show how dangerous a well-meaning anti-democrat can be. When Mousavi insists that a government is illegitimate without explaining why none of his thousands of observers has ever agreed with him, he is challenging not only Ahmadinejad but also the process by which Ahmadinejad was elected – and the many millions of Iranians who voted for him. That’s a very serious charge, and serious people who make such a charge back it up with specifics – at least if they believe their own story. (I’m quite confident that Mousavi, Scott, Pak and Binam do not.)
No self-respecting losing candidate in a US election would have behaved like Mousavi. He’d do what Al Gore did in 2000: allege specific wrongdoing and insist that it be corrected – not simply shout “fraud,” refuse to provide details, and demand a “do-over.” If Al Gore had behaved like that, he’d properly have been laughed off the national stage.
Scott and Binam and Pak should feel free to raise whatever complaints they may have about how the Iranian government runs things. It’s perfectly acceptable to criticize a legitimate government. But they are not delude themselves to believe they are helping Iran by continuing to make evidence-free claims of a “stolen election.” They are merely supporting those who press for the US and Israel to attack Iran.
“Do you not have anything else to offer?”
Sure, you can start by addressing what I said in the post YOU JUST QUOTED, or have you become selectively illiterate as well?
Bussed-in Basiji:
“That plus all the well known economic and political fallout almost led America to rethink the imperialism.”
You’re right. But only on the level of the electorate. The elites NEVER reconsidered anything.
“The reason that in the end Vietnam did not purge America from imperialism is because the US homeland and the US civilian population where not involved in the war.”
No – it was because the ELITES were not involved in the war.
“Thinking this through anyone would reach the conclusion that if the US where to attack one’s country one would have to include attacks on the US homeland and US civilian targets as part of one’s military response. In other words “losing” the war has to be felt on the US homeland and among the civilian population. Before this imperialism will not be purged from the US and well argued articles, books and speeches by Mearsheimers, Leveretts, Buchanans and Rand Pauls are not going to do much.”
Agree completely. Which is why I seriously consider that if Iran is attacked in a serious attempt by the US to overthrow and crush the regime and institute another Iranian monarchist or puppet dictatorship, it will have little to lose and much to gain by exporting terrorism directly to the US mainland. Forget blowing up US military assets and embassies in the UAE (useful as that may be). Blow up stuff in New York, Washington, Chicago and LA and any major points in between.
More importantly, Iran and the rest of the world need to remember the original definition of terrorism espoused by the People’s Will in Russia in the nineteenth century. Specifically, that the goal was to create terror in the minds of the oppressors by directly threatening THEM. Which is why their main operational goal was the assassination of the Tsar. If the Tsar could be killed, any of the Russian elite would be seen as vulnerable and no longer all powerful. This would be a powerful spur to the peasants to resist their own oppression. The US electorate today is in precisely the same position as the Russian peasantry: helpless and out of touch with a government which is autocratic and believed to be completely outside their control (except for sham “elections” every four years which are nothing but circuses.)
Until the ruling elites of the US are DIRECTLY threatened by either the actions of the US electorate or the actions of those whom they are attacking militarily and economically around the world, no change in US behavior will occur.
There are two ways to get there: 1) threaten the elites directly and consistently enough that they change their behavior; 2) threaten the US electorate directly and consistently enough that they force the elites to change their behavior. The latter is what most terrorist groups engage in around the world. In my opinion this is inefficient and slow. It generally results in the ruling elites assuming even more power and control using the terrorism as a justification – just as we see happening in the US post-9/11.
When I was planning my terrorist campaign back in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, my intent was to assassinate the top ten thousand members of the ruling elite and their mouthpieces in the US. A long and dirty task – but someone has to do it. Otherwise nothing will change until a major catastrophe happens to the social structure of the country – something on a par with a major economic depression, a nuclear war or a nuclear terrorist attack, on Washington, say, which obliterates a large part of the ruling elite and scares the general electorate into demanding some sort of “change”.
Which is why I re-iterate that nothing will stop an eventual war on Iran because absolutely no one in charge in the US is going to pay any price at all for starting such a war. They will make the profits in money and power and the costs will be completely borne by the US taxpayer, the US military personnel, and the civilians of Iran and any place else engulfed by the results.
And against such economic and social forces the voices of reason are impotent and always have been. This is the nature of human history.
Dear masoud,
Just because you are quoting Ahmadinejad does not make it acceptable to call someone “aghaboftadeh”. Do you not have anything else to offer?
“So, as an Iranian, I expect an apology from Hillary Mann”
-Pak
In that case, you are even more Aghaboftadeh than Scott. Why in the world would a functionary of the US Government ever find it appropriate to apologize to foreigner? Furthermore, what, exactly do you find objectionable about the article you linked to? Most greens and American based Iran intellectuals spout off the same talking points to this very day. Why not demand an apology from Ray Takyeh, whose article you quoted approvingly? The only reason you want Mann-Leverett to apologize is because she stopped offending. It’s that same perverse hypocrisy which infects everything you greens write, though you manage to somehow convince yourself that your being so clever that no on else can notice it.
I think the Leveretts have done a great deal of good by breaking the “logic” of petty myth makers such as Scott Lucas.
Regarding the election, Mousavi had roughly 40,000 people stationed at the ballot boxes and the Minisry of the Interior and all of them had cell phones with cameras. Almost all of them, except for a few of them who left before the count, signed the papers declaring the vote numbers. Every ballot box in the country is accounted for along with the votes for each candidate in each of them. Besides Ahmadinejad, Mousavi, Rezaee, and Karrubi representatives almost 700,000 people were involved. I hope even the anti-Iranian activists would not claim all of the Ahmadinejad representatives would close their eyes to fraud. There is no cell phone footage, no claim that ballot box number X for example had more Mousavi votes than what was declared…I could go on and on and on. That’s why Mousavi didn’t want to see the results of the partial recount.
Regarding the New York Times, all that needs to be said is that the rallies held on Day 9 and Bahman 22 throughout the country have broken the back of the NYT argument.
Dear Eric,
I am not quite sure what you mean, but I try and convey both messages.
If you read Hillary Mann’s previous work, you will see that it is indeed very warmongering and anti-Iran. I actually had the opportunity to speak to John Bolton once, via BBC World Service, and I asked him two questions: 1) why does he not have faith in the reformists in Iran; and, 2) why does he deny Iran’s right to a nuclear programme, when Iran is surrounded by nuclear armed states that are not even signed up to the NPT.
His arguments were very similar to what Hillary Mann says here: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1175
So, as an Iranian, I expect an apology from Hillary Mann, and not an attempt to worm her way out of responsibility for her past actions (I am clean now, I promise!). May be as an American you do not understand this.
Pak,
You wrote:
“By the way, I have not seen any sort of apology made by the Leveretts (Hillary Mann in particular) for their anti-Iran, warmongering past, despite their attempts to justify themselves. Why not?”
No apology is called for, Pak – at least from the Leveretts.
On this website, the “war-monger” label is best reserved for people who insist that Iran’s government is illegitimate but don’t give good reasons for saying that. Such people may have more noble motives than those who press openly for war against Iran, but they are more dangerous. When someone like John Bolton writes that Iran’s government is illegitimate, most informed readers discount it very heavily; some readers even chuckle (I often do – I find Bolton entertaining). But when someone like you or Scott or Binam writes the same thing, some readers naturally assume you have Iran’s best interests at heart and therefore must have good reasons for saying it. And so they discount it less, even though you have no more basis for saying it than John Bolton has.
A good example of what you accomplish can also be found in an article by Nicholas Kristof that appeared in yesterday’s New York Times. Kristof argued with great sincerity that the US would be more effective in stopping Iran’s push for nuclear weapons by using diplomacy rather than threats of military force. What lasting message do you suppose the well-meaning Kristof conveyed to his readers with such an article? Here are the choices:
1. Diplomacy is better than military force.
2. Iran is working on a nuclear bomb.
Very much like what you accomplish, Pak, with much of what you write. You often convey two messages to readers, and I’d like you (and others) to consider which of your two messages sticks most firmly in your readers’ minds:
1. It’s inappropriate for Western countries to threaten to attack Iran.
2. Iran’s government is illegitimate.
Which message, Pak?
Pak,
Can you explain why Takeyh refers to the 2009 election as a “fraudulent election?” He doesn’t. You wrote a bit earlier that you no longer like to talk about the election, but your praise for this article makes me wonder whether you agree with him about that. That wonder, in turn, makes me wonder whether you have any reasons for agreeing — or whether, like Mr. Takeyh, you feel that just saying it over and over and over will eventually wear down those who insist on asking:
“Why do you say the election was fraudulent?”
By the way, I have not seen any sort of apology made by the Leveretts (Hillary Mann in particular) for their anti-Iran, warmongering past, despite their attempts to justify themselves. Why not?
The NYT article says:
“The Islamic Republic is not a typical authoritarian state but a distinct ideological construct. Such regimes require an explanation, an argument to justify their repression and meddlesome adventures abroad. The custodians of the theocratic state may engage in atrocities, but they are doing so to advance history’s cause, to realize a certain sublime ideal. In such a state, the uniformed officer, the plainclothes policeman, the Revolutionary Guard all require an overweening ideological cover to justify their brutalities to themselves.
The subtle and subversive victory of the Green movement is to hollow out the state and demonstrate to its loyalists that they are not defending a transcendent orthodoxy but craven and cruel men addicted to power at all cost. In the words of the reformist cleric, the late Ayatollah Hossein Montazeri, in the violent crackdown following the elections in June 2009, the Islamic Republic ceased to be either Islamic or a republic.
In his seminal study of revolutions, Crane Brinton observed that a ruling class becomes imperiled when “numerous and influential members of such a class begin to believe that they hold power unjustly, [and] that the beliefs they were brought up on are silly.”
Since Iran’s fraudulent presidential election, a steady stream of the regime’s elite are relinquishing their revolutionary inheritance and separating themselves from a government they once defended. The first generation of revolutionaries who were present at the creation of the republic, former presidents, members of Parliament and stalwarts of the state have abandoned the presumptions of their militant brethren. The shrinking leadership of the Islamic Republic is increasingly finding itself in the same place as the masters of the Soviet Union, resting its power on a seemingly impressive edifice of terror that is likely to prove just as unreliable and unsteady.”
I could not put it better myself!
Pirouz
“Here we have it, folks. A foreign director with a staff of Iranian seditionists, and Scott has pretty well articulated his motives and connections in many of his comments here.”
Scott is commissioned with a minor disinformation task of softening any favorable news coming out of Iran, and to counter and soften favorable western analysis on Iran, fortunately he and his staff have done this assignment so amateurishly, that so far they have not gained any credibility or picked any major endorsement for their analysis, he obviously has damaged his academic credential by accepting this task and do it so poorly.
So far in the way he has conducted this assignment, and not gaining any credible media attention, his assignment, probably would not survive, and will be reevaluated, and may become re formulated for more cohesive result. One should not worry much about his operations, just don’t need to get engaged with him and his staff. See and learn what professionals like Leveretts do, they don’t let themselves to get engaged to him no matter how much he rants. What he is tasked with, for a few years was assigned to Mr. Michael Rubin he also did as poorly.
“But what does the call for a new election have to do with your claim of provocation of violence and support of regime change? To the contrary, the opposition specifically asked for no violence while discussions continued.
Your simplistic linkage is equivalent to saying that the Supreme Leader encouraged violence when, on 19 June, he ruled out any modification of the result of the election.”
-Scott Lucas
Scott, you really are, in the words of Ahmadinejad, “Aghaboftadeh”. First the SL made no such ‘ruling’, secondly, here’s you simplistically to trying to stuff those words ‘encoraging violence’ into the the SL’s mouth a year and a half ago.
http://enduringamerica.squarespace.com/june-2009/2009/6/19/the-latest-from-iran-19-june-speeches-and-rallies.html
“1005 GMT: And not too difficult to read the next critical step. Do the opposition campaigns and their supporters, given the Supreme Leader’s threats against any new marches, stand down their plans to demonstrate tomorrow?
That decision will be made not only in response to today’s speech but in response to the Guardian Council’s meeting with representatives of Presidential campaigns tomorrow.
0953 GMT: Not too difficult to give an immediate reading of the Supreme Leader’s address: he laid down the line to those challenging last Friday’s election results. He declared that the outcome was final, indicating that any adjustment of “mistakes” would be far less than the 11-million vote lead of President Ahmadinejad. While not blaming the leader of opposition campaigns for violence, he said they would be “responsible” for “terrorist plots” carried out under cover of the demonstrations.”
_______________________________________
I’m not surprised you don’t have clue about what’s going on in Iran, that actually takes some honest work to figure out, but can’t you at least remember the lies you spew on your own website?
Well, this just spun my head around several times. With words like this(wishful thinking? still holding hope for greens) from our friend Ray Takeyh, who needs enemies? “the Islamic Republic is heading relentlessly yet uneasily to history’s junkyard”. “Iran may degenerate into a period of prolonged violence and even ethnic separatism. A new dictatorship could arise, basing its power on Persian chauvinism rather than Islamist assertion”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/opinion/28iht-edtakeyh28.html
Re economist Fariborz Reisdana: I know exactly why he was arrested. He told BBC Persian that the notion of subsidy cuts benefiting the Iranian public was a “hallucination”.
-Scott Lucas
a) You don’t know he said that, because you can’t speak or understand Farsi, so at most that’s what you’ve been told.
b) Do you have a quote from the judiciary or police to back up that claim, or are you merely invoking your license as a White Man to declare, by fiat, what the realities are in countries populated by brown people?
“Nor did the supporters throw rocks, attack police officers, and set banks on fire on 15 June 2009.”
No, they threw rocks, molotov cocktails, and tried to raid an armory.
“On 19 December, economist Fariborz Reisdana gave an interview to BBC Persian about the introduction of the subsidy cuts. He was arrested later that day.
How did Reisdana pose such a threat to national security that he had to be detained?”
If you understood Farsi, you could watch the interview and find out. Where do you get the gall to lecture anyone about how they don’t know enough about Iran to have an informed opinion?
Mr. Lucs;
Since you insist, I post it; although I must say that probably most readers of this site have already read that letter and are very familiar with its contents.
By the way, please pay close attention to the first two items that Mr. Mousavi “complains” about! In those two items he clearly proves his own hypocrisy: On one hand he accuses Ahmadinejad of promoting rumours which have never been proven in the court of law (he is refering to the fair (!!) courts of the 1980s!) of the Iranian system and on the other hand when the same systems mechanisms and judiciary charges his own allies he screams and yells about the courts not being independent!
By the way ALL THE THINGS THAT HE QUOTES AHMADINEJAD AS HAVING SAID ARE 100% TRUE. (AHMADINEJAD WAS TELLING THE TRUTH AND MOUSAVI WAS LYING IN DENIAL).
Is this the great defender of the civil rights?!?!?
“In the name of God Peace be upon you Following the our numerous correspondents with that respected Council regarding the clear violations by some elements of the Ministry of Interior (responsible for polling and vote counting) and one of the presidential candidates which has affected the outcome of the 12 June election, we list these violations
below one more time and insist that the disqualification of this Election process is clear beyond any
doubt and thus should be nullification:
1. During the campaign period and specially in the debates, Mr. Ahmadinejad has made
outrageous accusations (of corruption) against many persons including Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani
, the respected head of the “Experts Council” (in charge of monitoring and selection of the
Supreme leader in case of his death or disqualification) and the head of the Council for
“Tashkhise Maslahat” (in charge of resolving disputes between Guardian Council and the Parliament) and Mr. Nategh‐e Nouri , member of the same council and also the head of the
Special Investigation Unit (“Bazrassi‐e Vizhe”) appointed by the Supreme leader (also ex
parliament‐speaker) in the national media (State TV), which according to the Persecutor
General, is in direct violation of the law and a criminal act punishable by the law. These
accusations were the basis of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s campaign against other candidates, including
me (Sorry for the tedious text, the original text is as tedious)
2. During the TV debates, he (Ahmadinejad) said things which were harmful to the national security and degrading to our great late leader Ayatollah Khomeyni. Moreover, he revealed state secrets and combined them with inaccurate statements, including accusing the Government of
the Islamic Republic or Iran and the Ministry of Interior (under Mr. Mousavi as the Prime Minister,
1981-89) of hiring and organization of street thugs and militia for attacking and suppression of the
youth, cutting “neck ties” and forcibly shaving youth’s heads (i.e. unorthodox haircuts, as in signs
of the influence of the western culture) -which is of course false and has never been proved in a
court of law- which are again criminal acts and punishable by the law.
3. The elements of the ministry of interior and the state governors were grossly uncooperative and did not issue ID cards for our representatives (in polling stations) –Mousavi and Karoobi’s, both. Therefore, many polling stations were completely unsupervised by us (which is again against the law).
4. Opposite to what was agreed upon before –that the vote counting would be carried out
manually‐ the election bureau of the ministry of interior started to announce vote counts of
large numbers already before the counting was completed in many of the polling stations. This is
while the official forms No. 22 and 28 (for reporting the tallies to the central election bureau)
was not even sent to the central bureau by the polling stations and the tallies were only based
on the numbers entered in the computer network system (very sketchy system, unsecure
software with numerous bugs, was not supposed to be used).
5. Hundreds of polling station all around the country specially in larger cities ran out of voting
ballots many hours before the closing time of the polls which caused long delays and waiting
time for the voters (many were turned around). With respect to the fact that 17 million surplus
ballots were printed (17 millions more the number of qualified voters), the delay in distribution and also closing the polls while still many voters were waiting outside in lines to vote, shows
that there has been a concern that the total casted ballots might surpass the 100% of the
qualified voters. It’s clear that such events are clear indicators for widespread and organized
fraudulent activity and existence of countless “fake” ballots.
6. In addition to these, numerous counts of specific violations have been reported to your office by us in some 80 letters. 7. During the illegal extra time which the national media provided only to Mr. Ahmadinjad, he
warned about violent unrests after the election while implying that his win is certain. He also
already accused his challenger of conspiracy to start unrests. These all are indications of detailed
and organized preparations for manipulation of and fraud in the election. In accordance to this,
websites and newspapers including Raja news, Fars and IRNA (which directly supporthi m )
already announced his victory in as their first title hours before even the end of the polling time.
8. The section 40 of the armed forces law which bans all the armed forces (including the Basij,
volunteer Militia) from participating in political activities was grossly violated. Also the hea nd
his supports used all the public resources provided by the state for their election campaign in
different cities and provinces all around the country which is again in violation of the section 68
of the election law (text goes on to list a series on minister names and the citiesthey
campaigned in, mentions the use of the governments private jet for campaigning and that these
are against section 7 of the elec. law)
With regard to all the afore mentioned violations, we request the nullification of the results of the 12‐June election. Mir Hussein Mousavi”
By the way items on 3 and 4 on that list are THE ONLY items which actually pertain to to the actual voting and vote counting. and none of them actually is about any “theory” regarding how the vote rigging has happened. If by looking at this letter (or any other documents by the reformists) you see any coherent story as how the fraud happened, please EXPLAIN THE THEORY.
Also as Eric has said that many times, if there is any discrepancy between the declared ballot box results and the result that the Mousavi observers had please declare those discrepancies (it is still not too late).
And one final time: IF THE CAMPAIGN STAFF OF M/K HAD NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUD (IF THEY HAD PLEASE SHOW US THOSE EVIDENCES RIGHT NOW) THEN THERE REMAINS ONLY ONE OPTION:
THEY FAKED “FRAUD” CLAIMS JUST TO FORCE THEIR WAY INTO POWER AND THAT BY ITSELF IS A CRIMINAL ACT, AND DESERVES IMPRISONMENT.
Scott,
I’ve been baiting you, but you should know that if you just take the bait, I plan to make a point that you’ll actually like (at least a bit). But you’ve got to cooperate to get me to where I can make that point. Just give one of your usual answers for why no Mousavi observer has ever backed up his fraud allegations, and I’ll take it from there.
Certainly you haven’t forgotten why Mousavi’s observers have never backed them up. I can drop hints if necessary, but I’m still holding out hope that you haven’t forgotten.
Scott,
“So your assertions about their motivations are unsupported, your presumptions about their objectives are wayward, and your get-out clause — “Not one Mousavi observer has objected” — is both tangential and very, very wrong.”
You’re just throwing mud against the wall, Scott, but none is sticking. Why do you say I believe someone’s “motivations are unsupported,” or that “their objectives are wayward?” I hesitate to say I disagree because I can barely even understand what you mean. I merely ask the same question, hoping ever more forlornly for an answer. I’ll phrase it differently in case that makes it more clear, and I hope you won’t dodge it again:
Since you never offer any evidence of election fraud, why do you keep bringing it up? If your arguments on non-election matters are sound even if Ahmadinejad was validly elected, why claim he was not, since you end up casting doubt on your own credibility by making outlandish election-fraud claims. Alternatively, if your arguments on non-election matters do require that the election have been fraudulent, don’t those arguments fail because you have no evidence of election fraud?
Bussed-In Basiji,
The Vietnam War disaster produced a strong anti-military-adventure mood into the american body politic. The neocons plotted for years regarding how to manipulate the American public into being more agreeable about foreign military adventures. They had in mind, of course, military adventures intended to “protect” Israel.
Jeez B-in-B, you are getting a tad emotional. I personally have not discussed anything to do with the elections for quite a while, because a) I am tired of it, b) you people will never be convinced, and, c) you people are hypocrites (context is nothing! context is everything! human rights do not mean shit! human rights are being abused in the US! Iran is a democracy! Iran needs to clamp down on democratic values! interference is bad! Iran needs to interfere in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Africa!)
I am happy to discuss more relevant issues, as I tried on this article. But you are more than welcome to carry on explaining how stoning and amputation of limbs is acceptable. To be honest I am quite intrigued, because I want to know how your mind works.
“for all your work on the electoral count, you know very little about the political opposition — not only the Mousavi and Karroubi camps but other reformist groups — activists, journalist, civil rights organisations, etc. So your assertions about their motivations are unsupported, your presumptions about their objectives are wayward, and your get-out clause — “Not one Mousavi observer has objected” — is both tangential and very, very wrong.”
You know, I stated previously I couldn’t fathom the reason a non-citizen like Scott would engage in Iran’s political partisanship. But the reality is now so obvious, I’m embarrassed I didn’t see it earlier. It really is obvious with statements he makes such as the one above.
Scott is one of those foreigners Iran’s security apparatus has identified as a foreign director of the opposition engaging in the attempted subversion of the 2009 presidential election and subsequent political internal affairs. He engages in exactly the same type of foreign directed opposition work (he works with a staff of Iranians at EA) VEVAK has identified as a foreign directed threat to Iran’s national security.
Here we have it, folks. A foreign director with a staff of Iranian seditionists, and Scott has pretty well articulated his motives and connections in many of his comments here.
So here’s the proof that VEVAK has been right all along, here in the comments section of RFI and the web pages of EA.
On topic:
As I wrote earlier, the only thing that can cure America from imperialism is getting its ass kicked in a major war. Let me be more specific.
Vietnam was a bitter defeat for the US with 56 thousand plus dead US soliers and a similar amount of vets eventually commiting suicide. Major increase in heroin use (introduced by returning vets who got addicted in the Golden Triangle), homelessness, destroyed families etc. where all direct personal results of this defeat. That plus all the well known economic and political fallout almost led America to rethink the imperialism.
The reason that in the end Vietnam did not purge America from imperialism is because the US homeland and the US civilian population where not involved in the war. Fast forward to 9/11 the US homeland and US civilians are attacked by people claiming they are retaliating for US military presence in Saudi. Ten years on and two wars WHICH AMERICA HAS LOST and still imperialism is part of the US DNA.
Thinking this through anyone would reach the conclusion that if the US where to attack one’s country one would have to include attacks on the US homeland and US civilian targets as part of one’s military response. In other words “losing” the war has to be felt on the US homeland and among the civilian population. Before this imperialism will not be purged from the US and well argued articles, books and speeches by Mearsheimers, Leveretts, Buchanans and Rand Pauls are not going to do much.
Pak,
You’re really dumb despite your claims of being “rational”.
I never said that you and your idiot friends should not discuss your delusions about Iran and the world on this forum. I gave some suggestions to the forum of how to manage your “off topic” comments while allowing others to actually debate the subject of the posted article. But as long as the format remains the current one, out of courtesy to others I labelled my post “off topic” so that those you don’t want to spend their precious time reading “off topic” posts could skip over it.
Also get this through your head, your or Mousavi’s implication or outright claim that the Supreme Leader, Ahmadinejad, thousands of election officials and millions of ordinary Iranians are liers, cheaters, fraudsters, whatever as it relates to such an important historic event such as the elections IS A FAR WORSE INSULT THAN ANYTHING ANYONE HAS CALLED YOU OR YOUR FRIENDS ON THIS SITE. Only a child doesn’t understand this, adults do.
fyi,
The issue with the Federal courts is rarely that they refuse to state the charges clearly or to present evidence publicly. The issue more often is that of legal procedure around the case.
I think the bigger issue was that the Bush Administration — with its excesses of executive power — tried to bypass the Federal court system. That was the case with Guantanamo, it was the case with the initial detentions after 9-11, and it was the case with the abuses re surveillance and rendition. The legacy of that continues, with the inability to set up a criminal court procedure to prevent “indefinite detention” of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
S.
Eric,
You say: “I don’t understand your response…’Until you obtain knowledge about those who have dissented — their evidence, their motivations, their objectives — your post…is a caricature to flail at straw men.”
Simple point: for all your work on the electoral count, you know very little about the political opposition — not only the Mousavi and Karroubi camps but other reformist groups — activists, journalist, civil rights organisations, etc. So your assertions about their motivations are unsupported, your presumptions about their objectives are wayward, and your get-out clause — “Not one Mousavi observer has objected” — is both tangential and very, very wrong.
S.
Voice of Tehran,
I still have the opportunity about once a month to speak on Iranian international radio, primarily about US and British foreign policy. I also had the pleasure of participating in an IRIB documentary, shown in June, about Imam Khomeini. And I was a contributor to Press TV until earlier this year.
So I don’t think it’s me at issue here. Rather, it’s the discomfort of raising questions about Iranian matters as well as critiquing US and British transgressions.
S.
Pirouz_2,
“Also under the cover of reporter training, some people had been recruited. They had trained them in some of the European countries. In the first stage when they went out of the country, we intentionally let them go so that we can discover the nature of their work and we sent some of our own agents among them. When we analyzed the obtained intelligence, it became obvious that it [the whole program] was in the same line as velvet revolutions. When they attempted to take the second group [to Europe], we went and talked to them and they realized [what was going on] and gave up, and also we banned the travel of some of them to outside which in turn led to some news papers and websites taking a position against the ministry of intelligence, and [of course] the Western media too in unison with them started saying ‘they have stopped reporters and journalists’”
To whom was Ejei referring when he made this claim? What specific evidence did he produce? Where was the public trial held that substantiated Ejei’s allegation?
S.
Pirouz_2,
Re the election: By all means, post the 7-point statement of Mousavi. Also post the testimonies of advisors such as Beheshti and Fateh. Post the claims of Tajzadeh. Post the points made by representatives of Karroubi and Mousavi in meetings around the GC report. Post the points made by the joint commission set up by Karroubi and Mousavi in autumn 2009 (and, while you are at it, tell me why most of the members of that commission were detained).
There is plenty of information and theories out there as well as in the discussions on RFI by those who will not accept the easy dismissal of the GC’s report or, indeed, for your easy alternative of “They lied purposefuly just to creat sedition and chaos and force their way into power!”
(If you wish to go back to Square 1 without going through the series of questions that went unanswered on past threads, start with an initial question: where are the original documents established the counts in the ballot boxes as they were recorded and signed off by observers on 12 June 2009?)
Now on to the even more important point re law and civil rights….
S.
Scott,
You wrote to me:
“Eric,…Re your speculation on “dissident groups” in Iran…. With respect, until you obtain knowledge about those who have dissented — their evidence, their motivations, their objectives — your post about the “three possibilities” is a caricature to flail at straw men.”
I don’t understand your response, and I don’t think it’s worth your time or mine for me to try harder to figure it out.
You’re dodging my basic question, which starts with the troubling but inescapable fact that not one of Mousavi’s election-day observers has disagreed with the vote count reported for his polling station:
If your views on non-election matters are valid even if Ahmadinejad was validly elected, why not just present your views on non-election matters and ignore the election? That way, even if you utterly fail to establish electoral fraud, your utter failure won’t affect your credibility on non-election matters.
On the other hand, if your arguments on non-election matters are persuasive only if one assumes that Ahmadinejad was not validly elected, don’t your arguments on non-election matters fail if it turns out that he was validly elected? Aren’t you then compelled to prove electoral fraud — to explain why not one of Mousavi’s election-day observers has ever backed him up?
Just let us know which it is, Scott. It seems fair to ask.
RSH
…”"Do not be suckered in to responding to these people. Ignore their shrill complaints about Iran’s internal issues and concentrate solely on discussing the geopolitical issues of interest to this site.”"
There is a German Journalist writing for the Newspaper ” Die Zeit ” mainly about Iran. His articles are so biased and disgusting , that even SL looks like the twin brother of Ahmadinejad compared to this ‘criminal’ journalist ( I will not mention his name ).
Now I wondered for years why a person like him ( on top , a Non-Iranian ) would write such awful disgusting articles about Iran . It is hard to describe his bias , he would lie an do whatever necessary to get his hatred through.
Recently I came to know , that he is married to an Iranian woman , whose father was a very influential personality during the Shah Regime ( I think in Savak ) and was put on trial , after the revolution in Iran. Once I learned about this fact all became clear and now I can understand all the question mark I used to have.
I hope this little essay would encourage SL to ‘ out ‘ himself and tell us his little stories of how he became a ‘ professional ‘ Iran – Basher .
SL gib Dir einen Ruck…..
Scott Lucas says: December 27, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Yes, the speical Federal Civilian courts that hear the national security cases.
Bussed-in Basiji: “It is quit clear to me that their intention is to divert this forum- WHICH IS HAVING A POSITIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE EFFECT ON THE IRAN DEBATE IN THE US- from doing what it originally set out to do.”
Absolutely correct. I’ve made this point repeatedly here but people continue to get sucked in to these completely irrelevant arguments with Lucas and the rest.
The REASON these characters raise these issues is so they can claim on various forums that the Leveretts are the paid agents of the Iranian government, as well as demonizing the Iranian government in order to further the excuse for war. Just as the neocons used the continual refrain of Saddam Hussein’s deficiencies to excuse the lack of evidence for “WMDs” and further justify the illegal Iraq war.
These people who raise these issues about Iran’s internal problems are not dispassionate activists for universal suffrage, journalistic freedom, or any of the other issues they claim to be supporting. They are frauds advancing their own particular political agenda, whether it be Iranians backing a return to the monarchy or their own political party’s interests, or Westerners seeking justification for US domination of Iran. The proof is that if one is a dispassionate activist for principles, one does not spend all of one’s time denouncing one country without acknowledging and condemning the same behavior in every country, at least to the degree that such behavior is influential in that country.
None of the Iran bashers are interested in North Korea, or closer to the Middle East, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the other corrupt states. Only Iran is deemed worthy of attack and on a site which has essentially nothing to do with Iran’s internal political system.
Do not be suckered in to responding to these people. Ignore their shrill complaints about Iran’s internal issues and concentrate solely on discussing the geopolitical issues of interest to this site.
Mr. Lucas;
I expected more from you. I didnt expect you to take out a very important part of my sentence and essentially change its meaning and then answer back to the partial sentence!
I said claim of fraud WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT EVEN A COHERENT THEORY AS TO HOW THE FRAUD HAS OCCURED AND IN WHICH BALLOT BOXES IT HAS OCCURED!
Yes Al Gore was not put to jail because:
a)He had a very specific objection: “vote count” in a very specific state: “Florida”
b)He asked for a recount (a request which was NEVER granted in USA contrary to Iran where we had a partial recount!)
c) He meekly gave up his claim anyway.
MR. LUCAS SAID:”They did produce far more than “shreds of evidence” and not only theories but real possibilities of what had occurred. They pointed to the weaknesses in the official case, even after the Guardian Council’s attempt to close off the issue.”
I am eagerly waiting to hear what those “real” possibilities are. I followed the news very closely, and I have Mousavi’s own letter to the GC requesting the annulment of the election. The letter has 7 points, AND UNLESS YOU STOP TALKING NON-SENSE I WILL BE FORCED TO POST THAT LETTER SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE THE FIRST 2 ITEMS ON THAT LETTER SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHO THIS GREAT ‘LIBERAL’ DEFENDER OF CIVIL RIGHTS THAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING ACTUALLY IS!
MR. LUCAS SAID:”The point is not about you. It is that none of the following — the Tehran Prosecutor General, the Iran Prosecutor General, the Ministry of Intelligence, and even the presiding judges — have produced any public evidence for thousands of detentions and hundreds of convictions.”
As I said before wether we see their evidence as acceptable or not is a completely separate issue. The main point is that they were not “silent” about the reasons and they did give some explanation.
To get a better understanding get someone to translate this for you:
همچنين تحت عنوان آموزش خبرنگاري نيز افرادي جذب شده و آنها را در بعضي كشورهاي اروپايي آموزش داده بودند. ما در مرحله اول كه آنها به خارج از كشور رفتند، به صورت عمدي جلوي آنها را نگرفتيم تا ماهيت آنها را شناسايي كنيم و عوامل خود را نيز در اين مجموعه فرستاديم و با بررسيها مشخص شد كه در راستاي همان قضيه انقلابهاي مخملي است. گروه بعدي را كه ميخواستند به خارج ازكشور بفرستند، رفتيم با آنان صحبت كرديم، متوجه شدند و دنبال نكردند و برخي را نيز ممنوعالخروج كرديم كه بعضي از روزنامهها و سايتها عليه وزارت اطلاعات موضعگيري كردند و رسانههاي غربي نيز همصدا با آنها گفتند كه جلوي “خبرنگار و روزنامهنگار ” را گرفتهاند
Or better yet let me translate this for you (it is some stuff by the former minister of intelligence Ejei):
“Also under the cover of reporter training, some people had been recruited. They had trained them in some of the European countries. In the first stage when they went out of the country, we intentionally let them go so that we can discover the nature of their work and we sent some of our own agents among them. When we analyzed the obtained intelligence, it became obvious that it [the whole program] was in the same line as velvet revolutions. When they attempted to take the second group [to Europe], we went and talked to them and they realized [what was going on] and gave up, and also we banned the travel of some of them to outside which in turn led to some news papers and websites taking a position against the ministry of intelligence, and [of course] the Western media too in unison with them started saying ‘they have stopped reporters and journalists’”
By the way, While these are just the words of Ejei, I have read reports of ‘reporter and journalist’ workshops setup by CIA proxies all around Iran and also in Europe to recruit agents to work in Iran, and what Mr. Ejei says IN THAT PARTICULAR REGARD makes perfect sense to me.
In the end, while I dont have any trust in Ejei, I must admit I trust him a hell of a lot more than I trust the likes of Emadeddin Baghi and Akbar Ganji.
MR. LUCAS SAID:”Your “common sense” does not substitute for law, especially when that “common sense” is based on prejudice — e.g., “Mr. Mousavi and Karoubi knew very well that they had NO EVIDENCE”…[and] the two of them KNOWINGLY and WILFULLY LIED, just to create sedition and chaos and FORCE their way into power” — rather than judicious observation. Indeed, your “common sense” is only a prop to justify the repression of any dissenter, whom you will just call a liar and supporter of fitna.”
This is not prejudice, it is very basic common sense: since we know that the opposition HAD NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that there was a mojor fraud, since they didnt even have a coherent idea as to how this alleged fraud has occurred (please if you do present it for us now), that leaves us with ONE CHOICE ONLY: They lied purposefuly just to creat sedition and chaos and force their way into power!
MR. LUCAS SAID:”I would not react to the specific case of the death of Dr David Kelly by claiming that anyone who suggested Dr Kelly had been murdered — and arguing that this murder was done to support the false case by the British Government that Iraq had WMDs — should be detained and convicted on spurious charges. I would not make unsupported claims about their evidence and motivations. ”
Well good then please refrain from unsupported claims about Iranian opposition and elections too. So what you say is that there is nothing wrong with Lord Hutton classifying the evidence regarding the death of Dr. Kelly, there is nothing wrong with the fact that Anthony Blair interfers and stops the probing of the arms deal between UK and S. Arabia and the possibility of bribing the corrupt Prince Bendar (AKA Bendar Bush) by the British side, but you are very sensitive about the “evidence” of the charges brought up against the reformists being “secret” is that it?!?!?!
By the way for the record I never said that there are no arbitrary arrests in Iran or that legitimate opposition is not being brutally suppresed in Iran. What I say is that the case against MANY reformists is not unsubstantiated. To the contrary, I am sure many of the reformists were in league with the Western states and did their bidding.
The point about riots in Tunisia is, I would argue, directly relevant to the original post. “Beating war drums against Iran”, in a culture and news environment where there is no mention of dissent and rioting in Tunisia, is evidence of the extreme bias and mis-information at the heart of American foreign policy.
“Tunis, 26 December – One week into the outbreak of social unrest and riots protesting against the worsening living conditions and growing unemployment, especially among the educated youth, 18-year old Mohamed Ammeri was shot to death by police forces opening fire against protesters in the town of Menzel Bou Zaiyne. Tunisian government sources claim the use of fire arms against the protesting crowd was justified after a railway engine and three vehicles had been set ablaze during a raid on the National Guard headquarters in Menzel Bou Zaiyne.
The incident incited thousands more to join the protest marches which meanwhile have extended to the capital. The outbreak of social unrest was triggered off last week by the suicide attempts of two young men. One of them, Mohamed Bou Azizi, set himself ablaze to protest against the confiscation of his modest fruit and vegetable stand with which the college graduate tried to earn a living. The other young man, Naji Felhi, electrocuted himself in desperation over his failure to find employment.”
http://www.arabmonitor.info/news/dettaglio.php?idnews=32469&lang=en
Arnold: “[Manning] Who is being held in at least 23 hour per day solitary confinement as a form of psychological torture?”
I lived that way for two years, three and a half months in Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary’s D Cellhouse – the “Dog House” (110 degrees in the Kansas summer, 40 in the Kansas winter) – voluntarily.
This is the same state any Federal prisoner is in who is in solitary confinement, what is called “administrative detention”. The conditions Manning is in are worse in that he is allegedly not allowed bedding or a pillow, but otherwise he is being treated pretty much like any Federal prisoner in, for example, the Super-Max prison at Florence, Colorado. Normal prisoners in Federal Penitentiaries, Federal Correctional Institutions (FCIs), and Federal Prison Camps are given considerably more freedom, of course.
People concerned are “inhumane treatment” need to be looking at the entire county, state and Federal prison system in the entire United States. It may not be a Turkish or Mexican prison system, but it’s not helping the crime problem, either.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but personally I enjoy reading the material put on this website by Scott Lucas. He’s been repeating the same claims for over a year now, he has no evidence to back up his claims, he’s gradually becoming more pro-American, he can think of nothing besides Iran and Iran is effectively his axis of evil, he loses all the arguments, he doesn’t even have the slightest expertise on Iran, and (I’m guessing) he relies on a couple of young hotheaded Iranian kids in England for his propaganda. He sort of reminds me of Saddam’s Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf.
Rehmat,
Do you watch the BBC in the US or Canada? It covers the oppression of the Palestinians in the West Bank, by illegal Jewish settlers, in a manner that US network TV news tends to avoid.
Scott Lucas
Your claims don’t change anything. Neither you nor your financial backers can deny the polls, the fact that there is no evidence of fraud, that Mousavi backed away from supporting a partial recount at the last moment, and that most reformist reject his claims of fraud. You and other Americans can keep on dreaming. The violent green rioters that you (and American neocons) have been supporting are despise by the vast majority of Iranians (principlists and reformists alike) and American soft power has failed.
Pirouz,
“For Scott, all issues pertaining to Iran loop back to the 2009 election and Green related positions taken up mostly by external expat proponents.”
No, I believe that the issues long ago went far beyond the 2009 election. On RFI, my experience is that it tends to be supporters of the Government who try and fall back on the election as a declaration of legitimacy.
S.
fyi,
When you say “National Security Courts”, do you mean US Federal civilian courts? State and local courts? Or military courts?
Rehmat’s citation of the Siddiqui case, in my opinion, is one worthy of consideration. She was convicted by a jury on publicly-stated charges and publicly-presented evidence, but there are serious questions over the legal procedure — and the treatment of her and her children — that I do not believe have been addressed.
S.
M. Ali,
“Even if we find scenes of clashes on 15th, you would just blame the government, wouldn’t you?”
No judgement in advance. Present the evidence.
“An evidence could be spreading propaganda.”
“Propaganda against the Islamic regime” is a criminal charge. In my opinion, it’s a general catch-all which can justify suppression of political opponents, but it is part of the Iranian legal system.
In a particular case, what is the evidence to support the charge?
“As Mousavi was the agent of change, he has the most responsibility of what happens.”
Legally meaningless — to have any weight, you would have to charge Mousavi with “conspiracy” — and politically one-sided. One might as well say “Ahmadinejad was the agent of change” or “Khamenei was the agent of change”.
S.
Umm, sorry to spoil the party, but who actually deviated from the original topic?
The answer is: Liz. Post number 1.
In fact, my post – post number 2 – seems to be the only one related to the article. And I could not even post anything in the previous Ashura-in-Turkey article, because everybody was discussing the subsidy reforms.
By the way, the best bit is B-in-B asking this at 6.41am on December 27th:
“I suggest we compile a statistic for each thread of the precentage of the posts related to the actual subject of the article versus posts about other subjects.”
And then posting this just 6 minutes later:
“Off topic…”
Also, calling people names, such as “bowl-dwelling parasites”, is what I expect from children, not adults. But it also makes sense, because people generally become defensive and aggressive when they have nothing else to offer. Just look at the regime itself! it speaks volumes…
To all:
I know some of us go off-tangent in these discussions, but where else can we have in-depth discussions about Iran with people who take the time to read your posts and engage with detailed responses. Even my oppositions, as much as I disagree with them, at least write more than two lines, which is what amounts to in other sites, and out of those two lines, one lines is insulting someone like me, by calling me a paid regime supporter (to be honest, I’d take the government’s money, if they offered, but they havent so far)
Scott,
Point 1) Regarding the Mahatma Ghandi Greens: The fact that 13th and 14th had violent elements, there is no reason to play all clashes on the 15th on the shoulders of the government. Even if we find scenes of clashes on 15th, you would just blame the government, wouldn’t you?
Point 2) Regarding the Laws of the Land: An evidence could be spreading propaganda. Are you satisfied with that? Such as speaking to foreign journalists and organizations, with the alleged purpose of undermining the government and the country.
If you agree with the law and thus the validity of the charges, then the evidence supports the charges, thus its lawful.
What is Lawful might be not be Acceptable by you (or me, lets say), but that’s a separate argument and should be argued honestly.
Point 3) Regarding Mousavi: As Mousavi was the agent of change, he has the most responsibility of what happens. Mousavi, knowing the situation and faced with the reality, could have asked his protesters to calm down, and dealt with it legally. Calling for an annulment of an election and refusing to accept the results while using his followers to get his way is not that far away from regime change.
Scott Lucas
Large crowds protested in Tehran (and it’s interesting how even you say Tehran, because that is the only place where there were serious disturbances). However, when Mousavi failed to provide evidence and when he refused to accept a partial recount (in the presence of camaras and experts) most of these people gradually turned against him. However, there is no doubt that some of the protestors were violent (they broke many windows on the north side of Azadi St) and some of them attacked a military base which was in a side St.
For Scott, all issues pertaining to Iran loop back to the 2009 election and Green related positions taken up mostly by external expat proponents.
The essence of partisanship.
I can see an American being partisan over American internal political affairs. But an American attempting partisanship in a country to which he is not a citizen and not eligible to vote in? Ridiculous.
Scott Lucas
Again you reveal your ignorance (or dishonesty). The Mousavi camp accepted the partial recount and then at the very last minute they got cold feet and said no.
Scott Lucas,
You’ve provided conclusive evidence!!! You are amazing. You know so little, yet you have the audacity to make such sweeping claims. Extraordinary.
Flynt/ Hillary/ Ben:
I had been thinking along the same lines of Bussed-in Basiji but had held back. Has one of you given any thought to changing the format of the blog so that people can respond to responses, enabling a conversation thread to form? There are various examples of readily available blog software that accommodate this, the Tikkun blog being one of the better ones (indenting and showing the first few lines of a given post, etc.)
Just a suggestion. And keep up the good work. Not that you’ll get anywhere ;o)
fyi @ December 26, 2010 at 11:53 am you say:
In your fine typology, I should think that the third one, “Pluralist/ Anglo-American (synthetic, syncretic and synthesizing)” is only hypothetically possible but does not exist. It does not exist because the Western Civilization’s claim to universality against all particularities.
That is a large issue, but I basically agree with you in that Western attempts at getting away from their orignal sin (which was not to accept the ministry of the Final Prophet and his noble Final Testament), and try to forge something other than their universalist exceptionalism (nice little oxymoron there at the crux of their civilization), has ended up either in the spiritual sterility of the secular-humanist project, or even worse, the endless metanoia of the hall of mirrors known as post-modernism.
fyi – The rules of evidence in US National Security courts, which are mostly under the thumbs of ‘Israel-Firsters’ traitors – are “If the criminal is an Israeli Jew or a American duel citizen – Let him free, but if the alleged person is an Arab or Muslim – appoint a Zionist judge and lock him’her in jail for ever.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/aafia-siddiqui-victim-of-zionist-justice/
Scott Lucas – Now who you think is more pro-Israel than BBC? CNN, maybe, but that is also owned by ‘Israel-Firster’ Rupert Murdoch, who was recently honored by America’s one of biggest Israeli mole – the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/murdoch-israel-and-jews-under-attack/
Scott Lucas says: December 27, 2010 at 10:00 am
What are the rules of evidence in US National Security courts, do you know?
Iranian@Iran,
Unless you or any Iranian official can provide alternative evidence, the best connection we have is between economist Fariborz Reisdana’s interview with BBC Persian on subsidy cuts and his arrest hours later by security forces.
S.
M. Ali,
The Mousavi camp initially called for a new election. Later discussions were over the scale of the recount.
But what does the call for a new election have to do with your claim of provocation of violence and support of regime change? To the contrary, the opposition specifically asked for no violence while discussions continued.
Your simplistic linkage is equivalent to saying that the Supreme Leader encouraged violence when, on 19 June, he ruled out any modification of the result of the election.
S.
M. Ali,
I accept that the general charge of “acting against national security” is in Iranian law. I ask again: what evidence has been publicly given to support that general charge in the cases of the detainees we are discussing?
S.
M. Ali,
Re the photo: Absolutely — angry groups of people were on the Tehran streets on 13 June. Vehicles were burned and damaged.
Opposition figures and activists called on people to demonstrate peacefully. What followed 48 hours later — despite the provocation of the raids on the dormitories of Tehran University — was an almost completely peaceful march of hundred of thousands of people.
S.
The US national image and its contradictions
Lawrence Davidson
http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/2010/12/27/title-73
“”Benjamin Disraeli once labelled Britain’s government “an organized hypocrisy”. That was in circa 1845. Things have not changed much and by now hypocrisy might well be seen as a common sin of democratic government. This is because in democracies straightforward honesty about behaviour that runs counter to the idealized national image is usually bad politics.
Among today’s democracies none proves this point more than the United States. The United States, like Great Britain in the 19th century, simultaneously acts like an imperial power and cultivates a national image as the world’s prime purveyor of good government, stability and progress. However, history has taught us that a nation cannot be both of these things at once. So the folks in Washington have created for themselves an environment wherein principle and consistency are impossible. Take, for instance, the following:
1. A stolen election in the Ivory Coast has resulted in active disapproval on the part of the US government. After all, this is not good government. President Obama slapped sanctions on the fellows who stole the vote and urged the United Nations to send more troops (some 9,000 are already in the country) to set things right. On the other hand, the November parliamentary elections in Egypt (presently a US ally) were an outright farce. The opposition was banned, jailed and otherwise intimidated. Not at all good government. And Washington’s response? Nothing. If you claim to be the prime purveyor of democracy in the world, are you not supposed to be consistent? “” …
…
Scotty-Boy and associated bowel-dwelling parasites:
Yawn.
Scott Lucas
You seem to be an impulsive person as well as a careless thinker. You don’t think things through very well before pressing the submit button and that’s why you get into so much trouble. The anniversary of the ultimate defeat of the so called green is in three days. Whether you or the people who provide funding for you like it or not the Islamic Republic of Iran is here to stay.
Scott Lucas
The attack was initiated by the rioters.
Show the evidence that he was arrested merely because of the interview?
In foresight, it is easy to see how big of a blame can be placed on Mousavi:
This was on the 16th:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/world/middleeast/17iran.html?_r=1
The government offered a partial recount, but Mousavi wanted a new election:
“In an intervention that suggested a growing concern over the scale of the protests, the nation’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, took the unusual step of meeting with representatives of the four presidential candidates, urging national unity for the second time in recent days. He did not address the protesters’ demands for a new election.
The Guardian Council, the watchdog body that needs to certify the results, said it was willing to conduct a partial recount of the votes, the IRNA news agency reported. Ayatollah Khamenei, who had urged the council on Monday to examine the vote-rigging claims, said Tuesday that the candidates needed to resolve the issue through legal channels.
Mr. Moussavi’s representative, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, said a recount would not meet the demands of the protesters, Ghalamnews, a Web site linked to Mr. Moussavi, reported. ”
How exactly do the Green supporters should have expected the government to act? Specially, now that we don’t have high emotions flying, and look at it realistically and objectively, how else could have the government acted in response to Mousavi’s unrealistic and long-term damaging demands?
“No, and none of the opposition figures in June 2009 asked their supporters to riot. Nor did the supporters throw rocks, attack police officers, and set banks on fire on 15 June 2009.”
The opposition encouraged their supporters to go out and protest, and heightened their emotions, by talking about the illegal elections, their rights, the dictatorship of the governments, and so forth. What did they expect? No one says, “go out and riot, break windows, and throw stones”.
Regarding your second point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burning_bus,_Iranian_presidential_election_2009.jpg
The caption of the picture shows 13th of June.
“In many cases, the charges have not been stated. In most cases, they have been so broad — “actions against national security” as leading example — as to be meaningless apart from a pretext for imprisonment.”
The charges are in line with Iran’s law.
“What kind of evidence are you looking for?”
“Any.”
If you don’t accept the charges itself, then what kind of evidence can be presented to back those charges to you?
Iranian@Iran,
At the end of the march of 15 June 2009, in which hundreds of thousands of Iranians participated, one group clashed with security forces in a corner of Azadi Square near a security headquarters — it is unclear to this day how the clash began. Molotov cocktails were thrown from the ground while security forces — some positioned on the roof of the headquarters — fired into the demonstrators, killing several.
Re economist Fariborz Reisdana: I know exactly why he was arrested. He told BBC Persian that the notion of subsidy cuts benefiting the Iranian public was a “hallucination”.
S.
M. Ali,
My tongue-in-cheek response was meant to illustrate that the “poverty line” is not a fixed figure for each country — in that sense, the UN line has little meaning beyond being an aspiration (no one should be on less than $1.25/day).
In practice, a “poverty line” is in the context of incomes, prices, and standard of living for a given country, as well as a country’s concept and aspirations re prosperity. The test for Ahmadinejad, of course, is whether his Government can raise real income relative to prices — more money in Iranians’ account — with the subsidy cuts and other economic measures.
S.
Scott Lucas
In fact their supporters threw rocks, attack police officers, set a military center on fire, and broke the windows of banks and government buildings on Azadi St on 15 June 2009.
Scott Lucas
It’s natural that you don’t want to see better living conditions in Iran under President Ahmadinejad, but you should be careful not to show your feelings. You are seen to be like western government officials who would like to see “cripling sactions” work. It’s a somewhat sickening attitude. Also, I don’t know why Fariborz Reisdana was arrested (and I’m willing to bet you don’t know more than I do). However, since you always assume that the government is evil and that all those arrested are innocent, your statments have no value, because we know beforehand what you’re going to write.
Pirouz,
“This is nothing short of confessed partisanship.”
No, it’s not. It’s a request to any commenter to have knowledge about dissenters before passing judging on their motivations and actions — just as one should have knowledge of the Government before passing judging on its motivations and actions.
S.
In 2007, Panahi was the juror at the International Film Festival of Kerala in the city of Thiruvananthapuram in the state of Kerala in India. Look how far he has come now, all the west wants him!
M. Ali,
“Was Al Gore asking for the annulment of the elections, asking his supporters to riot, and did his supporters throw rocks, attack police officers, and set banks on fire?”
No, and none of the opposition figures in June 2009 asked their supporters to riot. Nor did the supporters throw rocks, attack police officers, and set banks on fire on 15 June 2009.
“You do not seem to agree with the charges itself.”
In many cases, the charges have not been stated. In most cases, they have been so broad — “actions against national security” as leading example — as to be meaningless apart from a pretext for imprisonment.
“What kind of evidence are you looking for?”
Any.
S.
I saw this news item from Scott’s page,
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=233007
What is interesting to me is Shamaqdari’s response to Berlin Film Festival that invited Panahi to be a juror,
“If the festival managers desire, they can invite other prominent Iranian filmmakers such as (Abbas) Kiarostami, (Masud) Jafari-Jozani, (Shahriar) Bahrani, (Asghar) Farhadi, (Majid) Majidi, (Ebrahim) Hatamikia, (Mohammad-Ali) Talebi, (Rasul) Sadr-Ameli, (Mojtaba) Raei, and (Jamal) Shurjeh to join the jury,” he added. “
Bussed-in Basiji,
I think it would be great if the Leverretts provided a board/forum for discussion, which would not be directly linked to the topics at hand. I don’t always want to discuss the Original topic, but at the same time, going back on older topics, they are generally dead.
Off topic:
1. Scott and intestinal parasites: The overwhelming majority of Iranians believe that the elections and the Ahmadinejad government is legitimate and has served the interests of Iran very well, wa lahw karal kaferoon.
2. Count-em NINE straight days of rioting in Tunisia and not a peep in US/European news reports. According to Bob Baer that’s where the CIA sends its people to learn Arabic…hmmm…
If you read the news reports, all media is matter-of-fact about the protest arrests and they either objectively reported Gilmour’s arrest or supported it.
The only major news network to report on the negative aspects of the protest handling, is of course, PressTV:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/155332.html
Why need government censorship when the media is doing all the government’s work?
Ben, Leveretts,
I suggest we compile a statistic for each thread of the precentage of the posts related to the actual subject of the article versus posts about other subjects. That way we can maintain the free space while at the same time showing how certain interests are diverting the discussion from the actual subjects of the thread. You could also open separate links to debate off topic subjects and restrict posts to the subject of the thread (but enforced in a relaxed manner).
For the record, I think I’ve shown that I am willing to extensively debate elections/”human rights”/whatever the latest canard by Scott, Binam or Pak has been- but I think that they are repeating and re-repeating arguments that have been discussed and replied to hundreds of times on this forum.
It is quit clear to me that their intention is to divert this forum- WHICH IS HAVING A POSITIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE EFFECT ON THE IRAN DEBATE IN THE US- from doing what it originally set out to do.
Pink Floyd’s Member’s son got arrested over protests!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/12/charlie-gilmour-arrest-student-protests
Quick! Lets have mass campaigns, petitions, outcry, and millions of blog posts about this!
or wait, its not Iran, nevermind.
US’ nationaly poverty threshold is 930 dollars, and if Tehran’s is $800, I think Iran is being very generous with its poverty threshhold.
Iran is already less than 2% under UN poverty level, but with this, it will be 0%, and see how many countries will be better at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty
“Re M. Ali: “With the $40 a month subsidy reform plan, Ahmadenijad has just eradicated poverty, as outlined by UN standards!”
Ahmadinejad might have to try harder by the 2008 Iranian standard of 4 million rials (about $400+) per month and the Tehran standard of 8 million rials ($800+) per month. And that’s before adjusting the poverty line for the last two years and for the forthcoming price rises….”
Did I not mention by UN standards? I thought I did. Let me check again. Yep, I did. I did mention UN standards.
“until you obtain knowledge about those who have dissented — their evidence, their motivations, their objectives — your post about the “three possibilities” is a caricature to flail at straw men.”–Scott
This is nothing short of confessed partisanship. How an academic or analyst can throw away so easily the method of analysis is beyond me. It’s either a form of corruption based on emotionalism or financial gain, or something else I haven’t thought of. Personally, I prefer not to think about such negatives.
You say it’s a strawman but offer no fourth possibility. A default dismissal is the easy way out, I reckon.
“Perhaps the salient point is that those disputing the elections were not put in jail for making the claim of illegitimacy.”
Was Al Gore asking for the annulment of the elections, asking his supporters to riot, and did his supporters throw rocks, attack police officers, and set banks on fire?
Why do you insist on not seeing the reality of the situation? Others have the excuse of being idealistic, young people, but you are a professor for God’s sake!
The fact is that Al Gore did not act any way like the way Mousavi acted. They took the case to the Supreme Courts, did it legally, and Al Gore even conceded for the stability of the government.
And EVEN with this comparison of the way two oppositions acted, Iran’s situation is much more fragile, as discussed many, many, many times, external threat from the west.
“Those protestors did not believe they had lost by a landslide. They did produce far more than “shreds of evidence” and not only theories but real possibilities of what had occurred. They pointed to the weaknesses in the official case, even after the Guardian Council’s attempt to close off the issue.”
What factual evidence did the opposition provide and what solution did they provide to resolve it?
“The point is not about you. It is that none of the following — the Tehran Prosecutor General, the Iran Prosecutor General, the Ministry of Intelligence, and even the presiding judges — have produced any public evidence for thousands of detentions and hundreds of convictions.”
There is several issues with this:
1) You do not seem to agree with the charges itself. That is, the government imprisons someone for propaganda against the state. You do not accept this as a legitimate charge, so the evidence they provide is not sufficient for you. But it is a legal charge, and they are imprisoned as per breaking the law. Issues should be made with the law, rather than claiming they have been illegally held.
2) Like the government’s evidence of the elections, when you deny whatever the government puts forward, there is nothing the government can do to “prove” it to you. For example, if they get a confession of anything, you say, it was forced confession due to torture.
What kind of evidence are you looking for?
Re M. Ali: “With the $40 a month subsidy reform plan, Ahmadenijad has just eradicated poverty, as outlined by UN standards!”
Ahmadinejad might have to try harder by the 2008 Iranian standard of 4 million rials (about $400+) per month and the Tehran standard of 8 million rials ($800+) per month. And that’s before adjusting the poverty line for the last two years and for the forthcoming price rises….
On 19 December, economist Fariborz Reisdana gave an interview to BBC Persian about the introduction of the subsidy cuts. He was arrested later that day.
How did Reisdana pose such a threat to national security that he had to be detained?
Here is a thought that just came to my head.
The UN poverty line is 1.25 dollars per day. Which means with the $40 a month subsidy reform plan, Ahmadenijad has just eradicated poverty, as outlined by UN standards!
Eric,
Re your speculation on “dissident groups” in Iran….
With respect, until you obtain knowledge about those who have dissented — their evidence, their motivations, their objectives — your post about the “three possibilities” is a caricature to flail at straw men.
S.
Pirouz_2,
1. Your comment begins with a series of errors:
“To the best of my knowledge, never in US history (cold war or after), has any dissident group claimed fraud in elections”
Presidential elections have been disputed in the 19th century (1876: Tilden v. Hayes) and as recently as 2000 (Gore v. Bush). Elections have been disputed at Congressional, state, and local level.
Perhaps the salient point is that those disputing the elections were not put in jail for making the claim of illegitimacy.
“[Iranian protestors} demanded an annulment of an election that they had lost by a landslide without being able to produce a shred of evidence or even a coherent theory"
Those protestors did not believe they had lost by a landslide. They did produce far more than "shreds of evidence" and not only theories but real possibilities of what had occurred. They pointed to the weaknesses in the official case, even after the Guardian Council's attempt to close off the issue.
2. This, however, is the real weakness in your case for suppression:
"Since I am not the prosecutor general, nor am I an intelligence officer, I cannot produce any evidence for you pointing to names....However, my common sense tells me the obvious"
The point is not about you. It is that none of the following --- the Tehran Prosecutor General, the Iran Prosecutor General, the Ministry of Intelligence, and even the presiding judges --- have produced any public evidence for thousands of detentions and hundreds of convictions.
Your "common sense" does not substitute for law, especially when that "common sense" is based on prejudice --- e.g., "Mr. Mousavi and Karoubi knew very well that they had NO EVIDENCE"...[and] the two of them KNOWINGLY and WILFULLY LIED, just to create sedition and chaos and FORCE their way into power” — rather than judicious observation. Indeed, your “common sense” is only a prop to justify the repression of any dissenter, whom you will just call a liar and supporter of fitna.
I would not react to the specific case of the death of Dr David Kelly by claiming that anyone who suggested Dr Kelly had been murdered — and arguing that this murder was done to support the false case by the British Government that Iraq had WMDs — should be detained and convicted on spurious charges. I would not make unsupported claims about their evidence and motivations.
Same goes for the 2009 Iranian election and what has happened since….
S.
One mistake that Binam does in his debates is that he links the democratic system with attributes that are not directly related to democracy, such as minority rights, human rights, etc. Democracy does not necessary encourage or discourage them, I believe they are seperate from model of governmental system. For example, as Proud Patriotic Persians, I am sure most of us would agree that the monarchy of Cyprus was more “decent” and “morale” than the republicism of the Greeks.
Therefore, the functions of a governmental system is different than the behaviour of one. This has to be established first. Does anyone dispute this?
If that is not disputed, then let me continue. Irregardless of system of the government, any government’s most important function is survival. It does not matter what kind of government it is, where it is, or WHEN it is, but when faced with any form of threat (whether internal or external) that threatens to collapse it, the government will usually try to survive. Why is it important so much? Because the government’s function is to serve the nation, and it needs to EXIST to serve it.
Therefore, to make sure the government “behaves” better (in terms of human rights, etc) we need to first deal with the issue of its survibility. The critical line comes when the government does not behave in the way the people want and they DO NOT WANT it to survive. Thus, revolution.
This happened in Iran 1979, when the survival of the government was not essential for the people anymore. In 2009, this was not true, and this is why the People supported the government’s actions after the protest. The people believed that the opposition was trying to illegaly take over the government, causing instability, causing hsrm to the society. Any society’s first instinct is self-preservance. You know, the old American rallying call, “Give me freedom or give me death”? It sounds nice, but it is largely a fantasty. Given the choice, most people would not choose death, otherwise prisoners would be begging for the death penalty en masse. And slaves would never have existed, because they would have all commited mass suicide. And the Nazi concentration camps would have been filled with campees fighting to their death.
I’m not even sure where I’m going with this post.
Pak;
No I completely diagree. I’ll keep it short, because it’s way passed my bed time:
In a democratic system governments are accountable, governments are made from people in charge (decision makers), and governments ARE FAR MORE accountable than corporations.
And again no I am not restricting my argument to USA, in all Western Europe it is a capitalist elite which rules: no matter how many times the people of Netherlands may vote against a European constitution, the rulling elite finds the way to bring it back under some other disguise, the vast majority of Spaniards were against Spain’s paticipation in the invasion of Iraq, in fact the very fact that the media is in the hands of corporations shows that the whole public opinion is under the control of the capitalists, and in general nowhere in the Europe can you stand a meaningful chance of being elected unless you have the support of those who have the vast amounts of money. In a nut shell: those who have the money have the power to make the decision. There is a sentence attributed to one of the Rothschilds: I don’t care which clown is the head of the government in the Britain, for as long as I have the money, I control!
I don’t know if any of the Rothschilds has really said this or not, but it is very true.
The situation is FAR FAR worse in Brazil and India, especially in India there is a very small minority who lives in a completely separate world from the vast majority of the Indians. That small minority has the money (india has a few billionairs you know? and if I am not mistaken their numbers increased in the last economic crisis. Despite the fact that more than 300 million of its citizens are living on less than $3/day) and enjoys a “democracy” while the rest are enjoying “starvation”. The situation is so dramatic that in a lot of parts of India there is civil war going on!
Of course Brazil and the mob’s rule all over the large cities does not even need explanation.
And no I dont agree that Iran is light years behind Brazil, Turkey, India or Mexico, if anything it is some what ahead of them. Listen to Mr. Erdogan, Turkey is approaching to Iran’s position not the other way around!
Enjoy your holidays
Dear Rehmat,
Do not try and pretend that these obscenities are restricted to the Christian faith.
Dear Pirouz_2,
“The only thing which separates a liberal democracy from a classical dictatorship, is the fact instead of decisions being made by “ONE” person, they are made by an “elite”.”
This is only partially true, firstly because you are only talking about the US, and secondly because you are misusing the term ‘elite’.
In my opinion, despite the academic narrative coming out of the US, the US is an exception rather than the rule. US academics have got it right, but the US government has lost the plot. If you look at Europe and the emerging liberal democracies (Brazil, India etc), you will see how it is the people who are actually empowered.
You claim that the difference between a dictatorship and liberal democracy is that instead of ‘one’ person making decisions, a political ‘elite’ make decisions. Again, this is a generalisation, and I suspect that you accuse all politicians of being ‘elite’ just because they are politicians. You need to clarify what you mean.
I believe you are misusing the word ‘elite’ for a problem that liberal democracies do face: moral hazards. Very briefly, a moral hazard occurs when someone/something behaves differently when not subject to accountability. The classic example is of a company manager who takes risks that he would not ordinarily take, because he is assured of his position by a contract.
In politics, since government does not have a face, it can behave perversely (with no morals) and not be held accountable. It has no feelings or values. There are no punishments, because government cannot be imprisoned (hence moral hazards). This is the problem you are addressing, because even liberal, democratic governments can pursue pervasive actions and not be held accountable, because government cannot be blamed. Democratically elected politicians will come and go, and they will be blamed, but government itself will get away with it. The lack of a deterrence mechanism or punishment means that government cannot be tamed easily. There is also the problem of asymmetric information, where a government holds onto knowledge that is unavailable to the people.
But there are solutions, ones which liberal democracies create themselves. The greatest current example is Wikileaks, which reins in government by addressing these moral hazards and information asymmetries. Wikileaks exposes individual people within government and other institutions. It names names that the public will remember and shame, while revealing information otherwise unattainable. This is a modern (and bloodless) version of what happened during the French revolution, when they would decapitate people and leave their heads in the main boulevards of towns and cities to make a point.
Hence, Wikileaks, like the decapitations in France, acts as a deterrence mechanism, one which represents the people in an otherwise private setting. It is this fear of the people, and accountability to the people, that makes liberal democracy what it is. As I always say, nothing is perfect. But the standard of democracy, even in the nations you deride as undemocratic (if you think hard enough!), is light years ahead of Iran.
Pirouz_2, Pak, Binam
I think the larger context is the failure of the secular nationalist movements in the Middle East (including Israel as an example of that failure) and WHY that is, the history of that.
Pak and Binam are hoping to see a liberal renaissance… they are refighting the battle of the early part of the twentieth century.
Pak – Yes we should all take a break from politics and get spirituality from Pope Benedict XVI’s Christmas ‘Fatwa’.
Pope: “Child porn is ‘normal’”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/pope-child-porn-is-normal/
Dear Binam,
Enjoy your stay in Tehran. I plan to enjoy my Christmas break, so I will not be contributing to this blog for a while. Most people will be pleased to hear this, but I would have liked to say a few things regardless.
I suggest that everybody else enjoys the festivities too, instead of being engulfed by politics (the majority of comments on this article have been posted since Christmas Eve!)
Politics can wait a few days. Even British and German soldiers managed to stop killing each other for a few hours during WW1 to enjoy Christmas.
In the words of the Joker: why so serious?
Pak, if you notice, my sense of advocacy is directed primarily from an American perspective.
My applied advocacy of an Iranian nature is pretty much limited to Iran’s presidential elections, as I am permitted to vote by the citizenship granted me through Iranian paternal lineage.
I always vote for the more liberal candidate in Iran’s elections. But I accept the results.
US rapprochement toward the Islamic Republic of Iran is my interest, not subverting majority sentiment in a country I do not reside in.
I can further elaborate on this if you wish, Pak. But this is it in a nutshell.
Binam;
I think that you are very seriously confused regarding the meaning of democracy. That example of girl being abused in her family and arguing for the vote of majority just shows how far off the mark you are regarding the meaning of democracy.
Anyway, it is not I who lower my standards regarding Iran; it is you who are living in the fantasy land regarding what “liberal democracy” means. I don’t over-rate the level of democratic rights in Iran, YOU over-rate the level of democratic rights in the West.
Our main difference is about what it means to be a “liberal democracy”. In liberal democracies you can have torture, you can have corruption, there is no reason at all to have a real freedom of expression and PEOPLE DO NOT RULE (and that is the main difference between a liberal democracy and a real populist democracy)!!
The only thing which separates a liberal democracy from a classical dictatorship, is the fact instead of decisions being made by “ONE” person, they are made by an “elite”.
In a liberal democracy that elite is separated into groups with conflicting interests. For as long as an issue fits the interest of all factions of the ruling elite, PEOPLE have no say in the matter, if someone tries to challenge the COMMON INTEREST of the elite, he/she becomes a DISSIDENT and depending on how much of a threat he/she is to the system which represents the interest of the elite he/she is either tolerated, or prosecuted. This is common to ALL liberal democracies be it Iran or the Western countries.
If an issue is NOT in the COMMON interest of the rulling elite, meaning that if it is a matter of rivalry between the competing factions of the rulling elite, then that is when “elections” come into play, and they go to the people in a truly COMPETITIVE election (mind you I said ‘competitive’, I did NOT say a ‘real’ election with real alternatives). AND THIS IS THE SECOND MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES AND DICTATORSHIPS: TRULY COMPETITIVE ELECTIONS!
So two major differences between a liberal democracy and a classical dictatorship:
1)Rulling elite, not a rulling dictator.
2)Truly competitive elections.
End of story! Human rights, civil rights, animal rights, etc are just RUBBISH.
Needless to say that of course liberal democracy is NOT a democracy and that I want for ALL countries (and not just Iran) to be ruled by a true democracy, where the people rule and not an elite!
As for your question regarding the rights of the minority in Iran: Yes IN MY BOOK (NOT IN A LIBERAL DEMOCRACY BUT IN MY BOOK!) they do have rights; however, those rights DO NOT INCLUDE trying to change the outcome of an election that they have lost!
If you people had admitted the electoral defeat, and still had come to the streets demanding your rights and not the annulment of the elections, you would have been qualified IN MY BOOK (but not necessarily according to what’s going on in liberal democracies)to demonstrate peacefully, and chances are that perhaps you could have even got some of your demands accepted by the government. But that was not what you did!
Also it is worth mentioning that while IN MY BOOK you would have the right to peacefully demonstrate, you would NOT have my support. While IN MY BOOK (not necessarily in liberal democracies) even pro-Israeli right wingers have a right to demonstrate, I WILL BE DAMNED BEFORE I GIVE MY SUPPORT TO PRO-ISRAELI RIGHT WINGERS!
I hope I have clarified my position properly?
“I don’t get why a foreign national of a hostile country–like Scott–would participate on a daily basis as a political partisan in covering Iran’s internal affairs…”
Indeed Pirouz, why do you do it?
Pirouz_2,
Let’s not get started on who actually won the elections by a landslide. We have already established that that arguments leads to nowhere. For THIS argument’s sake let us go by the “official” IRI numbers. 63% AN vs. 37% Mousavi/Karoubi. Majority rules, minority rights. Do you or do you not stand for that? Do you believe minority groups in liberal democracies should have rights or not? If so, then why do you try to delegitimize the rights of the minority (opposition) groups or try to link them with foreign powers every chance you get?
You said Iran helping Hamas and Hezbollah is not interference because they are helping the majority. I don’t buy that argument. I would like to think that if Iran is helping anyone it’s because it is the morally RIGHT thing to do – regardless of if it’s for the majority or the minority. Perhaps a better word is “intervention” and not interference. Reminds me of a documentary I saw once about a girl who was being raped and abused by her two brothers and father. In her family the majority (3) were up against her (1) and were having their ways with her. Then the social workers upon somehow hearing of the this had to “intervene” and save the girl from her monstrous family. Would this be an unjustified “interference” or justified “intervention?”
Now with Iran’s case I don’t think our situation is so dire to require an “intervention” by any foreign powers. Far from it. Regardless of how critical I am of the IR, we do have the best democracy in the Middle East – regardless of what I think about the 2009 elections. But I am not content with what we have and I think we have to push things further. It annoys the shit out of me when people like you lower their standards for Iran and use excuses such as “we’re surrounded by superpowers” and make such stupid claims such as “our critics must be linked to our worst enemies.”
Anyways, that was my last attempt. I actually have a flight to Tehran to catch in a few short hours. I wish you all the best and I hope Scott and Pak continue my side of things. Because for time being i sure as hell won’t be posting from Iran!
ps. It’s easy to get access to newspaper archives in Iran. You might want to get in touch with Ministry of Culture (Ershad). You might have to provide reasons why you want access. You could also try Kayhan in London for pre-revolution archives.
Eric;
Despite my almost appalling English I did understand that you were not criticizing me (As I said before you are very articulate and it is very difficult to misunderstand you). I was just trying to give you my ‘theory’ as to why some people persist on the absurd fraud claims.
Although I have to say the first possibility that you mention also fit some of Iranians. Unfortunately when Iranians hate (or love a person) they become blind. They become so blind that at the time of revolution they blamed the Tabas earthquake on Shah and a lot of people even said that the reason for the earthquake was that Shah had agreed to burry US nuclear waste in the Iranian desert and that that was the cause of earthquake. Believe it or not, when Iranians hate (or love) someone you can make them believe the most absurd thing that you can imagine. If I claim that my great grand mother was poisoned by Ahmadinejad, chances are that some people in the northern suburbs of Tehran will indeed believe me!
Pirouz_2,
I wasn’t criticizing you: I was asking Scott to specify which of three unattractive boxes he fits in.
Eric;
“But maybe Pirouz_2 is overlooking an important distinction. Most American dissident groups believe their arguments are compelling regardless of whether the American government is legitimate. They worry that their sound arguments will be ignored if they also complain that the government is illegitimate but never offer evidence. And so they don’t claim the American government is illegitimate without offering evidence to back it up.
I am not sure that is true in Iran. Some dissident groups may believe that Iranians generally accept their election-fraud claims despite the absence of evidence. Others may not recognize that making baseless election-fraud claims weakens their other arguments. Still others may recognize the risks, but simply doubt that their other complaints have sufficient merit to stand on their own. I don’t know which of those three possibilities describes you, but I don’t see a fourth.”
I’ll tell you my ‘theory’. And it is just a theory based on common sense and I have no ‘evidence’ to prove it.
You are wondering why Mousavi/Karoubi persist on their allegations when they know it will just reduce their credibility?
The answer is that they HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE! It is way too late to change rhetoric and say: “we made a mistake there was no fraud, but we still have some very legitimate complaints!”
It is easy for you (ie. Eric) to say that, you did not lie, you did not cause people to face militia and get killed, you did not try to hijack an election for your personal interests (ie. make coup), you did not act as a foreign agent trying to do a regime change against the vote of majority, and as a result YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO CRITICIZE IR AS HARSHLY AS YOU SEE FIT ON CIVIL RIGHTS.
They on the other hand CANNOT DO THAT! The moment they make compromise over the issue of election and accept an electoral defeat they will face the exact same treatment as Mr. Lucas is facing from me! People will ask: “Why did you lie?” and this time instead of asking: “Where is my vote?” they will ask “Where is my dead child?”. They will ask why did you say that there was a fraud when you HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE SO? Is this your understanding of democracy? And these questions will eventually lead to the charges of attempting to make a coup possiblly with the help of foreign governments.
Thats is the end they are trying to avoid and that is why they hold on to the ridiculous claims of electoral fraud, as absurd as it is!
I know this is a repeat, but this article below shows immediately and directly how vote fraud in Egypt works. Is there anything like this in Iran?
http://baheyya.blogspot.com/
Scott,
Pirouz_2 wrote to you:
“To the best of my knowledge, never in US history (cold war or after), has any dissident group claimed fraud in elections and demanded an annulment of an election that they had lost by a landslide without being able to produce a shred of evidence or even a coherent theory as to how the alleged fraud has happened and in which ballot boxes it has happened.”
That’s a pretty powerful sentence, Scott. I’m looking forward eagerly to your response.
But maybe Pirouz_2 is overlooking an important distinction. Most American dissident groups believe their arguments are compelling regardless of whether the American government is legitimate. They worry that their sound arguments will be ignored if they also complain that the government is illegitimate but never offer evidence. And so they don’t claim the American government is illegitimate without offering evidence to back it up.
I am not sure that is true in Iran. Some dissident groups may believe that Iranians generally accept their election-fraud claims despite the absence of evidence. Others may not recognize that making baseless election-fraud claims weakens their other arguments. Still others may recognize the risks, but simply doubt that their other complaints have sufficient merit to stand on their own. I don’t know which of those three possibilities describes you, but I don’t see a fourth.
Here’s what I don’t get:
I don’t get why a foreign national of a hostile country–like Scott–would participate on a daily basis as a political partisan in covering Iran’s internal affairs, in consistently negative reporting.
On the other hand, I understand the Leverett’s policy advocacy for their own country, the US, in promoting peace and rapprochement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. That makes sense to me, particularly the fact that such advocacy is intended for their own country and not somebody else’s.
In the case of Scott, I hate to say it but it looks a lot like we have another Ken Timmerman on our hands, the only difference being the brand and direction of coup being sought.
James:
Iranian enrichment to 20% was a blunder, but one you continue to support.
What do you think would be different if Iran had not enriched to 20%?
Would the US have not offered to shelve plans to put missile defense into Poland? Would Russia not have been willing to trade that for a new UNSC resolution?
Would the US have not threatened China over the Yuan valuation? Would China not have been willing to trade that for a new UNSC resolution?
Mr. Lucas;
To the best of my knowledge, never in US history (cold war or after), has any dissident group claimed fraud in elections and demanded an annulment of an election that they had lost by a landslide without being able to produce a shred of evidence or even a coherent theory as to how the alleged fraud has happened and in which ballot boxes it has happened.
Especially since US has never witnessed a military coup planned, financed, organized and then executed by Iran (or USSR) and then since never in US history Iran or USSR publicly declared over $400 million dollars for the US opposition groups, and since Iran or USSR did not make media propaganda DAY AND NIGHT over how one dissident group which was being funded by USSR or Iran should and would win the elections beyond any reasonable doubt (when all real evidence pointed otherwise), since US dissidents did not openly side with “coloured coups” (as Mr. Ganji openly has done so in his republican manifesto), as any of the US dissidents did not get Iranian “Imam Khomeini award” (a ficticious award just created by me for the sake of the argument) worth of 500,000 dollars (as Mr. Ganji won the 500G award of Milton Friedman), it is not fair to compare Iran to cold war era US.
Since I am not the prosecutor general, nor am I an intelligence officer, I cannot produce any evidence for you pointing to names (by the way most of the protestors on the STREETS honestly did believe in fraud). However, my common sense tells me the obvious: since there was no fraud in the elections (at least no major fraud that is for sure, and there is no evidence even for a minor one), and since Mr. Mousavi and Karoubi knew very well that they had NO EVIDENCE nor even a coherrent theory as to what fraud, in which way and in which ballot boxes has occured, therefore, the two of them KNOWINGLY and WILFULLY LIED, just to create sedition and chaos and FORCE their way into power! And that my friend, is defined as COUP D’ETAT, simple as that!
One may very rightfuly argue that the protesters on the streets had been fooled (by believing in their candidates words) and that they honestly believed in what they protested for, but the same argument does not apply to Mousavi, Karoubi and their campaign staff. Those people knew it FULLY WELL that they had no evidence what so ever and that they wilfully lied just to creat chaos! And that by definition is coup d’etat and furthermore carries the hallmarks of a coloured coup just as happened in places such as Ukraine and Georgia!
By the way, I am still waiting to hear what you know regarding the details of the evidence in the case of death of Dr. Kelly… You do know the gentleman right? I hear that the evidence has been classified by Lord Hutton for 70 years? whats that all about? And who is this guy named Andrew Gilligan?
Scott Lucas
No matter how hard paid hacks like you try on behalf of the Americans to depict the Islamic Republic as illegitimate, in order for the US to have an excuse to put more pressure on the Iranian people, you and people like you will fail. In fact, Americans like you only increase our resolve. The people have spoken and the Iranian people won’t let your regime steal the elections or the rights of the Iranian people as an independent nation.
Interesting piece on the likely foreign policy views of Tea Party politicians, by Ali Gharib:
http://www.lobelog.com/the-leveretts-the-tea-party-and-iran/
It must be the American exceptionalism that allows the know-nothing palin spout the now famous “Ground Zero Mosque supporters, doesn’t it stab you in the heart as it does our throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, please refudiate.” Only in America can the word refudiate be word of the year (it does have a nice anti-Muslim ring to it). Where would she be if it weren’t for all the white horny men whom want her in the spotlight for a good hard-on?
Empty,
These are the men who count, because they are more equal than others. If she becomes president, Americans deserve her.
fyi,
I think Russia and China continue to value the NPT and they do not see their vote for additional sanctions as gutting the treaty. Iranian enrichment to 20% was a blunder, but one you continue to support.
Empty,
I think slaves were counted as 2/3 of a non-slave, in computing state populations for purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives.
Pirouz,
I know a great deal about the Kelly case and am happy to answer any questions you have.
S.
Pirouz_2,
“Anybody who demands the annulment of an election where the majority has spoken clearly is a disgrace to the cause of civil rights, and he/she is just a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
The obvious point is that, for many Iranians across the political spectrum, it has never been clear that “the majority has spoken clearly”. The disgrace is not that many of these people peacefully protested — that is, in fact, the embodiment of civil rights: the ability to petition authorities for redress — but that this protest was suppressed.
Your claim that all those who raised their voices were “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, “in cooperation with foreign powers”, “coup perpetrators” is worse than an evasion; it is a denial of their opinions and right to speak by raising a false menace.
(If you can produce evidence that these protesters on 15 June 2009 were working for foreign powers, I would be ready to modify the above statement.)
I have studied how this tactic was used in the US in the Cold War to suppress dissent; I have seen how it was used in the 21st century. So I am not surprised to see it used in Iran in 2009/10 — the effort to restrict civil rights by those in powers crosses boundaries and cultures.
S.
It would be useful to explore how the rhetoric of “all men are equal” has been operationalized since to be equal, one needs to enter into the exclusive club of “men” and “men” are defined and re-defined.
1. Women didn’t count, well because first they were not men and then they began to count as (men) inside parenthesis some 60 years ago. Now they are “men Light”.
2. Native Americans men or women didn’t count because they were beasts and savages and didn’t count as humans in the first place.
3. A man with one sixteenth native blood if owned vast parcels of land could be officially accepted as a man but with a footnote.
4. Black men or women didn’t count because they were half a human. Some decades ago, they were legally accepted as “men”.
4. Some 2 million prisoners don’t count because they are prisoners. So, they could be regarded as bracketed [men].
5. Some 40 million people don’t count because they have some record of have been in prison at some point in their lives. They could be regarded as a “man” with quotation marks.
6. Some 12 million immigrants with insufficient documentation don’t count as humans (although they pay taxes and provide cheap labor) because they are not properly “branded”. So, they could be regarded as scribbled “men” in the margin, with a pencil.
7. Well-documented Muslim immigrants don’t count, because they are either terrorists or terrorist into making. This makes them animals (to hunt down) rather than men. Besides, admitting that they even exist, is a threat to “national security”.
8. Some 3.5 million homeless and those with mental disability as well as those without an established U.S. address don’t count because unless in print, they don’t exist as anything: men, women, animal, liquid or mineral.
9. Some reluctantly-accepted-as-men end up becoming “hanging chads” and fail to fully realize their man-ness.
At the international level:
“Palestinians do not exist.” — Speech by Gold Meir, Israeli Prime Minister, 1969
“Palestinians are two-legged beasts.” –Menachem Begin
“Palestinians are grasshoppers only worth to crush.” –Yitzhak Shamir
“I summoned you because I know that you love Egypt and are willing to make liberal sacrifice on its behalf. You are wealthy, and each of you has made his fortune by his own efforts. I am sure that you will soon restore these fortunes; the rich man always grows richer even though superfluous juice be pressed from him now and again…. Remember also that I give you a great war–greater than you dream of–and in the time of war the well-to-do man is bound to prosper. The longer the war, the greater his prosperity; no power in the world can prevent this –not even Pharaoh’s taxation department. You should be grateful to me. I send you home now with my blessing. Go in peace, be diligent, swell up again like ticks, for there is no one to hinder you.”
Excerpts from Horemheb speech to the rich, when collecting troops and equipment. Book 14, “The Holy War,” memoir of Sinuhe, The Egyptian. By M. Waltari.
Happy Holidays? 28 Hard Questions It Would Be Great If We Could Get Some Real Answers To:….
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/happy-holidays-28-hard-questions-it-would-be-great-if-we-could-get-some-real-answers-to
“”Over the coming weeks, Americans will be wishing each other “happy holidays” millions upon millions of times. But are these really happy times? Record numbers of Americans are going to be going hungry and cold this winter. Millions upon millions of our fellow citizens would gladly give up all holiday celebrations in exchange for a decent job. The vast majority of us have plenty of examples of horrible personal tragedy all around us this holiday season, and much of that tragedy has been brought on by the deteriorating economic conditions. Meanwhile, we have a “control freak” government that wants to establish an even tighter grip over our lives and that now insists on either viewing our exposed bodies or groping our private areas before we can get on an airplane. Once upon a time in America the holiday season was a time to rejoice because we lived in a prosperous land where liberty and freedom were respected, but today we live in a nation with a highly centralized economy dominated by a federal government that is becoming more “totalitarian” by the day.”"……
Iranian;
Thanks a lot.
Bussed-in Basiji says: December 26, 2010 at 2:50 pm
There is an evidentiary basis for the Americana’ claim to exceptionalism, but not to the extent that they claim and not in the manner used (or abused, depending on your point of view) within US.
The exceptionalism of US is an expression and extension of the Western Civilization; per Pirren’s Theses.
In US, a country of uprooted immigrants dedicated to the proposition that all men are equal, this turned into an expression of narcissism at the individual level. You could see this clearly in 19-th Century America.
The post WWII world, where the entire International system, for the first time in human history, was defined by the relationship of various actors with US, fed and nourished this narcissism of the White Anglo-Saxon population; especially in the Northern states.
If US had not been dominated by the population of the Northern states since the end of US Civil War, it is likely that the more egregious manifestations of these narcisstic tendencies would not have been realized.
In regards to the International Law: it is a set of common practices that states – by consensus – have found of utility when conducting inter-state affairs. US & EU have been beneficiaries of these so-called Laws (rally “Customs”). But they also have systematically abused them and thus undermined them since, due to their power asymmetry – they could get away with it.
For example, US, EU, Russia, and China have destroyed both the CWT and the NPT. I hope they will enjoy the barbaric world that is emerging – it is their creation more than any one else’s.
Respect for International Law, International Legal Instruments, and International (cooperative) Institutions must be mutual – they must apply to everyone or they apply to no one. The major states on this plant are exempting themselves from this statement.
Thus, the way forward for all states that aspire to security and independence is very clear: pay lip-service to International Law while making sure never to submit to it when the supreme interest of the state is at stake.
Complaining about lack of respect for International Law is silly. Follow it where it suits you and ignore it otherwise.
For the record, I think Arnold’s estimate that 3% of the US population is currently well informed of foreign affairs realities to be generous. However, it is polite to be generous on occasion, and perhaps this is one such suitable occasion.
I think we’d all be very surprised as to the low percentage of Americans that know and believe that WTC 7 came down on September 11th without being hit by an airplane… and that’s an historical event in their largest city within the last ten years.
Maybe 3% could tell you the name of the British Prime Minister (Blair will be answered more often than Cameron), less than that could tell you the other leading name within the governing coalition. And the UK is their primary military ally.
What percentage, then, know of Khomeini? Of Mosaddeq? Of Khamenei? What percent can tell you who leads Hezbollah? Hamas? What percent have read the essays of Nasrallah in translation?
One of the difficulties of political discussion in America is that people who consider themselves very well educated are often functionally illiterate when discussing foreign affairs or world history. They read the Atlantic and the New Yorker and the New York Review of Books and… well, you get my point.
“American Exceptionalism”, euphemism for: “the usual rules of international relations and moral conduct vis-a-vis the rights of other nations don’t apply to us”, “we get to invade and kill others, you don’t”, “international law is a tool to further our national interests and club to beat others with when they pursue their own national interests”, “we get to lie about everything and accuse you of lying when you are telling the truth”, “we are allowed to champion democracy when our stooges win and subvert it when our stooges loose”,…
Additional contributons would be appreciated
Arnold,
Iran favors economic growth and stability in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan, and as to the last country, Iran wants to prevent a return of the Taliban to power in Kabul. And, of course, Iran wants all foreign troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. These are reasonable policies.
Arnold Evans says: December 26, 2010 at 2:27 pm
I think one explanation is that you wait to let the other side correct his policies that you find objectionable. In case of India, Iran waited 2 years before making a statement regarding Kashmir.
Another explanation, as you have noted, is that US has not publicized the retaliations for a number of reasons (there could be domestic demand for retaliation which would lead, inevitably, to escalation.)
In case of India, Iran has denied over flight permissions to Indian Aiforce and they have to now detor around Iran.
In 2002 Iranians expelled Mr. Hekmatyar to Afghanistan were he is leading an anti-US coalition.
Thirdly, I think, one has to retaliate where one can based on some sort of logi and plan. Denying fuel to Afghanistan, in the dead of Winter – starting, say, in February 2011, is an excellent opportunity for Iran. Let Mrs. Clinton get gasoline and diesel to Afghanistan.
From USA Today
Gingrich and others slamming Obama for not “believing in American exceptionalism”, Obama (through Axelrod) swearing by all that is holy that he does believe in American exceptionalism.
“America’s place in the world could play part in 2012 elections”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-12-21-1Aexceptional21_CV_N.htm
Like I said, America is itself a religion.
Pirouz_2,
RE: “If we go by such prudent measures of censorship, I am afraid half of the forms of art (including some mile stones of cinema) must be censored.”
And nearly 80% of Molana’s Masnavi, a great portion of Sa’adi’s Golestan, Parvin E’etesami’s Kolliyat, etc….:(
We have a long way to break the molds of “zaher” (facade) and get to the inner workings of “baten” (meaning)…..I doubt too many people are yet prepared to see that so long as they “think” and “operate” within the barn/donkey framework, they limit their choices to being in the camps of either the mistress’s or the maid’s of our time.
In any case, in my efforts to raise awareness, I have found it more effective to begin where people “actually are” rather than where “I would like them to be.”
Arnold Evans says: December 26, 2010 at 2:12 pm
My estimate was not based on the awareness of external policy and foreign powers.
But even then, I think you arer wrong.
USG’s own statistics state 20% of US population to be foreign-born.
FYI:
You bring up another interesting point, the idea that US pressure may get Iran to abandon its nuclear program is terribly backwards.
1) What a Japan option gives Iran is assurance that the US, even if other deterrents are removed, will not be able to attack Iran the way it attacked Iraq. The more strenuously the US endeavors to prevent Iran from attaining a Japan option, the more the US demonstrates that it values having the flexibility to attack Iran. Which means that the value of a Japan option is proven to Iran by the US.
2) Rather than cause Iran to abandon its nuclear program, pressure would seem more likely to cause Iran to attack or do harm to US interests in the region.
I have to say that 2010 has not shown Iran acting to harm the US even as much as I would have expected given a new round of sanctions. A couple of people here, including myself, have expressed surprise that Iran has been as subdued as it has in response to US provocations.
One explanation is that the Iranian response has not been publicized by that the US administration is aware in ways that the public is not.
Another explanation is that Iran really does not feel that there has been a meaningful escalation in US/EU/Israeli provocations that Iran thinks would warrant a response.
A possible other explanation could be that Iran feels provoked but is not responding – possibly out of fear of a US counter-response, possibly for some religious reason.
I gather, maybe wrongly FYI, that your explanation is that Iran recently has begun responding through Afghanistan and threatens to escalate there. But had not responded before December in which the question of why still remains.
How do you (or anyone else) explain Iran’s relative lack of overtly hostile actions against US interests in 2010?
Pirouz_2 Yes.
FYI:
US, having a much longer history of public and private education and being part of the dominant and most advanced civilization on Earth, it stands to reason to set the percentage at 20%.
The US, being for the most part secure from foreign threats, especially serious or sustained threats, has the luxury of the ability to ignore foreign events. The vast majority of US citizens take full advantage of this luxury.
The average member of the US population likely has nowhere near as much interest, concern or formed opinion in foreign affairs as the average member of the Iranian, Turkish, Israeli or even French populations.
Take your estimate of Iran’s proportion and cut it in half to get a good estimate for the United States.
Iranian;
Are you talking about the libraries of the Iranian universities?
James Canning says: December 26, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Iran helping Afghanistan, in conjunction with India, is no longer a sensible policy; not since the UNSC sanctions in June of 2010.
The creation of a stable and prosperous Afghanistan that can serve as a host to the US-NATO Axis and in opposition to the interests of Iran is not in Iran’s interest.
Iran should issue a private warning to US-EU Axis to change their policies. If not, Iran should systematicaly endeavour to undermine the US-EU Axis project in Afghanistan. It is in this light that the Iranian President’s statement regarding January 2011 Nuclear talks must be viewed.
The warning shot by Iran has been fired, let us see what the US-EU Axis will do next.
[My own guess is that they are going to ignore the warning and persist in their current policy with subsequent Iranian retaliation. I do feel sorry for the people of Afghanistan, caught between warring factions and foreigners.]
Empty;
Perhaps I am a vulgar man, but I don’t find your story as vulgar. For some reason when it comes to matters of sex the society becomes very uncomfortable to talk about the unfortunate facts of life.
Some of the vulgar terms and graphic scenes in that story is meant to portray the repulsive nature of blind greed.
If we go by such prudent measures of censorship, I am afraid half of the forms of art (including some mile stones of cinema) must be censored. Not just that but also pretty much all of classic art and the renaissance art must be censored (renaissance art violated the measures of prudence of its own time).
Castellio
You say “And Obama is currently delivering very nicely……”
I agree with you. Imposing new sanctions just before the Istanbul talks tells it all.
James
You write “…I think they were quite serious about getting her into the White House “
If true, America is way deeper in trouble than I thought before. Still I think the MAJORITY of Americans voting for Presidency of Sarah Palin is impossible unless the voters are somehow drugged or masterfully indoctrinated by this criminal MSM.
You can find them in the central libraries of many universities as well as in the Iranian National Library. However, you can also buy them from the Kayhan or Etela’at news groups.
fyi,
Iran has been working diligently to improve roads in Afghanistan, with help from India, in order to foster better economic conditions in Afghanistan. This is sensible and obviously should continue. The continuing ill-conceived American military adventure is in large part intended to cover up the fact the entire programme is a mistake. European countries will not put up with this.
And, in Israel, the vicious sh*t who serves as foreign minister continues to foster Kurdish terrorism within Turkey, and spurns the notion of even offering an apology to Turkey for the Israeli attack on the Gaza aid convoy.
@Everyone;
Does anyone (especially Iranian readers of this site) know a way to find the archives of very old Iranian news papers? Like Keyhan or Etteleat from 50, 60 or even 70 years ago?
I would very much appreciate it if anyone can help me.
James Canning says: December 26, 2010 at 1:31 pm
I do not know the situation on the ground.
My emotional reaction would have been to advise the Iranian leaders to stop all traffic to and from Afghanistan. Let the architects of sanctions against Iran scramble to avoid massive starvation in that country.
Winter is the best time for retaliation.
fyi,
Surely Iran should continue to offer what assistance it can to the government of Afghanistan, and to facilitate transit of food, fuel, etc. The Nato military programme will not last many more years, though it is possible foolish US leaders will try to prolong the American military presence in Afghanistan.
Arnold,
I think you are likely on target in thinking no more than 3% of the adult population of the US understands foreign policy, history, geography etc well enough to comprehend what the US is actually doing in the world, and why. This 3% obviously would not include Sarah Palin.
Yes. Perhaps the point could have been made using more appropropriate metaphors. I will exercise more care in the future.
Dear khurshid,
The story, with all the graphic parts removed, was not meant to be obscene, distasteful, and vulgar. Nor was it written with the intention to be obscene, distasteful, and vulgar. I often find myself rather baffled that we grow up looking at extremely violent and dismembered body parts of children, women, and men who have been innocently killed. Yet, we do not protest their portrayal as obscene, distasteful and vulgar with the same forcefulness as what I just wrote. All the while, I even carefully censored all graphic parts buy alluding to the points of the story opting to leave it up to the imagination of the reader. Nevertheless, it was not meant to be vulgar.
Binam,
My daughter is a student at Allameh Tabatabaee University and most students have little respect for the greens (which doesn’t make a person pro-Ahmadinejad by the way).
Arnold Evans says: December 26, 2010 at 12:00 pm
If you had asked me what is the percentage of the Iranian people who would not discriminate between their sons and daughters in their unbringing, who are not prejudiced against people belonging to different religions, etc., I would tell you no more than 10%.
US, having a much longer history of public and private education and being part of the dominant and most advanced civilization on Earth, it stands to reason to set the percentage at 20%.
In my opinion, these 20% are aware that US isbeing poorly lead domestically and internationally. They knew that the leaders of GM or John Deere were making one mistake after another but were powerless to stop it. Likewise in foreign policy.
There was a commentator in Chicago Tribune called Mike Royko who consistently was questioning, in 1980s, the US support for Iraq against Iran. He was ignored but events proved him right.
There were people in US that understood that the policy of carving out congressional districts to make them safe for this or that (minority) group was the wrong approach as it would dissuade coalition-building across racial boundaries.
There were men and women who understood that US Federal and State governments have, in effect, declared war against American manhood.
People understood how Blacks were being bribed and cuddled while White fled them.
But all these people were powerless to stop it.
Look at today: the states are willy-nilly approving of homosexual union. Outisde of the consideration of that very many people, inside and outside of US consider that an abomination and a sure path to Gomorrah and Corruption on Earth; there is this.
If two men or two women can marry on the grounds of equal justice or some such twisted logic, why can’t a man marry his son? Or a woman her daghter (after all should not government not interfere in the affairs among consenting adults)?
Moreover, why stop there? Why prevent a man taking more than one wife or a woman more than one husband?
Me and my sheep ars a family; we are just practicing a different life-style!
These things matter and matter a lot outside of US.
No body – except the equally misguided Europeans – will follw US on her current path to Sodom – and teh 20% are powerless to stop it.
dear EMPTY
did you had to write about this OBSCENE story to prove your point? it was quite distasteful and valgure.
So sorry….that’s “hollow” zucchini…[it was some sort of a slip but I'm not too sure it was Freudian.]
Unknown Unknowns says: December 26, 2010 at 11:42 am
I wonder about that too.
On the other hand, it might have been meant as a warning to the US-EU Axis that Iran can make their lives miserable in Afghanistan.
Consider: Iran will declare that all traffic going and coming from Afghanistan will be subject to detailed search due to security concerns and contraband traffic. [This is what Syria's Bashar al Assad did to Lebanon the effect of which was slow strangulation of the Lebanese economy - before he relented.]
A further escalation by Iran would be to stop all traffic to and from Afghanistan: let the US-EU Axis worry about lack of food, fuel, and the subsequent famine in that unfortunate country.
US-EU Axis have been warned.
It reminds me of Mariel boatlift 30 years ago – Americans grossly miscalculating how even a small weak country like Cuba could harm them when they (the Americans) tried to harm Cuba.
Power is local and for the denziens of Washington DC, that small Fantasy Island surrounded by a sea called Reality, that is a lesson that they seems never to learn.
Getting back to the message of this post …..
Some presidential candidates in the U.S. seem to actually believe in their own agency to affect the US foreign policy in a profound way. They are allowed to continue to believe and speak sincerely in that regard, which is needed for ever-increasingly skeptical public. I think one reason for the candidates’ optimism could be that they may not have a good viewing of exactly how the inner workings of the U.S. foreign policy run. I am reminded of one of Molana’s stories in Masnavi. Those who are not too familiar with Molana’s poems and the absolute frankness with which he has written many of Masnavi’s stories might want to refrain from reading on or be forewarned that the symbolism in the story might seem imprudent.
A rich mistress was living alone with her young energetic maid who would help with keeping the house and sharing in the daily chores. The mistress also had a donkey that used to be quite fat but after a while began to lose weight and turn really skinny. The mistress began to notice that the maid disappears into the barn at a given hour every day and then emerges after a while and resumes with the household chores. Overcome by curiosity and suspicion, one day as soon as the maid disappears into the barn, the mistress the barn and looks through the peephole into the dark barn. Except for the donkey in the barn, there is nothing else. Nothing seems to be out of place or out of ordinary. She patiently waits in the dark thinking that perhaps the maid goes there to take a nap or rest and relax from the morning chores. The mistress secures herself out of maid’s sight and quietly observes what’s going on. She sees the maid has now entered the barn and closed the door. At the same, she notices the donkey exhibiting a bit of “excitement” and restlessness. To censor Molana and cut the long story short, the mistress has now witnessed (only from her vantage point) the maid “getting it on” with the donkey. Both the maid and the donkey seemed quite satisfied and no harm done. So, one day, she decides to give it go and run for the office, oh, sorry, for the barn as the donkey, given that he is her property, should be “serving” her interest and not the maid:
در حسد شد گفت این چون ممکن است…….پس من اولیتر که خر ملک من است
One day, she sends the maid to the bazaar for “nokhod siah” (a rare item). As soon as the maid leaves, overcome by the opportunity and rather confident by her own abilities, the mistress goes to the barn:
میل و شهوت کر کند دل را و کور……تا نماید گرک یوسف شهد و شور
ای بسا سر مست نار و نار جو……خویشتن را نور مطلق داند او
She closes the door, “excites” the donkey and begins to “get it on.” After a while, the maid returns home and sees there is no sign of her mistress. She looks everywhere that she could think of. But there is no sign of the mistress. Finally, she notices that the barn door is closed. She approaches the barn, opens the door, and notices the donkey all “excited” and her poor mistress dead in her own pool of blood.
صحن خانه پرز خون شد زن نگون……مرد او وبرد جان ریب المنون
مرگ بد با صد فضیحت ای پدر……تو شهیدی دیده ای از *بیپ* خر؟
While wailing and beating her chest, she sighs, “poor Mistress who had not seen the zucchini!” All this time, the maid had been using a large hallowed zucchini to protect herself from full penetration by the donkey’s disproportionately large and over-powering, let’s say, “trumpet.” The mistress, from her vantage point observing the events that day, had not seen the zucchini.
پس کنیزک آمد از اشکاف در……دید خاتون را بمرده زیر خر
گفت: “ای خاتون احمق این چه بود؟……..گر ترا استاد خود نقشی نمود.”
“ظاهرش دیدی سرش از تو نهان……اوستا ناگشته بگشادی دکان.”
“*بیپ* دیدی همچو شهد و چون خبیص……آن کدو را چون ندیدی ای حریص؟”
It appears a lot of well-meaning candidates in the U.S. fail to see the zucchini because of their own greed and desire for power and wealth.
Source: Translation/interpretation/direct quotes from Masnavi Ma’anavi (Chapter 5, Page 301) by Molana Jallal-o-din Muhammad Balkhi, Edited by Late Muhamad Ramezani, Khavar Publishing, Tehran, Iran.
Binam;
By the way, given their admiration (or at least it is my understanding that they admire him) for Sadat somehow I have a feeling (just a feeling, I am not very sure) that they would very much prefer to deal with Khatami as the head of Iran rather than Ahmadinejad. Their difference with the rest of Americans is that they recognize the vote of the majority of Iranians and they realize the futility of trying to pull a 1953 against Iran again (this time by colouring it to ‘green’)! So they say we should deal with Iran as it is and not as what we wish it to be.
If you ever find out that Iran is moving against the will of the vast majority of Palestinians and support a minoritty group to force its way to power by hijacking the Palestinian elections, let me know and I will 100% agree with you that Iran is interfering in Palestine’s internal affairs.
Fyi:
My sense is that there is a 20 % of US population that are actually enlightened in a manner that is reasonable, entailing a dispassionate and honest assessment of US and her position in the world.
20% is a low enough guess that without a poll it doesn’t make sense to argue, but if I was to guess, I’d go below 10%, I would not be surprised at all to see 3%.
Most of the US population does not even follow domestic politics closely. Of the small minority that follow international politics closely, I’d guess that 20% have international views that you or I would consider reasonable.
On the other hand, the vast majority of Americans who don’t care enough one way or another to have an opinion are or would be much more easily swayed than the minority of Americans who actually have opinions on the Middle East.
If the US voluntarily accepts independent countries in Israel’s region, it will be because the people imposing costs on the non-opinion Americans about the Middle East have explained what policies they want the US to change.
Or the US can run out of gas. Just not have enough money or resources to keep hundreds of millions of Muslims in Israel’s region either technologically thwarted or under subject dictatorships. War could make that happen somewhat sooner but the US is very rich right now. The US will eventually run out of gas if it doesn’t voluntarily change, but maybe generations from now.
Binam;
When we say “interference” what we mean is “interference against the will of people, against the rule of majority”.
Taking a closer look at Facebook @ http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/603.html
Unknown Unknowns says: December 26, 2010 at 6:54 am
Thank you for honorable mention.
In your fine typology, I should think that the third one, “Pluralist/ Anglo-American (synthetic, syncretic and synthesizing)” is only hypothetically possible but does not exist. It does not exist because the Western Civilization’s claim to universality against all particularities.
South American states, in fact, have been charting a different path and they seem to think that they are Neither East nor West – so to speak – with best features of both.
There is another point which I would like to make and that is the Enlightenment Tradition (Project) lacked spirituality. Their anit-Church project could never supplant or destory the spirituality emanating from Rome. Likewise, there are multiple centers of (Shia) spirituality in Iran and in Iraq that give sustenance to the Shia Tradition (simple men, trained in the Religious Sciences of Islam, who are unknown to most people – even among the Shia).
Binam;
You are seriously confused about the meaning of interference. Recognizing a popularly elected government as the representative of a nation is NOT interference. Leveretts NEVER denied the human right abuses going on in Iran, it is just that in comparison to other developing countries (hell even in comparison to USA itself) Iran’s human rights record (in the past 15 yar especially) is not all that bad. This is a realistic approach, but exaggerating the situation in Iran, and trying to present it as the living hell, and trying to overthrow a popularly elected government by instigating sedition through propaganda with mass media, hiring agents such as A. Ganji, Ali Afshari, Ahmad Batebi, etc., putting aside over $400 million dollars to bring down a popularly elected government IS INTERFERENCE!
Supporting a democratically elected group (HAMAS) and recognizing it as the true representative of the nation who voted for it (Palestinians) is NOT an interference, not recognizing the authority of stooges such as Mahmood Abbas (who has no popular support behind him) is NOT interference, giving support to resistance groups (Hezballah) which have the support of the solid majority of their nation is NOT interference, just as arming and supporting the French resistance during the second world war was NOT an interference.
Wonder what they got in return?
Iran agrees to release fuel tankers: Afghan VP
(AFP) – 5 hours ago
TEHRAN — Afghan Vice President Mohammad Qasim Fahim said on Sunday that Iran has agreed to lift a ban on fuel tankers crossing into Afghanistan that has left hundreds of trucks stranded at the border.
“We discussed the fuel tankers which have been stopped at the border and agreements were reached (to allow them) to enter Afghanistan, so that the fuel problem is resolved,” ISNA news agency quoted Qasim Fahim as saying at a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart in Tehran.
Iran has in the past three weeks prevented around 1,600 trucks from crossing the border, believing that they are being used to supply US-led NATO troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Kabul says the tankers are bringing fuel to meet the increased demand by ordinary Afghans during the winter months.
The halting of the tankers had threatened to push up already-skyrocketing fuel prices in Afghanistan at the start of winter.
Around 30 percent of Afghanistan’s fuel is thought to come through transport routes from Iran, with much of the rest coming through the central Asian republics which border Afghanistan.
Qasim Fahim arrived in Tehran on Saturday on an unannounced visit.
Bussed-in Basiji says: December 26, 2010 at 7:06 am
You might be right.
My sense is that there is a 20 % of US population that are actually enlightened in a manner that is reasonable, entailing a dispassionate and honest assessment of US and her position in the world.
This group, unfortunately, is a powerless minority and they know it.
For example, they watched, within 20 years, a global icon of US Industrial and Manufacturing called General Motors commit suicide. The self-inflicted demise of GM, was something to be held for there were hundreds of useful, pertinent, and perceptive suggestions made by Americans outside of GM on how to stanch bleeding. They were ignored in the same manner the ideas expressed here are ignored.
Top ’2010 Oppressed People’ in Middle East
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/top-2010-oppressed-people-in-middle-east/
Mr. Lucas;
“Which is the case with at least hundreds of Iranians since June 2009. The position they took on the election — pro-Ahmadinejad, pro-Mousavi, pro-Karroubi — is irrelevant to the legal situation.
And, yes, many of the people I have mentioned in these discussions are “actually a real civil rights activist or a defender of human rights”.”
Anybody who demands the annulment of an election where the majority has spoken clearly is a disgrace to the cause of civil rights, and he/she is just a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Mr. Lucas, ANY liberal democracy that you defend so fervently, in a similar situation would subject these people to a far worse treatment. None of these western countries would treat people who try to annul an election that they have lost by a landslid with pleasentaries. Especially if they are suspected of being in cooperation with foreign powers and to be acting as their agent.
Coup perpetrators are tolerated in NOWHERE!
By the way, how much do you know about Dr. David Kelly’s death? I hear that Lord Hutton has decided that the evidence related to his death should stay classified for 70 years? Furthermore Kelly was not trying to over-throw a popularly elected government, nor was he acting as foreign agent. And who is Andrew Gilligan? does that name ring any bell?
Bussed in Basiji:
Your 7:06am post certainly demands reflection and response.
And all you good hearted liberals and progressive, spare us your Gandhi speeches, the only thing your non-violence has brought the world in the last thirty years has been death and destruction around the world at the hands of your “democratically” elected governments. Your naivety is literally killing us.
I’ll say one thing. Sustained efforts with clear explanations can change behavior. One-time or occasional efforts, especially if interpretation of those efforts is left to parties hostile to those making the efforts, are very ineffective at changing behavior.
Efforts can be violent or non-violent. In a lot of situations it is easier to sustain non-violent efforts, and easier to issue explanations of non-violent behavior.
On the other hand if non-violent efforts are closed off, violent efforts are, of course, more effective than no efforts at all.
I’m not being sentimental in writing this. Gandhi is one example, there are others, violent and non-violent. You will not find an example of imperialistic behavior changing without a sustained and continuous campaign against it, aimed at parties that are necessary for its continuation but that are not the direct beneficiaries of that imperialistic behavior.
9/11, for example, would not change US behavior in the Middle East because it only happened once. If some group was to have the capacity to orchestrate a 9/11 every month and was able to explain clearly what behaviors it was intending to stop – not vaguely “get out of the Middle East” but specifically “stop giving military and intelligence support to subject dictatorships in these countries and opposing the rights of the Palestinians including the refugees” – then that group would ultimately get the US to meet its demands.
But that capacity is very difficult to attain.
If a group could non-violently stage protests that slow transportation in the downtown area of major US cities every month that group, with the same specific explanations of what it wants, that group also would ultimately get the US to meet its demands.
I don’t think violent or non-violent efforts against Israel itself would change Israel’s behavior. Israel believes the historic fate of Jews depends on there being a Jewish state, on the refugees never being able to return and on the region being ruled permanently by pro-Zionist stooges as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE are today or sanctioned and punished as Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran are today as pressure on those areas to accept stooge leadership.
US policy in the Middle East is much more important to Israel than it is to the US.
About war, that would probably ultimately work also – if the US during the war were getting the message that the reason Iran is killing US soldiers is because Iran will not accept the kind of stooge dictatorship the US has imposed on its colonies in the region on Israel’s behalf. If that message is not transmitted at least somewhat effectively, the US could lose a war and still not change its imperialistic behavior. Especially in the Middle East because war would not directly address the ability of Jewish Americans, the US’ most wealthy ethnic group, to shape US policy in Israel’s favor.
But war, if it works to change US imperialistic behavior, is a really expensive way to accomplish that. Many, many more Iranians will die than Americans. War is not something to want. If the objective is to get the US to accept independent nations in Israel’s region then that objective can only be accomplished with sustained violent or non-violent action accompanied by clearly stated specific demands. War is just one example, and not the best example, of sustained violent or non-violent actions toward that end.
You know Sarah Palin did not write that op=ed. More likely to have been Bill Kristol or David Frum, Krauthammer. This woman is a tool of the neocons without doubt. She spewed the lines out of Wikileaks that Jeffrey Goldberg focused on when he was the only guest on NPR’s Robert Siegels All Things Considered just after the most recent Wikileaks dump. Robert Siegel chose Goldberg of all people to be his only guest on Iran than evening. Aye yi yi.
Palin is a nutcase. Wants to protect her cubs while eating your cubs and while she is at it take out a bunch of Iranian cubs.
By the way a note to men….she is not going to screw you. But given the chance would screw the country and the best of the world as best she can.
The Republicans added another g to their guns, god, gay approach….gonads
bussed in basiji — “Your naivety is literally killing us.”
two videos that support several of your key points:
1. that the political process — voting, chosing this party rather than that party — offers NO solution whatsoever; the rot is too pervasive in the American soul:
Chris Hedges, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYCvSntOI5s
Hedges details how the moral rot has spread to all institutions of American culture — media/journalism, the universities, and most especially, the churches. (this afternoon Pat Robertson’s 700 Club will feature an appearance by that Iranian-in-a-surgical-mask who claims he spied on Iran for CIA.
2. re your point that “The only thing that will purge imperialism from the American soul is America getting its ass kicked in a major war. ”
Norman Finkelstein made the same prescription for Israel: The only thing that will “bring Israel to its senses” is a devastating defeat. Finkelstein said that Israel’s military is as strong and hubristic as was Germany’s army in WWII. Having been soundly defeated, Germany today is “the most morally conscious state in Europe.”
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyDrP2EsYGo&feature=related
I would argue with several of Finkelstein’s assertions, but his fundamental point, that Israel needs to suffer a major defeat, is sound; my contentions re the details are another story for another day.
Binam
On Ashura which is a holiday, there is a very large ceremony carried out at the University of Tehran for all students. Contrary to what you claim most students are definitely not green. In fact, only a minority of people like you and Scott Lucas are green.
M. Ali,
Even the regime admits that the university students are majority Green. Have you seen how Ahmadinejad and his gang are received on college campuses when they actually announce their arrival? Did you see his reception at Amir Kabir or Elm o Sanat? Have you ever been on Tehran University campus? Students and student leaders – people like Majid Tavakoli – who don’t come from rich backgrounds are very passionately against this regime.
And what about the attacks on TU student dormitories? Were those basijis and police officers Israeli and American agents too? The very same attacks that was first denied. Then the Leader came out and said people who are behind these attacks must be brought to justice, they certainly weren’t one of us. Then the video was leaked – Basijis and groups connected to the Leader were in fact the attackers. And what became of them? Were they brought to justice? Were those students not Iranian? Were they agents of foreign powers?
So when someone claims their daughter is a student at TU and implies students are very pro-government and pro-regime one cannot help but to find it laughable.
Regarding the actual subject of this thread:
I’m glad that the Leveretts are finally addressing the heart of the matter- the American republic, its current state and its future.
Prof. Mearsheimer, Sen. Rand Paul, Pat Buchanan or other conservatives (paleo, neo, without prefix, tea partist, libertarian) are not going to be able to change the imperialist consensus among US elites. The reason is that imperialism- liberal or conservative- is an essential element of modern American identity.
The only thing that will purge imperialism from the American soul is America getting its ass kicked in a major war.
For a moment after Vietnam, it looked liked it might happen, but then GE spokesman Ronald Reagan rode in to reassure Americans that they are chosen people, exceptional and thus uniquely and exclusively allowed to rule the world.
As I have repeatedly said, the most important effect of an American-Israel attack on Iran will be the end of America as we know it. There is very little Sen. Paul, Tea Party, Leveretts, Mearsheimer,Buchanan will be able to do about it.
In terms of a real solution to this fundamental crisis of the American republic, I believe that it does not lie on the federal political level because of the complete takeover of the parties by money interests and Zionists. A real solution lies at the state level and a reassertion of power on a state level and a diminishing of the power of the federal government. This issue is beyond liberal and conservative.
Having lived in the US for many years in various locations and neighborhoods, I can tell you that I can understand if a young person in the US feels attracted to one of these militia movements. There’s a real sense of powerlessness.
There is no hope in the federal political system and these sham elections (talk about sham elections!)- neither Republican nor Democrat- the power of the federal government has to be reduced through peaceful means, and if that does not work within a reasonbale time (let’s say ten years) then the militant option has tobe applied.
And all you good hearted liberals and progressive, spare us your Gandhi speeches, the only thing the your non-voilence has brought the world in the last thirty years has been death and destruction around the world at the hands of your “democratically” elected governments. Your naivety is literally killing us.
M.Ali, Voice of Tehran, et al:
First of all, VoT, I would like to thank you for your high praise; undeserved, I’m sure, but flattering nonetheless :o) (for those who missed it, here it is [shameless plug alert]: “To be honest I miss the comments of Unknown Unknowns on this subject , a very deep thinking person with exceptional thoughts..”)
It is just that I do not have that much (worth saying) to add to the conversations here, and not that I have stopped frequenting the site, which is still where I consider “home” when it comes to issues relating to Iran and her foreign policy.
With regard to the issue of media bias, fyi is, as usual, on the money in the way he sees and frames the issue: it is not the case where there is one paradigm within which a certain ['desireable'] “objectivity” has (for whatever reason) been lost in the case of Iran. The reality is that there are actually multiple paradigms, each with their own ethical beliefs and norms, each vying with the other for space and dominance like trees in a forest vying for light, using propaganda and agitprop as intellectual tools, in addition to vying in other media (diplomatic, economic, military, etc.). And so we have the dominant order on the one hand, and other nations (“peoples”), cultures and movements on the other (Iran as the vanguard of the Khomeinist Islamic movement, Venezuela playing a similar role for Latin America’s neo-Bolivarian movement, Maoist China rising, etc.) This is the whole tension between those who favor a unipolar world (under Anglo-American tutelage; the so-called “international” community) and those who see the alternate reality of multipolarity.
In philosophical terms, the dichotomy is expressed in terms of a monist ontology -on the one hand – being the basis of a monist or universalist or absolute axiology – a system of ethics that the Rationalists and *philosophes* of the Enlightenment project subscribed to, wherein it was believed that what is right for a Parisian of the 18th century must necessarily be right for a, say, Chinaman of the not just 18th, but also the 21st. and every other century. Ethical norms, in other words, were held to be eternal as well as universal, in exactly the same way as that of the axiology of the Church and its Schoolmen, except that the metaphysical basis for teh ontology was replaced with some other “empirical” or “physical” substance; and, a pluralist ontology – on the other – being the basis of a pluralist axiology or ethical system, whereby different norms become ‘normative’ depending on the era, nation, culture, movement.
If we posit the monist/ pluralist dichotomy as a spectrum (call it the X axis), and the Irano-Shi’a/ Anglo-American dichotomy as another spectrum (call it the Y axis), and then interpose these two spectra on each other, we end up with the following four quadrants:
1. Monist/ Anglo-American (dominant paradigm)
2. Monist/ Irano-Shi’a (subverting)
3. Pluralist/ Anglo-American (synthetic, syncretic and synthesizing)
4. Pluralist/ Irano-Shi’a (traditional, itself now split between “quietists” and “immanentists”)
And so, there are people – who’s names will be withheld in order to protect the guilty, but whose initials begin with pak and binam, whose weltenshauung/ core beliefs/ orientation/ worldview places them squarely in the center of Quadrant 1. Within that quadrant, they fill niches which are called variously “Iranian-American” [note the juxtaposition of adjective and noun], “modern [minded]” Iranian, Progressive/ Worldly/ Green Iranian, etc. Again, all of these are niches within Quadrant 1, which is most accommodating to diversity, so long as its rigid core beliefs remain undisturbed.
I guess this is another way of repeating what I had said earlier, and I quote:
But for someone who’s visual horizon is delimited by the pitiful view afforded his ocular organs by virtue of the proximity of his olfactory organ to the tail-end of the alpha-dog (bestowing upon said organ ackluster shades of brown, among other earthtones), for such a one, it is useless to talk of another reality, as he literally cannot see beyond his nose.
And lest our erstwhile friend Scotty feel neglected of teh limelight, all I can share with you at this point is the image of a parallel procession that came to me as I was walking in the Ashura procession of our little village, patting my chest with the palm of my hand to the beat of the drum commemorating the third Imam’s sacrifice. So the image was of this other, smaller procession, made up of a bunch of malcontents (having traded their tashikis for some Jordache jeans), marching in parallel to the real procession. They too were patting their chests with their palms, but instead – I swear – were chanting “Ya Lucas, Mir Lucas… Ya Lucas, Mir Lucas!” Unbelievable.
M. Ali,
Very good what you said about AN being the REAL reformist , I see it exactly the same way and I am sure even his opponents admit to this fact..
I remember when AN first questioned the real events surrounding the Holocaust etc. , I was with an Arab friend in Dubai , a Syrian/Lebanese guy. He is very much ‘westernized’ , but he was positively surprised about AN and just told me , that this guy must have ‘testicles ‘ made of steel to make such statements , which no Arab leader would even dare to think about.
I confirmed his statement about the ‘ testicles ‘ and told him that his father was a ironsmith and made the strongest pair for his own son , with a very special alloying , unknown in recent history of Iran and the world……
M. Ali,
Which good news from Iran do you think EA has ignored in the last month?
S.
Pirouz,
“So, Scott, I take it you see yourself as an activist that sides with the 20% minority, against the 60% majority inside Iran that seek enhanced national security priorities and law enforcement efforts over those related to civil liberties.”
No, that is not correct.
I report on events which have included the detention of hundreds of people — including activists — without clear legal procedure and presentation of evidence since June 2009.
I report on national security, law enforcement, and civil liberies as these issues concern all Iranians.
S.
As long as you admit that you–a foreign citizen of a hostile power– are active in representing a minority interest inside Iran, then your activism can be seen in its proper light.
Binam, “If you daughter is in fact a student at Tehran University are anti-Ahmadinejad and pro-Green. Unless you start counting bussed-in-Basijis posing as student who don’t even know what street TU is located on!”
This is why the Greens lost in the elections and lost after the elections.
Once your side starts respecting the Iranian people and seeing them for who they actually are, then you might have a chance to gain their support. But if you don’t think they even exist, your side will continue loosing.
This is mainly why the Greens lost my support. If they had respected the will of the majority and then set up a 4 year plan to encourage them to move towards the Greens, I’d still be on their side. But if they see the majority as non-existent, and every opposition as either ignorant villagers that need the upper-class intellectual tehranis to decide for them or bussed-in-basijis or people who are in it only for the cookies, then I’m sorry, I don’t want such an undemocratic group of people to run Iran.
For all its faults, even the government respected the opposition better. It didn’t claim the 30% mousavi voters didn’t exist and they even respected their “Where is my vote?” wishes to do a partial recount, do an investigation, and try to engage the opposition leaders. When they were rebuffed (the opposition called for a re-election, what a fucking stupid idea!! It would turned Iranian democracy into Pakistani democracy), the government did damage control, to sustain the riots that were threatening the stability of the country, orchestrated by certain political elites that had been pushed away by Ahmadenijad’s government.
If you were honest, you’d know that majority of protesters were released after things quietened down. My friend’s friend was in one of the protests and he was in prison for only a week, and he was not traumatized when he came out as I would have expected given the reports. To him, it was an amusing memory.
Ring leaders and such were not released so soon, because they’d have come out, and stir up trouble again.
So, Scott, I take it you see yourself as an activist that sides with the 20% minority, against the 60% majority inside Iran that seek enhanced national security priorities and law enforcement efforts over those related to civil liberties.
As long as you admit that you–a foreign citizen of a hostile power– are active in representing a minority interest inside Iran, then your activism can be seen in its proper light.
VoT, which is why it is amusing when people like Binam et al talk about freedom of speech. Yes, why not let Iran give complete, unrestricted access of its internal media to the world so that when an Iranian family switches on the TV, it IRIB is sandwiched between 100 channels of “IRAN ON THE VERGE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS”, “IRAN ECONOMY COLLAPSING”, “GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL RAPES 8 YEAR OLD PRISONER WHILE SMILING”, “WHOLE COUNTRY ON STRIKE”, “OBAMA WANTS FRIENDSHIP WITH IRAN BUT AHMADENIJAD IS PISSING ON HIS OFFER”, “POLLS SUGGEST 99.9% OF IRANIANS HATE THEIR GOVERNMENTS AND THE 0.1% THAT DOES IS STUPID AND IS ONLY IN IT FOR THE SUNDEES AND COOKIES”.
When was the last time the media has EVER said anything good about Iran. And not just the major media, but most blogs. When was the last time Scott Lucas ever mentioned any good news out of Iran? Go read commentisfree from the Gaurdian and their Iranian commentators, read their articles, and see the kind of anti-Iranian bullshit they right, and see how they choose their authors (one of their Iranian authors is living in Israel).
And you know what? I think its about time the reformists stop using the “reformists” tag. Ahmadenijad in his 6 years has been more of a agent of reform for Iran than any reformist could ever dream of.
Today’s Blog results regarding Iran on Yahoo :
Iran – Blog Results
**Sanctions Are Hurting iran’s Regime, but Not Enough
Berlin — The Islamic Republic of iran’s economy is in disarray.
The Corner – Dec 20 09:20am
**Yes, iran has a nuclear weapons program
[Blog - by Elder of Ziyon] From the Daily Telegraph: iran is operating a worldwide recruitment network for nuclear scientists to lure them to the country to work on its nuclear weapons programme, officials have told the Daily …
Elder of Ziyon – Dec 22 10:45pm
**Palin: Don’t Let iran Go Nuclear
In a USA Today op-ed, Palin says that the U.S.
The Corner – Dec 21 08:48am.
A very sad and DICTATORIAL world we’re living in. The internet is entirely controlled by the News Mafia , we are right in the center of Orwell’s nightmares….
Pirouz_2,
“If indeed, Mr. Panahi, or anybody else has been arrested without any evidence pointing to a crime, and if they have been sentenced to jail without any evidence, then it must be condemned.”
Which is the case with at least hundreds of Iranians since June 2009. The position they took on the election — pro-Ahmadinejad, pro-Mousavi, pro-Karroubi — is irrelevant to the legal situation.
And, yes, many of the people I have mentioned in these discussions are “actually a real civil rights activist or a defender of human rights”.
S.
S.
Today’s ‘glorious ‘ top world news regarding Iran : ( on Yahoo )
**Iran’s opposition leaders are barred from leaving the country, a prominent conservative lawmaker said Saturday, hiking up the pressure on the reform movement.
Fox News – Dec 25 05:18am
**Iran opposition: ‘Dark future’ awaits the economy – AP via Yahoo! Finance
Opposition leaders can’t leave Iran – BigPond News
**Report: Iran opposition leaders are barred from leaving the country – Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune
all 53 news articles…
Since when are criminals allowed to leave a country ??……
Liz,
Making up stories about your daughter does not count as having your own perspective of things. If you daughter is in fact a student at Tehran University are anti-Ahmadinejad and pro-Green. Unless you start counting bussed-in-Basijis posing as student who don’t even know what street TU is located on! Like I said before, you have nothing of your own to add – just a mouthpiece for regime talking points.
Pirouz_2,
“If you see a 32-year-old goon, beating up a 10-year-old boy to death, not interfering IS TAKING THE GOON’ SIDE!”
You’re such a hypocrite. Who’s being sentimental now? First off, recall my original post regarding Palestinians – I said if Iran had the means to interfere in US internal affairs it would (and some would even argue it SHOULD) have, just as it’s interfering in the Palestinian conflict. I didn’t condone or condemn it, just said you can’t be FOR interference on one side and not the other. But what makes you a hypocrite is this: when the Leveretts ignore human rights abuses and political prisoners in Iran (ie. not take sides with the 10 year old boy) it is fair and sane policy making not based on sensationalism. But if one were to suggest Iran should not meddle in Palestinian affairs because it’s up to the Palestinians to defend themselves, all the sudden you’re all for meddling and taking sides with the 10 year old! I suppose next you’ll post pictures of bloodied Palestinian women and children – but protest if I were to post pictures of bloodied Iranian women and children. Which is it? Ham khoda ro mikhai ham khorma! Stop being such a hypocrite and stop being so paranoid and WEAK so as to immediately link slightest critics to your worst enemies.
Attacking police officers, ripping their clothes off, blinding them, murdering them, especially on Ashura when millions are participating in ceremonies throughout the city with their children, is not a sign of democratic opposition. My daughter was at the University of Tehran participating in a student ceremony for Imam Hossain and she along with thousands of other students were attacked at noon during prayer with stones by these ranting rioters. Mousavi should go to jail for making dishonest claims, being unprepared to go through a partial recount, and supporting violent rioters.
Binam:
“But another reason is that the hardliners in Iran do a fine job of playing the role of a bad guy – a scarecrow. No government has advanced Israeli policies in the region and the world better than Ahmadinejad’s government. As far as the Israeli/Palestinian issue is concerned we should be ashamed of how horribly we’ve lost the media war and how horribly we’ve failed at revealing the truths about the Palestinian oppression by the hands of Israelis.”
That is completely wrong. This is one of the Earth-is-flat kind of ideas which is supported only by the “weird” Iranian oppositions in their attempt to blindly curse on Ahmadinejad!
1) From 1956 to this day, the ONLY entity which has been able to MILITARILY (in fact in anyway) defeat Israel is Hezballah, and Hezballah has always been armed and trained by Iranians.
2)Israelies actually gave their full support to the green movement. And the green movement gave its full support the pro-Israeli policies and slogans (neither to Ghaza nor to Lebanon, my life is dedicated to Iran). The most formidable Israeli enemies are supported by the Ahmadinejad’s camp and had it been upto the reformists, Iran would recognize Israel, cut its relationship with Hezballah and Hamas and take a position very much along the lines of Egypt in relation to Israel.
Read anything from people such as Zeidabadi, Zibakalam, etc. and have one look at how people such as Caspian Makan behave and you will see the undeniable truth.
Israelies being happy about Ahmadinejad’s re-election is one of those absurd ideas that only some naive green supporters who really dont know anything even about the reformists could believe.
3)There is no way that Iran could win a media war against Israel, simply because the main stream western media is in the hands of the Israeli lobby! And that should not be our goal anyway. The correct way of putting Israelies into their place is EXACTLY what Iran has been doing! Give the Anti-ship missiles to Hezballah, so that they can put an Israeli corvette out of commision, give them the anti-tank weaponry so that they can destroy an entire Israeli tank column, and that will put Israel back in its place! Do compromises and thats a sure recipe for you to get Israelies attack you brazenly! The way forward is not through Shah-Soltan-Hosein (ie. Khatami) it is through a meaningful and independent foreign policy (ie. Ahmadinejad)
“That said, supporting one group over another regardless of if you’re right or not in doing it IS in fact interference. You can’t be FOR interference in one country and against interference in another. If you think Iran has the right to interfere in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, then you’re essentially saying it would be okay for US to interfere in Iranian affairs.”
If you see a 32-year-old goon, beating up a 10-year-old boy to death, not interfering IS TAKING THE GOON’ SIDE!
That is why no matter what your mouth says, the policies that you support are pro-Israeli, and that is why both West and Israel give their full support to you!
Binam’s statements “No government has advanced Israeli policies in the region and the world better than Ahmadinejad’s government. As far as the Israeli/Palestinian issue is concerned we should be ashamed of how horribly we’ve lost the media war and how horribly we’ve failed at revealing the truths about the Palestinian oppression by the hands of Israelis” are just profoundly ignorant. Are there many so lost that they think like this?
Israel is pushing hard to bomb Iran for Iran’s support of Hezbollah (primarily) and its (secondary) support to Hamas… how in God’s name, then, is that advancing Israeli policies? The only international leader speaking openly of the obligations to Palestinians is AN, hence his ridiculous characterization as Hitler.
You want an Iranian government like the government of Egypt or Jordan or the UAE… all pretence, no substance. You are the reason the Middle East is so defeated, absolutely no sense of the “secular democratic” (read: liberal) struggles of the first part of the twentieth century and how and why they failed.
I’m not sure if you want to go back to 1904 (سازمان فدائیان خلق ایران اکثریت) or 1921, but it’s 2011, and there’s much blood under the bridge.
Reza,
“I am saying that the conditions have to be right to promote human rights in Iran. If terrorists are blowing up mosques, then the security forces will apply harsh measures to counteract this. In such a situation, you can’t expect Swedish-style justice. Regions like Kurdistan and Baluchestan are effectively warzones.”
When will conditions be right? I don’t expect Swedish-style justice overnight – but at some point it has to start. It will never move towards that direction if we continue to believe that “inshallah vaghtesh mireseh” and do nothing about it. We shouldn’t lower our standards when it comes to Iran – that’s all I’m saying. We have a choice, to live in fear (of attacks by either foreign powers or home-grown separatist and terrorist groups) and justify oppresive actions of the IR or move forward with our eyes on the future. Be khoda Iran will be a stronger and more unified country if it stops ruling itself with fear. Here in the US they say everytime you get checked at the airport the terrorists have won. Every time you wrongfully end up on the no-fly list or have your phone tapped the terrorists have won… Same with Iran, every time people like Panahi, Tavakoli, Sotudeh go to prison the enemies of Iran have won. The terrorists have won. Now only if we find ways to tolerate genuine voices of opposition… There’s GOT to be a way.
Binam,
I am saying that the conditions have to be right to promote human rights in Iran. If terrorists are blowing up mosques, then the security forces will apply harsh measures to counteract this. In such a situation, you can’t expect Swedish-style justice. Regions like Kurdistan and Baluchestan are effectively warzones.
I never stated the Iranian police were saints. But I believe reports that the provocateurs of armed opposition groups were on the streets during the Ashura 2009
riots. I think most Iranians regarded the protests as a wilful desecration of a religious occasion by a bunch of hooligans who attacked police, set cars on fire and caused mayhem on the streets. If the police and Baseej retaliated, I can see why.
As a result of the chaos, hundreds of thousands later *peacefully* demonstrated against the rioters and this marked the beginning of the end for the the “Green movement” which has been in retreat ever since.
Reza,
Why lower our standards when dealing with our own country?
If I were in charge of policing I wouldn’t let things escalate to the point of radicalizing otherwise peaceful protesters. Simple as that. The police and the basij weren’t exactly saints on Ashura or days leading up to it. I was in fact in Tehran on Ashura and I did manage to make my way to Valiasr Sq. I arrived an hour after the basij had killed a couple of protesters. People were throwing stones at the Basij and the Basij were throwing stones back. It felt like a war zone. But everyone who was there was seeing blood – from young 15 year olds to old 70 year olds.
Pirouz_2
Israel is the biggest criminal state in the world. They are so blatantly in violation of all international laws and common sense and human decency that one wonders why is it so difficult to convince the world public opinion to be 100% against Israel and Israeli policies. One reason for this without a doubt is the powerful Israeli lobby in the US and their control of Western MSM. But another reason is that the hardliners in Iran do a fine job of playing the role of a bad guy – a scarecrow. No government has advanced Israeli policies in the region and the world better than Ahmadinejad’s government. As far as the Israeli/Palestinian issue is concerned we should be ashamed of how horribly we’ve lost the media war and how horribly we’ve failed at revealing the truths about the Palestinian oppression by the hands of Israelis.
That said, supporting one group over another regardless of if you’re right or not in doing it IS in fact interference. You can’t be FOR interference in one country and against interference in another. If you think Iran has the right to interfere in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, then you’re essentially saying it would be okay for US to interfere in Iranian affairs.
I don’t think anyone can expect Iran to have a human rights situation comparable to that of Switzerland. This is a country under constant threat of war, ethnic separatism and terrorism, foreign-backed subversion and a massive drugs trafficking industry.Until these problems are removed, I don’t see things improving.
Bi-nam is being unrealistic in his expectations. If he were in charge of policing the streets of Tehran during Ashura 2009, he would have a totally different view to the one he has now.
Iranian President, Dr. Mahmud Ahmadinejad, was in Istanbul on Thursday to attend the 11th ECO Summit. He also held meetings with Turkish President Erdogan and Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari. In a press conference afterwards he said: “Tehran currently enjoys good and close relations with countries in the Middle East region as well as the world…The culture of Iranian and Turkish nations maintains the capacity to clearly and efficiently meet the contemporary needs of mankind…. Sanctions have no effect on Iran’s programs….. I have repeatedly said and now too say explicitly that capitalists cannot solve the world problems. If they are really true and claim to be right, they could solve problems in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan….”
Lobby: ‘Turkey turning into Islamic state’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/lobby-turkey-turning-into-islamic-state/
James: It’s rather that the “new” Honduran government (American supported and chosen) permits and supports any number of violations which go beneath the MSM radar screen. Only Iran, apparently, is worth our attention.
Binam:
“Funding any one group over another is interference. Iran could raise awareness”
This is precisely why everyone sees you people as Israeli puppets. Next time people call you pro-Israeli, don’t object and deny. Be honest, acknowledge the fact that you are pro-Israeli and then defend your position.
Binam,
I agree that one can be sharply critical of the government of Iran, in a positive way, without trying to cause the sort of injury some of the “reformists” have been willing to risk. Why did the “reformers” interfere with the proposed TRR refueling deal last year?
Are you saying Iran should support the Palestinians but keep its profile lower to lessen the chances of an Israeli attack?
Humanist,
Bill Kristol and his team of warmongering neocons subverting the national secuirty interests of the American people in order to advance the insane “Greater Israel” programme, saw Palin as an ideal stooge. I think they were quite serious about getting her into the White House, but not necessarily in 2008. And John McCain was an idiot, frankly.
Castellio,
If Honduras gave significant support to the Palestinians and otherwise interfered with the insane “Greater Israel” project, US newspapers would be full of stories of civil rights abuses, etc etc etc taking place in Honduras.
Humanist: The idea is to control both parties. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Palin and Hillary Clinton are competing for the same funders for their presidential campaigns. And Obama is currently delivering very nicely…
How the world press treats civil rights in Honduras versus Iran.
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/hp051010.html
While reading Sarah Palin’s article (which is almost certainly written by a neocon or a neocon improviser?) I saw the repetition of MSM lies in an expanded exaggerated from.
Was this a contrived way by USA Today to get the reaction of its readers to neocon trumpeted big lies on Iran?
I read about 10 random pages of over700 comments. Nearly ALL of the commentators had ridiculed Ms Palin. What kind of conclusion one can draw from the whole thing? Contradicting ideas come to mind … some funny, some clever…..most overal tragic?.
Why?
Watch this video where Sarah Palin is getting exorcized
,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg
Then watch the following video from start to end. This one is probably the most comical (or blue) video on Ms Palin ever.
,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE2gE-VVjBI
What is going on in USA? We know Bill Kristol picked Palin as VP candidate for McCain . Was the goal of such a (clever?) selection ensuring Obama’s victory?
It seems often we even can’t (or don’t) see the tip of the political ice-bergs.
James,
“In your view, how is Iran “interfering” in Palestine? The US funds illegal colonies of Jewish settlers in the West Bank, contrary to international law. This has been going on for decades. Do you think the Iranian government should look the other way while this oppression continues?”
Funding any one group over another is interference. Iran could raise awareness. They shouldn’t look away, just as we shouldn’t look away when there’s oppression inside Iran – or anywhere else in the world for that matter. I don’t understand the concept of ignoring IRI’s oppression because others do it too. They should all be held accountable.
“I think most of those who post on this site favor a prosperous, stable Iran that is well-integrated into its region and the world at large. When there are numerous enemies of Iran trying to foment even more war and chaos in the Middle East, as part of a foolish effort to “protect” Israel, one can but question whether aiding the Iranophobes to slander Iran as part of their warmongering efforts, makes good sense.”
That is the challenge. To criticize the current government and force it to do less harm, more good without aiding the likes of neocons. If the neocons somehow managed to get a tight grip on power in the US and made someone like George W. Bush President for life, would you (a) speak out against them or (b) stay quiet because criticizing them would be aiding the likes of Al Qaida?!
fyi – Ha, ha, ha…..
You mean – “Journalism Vs Zionist ‘Jingoism’”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/journalism-vs-zionist-jingoism/
Scott Lucas
As you are a wealthy, non-Muslim, white American who is not a part of the anti-war movement, I can understand why you don’t see human rights violations in your country.
M.Ali says: December 25, 2010 at 2:11 pm
No reason to get excited about what Americans call yello journalism.
This is a species of propoganda.
You would not the press in US-EU Axis to publish material that contradicts a foolish and expensive policy, would you?
Remaining silent is the best; they can gloat over their supposed trunmph of their policy while, on the ground, they now have to scramble to provide fuel for Afghanistan.
M.Ali
You are an outstanding person. I like the way you characterize the realities in Iran and I share many common views with you , especially that we are now living in the same city. It is funny and accurate to the point , how you describe the Bazaaris . You are very right , they get richer and richer but never forget to complain about the ‘ Ozayeh Kharab ‘. See what fuzz they made this year , when the government forced them to pay adequate taxes and as a result they shut down the Bazaar for a few days to demonstrate their anger towards the tax authorities and finally got their will through.( and of course the foreign media reported every second of it , as if such things ONLY happen in Iran )
Now imagine that they paid just the ridiculous amount of Toman 1200 billion = 1.1 billion $ for their whole ‘ SENF ‘ countrywide for 1388 !! If you just count the wealth of a few of them , you end up in the 4 to 5 billion $ region , but this is the way it is and I hope that Ahmadinejad and his government get some justice into this weird system before they leave office.
I think there are hundreds of points , which I could mention , and which are amazing to know regarding Iran , especially if I make direct comparing with the system in Germany , which in reality has nothing to do with Iran . For sure I will find some good opportunities in the future.
By the way M.Ali , did you follow the unbelievable hype regarding Mehran Modiri’s ‘ Ghahveheh Talkh ‘ series . This is the first time , that a series is presented in the supermarkets on DVD every week countrywide , instead of broadcasting it on TV. Did you know that in the first 10 weeks they sold DVDs worth 500 billion Toman = 500 million $ . Some say it is the best selling DVD series in the history of TV , worldwide !!!
Why do we never hear such a news on Iran internationally , just as an alternative to the daily bullshit about Iran ? Why always the garbage regarding the green movement , stolen elections and all kind of other non-relevant matters. Karrubi said this , Moussavi said that , as if the people give a shit of what they say or don’t say , it is passe , gone , finished , get over it. Do we even know the opposition in Germany , France , Greece , Italy , UK etc.etc. , let alone the fact what they say or say not , why should Iran all of a sudden be the center of the world , where Sakineh is almost as known as Micheal Jackson , what a weird world we are living in : Jamiroquai “… , it’s a crazy world we’re living in … And now it’s virtual insanity. Forget your virtual reality ……”
As mentioned the Anti-Iran campaign is by far , by far the biggest targeted media campaign against a sovereign country in recent history and tens of billions $ are being allocated to show the darkest picture about Iran with the sole aim of Regime Change and to discourage the Iranians towards their country.
M. Ali – The bazari are generally against Ahmadinejad’s economic policies which mostly benefit the ‘have-not’ majority of the country. These ‘have-not’ are the backbone of Ahmadinejad’s ‘vote-pool’ and the true supporter of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Both Ayatullahs Khatami and Rafsajani were liked and supported by Bazaris for their Capitalist-style policies (The Iranian Wall Street, one can say). Both of them are wealthy themselves. In fact, Rafsjani family owns a big property in Toronto. The Bazaris were also the USrael-sponsored ‘Green Revolution’ and favored Mir-Mousavi who belongs to the upper-middle-class.
It’s quite hard for Iranian who have lived in luxury in the Arab Sheikhdoms or the West and were not in Iran to defend the country against the West-Iraq’s 8-year war cannot understand the odds against which the Islamic Republic have survived for the last 30 years.
Here is what I wrote just before the 2009 Election, which still applies:
There are no official political parties as the case is in other countries. The West has divided the Iranian political landscape into two blocks – Conservatives and Reformists – for its own pro-Israel imperialist agenda. The Conservatives are the ones’ who follow Imam Khomeini’s views of putting the interests of Muslim Ummah over Iran’s national interests – and the Reformists, while claiming to follow the ideas of Imam Khomeini – put Iran’s national interests over the interests of Muslim Ummah. The first block is in favour of supporting Islamic Resistance groups fighting foreign occupation forces around the Globe – while the later block is in favour of compromising with these forces for the national interests of Iran. For example, during the presidency of Reformist Ayatullah Khatami, the Islamic Revolution’s global vision was boxed into the nation-state and Shia-Sunni sectarianism. The trend was so bad that Hizb’Allah in Lebanon was urged to become a political party first and an Islamic resistance second. It was during that time when brother Abu Dharr coined the pharase – “Conservatives belongs to Imam Ali’s group while the Reformers are on the side of Emir Muwawiya”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/islamic-revolution-choice-2009/
Binam asks:
“Why do you hate on Iranians who DO try to ensure that their government fully respects the rights and legitimate freedoms of their country? Why are you against the moderates and the reformists? Are they not doing exactly that?! Or are you suggesting that doing so is aiding enemies of Iran? So what are Iranians to do? Sit home and shut their mouths and do nothing? What would you do?”
Because I suspect the motives of certain Iranians on this issue. I think many expatriates want to use human rights as a political and propaganda weapon: We saw this with the “Taraneh Mousavi” case (a complete hoax) and also with Sakineh Ashtiani. In both instances, the likes of Hadi Ghaemi and Mina Ahadi exploited reports coming out of Iran that were then used to whip up public hostility in the West towards Iran and distract attention from abuses elsewhere: the Western media gave comparatively little attention to the case of Teresa Lewis in Virginia.
There is no doubt that Dr. Ghaemi ,in particular, enjoys close ties to neocons in who support killing Iranian nuclear scientists and fomenting sectarian violence – his organization chooses not to speak out against any of this.
I am not saying one should be silent. I am all for people making information available or writing letters to officials calling for amnesties and pardons for political prisoners and to prevent the execution of such and such a person. But Iranians should be careful not to denigrate their own country, and its people, when criticizing their government’s judicial system.
Unfortunately, many Iranian opposition activists want to depict Iran as a living hell in order to please their western sponsors and allies.
Instead of acknowledging that it is the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East,
Israel and its supporters focus the world’s attention on imaginary threats from its regional rivals.
Rather than apologizing for their crimes against humanity—most notably, the dispossession and virtual imprisonment of the Palestinian people— Zionists arrogantly portray themselves as the defenders of humanity against Islamic aggression.
And instead of admitting that they lied about Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories, Iraqi yellowcake uranium from Niger, and Iraqi meetings in Prague, Zionist propagandists are busy concocting similarly brazen lies about Iran.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february112010/chutzpah_mc.php
VoT,
“You are right in your assessments , although I do not agree with you on all points. ”
I’d love it if you would challenge me in the points you don’t agree with. We’re both almost in the same situation, both Iranians that have largely lived our lives outside of Iran and coming back, shocked at the reality. I lived most of my life in Dubai, and its been now almost a year I’m in Tehran.
Iranians living here do complain a lot, but so do people everywhere, but for some reason, Iranian’s complaints are sometimes taken by people at face value as some sort of imbeding doom for the country. The bazaris are the best example. You will never ever find an Iranian bazari (anywhere) saying, “My business? its doing fantastic! Amazing! I’m so happy!”. 90% they will be complaining, and at best, they’ll be saying, “Alhamdurallah, I survive”. I come from a family of bazaris that have lived in Dubai for the last 3-4 decades, and since I was a child, I heard every member of my community complain, and taking at face value, you’d think the whole Iranian bazari community in Dubai was just about to go backrupt any second now, but every year, the same bazaris would get richer and richer…
After the downfall of USSR, the Dubai market was suddenly full of Russian money and bazaris were selling container loads faster than they could order from China. But not one of them said business is good, and while they now look back with nostalgia, you could get a good comment out of them in those days.
I think its some sort of weird bazari culture that they dont want to jinx it.
Mr. Lucas;
I think you misunderstood what I said in that comment. Let me explain it again:
In all countries, thousands and thousands of people are put in jail, and “I” (Pirouz) have not seen the evidence of their guilt, and I doubt that you have either.
If your problem is that why the Iranian judiciary has secret trials, then I am not sure if either Mr. Panahi’s or Mr. Baghi’s case was “secret”.
If indeed, Mr. Panahi, or anybody else has been arrested without any evidence pointing to a crime, and if they have been sentenced to jail without any evidence, then it must be condemned.
The problem is that I strongly suspect SOME of these people whom you defend are actually guilty. And at any rate guilty or not NONE of these people that you mention is actually a real civil rights activist or a defender of human rights (Their position on election 2009 gives them away).
Hi M.Ali
I enjoy your posts and also this time it is not different. You are right in your assessments , although I do not agree with you on all points. To be honest I miss the comments of Unknown Unknowns on this subject , a very deep thinking person with exceptional thoughts..
The media hype against Iran is by far the biggest and most expensive & intense campaigns in recent history and it would be worth evaluating the costs , energy & manpower , which the world ‘masters’ put into this ‘project’. They brought down communism the same way and in their endless greed they are trying to do the same with Iran and to a certain extend to China , Venezuela etc. and whoever stands in their way. To say it short , if they fail to break the neck of Iran , their whole new world order will collapse like a cheap ‘ KARTENHAUS ‘ , I see it as simple as that.
I lived almost my entire life in Germany and once I returned to Iran and saw the realities here , I was sad and angry at the same time , how the media can fool you and ‘drag’ you to wherever they want to.
Having also lived in South America and Far East , I think that I can make a reasonable assessments of the world affairs.
One thing is for sure , an American ruled and dominated world would the worst disaster , which could happen to mankind.
I just retuned from Dubai , where I was staying for 2 weeks. I always feel like vomiting , when I see all this Mc Donald’s , Dunking ‘ Doughnuts , Baskin Robin’s , Starbucks etc. etc. and this fake culture , which they want to impose on Iran and others as well , a disgusting thought.
Ignorant people like Binam , Pak and this paid story teller SL are ‘blind’ to see the realities , either they are just fools , or the are enemies of Iran. I should follow the advice of UU and ignore them completely,
How did Sting say in one of his songs : ” I was brought to my senses , I was blind now that I can see……”
James, I just read that article, and its better than the others, but look at the subtle ways, it puts Iran in a bad light. I’ll go through the article.
“The price of diesel fuel in Iran has risen dramatically as the government starts to implement a plan to remove subsidies on basic commodities.”
The reader already knows something is wrong. Risen DRAMATICALLY. Oh no!
“The move puts pressure on transport costs in a country heavily reliant on the fuel and raises fears of unrest.”
Two things of interest here. A country heavily reliant on the fuel? How many developing or developed countries exist today that does not depend heavily on fuel?
Look at this link:
http://earthtrendsdotwridotorg/searchable_db/results.php?years=2005-2005&variable_ID=788&theme=6&cID=2,3,4,6,7,9,10,11,13,14,16,17,20,23,24,25,26,27,28,31,32,33,37,38,39,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,50,53,54,55,56,58,59,60,62,63,66,68,70,72,73,76,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,98,99,100,101,103,104,107,108,109,111,114,117,122,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,134,135,137,138,139,140,141,143,144,145,146,147,149,151,152,156,157,160,161,162,165,166,167,170,173,174,175,177,178,179,180,182,183,184,185,187,188,189,190,191,192,194,195,199,204,205,218,238&ccID=0
Per capita, Iran’s Diesel usage is 228, higher than then the world average, but certainly lower than many major countries (US is more than double Iran’s, UK is more than Irans, so is Germany, France, Italy, and so on. So is Iran’s Gulf neighbours, with UAE and Qatar being 5 times Iran’s).
But what does the article seem to suggest? That this is somehow unique to Iran. Thats like, if food prices go up, an article saying, “A country heavily reliant on food”
The second part of the second throws in “public unrest”. So barely two sentences in, we know diesel prices have risen dramatically in a nation dependant heavily on diesel and this might cause public unrest.
“President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad announced cuts in subsidies on electricity and commodities such as petrol, diesel, gas and bread over the weekend. The plan had been delayed for nine months for concern over the public’s reaction.”
Is it official that the government delayed it because of concern over public reaction? If not, are we sure? As far as I know, that was never the reason. Such a project is HUGE and delays are not unexpected or surprising.
“The price of diesel jumped 2,100 per cent. The price of flour saw a 40-fold increase, while petrol costs rose fourfold.”
Instead of showing percentages, it would have been interesting and more honest to show actual price changes, so readers can compare the prices to their own life. This way, people just read percentages. If someone says, my electric bill jumped 800%, it sounds scary, but what if I said instead, I used to pay 1 dollar a month, but in future, I’ll have to pa y 8 dollars a month, readers will go. 8 dollars a month? That seems decent.
New prices for unsubsidized (that is, over the allocated amount) Diesel is 3500 rial, around 35 cents per litre. In US, its 80 cents per litre. European countries are at least double that. And UAE’s prices are double Irans.
“There were some unconfirmed reports on Monday that lorry drivers in Bandar Abbas, the country’s main port city in the south, and other big cities such as Mashhad, in the north-east, and Isfahan in the centre, gone on strike.”
Yeah, throw in unconfirmed reports, but hey, at least it said unconformied.
“Iran has paid large subsidies on basic commodities for decades, leading to unsustainable over-consumption and an inflated budget deficit. The latest figures by parliament’s research centre put the cost of energy subsidies at more than $50bn annually, about 32 per cent of which goes on diesel and 18 per cent on petrol.”
This is the only line so far that tries to show the other side of subsidies.
“Diesel could prove to be a thorny problem, partly because of its strategic importance to Iran.”
Again, it is shown as something unique to Iran.
“Most vehicles in the country run on the fuel and about 80 per cent of goods are transported by road.”
Again, is this different in other countries? What do most vehicles in other countries run on? If the figure for internal transport is 80% in Iran, how does it compare to other countries? I dont have the figures on hand, and I dont feel like researching, but I work in a logistics company, and I know that majority of the world’s transport, specially internally and between neighbours, is by land. EU is almost exclusily run on Land transport.
Okay, I’m tired of going through this one by one, but highlights to think about:
“cost of intercity bus journeys might rise by 125 per cent”
“international sanctions over the country’s nuclear programme.”
“Increasing the price of diesel will not only enormously affect transportation but industries such as electricity, as well as the agricultural and housing sectors,” said a former official.”
“populist Mr Ahmadi-Nejad”
“measures to guard against possible unrest.”
“State organisations in Tehran have been ordered to shut down an hour earlier until further notice because of “pollution”, although many believe the government is anxious to have the streets cleared before dark.”
“Iranians see cheap energy as their birthright”
” Attempts to ration petrol three years ago sparked public anger and about a dozen petrol stations were set on fire in Tehran.”
“concerned by the inflationary impact of the plan”
Those who think the late Richard Holbrooke played a key role in enlarging the looming disaster in Afghanistan should read Robert Scheer’s new piece: “Speaking Ill of ‘the Best and the Brightest’”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/speaking_ill_of_the_best_and_the_brightest20101221/
Pirouz_2,
“Thousands and thousands of Americans, Canadians, Germans, Seweds, French, British, etc etc….have been declared ‘guilty; by their corresponding country’s judicial system, and whose evidence of guilt I have not seen.”
Any case where this occurred — would you like to cite a specific one for consideration — should be roundly condemned as a violation of civil and human rights.
S.
Binam,
In your view, how is Iran “interfering” in Palestine? The US funds illegal colonies of Jewish settlers in the West Bank, contrary to international law. This has been going on for decades. Do you think the Iranian government should look the other way while this oppression continues?
Binam,
I think most of those who post on this site favor a prosperous, stable Iran that is well-integrated into its region and the world at large. When there are numerous enemies of Iran trying to foment even more war and chaos in the Middle East, as part of a foolish effort to “protect” Israel, one can but question whether aiding the Iranophobes to slander Iran as part of their warmongering efforts, makes good sense.
M.Ali,
How do you rate the report in the Financial Times (“Iran cuts send diesel price soaring”, Dec. 21st)? Najmeh Bozorgmehr usually does an good job, from what I understand.
Mr. Lucas:
“That statement applies not just to Panahi but to hundreds of Iranians in the post-election conflict, all of whom have been declared “guilty” by authorities without presentation of public evidence.”
It also applies to thousands and thousands of Americans, Canadians, Germans, Seweds, French, British, etc etc. who have been declared “guilty” by their corresponding country’s judicial system, and whose evidence of guilt I have not seen.
M.Ali
So, what else is new?
Here is an interesting challenge to anyone who is interested.
Do a search on Iran and subsidies in google news and see if any major western paper is reporting on the subsidies reform objectively. Instead if you do not know anything about Iran and base your opinions on these media, you’ll assume this is the biggest economical mistake Iran has ever done and its the beginning of the end of the government.
Binam
As another Iranian I can say that you know little about Iranian history if those are the only accounts you know of. Go read Kashani’s letter to Mosadegh just a day before his overthrow. To say he was paid off by anyone is absurd. Mosadegh made many mistakes, though, by assuming dictatorial powers (through taking over the authority of the judiciary and parliament) and driving off almost all his supporters.
And some of the actors behind the so-called ‘anti-regime’ roits in Iran….
On July 31, 2009 – three American Jews were arrested for entering illegically into Iran from the US-Israel protected Iraq’s northern Kurdish region. The three arrested were identified as Shane Bauer 28 (Sarah’s boyfriend), Josh Fattal 28 and Sarah Shourd 31. According to the King 5 News (Seattle), the fourth member of the group, University of Washington PhD student Shon Meckfessel escaped arrest because he did not go for ‘hiking’ and stayed at the hotel. All four are Jewish and US citizen. All four are writers and their articles have appeared in ‘The Jewish Week’ and the ‘New America Media’……
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/espionage-%E2%80%93-the-%E2%80%98innocent-agents%E2%80%99/
Binam,
The riots were very shameful. The rioters blinded people, attacked the police, destroyed private and public property, terrorized mourners, ripped the clothes off people, beat police officers,…and ultimately brought about the final collapse of the so called green movement, which became clear in the historic Day 9 rallies held throughout the country.
I.r.a.n.i.a.n.
Can’t let you hijack “Iranian” because you’re just one Iranian and certainly don’t represent all Iranians.
Kashani was one of the people who was paid by the CIA. Read any accounts of Operation Ajax and the people Roosevelt paid off.
Shameful Ashura riots?! You mean running people over with police cars and shooting them dead right? Because yes, it’s very shameful indeed.
Binam
Even your knowledge of Iranian history and the role Kashani played is warped.
Scott Lucas
Yes, in fact, in the Mousavi campaign.
Those arrested were behind the violent riots in Tehran or participants in them. We are now near the anniversary of the shameless Ashura riots.
Re Pirouz’s comment: “I don’t know what sort of a person Mr. Panahi is. And until I see the detailed charges against him, and some sort of evidence, I cannot say if he is guilty or not.”
That statement applies not just to Panahi but to hundreds of Iranians in the post-election conflict, all of whom have been declared “guilty” by authorities without presentation of public evidence.
Iranian,
“Mohammad Reza [Beheshti] is currently at the University of Tehran and he is more important than his brother.”
Not in the Mousavi campaign….
S.
Reza,
““The United States and its allies have no moral justification to lecture Iran on human rights considering their own deeply regretful behavior on the subject. It is up to Iranians, and only Iranians, to ensure that their government fully respects the rights and legitimate freedoms of its own citizenry – always.””
Agreed. But, Einstein, why do you hate on Iranians who DO try to ensure that their government fully respects the rights and legitimate freedoms of their country? Why are you against the moderates and the reformists? Are they not doing exactly that?! Or are you suggesting that doing so is aiding enemies of Iran? So what are Iranians to do? Sit home and shut their mouths and do nothing? What would you do?
Dan Cooper,
“It is America, which does not leave Iran alone and not vice versa.”
It’s really a love and hate relationship. GOVERNMENTS of both countries don’t leave each other alone.
“It is America, which is interfering in the internal affairs of Iran and not vice versa.”
If Iran had the means to it would indeed interfere. Just as its interfering in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine and even countries like Armenia!
“It was America, which destroyed Iran’s democratically elected government back in 1953 and killed thousands of innocent Iranians and not vice versa.”
Yes, it’s an evil thing that the US did back then. But that doesn’t mean Iranians can no longer criticize future governments that they MAY find oppressive. And don’t forget, it was also the clerics lead by Ayatollah Kashani that let it happen. Are we then to hold every Ayatollah who came after 1953 accountable for toppling of Mosadegh’s regime?
“You are continuously digging dirt to paint a picture that whatever the Islamic republic does in Iran is evil.”
Not whatever it does; I point out the wrongdoings of the IR which you comfortably ignore. I’m doing exactly what you’re doing only from the Iranian point of view. You criticize the American government’s actions (and rightfully so), and I criticize the Iranian government’s actions. I acknowledge wrongdoings of the American government whereas you seem to get offended if I were to suggest the current Iranian government is up to no good.
“Do not let your ideological and emotional agendas blind you from reality.”
The way I see it prisons filled with political prisoners is as much part of the reality as anything else. Drawing attention to Gitmo when discussing American hypocrisy and flawed foreign policy wouldn’t be letting ideological and emotional agendas blinding us, so why should drawing attention to Kahrizak and Evin be?
Try not lose your temper Dan Cooper.
Binam:
“Why can’t an Iranian say “It is laughable when our government with its own atrocious human’s right record uses the notion of human rights to demonize the United States.”?
Because, genius, that can be seen as denigrating one’s own country whilst almost being supportive of its present enemies. That attitude appears unpatriotic.
Here is how I would put it:
“The United States and its allies have no moral justification to lecture Iran on human rights considering their own deeply regretful behavior on the subject. It is up to Iranians, and only Iranians, to ensure that their government fully respects the rights and legitimate freedoms of its own citizenry – always.”
Binam
Your whole objective in this forum is to exploit and manipulate people’s posts to demonize the Islamic republic. This is clearly obvious in your reply to my post; you manipulated my statement to demonise the IR.
What you fail to understand is this: America is the perpetrator of the crime and Iran is the victim.
It is America, which does not leave Iran alone and not vice versa.
It is America, which is interfering in the internal affairs of Iran and not vice versa.
It was America, which destroyed Iran’s democratically elected government back in 1953 and killed thousands of innocent Iranians and not vice versa.
It was this background, which prompted me to write:
“It is laughable when our government with its own atrocious human’s right record uses the notion of human rights to demonize the Islamic Republic”.
I suggest you read my post of December 24, 2010 at 5:08 pm once more.
If you engage in an honest and constructive manner, people in this forum would respect you more, irrespective of whether you support the IR or oppose them.
You are continuously digging dirt to paint a picture that whatever the Islamic republic does in Iran is evil.
Do not let your ideological and emotional agendas blind you from reality.
So folks – in response to FAIR magazine’s 2008 list of the Dirty Dozen Islamophobes, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has unveiled the name of the people who made the top ten anti-Semitic slurs in 2010.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/top-ten-anti-semitic-slurs-2010/
“How does being completely one-sided helping them clean the mess? They lose credibility by not addressing the human rights issue. They could very well acknowledge it and then say “but our human rights record in the US is much worse” then proceed to ask for a dialogue. Right now they appear to be friends of the hardliners in power.”
You seemed to ignore most of my points. I showed you that there is a picture painted of Iran (that does not represent the truth) and that is interfering with having a real, objective, honest political debate regarding Iran. The Leveretts try to push some of that unnecessary noise back and concentrate on the real issue at hand. The human rights issue has nothing AT ALL to do with the Leverrett’s aim, of encourging dipolamtic talks and diplomatic solution to the two countries.
Discussions should be productive and focused. I can discuss Iran’s human rights issues at the right time, at the time place, on the right topic. But to be honest, with a realistic and objective discussion, which I doubt can be had, in today’s sensanalist, head-line generated, slogan-dominated generation. If I try to engage you in discussions, and I talk about limitations, boundaries, and relativity of freedom, can you engage in such a discussion, or are you going to just snort, and mock it, living in a constructed illusion that you think freedom has no boundaries and the “right” of everyone.
“If Ahmadinejad was in power in 2003 it is very likely that Bush would have attacked Iran and not Iraq.”
If Ahmadinejad was in power, Iran’s situation could possibly have been better. Looking back, we realize that Khatami spoiled the US. He showed that Iran was willing to take step backs without any gaurantees. He voluntary took on the extra protocols for the nuclear program, which meant that once you decide to stop doingh the voluntary action later on, Iran became the bad guy. Or temporary stopping the nuclear activities, just went to show the west, that Iran would listen to enough pressure, and they didn’t have to do much after it was stopped. And Iran’s assistance with USA over Afghanistan, showed that Iran would jump at the beck and call of American might, just by asking them, and without willing to give anything back to Iran.
Khatami spoiled the west.
“He could not build the case against Iran because Khatami wasn’t letting him paint an evil picture of Iran. In fact, when he included Iran as part of an axis of evil he was mocked and it backfired.”
Sorry, how was it backfired? He lumped with two other nations that US considered “evil”. After the attack on Iraq, anti-Bush opposition parties said the mistake was instead of concentrating on Iraq, he should have concentrated on Iran!
But luckily for Iran, we didn’t have an extremist fanatic Hidden-Imam worshipping President who would pave the way for an attack every time he opened his mouth!”
The only thing that saved Iran from an attack was not Khatami, but the fact that they got stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it was more expensive and complex than they predicted.
“We ARE faced with garbage on Iran, but most the times our so-called President feeds them the garbage! Which is why we have to cringe every time we see him on the world stage.”
Who is “we”? Is “we”, the 60% that voted him in for the second time?
“Sadly there’s probably some truth to that statement. But I dream of a day that making good movies is a best career move for filmmakers in Iran – not being arrested, jailed or having your films banned.”
Internationally acclaimed Iranian directors make their careers in Iran. Unfortunately, some (very few, but some still exist), once they have built a decent portfolio decide to garner more attention, but appealing to western sentiments. Both Kiarostami and Makhmalbaf’s best and most acclaimed films were done in Iran. Now they have moved their films to the west, but could they have strated off making their movies in American and Europe back in the early days of their career, under the IRI?
edit:
AGREED, Arnold Evans . . .
greed, Arnold Evans; that a Norwegian newspaper has the entire cache but will make use of the wikileaks documents in its own way, is not quite the same as, “The entire database is 100% available for scrutiny, throughout the world.”
Perhaps I read too many spy novels.
I suspect Norway’s possession of the entire database is Julian Assange’s insurance policy — like the situation where the Hunted mails the smoking gun, which bears the Hunter’s fingerprints, to the county prosecutor, with instructions to open it should X, Y, or Z occur.
As long as Norway possesses the equivalent of Israel’s nuclear ambiguity — Wikileaks ambiguity? — Assange possesses a deterrent against harm befalling him.
Binam
Iranians are satisfied with their political system and its freedoms and people in western countries should learn to live with that. Human rights in the US are violated regularly (the thread is full of examples that some don’t want to see) and the rights of human beings throughout the world are violated in the worst possible way by the American government.
Imagine if Gandhi sat at home and thought “well the British are oppressing my people, but who isn’t in this world, why bother ending colonialism. There are countries that are worst off and India is no exception. So I’m just going to sit home and mind my own business and let things take their natural course.” Because that’s what a lot of you folks sound like – why bother bring up human rights violations in Iran or speak out against oppression by the hands if the IR if there are other countries in the world who are doing it? Let us assume US is the biggest human rights violator in the history of the world, does that justify turning our backs on Iran’s human rights violations?
Dan Cooper
“It is laughable when our government with its own atrocious human’s right record uses the notion of human rights to demonize the Islamic republic.”
You say this as an American. Don’t Iranians reserve the right to say it as Iranians? Why can’t an Iranian say “It is laughable when our government with its own atrocious human’s right record uses the notion of human rights to demonize the United States.” Or do you think the Iranians are worth less than the Americans and should not have the same rights? The thing is you can write articles and publish them with this as your thesis, but in Iran no one can say such a thing. Heck, it seems I can’t even say this on this forum without people calling me names!
M.Ali
“This is why what the Leverretts are doing is unique and they don’t waste their time with retracting the same old propaganda. they are just two people trying to clean the mess, before they can even attempt a serious discussion. ”
How does being completely one-sided helping them clean the mess? They lose credibility by not addressing the human rights issue. They could very well acknowledge it and then say “but our human rights record in the US is much worse” then proceed to ask for a dialogue. Right now they appear to be friends of the hardliners in power.
“And if people here are so passionately try to defend Iran, is because we are faced with such garbage, such a concentrated attack on Iran.”
If Ahmadinejad was in power in 2003 it is very likely that Bush would have attacked Iran and not Iraq. He could not build the case against Iran because Khatami wasn’t letting him paint an evil picture of Iran. In fact, when he included Iran as part of an axis of evil he was mocked and it backfired. But luckily for Iran, we didn’t have an extremist fanatic Hidden-Imam worshipping President who would pave the way for an attack every time he opened his mouth! We ARE faced with garbage on Iran, but most the times our so-called President feeds them the garbage! Which is why we have to cringe every time we see him on the world stage.
“Being arrested by the IRI is the best career move any journalist, lawyer, or artist can get.”
Sadly there’s probably some truth to that statement. But I dream of a day that making good movies is a best career move for filmmakers in Iran – not being arrested, jailed or having your films banned.
M.Ali,
Ahmadinejad deserved credit for handling the situation rather well, and it is ironic that Bollinger actually intended to foster discussion in order to help Ahmadinajad do what he came to do. But Bollinger was intimidated by the threats, and buckled.
The news reporters were utterly incompetent. The real story ought to have been why rich, powerful Jews in New York would want to suppress free speech.
The Leveretts are quite right to see the irony in expecting some of the most effective criticism of Obama’s Middle East foreign policy to come from “true Conservative” Republicans in the US Congress. And Sarah Palin is not a “true conservative” because she is a cheerleader for endless war and the subversion of the Republic to enable that programme to continue.
James, I’m still astonished at the disgraceful incident. The whole incident was reduced to “there are no gays in Iran”, even though it was obvious that the President did not say there are no actual homosexuals, but the culture of homosexuality is different in Iranian society. One would think such an idea could be easily understood by academic students, but it shows the sad state of today’s college students, that they have to be talked to in headlines and any substantial goes over their heads.
Sometimes I think that the problem of Ahmadenijad is he respects his audiences too much and tries to speak to them face to face with (well, some degree) of honesty.
Well, Eric, I will give Binam the satisfaction of not taking Panahi’s side. While I don’t filmmakers should be put in prisoners for making just any films, I do think during turbulent times, the government has to make difficult decisions, and one of them is restricting attempts that could harm the national interest.
Imagine a British director making pro-Nazi films during the war, or if you will, right before the war. If Panahi was making an anti-governmental film, it would have been quickly adapted by the western media, won all kinds of international awards, shown at all kinds of festivals and TV stations, and would have done a lot at illegitimatizing the government, caused damage to the democratic stability of a country, encouraged additional pressures on Iran, and been another tool in paving the way for more sanctions, isolation, propagapanda, and eventual war against Iran. Every country controls the flow of information to meet its nation’s needs. Iran has to take drastic actions.
The less the risk to a nation’s interest, the more freedom people can exercise. That is why Panahi was not arrested before the elections. In times of real political crisis (that endangers a nation with threats of war), give me one country that does not restrict flow of information, through different ways (some have to resort to arrests, others assassinate, others expel, others ban, others use close connections with corporations to cut funding, restrict access to venues, strong media campaign to offset any possible harm the information could present, and so forth).
There is a vibrant Iranian film industry and has existed since the revolution. I have a so-and-so feeling towards Panahi’s films (I loved Offside, but the rest not so much, as far as I remember, but post-election situation in Iran was critical, and given the looming threat of war and minority coupe, it has to take precautions. I am confident once the threat goes away, Panahi will be released and the ban lifted. Iran gives out a lot of sentences, but they are usually reduced drastically. I doubt Panahi will stay in jail anywhere even close to 6 years. And its doubtful, his ban on filmmaking will matter. He is now a western superstar because of his arrest. He’ll be on the first flight to America and Europe, and probably be lavished with hundreds of expensive projects. Being arrested by the IRI is the best career move any journalist, lawyer, or artist can get.
M. Ali,
Yes, and Lee Bollinger is the name of the foolish and appallingly rude president of Columbia of University who grovelled before the rich Jews who objected to Ahmadinajad’s appearance on campus and made threats.
M. Ali,
It was the president of Columbia University who was so appallingly rude to Ahamdinejad a few years ago. After inviting the Iranian president to speak on campus, during a visit to New York in which the object of the Iranian president was to extend a hand of friendship toward the American people. So, surprise, surprise! Rich Jews raised hell, and made threats, and Bollinger responded by virtually wrecking the apprearance of Ahmadinejad. And idiot US news media forcused on the issue of homosexuality and ignored entirely the purpose of the Iranian president’s visit! Horses’s asses, to be sure!
Binam,
You treat this “admission” as some accomplishment, but it’s nothing of the sort. I doubt there are many people, if any, who post on this website who feel that film-makers should be thrown in prison for making films. And I certainly have no reason to doubt that the Leveretts are different from most of us. You insult and annoy people by suggesting otherwise.
Fio:
So, from your link, the Norwegian organization that has the cables now is not, in any real way, releasing them at all. As far as the public is concerned, as far as any person, party or organization independent of major Western news organizations and/or not in communication with the US government is concerned, there has been no cablegate release.
“We have been publishing five articles every day both on print and on our website, and we will continue to do that,” Almlid added, stressing that Aftenposten would not make all documents available online, but that a cable could be partially published to go with an article.
Does anyone have information about Bradley Manning? Who is being held in at least 23 hour per day solitary confinement as a form of psychological torture?
Can someone produce what charges he is being held under by the United States government?
http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/12/20/glenn-greenwald-29/
I don’t know what sort of a person Mr. Panahi is. And until I see the detailed charges against him, and some sort of evidence, I cannot say if he is guilty or not.
One thing is for sure, being a ‘film maker’ does not make you cleared of any charges. Simply because you are a jailed film maker does not mean that you are innocent or that your arrest means a violence against ‘expression of opinion’.
The best example would be: Mr. Mohsen Makhmalbaf. He is one of the chief actors behind propagating (in close cooperation with the West)the brazen and shamful lie regarding the alleged letter from the ministry of interior to Khamenei, talking explicitely about how they have manipulated the vote count and have brought Ahmadinejad from the third place upto being the first.
Mr. Makhmalbaf is a liar and must be investigated and if ‘necessary’ (ie. if solid evidence is found) be put to jail for a good long time.
So as you can see being a film maker does not make you a saint and putting some film makers in jail does not necessarily violate human rights, on the contrary in some cases it may even actually protect the human rights!!
The people are so blind sometimes, that it really makes one cynical.
I remember the bombs that were dropped on Afghanistan. One of the bombs had graffiti painted on it by a soldier. It said, “Hijack this fags!”
And there was an outcry at using a gay slur by the media and the army had to apologize. This is the kind of surreal, PR-dominated, Orwellian world we live in. Dropping bombs on people has become so normal, so insignificant, so routine, that it does not disturb people, unless you don’t discriminate against the gays while doing it. Its fine to kill thousands of people, but make sure not to write bad words on the rockets.
Scott Lucas
You confuse the two. Mohammad Reza is currently at the University of Tehran and he is more important than his brother.
Binam, I’m mentioned this before, but context is everything. There are controversial human rights violations in every single country in the world, as there are other problems, such as employment, crime, governmental mismanagement ,poverty, discrimination, and so forth. Every nation has this, but whats important is to what purpose are these being discussed, in what context, and if there is any agenda behind it.
The Leverretts do not need to discuss the internal issues regarding human rights, because it has nothing to do with their aim of US-Iran diplomacy. If they ever discuss such things such as the elections, it is only to push much the avalanche of unnecessary propaganda that others bring forward, that only muddy the discussion.
Instead of fostering an environment of realistic and logical discussions regarding international policies of different countries, various groups and individuals insist on using certain aspects to make discussing the topic unnecessarily complicated and distracting.
With Iran, when it comes to US-Iran discussion, anti-Iranian agents have, for the past few years, presented this image of Iran:
An Islamic extreme fundamentalist anti-freedom/western/modern mullocracy/dictatorship of suicidal, holocaust-denying, anti-semitic government full of corrupt thugs that rape and torture prisoners (sorry, innocent, courageous activists) on a good day & support terrorism all around the world, kill gays, stone women, prosecute minorities, and oppress their people, whose majority are freedom-loving, jeans-wearing, techy-savy, just-like-you-and-I people who only want the same freedoms and opportunity every person in the world has, but they can’t because their illegal and illegitimate is there by force and through fraudulence election that is running the country through the ground, causing high inflation, high unemployment, and causing themselves to be isolated and sanctioned by the International Community, but they don’t care since they are willing to go on a dangerous and expensive insane adventure of acquiring nuclear weapons, at the cost of lowering the standard of living of their people, so that they can get the weapons and first strike at Israel, and the mutual assured destruction does not discourage them since their aim is to bring about the end of the world and therefore their messiah, Mahdi.
When such a carefully constructed image is created of Iran through the last 30 years, how do you think a serious discussion about Iran can ever be had? How many politicians in US or other EU countries are willing to risk their career and people’s votes to defend a country that is painted like that? Not only politicians, but celebrities, intellectuals, and journalists. This is why there is no strong governmental censorship in US. Through concentrated media PR efforts and brainwashing, self-censorship and market-censorship is much more effective, because it gives the illusion of freedom and choice.
This is why what the Leverretts are doing is unique and they don’t waste their time with retracting the same old propaganda. they are just two people trying to clean the mess, before they can even attempt a serious discussion. But these two are unique because of their backgrounds, anyone else without their background would not even get a writing piece on any paper nor screen timing on any TV programme. And most people with a significant background will not risk their long-term career to put themselves in such a situation. You saw my description of Iran, who would want to be called defending that country and ever have a significant political career in the west?
By the way, saying, oh, I attack Iran’s human rights violations, but I’m anti-war is beside the point. Wars are not sold to the people by bluntly calling for war. Its on different front. There is usually two fronts. War sales on fear tactic (if don’t fight them, they will eventually kill you) or humanity factor (we need to rescue their people). It does not happen overnight. After years of using this, not all people will be pro-war, but importantly, a lot will be APATHETIC towards it. The few that remain strongly anti-war will be insignificant, not understanding that their years of contributing to the humanity factor has encouraged many to either be pro-war or less anti-war, paving the road to destruction.
Take a look at the case of Sakineh. Is that anything else other than anti-Iranian propaganda? Obviously, not everyone campaigning for her is pro-war, but they do not understand how easily they have been manipulated part of the anti-Iranian narrative. Why should one murderess in a tiny village in a developing country in the middle east be so important to the world? Is this the only possible death that could occur in the world of 70 billion people? What is exactly so earth-shattering important about this one person that the media has to attach itself to, that campaigns have to pop up, that people have to wear her face on tshirts, that HALF A MILLION PEOPLE HAVE TO SIGN A PETITION AT A SITE CALLED FRFE SAKINEH (http://freesakineh.org/). Half a million people are asking for the release of someone charged with murdering her husband. Do you think all of this people are well-versed in Sakineh’s case? Do you think if we set them down, they could answer more than 2 questions about her case? I’ll bet my testicles that they don’t know, but they sign, because there is an image of Iran painted by a concentrated propaganda, so that people hear injustic, innocent, and Iran, and they know Iran is the bad guy and they are willing to sign anything. There is no reason to ask questions.
And if people here are so passionately try to defend Iran, is because we are faced with such garbage, such a concentrated attack on Iran, that Deans have to attack their guest (Colombian University a few years back, remember?) before they give a speech, a disgusting gesture of a person of highly intellectual and academic position insulting the President of a sovereign county after inviting him to talk at a university. This is the reality we are living in.
And I could really go on.
http://www.swedishwire.com/component/content/article/12-nordic/7843-norway-daily-has-all-250000-wikileaks-cables-
“Nordic – Published Thursday, 23 December 2010 20:02 | Author: AFP / The Swedish Wire
Norway daily has all 250,000 WikiLeaks cables
• WikiLeaks chief Assange fears US charges
• Transparency is not for individuals: Assange
OSLO (AFP) – A Norwegian daily that obtained all the 250,000 diplomatic cables WikiLeaks is slowly releasing will publish articles on them independently of the whistleblowing website’s strategy, its boss said Thursday. . . .”
Iranian
Re: your post December 24, 2010 at 4:07 pm to Binam
“Human rights abuses carried out by the US are far greater than any abuses in Iran.”
I could not agree more with your statement.
Perhaps the Scots, Binam and Paks of this world ought to understand and digest the reality of Iran’s situation in the world before exploiting its Human’s rights.
In regards to human rights and freedom in Iran, this is what I wrote in this forum a while ago.
In today’s Iran, security is paramount and much more important than civil rights.
If one understands the international politics and the world order, one can easily comprehend that Iran is in a very volatile and dangerous situation.
There are so many CIA and Mossad backed groups active in Iran as we speak,
There are powerful governments behind these groups.
“Dividing Iranian people”, “de-stabilizing its government”, “regime change” and
Establishment of a puppet government sympathetic to Israel and USA are their ultimate objective.
During the election Ahmadinejad gave freedom, people were expressing themselves freely in the streets of Tehran, there were televised presidential debates, such events were unprecedented in Iran’s political history.
We all witnessed how the oppositions misused this freedom and manipulated the electoral process with help and assistance of the entire western media.
The crackdown was absolutely necessary because the security of the entire country was at stake.
If the Iranian government gives too much freedom, these vulchers will pounce again as soon as they smell freedom.
It is laughable when our government with its own atrocious human’s right record uses the notion of human rights to demonize the Islamic republic.
Iran’s human right is not perfect but comparatively speaking is one of the best in the Middle East.
Even if Iran had one of the best secular democracies in the world but refused to recognize the criminal Zionist regime in Israel, the USA would have crippled it exactly the same way as it is trying to cripple the Islamic Republic now.
Remember what the USA and the Britain did to Iran’s only democracy back in 1953, they destroyed Mosadegh’s democratically elected government.
Jack wrote: “the right-wing christian are on the rise in the US, they are with the parties of israel the biggest threat to world peace.”
Right wing Christian groups have taken over the religious space in the US, displacing the old-line Christian denominations and the Roman Catholic church. I see an opportunity to engage a positive agenda, to educate and reactivate the main line churches, to call upon them to speak out in the name of Jesus.
In that regard, Chris Hedges is the Jeremiah of our age.
Wikileaks and Israel:
Assange says there are 3700 documents related to Israel and 2700 originating from Israel.
The graphic on the bottom of the cablegate page shows roughly 3000 documents originating from the Tel Aviv embassy, and over 2000 originating from the Jerusalem consulate.
http://213.251.145.96/cablegate.html
Did Assange misspeak? Am I reading the chart incorrectly?
Or are about 50% of the documents originating from Israel and some unknowable amount of the documents relating to Israel missing even from the documents Assange claims access to now?
The wikileaks decision to give exclusive releasing rights to organizations that Assange admits are unable to be objective regarding Israel – probably core of all of the US’ most important diplomatic disputes with the rest of the world – renders the entire “cablegate” release non-credible until the full release has been completed years from now, at the very least and I think likely never.
Every indication is that the world outside of the West nearly unanimously agrees with that assessment.
Source re Beheshti: http://www.zamaaneh.com/enzam/2010/04/mousavi-aides-suspended-f.html
Binam wrote: “They appear to have an agenda to legitimize and keep the hardliners in Iran in power. I hate to say it, but such an agenda can only be helping the likes of Israel.”
You seem to think the first sentence leads to the second. I don’t. Do others on this site? I doubt it, but really, you can try to make the case. How does your second sentence follow from the first… really?
Binam,
The Iranian government itself has acknowledged prison abuse at Kahrizak, the attacks on the Tehran student dormitory, the murder of intellectuals (in 1998) and many other violations of human rights. I don’t think anyone here, including Liz, is going to defend these things when the Iranian regime condemns the actions of its own officials. The Leveretts have also acknowledged these things – they just don’t choose to dwell on them but on the much bigger strategic questions and how Iran’s internal situation affects the chances of U.S-Iran rapprochement.
I don’t want to speak badly of the Leveretts, but they have contacts in Saudi Arabia who are linked to a regime which represses its citizens far more than Iran does. Their focus has never been on human rights – it if were they would be speaking out against relations with China – but on these important geostrategic matters.
I think some of us here feel the focus on human rights in Iran is unjustified given the abuses that take place in occupied Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and even in the United States itself.You probably think such a comparison is not appropriate or a distraction, but I think the double standards and hypocrisy are all too obvious at times: “Let him who is sinless cast the first stone” as the Bible says.
But if you want to discuss human rights in Iran, I am willing to listen to you. It is not a priority for me, but neither is it some insignificant side issue.
Re Liz’s comment at 12:40 p.m. “Mohammad Reza Beheshti, who led Mousavi’s campaign, is an assistant professor at the University of Tehran and he is at work.”
Ali Reza Beheshti, who was chief of staff of the Mousavi campaign, was suspended by Tarbiat Modarres University in April 2010.
…and yet another:
http://www.childfoundation.org/
Forget Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel,…
…and another:
FBI delivers subpoenas to 4 more anti-war, solidarity activists
Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2020
The FBI came unannounced to knock on doors at two apartments in Chicago this morning. FBI agent Robert Parker, under orders from U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s office, delivered a subpoena to Maureen Murphy. Murphy, like several other individuals served subpoenas, is an organizer with the Palestine Solidarity Group-Chicago and is the Managing Editor of the online journal “Electronic Intifada”.
This continues the repression unleashed by Fitzgerald on the anti-war movement since September 24th, when fourteen subpoenas were delivered to anti-war, labor, and solidarity activists in coordinated raids involving more than 70 federal agents. Armed FBI agents raided homes, taking computers, phones, passports, documents, notebooks, and even children’s artwork. A total of 23 subpoenas have been served to activists around the country. Maureen Murphy said, “Along with several others, I am being summoned to appear before the Grand Jury on Tuesday, January 25th, in the Dirksen Federal Building in Chicago. We are being targeted for the work we do to end U.S. funding of the Israeli occupation, ending the war in Afghanistan and ending the occupation of Iraq. What is at stake for all of us is our right to dissent and organize to change harmful US foreign policy.” Ms. Murphy is also the Managing Editor of the widely-read website, The Electronic Intifada.
In addition, three women in Minneapolis – Tracy Molm, Anh Pham, and Sara Martin – are threatened with reactivated subpoenas by Fitzgerald’s office and new Grand Jury dates. Tom Burke of the Committee to Stop FBI Repression explained, “It is likely the three individuals, like all the others so far, will continue to refuse to take part in Fitzgerald’s witch hunt. Fitzgerald can then call for putting them in jail as long as he wants.”
For more information: http://www.facebook.com/l/c1e35SZ5xcuh9euT2GF4qL5E82A;www.stopfbi.net
Contact: Tom Burke, Committee to Stop FBI Repression,
773-844-3612 Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street San Francisco,
CA 94110 415 863-9977
Just one example:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usdiplomacywikileaksinternetmilitaryrights;_ylt=AlSwxnWd4xDMHZ1g4Nx9jegDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTNlOG9obnRqBGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDEwMTIyNC91c2RpcGxvbWFjeXdpa2lsZWFrc2ludGVybmV0bWlsaXRhcnlyaWdodHMEY3BvcwM3BHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDMzlpbmh1bWFuZTM5
Binam
I think that Liz and others all believe that Iran isn’t a utopia. However, the constant dishonest Iran bashing by Americans like Scott Lucas force many of us to defend Iran. In any case, human rights abuses carried out by the US are far greater than any abuses in Iran.
Reza,
“Nobody here supports every action of the Iranian government particularly the controversial ones related to human rights – namely prison abuse, the use of capital punishment, jailing of dissidents and so. RFI is not about singing the praises of the IRI and its officials, but instead presenting a *realistic* and *fair* account of the situation because this affects foreign policy towards Iran.”
I agree. But don’t you think presentation of “realistic” and “fair” account of the situation in Iran should also include acknowledging those very controversial human rights abuses? You may be right in claiming that nobody here supports every action of the Iranian government (there are a few people like LIZ who literally support every action of the IRI). But I am yet to hear from the Leveretts themselves such an acknowledgment. I have said it before and I say it again, the Leveretts will make a much stronger case for “talks with Iran regardless of what goes on inside Iran” if they just uphold the same standards and level of scrutiny they have for the US government to the Iranian government. But right now they appear to be on the side of the hardliners in Iran with utter disregard for the moderates and reformists who are constantly being marginalized. They appear to have an agenda to legitimize and keep the hardliners in Iran in power. I hate to say it, but such an agenda can only be helping the likes of Israel.
Eric,
I’m sorry if I suggested that you wouldn’t be against imprisonment of Jafar Pahani – a filmmaker. I just wanted to hear you say it, because it appeared that you were side-stepping the issue. Having you simply acknowledge injustice by the IR is all I ever wanted – and I wish the Leveretts would at some point do the same.
Reza Esfandiari says: December 24, 2010 at 2:43 pm
US has been able to make policy towards Iran – some of them harmful to US interests, some to Iranian interests, and some extremely beneficial to Iran.
The current policy has several advantages to it:
1- It stablizes internal US debate aboout Iran at the sanctions level, thus preventing it from deteriorating further.
2- It creates other international stake-holders in the success of the sanctions regime against Iran such as EU, the Russian Federation, India, Japan, and the Arab states of Persian Gulf.
3- It mollifies Israelis.
My sense of it is that the leaders of these various states have a very high expectation – say above 75% – for the Iranian nuclear case to get resolved on US terms. Then they could recoup their loss throught the exaction of concessions from a prostrate Iran.
This will not happen.
I must assume that US leaders and planners have similar expectations; for them the nuclear case and the attendant sanctions are a God-send since they still think that victory (however that is defined for them) might, just might, be around the corner.
That also is a pipe-dream.
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement in Turkey, advising the US-EU Axis to change course, is an indication of rigidity of the Iranian position. He has made it clear that iran will not budge on the nuclear development. Furthermore, 2 years ago, Mr. Khamenei stated: “Do not try this nation with your sanctions.” And a week ago he blamed US, UK, and Israel for the bombing in Chah Bahar.
I think that the Iranian leaders have made their position quite clear.
The US-EU Axis, and the Russian Federation leaders expect iran to grow weaker as the sanctions harm Iran. I do not think that they expected the subsidy reform of the Iranian Government. We shall see hwo this plays out but if Cuba, Pakistan, and North Korea could withstand sanctions, so can Iran.
I think that US-EU Axis will be harmed more than Iran, but that axis will be harmed as well.
Top 10 Anti_Iranian Propaganda
I enjoyed reading this
http://persicus-maximus.blogspot.com/2010/12/top-10-anti-iranian-propaganda.html
the right-wing christian are on the rise in the US, they are with the parties of israel the biggest threat to world peace. Sanction ISRAEL! This lunatic and warmongering regime.
A larger quote from the article to which Arnold refers:
“DOHA: WikiLeaks will release top secret American files concerning Israel in the next six months, its founder Julian Assange disclosed yesterday.
In an excusive interview with Al Jazeera, Assange said only a meagre number of files related to Israel had been published so far, because the newspapers in the West that were given exclusive rights to publish the secret documents were reluctant to publish many sensitive information about Israel.
“There are 3,700 files related to Israel and the source of 2,700 files is Israel. In the next six months we intend to publish more files depending on our sources,” said Assange in the nearly one-hour interview telecast live from the UK.
Asked if Israel had tried to contact him though mediators, Assange said, “No, no contacts with Israel but I am sure Mossad is following our activities closely like Australia, Sweden and the CIA.
“The Guardian, El-Pais and Le Monde have published only two percent of the files related to Israel due to the sensitive relations between Germany, France and Israel. Even New York Times could not publish more due to the sensitivities related to the Jewish community in the US,” he added.”
Binam,
The Iranian government has indeed closed 3 political parties and at least 8 newspapers since the election. But, despite this, reformists in Iran can still boast the operation of about 20 other parties (MRM, G-6, Mardomsalari etc) and organizations, along with about a dozen national dailies. There are also numerous reformist websites which are not filtered. The reform movement is still vibrant and active, as is the cinematic/arts industry.
Nobody here supports every action of the Iranian government particularly the controversial ones related to human rights – namely prison abuse, the use of capital punishment, jailing of dissidents and so. RFI is not about singing the praises of the IRI and its officials, but instead presenting a *realistic* and *fair* account of the situation because this affects foreign policy towards Iran.
How can the United States make policy towards Iran if all it listens to are the likes of Milani, Sadjadpour, Dabashi, Takeyh and the rest of the crazy gang?
Does anyone have the full story on this?
http://www.childfoundation.org/
From a supposed interview with wikileaks founder Assange. I have not heard of the organization and have not seen any video the article says it quotes from, but the statement is nearly certainly true, whether Assange actually said it or not.
Even(?!) the New York Times?
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/qatar/136564-wikileaks-to-release-israel-documents-in-six-months.html
“The Guardian, El-Pais and Le Monde have published only two percent of the files related to Israel due to the sensitive relations between Germany, France and Israel. Even New York Times could not publish more due to the sensitivities related to the Jewish community in the US”
Rehmat: read and consider what Fiorangela has written re: Assange. It is very far from obvious that he is a stooge for Israel, and your immediate assumption in this regard does you no credit.
Rehmat, I don’t think it’s “stupid” at all for Julian Assange to be fearful of his wellbeing should he be extradited to the US. And I don’t see any relationship at all to Jonathan Pollard, who was accused, tried, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison for spying on the US. For one thing, Pollard has powerful friends who not only assure his well-being, but are actively working, at the highest levels of US government (Barney Frank is his latest champion) for his release.
You imply that Assange worked for the Israeli government. This is only speculation, but given that ONLY certain documents — a very small subset of the entire cache — were released, and that their release was via newspapers that are definitely sympathetic to Israel’s concerns, it seems to me Assange’s documents and Assange himself were exploited by Israel for its own purposes. Thus, having gotten their utility from Assange, whatever agencies may have been exploiting Assange’s risky venture would now have no further use for him. But even beyond that, his continued ability to impact world events by leaking other documents, so-far concealed, could be a threat to some.
Iranian@Iranian,
I agree with you (encouraging more comments on the subject article). It was posted on HuffingtonPost yesterday, by the way. Go to WORLD.
I agree with Eric. However, he was not imprisoned for making a movie about the 2009 election. Many people who were far more active during the elections are living normal lives. Mohammad Reza Beheshti, who led Mousavi’s campaign, is an assistant professor at the University of Tehran and he is at work.
Rehmat says: December 24, 2010 at 11:40 am
In the United States, you may find many men who claim to have been in the Vietnam War. I suppose in France, likewise, you will find many who claim to have been a member of La Resistence. In EU, also, when you add upp the claims of Christians for the number of Jews they rescuded, it exceeds the the total number of Jews in Europe in 1939.
Such is human nature.
fyi – Dr. Norman Finkelstein asks how many Jews have signed up as ‘Holocaust survivors?
“Every second Israeli believe that he is Holocaust survivor even though he never stepped out of Israel in his life”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/holocaust-industry-finkelstein-was-right/
Binam,
On Jafar Panahi:
I’ve since read that he’s been punished severely for making a movie about the 2009 election. If that’s the charge, I strongly disagree that he should be punished.
Frankly, I’m a bit insulted that you would suggest, even by asking for my opinion on the case, that I might feel otherwise. It’s not clear to me what I’ve ever written that makes you think I might favor the suppression of free expression.
Some writers on this website have suggested that certain people, such as the Leveretts, should be limited in what they may write about — no commentary on “internal Iranian matters,” for example. I’m not a member of that group (and I’ll leave it to you to decide whether you are). I think Panahi should be allowed to make whatever movies he feels like writing, and that the Leveretts should be allowed to write about whatever they feel like writing about.
M.Ali says: December 24, 2010 at 8:54 am
15 million have not signed up for the subsidy accounts.
b says: December 24, 2010 at 5:19 am
The number of poor covered by the Komeiteh Emdad is closer to 7 million souls.
As I recall, Jonathan Pollard was convicted of spying for a foreign government. Whatever one thinks of Manning, I don’t believe he’s been accused of that.
Fiorangela – What a stupid fear of Julian Assange being killed “Jack Ruby style”. It’s 25 years now, and the US has not killed its history’s greatest anti-US spy, Jonathan Pollard, “Jack Ruby style”.
And furthermore, unlike Julian Assange’s ‘crime’ is less treacherous than Pollard – though both have helped Israel in different ways.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/israel-country-x/
re: Liz’s comment at 9:36 am on Dec 24, concerning imprisonment of Private Manning: Mondoweiss discussed Manning the other day, comparing him to Ellsberg: http://mondoweiss.net/2010/12/smearing-private-manning.html#comment-260373
and today, Phil Weiss posted a snippet about Julian Assange, quoting Assange’s stated fear that, if US successfully extradites Assange to US, he might be killed “Jack Ruby style.” Weiss compared Assange to Louis Dreyfus, whose false imprisonment in France in 1894 was the critical motivation for Theodore Herzl’s efforts to create zionism and the zionist state of Israel. :http://mondoweiss.net/2010/12/will-assange-go-the-way-of-ruby-or-dreyfus.html
M. Ali,
“Just got my electric bill for the last 2 months. The amount I have to pay is: 22,000 Rial. Which is almost 2 dollars, that is 1 dollar a month. The electric bill shows the amount the government is paying in subsidies for this amount and it’s 188,440 rials, around 18 dollars, so that’s 8 dollars a month.”
Is there anyone out there from Pacific Gas & Electric who’s reading this? I think PG&E charges me about that much every time I use my electric coffee maker.
Binam,
You replied as follows to my question about why the Iranian government doesn’t arrest Mousavi or shut down his website, which nearly every day publishes harsh criticism of the government:
“The Islamic Republic learned a few things from the Shah. They learned for example that jailing opposition leaders and or killing them makes martyrs and heroes out of them.”
That is the answer I’d expected.
When an opposition leader is arrested and punished, you tend to assert he was innocent. (That may well be true in many cases; I rarely if ever know the facts well enough to say, and am invariably impressed at the detailed knowledge of these cases you and others often claim to possess. I certainly don’t condone injustice, and you should not assume that I do merely because I don’t set aside the considerable time required to dig into the facts of the dozens or hundreds of cases cited by you and others.)
On the other hand, when an opposition leader is not jailed or punished, as has been true of Mousavi (and other top opposition leaders – the ones who really count), you explain this by pointing to the government’s “no heroes and martyrs” policy.
In short, either course of government conduct – arrest and punishment; or no arrest, no punishment – has at its base the very same explanation: a brutal, dictatorial government. I understand that. Frankly, I understood it before I even asked you the question.
Is your explanation the same for why the government doesn’t shut down Mousavi’s website, or order him to stop publishing stories that criticize the government?
“You didn’t answer my question regarding Panahi.”
That’s because I don’t know anything about his case.
The treatment of Bradley Manning is horrific, but just admitting that it is happening is useless and no good. I expect you to begin a campaign against the behavior of the US government regarding American Muslims, Muslim organizations, anti-war organizations, US backed despotic regimes, US atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your claims about Panahi are simply claims. Yet even if they were true, you spend most of your time doing nothing but bashing Iran. That is hypocrisy.
Although I said I will not do your research for you, I will make an exception this once (I don’t want your government funding though!). The support payments in Iran will continue for years and the amount will depend on the size of subsidy cuts along with the size of the increase in government revenue as a result of a decrease in gasoline, grain,…imports and the increase in electricity, oil,…exports.
Scott Lucas,
Your saying there’s no evidence doesn’t mean anything. You don’t even know if the support payments in Iran will continue after two months. You simply don’t know anything about Iran.
Sorry, Scott, you are right.
I’m not sure how long the support will remain. What the government SHOULD DO is improve their database and target only the people who need it. A lot of families do not need the extra 80 dollars but almost everyone signed for the program.
Salam M. Ali,
Thank you very much for the information.
The $80 support payment is over two months so, with your figures, a lower-class family would have $66 — after the electricity bill — for payments on other goods over two months. Is that right?
And I understand that it is unclear if the support payments will continue after two months. Is this also correct?
S.
Just got my electric bill for the last 2 months.
The amount I have to pay is: 22,000 Rial. Which is almost 2 dollars, that is 1 dollar a month.
The electric bill shows the amount the government is paying in subsidies for this amount and its: 188,440 rials, around 18 dollars, so thats 8 dollar a month.
I live in a single room apartment, around 80 meters. I’m guessing the size of my place will be closely similar to a lower class family, therefore their electric bill should be same (if not less, given that I’m pretty wasteful in my usage of electricity).
This means, that without the subsidies, a family’s electric bill will increase by around 7 dollars. Since they are getting 80 dollars in cash payments, that leaves them 73 dollars left, which they can still probably use for other necessities which increase.
On the whole, I think the lower class families will come on top/
Iranian,
So it is a “double standard” to call for justice for both Bradley Manning and Jafar Panahi?
S.
“[Panahi has] been put on trial and now he’s been sentenced.”
With no evidence.
Pirouz,
Thanks for your concern but ““this brutal, dictatorial regime” is not my phrase. It’s Eric Brill’s.
S.
It’s tough and dangerous being a Muslim in America.
Is anyone going to do anything about this?
http://www.childfoundation.org/
Binam,
Forgive me if I doubt you’ve ever met Panahi or his family. Nevertheless, he’s been put on trial and now he’s been sentenced. His lawyer is still pursuing the case. The fact that Scott Lucas, who continues to lie about his own CV, says he is innocent doesn’t change anything.
The real brutal, dictatorial regime that also funds many people like Scott Lucas:
http://www.childfoundation.org/
Pirouz
Thanks. I missed that. It just shows what a fool Scott Lucas is.
When white Christians are treated like this in US jails, imagine what it’s like for non-white Muslims. No reporter has said anything substantial about the many Arabs and Iranians who are in US prisons for supporting “terrorist” governments and groups. Right now members of a foundation in the US which supports orphans in Iran are to be put on trial:
http://www.childf.com/
I’m sure Scott Lucas will now launch a campaign to support these people as well as the anti-war activists.
Iranian@Iran,
We’ve have been critical of the US government, the Israeli government, the Green Movement, Mousavi, Karoubi and the mainstream media. We’re ALSO critical of the Islamic Republic. And we are after all posting comments on RACE FOR IRAN. The regime apologists such as yourself, Liz and others however are yet to recognize ANY wrongdoings of the Islamic Republic. You act like obedient sheep.
Liz,
Did Jafar Panahi get a 6 year prison term or not? How about all the others? Are you denying that these people are in prison at all? Is it some Western media fabrication that they are handing down sentences to people like Jafar Panahi, Nourizad, Tavakoli, etc? Are we making this up? For once in your life be honest and at least ACKNOWLEDGE that these people are in prison.
I know Panahi and his family personally, so my information on him is first hand.
As for your Farsi being better than me, well, I highly doubt it.
“this brutal, dictatorial regime”–Scott
Scott, this is a highly charged emotional response. When is the last time you reviewed the formal method of analysis? You’re overdue, buddy.
Scott Lucas
Look at your two posts. Whether or not your claims are true or false (and we all know you don’t have a great track record), your double standards are absurd.
Liz,
Re the case of Jafar Panahi: “I told you that I will not do your research for you.”
I don’t expect you to. The point is that, if you could be bothered to investigate, you would not find a single source — in Persian or in English — that offers evidence for the six-year prison sentence and 20-year ban on movie-making, media interviews, and foreign travel handed down to Panahi.
That is because this is a political prosecution with no basis in criminal law.
S.
Liz,
The Bradley Manning case is a travesty — fortunately, a journalist such as Glenn Greenwald has been able to report on it at length, ensuring that the abuses of civil rights are exposed and the attempt to prevent freedom of information does not succeed.
S.
I’d like to see more comments about the articles on this website. Scott Lucas and Binam along with Pak constantly try to draw attention away from the actions of the US government. I understand why Scott Lucas does this, because that would affect his funding, but I think others should be at least a bit more critical of the US government.
And thanks for this too:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usdiplomacywikileaksinternetmilitaryrights
Disgusting for such a hypocritical government.
The US should be ashamed
FBI delivers subpoenas to 4 more anti-war, solidarity activists
Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2020
The FBI came unannounced to knock on doors at two apartments in Chicago this morning. FBI agent Robert Parker, under orders from U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s office, delivered a subpoena to Maureen Murphy. Murphy, like several other individuals served subpoenas, is an organizer with the Palestine Solidarity Group-Chicago and is the Managing Editor of the online journal “Electronic Intifada”.
This continues the repression unleashed by Fitzgerald on the anti-war movement since September 24th, when fourteen subpoenas were delivered to anti-war, labor, and solidarity activists in coordinated raids involving more than 70 federal agents. Armed FBI agents raided homes, taking computers, phones, passports, documents, notebooks, and even children’s artwork. A total of 23 subpoenas have been served to activists around the country. Maureen Murphy said, “Along with several others, I am being summoned to appear before the Grand Jury on Tuesday, January 25th, in the Dirksen Federal Building in Chicago. We are being targeted for the work we do to end U.S. funding of the Israeli occupation, ending the war in Afghanistan and ending the occupation of Iraq. What is at stake for all of us is our right to dissent and organize to change harmful US foreign policy.” Ms. Murphy is also the Managing Editor of the widely-read website, The Electronic Intifada.
In addition, three women in Minneapolis – Tracy Molm, Anh Pham, and Sara Martin – are threatened with reactivated subpoenas by Fitzgerald’s office and new Grand Jury dates. Tom Burke of the Committee to Stop FBI Repression explained, “It is likely the three individuals, like all the others so far, will continue to refuse to take part in Fitzgerald’s witch hunt. Fitzgerald can then call for putting them in jail as long as he wants.”
For more information: http://www.facebook.com/l/c1e35SZ5xcuh9euT2GF4qL5E82A;www.stopfbi.net
Contact: Tom Burke, Committee to Stop FBI Repression,
773-844-3612 Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street San Francisco,
CA 94110 415 863-9977
Thanks Liz
Binam,
My Farsi is better than yours, I’m pretty sure. It seems you’ve been living too long abroad to have any meaningful understanding of the country. If you had watched the 8:30 news last night on Channel Two and how it reflected the whole Motaki case, you would not be so rash. As I said before, anyone who reads the Persian media would understand that there is a great deal of openness here. Your interpretation of the Panahi case is based on information provided by the same green websites that Scott Lucas relies on. Remember Ashura?
Pak wrote about my piece on subsidy reform:
“The wealthy in Iran will not be affected by the cuts, because they have much greater disposable income. The people with modest and low incomes WILL be affected, because the cash payments by the government will not cover the inflation.”
The World Bank disagrees with your assertions:
Liz,
During Khatami’s presidency the state TV was run by Larijani and the conservatives and it was very critical of the President – unlike today where as far as IRIB is concerned, Ahmadinejad is God’s gift for the Iranian people!
Perhaps you don’t know how to read Farsi and are just told there’s press freedom and you accept it at face value.
And the filmmaker’s case proves your ignorance. You don’t know enough and you pass judgment and assume he must have deserved being thrown in prison for making a film. Panahi makes narrative features, not documentaries. He was shooting a film inside his own home with his own daughter as his main actress.
So I take it that you are a super conservative Muslim who is against the arts; music, film, literature… Why else would you NOT condemn imprisonment of people like Panahi? Or Nourizad? Or Rasoulof? Not sure which part of Islam tells you to ignore injustice when you see fit. Not sure where in the Quran says forget people like Majid Tavokoli, Nasrin Sotudeh, Isa Saharkhiz, etc. Which sect of Islam did YOU convert to? Wahabbism?!
@S. Lucas;
“I believe you are free to leave your house whenever you wish and to meet whomever you wish whenever you want. That is not the case with Mousavi.”
Then you should be thankful that I am not in charge in Iran, because as much as I would leave protestors alone, I would definitely arrest Mousavi, Karroubi and a few of those so-called ‘journalists’ in jail FOR A VERY LONG TIME, on the charge of perpetrating a coup and trying to bring down a popularly elected government!
Scott Lucas,
This should make you proud:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usdiplomacywikileaksinternetmilitaryrights
PS Remember, I told you that I will not do your research for you. Go and learn Persian.
Where is the evidence that Jafar Panahi was “acting against national security” by making a movie?
Binam,
I’ve lived in Iran on and off for 20 years and I was here for most of Khatami’s presidency. The insults directed at Ahmadinejad in the Iranian media today are far greater than what was said about Khatami. Every time someone was abusive towards Khatami, they were accused of being a part of a broad conspiracy to topple the president and thus they were silenced. There is no doubt that the media is quite open. Just look at the debate surrounding the Mr. Motaki’s removal. Regarding the filmaker, I don’t know the full case, but if he was trying to fabricate a documentary (which he was filming secretly in his house), tough for him. You are the one, along with Scott Lucas, who constantly rants against Iran no matter what.
masoud,
I believe you are free to leave your house whenever you wish and to meet whomever you wish whenever you want. That is not the case with Mousavi.
S.
Liz,
Perhaps you didn’t live in Iran during the early years of Khatami’s presidency. You know, before the conservatives who are in power now started killing off writers and intellectuals and shutting down newspapers, there was in fact a lively press active in the country. More lively and free than most Western countries. So I think YOU’re not being honest. The state TV is completely one-sided. Reformist newspapers are all shut down – their websites blocked. People are serving time in prison for charges such as “insulting the president” or “insulting the Leader.”
I haven’t ONCE heard you acknowledge that. And I haven’t ONCE heard you offer up anything critical of the regime. Surely there must be SOMETHING that bugs you about the IR. As though you’re just a regime mouthpiece offering their talking points without anything of your own to add. Like a puppet – who doesn’t even know what honesty means.
Merry Christmas!
Eric,
The Islamic Republic learned a few things from the Shah. They learned for example that jailing opposition leaders and or killing them makes martyrs and heroes out of them. As was the case with Ayatollah Khomeini who would have been just another critical mullah had he stayed in Iran and had relative freedom to give his sermons. Killing Mousavi would make him a martyr. Jailing him will only garner more sympathy for him. Having him on house arrest on the other hand will make people like you think that he’s free to roam about and there must be freedom in Iran (if you were willing to dismiss imprisonment of hundreds of other political prisoners close to him as you seem to be willing to do). Plus, the regime is still clinging on the 85% participation number. Jailing the man who got at least 36% (by their own accounts) of the votes would be a heads up spit (as we say in Farsi!).
Mousavi is not a charismatic leader. One could fall sleep listening to his youtube messages – forget getting inspired to rise up against forces of tyranny! They can tolerate him for now.
You didn’t answer my question regarding Panahi.
Does he deserve a 6 year prison term? Or do you not care?
“Mousavi’s movements have been restricted, to the point at times of a de facto house arrest, for more than a year. ”
That’s absurd. I guess I’m *sometimes* under house arrest too, as in I’m under house arrest constantly, except for when i choose to venture outside.
Scott Lucas
This is an interesting point, because there are many calls for Mousavi to be arrested and it can be done quite easily. Public anger towards Mousavi’s actions is high, as he is seen to be responsible for the events in Tehran last year and should pay a price. However, he is still allowed to make regular public statements (though few bother to read them anymore).
It is quite obvious to those of us who live in Tehran and who read Perian newspapers and websites that there is a significant amount of freedom in Iran. You should start worrying about freedom in your own country. Forget the horrific crimes committed regularly by the US in the ME.
Eric,
Mousavi’s movements have been restricted, to the point at times of a de facto house arrest, for more than a year. The records in his office have been seized. Many of the staff of his headquarters and of Kalemeh have been detained. Kalemeh still operates as a Web-only publication because some of the staff who have not been arrested run it from outside Iran and others, despite the threat of detention, work discreetly and carefully the country.
Some politicians have called for the arrest and trial of Mousavi, and both the Tehran Prosecutor General, Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi, and judiciary official Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei have threatened this on a number of occasions. Ayatollah Jannati also threatened this in his sermons.
Last week, the head of judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, held out against the arrest of Mousavi and Karroubi. The threat is far from gone, however: Larijani portrayed this as part of a political battle within the system over how far to go with “sedition”.
Best,
S.
Binam,
“They would shut down the entire internet if they could – but they can’t because everything is so inter-connected (like the banking system).”
Of course they would. They’d hang everyone by their toes if they could. But for some reason – I just can’t figure it out, and I was hoping you could – they make this exception for Mousavi. The one man who represents the greatest threat to this brutal, dictatorial regime, and yet they just keep letting him publish all of this anti-government stuff.
Can you figure this out. I sure can’t.
Eric et al.
I strongly recommend reading “A Day in the Life of an Egyptian Electoral District” at a relatively unknown site: http://baheyya.blogspot.com/
This is how elections work in Egypt.
FYI: You do know why all these threats of war… they are part of the myth making machinery of the “strong” politician.
Both Palin and Clinton are trying to prove to the public (and the funders!) that they are capable of being strong pro-Israeli “commanders in chief”.
For Palin, who was justifiably mocked for having no clue in foreign affairs, even just having an oped on foreign issues in USA Today is a sort of public relations coup.
Do either of these politicians, and all the others beating the same drum, care that others might die due to the expectations they are creating? Not for a minute… and therein lies the profound weakness of the US today, visible to all.
Binam,
“They would shut down the entire internet if they could – but they can’t because everything is so inter-connected (like the banking system).”
Of course they would. They’d hang everyone by their toes if they could. But for some reason – I just can’t figure it out, and I was hoping you could – they make this exception for Mousavi. The one man who represents the greatest threat to this brutal, dictatorial regime, and yet they just keep letting him publish all of this anti-government stuff.
Can you figure this out. I sure can’t.
Binam,
You’re not being terribly honest are you? If anyone just looks at Iranian websites and newspapers they will see how each one has its own outlook and how many of them bitterly attack the government from different perspectives.
Nevertheless, I hope you enjoy your Christmas holidays.
Pak, I was serious in my previous thanks, and am happy to renew them. I find your comments on the student situation clear, informed and considered.
M.Ali says: December 24, 2010 at 12:00 am
I personally do not see the point of all of these threats of war.
The strategic prize, for the US-EU Axis, is the reorientation of the Iranian state towards them. A war in which they fail to occupy Iran and change her government – something that they cannot do – will leave the strategic prize out of their reach permanently (as much as anything is permanent).
On the other hand, once Iranian leaders accpeted the possibility of war with US and did not surrender, the value of threat goes down. It only serves to make the leaders of IRI and the people of Iran more and more angry.
US-EU Axis threatened and tried to frighten Iranian leaders. They stated that Saudis and other states in the Middle East were going to go nuclear (who exactly: the 300-pound towering Arab intellects of the Persian Gulf? Or the bought-and-paid-for Egyptians? Or thr creoles of North Africa?)
It is funny, in a perverse way.
Something I like to point out from Palin’s writing,
“And you can stand with the Iranian people who oppose the tyrannical rule of the clerics and concretely support their efforts to win their freedom – even if the President does not.”
This is why I always argue that the War PR against Iran relies heavily on painting the Iranian people as oppressed and unsatisfied, and it is up to the Good ol’ American people to save them and get their freedoms. The constant media propaganda using cases like Neda and Sakinah, and claiming the election is a fraud, is a calculated move. The exact same thing was done for all the result wars that USA has engaged in, but people DO NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY.
“But you must admit that Islamic Economics is a sham.”
Maybe, but which Economic system like a political system IS right?
Also, I can’t really say that Iran is really an Islamic Economics. Its mostly a socialist economic system moving towards free market capitalism. I dislike both extremes, but its that mystical middle ground that is almost always difficult to find.
From Palins facebook page her agenda for incoming Tea Party congress:
On foreign policy and national security, I urge you to stick to our principles: strong defense, free trade, nurturing allies, and steadfast opposition to America’s enemies. We are the most powerful country on earth and the world is better off because of it. Our president does not seem to understand this. If we withdraw from the world, the world will become a much more dangerous place. You must push President Obama to finish the job right in Iraq and get the job done in Afghanistan, otherwise we who are war-weary will forever question why America’s finest are sent overseas to make the ultimate sacrifice with no clear commitment to victory from those who send them. You should be prepared to stand with the President against Iran’s nuclear aspirations using whatever means necessary to ensure the mullahs in Tehran do not get their hands on nuclear weapons. And you can stand with the Iranian people who oppose the tyrannical rule of the clerics and concretely support their efforts to win their freedom – even if the President does not.
You need to say no to cutting the necessities in our defense budget when we are engaged in two wars and face so many threats – from Islamic extremists to a nuclear Iran to a rising China. As Ronald Reagan said, “We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.” You will also have the opportunity to push job-creating free trade agreements with allies like Colombia and South Korea. You can stand with allies like Israel, not criticize them. You can let the President know what you believe – Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not a settlement. And for those of you joining the United States Senate, don’t listen to desperate politically-motivated arguments about the need for hasty consideration of the “New START” treaty. Insist on your right to patient and careful deliberation of New START to address very real concerns about verification, missile defense, and modernization of our nuclear infrastructure. No New START in the lame duck!
You can stand against misguided proposals to try dangerous, evil terrorists in the US; precipitously close the Guantanamo prison; and a return to the failed policies of the past in treating the war on terror as a law enforcement problem. Finally, you have a platform to express the support of the American people for all those around the world seeking their freedom that God has bestowed within all mankind’s being – from Burma and Egypt to Russia and Venezuela – because the spread of liberty increases our own security. You, freshmen lawmakers, can and will be powerful voices in support of foreign policies that protect our interests and promote our values! Thank you for being willing to fight for our values and our freedom!
I suspect this was ghost written by Bill Krisol or Liz Cheney. Palin would never use the word “precipitously”.
Palin is not a conservative at all, she is a radical statist, and more unsettling a Christian Zionist. This does not bode well for the US in the next two years whether she runs or not, she clearly intends to push the same policy agenda that has contributed to American decline.
Pirouz_2 and all RFI readers
Thanks Pirouz, and sorry I am on a trip and will try to reply in next few days, unfortunately for now I can only read the topics and comments on an I phone.
Wish everyone a peaceful coming year, and specially a merry Christmas to all of you RFI readers.
M.Ali says: December 23, 2010 at 11:24 pm
You are right – nagging as a habit.
One idea that Mr. Ahmadinejad has tried to implement has been to make business loans to start-up companies. He understood the need to grow small businesses. Mr. Khatami and Mr. Rafsanjani did not know or did not care.
But you must admit that Islamic Economics is a sham.
The Iranian businessman’s dislike for Chinese imports is not something unique to Iran. Every business community that is faced with a competition that is provides an alternative product to their consumers that eat into their revenue will be met with resistance. Don’t American businessmen complain about Chinese products all the time? Don’t they have grips about outsourcing to India, and claiming it is taking the jobs away from true americans? Didn’t the same concern also exist in the 80s when Japanese electronics flooded the American markets?
You are so in love with the American way that you seem to attack the very fundamentals of a western, capitalist system.
You think if US and Iran suddenly became BFF, all the Iranian businessmen would be happy? Some would be thrilled at the new business opportunist, but others would lose their business to the American powerhouses. Any opposition that wanted to complain, could very easily find factories, businesses, and people to interview and shed tears for. What would happen to all the Iranian fastfood joints (Boof Fast Food, Super Star, Apache, etc) if McDonalds and Burger Kings suddenly popped all over?
Iran is still experimenting with its economic policies, which as you can see is constantly changing since the revolution, because its trying to find the perfect middle ground. It wants to support its people, but that is not always the best economic situation. Employees in Iran have a lot of labor laws that support them, making firing an employee much more difficult than the region, meaning labor costs are higher than other developing countries, meaning costs of goods go up, meaning that they can’t compete with Chinese products that well. What should the government do?
1) Give more power to the employers, reducing labor cost, but causing possible harm to the people?
or
2) Better subsidies the companies and increase import customs duty so they can not lose out on price wars, but this would mean inefficiency in the Iranian product cycle
or
3) Or let free market reign
Which one would you choose?
Given Iran’s revolution has been this century last and most significant political revolution, and the international pressures it has been faced with (war+sanctions), it had some done fantastically well, given the circumstances.
I have almost never seen any group or individual that is campaigning against the IRI to ever give intelligent policy alternatives that the government can do. 1.5 years after the elections and after god knows how many letters Mousavi has written, I have never seen anything amounting to an actual, realistic set of policy changes, aside from vague sounding ideals (such as, lets return to the revolution’s goal, which is what exactly? Even in the initial stage of the revolution, it kept evolving). Or what have the monarchists in the west ever really offered?
Dear Castellio,
I cannot tell if you are mocking me (I am used to it), or if you are actually being serious, but I will accept your gratitude regardless.
Yes – the students will be paying more. This is inevitable, because the British government wants to reduce its spending. Students have always had access to means-tested loans and grants, but their burdens will increase from 2012 (from £3,00 a year to anything up to £9000 a year), depending on which university they attend. Students currently start re-paying their loans once they earn over £15,000 a year, with an interest rate that matches inflation (I believe). Graduates from 2012 will have to start re-paying their loans once they earn over £21,000 a year, with the same interest rate mechanism (the government tried to change this, but failed). So students are ultimately paying more, but, as before, the money is not coming directly out of their pockets during their higher education. Students repay their loans once they start earning. With the new scheme, they will only start repaying their loans when they are relatively successful.
Economics is ultimately a social science, i.e. a social construction. Therefore, any difference over economic policy is arguably a difference over ideology too. So yes, I suppose you could argue that the Conservatives’ budget is ideologically different to what Labour envisaged, because the Conservatives did not classify higher education as an untouchable sector (unlike healthcare for example), where as Labour most probably would have. But this assertion is also a stretch, because a ‘difference in ideology’ usually implies a radical difference of opinion, and the changes to tuition fees are hardly radical (universities are still publicly funded and students still have access to very cheap, government funded loans). If, however, these changes were made in the US, then I am sure that the cry of ‘difference in ideology’ would be much more vocal.
A quick footnote: the entire political spectrum of British politics would amount to minuscule variations on the very left of American politics.
Binam says: December 23, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Chinese also supply the elecromechanical machinery for the Tehran metro as well as the locomotives for the Iranian railroads. Surely that must count for something, no?
Rehmat says: December 23, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Au contraire, I believe it is you that rants and rants often.
That many Jews are misguided is their uncritical support for the state of Israel is beyond doubt.
And I agree with you that alienating the world of Islam is a foolish thing for any Jew to do.
When Kazimir II rationalized and legalized the presence of Jews in Poland; I doubt any one could foresee what was going to happen to Poland’s Jews between 1940-1945.
Now, so many Jews are claiming to be “Western” and throwing their lot with the historical enemies of Jews that one is bound to feel sorry for them. For in their zeal for Israel and in their devotion to the Zionist Land-Grab in Palestine they have systematically burned their brdiges to Islam.
History moves and it moves in strange way; one could only hope that the descendant of the present day Jews of Europe and North America do not come to regret the choices of their ancestors: “..sions of the fathers will be visited on the sons.”
You really must feel sorry for them – a people who insist on being separate (like the Jains and the Parsis) – who do not seems to belong anywhere.
Binam,
Don’t be ridiculous, of course the IRI could shut down the entire internet(inside Iran) if it wanted to.
Eric (and others)
A scene from Jafar Panahi’s “The While Baloon.”
http://vimeo.com/9918476
“a threat to national security…”
Eric,
“Since the Iranian government arrests and tortures anyone who gets out of line, I’m always surprised to see how bitterly the government is attacked on Mir-Houssein Mousavi’s website, kaleme.org, which has been operating each of the several dozens of times I’ve checked it over the past couple of years.”
It is blocked from inside Iran – to no avail, since most everyone uses filter-breakers. It may operate, but let us not dismiss imprisonment and intimidation of some of the contributors of Kaleme and Rah-e-Sabz and the likes.
“Even though Mousavi obviously is the single strongest opposition politician, he must live a charmed life. What he publishes on his website is often extremely critical of the government, often including charges of corruption, incompetence, and even worse.
And yet his website keeps on keeping on. Lucky for us the Iranian government makes an exception for its most dangerous critic, don’t you think?”
They would shut down the entire internet if they could – but they can’t because everything is so inter-connected (like the banking system). All they’ve succeeded in doing is making sure Iranians have one of the world’s worst connection speeds – slower than Afghanistan and Iraq! Most people are still connecting with modems! Which is ironic, a country that wants to be at the height of technological advancement (ie. nuclear power plants) refuses to let its citizens catch up with the times.
Don’t you think the 6 year prison terms for Jafar Panahi and Rasoulof are a bit harsh?! Don’t you think it ridicules Iran in the eyes of the world? Not sure if you’ve seen Panahi’s films, but even the most critical of his films have a sense of hope and show a side of Iran that Western media does not show. They help defeat those who beat on war-drums by showing the more human side of Iran. And yet, this man gets 6 years in prison. For a film he was still shooting!
Binam,
Since the Iranian government arrests and tortures anyone who gets out of line, I’m always surprised to see how bitterly the government is attacked on Mir-Houssein Mousavi’s website, kaleme.org, which has been operating each of the several dozens of times I’ve checked it over the past couple of years.
Even though Mousavi obviously is the single strongest opposition politician, he must live a charmed life. What he publishes on his website is often extremely critical of the government, often including charges of corruption, incompetence, and even worse.
And yet his website keeps on keeping on. Lucky for us the Iranian government makes an exception for its most dangerous critic, don’t you think?
Dan (and Rehmat),
I recommend Ali Abunimah’s ‘Haaretz journalist doubles as anti “delegitimization” operative’. Cnaan Liphshiz uses a Dutch Zionist entity as source for many stories in Haaretz when he secretly works for the Zionist entity.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11695.shtml
Ashkenazi: Hamas got Hizbullah missiles
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/24/ashkenazi-hamas-got-hizbullah-missiles/
Rudy Giuliani, stooge of the Israel lobby and neocon warmonger, in Paris called for the US to renew support of the MEK terrorist organization. What a surprise. He joins other stooges of the Israel lobby in making that demand on the Obama administration.
Ahmadinejad, in Turkey, stated that deployment of missile defence systems by Nato was of no concern to Iran, and that they were of no use in trying to defeat culture and knowledge. He is of course quite right.
Dan,
You are very welcome (for link to story about official harassment in the US of anti-war and pro-Palestine demonstrators, etc).
Any discussion of Sarah Palin is enriched by recalling she was unable to locate Georgia on the map, during the 2008 campaign. This of course was after she called for US military assistance to Georgia.
Another hard-hitting documentary by John Pilger
Must watch video
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18236.htm
‘The War on Democracy’
‘The War on Democracy’ is John Pilger’s first major film for the cinema – in a career that has produced more than 55 television documentaries. Set in Latin America and the US, it explores the historic and current relationship of Washington with countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Chile.
“The film tells a universal story,” says Pilger, “analysing and revealing, through vivid testimony, the story of great power behind its venerable myths. It allows us to understand the true nature of the so-called war on terror”.
I recommend every Iranian to watch this video, the similarities to what CIA did to Iran in 1953 and to Ahmadinejad in 2009 election and the killing of Neda is striking.
Eric,
If the mid-terms were any indication, I doubt foreign policy will be a hot topic for 2012 – it’ll be all about the economy. I doubt Palin will be able to defeat other Republicans in the primaries, but if she does, the 2012 elections will be a fun reality show indeed! And I doubt she can get the independent votes, specially considering Obama’s recent compromises with the Republicans which is meant to attract the independents.
Castellio,
In my experience majority of the Iranians who live outside of Iran are too disconnected from what goes on inside the country. They don’t know much about the internal politics of Iran and the day to day lives of Iranians. They are happy to follow a narrative of good guys vs. bad guys. Depending on their relationship with their host countries they determine who is good or bad and get behind them 100%. They are either 100% supportive of the likes of the Green Movement, or 100% supportive of the government. Both cases are flawed and in my humble opinion no one who is 100% behind any one group should be trusted or taken seriously.
Then there are a minority of Iranian expats who do follow the news ON Iran and FROM Iran more closely. But even they don’t know what it’s like to live inside Iran. They might wish for stronger Iran/China ties to offset the Americans for example, but they might in the process ignore the hatred brewing on the streets of Tehran and elsewhere in Iran for Chinese imports that are crippling the local industries.
Iran’s Press TV interviews Franklin Lamb PhD (from Beirut), British ‘Israel-Firster’ Zionist commentator Richard Millet (from London) and the self-hating Jewish author Ralph Schoenman….
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/israeli-espionage-network-in-united-states/
kooshy:
Regarding the Youtube clip you posted on December 23, 2010 at 1:05 am
I posted a comment on the youtube clip you posted in the previous threadt (the one J. Mearsheimer’s piece), I copy and paste it over here as well:
I want to say a few things as I remember (I have a tendency to forget some of the points and later on when I remember I am too lazy to talk about them again :-) )
1) The most important thing that caught my attention was the very big self-contradiction which existed in that ladies thesis:
She VERY RIGHTFULLY claims that the affluent parts of society (read that as Mousavi supporters) support the economic policies of Mr. Ahmadinejad, in fact pretty much all of Iranian political specterum defends WB/IMF/WTO economic recipes!
But then she quite non-sensically starts talking about the “political democratization” expectations of the very same parts of the society which have remained unanswered.
The problem with this thesis is:
a) Political oppression occurs when there is an ‘opposition’, and opposition means an ALTERNATIVE APPROACH to economy and the distribution of wealth. One has to ask this lady, if Ahmadinejad is doing to the letter the economic policies proposed and strongly supported by the affluent parts of the society (and she is 100% right on that, that is exactly what Ahmadinejad is doing!), then WHY THE HELL ARE THESE “AFFLUENT” PARTS OF SOCIETY OPPOSING HIM?!?!?! There is nothing as ridiculous as saying that “I completely support your economic decisions, in fact you have been copying MY ECONOMIC POLICIES and advertise them as your own, but I oppose you (on what for god’s sake?!?!?!) and now you are oppressing me!!!”
b)She sort of mentions that the opposition is against the lack of transparency, and wants the saved money (“saving” is a rather weird name to give to the money which is stolen from the hungry stomach of the vast majority of Iranians) to be invested in a “transparent” way into the economy!
Well this dear lady completely forgets that “corruption” is an INEVITABLE part of capitalism. Without corruption you cannot have the accumulation of capital! In order to have the ‘capitalist’ capable of investing through private sector, you HAVE TO HAVE CORRUPTION. Otherwise the wealth is never going to accumulate in the hands of a few capitalists so that they can do the investments through private sector. In fact the whole thesis is that let the wealth ‘accumulate’ in a few hands and as it accumulates more and more, it will trickle down and everyone will benefit!
Have one look at other countries which have actually applied these economic policies:
Chile (Pinochet era), Brazil, Mexico, Arjentina, Turkey (from 1983 upto this day!), Russia etc. etc., has there ever been any country which put these economic policies into effect without being immeresed into filthy corruption upto its neck?!?!? Why should Iran be any exception and why blame Ahmadinejad? As if there is any better way or “uncorrupted” way to apply these policies!
c)She keeps talking about political freedom, YOU CANNOT HAVE THESE ECONOMIC POLICIES TOGETHER WITH POLITICAL FREEDOM! HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WILL NOT HAPPEN IN IRAN EITHER! You are trying to rob the poor to suck their blood dry, to help creating a capitalist elite. There is no way that the vast masses of working class would agree ‘peacefully’ to being robbed! They will resist and YOU HAVE TO HAVE political oppression inorder for such economic measures to succeed!
2)One last comment: “investment” becomes an issue when you are dependent on foreign commodities (meaning that you yourself are not capable of making those goods). When we say Iran lacks investment in its oil and gas industry, what we mean is that we cannot advance and develope our own oil and gas industries (we don’t have the technology) and in order to BUY the foreign technological products we need “green backs”. Well in my opinion that is the precisely WRONG approach to our economic problems. Instead of trying to draw investments, we have to focus on R&D so that the state of technology would go up and we wouldnt NEED the foreign made comodities to develop our own industry! There is no magic bullet for this and it aint gonna happen over night. It is a very HARD way and it is full of formidable obstacles BUT THAT IS THE ONLY WAY FORWARD.
Unfortunately since the vast majority of the Iranian political spectrum is mesmerized by capitalism and neoliberal economic policies, no one addresses that issue!
Binam,
“Sarah Palin is not worth taking seriously. She’s nothing but a star on a reality show.”
Correct, but a lot of Americans will be watching that “reality show” about Iran in 2012, whether Sarah Palin or someone else is the star.
Pak,
I now understand why you thought the Leverett’s sentence was grammatically incorrect. But it was not. They used “legitimate” as a verb, which is appropriate. You prefer “legitimise,” but “legitimate” (pronounced “legitimait” when used as a verb) is just as good.
Pak, I want to accept your challenge. According to your information, which I take as correct, the British government has instituted a policy creating a less regulated market in higher education but is not following a policy of privatization.
You suggest that while the student will be paying more, this expense will, in fact, be covered by loans, and these loans have reasonable repayment schedules.
How does this disprove my assertion that the government chose to make the students pay more for ideological reasons, not economic reasons? While the ideology is (slightly) different, deregulated markets as opposed to privatization, and the students repayment is delayed, it is still the students paying individually for a higher percent of their education.
Binam, no, not because its cool. And I should add that I don’t live in the US.
Their assessment is (putting words in their mouths, but trying to be accurate) that Iran has a repressive and anti-liberal regime that they do not like, but that it is finding a genuine way forward to democratize itself according to Islamic principles – and is certainly more democratic than during the reign of the Shah – and that the Regime does take the well-being of most Iranians very seriously.
They understand that Iran has been given a choice by the US and Israel, cease support for Hamas and Hezbollah or be targeted for sanctions and worse. Some, who couldn’t care less about the Palestinians and Lebanese, think the current price too high. Others believe that even if Iran gave up support for Hamas and Hezbollah it would still be targeted. In their understanding, support for Hamas and Hezbollah delays the inevitable attack on Iran, and does not cause it. (I agree with that analysis).
Almost all hope for increased Iranian-Chinese ties, to offset American influence. Almost all wish Europe was more independent from the States. None trust the Russians. None trust the Israelis.
All are embarrassed by the imprisonment of contrary voices to the regime. Most think that the Green party is, at least partly, a front for the US. None support the Greens 100%, but all think the Greens do represent a sizable (but minority) political base.
In any case, something like that. Does that tally at all with your experience?
re comments questioning the relevance of Sarah Palin: I don’t think that’s the major point of the Leveretts’ article; they’re trying to spotlight the ironic contrast between to Tea Partiers, Palin and Rand Paul.
Palin IS relevant insofar as she is the branded, labelled, packaged property of the Likudnik/neoconservative/Christian zionist right and disaffected middle.
Rand Paul can make a claim to that disaffected middle.
After you’ve listened to the Chris Hedges speech linked below, tune in to hear Dr. Ron Paul present a speech defining the principles of the Libertarian Party, on whose ticket Ron Paul made a bid for the presidency. Father RON Paul gave that speech in 1987, when Rand was 24 yrs old.
Assess Ron Paul’s statements in that 1987 speech — his critique of Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve, his definition of the ETHICAL PRINCIPLES on which the Libertarian party stood, blasting the Iran-Contra hearings, etc. PAUL WAS RIGHT in his assessments. I would not assign the tag, “prophet,” to Ron Paul; I’d say had the correct analysis. In the most significant five minutes in the Senate in the last two-and-a-half decades, Alan Greenspan told a Senate Committee on the Financial Crisis: “My world view was wrong; my ideology was flawed.” [ :http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FederalRegula] at 48 minutes
Greenspan was wrong.
Ron Paul was right.
Chris Hedges sounds a Jeremiah alarm: Liberalism has failed; Greenspan was wrong; the US has lost its ethical foundation.
We should have taken the Ron Paul route, not the Greenspan route.
Sarah Palin shares Greenspan’s ideology.
Let’s hope Rand Paul, the seed, does not fall far from the Ron Paul tree.
What exactly IS their assessment of Iran? Are they denying the human rights violations? Are they denying the dire economic conditions? Or are they simply siding with the IR because it’s a cool anti-establishment thing to do in the US?!
Pak, I enjoyed that response regarding tuition, and thank you for it.
Principled people of the real Left and the real Right are starting to realize that they have a lot in common with each other. Put it this way: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul sound alike, exactly alike, on a lot of issues. One of the issues that many of the Real Left and Real Right agree is disgust with imperial wars and imperial threats of war.
Actually, Binam, I wasn’t thinking of people on this blog, but of friends and acquaintances.
Castellio,
“Binam, there are many well educated Iranians not living in Iran who don’t agree with your assessment of the IR today. Why is that? Are they all fools?”
Just a handful of Iranians on this forum does not equate “many well educated Iranians.” They are entitled to their opinions. I would never call them fools. Perhaps ignorant. Because no one can deny detention of filmmakers, lawyers, activists, students, mothers, etc.
Dear Iranian,
“You are incorrect and b is right about the subsidy program in Iran.”
Oh dear, I apologise profusely. Your argument has blinded me with its intellectual depth, and now I realise just how wrong I was.
Iranian,
“You are being silly and your caricature of Iran is absurd. The problem is that the deteriorating human rights situation in the US makes you uncomfortable and lashing out at others allows you to ignore a real problem in the US.”
How am I painting a caricature of Iran? Things will never get as bad as they are in Iran as far as human rights in the US goes, because the system can handle criticism. Filmmakers will make films about it, civil rights lawyers will fight it and commentators will express their opinions about it freely. Whereas in Iran a filmmaker can get 6 years in prison and banned for 20 years from making films or leaving the country for a fictional film he didn’t even finish shooting!
In the words of Martin Scorsese:
“It’s depressing to imagine a society with so little faith in its own citizens that it feels compelled to lock up anyone with a contrary opinion.”
Don’t be so blind!
Dear Castellio,
“Not true. It chose to increase the cost of university education as part of an on-going conservative desire to privatize higher education.”
Students in England receive university loans and grants from the Student Loans Company, a so-called “quango” (a public entity that is not entirely controlled by the government, but ultimately under its authority). The recent changes amount to a removal of a tuition fees cap, and also a change in the repayment system. When the new system is applied – in 2012 – students will have to begin repaying their loans once they start earning £21,000 per annum (up from the current quota of £15,000), which will amount to around £18 a month.
This is not privatisation, which is something irrelevant to your argument. British universities are government funded; the change in tuition fees reduces their bill, but does not remove it (also remember that the tuition fee loans are also supplied by the government anyway). You could argue that this is a move away from market control towards free markets (because universities can set their own fees, therefore becoming competitive with each other), but not privatisation. This is also hardly “American idealism and neo-con economic fantasies”.
You are trying to prove to me – a British student – that I am wrong. Try harder please.
Thanks Iranian.
Binam, there are many well educated Iranians not living in Iran who don’t agree with your assessment of the IR today. Why is that? Are they all fools?
Binam,
You are being silly and your caricature of Iran is absurd. The problem is that the deteriorating human rights situation in the US makes you uncomfortable and lashing out at others allows you to ignore a real problem in the US.
James Canning
Thanks for this link, http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11690.shtml
It was both interesting and informative.
The criminal Zionist regime and its supporters both in USA and around the world are betraying justice, rule of law and human rights in order to prolong this military occupation until the Palestine is wiped off the map.
The west preaches democracy and yet violates its fundamental principle by supporting this crime.
Sarah Palin is not worth taking seriously. She’s nothing but a star on a reality show.
Liz,
Considering your views on this forum and the fact that you’re a convert, FBI should have every right to storm in your house and arrest you or people who think like you. Because just because you’re a Muslim, you must be linked to Al Qaida and the Taliban and America is at war with them. Just because you’re a Muslim, you must not have the best interest of the United States in mind and must be endangering national security and plotting to destroy America and killing Americans. So you and people like you deserve to be imprisoned for the sake of national security with utter disregard for civil rights. If you get interrogated, raped or even killed while in custody that would be alright too, because America is threatened by Muslims like you and should take necessary measures to deal with you.
Of course I would be the first to object if you or anyone like you were treated as such. But unfortunately you are not willing to do the same with Iranians who oppose the hardline conservatives in Iran. You’re quick to link them to foreign countries and agents and you justify their imprisonment by agreeing with the regime that they are a threat to national security. You are indeed a hypocrite.
Pak writes: The British government just increased the cost of university education, because it cannot afford to subsidise the students any longer.
Not true. It chose to increase the cost of university education as part of an on-going conservative desire to privatize higher education. The amount of money was less than could be recouped by any number of just tax means. It was/is an ideological choice.
Covering the banks at 100% for losses due to their own actions was also a choice the British government made.
Pak’s comments always source from the same brand of American idealism and neo-con economic fantasies… and he is very comfortable that the Iranian people suffer for not sharing these fantasies.
One would think that the current state of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan would lead to some level of self questioning and doubt… but, alas!
While attending high school in Tehran during the mid-70s, my best friends were Jewish-Iranians.
In southern California, I hear they have a lock on the region’s expat cable TV media.
Recently, two Jewish-Iranian brothers in southern California were murdered apparently in an illicit wholesale street drug-deal gone bad.
Pak
That’s not true, there are a lot of young Iranians in California that are without jobs and there are now even Iranian gangs involved in fights with Afghani and Hispanic youths.
Pak,
You are incorrect and b is right about the subsidy program in Iran. By the way, not much freedom these days in the land of the free is there?
Dear James,
I cannot give you a specific percentage of Jews in the Iranian community in California, but I can tell you that they make up a significant proportion. Many live in Beverly Hills, which also has a significant non-Iranian Jewish population.
Unlike what Rehmat says, the majority of Iranians I know in California are highly successful businessmen, (plastic) surgeons, lawyers, architects and academics. There are of course those who are in more liberal industries, such as Bijan (the designer), but this is only a problem for conservative Iranians.
Dear MHF,
Unfortunately, Sarah Palin is quite a significant force in American politics. Extremism and populism can be quite popular: think Ahmadinejad.
James Canning – There are close to 500,000 Iranians in Southern California. In toronto, we have close to 40,000 Iranians, who like their American brothers ar – mostly secularists and pro-Shah. They owns clubs and restaurants where they enjoy dance and alcohol.
Jolly good-fellows, I usully tell my Iranian friends!
fyi – your rants always amuses me. The quote you mentioned is by a Jewish writer – and if you like I could post even worse quotes from Jews like Theodor herzl, Uri avnery, Gilad Atzmon and Roger Tuckers – but there is no use talking to 3-ft thick concrete Wailing Wall.
Muslims were well fed in Spain and Baghdad when Jews in Europe were force to wear collars around their neck.
I am aware of the fact that there are over 60 million Christian Zionists who love Jewish money and help Jews around the world to settle in Palestine so that their Messiah return and either convert Jews to Christianity or murder them. So, my advice to Zionist Jews – is watch your Zionist Christian supporters and forget about Hamas, Hizbullah and Islamic Republic, which all wants to see a world without Zionism AND not a world without Jews.
I recommend you to read the US-Russian Jewish journalist Mark Ames to find out who is more dangerous for the Jews – Muslims or Zionist Christians.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/save-a-jew-save-yourself/
Iranian,
Do you have any figures for the percentage of the Iranian community in Southern California that is Jewish?
Given the amount of noise the neocons and idiot “liberal” Democrats make about Hamas, are they aware that Israel wanted Hamas to take control of Gaza? On June 12, 2007, the head of Israeli military intelligence to US diplomats Israel would be “happy” if Hamas took over the Gaza Strip.
Was the US-Israel conspiracy to take control of Gaza, for Fatah, actually a scheme to prompt the Hamas counter-coup?
Sarah Palin is a whore of the Israel lobby and an idiot Iranophobe.
Dear Iranian,
Freedom is relative.
While riding my motorcycle about last night in San Francisco, I came across a car ahead of me with an oval bumper sticker that read “No War on Iran.” I took to heart in that.
My strike-through html did not work, but you should get the point.
Dear Eric,
“…are buying into and helping to legitimate legitimise bad neoconservative ideas about the Islamic Republic.”
And you are fully entitled to your opinion that ordinary Iranians are like the Taliban. Good for you.
Dear b,
The article you linked to is quite wrong.
“The subsidy reform in Iran will NOT cut the deficit Iran doesn’t have. It will also NOT lower government spending and it will NOT reduce the amount of provided benefits and public service. There are zero austerity measures in Iran.”
Iran does have a deficit – a budget deficit (where government expenditure is greater than government income). The reference provided by the article refers to a cash deficit.
The cut in subsidies WILL lower government spending: they currently spend around $100 billion per annum on subsidies; removing them, and distributing around $80 billion back to the people, will reduce their spending by around $20 billion.
The cut in subsidies WILL reduce the amount of provided benefits: a subsidy is a benefit. The British government just increased the cost of university education, because it cannot afford to subsidise the students any longer. This is an austerity measure. It is the same in Iran, because the government cannot afford the subsidies any longer.
“The wealthy in Iran will not get any income subsidy from the government and will have to pay higher prices. The people with modest income do get additional money from the government and will have to pay higher prices. Idealized their household balance sheet will expand on both sides but with the same balance result. In effect the opposite of the LAT “critics” say, unchallenged by LAT, will happen.”
The wealthy in Iran will not be affected by the cuts, because they have much greater disposable income. The people with modest and low incomes WILL be affected, because the cash payments by the government will not cover the inflation. For example, gasoline prices have risen by 300%. On top of the fact that gasoline is used to power cars and taxis, gasoline is also a variable cost for almost every good and service in an economy (production and transportation costs for example). Therefore, prices will need to increase to cover this 300% increase in variable costs. This is demonstrated by the fate of bread in Iran: bread prices have doubled, but a removal of flour subsidies has increased the price of flour by almost 4000%. How will bakeries cope without raising prices (i.e. inflation)?
It is hard to believe that cash payments of $80 a month will cover the subsequent inflation. It is too early to tell how large this inflation will be exactly, but it does not bode well for Iran, given that inflation is already large.
“As for an “emboldening political opposition” that the LAT claims.”
There were riots in 2007 after an increase in gasoline prices. If you look across Europe, you will see protests and riots in response to austerity measures. Regardless, opposition is not just demonstrated by actions, but thoughts too. Give time for unemployment and inflation to rise, and people will become even more dissatisfied.
Finally, the subsidy cuts are good, in theory. But given the current economic conditions in Iran (very slow growth, high unemployment, high inflation, sanctions, etc), given the lack of economic infrastructure in Iran, and given the wide-scale corruption and lack of transparency, these cuts will only make the situation worse.
Well written b.
The LA Times is extremely anti-Iranian and its Iranian reporters regularly kneel to the pro-Shah community (or any “exile” group that is anti-IRI). Hence, their biased and dishonest reporting.
Yes, Rand Paul of Kentucky is sharply critical of idiotic US “defense” spending. Dick Cheney did his best to defeat Paul in the primary.
Harvey Morris had an interesting short report in the Financial Times Dec. 21st: “Israel urged US to topple Tehran, leaks say”. In August 2007, the Mossad chief
told Nicholas Burns the US should do more to promote regime change in Iran by supporting student democracy movements and ethnic groups such as the Azeris, Kurds and Baluchis. (None of this is news to most readers of this site.)
“The neoconservatives and their particular approach to American foreign policy in the Middle East are back in force”
Really “back” in force? I didn’t see any evidence that they were ever out of force. The packaging changed a bit with Obama, but the policies didn’t change.
A bit off topic but my blog is back. Probably of interest here: LA Times Misleads on Iran’s Subsidy Reform
Rehmat says: December 23, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Jews, largely out of a misguided (in my opinion) sense of lyalty to Israel, are exercising what influence they have over the actions of US Government.
But the Protestant Christians, who, over the last 60 years, have consistently sent elected representatives with a pro-Israel bent to the White House and the 2 Houses of US Congress are largely to blame.
The world has changed; Muslim populations are becoming better-fed, better educated, better-informed, and better organized. As this process enfolds, they become more comfortable and secure in their Islamic Identity (there is no other indentity available to them) and they will take up the cause of Palestine.
For this reason, US will be in a state of permanent co-belligerence against Islam unless and until there is Hudna – cease fire – in Palestine.
Who is Sarah Palin?
Since the US foreign policy is 150% controlled by the Israel Lobby (AIPAC) – its hatred towards Iran and Muslims will ultimately prevail.
“If Obama is Israel’s friend, he’ll tell AIPAC and its cutouts in Congress that he will do what’s right for Israel, which, not so incidentally, is what is right for the United States,” says MJ Rosenberg…..
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/aipac-thou-shalt-not-recognize-palestine-state/
after the cookies are baked and the children nestled all snug in there wee little beds, settle in a comfortable chair in front of the fireplace, draw a quilt over your shoulders, and listen to Chris Hedges explain how America’s liberal institutions, including her churches, have failed, and how they can be revitalized to re-magnetize America’s moral compass.
http://pulsemedia.org/2010/12/22/the-death-of-the-liberal-class/
Merry Christmas to all– the gift of peace is universal.
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett must be the only people who take Sarah seriously. Com’on, this lady is not a serious person; I bet she cannot get elected as a dog-catcher anywhere in U.S., let alone even a Senator.
Be serious!
Liz:
You are right; there has been a drift towards totalitarianism in US.
That could be the wages of imperialism, I should think, that you become more like your opponents and adversaries over time.
Note the US National Security Courts, the proceedings of which are not open to the public, thus negating one fundamental requirement of the Rule of Law; Law openly administered.
Pak,
“One must really question the integrity of a woman who converts to Islam after being influenced by the Taliban school of thought.”
If doesn’t take long, does it? One recalls how quickly the view of Mousavi supporters about the 2009 election switched from “fair” to “fraud” once they learned that their guy had fallen 11 million votes short.
Pak,
You write about a sentence written by the Leveretts:
“Ignoring the grammatical error…”
As you and others have pointed out and I acknowledge, absence of evidence — about a grammatical error, an election, or whatever — is not evidence of absence. Nonetheless, Pak, I didn’t see any evidence of a grammatical error in the sentence you quoted. Can you point it out?
Incidentally, Professor Mearsheimer did make a minor word-choice error in his “Imperial by Design” piece cited by the Leveretts, which actually did bother me to see in a published article written (and proofread, one hopes) by a prominent professor. He used “principle” instead of “principal” in “the United States’ principle goal.” But who knows: maybe he was trying to say that the United States considers its goals to be principled.
Pak
You seem embarrassed by what Liz posted.
Oh, I should also mention the leftist “activist” Yvonne Ridley, who is currently employed by Press TV. Her story is the best: after being kidnapped by the Taliban and held hostage in Afghanistan for over a week, she converted to Islam.
One must really question the integrity of a woman who converts to Islam after being influenced by the Taliban school of thought.
Dear Liz,
Freedom is relative.
“It is even more striking that many “progressives”, “liberal internationalists” (we like John Mearshimer’s description, “liberal imperialist”, better), and “human rights advocates”—who would recoil at the suggestion they were conservatives of any sort, neo- or otherwise—are buying into and helping to legitimate bad neoconservative ideas about the Islamic Republic.”
Ignoring the grammatical error, this statement is quite ironic coming from the Leveretts. They, along with their leftist cronies, are legitimising the regime in Iran to pursue their own non-Iranian agendas. They are similar to George Galloway, the cat-impersonating, hand-licking, leftist “activist”, who cozied up to Saddam Hussein and continues to cozy up to the Iranian regime in order to deride the West.
FBI delivers subpoenas to 4 more anti-war, solidarity activists
Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2020
The FBI came unannounced to knock on doors at two apartments in Chicago this morning. FBI agent Robert Parker, under orders from U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s office, delivered a subpoena to Maureen Murphy. Murphy, like several other individuals served subpoenas, is an organizer with the Palestine Solidarity Group-Chicago and is the Managing Editor of the online journal “Electronic Intifada”.
This continues the repression unleashed by Fitzgerald on the anti-war movement since September 24th, when fourteen subpoenas were delivered to anti-war, labor, and solidarity activists in coordinated raids involving more than 70 federal agents. Armed FBI agents raided homes, taking computers, phones, passports, documents, notebooks, and even children’s artwork. A total of 23 subpoenas have been served to activists around the country. Maureen Murphy said, “Along with several others, I am being summoned to appear before the Grand Jury on Tuesday, January 25th, in the Dirksen Federal Building in Chicago. We are being targeted for the work we do to end U.S. funding of the Israeli occupation, ending the war in Afghanistan and ending the occupation of Iraq. What is at stake for all of us is our right to dissent and organize to change harmful US foreign policy.” Ms. Murphy is also the Managing Editor of the widely-read website, The Electronic Intifada.
In addition, three women in Minneapolis – Tracy Molm, Anh Pham, and Sara Martin – are threatened with reactivated subpoenas by Fitzgerald’s office and new Grand Jury dates. Tom Burke of the Committee to Stop FBI Repression explained, “It is likely the three individuals, like all the others so far, will continue to refuse to take part in Fitzgerald’s witch hunt. Fitzgerald can then call for putting them in jail as long as he wants.”
For more information: http://www.facebook.com/l/c1e35SZ5xcuh9euT2GF4qL5E82A;www.stopfbi.net
Contact: Tom Burke, Committee to Stop FBI Repression,
773-844-3612 Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street San Francisco,
CA 94110 415 863-9977