Dear readers,
Please let us know if you have or know where we can access an English transcript of then President Khamenei’s speech to the UN General Assembly in 1987?
Thank you, Flynt and Hillary
REQUEST
About The Race for Iran
Archive Highlights
- WHAT MIGHT MARTIN LUTHER KING SAY ABOUT U.S. POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST TODAY? On April 4, 1967, King delivered an address, entitled “Beyond Vietnam: A Time To Break Silence”, at Riverside Church in New York City. More than 40 years later, it remains one of the most searing analyses we have ever encountered of the temptation to hegemony which, time and again over the last 60 years, has lured the United States into ill-conceived, highly destructive, and ultimately counterproductive foreign policies.
- MOVING BEYOND REGIME CHANGE IN AMERICA’S MIDDLE EAST POLICY We do not believe that the United States needs regime change in Tehran to improve its relations with Iran. To do that, the United States needs to pursue smart diplomacy with the Islamic Republic’s current political structure—diplomacy, that is, which treats the Islamic Republic as Iran’s legitimate government, seeking to defend and enhance Iran’s legitimate interests. This is something that no U.S. President since 1979—not even Barack Hussein Obama—has tried to do.
- ASHURA IN ISTANBUL AND TEHRAN: WESTERN JOURNALISTS CONTINUE TO UNDERESTIMATE IRAN’S SOFT POWER We have previously warned against underestimating the extent of Iran’s “soft power” in the Arab world. But those doing the chattering would also be well advised to ponder that America’s closest Arab allies—Egypt and Saudi Arabia—are entering a period of political uncertainty because of impending changes in top-level leadership, and are, in any event, losing influence across the region (Egypt even more than Saudi Arabia, but the trend is clear in both cases).
- WHY SHOULD IRAN TRUST PRESIDENT OBAMA? A sober examination of the Obama administration's interactions with Iran since President Obama took office in 2009 reveals a dismaying mix of incompetence and outright duplicity that has done profound damage to American interests and credibility.
- Video of the Leveretts on Charlie Rose Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett appeared on The Charlie Rose Show.
The Authors
Flynt Leverett
Hillary Mann Leverett
Key Documents
- Turkey-Brazil-Iran Nuclear Agreement
- UNSCRs
- IAEA Reports
- Iranian Proposals
- Western And P5+1 Proposals
- Energy and Economics
- Resources on US Policy
- Videos
- Rules and Regulations For www.RaceforIran.com
Archives
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
Superman goes to Iran
In the new Comic Action #900 – Superman declares that he intends to renounce his US citizenship in front of the United Nations in order to carry-out Zionists’ anti-Muslim agenda globally.
In the episode, Obama’s National Security adviser shows his dipleasure over Superman’s showing-up at Iranian protests against Ahmadinejad’s re-election. Superman being an American national hero – his participation gave Tehran to blame Washington behind the anti-government protests.
“I’m tired of having my actions construed as instrument of U.S. policy,” Superman tells the adviser and threaten him, “which is why I intend to speak before the United Nations tomorrow and inform them that I am renouncing my U.S. citizenship“.
I suppose Superman could have told the idiot: “Count your blessings, I did not join the Intifada 2“.
On June 24, 2009 – Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor to Gerald Ford and GHW Bush, told Al-Jazeera television that “of course” Washington “has agents working inside Iran” even though America hasn’t had formal relations with the Islamic Republic for 30 years.
Most of popular comics, such as Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Captain Marvel, Captain America, Hulk and the Holocaust pornographic booklet series (Stalag) – were created by Jewish comic artists
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/superman-goes-to-iran/
US warns Turkey against trade with Iran
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/us-warns-turkey-against-trade-with-iran/
Heres an interesting take on the situation in Libya
The Balkanization of Libya: US-NATO Plans to Carve up Libyan Territory
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24527
comment from Pat Lang’s blog, SicSemperTyrannis, on a topic discussing the unification of Fatah-Hamas:
“I just returned from 2 weeks in Israel celebrating the Holidays as I always do. During my time there I listened to talks by Danny Ayalon, Benny Begin and Danny Danon, all members of Netanyahu’s inner cabinet.
It’s still clear from their statements about Netanyahu’s position on peace compromises that Israel is still pursuing the Allon Plan from the late 1960′s. This would break the West Bank into cantons without any direct contact to the outside world, as Pat mentioned.
The Jordan Valley would go to Israel, for supposed security reasons. Israel would expand Ma’ale Adumim all the way to Jericho cutting the West Bank in half. A new wrinkle has been added to the Allon Plan because the corridor encompassing Ariel is being expanded to include Eli and Shilo thus cutting the northern west bank half into two non-continguous cantons.
Just to add insult to injury I was in Kiryat Arba when municipal authorities were told not to worry since the Gush Etzion block would be expanded all the way out to Hebron to encompass the 10,000 Jews living in Kiryat Arba.
I have been going back and forth to Israel twice a year for more than 5 decades. Over that time I have watched my people and a country I love, slowly but surely losing it’s soul. It is stunning how much the people and country have changed since my bar mitzvah in Haifa in 1956.
Netanyahu’s coalition merely reflects the emotions and thoughts of the general public. That is why I am pessimistic about the future of peace. If Bibi is replaced, the next coalition will be just as insensitive to the needs of Palestinians or, for that matter, any gentiles. Only a SEVERE shock to the nation will alter its course and ensure its future.
Posted by: jdledell | 29 April 2011 at 08:17 PM”
Hamas-Fatah ‘Unity Government’!
Personally, I am least optimistic about any deal with the double agent Abbas. However, a unity government’s unilaterally declaration of an independent Palestinian state (Gaza, West Bank with East Jerusalem its capital) would carry more weight under international laws.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/hamas-fatah-unity-government/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggEyLN8REt0
This is the link to pat one of that speech but if you follow this link you will find alll the parts.
btw – still no mention of Syria on the front pages of Fars News, IRNA, ISNA, Mehr News, ILNA. Press TV has a water-downed coverage in English which quotes Syria’s state TV: “The terrorists have confessed that they had received money from foreign organizations to kill government forces and cause chaos in the city, according to the state television. ”
There is however more criticism of the West’s double standard vis-a-vis Bahrain:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/29/bahrain-saudi-arabia-iran-west
Come on Leveretts – you were wrong about Syria. Let’s hear you admit it.
There are now more people killed in Syria’s uprising than Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain. Do people like Liz and Bussed-in-Thug still hold the line that Assad is a popular leader as the protests grow larger and larger?
More importantly – will the Leveretts admit they were wrong about Syria and might in fact be wrong about Iran? Perhaps they should hold off on their book.
Persian Gulf,
Quoting the constitution that the Leader has clearly trampled on does now answer my question: Has there been a SINGLE instance were someone criticized the Leader and did not end up in jail or dead? They are now going beyond the constitution and saying disobeying the Leader is like disobeying God almighty himself!
Libya: Will the Farce Stay With US (And France and Britain)?
Overview
Libya: Will the Farce Stay With US (And France and Britain)?By Anthony H. Cordesman
Apr 20, 2011
At some point in time, it will be critical to examine the historical record behind the French, British, and US intervention in Libya and why they dragged NATO and allies like Qatar and the UAE into such a gamble. It seems likely, however, that the choice to act came after watching the rebels advance with seeming ease towards Qaddafi’s overthrow and suffer what still seemed like limited reverses. Given past cases, it is likely that regional, intelligence, and military experts in each country all expressed caution and gave warning about the problems and uncertainties involved, but were overruled by their respective political leaders – who saw their staffs as needlessly cautious.
What is already certain is that the end result was a set of decisions that focused on short term considerations and bet on the outcome. French, British, and US leaders do not seem to have fully coordinated, but it is clear that they sought and got international cover from the UN by claiming a no fly zone could protect civilians when their real objective was to use force as a catalyst to drive Qaddafi out of power. They seem to have assumed that a largely unknown, divided, and fractured group of rebels could win through sheer political momentum and could then be turned into a successful government. They clearly planned a limited air campaign that called for a politically safe set of strikes again against Qaddafi’s air defense and air force, and only limited follow-up in terms of ground strikes against his forces. And then, they waited for success…
American connoisseurs of schadenfreude can take some comfort in the parallels between this course of action and the equally naïve and dangerous approach used by the Bush Administration in Iraq. After all, watching a French President, a British Prime Minister, and a Democratic President of the US repeat the Bush Administration’s failure to plan for the decisive and lasting use of force, fail to plan for the civil side of military operations and to support stability operations, and focus on short term goals without a realistic plan for a successful strategic and post-conflict outcome is not without irony and touches of black humor. And as for historians, the whole thing is yet another demonstration that they have the world’s easiest profession; all they have to do is wait for history to repeat itself.
Unfortunately, there is nothing amusing about the fact that the lives and futures of some 6.6 million Libyans are at stake. The Franco-Anglo-American gamble now seems far too likely to fail at their expense. Moreover, it seems likely to drag the other nations that support the operation into their failure — along with part of the reputation of NATO and credibility of the UN.
The key problem is that farce is still being used as a substitute for force. It is just a little over two months since the protests began in mid-February, and the rebels seemed likely to sweep though Libya and take Tripoli. It is almost exactly two months since Qaddafi began to respond with air and helicopter attacks and the massive use of force. It was early March when Qaddafi’s forces began a near decisive set of victories, and they were on the edge of victory in mid-March. It was this series of events that led to a UN Resolution authorizing on March 17th with major US-led coalition air strikes starting on March 19th.
In the month that has followed, it has become all too clear that gambling on Qaddafi caving in has created a far more serious humanitarian crisis for the Libyan people than would ever have occurred if the Coalition had acted decisively from the start and had directly attacked Qaddafi, his centers of power, and the military forces loyal to him. The humanitarian cost of humanitarian restraint is all too clear: Hundreds of Libyan and foreign workers have been killed, thousands injured, thousands more arrested and sometimes tortured, and hundreds of thousands lack jobs, security, and safe conditions of life.
And yes, the farce is still with us. A weak, divided, poorly led, and badly equipped and supplied set of rebel forces can only hang on with the present level of air support. Yesterday’s announcement that British and French military advisors are going to help is not going to alter that situation quickly. It will take months more – at a minimum – to properly train and equip them and it will take a radical shift in rebel leadership to give them meaningful unity and discipline.
In the interim an enduring war of attrition will turn a minor humanitarian crisis into a major one – driven by the reality that Libya has to import over 75% of its food, and the Qaddafi regime was so corrupt and self-serving that the CIA estimates that 30% of the population was unemployed, and one-third was at the poverty line before the crisis began.
Ugly and tragic as the reality is, only luck and a sudden collapse of Qaddafi’s nerve will now change this situation unless force is used instead of farce. There is no need for new UN Resolutions, but France, Britain, the US and other participating members of the Coalition that want to really help the Libyan people need to use the vagueness of the existing resolution to achieve decisive results.
France, Britain, the US and other participating members of the Coalition need to shift to the kind of bombing campaign that targets and hunts down Qaddafi’s military and security forces in their bases and as they move – as long before they engage rebel forces as possible. Qaddafi, his extended family, and his key supporters need to be targeted for their attacks on Libyan civilians, even if they are collocated in civilian areas. They need to be confronted with the choice between exile or death, and bombing needs to be intense enough so it is clear to them that they must make a choice as soon as possible.
This kind of operation cannot be “surgical’ – if “surgical” now means minimizing bloodshed regardless of whether the patient dies. Hard, and sometimes brutal, choices need to be made between limited civilian casualties and collateral damage during the decisive use of force and an open-ended war of attrition that will produce far higher cumulative civilian casualties and collateral damage. The Coalition will also need to avoid the trap of blundering into some kind of ceasefire, where Qaddafi’s forces and unity will give him the advantage. This will be a “peace” that simply becomes a war of attrition and terror campaign by other means.
At the same time, France, Britain, and the US now have a special obligation to both finish what they started in military terms, and deal with the aftermath. A post-conflict Libya will need extensive help in building a workable political system, in rebuilding the capability to govern, in both rebuilding the existing economy and correcting for decades of Qaddafi’s reckless and constantly shifting eccentricities. It will need coordinated humanitarian relief. Force alone will simply be another form of farce.
fyi says:
By George Friedman
“The problem is that the coalition that governs Iraq is fragmented and still not yet finalized,”
And who was exactly responsible for fermenting sectarian deivide?
“But Iran has been systematically building its influence in Iraq among all factions using money, blackmail and ideology delivered by a sophisticated intelligence service.”
and US had been systematically sanctioning the Iraqi people for a decade or so, then dropping depleted uranium ammunition on them, then killing many hundreds of thousand as collateral damage.. and the list goes on.. and you wonder about your influence?
“They see Iran as the rising power in the region, and that perception is neither unreasonable nor something to which the United States or Saudi Arabia has an easy counter.”
On the contrary, drop your demands, be reasonable, and negotiate on good faith, and remove yourself from the region, perhaps you’ll be done gently.
Mr Goerge Freidman, what is it exactly you have got sitting on top of your shoulder/neck?? A brain, it is not. Perhaps you would like to look up and see what you got sitting up there!
And as far as having “some” troops nearby, me thinks that may not be such a bad idea. In case there ever was any hostilities, acquisition of some number of live assets will be a good instrument to insure the FULL ATTENTION of the American public into yet another useless war. In other words GF, you might want to count your blessings if the Iraqis are demanding complete withdraw.
Unknown Unknowns says: April 29, 2011 at 12:04 am
Thank you for your comments.
On basis of which verses of the Quran do you base your ideas of individual vs. the collective and posit that it breaks from previous revelations?
“Upon you I will build my Church (the body of the Christ – the body of believers). Jesus to St. Paul.
In regards to the Hegelian ideas of the World Spirit (Absolute Spirit) I do not subscribe to them since its concieves every human life as a mere stepping-stone or an atom in the evolution of that spirit.
When one’s excavations reveal the bones of 3 members of a family – a mother and her 2 children – who had died 12,000 years before – when human beings lived in familial bands; then one may hope that their lives have not been for nil – that indeed God has cared about them as much as any other individual before or since.
Unknown Unknowns says:
April 29, 2011 at 12:04 am
I don’t have any other way of repaying a debt I owe you for a coherent, illuminating, honest, and logical set of points you raise. So, I’ll say thank you.
The Royal wedding – the marriage of the heir to the British throne, Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales, to his girlfriend of eight years Catherine Elizabeth Middleton (“Kate”) will take place on Friday 29th April 2011 at Westminster Abbey, London, UK.
The ‘modest’ wedding will be attended by 1900 guests including 50 heads of states. Two of the top war criminals, US President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are not invited. However, the third top war-criminal, British Prime Minister David Cameron will be the ‘organizer’ of the event. The former British war criminal, Tony Blair, is also not invited to the wedding for unknown reasons.
The royal wedding is expected to cost the British taxpayers around twenty million £s which some racists (Nationalist White Groups) can blame on the ‘too many colored immigrants’ who are draining British oconomy.
The Muslim ‘royal’ puppets attending the wedding include Prince Mohamed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia, and Princess Fadwa bint Khalid bin Abdullah bin Abdulrahman, Emir of the State of Qatar and Sheika Mozah bint Basser Al Missned. However, the Crown Prince of Bahrain who is busy murdering his Shia-majority subjects for US-Israel interests, has declined the invitation, reported as saying, he did not wish to “tarnish” the occasion.
A British website Muslims Against Crusades has issued an appeal on the advice of some Islamic scholars that the threat of an imminent attack against those attending the royal wedding on 29th April 2011, is too strong to substantiate the presence of any Muslims within the locality.
Felicity Arbuthnot has written an exellent review for the Global Research.
Ironically, in the early eighties, the three year old Kate Middleton, went to her first school in Amman, Jordan, where her father was Station Manager for British Airways. She was was taught in, and learned Arabic, in what seems to have been a happy time for the family. There is speculation that part of their honeymoon might be spent there. Should it be, there might be the beginning of a hand across an increasingly wide divide between West and East. A “Search and Rescue” of a different Kind? Hoping, but no breath holding.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/look-whos-not-invited-at-the-royal-wedding/
masoud says:
April 28, 2011 at 7:02 pm
*
Very interesting article; thank you for posting it. Especially interesting was the conclusionary rhetorical question whose answer, for the RFI audience as with the author, is patently negatory.
@fYI
The country that could possibly counter Iran in Iraq is Saudi Arabia
You mean these KSA solders
:http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52364000/jpg/_52364365_011561052-1.jpg
Oops. Posted the incomplete version. Please ignore, in favor of this one:
fyi/ BibiJon – Re: the individual and her rights
I’m really addressing BibiJon here, as it seems no matter what is said, fyi is in a cocoon of his own concoction and will not see the light of day – in this lifetime, at any rate.
Firstly, fyi, when you say that the individual is all that God cares about [and that he does not care about the collective, about society at large], not only are you making the gross error of failing to see that The Final Prophet’s greatest gift and contribution to humanity was his bringing together the two poles of the sacred and the profane for humanity as a whole and not just the individual, and thereby providing a model upon which future societies can build, using the ethical norms and precedents established therein – the greatness of the Final Prophet lay precisely in this, in so far that other prophets before him were either not great enough to be statesmen as well as spiritual guides (viz. Jesus give-unto-Caesar-what-is-Caesar’s the Christ), or were, as in, say Moses or any other Abrahamic prophet, leaders at merely a tribal level, or at a national level: Confucius and Lao Tsu, say, for the Chinese nation, or Socrates and Plato for the Greek nation and its diaspora in that little erstwhile backwater peninsula known as Europe – not only that truly gross error are you making (forgive me while I slip into Yodic syntax), but you are making a grosser error yet, i.e., one that is on the more basic or fundamental level of logic, namely, that you speak of the individual as if it is an entity separate from the collective, whereas of course, not only is this not the case, but the reality is that the individual is no more separable from reality than is the front of the coin separable from its obverse. In other words, the only way that we can know an individual, is in relation to the society within which s/he exists and emerges; the magnificence of the butterfly can be fully appreciated only when one contrasts her with the chrysalis which was the womb she emerged from.
Now, if we stay with that analogy for a little longer, we can apply it not just to individuals and their process of individuation, but to societies themselves, and indeed, to humanity as a whole, the unfolding of the World Spirit, as Hegel called it in his *Phenomenology*, or the Jaan-e Jahan [Spirit of the World] to use its sufic antecedent. So, by reframing the issue in its proper context, we avoid the false dichotomy of individual vs. collective (and indeed the whole communitarian/ libertarian false dichotomy that modern political theory is based, from Berlin’s *Two Concepts of Liberty* to Rawls’s *A Theory of Justice*), and the question of relevance changes from the futile individual/ collective discourse to the real issue of relevance, which is the PACE of individuation.
As the World Spirit (Jaan-e Jahan] transports Itself from its *perspective* of unicity to multiplicity the better to view Itself (recall the *hadith qudsi* [Hans: meaning divine utterance {of the Prophet, with whom be peace}]: “I was a Hidden Treasure and I wanted to be known, so I created creation in order to be known”) with the *mardomak* [iris] of His *khalifat fil-ard* [Vice-Regent on Earth] – the iris which is the portal to the Heart of *bani-Adam* [the House or the Sons and Daughters of Adam], which is the microcosmic key to the macrocosm, (where “you will see [His] signs on the horizons and in your hearts”), as I was saying, as she/it/we [“I seem to be a verb”] unfold(s), the trick is to BALANCE the “progressive” impetus of to the self-perspective of multiplicity, growth, individuation, dispersion, with the “conservative” tendency or better, inertia, of unicity, wholeness, integrity, singularity, so as to ensure that the Chain of Being is never too taut and never too slack. Let *that* criterion be the *telesm*[talisman] of what is POLARIZING and let *that* criterion be the touchstone of what is UNIFYING. Ameen.
Hallmark of Modernity: Life in Motion; having to adjust from still frames to moving pictures.
fyi/ BibiJon – Re: the individual and her rights
I’m really addressing BibiJon here, as it seems no matter what is said, fyi is in a cocoon of his own concoction and will not see the light of day.
Firstly, fyi, when you say that the individual is all that God cares about [and that he does not care about the collective, about society at large], not only are you making the gross error of failing to see that The Final Prophet’s greatest gift and contribution to humanity was his bringing together the two poles of the sacred and the profane for humanity as a whole and not just the individual, and thereby providing a model upon which future societies can build, using the ethical norms and precedents established therein – the greatnest of the Final Prophet lay precisely in this, in so far that other prophets before him were either not great enough to be statesmen as well as spiritual guides (viz. Jesus give-unto-Caesar-what-is-Caesar’s the Christ), or were, as in, say Moses or any other Abrahamic prophet, leaders at merely a tribal level, or at a national level: Confucius and Lao Tsu, say, for the Chinese nation, or Socrates and Plato for the Greek nation and its diaspora in that little erstwhile backwater peninsula known as Europe – not only that truly gross error are you making (forgive me while I slip into Yodic syntax), but you are making a grosser error yet, i.e., one that is on the more basic or fundamental level of logic, namely, that you speak of the individual as if it is an entity separate from the collective, whereas of course, not only is this not the case, but the reality is that the individual is no more separable from reality than is the front of the coin separable from its obverse. In other words, the only way that wwe can know an individual, is in relation to the society within which s/he exists and emerges; the magnificence of the butterfly can be fully appreciated only when one contrasts her with the crysallis which was teh womb she emerged from.
Now, if we stay with that alanogy for a little longer, we can apply it not just to individuals and their process of individuation, but to societies themselves, and indeed, to humanity as a whole, the unfolding of the World Spirit, as Hegel called it in his *Phenomenology*, or the Jaan-e Jahan [Spirit of the World]
April 26, 2011
By George Friedman
The United States told the Iraqi government last week that if it wants
U.S. troops to remain in Iraq beyond the deadline of Dec. 31, 2011, as
stipulated by the current Status of Forces Agreement between
Washington and Baghdad, it would have to inform the United States
quickly. Unless a new agreement is reached soon, the United States
will be unable to remain. The implication in the U.S. position is that
a complex planning process must be initiated to leave troops there and
delays will not allow that process to take place.
What is actually going on is that the United States is urging the
Iraqi government to change its mind on U.S. withdrawal, and it would
like Iraq to change its mind right now in order to influence some of
the events taking place in the Persian Gulf. The Shiite uprising in
Bahrain and the Saudi intervention, along with events in Yemen, have
created an extremely unstable situation in the region, and the United
States is afraid that completing the withdrawal would increase the
instability.
The Iranian Rise
The American concern, of course, has to do with Iran. The United
States has been unable to block Iranian influence in Iraq’s post-
Baathist government. Indeed, the degree to which the Iraqi government
is a coherent entity is questionable, and its military and security
forces have limited logistical and planning ability and are not
capable of territorial defense. The issue is not the intent of Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who himself is enigmatic. The problem is
that the coalition that governs Iraq is fragmented and still not yet
finalized, dominated by Iranian proxies such Muqtada al-Sadr — and it
only intermittently controls the operations of the ministries under
it, or the military and security forces.
As such, Iraq is vulnerable to the influence of any substantial power,
and the most important substantial power following the withdrawal of
the United States will be Iran. There has been much discussion of the
historic tension between Iraqi Shia and Iranian Shia, all of which is
true. But Iran has been systematically building its influence in Iraq
among all factions using money, blackmail and ideology delivered by a
sophisticated intelligence service. More important, as the United
States withdraws, Iraqis, regardless of their feelings toward Iran
(those Iraqis who haven’t always felt this way), are clearly sensing
that resisting Iran is dangerous and accommodation with Iran is the
only solution. They see Iran as the rising power in the region, and
that perception is neither unreasonable nor something to which the
United States or Saudi Arabia has an easy counter.
The Iraqi government’s response to the American offer has been
predictable. While some quietly want the United States to remain, the
general response has ranged from dismissal to threats if the United
States did not leave. Given that the United States has reportedly
offered to leave as many as 20,000 troops in a country that 170,000
American troops could not impose order on, the Iraqi perception is
that this is merely a symbolic presence and that endorsing it would
get Iraq into trouble with Iran, which has far more than 20,000 troops
and ever-present intelligence services. It is not clear that the
Iraqis were ever prepared to allow U.S. troops to remain, but 20,000
is enough to enrage Iran and not enough to deal with the consequences.
The American assumption in deciding to leave Iraq — and this goes back
to George W. Bush as well as Barack Obama — was that over the course
of four years, the United States would be able to leave because it
would have created a coherent government and military. The United
States underestimated the degree to which fragmentation in Iraq would
prevent that outcome and the degree to which Iranian influence would
undermine the effort. The United States made a pledge to the American
public and a treaty with the Iraqi government to withdraw forces, but
the conditions that were expected to develop simply did not.
Not coincidentally, the withdrawal of American forces has coincided
with tremendous instability in the region, particularly on the Arabian
Peninsula. All around the periphery of Saudi Arabia an arc of
instability has emerged. It is not that the Iranians engineered it,
but they have certainly taken advantage of it. As a result, Saudi
Arabia is in a position where it has had to commit forces in Bahrain,
is standing by in Yemen, and is even concerned about internal
instability given the rise of both reform-minded and Shiite elements
at a time of unprecedented transition given the geriatric state of the
country’s top four leaders. Iran has certainly done whatever it could
to exacerbate this instability, which fits neatly into the Iraqi
situation.
As the United States leaves Iraq, Iran expects to increase its
influence there. Iran normally acts cautiously even while engaged in
extreme rhetoric. Therefore, it is unlikely to send conventional
forces into Iraq. Indeed, it might not be necessary to do so in order
to gain a dominant political position. Nor is it inconceivable that
the Iranians could decide to act more aggressively. With the United
States gone, the risks decline.
Saudi Arabia’s Problem
The country that could possibly counter Iran in Iraq is Saudi Arabia,
which has been known to funnel money to Sunni groups there. Its
military is no match for Iran’s in a battle for Iraq, and its
influence there has been less than Iran’s among most groups. More
important, as the Saudis face the crisis on their periphery they are
diverted and preoccupied by events to the east and south. The unrest
in the region, therefore, increases the sense of isolation of some
Iraqis and increases their vulnerability to Iran. Thus, given that
Iraq is Iran’s primary national security concern, the events in the
Persian Gulf work to Iran’s advantage.
The United States previously had an Iraq question. That question is
being answered, and not to the American advantage. Instead, what is
emerging is a Saudi Arabia question. Saudi Arabia currently is clearly
able to handle unrest within its borders. It has also been able to
suppress the Shia in Bahrain — for now, at least. However, its ability
to manage its southern periphery with Yemen is being tested, given
that the regime in Sanaa was already weakened by multiple insurgencies
and is now being forced from office after more than 30 years in power.
If the combined pressure of internal unrest, turmoil throughout the
region and Iranian manipulation continues, the stress on the Saudis
could become substantial.
The basic problem the Saudis face is that they don’t know the limits
of their ability (which is not much beyond their financial muscle) to
manage the situation. If they miscalculate and overextend, they could
find themselves in an untenable position. Therefore, the Saudis must
be conservative. They cannot afford miscalculation. From the Saudi
point of view, the critical element is a clear sign of long-term
American commitment to the regime. American support for the Saudis in
Bahrain has been limited, and the United States has not been
aggressively trying to manage the situation in Yemen, given its
limited ability to shape an outcome there. Coupled with the American
position on Iraq, which is that it will remain only if asked — and
then only with limited forces — the Saudis are clearly not getting the
signals they want from the United States. In fact, what further
worsens the Saudi position is that they cannot overtly align with the
United States for their security needs. Nevertheless, they also have
no other option. Exploiting this Saudi dilemma is a key part of the
Iranian strategy.
The smaller countries of the Arabian Peninsula, grouped with Saudi
Arabia in the Gulf Cooperation Council, have played the role of
mediator in Yemen, but ultimately they lack the force needed by a
credible mediator — a potential military option to concentrate the
minds of the negotiating parties. For that, they need the United
States.
It is in this context that the crown prince of the United Arab
Emirates (UAE), Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nuhayyan, will be
visiting Washington on April 26. The UAE is one of the few countries
on the Arabian Peninsula that has not experienced significant unrest.
As such, it has emerged as one of the politically powerful entities in
the region. We obviously cannot know what the UAE is going to ask the
United States for, but we would be surprised if it wasn’t for a
definitive sign that the United States was prepared to challenge the
Iranian rise in the region.
The Saudis will be watching the American response very carefully.
Their national strategy has been to uncomfortably rely on the United
States. If the United States is seen as unreliable, the Saudis have
only two options. One is to hold their position and hope for the best.
The other is to reach out and see if some accommodation can be made
with Iran. The tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia — religious,
cultural, economic and political — are profound. But in the end, the
Iranians want to be the dominant power in the Persian Gulf, defining
economic, political and military patterns.
On April 18, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s adviser
for military affairs, Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, warned Saudi
Arabia that it, too, could be invaded on the same pretext that the
kingdom sent forces into Bahrain to suppress a largely Shiite rising
there. Then, on April 23, the commander of Iran’s elite Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps, Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jaafari, remarked
that Iran’s military might was stronger than that of Saudi Arabia and
reminded the United States that its forces in the region were within
range of Tehran’s weapons. Again, the Iranians are not about to make
any aggressive moves, and such statements are intended to shape
perception and force the Saudis to capitulate on the negotiating
table.
The Saudis want regime survival above all else. Deciding between
facing Iran alone or reaching an unpleasant accommodation, the Saudis
have little choice. We would guess that one of the reasons the UAE is
reaching out to Obama is to try to convince him of the dire
consequences of inaction and to move the United States into a more
active role.
A Strategy of Neglect
The Obama administration appears to have adopted an increasingly
obvious foreign policy. Rather than simply attempt to control events
around the world, the administration appears to have selected a policy
of careful neglect. This is not, in itself, a bad strategy. Neglect
means that allies and regional powers directly affected by the problem
will take responsibility for the problem. Most problems resolve
themselves without the need of American intervention. If they don’t,
the United States can consider its posture later. Given that the world
has become accustomed to the United States as first responder, other
countries have simply waited for the American response. We have seen
this in Libya, where the United States has tried to play a marginal
role. Conceptually, this is not unsound.
The problem is that this will work only when regional powers have the
weight to deal with the problem and where the outcome is not crucial
to American interests. Again, Libya is an almost perfect example of
this. However, the Persian Gulf is an area of enormous interest to the
United States because of oil. Absent the United States, the regional
forces will not be able to contain Iran. Therefore, applying this
strategy to the Persian Gulf creates a situation of extreme risk for
the United States.
Re-engagement in Iraq on a level that would deter Iran is not a likely
option, not only because of the Iraqi position but also because the
United States lacks the force needed to create a substantial
deterrence that would not be attacked and worn down by guerrillas.
Intruding in the Arabian Peninsula itself is dangerous for a number of
reasons, ranging from the military challenge to the hostility an
American presence could generate. A pure naval and air solution lacks
the ability to threaten Iran’s center of gravity, its large ground
force.
Therefore, the United States is in a difficult position. It cannot
simply decline engagement nor does it have the ability to engage at
this moment — and it is this moment that matters. Nor does it have
allies outside the region with the resources and appetite for
involvement. That leaves the United States with the Saudi option —
negotiate with Iran, a subject I’ve written on before. This is not an
easy course, nor a recommended one, but when all other options are
gone, you go with what you have.
The pressure from Iran is becoming palpable. All of the Arab countries
feel it, and whatever their feelings about the Persians, the realities
of power are what they are. The UAE has been sent to ask the United
States for a solution. It is not clear the United States has one. When
we ask why the price of oil is surging, the idea of geopolitical risk
does come to mind. It is not a foolish speculation.
.
fyi says: April 28, 2011 at 10:37 pm
On the individual autonomy, as a psychdological personal experience, rests the intrinsic rights of human beings.
Well known in Custome and accepted as such, Revelation states that the sense of individual autonomy, that experience, is indeed an endowment by God.
Castellio says: April 28, 2011 at 7:39 pm
No.
Revelations did not posit such rights; it only further endorsed such rights and attributed the source to God.
That is, psychologically, almost all sane human beings operate on basis on belief in their personal autonomy; that they are not mere automata. On this rests the fundamenta
FYI, maybe I’m just (finally) seeing the obvious, but do you relate what you call the intrinsic rights of individuals to revelation?
Bussed-in-Basiji,
Personally, i think Mashaei is great. I think if they let him run for president in two years, he would stand a great chance of winning. I think there is a good chance this is what all the stink is about: The Ahmadinejad camp trying to force the hand of the GC into approving his candidacy.
Anyway, I’d like to know what you think the range of reactions from the ‘Basiji’ camp is when when Mashaei says something like in the following video:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/iran130809.html
fyi says:
April 28, 2011 at 5:00 pm
A truer statement would be that Human beings are social animals that have intrinsic rights.
The irresolvable dichotomy inherent in being an individual in a society is better captured in that statement.
BiBiJon says: April 28, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Human beings have intrinsic rights.
Any law that infringes on those rights is iherently unjust.
fyi says:
April 28, 2011 at 2:39 pm
On the one hand I agree with Paul. Enforcement of any law is going to be perceived as fascistic by the perp who will resist enforcement and make the whole process look very unseemly for by standers.
On the other hand, laws are laws. I agree with the great economist Friedrich Hayek that law should be prior to legislation. That is, the law should reflect a broad social consensus on the rules of justice.
I also agree with Francis Fukuyama that references in the Iranian Constitution to God and religion as the sources of law are not the problem. The only test should be whether a country is governed by law, and whether drafting of laws, and subsequent changes to them follow a ‘fair’ procedure.
Drafting laws, and enforcing them are a grave responsibility, which by definition all societies screw up, which then necessitates drafting laws to address the screw ups.
On the ‘awesome responsibility’ point, let me borrow from general Montgomery. In his old age he was asked in an interview how he felt about ordering thousands of his soldiers to their deaths. After a very, very long pause, Montgomery replied: we spare no effort to plan the action meticulously, and we spare no effort to give the fallen a decent burial.
Let me end my ramble with a picture:
http://mediagallery.usatoday.com/Cars-in-the-News/Week-ended-April-28/G1411,A9013
Fiorangela says: April 28, 2011 at 2:51 pm
I am also against debasement of women – and also men.
I stand as a minority of one at times, for Liberty and God-given freedom.
this is amazing, fy, and I wish I could label it with the appropriate fallacy, but I’m laughing too hard.
you wrote: make that YOU wrote–
“I suppose the allusion is that the Iranian women are born harlots with their loins on fire and they need the be kept under constant and strict and robust and vigilant application of the strictures of the pharisee Islam enforced by the (largely foolish) Iranian men and deprived of unfettered access to the world outside of Iran, lest they overthrow the Islamic Order in their undoubtedly wanton desire to be fashionable and to indulge their enormous and repressed sexual desires.
I think you can do better than this.”
YOUR words, YOUR “allusions,” or should I say delusions.
You bet I can do better than your delusions.
The question –the worry — is, can you do worse or is this as bad as your delusions get?
You may have noticed that I mixed up the link and the statement. The link opened up to a semi-naked young woman who was satirizing the Crucifixion of Jesus. Leave aside the satire; what I wanted to emphasize was the debasement of women. Connecting it to Netanyahu’s statement to US Congressmen that programs such as Melrose Place are useful to subvert Iranian young people, it seemed to me unavoidable to recognize that the goal of Israelists is to undermine AMERICAN and Iranian and Islamic values by appealing to the least common denominator in our animal natures, and by commodifying human existence, turning human existence into the a perpetual consumption machine, the better to feed the capitalist machine.
Shall I continue and explain to you how truly ‘subversive’ that is, and how much more destructive than even a nuclear explosion it is to destroy the cultural glue that holds families and communities together, and to undermine the aesthetic sense that inspires us to seek beauty and goodness rather than baseness in our lives. These are precisely the aspirations that Benjamin Netanyahu and his terror gang forebears have sought to destroy to the United States for about a hundred years, and which Bibi is royally pissed that he’s not been able to fully enact on Iranian and Islamic culture.
Castellio says: April 28, 2011 at 1:58 pm
I meant many things.
The state charitably supports the indigent, the poor, and the sick.
The state respects the pratice of religions, including Islam, and protects the rights of their adherents to do so.
The state has lwas against discrimination and enforces them, making it possible for individual human beings of many different races and creeds to participate in the national life of their country.
The state does not abrogate or abridge, to the extent that almost all Muslim polities do, the inherent rights of the individuals at all levels.
The government of the state, at all levels, if much much freer from graft, theft, and corruption than any Muslim state that you care to mention.
The state, through the 200-year old US Bankruptcy code, has a way of dealing with debtors that is more charitable and humane than any current practice in any Muslim state.
A Muslim, in America (and Canada and UK) is more protected in his person, in his Namus, and in his property from the arbitrary actions of the state than in any Muslim polity.
Needless to say, it is clear that potentially, Muslims can learn a lot from US – but not now and not in an atmosphere of (Religious) war.
BiBiJon says: April 28, 2011 at 1:44 pm
So finally you have used the word “Custom” – “Orf” – which the authorities in the Islamic Republic shredded after gaining power in 1979 – to indulge in their pharisee fantasy project of Shia Utopia.
I’m not in favor of modesty laws, but it sure would be nice to live in a society where one wasn’t constantly drenched, embrined, in a corporate dominated media matrix that sexes everything up, constantly drumming into each citizen the idea that a person is a piece of meat that must be sold on the market, with all the trimmings. How do you get that job? Sex it up, baby (male or female). How do you ‘sell the deal’? Sex it up, baby. How do you make ‘friends’? Sex it up baby. How do you become president? Sex it up, baby.
A more modest society would be progress for us, but modesty laws are fascistic. Drug laws are fascistic. Surveillance laws are fascistic. Getting stripsearched and probed when you want to travel is fascistic. Anything that attacks human freedom is an attack on humanity itself. It is possible for human beings to live in harmony together, in FREEDOM. As to how we achieve this utopia? I think that if we in America, pre-eminently, stopped fighting wars against every country that dared to be different from us, we might find that they have some ideas we could learn from, just as we have ideas they can learn from.
Even Iran, supposedly America’s ultimate hated enemy, may have something to teach us. We’ll never know as long as we keep looking for the next excuse to bomb them, or at least starve them.
Now here comes the trash media;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/27/iran-president-supreme-leader-rift
FYI, why at 11.56 did you write: “Why is it that internally, the United States is more of an Islamic country than Islamic Iran?”
What do you mean?
Fiorangela says:
April 28, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Excellent point. Reaction to perceived realities creates other realities, which in turn cause other reactions which can further exaggerate the original perception/reaction, and so on. At some point everybody forgets what the original symbolism/motivations had been. At that point it gets called a custom.
Unfortunately fyi has a habit of forgetting to take his medication, and occasionally comes up with gems which are as ignorable as they are ignorant. He has just let us all know his objection to enforcement of modesty laws: he imagines everyone shares his notions of women as throbbing sex objects.
Persian Gulf says: April 28, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Thank you for your response.
Fiorangela says: April 28, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Actions have consequences but invocation of Newton’s Third Law of Mechanics – which, by the way, does not apply to electrodynamics, is irrelevant to human beings who are not inert mechanical bodies.
I suppose the allusion is that the Iranian women are born harlots with their loins on fire and they need the be kept under constant and strict and robust and vigilant application of the strictures of the pharisee Islam enforced by the (largely foolish) Iranian men and deprived of unfettered access to the world outside of Iran, lest they overthrow the Islamic Order in their undoubtedly wanton desire to be fashionable and to indulge their enormous and repressed sexual desires.
I think you can do better than this.
fyi says:
April 27, 2011 at 10:54 pm
how many and which ones? Tehran has more than 10 million residents. is it popularity to have 10000 or 20000 on a holiday with a lot of buses ready to give you ride? probably many of them are soldiers, school kids from religious schools…. For some attending Friday prayer is MANDATORY (I personally know these cases. specially some among “Sepah”. if they go on Friday, often they can get free time during the work days or other benefits), for some, there are incentives and the story goes.
is this popularity? getting 10000 people is popularity? the day I attended Azadi Stadium last week, there were nearly 10000 people over there
it was, in fact, shocking for me to see his unpopularity. even among religious families, you can’t talk of him favorably. at best, they are silent. for the majority of the youth, he looks from another land. they don’t feel he is their leader. those youth you said are a tiny segment of the whole population. I would say isolated people from the mass. and you just never know. there are many in their teenage time that are involved in this business, but as they get older they lose their temper unless they are constantly paid.
just ask them like what is new and they would say سلامتی رهبر which has a very negative meaning. I can go further in what people say in private, but in might not be that appropriate. for whatever the reason, he has got the hate of the majority.
hans,
yekam dare khodesh lus mikone
[he] is acting a little coy
at 8:46 fyi wrote:
“Learning the Western empirical science, applied sciences, the methods of literary criticism, and indeed state organization is unrelated, I should think, to issuing 60,0000 tickets in Qum to women because their hejab is not satisfactory.”
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
“Beam in Melrose Place and Beverly Hills 90210 to Iran’s Young people. Show them these nice houses and swimming pools and fancy clothes and make them say, Why can’t we have these things. That’s subversive! – Bibi Netanyahu, Sept. 12, 2002
PressTv article:
Cairo holds massive anti-Israel rally
“Meanwhile, Israeli officials have been repeatedly threatening to launch a fresh major offensive against Gaza.
The Israelis boast that the next Gaza onslaught could be even more destructive than the previous one at the turn of 2009, which killed over 1,400 Palestinians, most of them civilians, including many women and children.”
Spare a thought for us non Farsi speakers when we read things like this
t certainly could be that Ahmadinejad yekam dare khodesh lus mikone, but not to the extent that is being wipped-up in the media. feel pity and give a translation in brackets perhaps. I also note this forum is taking on a religious tone far to often. Lets stop and respect each to his/her belief!
BiBiJon says:
“that good relations between Egypt and Iran would serve the Gulf as a result.”
Ahmadinejad’s effort to improve relations with the Persian Gulf CC, seems to be justified.
“Elsewhere in the Gulf, the petty feuding between Qatar and Saudi Arabia occasionally leads Qatar to support Iran. Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman have also had border disputes with Saudi Arabia. The border feuds are not particularly serious, but they do sometimes lead all three countries to sometimes tilt slightly in Iran’s favor. Qatar also shares its main offshore gas fields with Iran so shares strategic and economic interests with Tehran. And Oman is just across the Strait of Hormuz from Iran, which is building up its naval facilities in the Gulf of Oman, east of the Strait.”
Andrew Cordsman
http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Iranian_and_Saudi_Competition_in_the_Gulf.htm
BibiJon,
Those Gulf vassals have so much class, maybe the US should follow suit. “The Gulf of Mexico” should rather be called the Gulf of the USA.
Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim commended improvements in Egyptian-Iranian relations during Egyptian Prime Minister Essam Sharaf’s visit to Doha.
Bin Jassim noted that all Gulf countries have embassies in Tehran and claimed that good relations between Egypt and Iran would serve the Gulf as a result.
From http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/416171
Unknown Unknowns says: April 28, 2011 at 1:12 am
The enormity of the struggle does not justify the abrogation of the intrinsic rights of the individual, bestowed on him by God, by the Pharisee Muslims.
What has the struggle to learn from the Western Civilization go to do with “confronting those who break their fast” by the police?
Learning the Western empirical science, applied sciences, the methods of literary criticism, and indeed state organization is unrelated, I should think, to issuing 60,0000 tickets in Qum to women because their hejab is not satisfactory.
Collectivism will ever fail as the individual, all that we are assured that God cares about, is obliterated in such a system.
And (western) Modernity, is essentially Godless.
I am still waiting to see an adequate Muslim response to this Modernity.
Also,
Its good to see Pak has found a new “friend” in the gay-bar that he likes to hang out in. This new one’s NAME is even gay :D
Dear Bussesd-in Professor:
Thank you and it is good to be back. Hopefully I can keep myself away from the forum enough to devote sufficient time to doing some business and making a living :D
Thank you for your (as always) informative edutainment. That’s why you’re the prof and I am just teh lowly Class Clown. The reason my BS detector did not go off should not be surprising: its becuase it is not very good! I know just enough about religion to get myself in trouble, but when it comes to politics, I am cluless. LOL But I do enjoy the occasional sparring with fyi, especially when you’ve got my back :o)
The Hamas/Fatah collab is welcomed indeed, israel fear unity and have tried to pit palestinians against each, making the palestinian effort in peace talks futile. Now, we atleast see a closing relationship which is superb. Because only when the palestinians is united a strong enitity, only then they could pressure israel. And thats exactly what we see, the unity talks generated a furious storm among the politicians in the apartheidstate of israel. How will israel respond to this? Well first off netanyahu is right now in europe, trying to coerce the veto-power to block every effort to recognize a palestinian state unilateraly or by the UN council in september. israel will also refuse to talk to the palestinaisn, israel will keep building and bombing the palestinians to generate a response from Hamas etc then they will point their finger as usual and say “palestine does want peace bla bla”…israel must realize that their nazi-like politics agaisnt the world and paletinians are a lost cause, they cant be above the law anymore, time to act.
I hope this unity works well and that Abbas doesnt backstab Hamas when US/israel try to ruin the deal by for example cutting aid. Turkey, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Russia would surely be interested in funding the palestinians.
Also,
It often happens that cabinet meetings (in all previous governments even more so) are conducted by the 1st VP without the President, nothing unusual in that in itself. Of course in Iran everything is interpreted in a million ways, and since the enemies don’t have real sources, intelligence and facts, they have to rely on chickenshit things like this.
I remember reading a report by a so-called Iran expert about how a certain person sitting to the right and a certain person sitting to the left of the Supreme Leader means the SP favors the one on the right and is unhappy with the one sitting on the left. This expert was exile Iranian and I guess in the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king. Too bad for America but it’s your own fault when you have a constitutional and political process that is designed to be controlled by special interests and you are too lame to do anything about it.
UU,
Salaam, good to have you back.
I’m surprised your b.s. detector didn’t go off especially on the matter of those alleged three conditions Ahmadinejad gave for his return.
First, Jalali is Ahmadinejad’s guy and there is no reason to get rid of him. Second, installing Mashai as 1st VP and firing Moslehi are things the Supreme Leader has kat-ban and publicly given instructions to the contrary. It is very very unlikely that Ahmadinejad would out of all conditions focus exactly on these two. I smell a green rat and the usual media javsazi to avoid talking about real things. Real things like the fact that this week sweetwater began flowing from the water taps in the city of Qom thanks to the efforts of the tireless 10th government. Now that’s a fuckin miracle that’s worth talking about.
It certainly could be that Ahmadinejad yekam dare khodesh lus mikone, but not to the extent that is being wipped-up in the media.
In general whoever khodesho ba Agha shakh kone gets booted by the people- pronto. But what is certain is that Mashai yekam ziadi dare goh mikhore and expect his de facto retirement in the near future. Anyway he got booted as chief of staff a couple weeks ago. That was the main blow, the rest is formality.
As far as Ayatullah Sistani: let me just say that you are mistaken in your assumptions about what Ayat. Sistani believes or doesn’t. We will leave it at that for the time being. And remember what Agha said, everyone in Iraq should follow the instructions of the marjaiyat.
Liz,
My impression was that there have been three cabinet meetings since all this started, and that Moslehi was barred or ‘not invited’ to the first, but that Ahmadinejad was absent from the subsequent two meetings.
Very important:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/177116.html
He didn’t try to bar Moslehi from returning to cabinet meetings. Cabinet members can only go to each meeting after being invited. The fact that he went both times means that he received invitations.
Arnold Evans,
What was the mood of the Egyptian military at the time of the Gaza war in 2008-09? Were they itching to intervene, I cannot imagine the rank and file wanting to sit idly by and watch their Palestinian brothers be destroyed? What might happen if Israel were to re-invade Gaza?
“An independent Egypt hopefully will join the voices of Turkey and Iran in the relatively near future and what we hear then will be more in line with the real world.”
They are the lights at the end of the tunnel.
Arnold,
Regarding Ahmadinejad:
What we know for sure is that two week and a half weeks ago, they compelled him to fire his chief of staff, that about a week and a half ago he forced his minister of Intelligence(Moslehi) to resign, promptly accepted his resignation and in a preemptive conciliatory gesture named Moslehi him as a ‘special adviser on intelligence to the President’, but oddly enough did not try name a caretaker or interim minister, that Khameini publicly overruled him, and that Ahmadinejad has not acknowledged this action, has tried to bar Moslehi from returning to cabinet meetings and when he was unable to do so, has refused to attended any cabinet meetings himself, and that the long held up budget has been hastily passed by the Majlis once this episode started getting dangerous.
Arnold Evans says:
April 28, 2011 at 1:57 am
Question for the floor:
What does the public know for sure about Ahmadinejad’s situation, meaning not rumors or chatter?
*
For sure I only know that were it not for his looks, he would not be President, as it was the women of Iran who voted him in (reportedly, the reason they gave to exit pollsters was “chun qiyafash k*riye”). Now you know why I’m not a democrat!
Go ahead, Empty. Taks a stab at translating that one! Good luck! It might help your efforts to remember that the oft-used sacramental Greek vocative “kyrie” means Oh Lord!
Arnold,
I guess you answered your own question. I find the relative silence on this issue baffling. I’m not sure whats going on, but I am worried. It’s obvious what Abbas gets out of this process, he and everyone associated with him is completely disgraced and hated. I’m not sure what Hamas gets out of this deal. They really don’t need the PLO infrastructure anymore, nor is Abbas in the position to do anything for them. There are only two explanations for this development at this time:
1. Hamas is going to follow in Fatah’s traitorous footsteps
2. A new dignified Egyptian foreign presence was able to pressure Fatah to cave on the deal blockers that prevented reunification under Mubarak’s watch.
3. There really is no deal to speak of, beyond a commitment for elections.
If I were Hamas, I’d just hold new elections in Gaza and the diaspora only, and pursue recognition as a state in a unitary manner. The Palestinians must declare statehood, declare a claim to all of Palestine, and seek international recognition and work towards the isolation of the Israel in world bodies. With the recent leadership changes in the Arab world, their struggle will meet with much stronger success than in years past.
Question for the floor:
What does the public know for sure about Ahmadinejad’s situation, meaning not rumors or chatter?
My personal initial thoughts on the Abbas-Hamas agreement.
The US is very openly and loudly threatening to cut aid to Abbas if he forms a unity government with Hamas.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/congress-to-pa-no-us-aid-if-you-merge-with-hamas/2011/03/29/AFKZ4O1E_blog.html
House Foreign Affairs Chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen released a statement:
The reported agreement between Fatah and Hamas means that a Foreign Terrorist Organization which has called for the destruction of Israel will be part of the Palestinian Authority government. U.S. taxpayer funds should not and must not be used to support those who threaten U.S. security, our interests, and our vital ally, Israel.
Likewise, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, put out this statement :
As in prior cases, the United States will be compelled by both law and decency to withhold any assistance that could fall into the hands or control or even partial control of anyone reporting to, or belonging to a terrorist entity, as is Hamas. And in the current political climate, even assistance that would otherwise have gone to parts of the Palestinian Authority untainted by terrorism may no longer be salvageable.
And Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), the highest ranking Democrat on the House foreign aid subcommittee, issued her own statement, warning, “Unless Hamas accepts the Quartet Principles, which include renouncing violence and recognizing Israel, the formation of a unity government with Fatah will be a deathblow to the peace process. . . .A unity government with Hamas would put U.S. assistance and support at risk, based on restrictions I authored as Chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations.”
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) was more succinct in a tweet: “Hamas +Fatah=probable suspension of US aid to Palestinian Authority … Hamas supports terror, killed 26 American citizens.”
In theory, the US colonies of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait and others could replace the money the US withholds, but that would require a degree of independence and a position of defiance of their patron that I’ve never seen and do not expect to ever see until their governments have been replaced. (Egypt hopefully will be the soonest in elections promised for this year.)
Abbas is also fundamentally not an independent leader, so it is puzzling what steps he could have taken.
The safest bet, I think is that under US pressure the deal breaks down before it can be signed and these remarks are the initial public expressions of that pressure. But that raises the question: why would Abbas even bother?
My expectation is that this is just a stunt on Abbas’ part and that he has communicated to the US that he’s willing to withdraw in exchange for some form of compensation, token concessions from Israel that will demonstrate to his constituents that he is less than absolutely impotent in dealing with the US and Israel. I think that is why we see this announcement with no details.
Hamas is going along knowing that the concessions that Abbas withdraws for will be a further humiliation for him. Why not? Hamas’ strategy is still to just get through a few more months until an Egyptian government accountable to Egypt’s people revisits its policy regarding support for the Palestinians and opposition to the siege Israel is currently imposing. If Abbas thinks he can get concessions from this game and it does not hurt Hamas in the time before Egypt’s new government, there is no harm and some good as the concessions would, token as they are, go at least in part to Palestinian people.
Colonial politics is really nauseating to watch. Reading about Abbas’ plans is like reading Saudi Arabian analyses of their region. There is always a sense of “Are you the only one dumb enough to believe what you’re saying right now”, but they always have this naive and silly posture that they’ve outsmarted their American patrons.
An independent Egypt hopefully will join the voices of Turkey and Iran in the relatively near future and what we hear then will be more in line with the real world.
fyi:
The question was rhetorical and was not intended to solicit an answer, just to poke fun :P
But now that you have taken it up, your rant does not even attempt to address the question, which had to do with the popularity of Seyyed Khamenei despite alleged “catastrophes”. Could it be that your unsuccessful attempt at evasion is covering up the fact that the lion’s share of the populace does not agree with you?
Kinda reminds me of a conversation I had a couple of days ago with an old Tudeh-ee, wherein he conceded my point that the Tudeh party should really have named itself Hezb-e Khavaas, as what they were, really, was a bunch of over-educated elitists who, out of all semblance to reality, expected “the masses” to adopt their views and fall in line behind “the vanguard”.
The general populace, while perhaps not able to articulate the feeling eloquently, understands teh enormity of the project at hand: the project to accept and enter into modernity, but on *Iranian* terms, and not like the Attaturk republic which changed its alphabet, and constitutionalized teh separation of mosque and state, which as you well know, is an unworkable formula for a Moslem nation.
The general populace, in other words, understands what you don’t seem to be able to: that the project of the resolution of the paradox-not-contradiction of the nation’s newly adopted name, i.e., the “Islamic Republic”, – the project that is nothing less than the chewing, swallowing, digesting and assimilating of modernity *on Iran’s terms* – the general populace understands this as a long-term project fraught with difficulties of Biblical proportions (if you’ll forgive the awkward reference). The awkwardness could not be helped; I would have used “Karbalaic” proportions, but the truth is that teh project to assimilate modernity while maintaining Iran’s Islamic identity – the project that Imam Khomeini is the *symptom* of, is actually much larger than Imam Hosayn’s project which ended/ began at Karbala. The late Imam, with whom be peace, was dealing with a usurperous regime of hypocrites (in which he ultimately failed), whereas the late Imam Khomeini’s movement was and is dealing with much more formidable and less tangible foes: cultural, psychological, and economic, as well as political, military and, of course, spiritual.
Your constant failure to recognize the enormity of the struggle at hand and your incessant negativity at teh “failure” of the community adequately to deal with the (admittedly massive) problems at hand, belie any assertion, if indeed there be any, that you are part of that community and not a disenfranchised and marginalized curmudgeon thereto; and if indeed you do *not* claim to be a part of the community, then what the hell are you doing wasting all your time writing about it, like some mobser orientalist?
Shit or get off the pot, my friend. If you are not part of the community, then shut up as no one cares what your opinion is, just as no one cares what Bernard Lewis’s opnions are about Iran and Islam, despite his undeniable (evil?) genius. And if you *are* part of the community (and I pray that you will chose to be), then shut up complaining and spreading your infantile alienated negativity, roll your sleeves up, and get to work like the rest of us. In either event, stop your insufferable negativity, but please do continue with your excellent geopolitical analysis. That is where you shine and where you make great contributions.
Ameen.
Unknown Unknowns says: April 27, 2011 at 11:38 pm
The pharisee, bigotted, mean-spirited, and intolerant religiosity of very many Iranians is the disaster.
22 years of mindless “experimental” application of the Sharia whereby a man rapes his own daughter or another murders her daughter and the state is powerless to execute the man because of Sharia.
33 years of Envy hiding behind dis-honest claims to Muslim piety in pursuit of expulsion of the best and brightest from Iran; the best and brightest – like their Indian counter-partts – leave and the worst are imported from Afghanistan to do construction work.
And since the death of late Mr. Khomeini, more of these “stupid mullahs” and their fellow traveler have made life miserable for the young people of Iran.
Why are Muslims running to live in the land of the Great Satan and not the one who is opposing the Great Satan?
Why is Righteousness clothed in bigotry, malice, injustice, stupidity, and this Nekbat/Disaster?
Why is it that internally, the United States is more of an Islamic country than Islamic Iran?
fyi says:
April 27, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Persian Gulf says: April 27, 2011 at 7:33 pm
If Mr. Khamenie is so very unpopular why did so many people attended his sermons at Tehran Univesrity?
There were over-flow crowds all the way to Blvd. Keshavarz and all the streets around Tehran University.
And among the attendand were very many young people who were clearly from the area north of Blvd. Keshavarz.
Could you please explain that, if you can?
*
If the IRI is such a “disaster” and such a “catastrophe”, why is “Mr.” Khamenei so popular? “Could you please explain that, if you can?” :P
Persian Gulf says: April 27, 2011 at 7:33 pm
If Mr. Khamenie is so very unpopular why did so many people attended his sermons at Tehran Univesrity?
There were over-flow crowds all the way to Blvd. Keshavarz and all the streets around Tehran University.
And among the attendand were very many young people who were clearly from the area north of Blvd. Keshavarz.
Could you please explain that, if you can?
Fiorangela;
I think you misunderstood me completely. I said it in my previous message but I think you didn’t believe in the sinserity of my words. I didn’t mean to sound anti-American, it was about the farce nature of liberal rights.
And about Aryans taking the land of Medes: I really don’t know that much about the ancient history; and furthermore that history is not relevant to my argument at all. You see, I never claimed that Iranians had some sort of “noble” values which they should revive and re-live. To tell you the truth I got no love for either Cyrus, or Darius. The more they robbed and plundered the nations around us, I do deeply believe that the worse off our own people became. It is worth knowing that when Arabs invaded Iran, Iranian people were so fed up with the “glorious” empire that they themselves helped Arabs beat Iranian army. In fact Yazdgerd and his family were all assassinated by the Iranian people not by Arab soldiers.
However, I must say one small thing about your comment regarding “we” Aryans taking the Medes’ land; but please bear in mind that I don’t know much about ancient history and I will be very glad to be corrected if I am wrong:
1) Medes were Aryan too.
2)Cyrus from his mother’s side was a Med. In fact his maternal grand father was the Median King of the Kings with Persians living as a vassal kingdom under his rule until, cyrus changed the table around
3) Cyrus’s father was a persian King whose lord was Cyrus’s maternal grand father.
So before Cyrus making himself the King of the Kings, Persians were living under the Median rule.
Finally I would like to emphasize this one more time that I never claimed that Aryans or Persians or Iranians in general had some noble value from the time of Achamenids while Cyrus, Cambesys and Darius were plundering all the nations around them, and that we should try to revive those values.
My argument was (and is) against the farce nature of liberal rights. That is all.
Bussed-in Professor:
I did not mean to ignore and have not forgotten your comment on Seyyed Sistani. It is just that I have been preoccupied.
You are right: I am fully aware of how he check-mated Bremer. My beef with him (and his followers who hold with this separation of mosque and state bullshit) is that he knows full-well that as a great leader he is ineluctably enmeshed in the political economy of the umma, yet he still clings to the quaint pre-revolutionary expectation of the imminance of the Mahdi’s return. Of course, he does this while taking an active but informal (hence inefficient to say the least) part in the political process.
And by the way, it is interesting to me to note that he does not see the irony of his (rightly) criticising the milinarianist impetus eminating from teh Ahmadinejad-Mashai camp (with the release of Mashai’s infamous film), while at the same time (albeit half-assedly) clinging on to the notion that the ‘ulama should refrain from joining in the political fray “until the return of the Mahdi” – a quaint chiliasm that Imam Khomeini put to bed, God rest his soul and give him peace.
Again, from Nader Uskowi’s weblog:
Ahmadinejad Will Address the Nation, Only If Broadcast Live!
The website Haft Sobh (“7 AM”), close to President Ahmadinejad and his supporters, said today that Ahmadinejad will participate in an already-scheduled TV interview next week only if the program is broadcast live. Ahmadinejad, the report says, wants to talk directly to the Iranian citizens without being censored by the authorities.
The deepening political crisis in Iran is producing some surreal situations: the sitting president and the darling of the ruling class until a few days ago is now concerned that the “authorities” would censor his speech. The speed of transformation from a leader of the Islamic revolution to a suspected enemy of the state has become mind-boggling these days!
The plot thickens. More from Nader Uskowi:
Ahmadinejad Cancels Cabinet Meeting – Growing Political Crisis in Iran
In a sign of deepening political crisis in Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today cancelled the meeting of his cabinet that was scheduled to take place on Saturday in the city of Qom. Ahmadinejad holds some of the cabinet meetings in cities outside Tehran, and Qom was to host the government ministers this time. The meeting’s cancellation came after Ahmadinejad’s refusal to attend two previous cabinet meetings this week.
Uskowi on Iran reported earlier that Ahmadinejad has set three conditions for his return as president, including the reversal of Khamenei’s order against his political confident Mashaie to be the country’s First Vice President and the reversal of the supreme leader’s reinstatement of the intelligence minister.
Uskowi on Iran has also learned that Ahmadinejad has asked for the resignation of his minister of interior. The minister, Brig. Gen. Mustafa Mohammad Najjar, who headed the defense ministry prior to his interior post, is a senior IRGC officer and close to the supreme leader. The minister of interior will have considerable influence in the upcoming parliamentary elections scheduled for March 2012. We have previously reported that Ahmadinejad and company would run their own candidates against those chosen by Khamenei and the clerical establishment.
Also in another sign of heightened tensions in Tehran, the Majlis was to hold an extraordinary closed-door session today.
Palestine: ‘Bibi’s phony peace offer’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/palestine-bibis-phony-peace-offer/
you’ve got me dead to rights, Pirouz: Americans ethnically cleansed the US of its indigenous people. I live in a “settler” enclave. George Washington instructed Anthony Wayne to shove the Indians out of this place so white folks like me could settle in and build a decent civilization.
riddle me this, Batman: Shouldn’t you Aryans still be up in Scythia? How generously were the Medes dealt with when your ancient ancestors migrated south and claimed new lands for their own? Is the fact of ethnic displacement ameliorated by its distance from historic memory?
On the other hand, by zionist logic, Iranians should return to the Scythian plateau; Irish Americans should return to Ireland or perhaps Norway; British Americans should return to Great Britain or perhaps Normandy; Italian Americans from Milan-Florence should return to Germany; Etruscans should reclaim their land in Etruria.
Or — we should all stay put and live at peace with all our neighbors, recognizing that whether or not there are multiple gods or peoples, there is only one earth, and we must share it or perish.
By the way: happy birthday to the young Leverett!
Fiorangela;
These American principles and values to whose “Renaissance” you refer, how much did they apply to the Native Americans or to the Negro slaves?
Please don’t misunderstand me; I am not trying to advocate anti-American ideas or to picture Americans as some evil people. My argument is NOT against Americans it is against “liberalism” and the farce nature of its “rights” and “freedoms” and their underlying principles.
Question for the floor: Where will we get the first English-language analysis of the details of the Fatah-Hamas agreement that seems to have been reached today?
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/04/2011427152119845721.html
one of the most intriguing things about this video of an economic conference at Bretton Woods a week or so ago is the presence of Iran’s flag on the stage, and the apparent absence of Israel’s flag. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Xc58Rh5jE&feature=relmfu
In light of Cynthia McKinney’s thesis that US is attempting to unseat Qaddafi because he was planning to convert to a gold standard, and had a horde of gold in his vaults that presumably has been sequestered from him, what do we make of the fact that Iran’s flag is on the stage? Iran was/is a member of the same alliance as Libya that sought to remove itself from the dollar standard.
Although Mark Zandi said otherwise on a recent appearance on C Span, it’s my understanding that the US no longer possesses a store of gold at Fort Knox or anywhere else. Did the US attack Libya to steal its gold? Else why would Libya be attacked so peremptorily, just because it is moving to gold standard, but Iran NOT fall subject to attack? Easier to get Libya’s gold than Iran’s gold?
Arnold Evans:
well, it’s to some extent my feeling as I don’t have any credible poll. most of my families and friends are considered IR supporters (I mean, they are in the context of IR. they don’t see it from outside). many of them voted for Ahmadinejad. when their feeling is this, you draw the line yourself for others.
please be advised that polls for the popularity of Khamenei ,unlike elections, are MEANINGLESS in Iran. You can say which candidate you have voted for, but you CAN NOT SAY I don’t like Khamenei in any poll. If they ask me, what do you think of him, I will definitely say, he is great (for obvious reason. the moment you say otherwise, you will be f**** up).
before visiting Iran, I was thinking that he may have popularity. it turned out to be wrong even in small cities. you can’t find anybody, except the ones affiliated with the system, to defend him. Ahmadinejad has some sort of popularity and legitimacy in the eyes of the people, but Khamenei’s position is hard to talk about.
Congratulations to Leveretts, and many happy birthdays,
also thanks for keeping this site up.
U.S. Needs its Own ‘Arab Spring’ to Counter Power of Pro-Israel Lobby
By Pam Bailey and Medea Benjamin
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27978.htm
Fiorangela, thanks for keeping track!
Leveretts, happy birthday and may there be many more great ones!
Happy Birthday sweetie!!
RFI folks, Today is Miss Karin Elizabeth Leverett’s first birthday.
Fyi
I think this one is speaking for Israel and co. which truly, due to the current regional conditions and formations, justifiably so, are yellowing up inside their pants.
Unknown Unknowns says: April 27, 2011 at 2:28 pm
I hope you are correct.
The Iranian leaders are not thinking in terms of Opportunity-Loss; they need to realize that money can buy security.
The Iranian economy is not large enough – basically due to misguided but well-intentioned pseudo-socialistic ideals – that have kept it limited.
The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran do not realize, it seems, that they need to expand the economy so that they can finance Pakistan and take her out of the clutches of Saudi Arabia and US.
Likewise for Egypt.
All:
I think this one could speak for itself.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0427/No.1-US-priority-in-Middle-East-regime-change-in-Iran
from Cynthia McKinney –
Banking and the Economics of the Invasion of Libya
“under The Green Book form of governance, Libya has achieved what we in the United States do not enjoy: universal health care paid for by the state; universal education subsidized through the Ph.D. level by the state; oil revenue sharing; subsidized housing; subsidized automobile purchases; $50,000 marriage subsidy for newlyweds; and more. The more just happens to be what Libya has in common with six other countries that General Wesley Clarke announced were on a list for war that he saw from the Pentagon: neither Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, nor Libya belong to the Bank of International Settlements, the Central Bankers’ bank.
Remember, a Project Censored award went to the young man who wrote the first story about Saddam Hussein switching from the dollar to the Euro for oil sales. That was just before certain neocons inside the United States manufactured a reason to attack Iraq. Iraq down; Sudan dismembered, Somalia dysfunctional: only Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Iran to go.
And then, Junious Ricardo wrote another article along the same lines to drive the point home . . .. Then, this Russian news item: Rothchilds Finish Off Gaddafi that explains why Qaddafi personally has become a target of the NATO action and his position on switching to a gold-backed dinar currency the introduction of a single African currency that Africans would print themselves and a rationale to explain why Libya’s 30 billion dollars was seized by President Obama.
John Perkins chimes in with this piece, “Libya: It’s Not About Oil, It’s About Currency and Loans.” And the “piece de résistance” is finally offered by “the neocon’s neocon,” Elliot Abrams. Yes, that Elliot Abrams of Iran-Contra infamy wrote, prodding President Obama to fully arm NATO allies in Libya, pushing for an all-out war, in the Weekly Standard, published on the Council for Foreign Relations website, cfr.org. Here are the Perkins piece and the Abrams pieces that make it clear–who’s war this really is. This is not a war the American people should fight and we must let President Obama know that. We must also be willing to vote for a no-war Presidential candidate.”
“My house shall be a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves.”
by the way, all you in zioland; Easter has come; He’s baaa-aack. Hide your loot.
Unknown Unknowns says:
“Uskowi on Iran reported on Monday that Ahmadinejad had refused to show up at his office and was absent from the meeting of the cabinet in which Moslehi was in attendance.”
Perhaps by some coincidence, Keyhan reports Ahmadinejad’s Budget was approved on Tues by parliament, after being delayed since itwas presented back in feb.
http://www.kayhanintl.com/
Fio – thank you, certainly, I hope this country’s world view without violence, will eventually change, as I don’t see, that the “center can hold” much longer the way it is now.
Tony Lawson and Jeff Gates have partnered to trace Israeli Terrorism to game theory Nobel laureate Robert Aumann’s Rational Institute at Hebrew University:
A Closer Look At Israel’s Role in Terrorism
which is an amplification of Gates’ earlier analysis on the same subject:
:http://mycatbirdseat.com/2010/12/jeff-gates-wikileaks-whose-agenda/
fyi, this one’s for you:
Iranian Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance Shamseddin Hosseini today rejected the latest IMF forecast on Iran’s economic growth, calling it “illogical and surreal.” The International Monetary Fund had reported earlier that Iran’s economic growth in the year 2011 will fall to zero percent.
“The figure released by the International Monetary Fund is mostly based on the assumption that the West’s measures against Iran have affected our economy,” Hosseini said [ISNA, 25 April].
Meanwhile, Every day I go out, I see more and more Now Hiring signs. I have lived in many metropolises in my day and never have I seen so many in any city. It is doubly surprising considering the global economic situation. It seems that indeed, not only have the sanctions not had any negative affect, they have given Iran (or at least Tehran) full employment.
From the pages of Uskowi on Iran:
Crisis in Iran: Ahmadinejad Sets Conditions for His Return as President
We understand that President Ahmadinejad has set three conditions for his return to presidency:
Mashaie to be named the First Vice President
Moslehi to leave the ministry of intelligence
Saeed Jalili is removed from his post as head of the Supreme National Security Council.
Mashaie was appointed by Ahmadinejad as the First Vice President when he was re-elected to his second term. The supreme leader then officially ordered Ahmadinejad to remove Mashaie from his post. Ahmadinejad did that only to appoint Mashaie as his chief of staff, and giving him the authorities normally reserved for the First VP. Mashaie was eventually forced to resign his post as chief of staff.
Moslehi, the intelligence minister, was fired by Ahmadinejad but hours later he was reinstated by Khamenei. Last Sunday when Moslehi attended the cabinet meeting for the first time after his reinstatement, Ahmadinejad did not show up for the meeting although he was in Tehran at the time.
Saeed Jalili holds the important post at the national security council, but was appointed to the post by Khamenei in obvious slight to the power of the presidency.
Uskowi on Iran reported on Monday that Ahmadinejad had refused to show up at his office and was absent from the meeting of the cabinet in which Moslehi was in attendance. We believed at the time that a late Monday meeting between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei had resulted in Ahmadinejad’s return to his office. But we now understand that Ahmadinejad is still insisting on the conditions outlined above before resuming the office of presidency, and did not attend yesterday’s cabinet meeting, creating the gravest political crisis in the Islamic Republic since President Bani Sadr was impeached and forced into exile in 1981.
Meanwhile, 12 conservative members of Majlis today officially put in motion a proposal to impeach Ahmadinejad.
kooshy, your analysis of American views is close (uncomfortably close) to the mark: YES, some Americans support Iran because they see their own government’s foreign policy apparatus as having been overtaken by zionists, and believe that support for Iran pushes back against that influence that is harmful to American interests.
You continue — if those goals are achieved of freeing American policy from zionist influence, Americans will devolve to “American exceptionalism” and will then see Iran as a state to be schooled in the American way — the white man’s burden.
Two points:
1. If the US can achieve not so much an overthrow of the zionist influence in American government but a Renaissance of American principles and values, then the possibility exists that US can re-envision her place in the world as one-among-many, congruent with the prescient vision of the founders: in his oft-quoted letter to Jews in Rhode Island, George Washington welcomed the presence of Jews and of all other religious and ethnic groups, “at peace under their own vine and fig tree.” We Americans must reclaim our fig tree.
2. This thought process is still in a very crude stage of development — about that “exceptionalism” characteristic: I believe that traces to the Jewish notion of being a chosen people. Christians who embrace that sense of exceptionalism are also those Christians who are Bible Christians rather than Doctrinal or Catechism Christians.
Bible Christians are more likely to be acquainted with Old Testament biblicism, the source of the choseness ideology. My crude speculation is that the British Isles and Central Europe are ethnic origins of most Christian zionists and believers in exceptionalism. Christianity came to those lands later than to the Continental Europe, thus, the Protestant Reformation took hold more firmly, having a more shallow base in Roman doctrine. The Irish are a bit more complicated: many Irish are fervently Roman Catholic, but the Catholicism of Irish Catholics is different from the Catholicism of, for example, German or Italian Catholics. As well, many of the sects that characterize American Christian zionism had their start from non-Catholic, Irish Christian itinerant preachers.
Let’s try this: Those Americans whose ethnic origins are from countries where Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Puritanism were dominant; or were from British Episcopal church traditions; as well as Scotts-Irish; are more likely to be Bible-believers, Old Testament oriented, and Exceptionalistic in outlook.
Those Americans whose ethnic origins are from Southern and Central European and Byzantine, Polish, Slavic, and some Germanic origin states where the Roman church set early and deep roots; who are more likely of peasant-origins; who are less likely to come from a tradition of high Bible-literacy and reliance but more reliant on doctrine as pronounced by the authority of the Roman or Byzantine Catholic church; are probably less attuned to the Old Testament, to the notion of choseness, and to ideas of Exceptionalism.
Black Americans are usually associated with bible-oriented Christian churches, but I suspect most Blacks do not view the US as exceptionalistic. I couldn’t hazard a guess how the idea of exceptionalism would be viewed by American Muslims and Americans of Asian origin. It’s hard for me to imagine that Muslims whose origins are from other Muslim countries would embrace American exceptionalism. Similarly, it’s hard to imagine that Chinese Americans, whose ancient legacy perceives China to be the Middle of the World, would embrace American exceptionalism.
A fact about American demographics that is as important to the US as the demographic imbalance of Arabs and Jews in Israel-Palestine, is that Hispanics will soon be the largest ethnic group in the US. Hispanics are more likely to have a Catholic background; they are probably less oriented to Bible and to Old Testament; they are less likely to embrace Christian zionism, and less likely to endorse American exceptionalism.
So, kooshy, it may be that by the time the US becomes Born Again and reclaims its culture from over-influence of zionism to the extent that it is able to form a relationship with Iran, an American demographic shift will have occurred that will see rising to the majority American groups less willing to embrace American Exceptionalism.
PG – regarding the lobbying issue in the US system, you may want to read the article linked bellow. If you do, you may understand the problem better, since that you may have not been living here as long as some others.
By the way, closely associated with this issue, I feel the majority of the Americans who support Iran vs. US/Israel/ME policy and on other FP issues, even the folks we continually agree with who comment on this site, I think that their agreement with Iran on FP issues, is mainly due to their frustration with what has become with the US’s governing system, which they correctly feel is stolen by special interest groups, so their hope is to shift the FP focus on an opposite directions and loosen it up so it would make it easier to slip away from the underneath the current grip.
They feel their country’s Judicial, economic, and electoral system has been stolen by a foreign special interest group, who unjustly and without considering the America’s interest supports a foreign power. So they ask where the main focus of this special interest is. If it is mainly concentrated on the ME issues, and somehow if they can convince and shift the focus of the US’s ME policy on a different trajectory, they naturally will achieve to reduce some of the lobby’s current grip and easier to proceed to the next stage. So let’s say, if some day, the US’s Israel problem is somehow resolved, and Iran continued singing her independence tune, I am sure majority of the Americans with their American exceptionalism mentality that are brought up with, wouldn’t be happy with Iran’s FP, correctly so, their nationalism and the fear to lose US’s hegemonic power, and as of the result losing their way of life will kick in. A good example is how the European public has been siding with the Libyan or issue.
,
Lobbification Part II
By Lawrence Davidson
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27970.htm
“In truth it is a Faustian bargain. Once you sign on with a special interest such as the Zionists they soon become a primary constituent of yours, not only between elections, but also at election time via their media and voter mobilization efforts. They soon become a central part of your team. You no longer look to the State Department for information about the Middle East or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now all that comes from AIPAC and similar sources. Thus your deepening dependency on this lobby is not just financial but also informational. They have melded your world view with theirs. Congratulations, you have been officially lobbified.”
Ayatollah Khamenei is by far the most popular figure in Iran.
PG:
What makes you think Khamenei is a nationally hated leader? You may have friends, family and associates who don’t like him. Other people here have friends, family and associates who do like him. We’ve seen polls that report very high approval ratings for him. We have not seen a poll that reports low approval ratings.
There is a good chance you’re projecting your own feelings onto a population that disagrees with you.
Israel: The rich parasite state
A few months ago, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) irked the Zionist Lobby, when he told CNN’s Jewish talk-show host Wolf Blitzer that under crushing economic picture in the US, Washington needs to stop its billions of dollars of annual aid to Israel. Since its creation by the western powers, Israel has successfully sucked over US$3 trillion from the US taxpayers. Barack Obama in late 2009 approved an additional $2.77 billion for Israeli foreign aid in 2010, and another $30 billion over the next decade…….
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/israel-the-rich-parasite-state/
kooshy
“a positive point with the Iranian constitutional system is exactly this point regarding the responsibility for the security of the country, that the president and other elected officials who have to get reelected at periodic intervals are not in charge of the state security, therefore not subject to raising money and like in this country (US) becoming vulnerable to military (MIC) or special interest lobbying, (a good example was starting and ending the Iran, Iraq war), in Iranian system it would be very difficult for special interest to influence the supreme leader since he doesn’t need to constantly be worried to run a reelection campaign but he constantly has to be worried to uphold a political balance in the interest of country as whole otherwise he can be recalled, by the same body that elected him.”
I disagree with you fundamentally. this is the basic argument every dictator or king would bring. a truly anti-democratic argument. the way Khamenei rules has opened the door for “boot liking”, and he has many for that matter around him. he is financially pinned too. I have brought a simple case of “Setade Ejraei Farmane Hazrate Emam” (he has numerous sources of money). The difference being, the special relationship is reversed. it’s a typical one man dictatorship. we have many people with their lifelines directly connected to the presence of this ridiculous position, i.e. Friday prayers, SL’s offices in every small and big governmental institute.
your comparison, and somehow obsession, of the U.S system is wrong, I think. there are many countries in the world without SL and without that extended lobbying of MIC that you are scaring people from. we all know, the U.S is a special case.
masoud:
“…or the Leader loses his credibility,..”: by all accounts, Khamenei has ALREADY lost his credibility on the eyes of ordinary Iranians. I said this before, if Ahmadinejad and part of the RG that is with him topple him (and the many useless people connecting to him all over the country), nothing (absolutely nothing) will happen. the majority of the people would be even happy to see this. the revolutionary guard had shown unimaginable sacrifices at the time of war. it saved the country with a great cost inflicted on its institution. I just hope, they save the country this time time too. their popularity is also at stake and I just wish they could side with the people rather than a nationally hated leader. Khamenei and the people around him made an obvious structural problem for any elected government to work effectively (we have seen that at the time Khatami, and we are watching it at the time of Ahmadinejad too). I guess, “Sepah” is very concerned about its popularity among the the younger generation. at least, their ideas of relative social relaxation proves that. it’s in their core interest not to side with a dead man walking.
u.s., israel and saudiarabia have blood on their hands for whats going on in Bahrain, a genocide is carried out right now..
Happy Birthday Karin Elizabeth!
Putin: Who authorized Gaddafi hit?
“They said they didn’t want to kill Gaddafi. Now some officials say, yes, we are trying to kill Gaddafi. Who permitted this, was there any trial? Who took on the right to execute this man, no matter who he is?” Reuters quoted Putin as saying on Tuesday.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/176906.html
The pipeline supplying Egypt gas to Israel was exploded, AGAIN.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/04/201142734443313150.html
ahem,
*If they had been able to maintain their popularity at pre-election levels, they would have really been able to shine at a moment like this*
This Ahmadinejad business is starting to get interesting. I usually ignore this type of gossip, but the recent chatter rings true. If Ahmadinejad has indeed tendered his resignation to Khameini in protest, that would just be him being true to form. The man has balls of titanium. I would say Ahmadinejad has been as successful in turning the domestic scene upside down as he has with the international scene. Internally things, are in a bad way. This also shows the complete incompetence of the dinosaur reformists. If they had been able to maintain their popularity at pre election, they would have really been able to shine like this.
I think a compromise will be found, but if one isn’t, either the president is dismissed and we go straight to elections, or the Leader loses his credibility, and the volume of the inter factional quarreling will increase unrestrained. Either way, it’ll be interesting times.
It is striking how unconcerned the IRI is at the moment with appearing strong and united. Such a display would have been unthinkable even six months ago. If this isn’t compelling evidence of how badly the US position in the Middle East has been degraded, i don’t know what is.
Masoud
Bussed-in Basiji says: April 26, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Empty says: April 26, 2011 at 8:48 am
Also PG
Empty-, thank you for expanding the debate, I no longer have the patience, one point that I like to emphasis which in my opinion is a positive point with the Iranian constitutional system is exactly this point regarding the responsibility for the security of the country, that the president and other elected officials who have to get reelected at periodic intervals are not in charge of the state security, therefore not subject to raising money and like in this country (US) becoming vulnerable to military (MIC) or special interest lobbying, (a good example was starting and ending the Iran, Iraq war), in Iranian system it would be very difficult for special interest to influence the supreme leader since he doesn’t need to constantly be worried to run a reelection campaign but he constantly has to be worried to uphold a political balance in the interest of country as whole otherwise he can be recalled, by the same body that elected him. One must look at the US system which is easier to lobby and influence the US president, US congress or the US Supreme Court. It’s the same concept, to influence the US Supreme Court one need not to bring money, but rather needs to have a good argument.
Two years ago this same greens folks were blaming the supreme leader for throwing his support behind Mr. Ahmadinijad claiming he betrayed the country and stepped out of the constitution, today these same folks are blaming him for not supporting Ahmadinijad on his decision with the dismissal of the Intel. Minster and once more they are blaming him for steeping out of his constitutional rule for not supporting Mr. Ahmadinijad. After all one must ask isn’t he really doing his job of maintaining a balance, and making security for the entire country? Supreme leader’s constitutional rule is to inspire, observe, judge, and act, when decisions become detrimental to maintain and secure the system.
academic study of relationship between government spending on education and labor force productivity in Iran. http://www.erf.org.eg/cms.php?id=publication_details&publication_id=1364
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/1206-1
United Nations
Iranian President Khamenei addressed the 42nd General Assembly about the revolution in Iraq, emphasizing that it was a people’s revolution, nonviolently forcing the members of the regime to flee the country through sheer numbers of people in the streets. He said that many untrue rumors were being circulated about the revolution. He said that women would be treated as equals with men in all professions and jobs.
1 hour, 20 minutes | 172 Views
Gul: ‘The Arab Revolution is aimed at Israel’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/gul-the-arab-revolution-is-aimed-at-israel/
BiB,
true….lots of misinformation going around.
Empty-jan,
Thank you for your efforts, but remember that Paeen doesn’t give a crap about facts…like the fact that the President doesn’t send any troops to the border but the Supreme Leader as commander in chief…oops!
Rd. says:
April 26, 2011 at 10:51 am
Rd,
According to McCoy and Reilly:
http://www.lobelog.com/tomgram-mccoy-and-reilly-an-empire-of-failed-states/
Suddenly, it was possible to see the foundations of a U.S. world order that rested significantly on national leaders who serve Washington as loyal “subordinate elites” and who are, in reality, a motley collection of autocrats, aristocrats, and uniformed thugs. Visible as well was the larger logic of otherwise inexplicable U.S. foreign policy choices over the past half-century.
Why would the CIA risk controversy in 1965, at the height of the Cold War, by overthrowing an accepted leader like Sukarno in Indonesia or encouraging the assassination of the Catholic autocrat Ngo Dinh Diem in Saigon in 1963? The answer — and thanks to WikiLeaks and the “Arab spring,” this is now so much clearer — is that both were Washington’s chosen subordinates until each became insubordinate and expendable.
Why, half a century later, would Washington betray its stated democratic principles by backing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak against millions of demonstrators and then, when he faltered, use its leverage to replace him, at least initially with his intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, a man best known for running Cairo’s torture chambers (and lending them out to Washington)? The answer again: because both were reliable subordinates who had long served Washington’s interests well in this key Arab state.
Across the Greater Middle East from Tunisia and Egypt to Bahrain and Yemen, democratic protests are threatening to sweep away subordinate elites crucial to the wielding of American power. Of course, all modern empires have relied on dependable surrogates to translate their global power into local control — and for most of them, the moment when those elites began to stir, talk back, and set their own agendas was also the moment when it became clear that imperial collapse was in the cards.
The case of Colonel Qaddafi is in many regards similar. Ironically, Qaddafi had warned Arab leaders in 2008 at a meeting in Damascus under the auspices of the Arab League about regime change., He pointed to the U.S. government’s “bad habit” of betraying its Arab dictator friends:
Saddam Hussein’s policies or our [meaning the other Arab leaders] animosity towards him. We all had our disagreements with him. We all disagree with one another. Nothing unites us except this hall. Why is there not an investigation about Saddam Hussein’s execution?
An entire Arab government is killed and hung on the gallows – Why?! In the future it is going to be your turns too! [The rest of the Arab officials gathered start laughing] Indeed!
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24471
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/opinion/26iht-edcohen26.html
Roger Cohen writes:
“This year has seen a dramatic acceleration of history in the Arab world, the falling apart of a rotten order; an unraveling that has birthed the “rough beast” of new societies where people will have a say in how they are governed rather than being trampled by Paleolithic tyrants.”
Yeats’ “The Second Coming,” from which Mr. Cohen quotes at several spots in his column, was written when the general chaos of World War I and its immediate aftermath made it appropriate and useful to emphasize similarities, rather than differences, among countries. Since great poetry is thought to yield eternal truths, Mr. Cohen apparently assumes the same must be true today. But his effort to fit the Arab spring into a single poetic frame yields observations far too general to be of any value. I doubt that Yeats would have written the same poem today, or that it would have been considered so important if he had.
This column brings to mind a recent Charlie Rose interview with Michelle Flournoy, the US Undersecretary of State for Policy. She had mentioned that the Pakistan government draws fine distinctions among various Islamic and other groups operating near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. One may presume the Pakistan government does so for various reasons – for example, because they know a great deal more than about those groups than does the US government, or because they assess those groups from a Pakistan-centric viewpoint: For example, does the group pose a threat to law and order within Pakistan? With evident frustration in her voice, Ms. Flournoy explained that the US government’s diplomatic efforts have focused on convincing the Pakistan government that differences between these various groups do not matter – at least when one views them, as one ought to, through the US prism. The single question that seemed to matter to Ms. Flournoy was one that probably matters a bit less to the Pakistan government: How does a particular group in Pakistan react to the US’ military operation in Afghanistan?
This Whack-A-Mole approach to Middle East diplomacy – and today to journalism – does not help to solve the serious problems in that part of the world, much less to improve the standing of the United States among the people who live there.
Arnold Evans says:
April 25, 2011 at 4:38 pm
A poll of Egypt is available.
http://pewglobal.org/files/2011/04/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Egypt-Report-FINAL-April-25-2011.pdf
Thanks Arnold.
I notice in the Egyptian poll results:
79% want the laws to be according to the principles & values of Islam, including a subset that expresses the same sentiment in terms of “strictly follow the Quran.” (page 22)
75% express a “very” or “somewhat” favorable view of the Muslim Brotherhood (pg 14)
If you exclude the 10% who responded “don’t know”, 60% of those that gave an answer, want to annul the peace treaty with Israel (page 26).
Poll: 54% of Egypt wants to end Israel peace
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/poll-54-of-egypt-wants-to-end-israel-peace/
Can anyone confirm this report?
“Over 15,000 U.S. servicemen to remain in Iraq beyond 2011 deadline”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-04/26/c_13846834.htm
“The Iraqi government is preparing to accept the presence of more than 15,000 U.S. servicemen in Iraq to protect the U.S. interests after the deadline of U.S. troops’ pullout by the end of 2011, an Iraqi newspaper reported on Tuesday.
“The Iraqi government will arrange a special status that would allow more than 15,000 U.S. servicemen to stay in Iraq beyond the end of this year,” al-Mashriq newspaper quoted well-informed sources as saying. …
Maliki is planning to send a delegation headed by Abdul-Haleem al-Zheiri, a leading figure in Maliki’s Dawa part, to the neighboring Iran to explain his move and to give assurances to Tehran that the remaining U.S. troops will not be used against Iran, it added.
“The delegation will also ask Tehran to put pressure on Moqtada al-Sadr to accept the new arrangements and not to unleash his Mahdi Army militiamen,” the paper said. …”
RE: “So appointing a hojat-ol-islam who was not a marja (Khamenei) to the position of the Supreme Leader is not unconstitutional in your book?”
According to Article 107 of the constitution,
تعیین رهبر به عهده خبرگان منتخب مرم است. خبرگان رهبری درباره همه فقهای واجد شرایط مذکور در اصول پنجم و یکصد و نهم بررسی و مشورت می کنند هرگاه یکی از آنان را اعلم به احکام و موضوعات فقهی یا مسایل سیاسی و اجتماعی یا دارای مقبولیت عامه یا واجد برجستگی خاص در یکی صفات مذکور در اصل یکصد و نهم تشخیص دهند او را به رهبری انتخاب می کنند.
Translation/interpretation: “The appointment of the leader is the responsibility of the Khobregan (Assembly of Experts) whose members are elected by the people. Leadership Khobregan shall will discuss all foghaha possessing the qualifications stated in Article 5 and Article 109 and shall discuss and choose for the position of Leader one who is well-versed in the subject of leadership or possesses especial characteristics stated in Article 109 in accordance to their expert opinion.”
Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Khobregan to make the decision with respect to Velayet_e Faqih. They have done so and the have operated within the realm of law and their choice has not been unconstitutional. Khobregan is an elected body of 88 members (currently) with quite diverse views and very deep understanding of local, regional, and global issues. Based on their performance and given the national, regional, and global realities of our world, I have seen any valid evidence that suggests they are behaving irresponsibly or they are taking their job lightly. Therefore, I consider their position to be far more credible and trustworthy than those on the street and کوچه بازار or by someone like myself who sits behind a computer and taps the keyboard to dispense opinions that may or may not be fully supported by all the facts and valid evidence.
RE:”mean sure he became an Ayatollah overnight to sort of qualify, but he was constitutionally un-qualified.”
There is nowhere in the constitution that says the Vali Faqih should be Ayatollah, Hojatoleslam, MD, PhD, etc. Article 109 regarding the qualification of Rahbar states:
شراﻳﻂ و ﺻﻔﺎت رهﺒﺮ: 1 – ﺻﻼﺣﻴﺖ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﻻزم ﺑﺮاي اﻓﺘﺎ در اﺑﻮاب ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻓﻘﻪ. 2 -ﻋﺪاﻟﺖ و ﺗﻘﻮاي ﻻزم ﺑﺮاي رهﺒﺮي اﻣﺖ اﺳﻼم. 3 – ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ و اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ، ﺗﺪﺑﻴﺮ،ﺷﺠﺎﻋﺖ، ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ و ﻗﺪرت آﺎﻓﻲ ﺑﺮاي رهﺒﺮي. در ﺻﻮرت ﺗﻌﺪد واﺟﺪﻳﻦ ﺷﺮاﻳﻂ ﻓﻮق، ﺷﺨﺼﻲ آﻪ داراي ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﻓﻘﻬﻲ و ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻗﻮي ﺗﺮ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻣﻘﺪم اﺳﺖ.
Translation/interpretation: “Qqualifications and characteristics of the leader: 1. Sufficient knowledge to dispense judgment on diverse subjects in Figh. 2. Justice and purity for the leadership of Islamic Ummah. 3. Astuteness and foresight in political and social matters and possessing sufficient courage, leadership, and power to lead. Should there be more than one qualified person, the one with the most Fiqh and political foresight is given priority.”
Again, these qualifications were considered by the Khobregan and they had all the information at their disposal to make such a decision and they did. It is also within the realm of their responsibility to decide otherwise and proceed accordingly.
RE: “Also – changing the constitution to get rid of the position of Prime Minister and putting more powers in the hands of the Supreme Leader means we can in fact change the constitution to get rid of the position of SL.”
Two separate issues are mixed up here. First is related to the change in constitution for the position of Prime Minister “and putting more powers in the hands of the Supreme Leader,” and second is regarding changing the constitution.
~With respect to the first item, the statement is false. The change made to the constitution was to remove the position of Prime Minster and give more power to the position of President (not Rahbar) in accordance with Article 60 of the constitution. Here are the actual text of the Article 60 before and after the change:
Current:اﻋﻤﺎل ﻗﻮﻩ ﻣﺠﺮﻳﻪ ﺟﺰ در اﻣﻮري که در اﻳﻦ ﻗﺎﻧﻮن ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﺮ ﻋﻬﺪﻩ رهﺒﺮي ﮔﺬاردﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ، از ﻃﺮﻳﻖ رﻳﻴﺲ ﺟﻤﻬﻮر و وزرا اﺳت.
Previous: اﺻﻞ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ : اﺻﻞ ﺷﺼﺘﻢ اﻋﻤﺎل ﻗﻮﻩ ﻣﺠﺮﻳﻪ ﺟﺰ دراﻣﻮري که در اﻳﻦ ﻗﺎﻧﻮن ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﺮ ﻋﻬﺪﻩ رهﺒﺮي ﮔﺬاردﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ، از ﻃﺮﻳﻖ رﻳﻴﺲ ﺟﻤﻬﻮر و ﻧﺨﺴﺖ وزﻳﺮ و وزرا اﺳﺖ.
Current: “Except for the issues that are part of Leadership’s responsibility in accordance to law, the duties of the executive branch are the responsibilities of the President and the ministers.”
Previous: “Except for the issues that are part of Leadership’s responsibility in accordance to law, the duties of the executive branch are the responsibilities of the President, the Prime Minister, and the ministers.”
~With respect to the 2nd item, according to Article 6 of the constitution, “In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the country must be managed by relying on public votes through the election of presidents, election of members of Majlis, councils, and other elected bodies or in accordance to a public referendum that has been conducted in accordance with the articles in the constitution.” So, no one should pick and choose the easy way out. There is a law. There are provisions. And there is a legitimate process.
RE: “– which is no different than that of the Shah’s. Perhaps if Allah-willing he chokes that will happen.”
May you be granted Elm, wisdom, a pure heart, and courage by Allah.
Sources: 1):http://www.majlesekhobregan.ir/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=522&Itemid=1
2);http://www.tahavol-ag.ir/uploads/ghavanin/ghanoun_Asasi_I.R.IRAN.pdf
3) ;http://karafariny.shahed.ac.ir/laws/pdf%20files%20of%20laws/ghanoone%20asasy.pdf
By the way, I’m not a huge supporter of a Valiyat fagih system, but I’m more of a What-Works political thought. So far, the system is working, and any changes need to be taken with care and in incremental steps to ensure a stable Iran.
“No doubt the Shah became too much of a dictator. But – here’s where both systems are flawed: POWER CORRUPTS. Every cell of Khamenei is as corrupt a dictator as the Shah was. ”
If POWER corrupts, is the answer to have powerless entities to lead a country?
The reality of the situation is that the role of the supreme leader has had more of a unifying role than a dictator role. They can’t really be compared to the Shah or the Sheikhs in the Gulf countries or the President for Lifes as Assad and Mubarak.
I think the Iranian system has a lot of checks and balances in place, making it unlikely for one figure to take on a complete dictorial role.
M. Ali,
No doubt the Shah became too much of a dictator. But – here’s where both systems are flawed: POWER CORRUPTS. Every cell of Khamenei is as corrupt a dictator as the Shah was.
I@I,
“Obviously, a very strong majority of Iranians and many non-Iranians don’t agree with you at all. Ayatollah Khameneini is very highly educated and very popular and that is exactly why the Council of Experts elected him. If they felt he should no longer be the leader they can remove him.”
- What do you base your “majority of Iranians” assessment on?
- What is Khamenei’s education? Is he the highest ranking Ayatollah in Shia Islam? – Was he NOT only a Hojatoleslam the night Khomeini died?
- Was he even a Marja?
- What makes you think he’s popular?
- Did the assembly of experts elect him or did Rafsanjani handpicked him and stated a random story about how Khomeini would have liked to see Khamenei replace him?
He appoints half the people who technically can replace him. The other half he picks indirectly. They couldn’t even tolerate Rafsanjani – the very man who made him the Leader. So what makes you think they could actually remove him? Give me ONE instance where they have criticized something he’s done – let alone CONSIDER replacing him. He for example should not have so clearly sided with Ahmadinejad. He did. In fact, give me ONE example of something criticizing the Leader without ending up in jail. Mohammad Nourizad’s letters come to mind… Where is Nourizad now?
“If we want to be a rule model, we have to re-adjust ourselves too.”
And we are. Iran is constantly changing. It has not stood still since the revolution.
The Pahlavis are responsible for two of the greatest strike’s against Iran’s political progress. One was ruining all the progress the Iranians did with the constitutional revolution and then decades later, by again putting a stop to Mossadeq’s democracy.
M.Ali says:
April 26, 2011 at 4:54 am
I don’t agree with your statement that Ayyatollah Khomeini was more involved than Khamenei. Khamenei has his own government, if you will. A group of advisors for different stuff. a vast intelligence community in every small and big government related institutions. Friday prayers need not to be mentioned. Financially too, as a small example, just have in mind the wealth of “Bonyade farmane hazrate emam” institution. It might have started with Ayyatollah Khomeini’s mandate, but made most of its fortune during Khamenei (and I kind of know what is going on in this institution). Astane Ghods…. In fact, we have multiple governments in today’s Iran.
if even if Ayyatollah Khomeini did some sort of daily politics, he had the approval of the majority and the country was invovled in a war during most of his rule. he was after all charismatic. I remember, when he died which I was a kid at the time, my whole family started to cry. you can not compare that situation with today’s Iran. There was time that even intellectuals were looking at the moon to find his picture!. It’s a totally different situation.
I also don’t agree with your concept of progress either. For thousand years, mankind was unable to make basic stuff let alone making institutions to govern a vast territory and population. Things changed in a mere couple of centuries.
If we are going to take advantage of the region’s turmoil, we can’t ourselves be a closed system. The Arab uprising is not exactly like our 1979 revolution even though it has a great similarity. If we want to be a rule model, we have to re-adjust ourselves too. Otherwise, there is a great chance for others (not just the U.S and Israel) to harvest something that was ought to be our greatest asset.
Bala, but the Shah DIDN’T do that. Remember, if he had done that, and had taken a backseat to a constitutional monarchy, the revolution might never have gained steam. The fact is that the Shah WAS a full dictator. A constitutional monarchy was established in Iran during the end of the Qajar era, and the Pahlavis trumpled on it.
Bala
Obviously, a very strong majority of Iranians and many non-Iranians don’t agree with you at all. Ayatollah Khameneini is very highly educated and very popular and that is exactly why the Council of Experts elected him. If they felt he should no longer be the leader they can remove him.
M.Ali,
I don’t agree with you entirely, but you make a reasonable argument.
However if you were to replace all instances of “Supreme Leader” with “Shah” – you will then sound a lot like the monarchists and Reza Pahlavi. He too argues that a constitutional monarchy is what we need in Iran and he’s “willing” to be that above-the-politics king to make sure there’s a stable Iran.
So how is velayat-e-faghih any different than what he’s arguing for? Other than the obvious difference between a crown and a turban! Khamenei is not the Grandest of ayatollahs and he hasn’t exactly been the fairest either.
The concept of Velayat-e Faqih has so far not been a disadvantage to Iran as some of you make it out to be. Notice that in the 30+ years after the revolution and include sanctions & 8 year war, and the result has been a reasonable stable government. The position of supreme leader was less of a dictatorial role and more of a uniting force, which is something people not familiar with Iran’s reality can not seem to grasp. Without the actions of supreme leader, Iran could very well have had multiple governmental collapses, such as recent regional democracies as Lebanon, Pakistan, Thailand, and such, and military coup would not have been out of the question.
Even a situation such as the current situation could have ruined the government. Imagine a standstill between the Larijani Parliament group and Ahmadenijad’s Presidency group, were the infighting would have brought down the full government, or allowed a military coup to take place, or have one President refuse to step down after their term.
As the government of Iran evolves year by year, and as the economy progresses, and as the Iranian people mature more and more, and as Iranian society fully grasps what it wants, and as the outside regional threats subside, iran’s government will have less and less need for a Supreme Leader and it will soon turn into a ceremonial seat, as is happening. The current Supreme Leader has a much less hands on approach then the previous one.
Oppositions to the government should stop trying to install a full western style of system in Iran, because imported systems never work. They need to evolve in its own style, without a rush work. Changing from a 3000 year monarchy to a republic is not easy and unless the people do it their own way, will be gauranteed to fail. The fact that Iran is the region’s best democracy is a proof of good decisions they have made, and unnecessary quick changes to make it look more like the west is just asking for it to fall.
Gotta admit that I’m liking this Ahmadinejad figure more and more! The man may be a lot of things – and his election may be questionable – but he sure as hell has some gigantic balls! Perhaps he has elephantiasis!
Empty,
So appointing a hojat-ol-islam who was not a marja (Khamenei) to the position of the Supreme Leader is not unconstitutional in your book? I mean sure he became an Ayatollah overnight to sort of qualify, but he was constitutionally un-qualified. Also – changing the constitution to get rid of the position of Prime Minister and putting more powers in the hands of the Supreme Leader means we can in fact change the constitution to get rid of the position of SL – which is no different than that of the Shah’s. Perhaps if Allah-willing he chokes that will happen.
http://www.fardanews.com/fa/news/145304/%D9%87%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%AA-%D8%A8%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF%DB%8C-%D9%86%DA%98%D8%A7%D8%AF
جلسه هیات دولت به ریاست رحیمی برگزار شد جلسه هیات دولت به ریاست محمدرضا رحیمی معاون اول رئیس جمهور و بدون حضور رئیس جمهور برگزار شد.
به گزارش «فردا» به نقل از مهر جلسه روز یکشنبه بعد از ظهر هیات دولت به ریاست محمد رضا رحیمی تشکیل شد.
گفتنی است برخی نمایندگان مجلس شورای اسلامی از حضور قطعی محمود احمدی نژاد رئیس جمهوری در جلسه عصر یک شنبه هیئت دولت و دعوت از حیدر مصلحی برای شرکت در این جلسه خبر داده بوده اند.
حیدر مصلحی وزیر اطلاعات در این جلسه حضور داشت.
so, kooshy aziz, it turned out that what I heard was right!! let’s the commentators here judge who sticks to BS!. You have received your Ph.D decades ago. you gave many Ph.Ds probably, so, if there is one who should be careful of staying away from BS, he/she will be you first, sorry to say this. I don’t want to insult (I have said this before that I have a great respect for you. but respect is mutual no matter the age difference, status, race, level of education and wealth …), just want to return back what you have stated (exact words).
kooshy:
I thought, this should be meaningful for you:
http://www.irna.ir/NewsShow.aspx?NID=30354103
تهران- هيات دولت عصر امروز يكشنبه به رياست محمدرضا رحيمي معاون اول رياست جمهوري تشكيل جلسه داد.
به گزارش ايرنا، در اين جلسه حجت الاسلام والمسلمين حيدر مصلحي وزير اطلاعات حضور دارد.
:http://www.safirnews.com/safiraneh/1390_02/014918.php
هرچند که حضور احمدینژاد و مصلحی در این جلسه همچنان محتمل به نظر میرسد اما اخبار رسیده حکایت از آن دارد که رئیسجمهور از دیروز در محل نهاد ریاست جمهوری حاضر نشده است.
:http://www.safirnews.com/safiraneh/1390_02/014913.php
همچنین برخی اخبار حاکی از آن است که محمود احمدینژاد روز گذشته و همچنین تا ساعت ۱۰ صبح امروز در نهاد ریاست جمهوری حاضر نشده بود.
I hope you are not gonna say all of the above people are part of the NYT plot. get out of the conspiracy theory.
you should know that we, most of Iranian people are not like Pak, Bala…so to discredit them easily and find contradiction in their otherwise limited understanding of Iran.
I don’t give a damn to what NYT says. however, you should know that we are talking in the context of human behaviour. the whole public opinion can be put in the category of b***s*** if you like. when you ask somebody to express his/her opinion about a particular event or person, you can’t jump in and tell her/him, hey look, what you say is nonsense bc we don’t have any written document or reliable news agency reporting that.
in fact, it’s the actions of people like, with their blind support of a dictatorship, that opens the door for the radical opposition (with the backing of the west)… to dig in.
این مثلا تهدید؟ اونم از طرف آدمها و گروههای مرده. کسایی که با پول هم شاید نتونند 1000 نفر رو به عنوان طرفدار معرفی کنند.
:http://alef.ir/1388/content/view/101561/
بابا بوی گند دفتر رهبری ملت رو خفه کرده، شما اونجا نشستی میگه محبوبه. محبوب چیه، منفوره تو اکثریت و نه حتی بی تفاوتی. حالا آمار به یک طرف، آدمی که اینهمه ادعا میشه طرفدار داره ما نباید یه 5 نفر تو کوچه و خیابون و محله ببینیم ازش مثبت حرف بزنند و حمایت کنند؟ باور کن ما ایزوله نیستیم. با همه جور قشری هم سرو کار داریم، فقیر، غنی، شهری، روستایی، عشایر، پیر، جون، تحصیل کرده، بی سواد، مذهبی، لامذهب.
Press conference on Fukushima with Helen Caldicott:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Itr6GDuOOBY&feature=share
The position of Velayat_e Faqih, the process for his election, removal, and responsibilities associated with the position are all clearly spelled out in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Articles 5, 109, 110, and 111. As such, making any changes (minor or major) to the constitution must only occur within the framework of law and in accordance to the provisions outlined in the constitution itself. The process is quite complex and lengthy (as it should be). Even so, any recommendation for change must be put to referendum. Anyone for any reason (intentionally or unintentionally) does anything to shake or weaken any part of the constitution outside of the provisions set by law is in fact working against the constitution. I have not come across any valid and reliable evidence to suggest that Dr. Ahmadinejad has ever done this during his past or current terms.
More importantly, a nation’s constitution is, by all accounts, the most significant and critical document any system/nation adopts. Changing it should therefore not be taken lightly. Provisions (be it minor or major) in a country’s constitution are not some sort of an undergarment that are changed every few days.
United States constitution, for example, has been quite resistant to change despite many proposals put forth to re-write it since its inception 223 years ago in 1788. An interesting book to read is “Rewriting the United States Constitution – An Examination of Proposals from Reconstruction to the Present” by J.R. Vile.
QUOTE: “There have been many proposals for substantial change to the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson himself was wary of the power of the dead over the living in the form of an unchanging Constitution. To ensure that each generation have a say in the framework of the government, he proposed that the Constitution, and each one following it, expire after 19 or 20 years. James Madison, Jefferson’s contemporary, found comfort in knowing that the populace would not be thrust into political turmoil every 20 years, and noted that the way the Constitution is now structured, it implies an acceptance of the status quo unless explicitly changed.” [Source: ;http://usconstitution.net
fiorangela,
Benjamin Netanyahu is the poster child for the anti-peace movement. He quite opportunistically sought to align Hamas and Hizbollah with al-Qaeda after 9/11. It only takes a superficial understanding of the Middle East to debunk that myth. World Leaders should have to pass a reality test before they assume their positions.
PG – more and more you sound like NYT where every information is anonymous but since comes from the news paper of record should be accepted as fact, please when you debate, use reasons to prove your point, I heard this and I heard that won’t prove anything, Iran is not under threat and pressure from outside doesn’t look like the fact at this time and point, I once wrote you now that you got your PhD god bless you but please, stay away from the BS, hopefully our body PAK will soon get his PhD from professor Lucas and will give up his usual BS too.
Cheers
Arnold Evans says:
April 25, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Thanks Arnold.
I notice in the Egyptian poll results 79% want the laws to strictly follow the Quran or the principles & values of Islam. (page 22)
Also I notice 60% of those that gave an answer, want to annul the peace treaty with Israel (page 26).
kooshy:
I disagree with what you said. in a totally changed environment of today’s Iran, compared to 1979 time, the position of leader is irrelevant. contrary to what you say, Iran is not, at least regionally, under threat. It’s time for Iran to welcome more democratic governance; i.e. freer election, removal of useless seat of the supreme leader….Iran might have been forced to follow a path that one man has all the power to decide the country’s faith based on expediency. it’s no longer the case. Mr.Khamenei, and the position of supreme leader, can’t be held for long here, like it or not. it’s a totally irrelevant position and it’s getting more irrelevant by the time. basically, it’s hard to sell to the populace right or wrong. anyone saying that Mr.Khamenei, unlike Ahmadinejad, has popularity in Iran should either be very biased or totally ignorant.
btw, I don’t know whether you know it or not, but I heard here Dr.Ahmadinejad did not attend his normal work yesterday in protest of what Mr.Khamenei has ordered (it’s just ridiculous for a president not being able to have control on his cabinet. as a friend rightly said today, if Mr.Khamenei wanted something like this, why shouldn’t he make a prime minister position and change that person at will? why should we have presidency at all?).
I also heard Dr.Ahmadinejad said, rightly so in my view, in a meeting that Mr.Khamenei defended him after the election bc of HIMSELF as people like Mousavi would have removed him from the position of power. obviously, Ahmadinejad has only 2 years left to finish the job. He is there to save the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people by shaking Mr.Khamenei and re-structuring the IR making it more open and responsible to the will of the population (believe it or not, the majority who are dissatisfied with unelected positions are also Iranian people. they are not traitors, and they see this country as their own. they are not dumb either). If he fails, it’s unlikely to see anybody standing against extraordinary empowered and unrestrained Khamenei. I don’t see that dictatorial path very bright for the country (obviously we are leading toward a disastrous revolution at least in a medium term). Today’s Iran is a highly educated society unlike her pre-revolution situation. it’s just unacceptable to have major positions of power that are not criticized regularly and their raison d’être is under serious doubt.
“the leader of the revolution”: coincidentally, this was the question my friend asked me today when we were passing Fedowsi Square. why is he called this? I kind of guess the answer, i.e. that Iran and her population is in a state of constant revolution so to make this title somehow meaningful. but it’s nonetheless absurd, to say the least.
p.s, I have just started to read the book “Velayate Faghih” of Ayyatollah Khomenei. so far, can’t really say this is a sound book with a clear idea(s). would be able to judge at the end of the book which will probably be very soon!
A poll of Egypt is available.
http://pewglobal.org/files/2011/04/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Egypt-Report-FINAL-April-25-2011.pdf
I have not once said anything about supporting the Green Movement, Mousavi, Karoubi or anyone for that matter. The fact that you generalize and group me with one opposition camp shows your intolerance for any voices of dissent. It also shows how little you yourselves trust and support your so-called elected government. So unsure you are of the legitimacy of your government that you can’t defend them from position of strength – without finding it necessary to generalize and label ALL forms of dissent as foreign-backed.
That said, keep in mind that the very people who you – as diehard fans of the IR – are now calling stooges of the West, foreign agents, rogue, etc. were the people that lead Iran for the first 26 years or so of its existence. So for example the 200 thousand troops that were stationed to fight the Taliban were sent under Khatami’s presidency – someone you now call names.
As the fight between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad/Mashayi heats up I am interested to see whose side you’ll take. Shah Ali Khamenei or 63% Mahmoud.
Isolate, baby, isolate …
“ASHGABAT, April 25 (Reuters) – Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan agreed on Monday with Iran, Qatar and Oman to create a transit rail route linking energy-rich but landlocked Central Asia to the Gulf.
The new transport corridor will run from Uzbekistan across Turkmenistan and then to the Gulf via Iran, bypassing chronically unstable Afghanistan next door.”
From http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE73O04K20110425
Al Jazeera confirms changing loyalty as an independent media.
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/furuhashi230411.html
Paeen,
Again, it seems you don’t give crap about facts. I don’t see anywhere in what I have written any kind of support for the Taliban or Taliban-style government. In FACT I favor an Islamic Republic with a Valiye Faqih which is an anathema to any self-respecting Taliban or Saudi Wahabi. In FACT when the US where supporting the Taliban via Saudi, Pakistan and UAE, the Islamic Republic was fighting the Taliban, we had over two-hundred thousand troops on stand-by on the Afghan border at that time- we nearly went to freakin full-scale war with them, you idiot! Even if I die, the facts will remain the facts you fool, so you shove it!
As always you guys don’t care about reality and you mix up things that have nothing to do with each other. As BibiJon very eloquently said you have no support left in Iran and you have effectively become people who shit in your own nest.
Instead of accepting that you have made some major historic mistakes in how you dealt with the election defeat, instead of continuing to work within the system you screwed up bad and started appealing to the US and Europeans of all governments. You really have learned nothing from the short lives you have lived so far. Try to learn for the future from the disgrace that you are currently living in.
For a country like Iran, with a short history of real democracy, it will take generational changes to accept the concept of parent(s) as the head(s) of a family rather than just the father/male as the head of the family. What Iran needs, to become fully democratic, is family structural changes from a vertical structure to a horizontal structure which I believe due to the social needs is currently moving in that direction.
Understanding the social ramification of the traditional Iranian family structure, I think for a country like Iran, coming out of a an absolute monarchy system keeping a parallel system of governance was a necessity (keeping a fatherly figure with judgmental and implemental authority while an elected government exercising daily affairs of the state), where the fatherly figure although not a monarch is an accepted prominent religious figure who is selected as the ultimate judge of the state affairs by the elected prominent representative of people.
The reason is very simple let’s say in the elections of 09, if it wasn’t for the judgment of and the standing of Mr. Khamenie, Mr. Ahmadinijad who as we all know, was fairly elected, was vulnerable to be easily unseated by a minority or even an outside power, now in that environment if it was not for the quick decisions made by one person(consider US elections of 2000) and it was left to (constitutional) courts, by the time any decision could have been made in the courts, the country was in many months of turmoil and possibly in a civil war or we had our own Mr. Saakasvhili of Iran.
Understanding Iran’s constitution, one must note that the security of state is not the responsibility of the president, but it’s rather the responsibility of the leader of the revolution, who can exercise responsive actions, one can’t be responsible for the security of the state but not have control over the intelligence, and information.
Understandably majority of the articles in Iran’s current constitution, are drawn to secure Iran’s political, economic and cultural independence making a coup or a take over by an internal or external force impossible without a civil war, or a civil turmoil.
thank you fyi
Pak,
“The elections do not justify the clampdown. Come on Eric, you made the same point yourself in your revered election analysis, or are you backtracking now?”
I understood your point (and still understand your point) to be that, just as we don’t know whether the protesters in Bahrain represent the majority, we also don’t know whether the protesters in Iran represent the majority.
My disagreement was clearly expressed, I’d thought, but I’ll repeat it: We don’t know whether the protesters in Bahrain represent the majority, because no elections are held there. In Iran, by contrast, we know the protesters represent a minority, not the majority, because a fair election in Iran told us that.
I emphasized in my election piece that Ahmadinejad’s victory does not justify mistreatment of protesters – regardless of how many Iranians they represent. My point here, however, is that you should not suggest we don’t know whether Iranian protesters represent the majority of Iranians merely because we don’t know whether Bahrainian protesters represent the majority of Bahranians.
In Bahrain, we don’t know. In Iran, we do.
A pep talk by Israel ambassador Michael Oren http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/25/the_ultimate_ally?page=full
Photi – “Is there a connection between 9/11 and Iran?”
Benjamin Netanyahu makes that connection. In an appearance before a US House of Representatives committee on Sept 12 2002, Netanyahu, then a private citizen, said that Iran was part of the “network of terror” that had to be destroyed by George Bush’s “rightly declared” war on terror. At the time Netanyahu had this chat with the US Congress, American leaders were still debating whether to wage war on Iraq. Netanyahu urged to Representatives to endorse military intervention in Iraq as the “first step” in eliminating terrorism from the region.
:http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Conflictw
In light of Ohio Congressman John Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu to address the US Congress, it is useful to study the past advice he has given to US leaders, the extent to which his suggestions have been turned into US policy, and the outcomes of those policies.
The Guantanamo torture camp leaked document reveals that the US authorities listed the main Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), as a terrorist organisation alongside groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iranian intelligence. Naturally, for the Zionist Occupied United States administration, any local or foreign organization which is feared by the Zionist entity – is a “terrorist organization”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/guantanamo-files-the-good-and-the-bad-guys/
More news of the repressive, intolerant country:
From http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/iran-jews-celebrate-passover-persian-style-1.358018
Tehran’s Jews gathered over the last week in the Pol-e-Choubi Synagogue in the Iranian capital to mark the week of passover, in a country known for its anti-Israel policies.
Iran’s Jewish community celebrated Passover this week, gathering to pray at the Pol-e-Choubi Synagogue in Tehran, a synagogue catering to the largest Jewish community in the Middle East outside of Israel.
*my previous post should read ‘change will come hard and slow’. change will come slow due to legitimate security concerns.
Bala,
“Your rant proves Pak’s points about you better than anything else – you’re a fanatic reactionary thug much like Mohammad Atta. There’s no sense talking to you when your ideal form of government is the Taliban. So take your “facts” and shove it so as when you die for your beliefs fighting us infidels you bury them with you!”
What sort of logic is this? You merely show that the enemies of the Islamic Republic of Iran are irrational.
Bala,
Is there now a connection between 9/11 and Iran? You and your kind are quickly becoming relics, soon-to-be imperial castaways thrown into the dustbins of history (as one of your masters once so diseloquently put it).
Your group has no where near a critical mass to make a legitimate revolution, that makes you traitors. As a general rule, traitors garner very little respect anywhere regardless of which nation one subscribes to.
In societies where an electorate elects political representation, when we do not like actions taken by our respective governments, we lobby for change and/or reform. This peaceful change is far from perfect but it beats violence any day. It behooves a society to be receptive towards the currents of change, so political representation is an obvious must for the modern state. When there are well-funded elements within a society who seek to undermine the government, being receptive to change will come fast and slow because the state will be on alert for sabotage.
So the first order of business for the opposition is to prove their loyalty to the system. How could it be any other way?
PG,
There’s a difference between racism and realism. A couple of years ago a cousin of mine started Sarbazi. On the first day, within minutes him and another guy from Tehran were picked as leaders of the pack of mostly out-of-towner villagers. Does this make their high-ranking soldier a racist for immediately putting them in charge of everyone else? Or could it be that their competence and better education QUALIFIED them as natural leaders of the group?
Mr. BiB,
A wise man once said “I will never die for my beliefs because I could be wrong.”
Your rant proves Pak’s points about you better than anything else – you’re a fanatic reactionary thug much like Mohammad Atta. There’s no sense talking to you when your ideal form of government is the Taliban. So take your “facts” and shove it so as when you die for your beliefs fighting us infidels you bury them with you!
fyi says:
April 25, 2011 at 11:32 am
It is too late now. But, back in 2009, Mousavi was approved to run. His election campaign was robust and unhindered. His debate with Ahmadinejad was televised. After his defeat at the polls, the body of opinion he represented got highjacked by hooligans, BBC World Service, NY Times, the Guardian, Huffington Post, etc. re-enacting operation Ajax of 1953.
When you allow your movement to be highjacked, you no longer lead a movement. You’re heading a fifth column.
The work must begin from scratch.
BiBiJon says: April 25, 2011 at 11:08 am
There is no such tent that is “plenty big enough for a genuine reform/progressive movement”.
We only have to look at last week’s arrest of the leader of Freedom Movement by the government.
If the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot tolerate the Freedom Movement, it would not be able to tolerate any other group either.
The Freedom Movement, in my opinion, is the best option for the ruling establishment in Iran to cultivate a oyal opposition.
Bussed-in Basiji says:
April 25, 2011 at 9:49 am
BiB,
Other than Pak/Bala/et al’s twisting arguments, what I find most disheartening is that they represent the hijackers of an indigenous ‘reform’ movement.
Instead of working on alternative policies, establishing a grassroots constituency, etc. these people hold up “where is my vote” signs, infest international media with their baseless allegations with the sole purpose of giving Iran a black eye.
Regardless of what one may think about their stance, the simple reason why they have no base of support — no one shows up to demonstrations they call for — is because all of their effort is geared towards demonizing Iran, and Iranians on the pages of the western corporate media.
Pak for example talks about a new constitution. Well, sit down and write one! Organize a grassroots movement to put it to a referendum.
There’s only one reason these people have nothing concrete to propose — they know a priori their proposals would be voted down by over 80% of Iranians. But, they claim what is stopping them is repression; lack of freedom of the press, etc. This is false.
The tent is plenty big enough for a genuine reform/progressive movement. Their first act needs to be the exposing and getting rid of foreign agents, and various provocateurs that have infiltrated the movement. Mousavi got over 30% of the vote. That was a solid base to grow from. But, they went for appealing to the West for support/condescension. In a country like Iran, if you go outside its borders for support, you are advertising you have no legitimacy inside Iran.
thank you fyi
The following are several quotes from the text of Sayyid Khamenai’s speech at the UN in 1987 as quoted by CYRUS in this comment section. In his speech he states the nature and aspirations of humanity from the Islamic point of view.
With all due respect to Ayatollah Khamenai, from a tactical perspective I feel this speech is way too long. A speech which is trying to convey these important ideas to the world should be concise. 30 minutes maximum. Any additional information should be communicated in addendum to the speech. Decision makers all over the world are always strapped for time. Direct up-front speech is more likely to be heard.
From the speech:
“The firm root and the underlying foundation of this revolution is Islam’s monotheistic world view. The definition of man, the definition of history, the analysis of present, past and future events, the definition of nature, the identification of all the bonds which connect man with the outside world, with the world, with other human beings, with objects, and man’s understanding and appreciation of his own reality, in brief all those things which form the value systems of a society and which enable it to administer itself in a desirable manner, all of these are based upon this divine world view and are derived from it.
In the divine ideology of Islam, all that exists has been created by God and is a reflection of His knowledge and power and seeks to reach to God. And the human being is the highest level of creation and His viceroy. Human beings can, by exploiting the treasures of talent which are within them, build themselves and the world which has been created for them in the most beautiful way and adorn it accordingly. And human beings can attain the highest level of material and spiritual elevation by flying with two wings one being faith and the other being science and knowledge. And human beings can, by weakening or abusing these talents, create an inferno of injustice and corruption. The light of the guidance for human beings is their faith in God and their submission to divine biddings and forbiddings. The world is where one plans for eternity; and death is not the end of life but the gateway to eternity and the beginning of a new life.”
…
” This social structure is based on the world view and is formed in this way [as heard]. Freedom, the equality of people, social justice, self-awareness of the members of society, the struggle against dishonesty and indecency, giving preference to the aspirations of mankind instead of personal desires, paying attention to divine instructions, the negation of satanic domination and the other social principles of the Islamic system, and also personal morality and behaviour and political and professional piety, are all inspired and born by the same world view and general understanding of the world and mankind. Islam rejects those systems which rely on force and bullying and those which give birth to tyranny, ignorance, suppression, oppression, the humiliation of mankind, and racism among people on the basis of their nationality, blood and language and it will strongly challenge any system and teaching which decides to confront the Islamic system. Apart from the latter it [Islam] orders its followers to be co-operative and kind to all human beings, whether or not they are Muslims.”
…
“Our message to all Third World nations and governments, and also to nations whose governments are the creators of the hegemonic system, is that the world should not have to tolerate such an unpleasant situation. The superpowers and governments should be told by all to stay in their own countries and leave the world to the peoples of the world. You are not their custodians.”
nahid says: April 24, 2011 at 2:03 pm
I do not like the flavor but I agree with the substance of this article.
Mr. Khamenei’s powers are vague in the Iranian constitution: as far as I know, he does not have the right to micro-manage, as it were, the government.
The Majlis has the right to approve or disapprove of the individual ministers in the government. In a presidential system, the ministers work for the President and carry out his policies. From a management point of view, it is nonsensical to foist on the President with whom he has major disagreements.
On the constitutional front, in my opinion, all his actions have been legal and within the law. He has tried to stay within the law of the land and the authority granted to the Office of the Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran by the Iranian Constitution. It were his opponent, both in Majlis and outside of it, that have abused the Law.
The Iranian system, at moment, does have a weakness in that any constitutional disputations among the Presidency, the Office of Supreme Jurisprudent and the Majlis cannot be resolved in a legal and transparent manner: there is no Constitutional Court or Supreme Court that has the mandate and authority to adjudicate such issue.
The Iran vs. Islam conceptualization is largely stupid. Reza Shah started it, the Shah continued it, and the Islamic Republic negatively continued it. For most Iranians, this is a non-issue but leave it to the intellectuals of left, right, and center to make it so.
Mr. Ahmadinejad is a Muslim Iranian. He loves Islam and he loves Iran. He has wanted and has tried – since being elected – to make Iran a normal country. That is, close the Revolutionary chapter and end its program (just how many decades of Revolution is needed?).
Like other Iranian leaders, past and present, he will need both Muslim and Iranian credentials to govern. So during his first presidency, he cultivated some of the religious scholars. After the political crisis of 2009 and the clear opposition of many religious scholars and their cohorts to him, he has moved to diminish their (implicit) power.
He has done 3 things: he has appointed female ministers in opposition to the opinion of prominent religious scholars; with one approved by Majlis. And the religious men and women of Iran who opposed this could not gain any traction in the Iranian society on this issue; the Iranian people have moved and these obscurantist elements are left behind in the garbage of Islamic Tradition.
The second has been the assertion, on multiple occasions, that the enforcement of Hijab – the highest expression of the Islamic Disaster in Iran – is neither a priority of his government nor something that his government can be held accountable since the organs of state that enforce it do not report to him.
So, he has created the conceptual political space for the future governments to ignore the narrow-minded and stupid ejaculations of the Doctors of Muslim Science of Islam. This is consistent; by the way, with the Fatwa of the late Mr. Khomeini that the expediency of the Islamic Establishment could supersedes precepts of Islamic Law.
He also wrapped himself more and more in Iranian flag (in addition to the flags of Palestine and Islam during his first Presidency). He has advanced the Iran-ness argument and has left it to his critiques to attack Iran-ness argument and thus undermine themselves.
I never could understand why Mr. Mousavi became a hero of the Greens and Mr. Ahmadinejad their nemesis. The Green Movement and some of their demands could best have been met by supporting Mr. Ahmadinejad. I wonder if that was because Mr. Ahmadinejad comes from a low-class family. Or was it because he was ugly? Or was the Green Movement’s opposition to Mr. Ahmadinejad stemmed from behind-scene manipulations and machination of the Axis Powers?
Photi:
http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Teachings-Muhammad-Husayn-Tabatabai/dp/0922817006
Photi,
The first step is to realize that a human being is an eternal spiritual existence. The next step is to realize that this existence is not random but is purposeful. The next step is to define the purpose which is nothing other than traveling from the animal existence towards a complete human existence. The next step is to realize the program for achieving that complete human existence…you guessed it, a Divine program called Islam…
*that was supposed to be addressed to Bussed-in Basiji
Is there a concise reading on how a human in defined in Islamic terms? If you suggest an author we may be able to find him on al-islam.org. How about Islam and nationalism? Is there a distinction in Islam made between racial or ethnic nationalism and something like civic nationalism? How does the Islamic Republic deal with its inherent ‘Iranian-ness’? Does Islam look at nationalism and tribalism in the same light? I am not aware of the Holy Prophet (as) ever having renounced his affiliation with al-Quraysh (though he had to defend against their leaders and armies on several occasions). Aren’t tribalism and nationalism analogous even from the Islamic point of view?
Pak,
I asked you a very simple question because once a young man/women has to take his/her head out of his/her ass and live in the real world the issue becomes how much are you willing to sacrifice for what you believe in. In college or other safe places talking about revisiting the constitution and all the other stuff is easy. Living the life for real is a very different matter. So it’s not a threat. I’m informing you of a fact that if you are not willing to sacrifice for your beliefs you won’t get anywhere. Like I said when push comes to shove you will pick a warm bed in a cozy western capital and I will do whatever God has planned for me.
As always you weasel your way out of the uncomfortable questions (like you did when I asked you about your dual citizenship or permanent residency- no I haven’t forgotten).
So when you return from exile- and you will, you can’t help yourself- please let me know, are willing to sacrifice your life for your universal values? For your sake, I hope the answer is yes.
Photi,
These issues go back to how we define a human being and his/her purpose in this realm of existence. Once you have done that, all other answers are derived from that.
Dear B-in-B,
I am officially going into exile again, because this site is too distracting and time-consuming. So I will only provide you with a brief answer to your last post:
- We agree to disagree on the universality of rights, because I cannot change your reactionary views.
- I think you need to revisit your studies, not me. Instead of acting as your teacher, here is a cliffhanger for you to dissect: why are anti-monarchists called Republicans?
- All your points regarding “having a voice” are void, because the fact that the internet is filtered, and satellites banned, is the fundamental problem – not how to get around these restrictions. And there is a difference between “equal access” and any access at all. The media in Iran is among the most restricted in the world, and you know/have demonstrated why.
- The Green Movement wants to revisit the constitution. Questioning their popularity is a completely different discussion to this one, but their existence is without doubt.
- Repeatedly threatening the opposition with implicit hints at a willingness to “sacrifice” for a cause (aka suicide bomb or mission) only puts you in a bad light, and kind of makes my point about you. This is not a competition to compare each other’s penis size, so I will steer clear. But considering that people I know have been consumed by the tyranny of the IR, I am willing to endure. And anyway, you sound pretty old, so I win on that front.
Godspeed, talk to you later!
Bussed-in Basiji,
Salam brother, i would be interested in reading those discussions you refer to about human rights and democracy. A question I have is whether or not the problem from the Islamic point of view is that too often human rights and democracy are used as imperial tools to control and dominate. If the definition of “human rights” were universally applied instead of being continually re-defined to suit imperial interests, would the Islamic Republic be more agreeable towards such concepts?
And to all you Imperialist Bastards out there and their lackeys, Democracy in Muslim societies means that Islam will be the center of gravity in those societies, and it is about time. So lay off.
Pak,
Kheyli ahmaghi…I didn’t say that Iran didn’t have history before Islam, I said the relevant history is the one that has occurred most “recently” i.e. in the last 1,400 years. Your just too dense to get it, vaaghan heyf. What happened in the Sassanid era is fine and good and we all love it, but not very relevant to Iran today whereas what happened in the last 1,400 years, the last 1,000 years the last 500 years is MORE relevant. That’s the point.
Pak,
“But I support them because they are struggling for fundamental human rights and democratic values that are universal. I have my personal views, but that is not a crime. Like you say, the point of democracy is simply to have a voice, so that is satisfactory enough for me.”
Pak-jan, let me squeeze you a little- like an annoying pimple on my ass…
First: “human rights” and “democratic values” are not “universal” in the way you use these terms. We’ve had these discussions before, you don’t get, nothing we can do about it.
Second: A republic and a democracy are two different things which you don’t seem to get after repeated explanations. A republic by definition limits and controls democratic processes. Unfortunately you are stubbornly resisting this new set of information on this issue which I guess they didn’t explain to you well enough in college. Iran is a republic, an Islamic republic which has democratic and non-democratic elements in its law making and that is a good thing you young idealist fool. Maybe when you get married and have the responsibility of taking care of children you will come down from your delusional cloud. Elahi ameen.
Third: “Having a voice” is a relative concept because regarding electronic media everybody (atheists, munafeqeen, hezbollahis, Hezbe Tudeh etc.) has websites and fora and with a filtershekan (which are readily available) anyone in Iran can access these.
Nowhere in the world is there equal access to television so demanding this is not very honest. Either for commercial or legal reasons no country can say that all voices- however fringe- are equally and fairly represented on TV. But even here we see that with the advent of satellite TV, this issue is also changing and anyone with enough money can have their own channel. And let’s be clear in the case of Iran, everybody and their ammeh does have a website and a satellite channel. So again you are not being factual.
The bandwith of political opinions in Iranian ELECTORAL politics is limited to those who accept the constitution and if you look at the last page of the constitution (go ahead it won’t bite) you will see that a number of things are mentioned that are not up for debate in Iran. The very last paragraph that begins with “Mohtawai usul marbut be Islami boodan nezam…” and that ends with “…va din va mazhabe rasmi Iran tagheernapazeer ast.”
Anyone wanting to participate has to do so according to the limits set in the constitution that are clearly stated in that paragraph. And this is the case in any country with a constitution. And as we have discussed ad nauseum, you and your goofy friends are nowhere near getting Iranians to change their constitution. I repeat a constitution that we sacrificed the best among us for.
So I ask you directly and I expect a clear answer from you Pak, are you willing to die for your “universal values”? Think about it a little, because if you have even a little doubt about this, you are wasting yours and everybody else time.
And remember saying it easy but doing it is different matter. What we have seen from your type in these last decades is that in that moment of truth a warm cozy bed in LA or London or Sydney is more appealing than offering your life for your values (I’m assuming you are not atheist like Paeen, at least something to die for in your case).
Dear B-in-B,
Thank you for resting my case with your meandering rant.
“In fact in the UK and Iran, the head of state is also the highest religious authority- hmmm how interesting.”
Do you know why in the UK the head of state (the monarchy – a hangover from the transition to democracy) is also the highest religious authority? Because in the beginning of the 16th century – yes, over 400 years ago – Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife, as she was unable to provide him with a son/heir to the throne. As divorce was prohibited by the Catholic faith, he proceeded to set up the Church of England by breaking away from Rome, an declared himself has its head. Consequently, he divorced his wife, and throughout the rest of his life married 5 more times (the next wife was beheaded, the next one died, he divorced from the next one, the next one was again beheaded, and the last one outlived him).
So yes, it is very interesting!
“[Iran] has a long history and it has been for nearly one and half millenia (yes that’s around 14 centuries, 1,400 years- do you understand these numbers?)the refuge of Ahlul Bayt who are the leaders of humanity.”
Why stop Iran’s history at 1,400 years? Oh, I know why!
Bala says:
April 25, 2011 at 6:01 am
Aside from many ridiculous, and obviously false, statements regarding Iran’s situation today, it’s particularly shocking that you are not embarrassed for what you have stated in that past; i.e. bold racism. instead, you are affiliating me for adherence to this ideology or that one which is totally irrelevant to our talk and your shameful statements. a man of your wisdom should know what kind of statements are in the category of racism. it’s so arrogant of you to say the least. I just wondering when you look at your own people this way, what would be the situation for the immediate neighbors; i.e. Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis….?
I don’t need to pretend to be a man of the people (what ever that may mean) regardless of its advantage or disadvantage. I am an average citizen living with my fellow countrymen and interacting normally with them based on mutual respect. Never have shown here to be someone different, which I am really not, specially in daily conversations. I have lived in small villages and big cities in this country (don’t think this is something advantageous. it just happened to be like that). and I do what an average citizen here does, whether wearing a tie or not is a secondary issue.
I look down at people here?!!!! show me how?
and I am corrupt??!!! so funny hahahaha, keep continue talking nonsense please (like martial law, like no education in Iran’s rural areas…). the more you talk, the better people can judge.
Paeen,
“I am personally an atheist – but as an atheist I have no place in Iran.”
Hallelujah, Amen, you got that right. For your own sake go to Iceland. Their will never be a secular or atheist or non-religious Iran and Middle East. Don’t waste your life trying. Iran is the base of Ahlul Bayt in ghaybat kubra and their isn’t crap you can do about that. (If Iceland is too cold for you, try Costa Rica).
Also, you really don’t get it, the whole point of the Islamic Republic is to prevent secularism, the whole point is to conduct politics derived from Islam. Of course their are always going to be atheist, there always have been from the beginning of religion until today. The point is that atheists and atheism should not play any part in the political system of the a Muslim society. That’s it, no dialogue I’m afraid. Until the majority of Iranians are religious and want a religious government that reflects their beliefs, you are going to be a loser on this front.
Also, the US is not secular according to the majority of US conservative voters. It is non-denominational (and that is effectively limited to Protestant denominations Kennedy being the Catholic exception and you saw what happened to him).
I know facts just get in the way of your thoughts, but bear with this ignorant thug- you might learn something. There is a difference between “secularism” and not having an official religion. The US constitution says no one denomination can be made the official state religion. As conservative say this relates to Protestant denominations- Catholics, Jews Muslims or atheists are not even worth mentioning (Mormons are a special case- let’s see how it turns out for Romney). Liberals say no this means secularism. Most conservatives and liberals would agree that Christianity and in particular Protestant denominations are deeply interwoven with the political process and culture of America. That’s why many conservatives in the US are upset that for the first time in US history not a single US Supreme Court judge is a Protestant (after Clarence Thomas returned to Catholicism). So the US system is Protestant non-denominational but not “secular” in the way you have mentioned it.
Interestingly such nations such as the UK, Greece, Italy, Poland share the distinction with Iran of having official and privileged state religions. In fact in the UK and Iran, the head of state is also the highest religious authority- hmmm how interesting. And here we return to my first point. Iran is not some blank sheet of paper which began when your generation was born and that you can project whatever khiyalat and tawahomat and hawasat that you have. It has a long history and it has been for nearly one and half millenia (yes that’s around 14 centuries, 1,400 years- do you understand these numbers?)the refuge of Ahlul Bayt who are the leaders of humanity. Iran is the land of Ahlul Bayt Islam and there isn’t crap you can do about that. You’re banging your head against the walls of a 1400 year old fortress built by God. The walls won’t crack but your head will.
Also just because the people you hang out with aren’t religious doesn’t mean the youth aren’t religious. Just check the packed mosques during etekaf or Ramadhan or Muharram or attend one the Friday prayers led by the Supreme Leader and you will get your answer. Been to Shalamcheh lately? Have you visited Imam Reza (as) shrine lately (with 5-6 million visitors this Norouz)? Visited Jamkaran on Tuesday nights lately? Visted Hazrat Massoumeh or Shah Cheragh lately. Oh I’m sorry those are for the ignorant dirty dahatis. Then how about our very own chic Imamzadeh Saleh in Tajrish?
The problem of course is that you don’t give a crap about the facts. Here is some more facts to intrude on your illusions. We have doubled the population in 32 years and the majority of the population is young. The factor to look at is percentage of youth population religiosity, not absolute numbers- because the absolute number of both hezbollahi and aragh-khor youth has gone up as result of overall rise in youth numbers.
And here Paeen-jan is where you have to eat dirt because if you look at the religiosity of youth as percentage of total youth this has gone up in the Islamic Republic because religion is not seen as a sign of being a dirty ignorant dahati as in the good old days and there are resources and institutions to help youth who want to be religious. Again, been to any of the places I mentioned in the last paragraph? No, of course not, that’s for superstitious ignorant omoli people, not civilized atheist people like you are. Facts? Who needds facts?
Also I never mentioned any polls from the US- what I have mentioned in previous posts is 80 percent participation in the elections, and the rallies on 9 Dey and 22 Bahman. Anyone living in Iran- yes even in north Tehran where I live and taking the bus (wink, wink)- it’s clear that the vast majority of people support the revolution and the Supreme Leader. Of course you are free to live within your personal illusions, but don’t bring to my revolution and expect me to hand it to you mofti.
As I told in the previous post, you can whine as much as you want, unless you are willing to be sacrificed for your beliefs (which is well…atheism, not very inspiring) and unless you are willing to give tens of thousands of shohada as we did to establish and safeguard the Islamic Republic- you can go play…
When push comes to shove we will choose martyrdom and you will choose a green card. Case closed.
WorldPublicOpinion.org, not .com
Dear Bala,
The University of Maryland study was a hybrid of a number of different polls:
- 10 polls conducted by the University of Tehran
- 1 poll conducted by Globescan
- 1 poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.com
It all sounds good right? Sure, until you dig not so deep to find that all the polling data from the University of Tehran was supplied by none other than Mohammad Marandi!!!
Oh, and the Globescan poll was conducted smack-bang in the middle of the protests in June 2009, while the WorldPublicOpinion poll was conducted by cold-calling people from abroad.
Judge for yourself.
And, yes, people here like to divert the conversation towards secularism/liberal democracy, instead of focussing on the issue at hand. They conveniently overlook the fact that the majority of prominent Green Movement activists are relatively pious and humble. My personal views are most probably vastly different to those of Mousavi, Rahnavard, or even Nasrin Sotoudeh. But I support them because they are struggling for fundamental human rights and democratic values that are universal. I have my personal views, but that is not a crime. Like you say, the point of democracy is simply to have a voice, so that is satisfactory enough for me.
This point is too uncomfortable for regime supporters here, so instead they start talking about irrelevant crap – just read B-in-B’s posts for a taster. Who even remotely mentioned Prophets for him to bring it up!?
Dear Eric and Iranian,
The elections do not justify the clampdown. Come on Eric, you made the same point yourself in your revered election analysis, or are you backtracking now?
Dear Voice of Tehran,
Actually, I am training to become a burger flipper at Wendy’s. MacDonald’s is so last year.
Dear M.Ali,
“Pak, you compare the retaliation from the government in Bahrain’s case and in Iran’s case…”
Of course, and I would go further by saying that Bahrain looks to Iran for inspiration. The repression there is eerily similar to what happened in Iran: shooting protesters on the streets, running over protesters with trucks, murdering protesters in detention, indiscriminately arresting people, attacking places of worship and people of faith, dissolving political parties, show trials, forcibly retiring national football players, banning any resemblance of independent media, mass propaganda campaigns, and so on.
Your relativity argument is extremely weak. And Bahrain had to resort to outside force because their security forces are useless (if you have ever been to one of these Persian Gulf Arab sheikdoms, you would know what I am talking about). On the other hand, Iran has a large, well trained police force, and huge numbers of ideologically indoctrinated foot soldiers who are supported by patronage, and are practically immune from the law.
PG
“you not only don’t understand today’s Iran, but also constantly insult (with looking down on) a big portion of the society with your distinct class-related analysis, and class favoritism. Education indeed has caught up in Iran, thanks to the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran over the past 3 decades, in small villages and remote areas. if there are Iranians who are brain-washed, which in fact there are many, one of them would surely be you; Mr. Sabzollahi.”
Do me a favor and cut your intellectual communist ideology crap. You look down on people on this blog – what’s to stop you from looking down on the average Iranian? You want us to believe that you’re a man of the people because you don’t wear a tie and don’t take showers frequently?!!! They’ve been playing that game in Iran for the past 32 years and these “men of the people” are just as corrupt as those they replaced.
Pak,
I’ve noticed how IRI supporters here have such weak arguments that they’re quick to attach those they don’t find agreeable to foreign agents, Israel and the US. As though one cannot be against policies of ALL hypocritical oppressive powers at the same time. You’re either against oppression of any kind or form or you’re not. You can’t pick and choose which oppressive government to support – as many on this forum seem to do.
As for popularity of Khamenei ironically we’re to believe polls by Americans at some obscure University in Maryland and not a stroll down Valiasr street on any given day. Take advantage of line taxis and go from north to south, west to east in Tehran. If you’re smart with it within a couple of days you will come across at least 1000 random strangers (numbers used by most pollsters) and you judge for yourself how popular the regime is or how happy the people are. Or you could believe polls by a low-ranking university in America (your Great Satan) of all places!
And how idiotic that people like BiB equate secularism with atheism. As though in the secular US Americans are all Godless people with no religions. With utter disregard that in America Islam is the fastest growing religion. I am personally an atheist – but as an atheist I have no place in Iran. I could be killed for my views. In a secular Iran I will be able to express my opinions – even on national TV. The worst that could happen is a dialogue would take place and people of faith may even as a result of it believe in their Gods and Prophets even MORE.
Secularism does not mean atheism. It means NOT mixing religion and God with dirty politics. Just ask yourselves – are young people more religious now than they were in 1979 at the time of the Revolution when they had grown up under a secular dictator? You can force hijab on the women, you can force people to pray in public, you can force people to not eat during Ramadan, you can do all sorts of things all in the name of an Islamic government – but you can’t ever FAKE faith. People either have it or they don’t. Now if you wish to believe this Islamic government of yours with leadership of an evil man named Khamenei helps Islam, Muhammad and Hossein because its 25 year old mullahs have a mohr tattooed on their foreheads, be my guest.
ScumPack says:
April 24, 2011 at 7:10 am
“”…but I am currently bogged down with assignments. But fret not, because I will be back soon. I am sure you all miss me dearly”"
SP , what kind of assignments ? Finding a job in Mc Donald’s ??
Beautifully written article
News Flash: Iraq War Was About Oil
by Ray McGovern, April 23, 2011
http://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2011/04/22/news-flash-iraq-war-was-about-oil/
Jim Lobe analysis of Saudi counter-revolution and consequences
english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/2011424133930880573.html
Tehran: ‘Thwart the enemies Shia/Sunni plot’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/tehran-%e2%80%98thwart-the-enemies-shiasunni-plot/
‘No sign Gaddafi bombed Tripoli – NATO wages war on false claims’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDt92tR2YnA&feature=player_embedded#at=123
Pak,
“The protests in Bahrain have failed too. Do the majority support the monarchy? Case open.”
There’s been no recent election in Bahrain, so there’s no way to answer your question. That distinguishes Bahrain from Iran.
fyi
sorry, the article
http://www.uskowioniran.com/2011/04/ahmadinejad-challenging-khamenei.html
fyi
What is your opinion on this article? If I may ask.
Pak
WB. In Iran people support the political order and most voted for Ahmadinejad. In Bahrain foreign forces, with US support, crushed the local population.
Pak, you compare the retaliation from the government in Bahrain’s case and in Iran’s case (at the same time, you can use the other countries in the regime too for comparison).
Bahrain had to resort to outside force and its death toll was larger than Iran (in relative terms, taking into account population size)
M.Ali says: April 24, 2011 at 7:49 am
There are substantial difference between Syria and Egypt.
One is the religious and linguistic diversity of Syria.
The population consist of Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, Alawites, Druze, and Christians in addition to such obscure sects as Sabeans and Yazidis (among Kurds).
There Kurdish, Arabic, and Aramic are spoken.
The military does not have a quasi-independent role from the state and is controlled, it seems to me, by the Allawite sect.
The Syrian state, it seems to me, is based on the Allawite sect at the moment.
Alteration to the current dispensation will be messy and difficult.
Neither the Druze nor the Alawites will agree to a dispensation that will guarantee a permanently dominant position to the majority Sunni Muslims. Nor should I think will the Christians.
A secular state, as I have repeatedly stated, is a chimera among Mulsim polities.
I think Mr. Assad will continue to suppress the demonstrators while gradually dismantling aspects of the Alawite hard-dictatorship in Syria.
I think that over the next few years, the Alawite leaders, must chart a new political dispensation for Syria that includes a confessional-based parliamnetary system.
In my opinion, a confessional system – de factor or de jur – is the only way to govern Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq due to the diversity of the populations residing there.
The path forward could be this:
1- Conferences and Meetings that result in an agreement for a new, interim constitution.
2- An inetrim constitution is adpoted – with the crucial provisio of an expiration date.
3- The new interim constitution goes into effect and new elections are organized.
4- The elections are held and a new government is formed based on the results of the new elections and according to the new interim constitution.
5- The politcial forces/organizations/parties/personages will participate in the creation of a new permanent constitution.
6- The new constitution is ratified, the iterim one is superseded and new elections are held.
[One wants to avoid the mistakes of the Third French Republic which made a temporary constitution into a permanent one.]
The genuine Iranian grass-rooted protests were against the US-Israeli puppet King Reza Shah in 1978. The minority protests in 2009 aagainst the victory of anti-Israel Ahmadinejad were staged and funnded by Muslims’ enemy No.1, the Zionist Jews through their poodle in the US, Britain and Iraqi Kurdistan.
There is no use of acting like a modern the Nazi Crypto-Jewish Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/is-zionist-regime-doomed/
Pak, Paeen,
The majority of Iranians support the current political system- you loose on this one. Your personal opinions are just that on this particular issue. The facts are that the majority of Iranians currently support the governing political system.
Try something like “I believe that a religious government is immoral, even though the majority of Iranians seem to support it.” Or “I don’t believe in God and religion and therefore I think a government based on these is bad- even though the majority of Iranians seem to believe otherwise.” etc.
Also, Iran is in the area of the world that is the center of religious movements and prophets. Religion is everything here. If you want secularism and materialism go to- I don’t know- Iceland. There you can live your life as a non-religious, humanist, liberal individuals in peace and quiet. Leave the religious crazies to themselves because that’s what’s been going on here for around 5000 years. You have no chance in changing this- ever. Get on with your lives in your respective “spiritual” homelands and good luck to you.
We’ll take of the Zionists and Netanyahu and you can go play with…
Quick note
Dear M.Ali,
Quite note:
“The current protests in the Arab world can be compared to the Iranian protests and can be seen why the Iranian protests failed…. shows that the majority of the people support the IRI. Case closed.”
The protests in Bahrain have failed too. Do the majority support the monarchy? Case open.
Pak,
I don’t think you can say PG has gone rogue, but that the posters here have fundemental differences of opinions. I’m light-years away from BiB in terms of idealogy and mindset, but I still support the IRI.
Some comments on the discussions:
1) The current protests in the Arab world can be compared to the Iranian protests and can be seen why the Iranian protests failed. Because it did not have enough support from the population. If you ignore all the polls and surveys, the fact that the opposition failed even though the death toll was tiny compared to the other protests in the region, shows that the majority of the people support the IRI. Case closed.
2) Supporters of IRI should acknowledge that Assad’s Syria is looking to be no different than Egypt. There is no use blindly hiding the truth for yourself when such is the case. I have no problem in the government of Iran supporting Assad, in today’s hypocritial world, Iran might be forced to do as other governments do. But if Assad falls, Iran should instantly try to build bridges with the new government.
3) There is no martial law in Iran after midnight. That’s a stupid statement to make. Claiming that Iran arrests drunk people in the street is a stupid argument also. Iran has laws against alchohol, every country has their own laws.
By the way, funny story, yesterday I was forced to watch a movie about Jesus dubbed into Farsi. These American missionaries are well equipped to say the least.
The thing that struck me the most was that watching a movie about 2000-odd years ago reminded me of the current regime in Iran: religious persecution, stoning, kings ruling by divine right, blind obedience, and fully veiled women (which I have no problem with, but still, this was 2000 years ago).
Dear Bala,
Many of the IR supporters here – B-in-B in particular – are no different to right-winged Israelis, may be even Zionists. Among other things, they both believe in fulfilling some twisted divine purpose, and will crush anything that stands in their way (because God supports them). As a result, they glorify war, death, and destruction, while perpetually believing that they are being victimised (B-in-B is particularly sensitive). And they both support dictators who do not question their agenda: remember Netanhayu’s response to the Egyptian uprising?
I wish I had more time to get involved here, but I am currently bogged down with assignments. But fret not, because I will be back soon. I am sure you all miss me dearly.
P.s. It is nice to see that Persian Gulf has gone rogue!
Paeen,
Al haq is that the majority of people in Iran- shahri and shaherstani- support the Islamic Republic, the revolution, and Velayate Faqih and the person of Ayatollah Khamenei in that position- which means that al haq is that you can go…
And when you address me, use the proper title and call me DOCTOR Thug as I am a north Tehrani, western university educated sophisticate- who loves to hang out with dahatis like your ammeh.
Bala
There is no doubt that the majority and a strong majority indeed support Ayatollah Khamenei.
Bala:
“…bussed in from remote villages or suburbs where thanks to the policies of Velayat-e-Shaytan education hasn’t caught up and they’re still willing to be brain-washed.”
you not only don’t understand today’s Iran, but also constantly insult (with looking down on) a big portion of the society with your distinct class-related analysis, and class favoritism. Education indeed has caught up in Iran, thanks to the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran over the past 3 decades, in small villages and remote areas. if there are Iranians who are brain-washed, which in fact there are many, one of them would surely be you; Mr. Sabzollahi.(سبز اللهی بودن مثل حزب اللهی بودن یه مرامه نه لزوما عضو بودن تو فرقه ای یا گروهی یا احیانا حمایت کردن یا نکردن از یه کاندیدایی)
“… Iran will be a better place without idiots like you.”; it will definitely be a better place without people you, Bala, too.
http://www.doonesbury.com/
http://www.goftamgoft.com/
والا من که زبونم مو در آورده تو 2 سال گذشته تو “ریس فور ایران” از بس که گفتم دکتر احمدی نژاد باید از محافظه کاران و حتی شخص خامنه ای فاصله بگیره و هر چه بیشتر این کار رو بکنه محبوب تر میشه چون رای اکثریت غالب به اون یه نه بزگ به منفوران راست و بی عرضه ها و بزدلهای چپ بوده و هست. آخه گروههای مرده ای مثل “موتلفه”، “جامعه اسلامی مهندسین” … چه جایگاهی تو ملت ایران دارند؟ هیچی
I can tell you this, Eric, European hawks are sorely disappointed with the air campaign up to this point.
Liberal warmongers like Cole, who don’t quite understand the nature of war, are still cheerleading for a battle of attrition.
And conservative hawks from “the war party” are advocating ever greater escalation.
In all of this, Bashar is actually the lucky one. All those EU/US assets would be directed his way if the EU weren’t involved in a Libyan campaign with no end in sight, and the US weren’t engaged now in three wars already.
Here’s food for thought for those who support assisting the rebels to conquer all of Libya:
Gaddafi complained over a month ago about NATO’s attacks on his forces even when they were retreating from the Benghazi area. NATO’s response was that Gaddafi’s forces were still attacking Misurata, and so it was appropriate to attack other Libyan soldiers out in the desert, miles from any civilian, so that Gaddafi would order their comrades to stop attacking Misurata.
But what if Gaddafi’s troops do stop attacking Misurata, as his spokesman claimed yesterday he has decided? There is still some fighting in southwest Libya, but what if Gaddafi’s troops stop that too and just hold whatever positions they now have? Fighting has largely stopped in Ajdabiyah and Brega, so there’d be no fighting at all.
No fighting at all, unless either the rebels start it or hostile tribesmen from cities near Misurata sneak into town and start attacking the rebels guerilla-style, as reports today suggest is likely. If that occurs: (1) Gaddafi undoubtedly will claim his forces are not involved; and (2) the rebels undoubtedly will claim they are – that the so-called “civilians” resisting the rebels’ “liberation” of Misurata are actually Gaddafi’s soldiers out of uniform. Indeed, the rebels have announced in advance that they intend to claim just that.
It will be up to NATO to decide whether to take the rebels’ word for that claim. So far, of course, NATO has always accepted the rebels’ version of events, and it appears unlikely that that will change any time soon. And so it is likely that NATO will start (or never stop) bombing Misurata with Predator drones and an occasional high-altitude bomber – this time aiming at the suspect “civilians” who are challenging the rebel “liberators.”
We will end up, at best, with a simmering civil war, and possibly an all-out renewal of the Misurata fighting. Though the beleaguered Misurata civilians may be grateful for the departure of the Libyan army’s heavy artillery, that probably will be replaced – maybe even outdone – by stepped-up attacks from Predator drones and an occasional NATO high-altitude bomber. All of this continuing bloodshed will be justified by NATO on the ground that Gaddafi is somehow responsible for the Libyan people’s failure to throw a sufficient number of flower petals at the feet of the rebels who’ve courageously liberated them from Gaddafi’s yoke.
And how will it end? One obvious possibility is that the rebels will never subdue the guerillas, in which case the fighting will just go on and on and on. A second possibility is that the rebels eventually will subdue the guerillas and keep them suppressed, which probably will require that they put in place such a harsh police state that even their most ardent supporters will start to have second thoughts about them. Still another possibility is that the persistence of the tribesmen’s challenge to the rebels, the failure of the rebels or NATO to find any real evidence that Gaddafi’s military is assisting the resistance, and the surprisingly low level of flower-petal popular support for the rebel “liberators,” will make the “no questions asked” backers of the rebels start to look rather foolish – and perhaps, if they are honest with themselves, even to feel rather foolish.
NATO nevertheless may (as in “probably will”) continue to bomb Gaddafi in Tripoli, insisting that he’s still attacking civilians even though none of his troops are openly involved in the Misurata fighting. But that rationale may wear thin with Libyans after a few weeks or months unless some actual evidence of Gaddafi’s involvement in Misurata emerges. It may wear thin not only with the Tripoli residents on whose heads the NATO bombs are falling day after day, but also the Misurata residents, who every day will see open warfare in their city involving (1) rebels; (2) guerilla fighters from nearby hostile tribes who genuinely don’t seem to like the rebels; and (3) Predator drones and high-altitude bombers sent by infidel countries from half a world away to help the rebels. The Libyan people’s patience is especially likely to wear thin if, as nearly always happens, a few NATO bombs land on some apartment building, school or vegetable market.
Maybe those Libyan eye-witnesses will blame all of their suffering on an entirely unseen element – Gaddafi and his military. But maybe they won’t. Maybe they’ll blame it instead on the infidels who drop bombs on their cities every day and night, and on the rebels that those infidels are supporting. They’ll remember that Misurata was peaceful enough before either the rebels or the NATO infidels showed up in town. And that observation may make them believe that Misurata will become peaceful again if they can just get rid of those two new groups. They probably will conclude that they cannot do much about the Predator drones and the NATO bombers, but that they certainly can help the people who are fighting against the rebels.
And if and when this occurs – “when,” in my view – the Western countries who are spending billions of dollars of their taxpayers’ money to send Predator drones and NATO bombers half a world away, to drop bombs on cities whose residents plainly have shown they would like them to stop doing that, might just decide it’s time to go away. Maybe the people who live in those Western countries will start punishing politicians who resist that urge.
One can only hope they will, and the sooner the better.
A couple of footnotes about the documentary:
1. The movie mixes elements of truth and lie….
2. Misrepresents some factual information….
3. Is a beautiful propaganda that has hijacked the realities of ecological destruction….
4. Suggests many countries to demilitarize except those that are the most militaristic in the world…
5. Obscures who are the real culprits behind many population displacement, pollution, land degradation, and poverty in the world….
6. etc.
Other than these, it’s a fine film.
Gift of human development…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU
Polygamy and West’s ‘demographic decline’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/polygamy-and-wests-demographic-decline/
Bala – A good cut & paste from some Israel hasbara website.
velayate faQih is now a part and parcel of Jafri Fiqh both in Iran and abroad. The 12-Imami-Shia don’t give damn how the Zionazis intrpret Islam or its six Fiqh (Jurisdiction).
The current education level in Iran is much higher than the US, Israel and many East European countries – 81% female and 79% male have college degrees. Furthermore, Iran, for second year in a row has topped in scientific research.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/iran-tops-in-science-growth-for-the-second-year/
Bussed-in-Thug
Majority do not support velayate faghih. Fact is the very people who fought for Iran in the Iraq war are all now in the opposition camp. Even the hostage-takers are not only in opposition camp – they are in prison. The only people who support Velayat are thugs like you – bussed in from remote villages or suburbs where thanks to the policies of Velayat-e-Shaytan education hasn’t caught up and they’re still willing to be brain-washed.
One good thing to come out of the Islamic Republic is an educated public in the cities. Unfortunately for them education means less adherence to religious dogma and less gullible masses who no longer wait for the man on manbar to tell them what to do. The young Iranians who were educated in schools and universities of the islamic republic are not followers of velayat. And guess what – they are a majority. Whether you like it or not. So suck it up and and go spill your blood for your leader. Iran will be a better place without idiots like you.
From what I can see from the open source, there are key differences between recent Iranian and Syrian law enforcement approached to unlawful assemblies.
In the Iranian case, law enforcement wasn’t well prepared at first for the large-scale demonstrations which took place following the 2009 presidential election, and there were dozens of fatalities. But after that, Iranian authorities enforced a less-lethal policy of crowd control, even though it endangered the lives of police officers, particularly during the Ashura rioting. One more advantage the Iranians possess is an ideologically driven volunteer auxiliary force attached to the police.
The Syrians, on the other hand, are contending with multiple poles of demos across the country (where the Iranians were primarily concerned with the capitol) and are escalating their policy of lethal force in contending with the demos. And the Syrian establishment has no ideological equivalent to the Basij and the majority support base of followers to the Islamic revolution. Big differences.
Also, even with the less-lethal force policy in effect, the Iranian opposition did not have the staying power on the street, and contained itself to hijacking official events. The Syrian opposition, on the other hand, seems to possess the staying power. This could be indicative of the fact that Iranian support for their governance is a higher majority, as well as the Iranian system encompassing a representative element to its interwoven and to degrees balanced branches of government.
In any event, where the Iranian demos have declined significantly with a less-lethal law enforcement policy in effect, the Syrians appear to be contending with an escalating demo movement with their own escalating lethal law enforcement policy. Contrary to the Iranian experience, this appears to be bringing Syria to a heightening sense of insecurity.
Paeen (Bala),
As long as the majority of Iranians want the Islamic Republic and Velayate Faqih- and they do at this time in history- al haq is that you can go play with yourself…
When you are capable of offering your life and tens of thousands of martyrs for your cause, then you will begin to have a chance. Until then al haq is that you can go play with yourself…
Given the “oppression”, “martial law” and “lack of activities” in Tehran after midnight your best option al haq is that you can go play with yourself…
http://www.parsapress.ir/component/content/article/1-n/14191-عکس-دردناکترین-جنایت-صهیونیستها.html
Liz,
Warning – Graphic Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M9Jmj3EvJ-g
Victim here is a kid. Protesters are poor. Still labeling them as foreign agents?
Are you seriously going to defend Assad?
She said it (Liz): “Syria is much less evil compared to the others and Assad is much more popular, even though he leads a dictatorship.”
So supporting dictatorships is alright for Iran but not for the US. Even going by the numbers killed Assad is so far right up there with Gadafi and Mubarak. But what makes you cry foul when they kill innocent protesters in Bahrain and turn away when they kill protesters in Syria?
The Leveretts were wrong on Syria and they are still wrong on Iran.
Eyval SS
http://www.irangoals.com/2011/04/23/video-esteghlal-tehran-sanat-naft/
ظاهرا بخاطر پا قدم من بود امروز اونجا، اونم بعد از سالها :D
don’t know why this website is blocked!
Iranian@Iran
Read what I wrote: “After midnight there’s practically martial law. ”
This means there is no martial law, but it might as well be considering. Perhaps you’re a bearded basiji looking dude who is never harrassed by the 14 year olds holding guns at Ist-bazresis (checkpoints) set up around town soon after the 2009 protests. Checkpoints that though less frequent than before are still around – still people being taken to prison for drinking alcohol for example. And who could forget they storming places like Atisaz apartments and taking vans full of residents on the crime of shouting “Allah o Akbar” from their balconies! Having para-military checkpoint – regardless of their frequency IS practically martial law being in place.
BiB,
Janat fadaye Rahbaret. There’s no difference between your satanic Leader and the former Shah. They both have total power and both think they are God’s men on Earth. Your Mullah’s version of Islam does not differ from the Taliban’s. Al hagh ke marg bar asl velayateh faghih.
YES – Islamic Iran is destined to become a world power
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/islamic-iran-is-destined-to-become-a-world-power/
fyi says:
April 23, 2011 at 11:44 am
“Iranians have been lucky so far; a “miracle country” as a Russian put it.
It is imperative for Iranians to settle their differences with the Axis Powers.
Regrettably, Axis Powers aim is – at the moment – the destruction of Islamic Iran.”
==============
fyi,
While Iran’s destruction may be the stated aim, even heartily felt desire, but there comes a point when folks run of chips no matter how inflated their perceived capacity for doubling down on a losing proposition.
Iran-Iraq war was supposed to weaken Iran, it wound up clearing out the dead wood and crystalizing Iranian/Islamic values as well as creating a battle-hardened defense establishment no one has dared mess with. Iraq in 2003 was advertised as a gateway to toppling Iran. It transpired to be the very opposite—no one disputes Iran is stronger. Endless effort was put into demonizing Iran in the Arab world, but Arabs wound up regarding US (and by extension, their own US supported governments) as the enemy to peace and fervently wish for a stronger Iran. Imposition of draconian sanctions was meant to break Iran’s stride to progress and drive a wedge between people and government. But, the sanctions drove Iran towards self-sufficiency in scientific/technological/industrial arena giving Iranians tangible accomplishments to be proud of.
I am too old to be surprised if additional ill-afforded mud is not thrown in the direction of Iran. But I have reached the point where I can distinguish ‘aim’, from obsession, and ‘goals’ from ‘dreams’. I realize there is nothing Iran can do to slow down the ‘axis powers’ rush to self-destruction.
BiBiJon says: April 23, 2011 at 9:30 am
Iranians have been lucky so far; a “miracle country” as a Russian put it.
It is imperative for Iranians to settle their differences with the Axis Powers.
Regrettably, Axis Powers aim is – at the moment – the destruction of Islamic Iran.
Ammar,
You’re being absurd. It’s the US and the EU that supports dictators. Saudi Arabia, Israeli apartheid, Jordan, the Army in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain,… Syria is much less evil compared to the others and Assad is much more popular, even though he leads a dictatorship.
That’s right Leveretts, change the subject away from Syria, where your predictions again have proven wrong! Eat crow you shameless supporters of dictators.
BiB,
I sincerely believe that there is no calamity that will not be ennobling for Iran if she continues the righteous path regardless of price.
Comparing Hazrate Imam(ra) and Hazrate Agha with the assenine douchebags that run the US and other western countries, I thank the Lord every day that we are not a secular liberal democracy.
Thank God for Islam, thank God for sharia, thank God for the ulama, thank God for the Islamic Republic, thank God for Velayate Faqih, thank God for the war and the shohada and the noble human beings it produced.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/04/161435.htm
I was about to whip out the world’s smallest violin and play it just for Hilary Clinton when I heard her whine about her job as being “like playing multidimensional chess of an unprecedented scope, because you’re on a tight wire. You’re trying to hold the board. You’re trying to figure out how to make the moves, and people are yelling at you from a 360-degree angle. And so there is a lot here that we try to sort out and to understand both in the short term”
But then, she went on: “So we’re looking at it in the very, very short term, and trying to make decisions that are going to be in the best interest of the United States first and foremost …”
I asked myself will the sum of all these “very, very short term” decisions ever amount to a coherent strategy? I wondered if the Obama administration has a guiding vision for the world that has the US and her core interests in tact coming through short term turmoil? I didn’t have to wonder long. The vision statement was Hilary’s next sentence: “make no mistake about it, we see Iran as the major threat to the region.”
In the past I have lamented the rudderless ship of state. But, I don’t recall ever seeing as clear a confession as Hilary made by a sitting secretary of state.
The 2003 phoney war on Iraq, unleashed a set of events that has shrunk the welcome mat for the US to a few sadistic tyrannical outposts on the south shores of the Persian Gulf.
The Arab public has seen the pictures from abu-Ghreib and they know most inmates were Sunnis. Arab countries were the destination of 2 million Sunni Iraqi refugees. They have seen with their own eyes what became of these once proud people, when they ran out of funds in diaspora. The ‘awakening’ now sees what Iran has been subjected to these past 3 decades in a very different light — it can happen to anyone, anytime, on some whim based on a pack of lies. US’ erratic behavior has shaken awake the masses, and left the despots shaking in their boots–no one trusts the US.
President Obama’s initial plan called for burying the hatchet with Iran, restraining Israel, and calling for reform in Arab nations. Who, Mrs. (we’ll obliterate them) Clinton, is responsible for scuttling this only path out of Bush/Cheney mess?
Persian Gulf
The way I read your exchange with Liz, it turns out that she was correct (on all accounts).
When you look at the broader picture in the ME (which includes Syria), Iran wins and the Saudis, Americans, and Israelis lose.
I am just wondering, even in case Assad is gone, would the situation for Iran be worse than 2005? considering the new realities in the region, even without Assad, Iran does not seem to be in a very situation. in contrast, I think, it will force IR to be more forcecoming and welcome the ideas of change, politically and socially.
Liz:
I just asked few undergrad students, the total credits required are 140 (in fact 137+3 credits for Bachelor’s degree project- in terms of courses, it’s 137 in engineering depts) not 135. you can check that yourself next time you visit Tehran!
Bala
When you are dishonest or ignorant in your claims such as martial law being effectively implemented in Tehran, no one bothers to read your posts any more.
By overwhelming majorities, Arabs regard the U.S. and Israel as the major threats they face.
Opposition to U.S. policy is so strong that a majority believes that security would be improved if Iran had nuclear weapons –
In Egypt, 80%, Other figures are similar, if public opinion were to influence policy; the U.S. not only would not control the region, but also would be expelled from it, along with its allies, undermining fundamental principles of global dominance.
Seven years ago, Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld wrote, “The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all.
Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy,”
particularly when they are under constant threat of attack in violation of the UN Charter.
The U.S. invasion and military occupation of Iran’s neighbours is “stabilization.” Iran’s efforts to extend its influence to them are “destabilization,” the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence emphasize.
The U.S. cannot tolerate “any exercise of sovereignty” that interferes with its global designs.
The U.S. and Europe are united in punishing Iran for its so called threat to stability, but it is useful to recall how isolated they are. The nonaligned countries have vigorously supported Iran’s right to enrich uranium.
In the region, Arab public opinion even strongly favours Iranian nuclear weapons.
The major regional power, Turkey, voted against the latest U.S.-initiated sanctions motion in the Security Council, along with Brazil, the most admired country of the South. Their disobedience led to sharp censure.
The U.S. and its Western allies are sure to do whatever they can to prevent authentic democracy in the Arab world.
The U.S. supports dictators and blocks democracy and development, as do its allies.
Western power remains hostile to democracy in the Arab world for good reasons.
The control of the incomparable energy reserves of the Middle East would yield “substantial control of the world.”
Correspondingly, that loss of control would threaten the project of global dominance.
Who Owns The World?
The Contours of Global Order
By Noam Chomsky
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27937.htm
Sineva,
First of all the verdict is still out on the future of Egypt. US is still giving aid to its military and as far as I know not much has changed in Egypt. There’s no Islamic Republic of Egypt in the near future I don’t think.
“an even slightly more democratic Syria is far more likely to be a more confrontational opponent of Israel”
That may very well be the case and in fact it’s probably the case. So why on earth are you against uprising of the Syrian people? Would that mean you’re pro-Israeli and would hate to see a more confrontational regime in power in Syria? Don’t be such a hypocrite – leave hypocrisy to the governments of Iran and the US. Let them be in the position of supporting dictators when they are friends but opposing them when enemies. You have a brain, use it and think that dictators who kill their own people are evil regardless of who they hang out with! Iran’s tears over Bahrain is just crocodile tear. its politics. if tomorrow they decide they would benefit from the Sunni monarchs there they would call the Bahraini people seditionists and foreign agents and would not give a rat’s ass about them. Just as they didn’t give a damn about the Muslims in Chechnya.
On Iranian media’s coverage of Syria…
They are still holding the line that majority strongly support Assad. No criticism of brutality against the protesters.
http://irna.ir/NewsShow.aspx?NID=30351016
Send me a link to a Fars News, IRNA, ISNA, Mehr article in FARSI that not only reports on it – but also criticizes it. Then i’ll take back what I said.
Its funny Bala,but people like you seem to have this desparate hope that perhaps the loss of Mubarak and Egypt might not be such a catastrophe for the zionazis and the neocons if Syria has a revolution of its own,they somehow think that getting rid of Assad will be to Iran what getting rid of Mubarak was to Israel and the west[a disaster] and that it might somehow be balanced out by this.It is painfully obvious how desparate,ignorant and totally unrealistic this hope is,an even slightly more democratic Syria is far more likely to be a more confrontational opponent of Israel not a quisling like Mubarak or even the status quo accepting Assad,why do you think the US has propped up the dictators and destroyed the democracies in the middle east??,if Iran became a western style democracy tomorrow do you really think it would immediatly make peace with the US and Israel,support the occupation,abandon the palestinians and the lebanese,scrap its nuclear program and…oh I don`t know since we`re in fantasy land we may as well go and bring back the Shah[yes I know hes dead but this like most zionazi/neocon wetdreams is fantasy]do you really think any government democratic or otherwise would survive if they did that.One of the many reasons Mubarak was so hated was his active collaboration with Israel and the US in the oppression of the Palestinians despite the widespread opposition of his own people to these policies,and that is one of the big if not the key difference between these two dictators Mubarak put the interests of his masters the US and Israel far ahead of the interests of Egypt and her people and in my book that makes you at best a client king/viceroy or at worst a quisling/traitor,Assad may be a dictator but he is nobodies viceroy or quisling
kooshy jaan,
I know LA very well. Went to SC and lived off campus in south central on and around Jefferson, Vermont, Figueroa and Exposition. And you’re right – I wouldn’t dare go past a 1 mile radius! They have bullet-proof windows at McDonalds for God sake! But we weren’t talking about LA. If we were, I would also point out the gang violence. The stupid gun-control laws. The police brutality (I was once body-searched for jay-walking!). If we were I would also point out how much of a shit-hole many parts of LA and New York are and how you hear gun shots at night.
But since we’re talking about Tehran let’s not paint a false picture of that either. Like any large city in the world there are places in Tehran that even the police officers (mamoor entezami) dare not go. Remember Khak Sefid? Remember Lavizan park and the many cases of raping of young boys there?
You were saying that Tehran is this amazing city that’s the cultural capital of the world! That’s clearly not the case. In fact, the handful of theaters, art galleries, concert halls that are left are threatened to be shut down on a daily basis. Just last week a group of basijis disrupted Mehrjui’s new play. We have the same number of movie theaters as we did during the Shah – and we have 3 times the population. Musical groups popular with the youth can’t perform. Many good films are banned. And I said most restaurants are shut down – not all. In all of northern Tehran I can only think of Abedzadeh’s fast food joint that’s open. Past midnight there’s NOTHING to do in Tehran. And even before midnight the only “entertainment” young people have is eating junk food. American junk food at that! That’s their fun. Do you deny this?
No wonder they turn to drugs.
“No reports on the 75 killed in Syria during the protests in Iranian media.”
http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/176196.html
Can you please make up statistics on the spot? 60% of statistics are fake.
Bala says:
April 22, 2011 at 10:41 pm
“No reports on the 75 killed in Syria during the protests in Iranian media.”
coincidentally, I heard this number from IRIB for Syria. I don’t like IRIB, but what you said here is wrong.
I think, you are wrong about security. obviously Tehran is more secure than places like LA. Take kooshy’s advise and don’t go to the places that he mentioned for LA. you have wrongly made your point. the lack of night activities is not equal to having martial law at place.
kooshy says:
April 22, 2011 at 4:09 pm
I agree with what you said. but please note that you also said “at the time of Ayattollah Khomeini”. Iran has tremendously changed since then so did the world environment. as I said, at that time my parents were not able to write properly. now we have internet, satellite, over there.
fyi says:
April 22, 2011 at 10:25 pm
yes, it won’t be anymore. it was a stupid approach from the very beginning. that’s why I said, they made things like Hejab something like “pashne ashil” of the system.
it seems, some people get angry to see others are enjoying in a peaceful manner and without making any problem. it’s a psychological problem on their part. I remember, there was time you could not listen to “Habib” in public!!!!
جز از آدم روانی کسی دیگه اینکار بر می آد؟
Photi says:
April 22, 2011 at 4:07 pm
I have no problem for the name of the country to be Islamic Republic. I did not say to remove Islam from Iran. the majority of Iranian people are Muslim and any government on place can’t, and should not, ignore this. what I said is, just a simple vote of “yes” for a question like “do you want to have Islamic Republic or not?” (without actually knowing what is going to be established) does not legitimize all the s*** you see here; the major points so far being enforcement of Hijab (it might have been acceptable to more than 50% at the time of the revolution, but I not now for sure), wasting the country’s money on so many junk courses….
The government of Iran has spent tremendous amount of money on Islamic teaching, and now when I give an optimistic number of 15-20% for those who practice, you may guess the Mullahs are happy that I didn’t say something less. isn’t this a failed program already?
Bala,
After midnight there’s practically martial law in Tehran? Have you been drinking?
Fyi- it’s not that, I think Scotty is sending a rookie, since Pak might be off. but he will show up, .
Bala- jan- speaking of martial law, sometimes one whishes there was more martial laws around, like I was thinking I wish we could have had martial law in schools here in the US,. Just this yesterday I heard on the NPR that a kindergartner went to school with a loaded gun, and fortunately he or she was only able to injure few of the school mates, so therefore you see, one never hears anything like that ever happens in Iran, and that might just be because of this continued martial law in Tehran, do you now get it, what I mean is, that the good thing about martial law is the kindergartners can’t take their guns to school.
kooshy says: April 22, 2011 at 11:01 pm
It is a common characteristic of Iranians, young or old.
They complain about any and all aspects of life in Iran without giving any heed to what obtains in other parts of the world.
It demonstrates, to me, aject ignorance of the world around them.
On Nekbat Islami, they have a point.
And lack of enforcement and protection of civil liberities granted by the Iranian Constitution by the state.
Bala
“ Tehran is a great city. Except that its majority young population has nothing to do but eat burgers and pizzas! That’s their entertainment and culture and art! After midnight there’s practically martial law.”
Ay Bala, that’s strange I arrived in Tehran way after midnight on march 1st of this year, and went straight to an eating place around the central Tehran, I didn’t notice any martial law, but on the other hand, it might have been that they called off the martial law that night, since they knew I was coming.
But if you ever happen to come to LA, let me know, I would love to take you to downtown or east LA, sometime after it gets dark, there I think you wish there was a martial law.
Yeah, no discos! How could I forget. But also no concerts by the youth’s favorite musicians. No screening of films they would want to watch. No plays that appeals to them. No place to meet others in public. No place to mingle. Only fruit juice, pizzas and burgers. And even that’s going away – fast food meals now cost as much if not more than they cost in the US and Europe. So soon the only thing left to do is get stoned with cheap drugs- oh wait, that’s already happening. How could I forget the great past time activity of getting high with cheap readily available drugs? High unemployment, high percentage of addicts. Fun times!
Bala says: April 22, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Yes, I agree: there are no discotheques etc.
Although, my recollection of my youth is that I had more enjoyable times with my friends than many other activities.
Needless to say, if you do not have a girl-friend, things could be hard.
But look at the bright side; there is always Siqeh.
No reports on the 75 killed in Syria during the protests in Iranian media. (By comparison – the “evil US media” has at least reported on Bahrain uprising and some even pointed out their government’s hypocrisy in not supporting the protesters in Bahrain.)
Tehran is a great city. Except that its majority young population has nothing to do but eat burgers and pizzas! That’s their entertainment and culture and art! After midnight there’s practically martial law.
You’re right – no other cities compare to it!
Persian Gulf says: April 22, 2011 at 12:50 pm
You are right.
60,000 citations in Qum for bad hijad this year.
It is stupid but if the government stops this akhund-bazi and Islamic Disaster (Nekbat Islami) then they will no longer be Islamic now, would they?
After all, for all these bigots, this kill-joy approach to religion is Islam, isn’t it?
Iranian says: April 22, 2011 at 9:22 am
Tehran is a great city, an alive city with a lot of diversity and change.
The Life of the Mind, the Life of Art, the Life of Religion are all present in Tehran.
There is no place like it in North America.
New York City, before its decline in late 1970s, was closest US equivalent.
And Mexico City, before its explosion, also in 1960s.
Bala says: April 22, 2011 at 6:37 pm
The possible fall of Mr. Assad’s government will not harm Iran.
The relationship between the 2 states is strategic.
‘A Free Country’ – US plays the Judge
Not the US or Israel, but the Islamic Republic
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/a-free-country-us-plays-the-judge/
Countdown to another Arab dictator’s fall – whether you IR apologists like it or not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM9KsIIRHhY
@Everyone:
I am surprised at how you don’t care about wasting your time. This reasoning (!!) is not something we hear for the first time, its essence is the following:
1)I don’t care about the history, I am ignorant and I take pride in my ignorance!
2) I don’t care about statistics, statisics are irrelevant. Instread I like to listen to the complaints of my neighbours and friends and generalize that to the whole of the population.
3)none of you knows Iran (iran up to 10 years ago doesn’t count any way because my memory starts from 10 years ago), I am the only one who knows it and what I say counts.
There are some other bases to this line of reasoning (!!) which I am not going to talk about right now. Do you think there is any point in trying to make reason with such an approach? I think it is a waste of time. But it is your time, you think there is any merit to it go ahead.
PG- you see, now days I have heard that some Iranians curse Shah Ismaile, as they feel he was the person who entrenched and forced Shieh Islam on Iranians, but historically one needs to look at the time what was the choices available to him, did he really had a choice to adopt and force other religions like Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, Buddhism Ismailia, etc, I am sure at that time politically and sociologically none of this was possible ( one may want to find out why before shah Ismail, Oljaitou a Mongol changed and became a Shieh Muslim some historians believe he couldn’t secure and govern the state if he did not change). Or why Shah Ismail didn’t ignore having a state religion and just stay with the Sunni Islam which for many social and political reasons it was not adoptive to Iranian culture, So in a way, and at that time, one must consider that a fifteen year old young guy introduces a timely necessary modernity to Iranian traditions, one must also remember that during the early 1500 in majority of the world, state was the religion. What I mean is that Iran, based on socio political environment of the era, has adopted a religion that has become part of its culture starting from Zurvanism and ending with the Shieh Islam, they all share many aspects of each other, which has collectively formed the Iranian culture. This same situation
was no different at the time of ayatollah Khomeini, Shah Ismail or for the majority of Iranians when Arabs invaded Iran 1400 years ago, every time consciously the majority felt that accepting a state religion was necessary to hold the nation together. Considering the events of last 32 years I believe if it was not for your parent’s vote Iran would not have lasted in the same borders as it is today.
Persian Gulf,
0% of American citizens are responsible for the formation of the American republic. This does not mean the American people consider it illegitimate so I do not quite understand your reasoning with the 15% of Iranians who could have been possibly be responsible with the Islamic Republic’s formation. What you should do is demonstrate whether or not the majority of the current Iranian population looks at its government as legitimate. Do you have facts and figures for this statistic?
PG
As you see Liz is correct and for those of us who have studied at Iranian universities, it’s obvious that history teachers are not the same as religious scholars. Your logic regarding Family planning courses is pretty funny by the way. Good night.
Liz
forgot to say that tomorrow is not holiday here :) in fact, Saturday is the first day of the week in Iran. working days start with Saturday ;)
4 credits in history? it’s about Islam. I took those courses. and family planning based on Islamic values.
well, I have explained the total credits already. but don’t worry, I will ask a few students tomorrow to get the exact number. when you are in Tehran, it’s not that difficult ;)
You include a Family Planning course and 4 credits in history and you still can’t get to 15!
Also, show me a university where you can graduate with 135 credits?
Iranian says:
April 22, 2011 at 1:43 pm
be more specific please.
Iranian says:
April 22, 2011 at 1:47 pm
around 13 not 15 to be correct. here were the courses and their credits that we had. at my time, the minimum requirements for a bachelor degree was 142 credits. later on, I heard, it was reduced to 135.
متون اسلامی 2
ریشه های انقلاب اسلامی 2
اخلاق و تربیت اسلامی 2
معارف اسلامی (1) 2
معارف اسلامی (2) 2
تاریخ اسلام 2
تنظیم خانواده 1 (البته اینو ما نداشتیم بعدا اضافه شد)
I asked my sister who happens to be a university student and she says that your numbers (15 out of around 135) are not accurate either.
Persian Gulf
With all due respect, you seem to know very little about Iran or Tehran.
kooshy says:
April 22, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I don’t agree at all with the first paragraph, specially with your 70% versus 30% analysis. to be fair, I didn’t understand it clearly or didn’t get how you could get to that conclusion. I also did not ask from my elder generation specifically whether they voted “yes” or “no”. the may say something that they don’t really mean. I have heard of this folklor a lot (which is obviously for fun. an old man in my region told a group of Mullahs years ago) ای شاه خائن برگرد به ایران—ایران رو ری×× عمامه داران
my guess is the elder voted “yes” at the time. but most of them were illiterate at the time. I mean, couldn’t write or hardly read (this was the case for my family at least). so, the “yes” vote for them was a very emotional one, perhaps due to the charisma of Khomeini…. In anycase, I respect their vote. it’s absolutely acceptable and legitimate.
but please be aware that probably most of those who voted “yes” are dead by now. many during the revolution’s turmoil, war time….natural causes…. If we assume 16 (I am not sure if it was 16 or 18 at the time) as the minimum age for voting and add 32 years to it, we end up 46. I am not sure what percentage of the whole population of Iran today is above 46. it shouldn’t be more than 15%. and if we assume all of them said “yes” at the time, less likely, then the ones that created this system are MINORITY obviously. btw, was there any vote for “Hijab” at the time? never heard of this before. but nonetheless it would have had more than 50% of approval at the time anyhow.
masoud says:
April 21, 2011 at 5:03 pm
“Iranians constantly quarrel and fight like nobody’s business,…”: sorry but it’s a motherhood statement.
mankind are all created equally unless you believe in the inferiority of some races over others or vise versa. it’s the environment and atmosphere, mostly, that changes their mood, somehow way of thinking….
PG- here is another question for you, since you were not born at the time of the revolution, did you ever asked the older members of your family (the ones that were eligible to vote at the time) if they did go out to vote for the first and second referendums immediately after the revolution, meaning the referendum for the form of the system and the referendum for the constitution of the system, if they did there is a chance of 98% that they voted Yes this includes my family who lived in N. Tehran, you should ask them why they voted for this system and if they ever thought their kids when they grew up they wouldn’t like the system they setup, and ask if today they think they made a mistake, according to the pulls there is 70% chance they say No to this last question, therefore you, me and like minded who don’t like the Hijab, are at max a 30% minority. I accept this fact and let the system evolve as the society’s demands like our culture and language has been constantly adopting and changing itself.
As I previously compared in this last thirty two years the Hijab has evolved with the need of our society (simply just compare the women’s Hijab in the time of last four presidents of Iran) since today women are necessarily more required to participate in earning the bread rather than making it, that is the reason sociologically Hijab’s requirements are different in N. Tehran vs. S. Tehran and Tehran to your village. See before the revolution there was no Mantou type Hijab but then I remember the long dark color Montou Hijab was accepted as a replacement of chador, and after a few years Mantous started to get shorter and relaxed.
Back in early 60’s during the Shah’s period and when I was a young kid, in a trip to Kazroun, in Fars during the Norooz, my mother was not allowed to go to town’s bazaar unless she wore a Chador, even a head scarf was not accepted by the locals, I am sure today if someone from Tehran goes to your village she can walk around with a Mantou, but that would be more difficult for someone who is from your village.
The wonderful reason the Iranian culture has lasted more than many other neighboring cultures and became dominant is that we are very adoptive and can adopt and change and give the new comer an Iranian flavor see the difference between Shieh and Sunni, after a few generations no one remembers or cares if this did not have an Iranian origin, same goes with our language just look at the French word “Mercy” and ask majority of Iranians if they think this is not a Persian word, and if they know why and how it became more common than “Moteshakram.”
Iranian says:
April 22, 2011 at 9:22 am
“I live in Tehran. I’ve lived in Tehran for practically all my life. I was born in Tehran. I don’t see it as a secular city and I’m not exactly the most religious person around.”
what is the definition of “secular city” in your mind? have you ever lived in a “secular city”? if you remove government’s propaganda from Tehran, what is left to consider it as a “religious city”. does religion resonate in the life of an ordinary Tehrani? I mean, he/she takes care of the daily stuff.
it’s better not to talk about Ramazan bc everything related to food is restricted at that time in the day light. and there is punishment too. so, you can’t simply judge.again what percentage of the population of Tehran (not just the ones above ~40) fast?
we had Moharram for centuries. it’s part of the tradition now. and it’s fun too (I have even heard of “Hossein Party” in Tehran that you lived for all your life). a time for socializing in a relatively traditional society. non of these show people see their belief as being part of the IR. in contrast, many religious people try to keep the distance from the IR. just don’t want to be labeled as government’s agents. and you should know that these people constitute a big portion of the religious community (I know this basic fact bc many in my extended family are like that. and they are seriously religious).
I didn’t say there is no religion in Iran. I said the effect of religion is diminishing in a very fast pace. I have talked about 15-20% for the youth to practice. do you dispute this numbers which I think are very optimistic estimation (probably 10% would be a more accurate one)? and my generation grow up entirely during the IR period and under the one dimensional ideology of the system (and believe me, the majority of the people close to my age didn’t have satellites. it’s a relatively new phenomenon. and we were the peak of the population. for the very new generation, i can’t really give a number. it should be way down). we were not supposed to be corrupted by the Shah’e era. All we were watching was a few channels of IRIB. the BIG question is where did all those investments go? many Mullahs and Maddahs made life fortune out of this business.
it’s a very big business, in fact. even academia, what was the point of having that many teachers and credit (15 out of around 135)?
Liz:
“I think I know Tehran a lot better than you..” don’t be so sure of that specially when you don’t seem to be living around in Tehran!
This is a great interview with Kissinger, Zbig, and Scowcroft. The sparring between Zbig and Kissinger by itself is worth the time.
It is worth to see the future perspective from back then. The interview is from jun of 2007. Also, very pointed reviews on Iran.
It is also of interest to get a sense of this ongoing apparent paralysis of US FP.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8551
I live in Tehran. I’ve lived in Tehran for practically all my life. I was born in Tehran. I don’t see it as a secular city and I’m not exactly the most religious person around. Anyone who thinks otherwise should visit the city during Moharram or Ramadhan and they will see that it can have a very religious flavor. I think PG has a particular definition of religion and I don’t think comparing Tehran during the war and Tehran during peace is very meaningful. Also, in the southern half of the city, which is more densely populated people are much more openly religious than in the northern half of Tehran.
Persian Gulf,
I think I know Tehran a lot better than you and I don’t see why you lose your temper so easily. Iranians are a religious people, whether you like it or not.
Liz says:
April 22, 2011 at 6:36 am
oh really? where are you? let’s meet up somewhere then (of course without Basijies as your bodyguard). I can give you free ride all over Tehran if you like, so to be able to see the actual life in the city.
of course, Iran is a religious country, but different that the one you have in your mind. it used to be a very religious one in fact, not anymore. the percentage I gave was a very optimistic one (if you REALLY live in this country you should know that). religion for people I know is a spiritual guidance, something that gives a meaning to the continuation of their life. seems to be totally different for people like you. your lifeline comes from there.
hans,
I live in Iran and from what I see PG’s assessment is not accurate. Iran is a religious society.
@PG
I would say practicing is the key. doesn’t seem more than 15-20%, at best, of the youth, despite all the pressure, practice religion (never mind that praying was mandatory at my time in schools. among the many friends of that time, probably a dozen of them still practice). and as the age goes up, the percentage goes down. There are a lot of people who practice at the teenage time, but give up as they get older. this is very common.
This is the opposite what is happening in the Western countries. The young and youth do not have any spiritual guidance, hence the decadence with many youth!
Bala,
Sweet dreams…
PG,
Look at their website.
Nothing wrong with the hijab – the problem is MANDATORY hijab. There was no such phrase as “bad-hijabi” before the Islamic Republic. You either had a hijab or you didn’t. But now they have wars with “bad hijabis” which is kind of like war on drugs – only drugs here is poor coverage of your hair and body parts as a female. Ridiculous. One day the Islamic Republic will be gone and generations from now will look back and laugh at the fact that once upon a time there was a dress code on the streets of Iran with actual law enforcement officers to enforce it. The will wonder how on earth we let them do this to us for 30+ years!
Is this a decoy post to make us believe that you actually don’t have any relationship with the hardliners in Iran? AS IF you couldn’t just pick up the phone and call the office of the Leader in Tehran and ask one of his minions for his speech! Yeah sure!
“Iran is a very large country and if you look at the polls that are carried out pretty regularly by the University of Maryland,….” hahahahahaha,
for the readers information, University of Maryland is in the U.S. and the U.S has no diplomatic relation with Iran…..
Iran is a very large country and if you look at the polls that are carried out pretty regularly by the University of Maryland, you will see that roughly seventy percent of Iranians see their religion as the most important part of their identity. Regarding the hejab, in the central and south of Tehran most wear the hejab because they want to and the hejab is not just wearing a chador. I don’t wear a chador, for example (but my daughter does).
kooshy
not now probably in the villages at this time, and not for my family members as they are very adhered (I was different than them in that sense from teenage time). They are not the majority though. I know for the fact that even in that region that I came from, Hejab is pretty relax for the new generation. Satellite TVs have changed the culture in that respect. I would say practicing is the key. doesn’t seem more than 15-20%, at best, of the youth, despite all the pressure, practice religion (never mind that praying was mandatory at my time in schools. among the many friends of that time, probably a dozen of them still practice). and as the age goes up, the percentage goes down. There are a lot of people who practice at the teenage time, but give up as they get older. this is very common.
I can say yes for Amol, yes for sure, don’t exactly know about Noor but shouldn’t be that different (I just passed by from there recently and didn’t stay there long). I have been in a couple of houses in Amol to visit long time friends recently. It was unbelievable. compared to the past, there was nothing known as traditional Hejab for those family members, very relax for the older generation to say the least. I have never seen this situation over there before. Yes, Mazanies are very strict for religion. that is for the older generation. and that is why I say it won’t work anymore. when Mazandaran is like this, you draw the line for other places yourself. among big cities in Mazandaran, only Babol might resist a bit at the beginning to keep the Hejab if it’s not mandatory (otherwise a big city uncontrollable), the rest are ok.
I can say this for sure, in places like Tehran, if Hejab is not mandatory, at least 70% won’t practice. I gave 5 years as the minimum time to see big changes.
did we have social freedom at the time Khomeini?! I was a kid at that time anyhow.
people see them all the same. Khatami, Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad….when you don’t have meaningful social freedom, the details are not that important. you always see it based on reformists vs principlist, but the majority don’t see it that way. in your mind, you always compare Khatami vs Ahmadinejad, but for my generation, we see it as a whole. we don’t have enough freedom, and that’s the end of the story regardless of the little detail here and there.
PG – one question for you, since you say, that you come from a village, presumably in Mazandaran, you said you are a Mazi, now would you think if there was no Hijab law, would your female family members be able to walk in your village without Hijab, I know for fact you can’t in Amole or Noor, which are big cities in Mazandran. This I know for fact due to family experience, actually Mazandaranies are very tough on hijab.
“in fact, Mr.Khamenei has made this system a very closed one, specially on the social dimension of it. they made issues like Hejab so important that now the whole system will collapse should they back off.”
Can you compare the Hijab and social freedom during Mr. Khamenei vs. during Mr. Khomeini’s leadership or even during Mr. Rafsanjani presidency and Mr. Ahmadinijad’s?
PG one friendly suggestion, now that you got your PhD please stay away from the BS.
@Persain Gulf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8Uxq2OJP0Q
I must say, I find all of Mr. Khamenei’s speeches impressive. I find it striking that this speech contains much less religious sentimentality than the average Ahmadinejad speech to Western audiences. I can definitely see why he was tapped to serve as leader. I think you can read any speech of his, the current one being no exception, and are forced to concede that he is extremely intelligent, makes precise arguments, is unencumbered by dogma, and has knack for seeing the big picture. I understand why some deride him because of the IRI’s social restrictions, but I think his leadership qualities are far too often under appreciated as a leader by those who do. Iranians constantly quarrel and fight like nobody’s business, providing a steady hand of leadership in such a country when you can be expected to be held responsible for every disaster but receive no credit of any success is no mean feat.
One of the biggest long term challenges to the IRI will be how to replace him. I find it incredible that he hasn’t already tapped someone or some group of potential candidates for the role.
Masoud
http://english.irib.ir/news/middle-east/item/73528-bahraini-forces-rape-kill-female-poet
This is so upsetting that I’m submitting it again. A Bahraini female poet has been raped and murdered by the Bahraini regime:
http://www.rajanews.com/detail.asp?id=85620
I wonder if the filthy American mercenary Scott Lucas will be starting a campaign for her?
CYRUS,
Good job. Excellent speech too. That’s why Ayatollah Khamenei has always commanded so much respect.
kooshy:
I know what you mean but convincing me won’t change the reality. if I accept whatever you say won’t change anything. please be aware that the “green movement”, as is known in the west specially among the diaspora, is dead. nobody takes them serious.
but what I am talking about is not for the greens outside of the country. the wast majority of Iranian people are fed up with the way the system is run. you may say this is just false on their part to think this way. but it’s a reality on the ground. the people I see in the streets don’t wait to see what a foreigner tells is good or bad for them. I think, you see this issue in a very distinct zero-some game with the west or at least the radical opposition in the west.
in fact, Mr.Khamenei has made this system a very closed one, specially on the social dimension of it. they made issues like Hejab so important that now the whole system will collapse should they back off. I personally don’t think they can continue this path for over 5 years period. even the very religious people see not having Hejab quite acceptable. some even see things like Hejab as mere distraction. there is talk for the separation of girls from boys in universities (I say this bc a prof told me for sometimes in the university’s meeting this the topic of discussion, and there is a push on the part of system to impose it). Knamenei knows all these stuff. he is just too old to rule the majority of the youth. he can’t change, or see the change, at this age. I am afraid, he wakes up one day see situation like what Shah has experienced. or worse, the social discountnet increases to an unbearable level.
On the political level, it’s almost the same. not everybody is very concerned about independence especially the way you may be. they see it natural that any political system should bring about. in that sense, they don’t necessarily think it was the magic of the IR or its current leaders (at least this is the case for majority of the youth. it could be different for people of your generation. I understand that). basically, you don’t feel you are in a country that fulfills your political desires. freedom of speech (specially freedom AFTER speech!) is non-existence when it comes to questioning some important centers of power, let alone talking about religion. and the ordinary people understand this. they are not dumb as Mr.Khamenei or the ones having major control over the system may think. just look at IRIB. they think people don’t understand that they show bu**s**t.
simply put, the majority of educated people want something different, a more relax system…. this is an obvious fact on the ground. I am a rare case supporting the overall system, believe it or not.
Iranian President’s Speech to UN General Assembly: Criticism of UN and USA BBC Summary of World Broadcasts September 24, 1987, Thursday
Copyright 1987 The British Broadcasting Corporation
BBC Summary of World Broadcasts
September 24, 1987, Thursday
SECTION: Part 4 The Middle East, Africa and Latin America; Weekly Economic Report; A. THE MIDDLE EAST; ME/8681/A/1;
LENGTH: 8588 words
HEADLINE: Iranian President’s Speech to UN General Assembly: Criticism of UN and USA
SOURCE: Tehran home service 1450 gmt 22 Sep 87
Text of relay of speech given by Iranian President Hojjat ol-Eslam Seyyed Ali Khamene’i to the UN General Assembly on 22nd September
BODY:
[Khamene'i: voice] In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Oh God, I start in Your name and beg Your guidance and assistance. My life and death and my supplication and my prayers belong to you. Put the clarity and the effectiveness of the words of truth into my words and make it a messenger of truth to the hundreds of millions of ears and hearts who are at the moment anxiously seeking it, and the hundreds more who in the future will be seeking it. Oh Lord, grateful greetings from me and my nation to the souls of the great prophets, especially Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad, may God’s benedictions be upon all of them, who at the expense of their lives and with all their might spread the message of the salvation and awareness of man throughout the world and made it eternal. My respectful greetings to the pure and clear hearts who listened to that message, especially those who sacrificed their lives for that message.
Mr President, Mr Secretary-General, honourable members| I am the president of a country which was the cradle of civilisation and the centre of human culture during one of the longest and most critical periods of history and which is now at the stage of an order which has been built upon that firm foundation and which relies upon its peerless cultural heritage which has now been enriched as the result of the blessing of the Islamic awakening. I come from Iran which has been the birthplace of the most acclaimed and, at the same time, the least known revolution of the contemporary period a revolution based upon the religion of God and in continuati on of the path of God’s messengers and great divine teachers and a path as long as the whole of human history.
The firm root and the underlying foundation of this revolution is Islam’s monotheistic world view. The definition of man, the definition of history, the analysis of present, past and future events, the definition of nature, the identification of all the bonds which connect man with the outside world, with the world, with other human beings, with objects, and man’s understanding and appreciation of his own reality, in brief all those things which form the value systems of a society and which enable it to administer itself in a desirable manner, all of these are based upon this divine world view and are derived from it.
In the divine ideology of Islam, all that exists has been created by God and is a reflection of His knowledge and power and seeks to reach to God. And the human being is the highest level of creation and His viceroy. Human beings can, by exploiting the treasures of talent which are within them, build themselves and the world which has been created for them in the most beautiful way and adorn it accordingly. And human beings can attain the highest level of material and spiritual elevation by flying with two wings one being faith and the other being science and knowledge. And human beings can, by weakening or abusing these talents, create an inferno of injustice and corruption. The light of the guidance for human beings is their faith in God and their submission to divine biddings and forbiddings. The world is where one plans for eternity; and death is not the end of life but the gateway to eternity and the beginning of a new life.
In the divine ideology of Islam, members of the human race are brothers and sisters and all are slaves of God [Persian: bandeh which means slave or obedient servant]. There is no distinction between race, colour, the people of various lands and these cannot be the reason for the superiority of any person or any nation. Humanity is one and aggression against one human being is aggression against all humanity without the intervention of geographic and racial characteristics. Seeking supremacy and being monopolistic have pitched brother against brother and the blood which was thus shed has never stopped. And a blow similar to that blow and that incentive has caused streams of blood to flow. And it has created seas of blood between those who seek supremac y and those who fall victim to this. And tranquillity was banished from the human race.
Prophets invited the people to submit to God which is like an axe hitting their head to warn them from seeking supremacy and selfishness. And they presented to the human race a faith which gave them the paradise of sincerity and tranquillity even before the paradise of eternity. And they [the prophets] encouraged the human race to bring under control its yearning for supremacy and avarice. And they warned the human race against wasting its talents and drowning in the whirlpool of moral corruption. And they revealed to the human race the spring of knowledge, righteousness, love, labour, innovation, science and awareness. And they inspired in it the memory of God and love for Him which guarantee all that and which elevate its [the human race's] spirituality. They also taught the human race to strengthen its arm to safeguard these values and to block the way to the satans of mischief, corruption and deterioration and to struggle against ignorance and tyranny and enslavement and to safeguard science, justice and freedom. They [the prophets] taught the human race not to initiate injustice nor to accept injustice and that the human race must rise to implement justice and retribution. The human race must not offer safety to those who violate human dignity and human salvation. Surrender to the enemies of virtue, justice and dignity is to accept the disappearance of these values; it is acceptance of tyranny, corruption and immorality.
In the divine ideology of Islam, God’s religion is a framework for the life of man-kind and not just a jewel in its crown. Religion offers a social structure to mankind, instead of just teaching him a series of routine worship rituals, albeit worship rituals which are full of the soul of life along the same lines. This social structure is based on the world view and is formed in this way [as heard]. Freedom, the equality of people, social justice, self-awareness of the members of society, the struggle against dishonesty and indecency, giving preference to the aspirations of mankind instead of personal desires, paying attention to divine instructions, the negation of satanic domination and the other social principles of the Islamic system, and also personal morality and behaviour and political and professional piety, are all inspired and born by the same world view and general understanding of the world and mankind. Islam rejects those systems which rely on force and bullying and those which give birth to tyranny, ignorance, suppression, oppression, the humiliation of mankind, and racism among people on the basis of their nationality, blood and language and it will strongly challenge any system and teaching which decides to confront the Islamic system. Apart from the latter it [Islam] orders its followers to be co-operative and kind to all human beings, whether or not they are Muslims.
On such foundations and with these objectives, the Islamic revolution appeared in Iran and established the system of the Islamic Republic. Many people have sought to find the root cause of the Islamic revolution in Bahman 1357 [1979]. However many of them have misunderstood it. We believe that this grave mistake stems from the short-comings of the existing systems in the world and the fact that many slogans of these systems on freedom, democracy and equality have turned out to be false. Amidst this frightening darkness, Islam managed to shine, despite the cloak of misty superstition and distortion which has been attributed to it in the course of several centuries. This shining glitter turned into a bright light in Iran and then became a storm and we should await such incidents in many other regions of the world.
The awakening movement of Muslims in many Islamic states, contrary to what is imagined and publicised, is not a product of the Islamic revolution in Iran, rather it is its counterpart. Iran is located in one of the most strategic regions of the world, with a unique history and scientific and cultural records and resources. And the Islamic revolution of Iran rose up against a regime which had placed all these [resources] at the disposal of the dominating world powers and their interests, and more so duing the past 25 years [when all was placed] at the service of the US regime. No one was more in need of these material and spiritual resources than the nation of Iran itself. But the nation was deprived of all these resources. Their mouth-filling claims were lies and deception, with Western propaganda media, and particularly the Zionist system, used to glorify these claims.
The Islamic revolution emerged against such a regime and aspired to great and unyielding objectives. Since that day nearly nine years have passed yet there still remains a great number of problems to discuss. About us and about our revolution and our principles and view points too much has been said in ignorance or in a biased manner more than one may deem to be normal. There are several points special to our revolution which they can be counted as exceptions to the ordinary fate of revolutions. I shall dwell on those points and in conclusion I will deliver our message.
Firstly, this revolution, even when it began, was one hundred per cent popular. Neither an armed guerrilla group, nor an active politico-military party, nor a group of revolutionary and freedom-seeking military officers, nor any other ordinary group which brought about revolutionary changes in various countries had any presence, any activity or any existence in our revolution. There were people and only people they too without any weapons whatsoever who in Tehran and in other places filled the a tmosphere with their revolutionary existence, presence and slogans to such an extent that they left no room for the ruling group and their government. And they were forced, one by one and collectively, to leave their palaces, the centres of their power and then the country. The Shah, the prime minister, the leaders of the army, the cabinet ministers and other ring-leaders any of them who could fled from the people. This happened after a year in which they utilised all their capabilties political, military, security in an effort to disperse the people and return them to their homes or to their places of abode. During this period, thousands of people were killed in front of the eyes of others in the street, in the mosque, in the university, at the place of work. But the presence of the people was increasing daily. During the last months the violence of the establishment increased and consequently the presence of the people also increased.
Having lost the power to resist under the pressure of the people who placed their lives in danger, the regime was forced to yield its biggest concession the Shah left. And afterwards, its retreats came one after the other in quick succession. The great leader of the revolution every single word of his speeches gave to every single member of the nation morale, awareness and lessons relying on Almighty God in whose hand rests all power, and with confidence in that great and unwavering will of the people, established the government of the revolution. The government of monarchical tyranny, automatically and having no other alternative, left the seat of power and fled. The last trenches were garrisons empty of soldiers and officers they too had fled. And many of them joined the ranks of the people. During the last moments several garrisons put up some resistance but to no avail. The people were present there too. And the miracle of this revolution was the victory of the people.
It was only after the collapse of the garrisons that the people laid their hands on weapons. But on that day the monarchical regime had fallen. These weapons were used to safeguard the tender plant of revolution. The people the young and the old, women and men were the only ones who broke the Pahlavi regime which seemed strong, fully armed and enjoyed the support of the greatest powers. And the people established the regime of the Islamic Republic. Their weapons were their faith, their will and their blood. And blood triumphed over the sword. The policy of the victory of blood over the sword is the same as the policy of dogged resistance. Before the victory of the revolution our leader declared it. And its first miracle was its victory over the regime of the Shah which was fully armed and which enjoyed the full support of the USA and the West. After that it achieved more victories, some of which were greater than the defeat of the Shah’s regime. This was a unique experience, at least in the current century, and it is worthy of careful analysis and understanding both by the dominated countries and the global dominating powers.
Secondly, this revolution relied on religion, on Islam. There are many revolutions the roots of whose struggle have been fed by religious faith, although in the (?structure) of the revolution this faith is not given much consideration, if any at all. But our revolution acquired all its qualities, its goals, principles and even style of struggle and the form of the new system and the method of running it, from Islam. This gives some astonishing dimensions to the revolution and gives a new meaning to its victory. For Islam, because of its high revolutionary and constructive potential, has been subject to the onslaught of the colonial powers and their reactionary and feeble agents during at least the past 150 years.
In addition, Islam is a sacred faith and a divine religion in more than 50 countries and among one billion human beings. The victory of a revolution, the soul and content of which is Islam, is in fact a victory against all those aggressors in the arena of the life of the entire one billion people. Hundreds of millions of men and women, Muslim men and women, in dozens of countries, felt proud at the victory of our revolution. This particular feature [of the revolution] also blocks the routes of retreat, defeat, weakness and fear for the people, the leader of the revolution and its organisers. There is no defeat along the path of God; therefore, there is no weakness, fear and retreat.
Thirdly, another unique feature of this revolution was its independence from the East and the West and this remains the decisive policy of our revolutionary system at present too. This, in itself, is one of the manifestations of our belief and reliance upon God in every aspect of our individual and social life. Today, the idea dominating the political world everywhere states that without relying upon one of the power axes, one cannot survive in the contemporary political arena. Views might differ on the strength or weakness of this dependence, but one doubts its validity. Even those who, in their thinking, have accepted the principle of independence and non-alignment, believe that in practice this is not possible. In such a climate, our revolution put forward a new philosophy and has remained committed to it up to now. Our revolution proved that it is possible to keep the hegemonist powers out and it is possible to ignore their bullying and not take it seriouly and it proved that it is possible to refuse their blackmail, on condition that one believes in an influence stronger than any earthly power, that is, God. We have realised that for the sake of this belief and this path, we must pay a hefty price. We have prepared ourselves for this. Let this experience lead the nations to true and complete independence and, ultimately, to total negation of the big global hegemonist powers. The present trend of power division is threatening humanity with a very bitter future.
Fourthly. Our revolution has had, and continues to have, one more exceptional characteristic and that consists of the exceptional enmities and blows against it. No revolution remains free of the hostility of the domineering orders in the world. but the diversity, depth, extent and anger of the hostility which has been directed against us during the past nine years provides an exceptional and interesting story. The revolution had still to achieve victory when enmity against it began more so by America. Authorities who have accepted the passage of time as authorisation to reveal hidden secrets, today confess to the fact that during the last months of the lifespan of the monarchical-tyranny regime, the American presidential establishment the security adviser to the President and the President personally were reassuring the Shah and encouraging him to show decisiveness. The purpose behind such decisiveness was later heard in more precise terms in the words of a person by the name of General Huyser – person who was sent by the President of America on a special mission to Tehran. From his point of view, and according to recommendations made to him, the Shah’s regime had to be safeguarded even at the cost of killing tens of thousands. It was argued, ostensibly in a justified manner, that that was better than killing many times more later on.
According to the US regime, the supposition that American interference in the internal affairs of Iran could prevent the shedding of the blood of tens of thousands on that day and several times more than that later on was fully related [sentence as received]. Certainly the failure of Huyser’s mission, his escape from Tehran and the arrest or flight of all those on whom America had pinned her hopes to implement her horrible plan had no other reason than the fact of the strength of the waves of the revolution and the great power of a nation which had risen for the sake of God and who had no fear of anybody but God.
It was not the enemies of the revolution who gave up; it was the revolution which drove every enemy from the field. The enemy, through the hand of the traitor Shah, had already brought every possible kind of pressure to bear. After the victory of the revolution, hostile plots began in various other forms. The first effort was an all-out endeavour to infiltrate agents of the enemy in the management of the revolution. Later, cashing in on the open political atmosphere which had dawned after an oppressive period of several decades the enemy began to organise parties and groups which were opposed to the revolution. With regard to the first instance it is interesting to cite the case of a devoted pawn who was not at all that famous and who, several weeks after the success of the revolution, was recognised as a traitor and criminal in the court of the revolution, and succeeded in becoming the commander of the air force by instigating various devices. As to the second instance, it suffices to say that a wide spectrum, from royalist to communist, from separatist to pan-Iranian, was included in it.
Let us not forget that some foreign embassies in Tehran, including the American embassy, were centres for directing and supporting some of these groups. Ruthless terrorism was another harsh hostility measure against the revolution. The mini-group, without any popular base, stole arms and ammunition which was an easy task in those days and later with the support of foreign governments, created the biggest terrorist network in Iran. Single and group assassination, horrific explosions, plane hijackings, abduction of people, gruesome cases of torture and murder, were some of the acts carried out by several terrorist groups in Iran who enjoyed the backing and (?persuasion) of notorious enemies of the revolution. The victims of this wave of brutality and barbarism were members of every strata in society, from the highest-ranking state and revolution managers to ordinary members of society, that is, workers, toilers, women, children and unwary passers-by.
Today, leaders and members of the same terrorist groups, who have mostly claimed responsibility for their crimes, are enjoying immunity and a comfortable life-style in the USA, France and other Western countries and are known as members of the opposition challenging the revolution. And those countries, often accuse the Islamic Republic of terrorism. One of the most amazing games of diplomacy is the fact that sometimes the most innocent victims of blind and ruthless terrorism are accused of terrorism, and this is done by those who have played a big role in encouraging the terrorists at the start and giving them refuge later.
I, as the President and a servant of my country, and as a person who has been a victim of one of these ruthless acts of terrorism [Khamene'i lost the feeling in his right arm after an assassination attempt] which was aborted by God, am proud that my nation did not tremble in the face of these cruel acts of brutality. Other unprecedented incidents during one of which 72 leaders and high-ranking pioneers of the revolution, including several ministers, a number of Majlis deputies and some illustrious responsible officials and the unique personality of the revolution, martyr Beheshti, lost their lives, and in another incident, which martyred the President and the Prime Minister at the same time resulted in strengthening the nation’s faith and relaince on God and increased their revolutionary wrath. Coup d’etat attempts, this bloody traditional tool of the big powers used against all revolutions, were also tried in Iran several times and once nearly reached a dangerous phase. Had it not been for the vigilance of officers and assistance of the people, the prediction of the American general would have been realised. There would have been a blood bath and the massacre of millions on several occasions.
The most heart-felt and most tragic hostility of our enemies was the imposed war, arousing the ambitious feeling of a neighbour, persuading him to attack and assuring him of support and assistance. Today, after seven years, everyone can be clearly certain that the attack of the Iraqi armed forces on 31st Shahrivar 1359 [22nd September 1980], that is, 19 months after the establishment of the Islamic Republic, which was launched by 10 divisions and hundreds of fighter-bombers from land, sea and sky, had no other goal but expansionism and annexation of part of Iran to Iraq, something that the Iraqi or non-Iraqi and hireling books and press have repeatedly referred to. They also had in mind the defeat of the revolution and the collapse of the Islamic Republic. They have repeatedly announced both these goals and have exposed themselves. Iraq could gain great results from the victory of this attack, including stabilisation of its internal state and appearance in the regional arena and even on the Arab scene as a superior power. This was a great gain for the roguish individuals ruling over Iraq. They also intended to stretch their water border along the important zone of the Persian Gulf. Following such a victory, which would inevitably have led to Iran’s defeat, dismemberment and the collapse of the Islamic Republic regime, the hegemonist powers would have reached a significant goal. That is, elimination of a system which, after its appearance, changed the politico-economic equilibrium of the region and ousted the hand of global arrogance, particularly the USA, from the big country of Iran.
For if we were to lose, the USA and other parties, and the same status quo would return and the usual cycle of economic, political and other methods of control would resume. At first, we were caught unawares. We admit this. Being tied down with numerous domestic matters of the revolution and also without sufficient experience caused this. However, the saviour was the characteristics of the revolution. Within a few months, people and the armed forces arriving at the scene miraculously and making efforts, created a great epic by liberating important parts of the (?usurped) territory. The tragedy which had taken place in the interval, is truly impossible to describe. Many prospering cities such as Khorramshahr, Abadan, Hoveyzeh and Qasr Shirin were turned into dust. Dezful alone was hit by 173 surface-to-surface missiles. Many prospering villages were left without even half-erected walls. Many plants were turned into twisted piles of steel. Many farms were left without the slightest trace of agriculture. Many invaluable cultural remains were damaged. Most dear of all, many honourable lives and innocent people were wiped out. Committing war crimes from savage attacks on civilian residential quarters to the heartless massacre of thousands of defenceless women and children as well as abducting ordinary passengers on captured roads during the first few weeks of the war and also stamping under foot international agreements and norms by using chemical weapons extensively and bombing merchant vessels, civilian and passenger airliners and ordinary passenger trains these have always been among the routine and well-known acts by Iraq throughout the war.
The Iranian nation, at the first opportunity after the primary stages of efforts to round up the events of the war for its own analysis, realised a bitter fact: that security based on trusting words and the agreement of an aggressive and troublemaking element was very shaky and unworthy while relying on such security was foolish and illogical. The head of the Iraqi regime explicitly announced that his former agreement with the Iranian government in 1975 known as the Algiers Accord, was not mandatorily enforceable since it had been drawn up at a time of weakness on the part of Iraq. He tore it up and within a few days began his attack. This was a bitter but telling lesson for our nation. From that moment our vigilant and revolutionary nation took its decision and mapped out its objectives. Our objectives did not only include return of our occupied land or reciving war reparations although these were the just rights of the Iranian nation and in spite of much damage that could not be put right. The more important objective was that of punishing the aggressor and eradication of the apparatus of aggression.
By raising the issue of the punishment of the aggressor not only were we seeking a firm basis for our national security; but this would have entailed, and does entail, security and stability for the entire region. Once the aggressor is punished by the international family, it would be certain, at least for a number of years, that this aspiration which always exists in aggressive and opportunist elements would abate, and the region and maybe the world would no longer endure the calamity of an aggressive and senseless war.
The Nuremberg court was able to guarantee peace and security in war-infested Europe for more than 40 years. Why should that experience not be made use of? Even at a time when thousands of kilometres of our territory was under the jackboots of usurping aggressors, the big powers, making use of very powerful propaganda means, exerted pressure upon us to accept a ceasefire, in return for a promise that a committee would be formed which would make arrangements for the return of the aggressor to international borders. It would have meant that we would have left part of our being, part of our honour under the feet of the enemy and in the hope of regaining it we would have had to go begging to this or that international committee. For a great, proud and revolutionary nation there would be no greater insult than that. Even the least intelligent people in the world, in order to reject such an unjust proposal, had only to look at the tragic and blood-stained fate of the Palestinian nation as a great and living example in front of their eyes. If imposed ceasefires and deceptive and futile promises were able to make the Palestinian nation achieve its clear and certain rights, then they would enable other nations to achieve their rights too.
Today, when we have liberated the greater part of our occupied territories as the result of the heroic struggle of our nation and with the sacrifice of thousands of precious lives and of course even now some parts including Naftshahr are still under the occupation of the aggressive forces we still regard our most important goal as the punishment of the aggressor. Today, looking at the great and irreparable assets which have been destroyed as a result of the imposed war we attach greater importance to it than ever before; and without that we regard any other gain for our nation as a loss. We, who have endured the seven-year-long burden of the imposed war, are more anxious for peace than anyone else. However, we believe that peace, enduring peace, can be achieved only as the result of the punishment of an aggressor who has compounded the sin of aggression with many other offences in the war, and by no other means.
Today too, as in 1975, Iraq is in a position of weakness; and the whole world knows this. The peace which is accepted by that regime today will be instantly violated by that regime at a time when it believes that it has power, and the flames of war would again engulf the region. The only guarantee for the future is for the aggressor to be punished.
Peace is undoubtedly a beautiful and attractive word, so much so that even major international fire-makers and those who have amassed world-destroying weapons show interest in it, and hypocritically talk about it. However, in our view justice a term which the powerful and the aggressors always view with fear and caution is greater and more important than peace. How many were the wronged ones who sacrificed their lives, their comfort and their peace for the sake of achieving justice. They have always been known as heroes. European cities still pride themselves on their resistance against Hitler’s aggression, and Leningrad still prides itself on its scorched-earth policy which rendered Napoleon’s forces ineffective and eliminated them, and prides itself on its four-year-long resistance when it was under the siege of Nazi forces.
The United Nations, especially on the basis of the first article of its Charter, is dutybound to safeguard justice in its special form, namely, confronting the aggressor. This is what we demand from the world and from the United Nations. Great powers are hypocritically calling this war, which has been imposed on us, senseless; and this is at a time when they have always provided military, political and economic support to the aggressive side which started it. There is no doubt that the imposition of such a war is always senseless; but so long as the aggressor did not despair of gaining its evil goals they did not describe the war in those terms. However, today the war has a very important meaning for our nation: namely, a relentless and self-sacrificing effort to eliminate the root of aggression and prove that a nation is able despite the wishes of the great powers to defend its revolution, its stability and its honour. With its self-sacrifice and devotion our nation is busy smashing and negating an equation which has always encouraged aggression and war; and that equation is that reliance upon advanced weapons and reliance upon the powers guarantees success.
During these seven years the Iranian nation has sought the answer to a great question. From this podium I wish to raise that question. The question is, why the governments who have clearly and decisively realised that the Iraqi regime started the flames of war and is the side which started the aggression and there are not a few who know this reality why have they kept silent regarding this great offence and this international violation? Why have the world mass media forgotten their great responsibility towards human conscience and towards history regarding this matter? Familiarity with political relations in the present world and the faulty geometry which the domination of the big powers has inflicted upon international relations could solve this puzzle. This is not hidden from our nation.
However, the question to which no acceptable answer can be found is why the Security Council of the United Nations an organisation which basically came into being to confront aggression and to enforce international security completely forgot its duties regarding this aggression, and even acted contrary to them. It is well for all to know that at the beginning of the Iraqi invasion, which took place on a front one thousand kilometres long, the Security Council did not show any reaction. In one week the Iraqi armed forces over-ran international boundaries, and in some places advanced to a depth of 70, 80, or 90 kilometres and were stationed there with the aim as asserted by some Iraqi leaders of never leaving. It was only after that that the first resolution of the Security Council was issued, on 28th September 1980.
This resolution did not refer to the aggression, neither did it mention the occupation [of Iranian territory]. A return to international boundaries was not fou nd necessary either. Instead of all this, surprisingly, it invited the two sides not to resort to more forceful measures. This description in fact turned a blind eye to the territory captured by the aggressive forces of Iraq, and just asked Iraq not to go any further. It also asked Iran not to wage a war to push back the aggressor. This was the first step taken by the Security Council in which it trampled on its main duty that is to guard international peace and security in an ugly and regrettable manner. Afterwards, the Security Council was shroud ed in a death-like silence and forgot this bloody and continuous war until the liberation of Khorramshahr, the operation in which the backbone of the occupying forces was broken and thousands of them were abjectly captured, in spite of the fact that the news about the war made headlines all over the world.
In this period, the heroic actions of our nation and the formation of our combative forces indicated that a young, revolutionary and determinant force was in the making. The world powers thus lost the hope of fulfiling the evil goals which they hoped to achieve as a result of the attack by Iraq on Iran. That was why, once again, the Security Council remembered the Iran-Iraq war. A few weeks after capturing Khorramshahr the Council passed its second resolution on 12th July, 1982.
This resolution called for a return to international boundaries, the goal, that is, a major part of which had already been gained as a result of our nation’s selflessness and the unparalleled courage of our combatants. This resolution did not mention the aggression nor did it name the aggressor. It did not refer to the damage caused, or a way to put it right. Finally, it did not give a guarantee of real security and stability nor did it mention punitive measures against the cause of this lack of security.
Once again, we found ourselves alone in our efforts to restore our rights. Up to this day, the Security Council has always taken its own positions on the war which has been imposed on us in the same way. The independent initiatives of the Secretary-General were about to find the solution and to help the UN in reaching its aims. But, this possibility was not explored further. Here, I would like to express our satisfaction at His Excellency’s efforts. I would also like to mention the late Swedish Prime Minister, Mr Olof Palme, for his sympathetic efforts as representative of the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General’s trip to Tehran and the beneficial negotiations about Resolution 598 were another step along this path.
We consider these negotiations realistic and helpful in finding a solution. We believe the Secretary-General’s report to the Security Council has the same approach. Unfortunately, we feel that some of the influential members of the Security Council would like to deny this fact. They are the same people who directed their efforts in passing this resolution towards exerting pressure on the Islamic Republic. We have communicated our clear stance in this connection to the Secretary-General and expect the Security Council to act according to its duty and make proper use of the opportunity given to him [Secretary-General].
Impartiality is the least [sentence is not completed]. Can the Security Council in any way defend the fact that it has not acted according to its primary duty, that is fighting against aggression, which is mentioned in Article One of the Charter and is considered more important than its own aims? How much pressure has it put on Iraq in order to guard against threats to peace, the disturbance of peace and the use of forceful measures, which are included in Article seven? Impartiality is the least that the Islamic Republic can expect from the Security Council, having itself been subjected to bloody and damaging aggression, although it is the duty of the Council to fight against aggression and to protect the victim of aggression and not to remain impartial. But, can the Security Council even claim that it has remained impartial in this connection?
We feel that, having been influenced by the will and demands of some of the superpowers, especially America, the Security Council has been placed in an improper and damning position. It should therefore be said that the security built with the support of such a Security Council is a pretentious palace built of cardboard. Nations, especially nations of the Third World, those which would like to live in complete independence from the superpowers, can never ask a Council like this to guarantee their security. Refusing to condemn Iraq as the aggressor has kept the fire of the imposed war ablaze and has even helped it to spread.
At present, because of the military presence of the US and other countries which, following the Arch Satan because of its pressure and insistence, have entered the region, the Persian Gulf has become a dangerous powder-keg.
I deem it necessary to draw to the attention of the UNGA and the American public the very grave and imminent danger posed by the recent step taken by the US regime in the Persian Gulf, which threatens the entire world and not just the region. Yesterday, American warships attacked an Iranian merchant ship, Iran-Ajr. Five dead and four were wounded as a result. The ship was captured and a number of personnel were taken hostage. Yesterday, American TV reported this news as an attack on a ship which was planting mines and, as usual, lied to the people of the world. But, I would like to announce here that the ship in question was a commercial ship by the name of Iran-Ajr and not a fast gunboat. This is the beginning of further incidents, the bitter aftermath of which will undoubtedly not be limited to the Persian Gulf. The responsibility for all subsequent incidents lies with the initiator, that is the USA.
Should one believe the US’s impatient claims regarding establishing peace in the Persian Gulf or its obvious act of warmongering? I would like to announce here that the US will receive a response to this ugly act. This is only one of the evil follow-ups to the imposed war and is a result of the inability shown by the Security Council to confront the Iraqi aggression. If the Security Council had condemned Iraq for starting the imposed war and then starting the war of cities, which was followed by the tanker war, the US would not have been able today to go against the pressure of world public opinion and US public opinion by threatening the peace and security of the world in such a blatant manner, immediately after and despite Resolution 598, when it had been the main factor in drawing this up and approving it.
Was Resolution 598 drawn up purely for the sake of exerting pressure on the Islamic Republic? I would like to announce to the entire world, and especially to the great American nation, that the threatening military presence of America in the Persian Gulf is only one of the overt aggressions by the United States regime against our nation. This is a black, bitter and bloody chapter in our country’s history, filled with all kinds of animosity and revenge by the American regime. Twenty-five years of support for the dictatorial and death-dealing regime of Pahlavi with all the crimes that he committed against our nation; the plunder of this nation’s wealth with the Shah’s collusion; the serious confrontation with the revolution in the last months of the Shah’s regime and its encouragement for him to suppress demonstrations by millions of our people; the acts of sabotage against the revolution by different means in the early years following victory; the provocative contacts between the American embassy in Tehran and counter-revolutionary elements; the help to those seeking a coup; the continuous assistance to terrorist and counter-revolutionary elements outside the country; the confiscation of Iran’s assets and resources and their refusal to hand over items whose prices were paid a long time ago; the refusal to hand over the assets which the Shah took from the national treasury and which he deposited in American banks in his own name; the attemps at an economic embargo and the creation of a united Arab [corrects himself] a united Western front against our nation; the open and effective support for Iraq in the war against us; and finally the illogical and bullying dispatch of forces to the Persian Gulf, which seriously endangers security in the region. These are part of our nation’s bill of indictment against the regime of the United States of America, an indictment which is capable of casting serious doubt on all the peace-loving claims and remarks expressing goodwill towards the Islamic Republic by the leaders of that regime, whose only objective, it seems, is to solve its own domestic problems. The latest example in the list of American hostilities towards our nation is the bloody tragedy which was enacted in Holy Mecca and in the safe House of God against innocent and defenceless pilgrims, in which nearly four hundred Iranians and non-Iranians, mainly women, were martyred and many times that number were beaten up, injured and wounded. Definite evidence shows that America’s hands were used effectively in that unprecedented historical tragedy.
Can the American regime and its Saudi lackeys provide any satisfactory answer to the massacre of so many innocent and wronged men and women? Those who created that calamity are undoubtedly forced to find some excuses and make certain allegations in order to justify their action. However, the nature of an incident in which on the one hand, nearly 400 pilgrims, mainly women died, and, on the other, the local police were armed with machine-guns, clubs and poison gases, makes any excuse impossible. It is true that blood, a blood which has been shed unjustly and with cruelty and tyranny, will convey a powerful message not only today but for all times and reveals the bloody hand [responsible]. Yet the incident at Mecca, given that it reveals collaboration between American policy and Arab reaction and their covert actions in the Persian Gulf region, assumes global dimensions, and deserves to be clearly studied by the international organisations.
I deem it necessary to say most emphatically that this is an indictment of the American regime’s leaders and not of the American nation, which would itself sign that bill of indictment if it knew what its government had done to a nation. Our nation has proved that it believes in its goals and is steadfast in implementing them, to the point of sacrificing its life. Such a nation is not afraid of America or of any other nation, and with God’s assistance it will demonstrate that victory belongs to truth and to the followers of truth.
Mr President, Mr Secretary-General, honourable members, this was the fate of our revolution, a revolution which although it gave rise to an extensive wave of hope among nations which had been afflicted by world arrogance, also gave rise to just as extensive a wave of opposition from the axes of world domination. No matter how serious, profound and diverse this opposition was, it was unable to uproot a tree whose roots lay in the depths of people’s hearts and which was getting increasingly stronger with each passing day, despite all the stones which were thrown at it and injuries inflicted upon it.
Now let the world see and it does see that despite the powers’ animosity we are still alive and will remain alive. Divine precedents in history have shown this and it will not be otherwise and this is our most important and most eloquent message. The hegemonic system has always tried to prove the opposite and to regard its will as the factor determining the fate of the nations and countries of the Third World. We proved it wrong. There is no doubt that the hegemonic system did not desire the existence and continuation of the Islamic Republic, but our will achieved the upper hand. Our message to all nations and governments which wish to remain independent and free from the domination and will of the world’s major powers is that they should not be afraid of them, and should rely upon themselves and their nations.
Our revolution regards its great message as the negation of the hegemonic system in the world. Today the world is, in practice, divided up between the major and hegemonic powers, and they regard themselves as masters of the world. To express this differently, the world has been divided into two camps, the dominant and the dominated, and the first camp considers itself to be in charge of the second camp’s destiny. The hegemonic system is about the existence of these unequal relations between these two parts of the world. It rejects revolutions at will and creates difficulties for revolutionary regimes. Nicaragua and revolutionary countries in South Africa are a few living examples of this fact. This system takes decisions for various nations despite their own wishes wronged Palestine is one complete example of this fact and Afghanistan another.
The hegemonic system exploits definitions to suit itself and changes them to its own advantage, using all its might to make this work. Terrorism and human rights are am ong the terms exploited. It even directly attacks countries which have displeased it. Recent examples of such acts are the US attacks on Libya and Grenada. The hegemonic system makes decisions for all the world and all nations; an example from the past, in this connection, is Hiroshima. Today, the US President is proud of the horrendous deed of his predecessors, arguing that if those few thousands had not been killed then, many more would have been killed all over the world. Thus he shows off the US’s custodian-like sympathy to the whole world. The hegemonic system supports fascist and racist regimes like Israel and South Africa, using them as armed hands to shed the blood of oppressed nations. Muslim Lebanon, which is patiently resisting the criminal aggressions of the Zionists, is an obvious example. The frontline countries of southern Africa are among other examples. The system allows itself the right to exert pressure on international organisations, the US’s pressure on the Security Council and UNESCO is an hegemonic example. The hegemonic system considers the interests of the forces as absolute and as reason enough to disregard the interests of others. An example of this is the tension-creating, dangerous presence of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf, which is [there] on the pretext of guarding US interests and without any regard for the interests of the countries of the region. Finally, the hegemonic system has taken the propaganda machines of the world in hand and thus succeeds in distorting the facts and presenting such evil deeds as acts of service. Thus, it blocks the path leading to confrontation between world public opinion and itself.
Our message to all Third World nations and governments, and also to nations whose governments are the creators of the hegemonic system, is that the world should not have to tolerate such an unpleasant situation. The superpowers and governments should be told by all to stay in their own countries and leave the world to the peoples of the world. You are not their custodians.
There are two improper elements of discrimination within the UN, the right to veto and permanent membership of the Security Council. These should be eliminated. This is the only way that the UN and the Security Council can become the true focal point for the hopes of all nations and for the solution of their problems there. Otherwise, the Security Council will for ever remain the place where discredited orders and unimplemented decrees are issued. Nations will continue to feel that there is no place where international issues can be resolved, and that violence is the only way.
Our message to the countries of the Third World is that as long as the hegemonic system and the present situation remain, they should try and unite, since this is the best way to become powerful. The hegemonic powers do not understand any language other than force and power. So, the language of power they use should be answered by a similar one.
Awareness of the nations and their knowledge of the nature and role of the system of hegemony form the most important supports for Third World governments, which could give them real power in the face of the hegemonic powers. The leaders of these governments do not have any assistance or solution to the situation other than clear thinking and the strong will of their nations. The unity which we are suggesting to the countries of the Third World is not a unity which would enable them to fight the super-powers, it is a unity aimed at allowing them to defend themselves and to protect their rights.
The hegemonic powers are the major factors in the justification and spreading of corruption, moral, sexual and religious. They and their main followers all find support in political, economic and espionage motives [as heard]. That is why today, in a black and bitter world which includes the superpower nations as well, moral values have been lost, the foundations of the family have been shaken, the evils of alcoholism and addiction are more prevalent than ever, and the attraction of moral values and spirituality is less than ever before. In our own countries we should begin a serious fight against corruption. We should fortify the foundations of our families. We should turn the first and most important nurturing ground of human beings into a centre of love, sincerity, affection and spirituality. We should emphasise the protection of the rights and values of women and revise their present values, which are products of the hands and minds of the same system of hegemony. We should seriously try to liberate woman from her image as a tool of pleasure, an image which the Western system of hegemony has imposed on her. A woman is a scientist, a politician, a manager, an outstanding personality and, moreover, a wife and a mother. But, she is not a tool for pleasure or to pass the time with. This way, half of humanity will regain its true nature and character and the family will gain a permanent and holy foundation.
These are the messages of our revolution, not only addressed to those who are waiting to hear them, but also to those who are able to push aside obstacles and listen to fair judgements.
“let’s be more clear, based on what I see, if Dr.Ahmadinejad and the revolutionary guard around him (and not Mr.Khamenei) make a coup and remove Khamenei and cut the hands of money stooges he has including the Friday prayers, NOTHING will happen in Iran. the move will be quite acceptable to mass. I think Mr.Khamenei was aware of this danger since Ahmadinejad’s rise to power and tried very hard to reshuffle the revolutionary guard in every single opportunity possible. the last stand off between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei regarding the ministry of intelligence has improved Ahmadinejad’s popularity. Mashaei can will the election if he could pass the guardian council which I don’t think he could. Ghalibaf has some sort of popularity in Tehran as a good manager but almost nothing elsewhere in the country. “
PG – Now days, all day long I hear from my green friends who hoped that during the election the system would collapse, now say how great is president Ahmadinijad and specially Mr. Mashaie, these puppets are not really supporters of Mr. Ahmadinijad and what he stand for, but, since they have totally lost any hope for Mussavi and the Karoubi they are now hoping if the system becomes instable(lagh) by dividing the system from within in a meaning full way, so they are throwing their support behind Mr. Ahamadinijad as an opponent of Mr. Khamanie, all Iranian’s including me and you know what is going on, Mr. Khamanie (listen to the 1987 UN speech) and his advisors cleverly know what is happening and who is behind it, apparently he knew it then, in my opinion he has handled the internal politics of Iran in a balanced way and whiteout any international support has been able to maintain Iran’s, and his own independence.
Without outside support unity of Iran based on Iranian values only is not possible, as it was not possible for Arab nationalism, or Ataturk’s Turkey, Islamic values as major and gluing part of the evolving Iranian values, makes possible for the majority of the Iranians to be unified and therefore remain independent, there is no possibility for any nation to become truly democratic (to uphold the interest of the nation as whole) without having independence. This is what the aim of the green movement was, (or any other color revolution during an elections is), and this is what the west’s hope for Iran is now, it is to divide the nation away from its unifying force.
Ayatollah Khameini is much more popular than the president and his popularity goes far more deep. Most Ahmadinejad supporters would choose Seyed Ali Khamenei over him any day and the same is true, of course, for the president’s opponents. The greens are not worth talking about.
The raped Bahraini poet must die in silence, because that is what the West wants. I’m surprised that Liz is so upset. She should know better that to expect otherwise.
M.Ali & kooshy
I am talking about a fact on the ground not the cause for hate. I am originally from a village myself. he does not simply have the support in the periphery, small town or big, believe it or not. of course, the system has a segment of conservative community as stunch supporters and they support him. most of those people get benefite, dirrectly or indirectly, from being affiliated with him or the system. never mind that those people are isolated in today’s Iran. I mean, people know them and won’t open up their mind; i.e. fear. Mr.Khamenei has a big system of his own, the office of Rahbar is in every small or big university, governmental company, ministry …and we have Friday prayers too. simply put, it’s all about money for most of those supporters.
there are a lot of reasons that he is hated among the youth. he can not be criticized openly that has made him a very vague personality. almost everything mysterious is affiliated with him, specially in a country like Iran that conspiracy theory is the norm. the lack of social freedom is almost entirely blamed on him. the youth see him as the impediment for their enjoyment in life. don’t forget more than 70% of the whole population is below 35.a big segment of those who vested on the Khatami’s era (including to a greater degree myself) see, rightly so, Mr.Khamenei as the main reason for not getting the reform movement somewhere meaningful. and he has been in that post for too long, 22 years by now. that itself make the title of dictator for him very acceptable to the populace. they see no difference between something like this and a king. is there any difference?!
and lastly, the affiliation is completely messed up these days, specially after the last election; i.e. RIA. I personally know people who preferred reformists and now strongly claim to be part of principlist and talk about Agha as being great.
let’s be more clear, based on what I see, if Dr.Ahmadinejad and the revolutionary guard around him (and not Mr.Khamenei) make a coup and remove Khamenei and cut the hands of money stooges he has including the Friday prayers, NOTHING will happen in Iran. the move will be quite acceptable to mass. I think Mr.Khamenei was aware of this danger since Ahmadinejad’s rise to power and tried very hard to reshuffle the revolutionary guard in every single opportunity possible. the last stand off between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei regarding the ministry of intelligence has improved Ahmadinejad’s popularity. Mashaei can will the election if he could pass the guardian council which I don’t think he could. Ghalibaf has some sort of popularity in Tehran as a good manager but almost nothing elsewhere in the country.
Islamic Republic and generally the role of religion will be here as part of any government in Iran for foreseeable feature. by the way we see has no popularity. relating everything under the sky to Islam and trying to take advantage of it has for sure backfired. I think, anybody denying this obvious fact in today’s Iran most be a very isolated person or have a very strong preference, and of course vested interest, for those who currently have control of the main power centers in the country.
Ayatollah Khamenei is by far the most popular public and religious figure in Iran.
A Bahraini female poet has been raped and murdered by the Bahraini regime:
http://www.rajanews.com/detail.asp?id=85620
I wonder if the filthy American mercenary Scott Lucas will be starting a campaign for her?
Sorry to water-down the hasbara idiots – Ayatullah Khamenie has been accepted as the single most popular and powerful leader in the Muslim world and Iran. This truth comes even from neocon and Jewish press (TIME, FP, etc.). But then, the Iranian-born Israeli Jew BBC expert, Meir Javedanfar, did claim that Ayatullah Khamenei has lost his popularity. Why? Because the a senior “Ayatollah Hossein Vahid Khorasani during his recent visit to Qom refused to meet Ayatullah Khamanei”. Furthermore, Meir states that his sources in the “democratic Green Movement (a CIA, Mossad and MI6 funded front), Khorasani didn’t even want to be in the same city as Khamenei”.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/meir-irans-next-spiritual-leader/
PG, I think a significant segment of the population still like Khamenei, you can see from the affection way some of them refer to him as Agha.
However, one of the reason for this is because Khamenei has merely been the united force in the government, only getting involved when there is a conflict between different parties, and usually trying to guide them towards stability. As he has never taken any dictatorial role in his action, he hasnt given the population much excuse to be against him.
Does this one help you?
http://english.khamenei.ir/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1413
Persian Gulf says: April 21, 2011 at 1:59 am
PG certainly that’s not the impression I got when I was in Iran less than a month ago specially among the more conservative non Tehrani’s, in my opinion Mr. Khamenei has kept the country fairly united ( that’s what his main job is) despite a lot of plots in this last 20 some years , one must give him credit for that. I also must say thanks to Leverett’s I had chance to listen to his 87 UN speech and was very impressed, I recommend it’s worth listening to.
I think he is getting irrelevant day by day specially among Iranian youth, if not already there. I have no personal animosity toward him. I just don’t think he is the future of Iran or even have any interest to relax the system. He is too old for that purpose. You can defend Dr. Ahmadinejad and be proud of supporting him in the streets (Tehran or elsewhere in the country) specially among his opponents, but that is absolutely not the case for Mr. Khamenei. even his second rank supporters prefer to keep a low profile and not talk about him. I dare to say the youth are fed up with him.
Here is the link to the speech delivered in Persian from Ayatollah Khamenei’s official site (in Persian)
http://farsi.khamenei.ir/speech-content?id=8089&q=
Iranian President Khamenei addressed the 42nd General Assembly about the revolution in Iraq, emphasizing that it was a people’s revolution, nonviolently forcing the members of the regime to flee the country through sheer numbers of people in the streets. He said that many untrue rumors were being circulated about the revolution. He said that women would be treated as equals with men in all professions and jobs.
The video of his speech
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/IranP
If you have trouble accessing that file (like I did), go to this page and the transcript is accessible at the top of the search page:
http://search.un.org/search?q=Khamenei%201987&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&output=xml_no_dtd&site=ods_un_org&filter=p&proxystylesheet=UN_ODS_test&client=UN_ODS_test&getfields=DocumentSymbol.Title.Size.PublicationDate&ProxyReload=1&as_q=&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&num=10&metaTitle=&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&output=xml_no_dtd&site=ods_un_org&filter=0&q=&proxystylesheet=UN_ODS_test&client=UN_ODS_test&getfields=DocumentSymbol.Title.Size.PublicationDate&ProxyReload=1&partialfields=DocumentSymbol:A/
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/PRO/N87/640/33/PDF/N8764033.pdf?OpenElement