Beyond Words

Dr. Hoder prescribes medicine

2007-03-17T11:31:00.000-04:00

I like Hossein Derakhshan (Hoder), though I have never met him. I have seen him on TV and I am an avid reader of his blog. He is very articulate and most of the time makes sense.

But not this time.

We have all seen those “Impeach the President” banners. We always assumed they referred to the President of the World, aka G.W. Bush.

Hoder has come up with a novel idea: Let’s impeach the other president: President Ahmadinejad.

He suggests that by doing so, we can bring back the civility of former president Khatami to Iranian politics. We might even satisfy the American/Israeli regimes who are poised to attack Iran.

Let’s review the facts: it was before Ahmadinejad was elected as Iranian president that Bush included Iran as part of the axis of evil. It bewildered many within the then reform-minded Iranian circles around the Iranian president, Mohammad Khatami, since Iran was cooperating with the Americans in their plans to remove the Taliban. Ahmadinejad wasn’t even a presidential candidate when the Americans invaded Iraq and had Iran in their sights. Only if things hadn’t gone so wrong in Iraq…

Hoder argues Ahmadinejad has no control over foreign affairs. The main reason for his removal would be that he has a big mouth. He has offended the "international community" by talking truth about American and Israeli atrocities in the region. He has questioned the Holocaust as a basis for Israeli occupation of Arab land. And therefore he has to be silenced.

Ahmadinejad has talked about this so-called "international community” on many occasions and has called for radical reforms in the structure of the UN Security Council, the same “international body” that has imposed sanctions on Iran. Here are some excerpts from his speech to the UN on Sep. 19, 2006:

“Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. When the oppressed are crushed by bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council which is charged with maintaining security for all countries?

“The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community, and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only second class in the world order.

“The question needs to be asked: If the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? …

“The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.

“Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently, needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective…

“No one has superiority over others. No individual or state can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the `international community’.”

So what is so despicable about Ahmadinejad? Is it his upbringing or the way he dresses?

Or perhaps the way he can communicate with a large segment of the population who were ignored by Khatami and his reform-minded allies?

Hoder argues that another Khatami type should take the helm. The question is: Would that satisfy the Americans/the Israelis? I understand Hoder has been reading a lot of political theory lately, which might be the reason he has labeled the Iranian government as “the only true post-colonial state in the world.” If we accept his logic, then we can easily conclude the colonial powers will do their utmost to wipe such a menace off the map of the world.

Why we love Fidel

2006-08-11T19:17:00.000-04:00

Why do we love Fidel?
Because we love the idea of “Fidel”
Because we think there has to be some other way
That there must be more to life and to living than this
That life and living must have some meaning too

We loathe the things that they force down our throats day and night
We love freedom:
Freedom from the chains of television and commercials
Freedom from the chains of futility
Freedom from humiliation

Yet, we know Fidel’s time is past
We know the idea of “Fidel,” too, will some day succumb to the unipolar world that is getting narrower every day
Still, we keep hoping
Still, we see signs that the idea of “Fidel” may be permeating into other places too
Fidel who, once the Soviet Union fell, was left isolated and friendless, is finding new friends and allies

But the unipolar world, too, is hard at work
Its slogan is “You are either with us or with the terrorists”
Its slogan is “democracy,” but only if democracy doesn’t harm its own interests
It supports all autocratic governments, but considers Fidel a dictator
A dictator who has given free education and healthcare to his country’s people
And many other things besides
So we must either be with Bush or with Fidel

But even if some day Fidel had to leave, he will go with honor
He will hold his head high
The same way that his nation – his comrades – hold their heads high
Because he never yielded
He was never like autocratic rulers who sell everything that they have and that they are, all in return for worldly power and status

Fidel will become immortal
Because there will never be another Fidel
In the same way that there will never be another Gandhi, another Mossadegh, or another Allende
And, yes, another Khomeini or another Arafat

And yet…
Such words don’t give us fancy clothes
They don’t give us credit cards, loans, debt, and alienation
They don’t give us the “American Dream”

So, long live CNN and the “free” press, the boundaries of whose freedom are set by multinational corporations!
Long live hundreds of meaningless brand names, trade marks and logos!
Long live luxury cars and even more luxurious houses, which most of us only see in our dreams!
Long live the material world

The Lying Liar and His Backers

2006-06-21T22:56:00.000-04:00

Bunkum From Benador
By: Larry Cohler-Esses

The neoconservative campaign to equate Iran with Nazi Germany received a setback in May. Bloggers and a few journalists quickly exposed as wholly concocted a story about a new law that would require Iranian Jews to wear yellow insignia. Within days the National Post of Canada--founded by disgraced neocon media mogul Conrad Black and now owned by the no less hawkish Asper family--was forced to apologize publicly for its "scoop." But by then the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge Report, right-wing blogs and some wire services had picked up the claim, bringing the phony news to millions.

Read More...

An Un-Diplomatic Diplomacy: Tehran 1 - Washington 0

2006-06-08T07:43:00.000-04:00

In the case of Iran, Washington was a perfectionist. Iran’s imperfect democracy had to go, and presumably be replaced by a dictatorship mindful of US interests. In reality, Washington was fearful that Iran’s independent political behaviour was setting a bad example for the rest of the Third World.

Washington, having begun from a position where “all options were on the table,” to quote Condi’s favourite threat, now has nothing left on the table! It has been stripped bare of the last shred of credibility it may still have possessed.

Read More ...

Iranian Cold Warriors in Sheep's Clothing

2006-06-03T22:41:00.000-04:00

The superpower that stockpiles thousands of nuclear weapons and dropped two of them on Japanese cities is keeping the world sleepless over a nuclear weapons program that Iran could possibly be contemplating. This despite the fact that Iran has not attacked any country in at least 250 years while the accuser, Washington, regularly bombs, invades, kidnaps, and tortures on every continent.

In 2001, a number of the Cold Warriors, including an Israeli Embassy staff publicist named Nir Boms, formed the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) in Washington.

A favorite speaker at FDD's campus events is Akbar Atri, a defector who describes himself as a former "leader" of the student movement in Iran. He was brought to the United States in 2005 by the Committee on the Present Danger. Another self-styled "persecuted student leader," Amir Abbas Fakhravar, was brought to the US this year by FDD associate Richard Perle and is being groomed for a similar purpose. That purpose seems to be to deflect attention from the US and Israeli occupations and war crimes in the so-called war on terror, which George Bush is now describing as a repeat Cold War.

Read More ...

Mad Mad Mad Mad World

2006-05-26T13:36:00.000-04:00

Leaders of the Free World

Iran Nuclear Conflict Is About U.S. Dominance

...The Bush administration's insistence on extending its dominance in the Middle East even further can only be achieved by the threat of force, and if that fails, war against Iran...

Read More ....

The Loss of a Possibility for Dialogue

Ahmadinejad asked important questions regarding the contradiction between President Bush's Christian values and US policy. As Ahmadinejad put it, "Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ… and have countries attacked… villages set ablaze?

Read More ....

Iran's Nuclear Program: The Way Out

Iran is prepared to work with the IAEA and all states concerned about promoting confidence in its fuel cycle program. But Iran cannot be expected to give in to United States' bullying and non-proliferation double standards.

Read More ....

U.S. Is Proposing European Shield for Iran Missiles

"As far as we can tell, Iran is many years away from having the capability to deliver a military strike against the U.S.," said Gary Samore, vice president of the MacArthur Foundation and a former aide at the National Security Council. "If they made a political decision to seriously pursue a space launch vehicle it would take them a decade or more to develop the capability to launch against the U.S."

Read More ....

Snubbing Iran

Unilateralism, with its inevitable linkage to the threat or use of force, is at the heart of the administration’s refusal to negotiate. Such unilateralism cannot possibly enhance U.S. security or the security of others. By doing anything he can to avoid international negotiations, organizations, laws and customs, Bush is gaming the system—against U.S. interests.

Read More ....

Iranian Dress: Lies Wide Open

... the story played to fears and assumptions about Iran. In the current climate of relations between Iran and the West, Western media stories which make Iran appear like Nazi Germany apparently don't need to be authenticated before Western and Israeli politicians jump to attention.

Read More ....

Failed Regime And Success Stories

2006-05-24T12:09:00.001-04:00

Let me get this straight. According to a letter which was signed by a number of Iranian expatriates in Canada and forwarded to the National Post, Iran is a “failed regime.”

I really hoped these intelligent folks had enlightened us on the meaning of a “failed regime.”

If Iran is a failed regime, how does one define all those Arab states (Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya…. the list goes on and on) in the Middle-East? Are they all success stories?

Or even a country like the United States where according to the latest polls, more than 71 percent of the population are against their president?

If we write a letter to a right-wing, neocon rag to protest their slanderous accusations, couldn’t we set aside our own personal vendetta against the “regime” even for one single moment and try to stick to the point?

Here’s the text of the letter:

The Editor, National Post

In your 19 May issue in a front page article by C. Wattie, you claim that the Iranian regime’s parliament has passed a law demanding Jews and other religious minorities wear coloured badges to be easily identifiable. This is false information, as the dress code law that passed on May 15th has no such reference. You claim that “Iranian expatriates living in Canada” have confirmed this.

We, Iranian expatriates, are aware that with the heightened tension over Iran’s nuclear crisis, and taking advantage of the outrageous and unacceptable remarks of the new President of the Islamic Republic, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, denying the Holocaust and wanting to wipe out Israel from the map, there is a concerted effort on the part of some groups in the US, Europe, Israel, and here in Canada to compare today’s Iran with Nazi Germany, and Ahmadinejad to Hitler. These groups, among them some Iranians hope to push the United States and its allies to invade Iran and bring about yet another regime change in the Middle East. A basic tool in this process is propaganda through misinformation.

In the first Persian Gulf War, misinformation about incubators stolen by Saddam Hussein’s army in Kuwait and the highly publicized testimony of a young Kuwaiti girl who later turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington helped rally public support for US military action. The rhetoric over weapons of mass destruction was effectively used to justify the most recent war in Iraq. It is disheartening that your newspaper should either choose to be a mouthpiece for war propaganda, or not verify the accuracy of the information it publishes.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a failed regime embroiled in deep economic, social and political crises. Passing laws for unified dress codes is itself a sign of desperation. Heightening international tensions and rhetoric are all to divert attention from internal problems, and with the hope of mobilizing Iranian people. State-led newspapers in Iran are bombarding their readers with false and fabricated information.

We are astonished that your paper also chooses to misguide and misinform its readers. It would only be appropriate that you correct the misinformation on the same page that published the misleading article.

A war with Iran will be disaster for its people; it will invigorate the decaying fundamentalists, and will intensify the catastrophic situation in the Middle East, with devastating consequences for the whole world.

Signed

Compare that with the communiqué from The Canadian Islamic Congress. They know exactly who they are dealing with and even demand an apology.

Islamic Congress Denounces National Post Story On Proposed Iran Dress Code

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

2006-05-20T11:59:00.000-04:00

The official propaganda organ

of the Ministry of Truth

Islamic Congress Denounces National Post Story On Proposed Iran Dress Code

COLUMN ON RELIGIOUS ID BADGES "UNPROFESSIONAL, AND DANGEROUS"PM HARPER'S RESPONSE "EMBARRASSING"

The Canadian Islamic Congress has denounced as "blatantly false and incompetent" a National Post column by London-based commentator and Iranian exile Amir Taheri that ran on Friday (May 19). In it, Taheri claimed Iran had passed laws that would soon require non-Muslims -- especially Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians -- to wear identifying colours or badges.

Based on Taheri fabrication the National Post front page story on May 19, 2006 was "IRAN EYES BADGES FOR JEWS" with a front page photo of "A Jewish couple wear yellow stars in the Budapest ghetto in 1944."

Continue Reading ...

Tehran denounces `baseless' report

No plan to ID non-Muslims

Story `a sheer lie,' legislator says
May 20, 2006. 01:00 AM
JOHN GODDARD
STAFF REPORTER

Iranian legislators condemned as an insult yesterday a suggestion in the National Post that they would require Jews to wear a yellow patch on their clothes.

"Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed," Iranian legislator Morris Motamed, one of 25,000 Jews living in Iran, told The Associated Press.

"Such news, which appeared abroad, is an insult to religious minorities here."

Legislator Emad Afroogh said the Post story distorts a bill he presented to parliament calling for Muslims to dress conservatively. It seeks to have women avoid Western fashions, he said.
"It's a sheer lie," Afroogh said of any suggestion of minority tags. "There is no mention of religious minorities and their clothing in the bill."

In a front-page story, the National Post reported yesterday that the Iranian parliament, or Majlis, passed a law Monday requiring Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges.

The story drew worldwide reaction. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has previously labelled the Holocaust a myth and called for the destruction of Israel.

"Unfortunately, we've seen enough already from the Iranian regime to suggest that it is very capable of this kind of action," Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters at Meech Lake, Que., where he was meeting Australian Prime Minister John Howard, before it became clear the Post story was wrong. "It boggles the mind that any regime ... would want to do anything that could remind people of Nazi Germany."

The head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, which champions Jewish interests worldwide, immediately wrote UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.
"Now is the time for the United Nations and the international community to launch an immediate investigation," Rabbi Marvin Hier wrote Thursday after the Post showed him an advance copy of the story. Hier told the Toronto Star yesterday he had not been able to verify the information.

"We're looking into it," Annan's spokesperson in New York also said, "and we haven't got anything solid."

In a phone interview from Tel Aviv, Israeli commentator and Iranian exile Meir Jawadnafar angrily dismissed the story as "baseless." Toronto-based Iranian blogger Hossein Derkhshan said he could find no evidence of any such plans.

Repeated calls to Post editor-in-chief Doug Kelly went unreturned. The paper's website ran a story headlined "Experts say report of badges ... is untrue."

The front-page story said the law requiring the badges passed. The information apparently came from a column inside the paper saying something different by London-based commentator and Iranian exile Amir Taheri. The Majlis gave itself the mandate Monday to create standardized Islamic garments by next fall, Taheri wrote.

"Religious minorities ... will also have to wear special insignia, known as zonnar, to indicate their non-Islamic faiths," he wrote without naming a source or saying it was part of the law that passed. Jews would wear yellow, Christians red and Zoroastrians blue, he said, to allow Muslims to avoid shaking hands with non-Muslims and becoming najis, or unclean.

Source: thestar.com

Also...

The Iranian "badge" story: Neo-con propaganda?

Creating Kristallnacht: Hate Baiting at the National Post

Latest Hitler: how lies become news

Badges for Jews, A Hoax!

CanWest and the Lobby

Badger Gate

Another Fraud on Iran: No Legislation on Dress of Religious Minorities

Take Action: Holding the Liars Accountable- Contact information

MORE LIES:

A Vote of Thanks Is Expressed By Iranian Jews

Amir Taheri replies!: Iran yellow-badges fallout: Amir Taheri comments

Nevada bombing prelude to attack on Iran

2006-05-18T05:56:00.000-04:00

“Bush administration officials claim that this massive test blast is unrelated to the effort to build a nuclear bunker-buster. But we all have seen how openly truthful this administration has been about everything else it has done. So we all need to worry.”

“Mr. Bush believes that he must do what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do, and that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

“Karl Rove is said to believe that bombing Iran will get the Republicans through the 2006 election, and President Bush would feel like a failure in God's eyes if he didn't stand up to Iran because he thinks he is doing God's work.”

by Carol Jensen
May 15, 2006

As an American whose family tree includes a branch of ancestors who were living on this land when the first Europeans stumbled ashore, I find it intolerable that the Bush Administration is going ahead with its plan to detonate 700 tons of explosives on tribal land in Nevada. This is yet another hate-based idea concocted by the Republican-controlled government.

The planned explosion is scheduled for June 2 only 90 miles from Las Vegas on a site that belongs to the Western Shoshone (Newe tribe) who own 60 million acres in Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and California, according to an 1863 United States treaty.

Continue Reading "Nevada bombing prelude to attack on Iran"

Why the United States Invaded Iraq and is Now Thinking About Invading Iran

2006-05-16T07:09:00.000-04:00

... with what has come to light since the Iraq invasion, we have to assume that like Iraq, the decision to invade Iran has already been taken, and that the E.U. Three negotiations and the IAEA are being used to prepare the public for that event.

by Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar
May 12, 2006

On April 28, the IAEA released its report on Iran. The IAEA reported that: "the Agency cannot make a judgment about, or reach a conclusion on, future compliance or intentions." The report came as no surprise to those who have been following the ongoing dispute between Iran, United States and the IAEA.

The United States, for quite some time now, has been accusing Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons and Iran has been insisting that its intentions are peaceful and that it is only interested in peaceful use of the nuclear energy. Iran, to allay the international community's fear, froze its enrichment program and started a series of negotiations with the U.K., Germany, and France. However, without the United States these negotiations were not going to produce any results, since it was only the United States that could address the Iranian's national security concerns. Iranian seeing themselves surrounded by American forces wanted a security guarantee that United States would not invade Iran, something that United States was not prepared to give. So the negotiations with the European three failed and Iran resumed its enrichment program. Iran was threatened with Security Council and even invasion without any effect. Now once again there is talk of a Security Council resolution under article 7 and continuous threats of invasion. There have even been talks of tactical nuclear strike on suspected Iranian nuclear facilities.

Continue Reading "Why the United States Invaded Iraq..."

Bush's Unanswered Letter

2006-05-14T17:02:00.000-04:00

Tom Porteous
May 12, 2006

Tom Porteous is a syndicated columnist and author, formerly with the BBC and the British Foreign Office.

The first reaction of the Bush administration to the extraordinary letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been to dismiss it out of hand on the grounds that it does not offer any compromises over Iran's nuclear enrichment program. That’s a strategic mistake, because the biggest complaint of Middle Easterners about the United States is precisely that it has consistently failed to listen to concerns of the kind outlined by Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad's 18-page letter is distinctly peculiar in its tone and style. It is replete with references to the Quran and the holy prophets of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. It is also remarkably courteous coming from a man who has been painted in the United States as a new Hitler precisely in order to preempt any serious dialogue or engagement.

But most importantly, the letter raises serious points which are currently matters of intense international concern and debate, and on which millions of Muslims would like to hear answers from the world's democratic superpower.

Continue Reading "Bush's Unanswered Letter"

We Don't Get Fooled Again No, No!

2006-05-12T16:53:00.000-04:00

Cindy Sheehan

In 2004, Cindy Sheehan lost her son Casey Austin Sheehan in an ambush in Iraq. As information became available verifying that the war was based on lies and "cooked intelligence," she began speaking out and testifying in the halls of Congress. In August 2005, she went to Crawford, Texas, to confront President Bush, unexpectedly opening the floodgates of a renewed American peace movement. Ten thousand people joined her, and millions more worldwide followed. The founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, Sheehan takes the Bush administration to task for its corruption and incompetence. Historical events and personal tragedy transformed her from grieving mom to ardent activist.

Don't Attack Iran
by Cindy Sheehan

Fresh from a resounding victory in Iraq, George Bush swaggered onto the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and boldly and confidentally declared victory. It was a pretty war, it was a clean war, it looked stunning in all of its shock and awe. Wow, never was there such a swift and amazing American victory and it all looked so damn glamorous on CNN!

As fake as his codpiece was, so was his "cakewalk" of an invasion. Over 2000 thousand dead soldiers, billions of wasted dollars, thousands of maimed young people, innocent Iraqis dead by the hundreds of thousands, still no consistent electricity or clean water in their country, later, and this swaggering imbecile of a "leaker in chief" has the nerve to be trying to sell all of us on a new war in Iran.

Continue reading "Don't Attack Iran"

How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Democracy

2006-05-09T17:24:00.000-04:00

The scene from Dr. Strangelove OR: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb where the wacko pilot rides the bomb to oblivion.

Pitfalls of Rice’s Plan for ‘Democracy Promotion’ in Iran*

By: Donya Ziaee

United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, asked Congress for $75 million last Wednesday to back democracy promotion in Iran. Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rice proposed a Cold War-style program to promote political change in Iran by increasing U.S. radio and TV broadcasts to the country and funding dissident groups. She proclaimed: “We are going to begin a new effort to support the aspirations of the Iranian people. We will use this money to develop support networks for Iranian reformers, political dissidents and human rights activists.”

Of the proposed sum of money, $50 million will go towards introducing 24-hour Farsi broadcasts into Iran by U.S. government TV and radio, $15 million to trade unions and dissident groups, $5 million to increasing student exchanges, and another $5 million to setting up independent websites, and TV and radio stations in Farsi. This willingness to provide financial assistance to internal, rather than expatriate, dissident groups marks a shift in U.S. policy. The U.S. had hitherto advocated economic sanctioning of Iran and all Iranian individuals and organizations.

Continue reading "Pitfalls of Rice's Plan for 'Democracy Promotion' In Iran"

* The article appeared in February 20 edition of Shahrvand.

Introducing a Fine American Institution: NED

2006-05-07T18:30:00.000-04:00

Ramin Jahanbegloo

News Item: Iran confirmed the arrest of Ramin Jahanbegloo, a noted Iranian scholar, philosopher, and a former NED fellow.

Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy

By William Blum

How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for Democracy? An organization which often does exactly the opposite of what its name implies. The NED was set up in the early 1980s under President Reagan in the wake of all the negative revelations about the CIA in the second half of the 1970s. The latter was a remarkable period. Spurred by Watergate—the Church committee of the Senate, the Pike committee of the House, and the Rockefeller Commission, created by the president, were all busy investigating the CIA. Seemingly every other day there was a new headline about the discovery of some awful thing, even criminal conduct, the CIA had been mixed up in for years. The Agency was getting an exceedingly bad name, and it was causing the powers-that-be much embarrassment.

Something had to be done. What was done was not to stop doing these awful things. Of course not. What was done was to shift many of these awful things to a new organization, with a nice sounding name—The National Endowment for Democracy. The idea was that the NED would do somewhat overtly what the CIA had been doing covertly for decades, and thus, hopefully, eliminate the stigma associated with CIA covert activities.

It was a masterpiece. Of politics, of public relations, and of cynicism.

Continue reading "Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy"

The Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq

2006-05-06T21:59:00.000-04:00

By: John Pilger
Monday 8th May 2006

The American public is being prepared. If the attack on Iran does come, there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no truth, writes John Pilger.

The lifts in the New York Hilton played CNN on a small screen you could not avoid watching. Iraq was top of the news; pronouncements about a "civil war" and "sectarian violence" were repeated incessantly. It was as if the US invasion had never happened and the killing of tens of thousands of civilians by the Americans was a surreal fiction. The Iraqis were mindless Arabs, haunted by religion, ethnic strife and the need to blow themselves up. Unctuous puppet politicians were paraded with no hint that their exercise yard was inside an American fortress.

And when you left the lift, this followed you to your room, to the hotel gym, the airport, the next airport and the next country. Such is the power of America's corporate propaganda, which, as Edward Said pointed out in Culture and Imperialism, "penetrates electronically" with its equivalent of a party line.

The party line changed the other day. For almost three years it was that al-Qaeda was the driving force behind the "insurgency", led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a bloodthirsty Jordanian who was clearly being groomed for the kind of infamy Saddam Hussein enjoys. It mattered not that al-Zarqawi had never been seen alive and that only a fraction of the "insurgents" followed al-Qaeda. For the Americans, Zarqawi's role was to distract attention from the thing that almost all Iraqis oppose: the brutal Anglo-American occupation of their country.

Now that al-Zarqawi has been replaced by "sectarian violence" and "civil war", the big news is the attacks by Sunnis on Shia mosques and bazaars. The real news, which is not reported in the CNN "mainstream", is that the Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq. This is the campaign of terror by death squads armed and trained by the US, which attack Sunnis and Shias alike. The goal is the incitement of a real civil war and the break-up of Iraq, the original war aim of Bush's administration. The ministry of the interior in Baghdad, which is run by the CIA, directs the principal death squads. Their members are not exclusively Shia, as the myth goes. The most brutal are the Sunni-led Special Police Commandos, headed by former senior officers in Saddam's Ba'ath Party. This unit was formed and trained by CIA "counter-insurgency" experts, including veterans of the CIA's terror operations in central America in the 1980s, notably El Salvador. In his new book, Empire's Workshop (Metropolitan Books), the American historian Greg Grandin describes the Salvador Option thus: "Once in office, [President] Reagan came down hard on central America, in effect letting his administration's most committed militarists set and execute policy. In El Salvador, they provided more than a million dollars a day to fund a lethal counter-insurgency campaign . . . All told, US allies in central America during Reagan's two terms killed over 300,000 people, tortured hundreds of thousands and drove millions into exile."

Although the Reagan administration spawned the current Bushites, or "neo-cons", the pattern was set earlier. In Vietnam, death squads trained, armed and directed by the CIA murdered up to 50,000 people in Operation Phoenix. In the mid-1960s in Indonesia CIA officers compiled "death lists" for General Suharto's killing spree during his seizure of power. After the 2003 invasion, it was only a matter of time before this venerable "policy" was applied in Iraq.

According to the investigative writer Max Fuller (National Review Online), the key CIA manager of the interior ministry death squads "cut his teeth in Vietnam before moving on to direct the US military mission in El Salvador". Professor Grandin names another central America veteran whose job now is to "train a ruthless counter-insurgent force made up of ex-Ba'athist thugs". Another, says Fuller, is well-known for his "production of death lists". A secret militia run by the Americans is the Facilities Protection Service, which has been responsible for bombings. "The British and US Special Forces," concludes Fuller, "in conjunction with the [US-created] intelligence services at the Iraqi defence ministry, are fabricating insurgent bombings of Shias."

On 16 March, Reuters reported the arrest of an American "security contractor" who was found with weapons and explosives in his car. Last year, two Britons disguised as Arabs were caught with a car full of weapons and explosives; British forces bulldozed the Basra prison to rescue them. The Boston Globe recently reported: "The FBI's counter-terrorism unit has launched a broad investigation of US-based theft rings after discovering that some of the vehicles used in deadly car bombings in Iraq, including attacks that killed US troops and Iraqi civilians, were probably stolen in the United States, according to senior government officials."

As I say, all this has been tried before - just as the preparation of the American public for an atrocious attack on Iran is similar to the WMD fabrications in Iraq. If that attack comes, there will be no warning, no declaration of war, no truth. Imprisoned in the Hilton lift, staring at CNN, my fellow passengers could be excused for not making sense of the Middle East, or Latin America, or anywhere. They are isolated. Nothing is explained. Congress is silent. The Democrats are moribund. And the freest media on earth insult the public every day. As Voltaire put it: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Saturday 6 May: International Day of Action

2006-05-05T12:28:00.000-04:00

Saturday 6 May is an international day of action against an attack on Iran. As Seymour Hersh reported recently, the countdown to an attack on Iran has started. The Pentagon is considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear processing centres.

Don't Attack Iran demonstrations are being planned across Britain. We are asking every anti-war group to organise lunchtime protests on 6 May in the centre of towns and cities. We suggest die ins as part of the protests co-ordinated to take place at 2pm across the country.

All-London May 6 protest 1.00pm
Peace Gardens, Friends Meeting House, Euston Road, WC1(Note change of venue)
Speakers include: Bruce Kent (CND) and Tony Benn

Leaflet... Info: 020 7278 6694, office@stopwar.org.uk

Don't Attack Iran events
All London Protest: Friends Meeting House 1pm. See above.
Bath: Sat 6 May 11.30 am Outside Bath Abbey. Gather with placards for an hour's vigil. More Info: 01225 480782. Organised by Bath Stop the War Coalition.
Birmingham: Sat 6 May 2pm Outside the Bullring, City Centre. More Info: 07905 212 297
Brighton Sat 6 May 2pm, Churchill Square. More info: 07815 983022, email info@safp.org.uk
Bristol Sat 6 May 1pm, City Centre (Opposite The Hippodrome). More info: bristolstopwar@hotmail.com
Cambridge Die-In: Sat 6 May 2pm, Market Square. More info: tel 07711 919 275
Cardiff Public Meeting: Fri 28 April 7pm, Charles Street. Speaker Roudabeh Shafie (Action Iran). More info: tel 07940 108146, email cardiff_troopsout@hotmail.com
Coventry : Sat 6 May 1.30 pm Hertford Street, City Centre (outside the Dog and Trumpet). More info: 077320 30231
Eastbourne: Sat 6 May 2pm. Peaceful protest at Eastbourne War Memorial (on Cornfield Roundabout). More info: tel 01323 430040, email: michael.05@tiscali.co.uk
Edingburgh: 12 noon, The Mound Precinct, Princes Street. Speakers: Rosie Kane, MSP, Malcolm Bruce, MSP, Zahid Ali, SPSC, Carole Alubaid, Women in Black. Co-sponsored by Scottish Palestine Solitarity Campaign.
Exeter: Sat 6 May 12 noon to 2pm Bedford Square, Exeter High Street.
Glasgow: Sat 6 May 12 noon, George Square. More info: Keir on 07815 149 739.
Huddesfield: Sat 6 May 12 Noon, Market Cross. More info: tel 01484 846183, email huddersfield@stopwar.org.uk
Leeds Sat 6 May 12.30pm, Briggate (Outside Body Shop). More info: bristolstopwar@hotmail.com
Newcastle: Sat 6 May 1pm, Grey's Monument, Newcastle City Centre. More info: 0771 994 6818
Southend Sat 6 May 1pm. Die-in 2pm, Southend High Street by Millennium Clock. More info: 07748 686581. Organised by Southend Stop the War Coalition

Test blast in Nevada: A nuclear rehearsal

2006-05-01T16:48:00.000-04:00

Pentagon apparently looks for an optimal size of a 'bunker buster'

By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune

Correction: Stories on April 6, 7 and 13 about the Divine Strake test at Nevada Test Site incorrectly reported that the explosion planned for June 2 will be five times larger than the largest conventional weapon in the U.S. arsenal. The explosion actually will be nearly 50 times bigger.

WASHINGTON - A powerful blast scheduled at the Nevada Test Site in June is designed to help war planners figure out the smallest nuclear weapon able to destroy underground targets. And it has caused a concern that it signals a renewed push toward tactical nuclear weapons.

The detonation, called Divine Strake, is intended to "develop a planning tool to improve the warfighter's confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage," according to Defense Department budget documents.

Irene Smith, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, said the document doesn't imply that Divine Strake "is a nuclear simulation." She said it will be used to assess computer programs that predict ground shaking in a major blast.

While it will not be a nuclear explosion - no nuclear or radioactive material will be used - the Divine Strake blast will be fifty times larger than the military's largest conventional weapon, the Massive Ordinance Air Blast Bomb, or MOAB, nicknamed the Mother of All Bombs. It will still be many times less powerful than the smallest weapon in the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

"It seems like what they're doing is trying to use the explosive power to shake the interior into pieces, rather than sending an earth penetrator down to dig it up," said Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert with the Federation of American Scientists. "What it apparently does is envision the use of the nuke on the surface, and that is a very dirty business, because it sucks up the material and throws it into the atmosphere."

Divine Strake has some advocates concerned that the Bush administration is using the test to pursue development of low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons.

"We certainly have reason for concern," said Vanessa Pierce, a project director with Health Environment Alliance of Utah. "I think this test shows that the weapons designers are so obsessed with creating new nuclear weapons like mini-nukes that they'll do whatever it takes to get their fix."

"There really is a deep commitment on the part of this administration to creating new types of nuclear weapons," Pierce said.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has expressed concern about the mushroom cloud the test will produce, and asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for a classified briefing on Divine Strake. Reid is scheduled to meet with James Tegnelia of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency this afternoon.

The June 2 test will entail piling 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil atop a buried limestone tunnel on the Nevada Test Site, then detonating it to measure the damage that would be done to the chambers.

The mixture that will be used is similar to the bomb that Timothy McVeigh used to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, only the Nevada bomb will use 280 times as much material.

Equipment inside and near the tunnel will monitor damage and ground shaking from the blast. Dust from the mushroom cloud, which could reach heights of 10,000 feet, will also be tracked.

J. Preston Truman, director of the group Downwinders, which represents individuals sickened by radioactive fallout from Cold War-era nuclear tests, scoffs at the Pentagon's suggestion that it is not a nuclear simulation, arguing no military plane could drop a 700-ton conventional bomb.

"It's for one thing and one thing only," he said. "It just says they're still pursuing these stupid, insane weapons."

The nuclear tie-in to Divine Strake test was rooted out by Kristensen and Andrew Lichterman, a nuclear weapons opponent and blogger. "It's not a step toward nuclear testing. It is nuclear testing. It's just nuclear testing the way it's done today," since actual nuclear tests are banned by treaties, Kristensen said.

Similar above-ground detonations, some many times larger, have been conducted at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, according to planning documents for Divine Strake, but none since 1991.

The Defense Department's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review lays out a new, broader role envisioned for nuclear weapons than the part played during the Cold War.

"Non-nuclear strike capabilities may be particularly useful to limit collateral damage and conflict escalation. Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities)," the report says.

In addition, the Bush administration has pushed for funding for a nuclear bunker buster, and money to enable the Nevada Test Site to be able to test a weapon within two years if an order is given.

It has also supported the repeal of a 1994 congressional ban on the development of low-yield mini-nuclear weapons.

The ban was repealed by Congress in 2003, allowing research of low-yield nuclear weapons, but requiring specific approval by Congress before engineering or other work on mini-nukes can begin.

Fool Me Twice

2006-04-27T12:51:00.000-04:00

By Joseph Cirincione

I used to think that the Bush administration wasn’t seriously considering a military strike on Iran, because it would only accelerate Iran’s nuclear program. But what we're seeing and hearing on Iran today seems awfully familiar. That may be because some U.S. officials have already decided they want to hit Iran hard.

Does this story line sound familiar? The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops. The intelligence agencies say the nuclear threat from this nation is 10 years away, but the director of intelligence paints a more ominous picture. A new U.S. national security strategy trumpets preemptive attacks and highlights the country as a major threat. And neoconservatives beat the war drums, as the cable media banner their stories with words like “countdown” and “showdown.”

The nation making headlines today, of course, is Iran, not Iraq. But the parallels are striking. Three years after senior administration officials systematically misled the nation into a disastrous war, they could well be trying to do it again.

Nothing is clear, yet. For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran.

I argued with my friends. I pointed out that a military strike would be disastrous for the United States. It would rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular regime, inflame anti-American anger around the Muslim world, and jeopardize the already fragile U.S. position in Iraq. And it would accelerate, not delay, the Iranian nuclear program. Hard-liners in Tehran would be proven right in their claim that the only thing that can deter the United States is a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders could respond with a crash nuclear program that could produce a bomb in a few years.

My friends reminded me that I had said the same about Iraq—that I was the last remaining person in Washington who believed President George W. Bush when he said that he was committed to a diplomatic solution. But this time, it is the administration’s own statements that have convinced me. What I previously dismissed as posturing, I now believe may be a coordinated campaign to prepare for a military strike on Iran.

The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war. It is now trying to link Iran to the 9/11 attacks by repeatedly claiming that Iran is the main state sponsor of terrorism in the world (though this suggestion is highly questionable). It is also attempting to make the threat urgent by arguing that Iran might soon pass a “point of no return” if it can perfect the technology of enriching uranium, even though many other nations have gone far beyond Iran’s capabilities and stopped their programs short of weapons. And, of course, it is now publicly linking Iran to the Iraqi insurgency and the improvised explosive devices used to kill and maim U.S. troops in Iraq, though Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace admitted there is no evidence to support this claim.

If diplomacy fails, the administration might be able to convince leading Democrats to back a resolution for the use of force against Iran. Many Democrats have been trying to burnish a hawkish image and place themselves to the right of the president on this issue. They may find themselves trapped by their own rhetoric, particularly those with presidential ambitions.

The factual debate during the next six months will revolve around the threat assessment. How close is Iran to developing the ability to enrich uranium for fuel or bombs? Is there a secret weapons program? Are there secret underground facilities? What would it mean if small-scale enrichment experiments succeed?

Fortunately, we know more about Iran’s nuclear program now than we ever knew about Iraq’s (or, for that matter, those of India, Israel, and Pakistan). International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have been in Iran for more than 3 years investigating all claims of weapons-related work. The United States has satellite reconnaissance, covert programs, and Iranian dissidents providing further information. The key now is to get all this information on the table for an open debate.

The administration should now declassify the information it used to estimate how long it will be until Iran has the capability to make a bomb. The Washington Post reported last August that this national intelligence estimate says Iran is a decade away. We need to see the basis for this judgment and all, if any, dissenting opinions. The congressional intelligence committees should be conducting their own reviews of the assessments, including open hearings with independent experts and IAEA officials. Influential groups, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, should conduct their own sessions and studies.

An accurate and fully understood assessment of the status and potential of Iran’s nuclear program is the essential basis for any policy. We cannot let the political or ideological agenda of a small group determine a national security decision that could create havoc in a critical area of the globe. Not again.

Joseph Cirincione is director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Source: foreignpolicy.com

Essential that we do whatever possible to prevent a war on Iran

2006-04-24T12:58:00.001-04:00

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

By Haleh Afshar, University of York, Ziba Mir-Hosseini, London Middle East Institute, Elaheh Rostami-Povey, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

Sir, as three Iranian British academics, we are writing to express our grave concerns about the growing threat of war against Iran. It is essential that we do whatever is possible to prevent such a disaster.

We would like to clear a number of misunderstandings about Iran. As a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), Iran asserts its right under Article IV of the NPT to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

The announcement last week of a nuclear breakthrough is part of this right and is intended for peaceful purposes.

Iran has complied with Articles I and II of the NPT not to acquire nuclear weapons, and Article III, where it accepts full safeguards. It has signed the NPT additional protocol and has allowed intrusive inspections beyond what is required by compliance with the NPT. Numerous inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency have failed to provide any shred of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme.

Iran has repeatedly announced that it is committed to replace the course of confrontation with good-faith interaction and negotiations, as equal partner, for a peaceful solution to its nuclear issue. It has stated its commitment to non-proliferation and to the elimination of nuclear weapons, and considers nuclear weapons detrimental to its security.

It has declared its readiness to abide by its obligations under the NPT and to work for the establishment of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. It has invited the west and the world for cultural and technological collaboration.

Iran strongly condemned the September 11 attack and participated in overthrowing the Taliban regime in late 2001. In return, under the pressure of the neoconservatives in the US and their supporters globally, Iran has faced intimidation based on speculations about its intention of producing WMD.

For the majority of Iranians in Iran and outside Iran, this hostility towards Iran is about returning Iran to a client state for the benefit of US oil corporations and denying Iran's rights to research and development for generating electricity in the future, independently.

Iran is not a threat in the region or to the world as was suggested by the American Jewish Committee's full-page "statement" in the Financial Times recently. Iran is surrounded by India, Pakistan, Russia and Israel, which have nuclear weapons.

The US, UK and Israel, which perceive Iran as a threat, themselves possess WMD and refuse to commit to nuclear disarmament. Iranians believe that Israel may well use its nuclear weapons against them. They are all too aware that Israel has refused to sign the NPT and has not allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear programme.

The only chance the world has of avoiding another disastrous US military adventure in the Middle East is to resolve Iran's nuclear issue through diplomacy. It is essential that all voices opposed to the devastation of a new war in the Middle East speak out now. We need funds for human needs, not endless wars and conflicts.

Source: ft.com

The First Line of Attack Against Iran

2006-04-21T09:33:00.000-04:00

Kurdish fighters infiltrated the border into the Iranian side

SULAIMANIYA, Iraq (Reuters) - Iranian forces shelled Iranian Kurdish guerrilla positions inside mountainous northern Iraq early on Friday morning to repel an attack, a Kurdish official said.

"This morning Iranian Kurdish fighters infiltrated the border into the Iranian side and the Iranian army bombed the area and repelled them. The shelling hit Iraqi land at Sidakan," said Saadi Pira, an official of the Iraqi Kurdish, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, party.

There was no word on casualties in the shelling of the Iranian Kurdish rebels of the PJAK movement.

This unknown group has already stepped up their attacks against the Iranian targets. So the military operations against Iran has officially started and Americans have found the perfect stooges (“Kurdish fighters”) to do their dirty work.

Our Man in Ottawa

2006-04-19T10:51:00.000-04:00

Canada's "cowboy" prime minister

Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, says: “Canada stands with allies against Iran," which means Canada will not sit this one out and will join Dubya and his thugs in their lunatic scheme for the Greater Middle-East.

In the meantime, take a look at this animation about a not so hypothetical attack against a major Iranian city with a population of more than 2 million people. It's very interesting that these "concerned scientists" even have a better solution for this doomsday scenario. They say instead of using the nuclear bombs, use friendly, run of the mill cruise missiles. That way, everybody will be happy and Dubya's plans can continue.

Like father Like illegitimate son

2006-04-12T15:22:00.000-04:00

Father:

People on the Mexican side talk to friends and relatives through the wall separating the United States and Mexico.

Son:

A Palestinian woman squeezes through a concrete wall, part of the separation wall, separating Jerusalem from its suburb villages and other Palestinian areas.

We Do Not Have a Nuclear Weapons Program

2006-04-08T10:12:00.000-04:00

By JAVAD ZARIF
Published: April 6, 2006

THE controversy over Iran's peaceful nuclear program has obscured one point in particular: There need not be a crisis. A solution to the situation is possible and eminently within reach.

Lost amid the rhetoric is this: Iran has a strong interest in enhancing the integrity and authority of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It has been in the forefront of efforts to ensure the treaty's universality. Iran's reliance on the nonproliferation regime is based on legal commitments, sober strategic calculations and spiritual and ideological doctrine. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, has issued a decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

Let me be very clear. Iran defines its national security in the framework of regional and international cooperation and considers regional stability indispensable for its development. We are party to all international agreements on the control of weapons of mass destruction. We want regional stability. We have never initiated the use of force or resorted to the threat of force against a fellow member of the United Nations. Although chemical weapons have been used on us, we have never used them in retaliation — as United Nations reports have made clear. We have not invaded another country in 250 years.

Since October 2003, Iran has accepted a robust inspection regimen by the United Nations. We have allowed more than 1,700 person-days of inspections and adopted measures to address past reporting failures. Most of the outstanding issues in connection with uranium conversion activities, laser enrichment, fuel fabrication and the heavy water research reactor program have been resolved.

Even the presence of highly enriched uranium contamination — an issue that some say proves the existence of an illicit weapons program — has been explained satisfactorily. Don't take it from me. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, its findings tend "to support Iran's statement about the foreign origin of most of the observed H.E.U. contamination."

It's worth noting, too, that Iran has gone beyond its international obligations and allowed the atomic agency to repeatedly visit military sites — and to allow inspectors to take environmental samples. The agency did not observe any unusual activities; the samples did not indicate the presence of nuclear material at those locations.

Most important, the agency has concluded time and again that there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

In November 2003, for example, the agency confirmed that "to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities ... were related to a nuclear weapons program." A year later, and last September, it concluded again that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."

Another point that has been obscured: Iran is ready for negotiations. Since October 2003, Iran has done its utmost to sustain and even resuscitate negotiations with Britain, France and Germany, the three European countries responsible for negotiating with us. Since August 2004, Iran has made eight far-reaching proposals.

What's more, Iran throughout this period adopted extensive and costly confidence-building measures, including a voluntary suspension of its rightful enrichment activities for two years, to ensure the success of negotiations.

Over the course of negotiations, Iran volunteered to do the following within a balanced package:

• Present the new atomic agency protocol on intrusive inspections to the Iranian Parliament for ratification, and to continue to put its provisions in place pending ratification;
• Permit the continuous on-site presence of atomic agency inspectors at the conversion and enrichment facilities;
• Introduce legislation to permanently ban the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons;
• Cooperate on export controls to prevent unauthorized access to nuclear material;
• Refrain from reprocessing or producing plutonium;
• Limit the enrichment of nuclear materials so that they are suitable for energy production but not for weaponry;
• Immediately convert all enriched uranium to fuel rods, thereby precluding the possibility of further enrichment;
• Limit the enrichment program to meet the contingency fuel requirements of Iran's power reactors and future light water reactors;
• Begin putting in place the least contentious aspects of the enrichment program — like research and development — in order to assure the world of our intentions;
• Accept foreign partners, both public and private, in our uranium enrichment program.

Iran has recently suggested the establishment of regional consortiums on fuel cycle development that would be jointly owned and operated by countries possessing the technology and placed under atomic agency safeguards.

Other governments, most notably the Russian Federation, have offered thoughtful possibilities for a deal. Iran has declared its eagerness to find a negotiated solution — one that would protect its rights while ensuring that its nuclear program would remain exclusively peaceful.

Pressure and threats do not resolve problems. Finding solutions requires political will and a readiness to engage in serious negotiations. Iran is ready. We hope the rest of the world will join us.

Javad Zarif is the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations.

Source: nytimes.com

How to Love a Hard-Liner

2006-04-07T11:44:00.000-04:00

2006-03-28

By AZADEH MOAVENI/TEHRAN

The ski resort of Shemshak, just outside Tehran, is the last place you would expect to hear expressions of nationalist ardor. The slopes are filled with wealthy Iranians who sip hot chocolate in the shadow of a dazzling sun and spend most of their time gabbing about designer skiwear and which party to attend that evening. But when the subject of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes up between runs, the skiers get excited. "I couldn't be happier with him," says Mehdi, 19, an architecture major. "We just want our rights, and he defends them." His sister Anahita, 24, says she changed her mind about the President when he refused to abandon the country's nuclear-energy program. "He stood behind his word like a man," she says.

That an Islamic hard-liner has inspired such pride among even secular, Westernized Iranians says everything about the political climate in Iran today and shows how Ahmadinejad has transformed himself from a lightly regarded ideologue to a national hero. In recent months the President has used the escalating standoff over Iran's nuclear program as a platform for broadening his appeal at home, framing the West as an enemy bent on weakening Iran by denying it legitimate access to technology. Indeed, many observers believe that Ahmadinejad is reacting to the masses' increasingly assertive mood as much as he is stoking it. "Before, you had people vs. the regime," says a Western diplomat in Tehran. "Now you have Iran vs. the West."

Many Iranians attribute their changed views to the realities of a changed Middle East. The late 1990s--when former President Mohammed Khatami led Iran with promises of tolerance and democracy--was a stable time when young Iranians clamored for more social and political freedom. But now with neighboring Iraq in turmoil, Iranians seem more concerned with bolstering their place in the region than with freedom of expression. A growing sense of vulnerability is why many find it easy to ignore Ahmadinejad's fundamentalist outlook and provocative remarks and concentrate on his nationalist defiance. "I don't like this regime, but I don't think Iran should be weak either, or else we'll end up like Iraq," says Nazanin Arafin, 33, a teacher. "In the end, I'd rather be oppressed by an Iranian than a foreign occupier."

While he rallies supporters to back a more confrontational stance with the West, Ahmadinejad has soothed the anxieties of young Iranians, who initially feared he would crush their personal freedoms. Instead government meddling has been limited to blocking thousands of news and cultural websites. Some believe the regime will impose harsher social restrictions with time, but others argue Ahmadinejad will refrain altogether, to avoid alienating the majority of young people, among whom he is now popular. Young Iranians are excited to find a leader who lets them wear baggy jeans and pink veils, and still stands up to what they consider a belligerent U.S. "Our civilization is far superior," says Vahid Mobaraki, 28, a gold merchant in the Tehran bazaar. "We don't need to be bossed around by a country with only 200 years of history."

By focusing public attention on the country's external adversaries, Ahmadinejad has sidestepped criticism for not addressing the country's internal social problems. Despite $60-per-bbl. oil prices, 16% of Iranians remain unemployed. Zahra Rassai, 46, a mother of four teenage sons, voted for Ahmadinejad, hoping he would reduce college tuition. "Nothing has improved in my daily life, but that doesn't matter," she says. "If we Iranians rallied together and boycotted Western products, they wouldn't have the right to dictate to us." It's just as likely, though, that the nuclear dispute will produce pain for Iran, by discouraging foreign investment and pushing the country deeper into isolation. The few critics of Ahmadinejad's who are willing to speak openly say incendiary remarks have already slowed the Iranian economy, and fear that his hostile tactics will elicit economic sanctions and the world's condemnation rather than its respect. "In principle, what Ahmadinejad says is beautiful. It's too bad it's him saying it," says Kamyar Sharifi, 41, a radiator manufacturer. "And the disturbing thing is that it's all a show, because nothing here is improving." Unfortunately for regime opponents at home and abroad, few Iranians seem to have noticed.

Source: Time.com

Another One Bites the Dust

2006-03-28T11:17:00.000-05:00

Guess who is next...

¡Soy Cuba!

2006-02-11T13:08:00.000-05:00

Most people look at a vacation as a way to get away from everything, to get involved in activities that ordinarily they would find absurd or merely silly, to forget about their surroundings and the native people and indulge in excesses which ordinarily they might avoid. I’m not one of those people. I’d like to learn about the foreign cultures and people and my trip to Cuba with all the provocative and negative news that we hear about this land was of this sort.

Due to the fact that the vacation ‘packages’ in Havana are very rare or expensive, we had to settle for an “all inclusive” package in a vacation resort in Varadero, which is about one and half hour’s drive from Havana. These vacation resorts are islands of plenty in a land of shortages. Many people decide to spend their entire time in these resort areas, and most likely the only natives that they might come in contact with are the people who work in these resorts. The tour organizers and the hotels provide them with all kinds of activities to keep them busy and satisfied.

In our short stay in Cuba, we made three trips to Havana. The first trip was an organized bus trip which took us to Old Havana. We walked through narrow streets with their rich colonial history. Old Havana is flooded with tourists, which makes them a good target for Cubans selling their ‘stuff,’ which is mainly cigars obtained illegally from cigar factories. We were warned by the tour organizers about these people and came in contact with a lot of them. The only one in our group who could speak Spanish was the tour guide and she was the one who was trying to protect us against hordes of people who seemed to have nothing else to do but to walk or sit around the downtown core and target the tourists for one or two pesos.

We visited several sights within Old Havana and our excursion took us to an ancient and historical cemetery where Cubans bury many of their dead. While we were traveling in a nice air-conditioned bus, the only mode of public transportation available to the general public was what is referred to as “camel-buses.” These buses are a very basic mode of transportation and they are always filled to capacity.

After this one day trip to Havana, we felt there must be more to this great city. Our travel book talked about many other landmarks and sights that were not covered in this short trip. We decided to rent a car and do an excursion on our own. On the way to Havana, we witnessed hundreds of people who hitch-hiked to work or other destinations. We were told this phenomenon has created a problem for the government and has forced them to form a hitch-hiking police force! It seemed to me that a good portion of Cuban citizenry spends most of its day trying to find a ride to wherever they’re going.

Driving in Havana was not what I had expected. Even though many street signs are missing, and most cars are in dire need of repair, it seemed most drivers followed the rules. In fact I had an easier time driving in Havana than in Toronto! We visited some museums and had a nice drive in a more upscale area of Havana called La Playa. We walked through narrow and crowded streets of Havana and lunched at local restaurants.

Back at our resort area everything was in perfect order. The guests were sitting in easy chairs, sipping on their drinks and trying to take it easy while the locals were doing their best to make their stay satisfactory. I was told the local people are not allowed in these resort areas.

My short trip to Cuba has altered my mental image of this country. My expectations were not fulfilled and in my mind many questions remain unanswered. I’m aware of the fact that a short stay in a foreign country is hardly sufficient to pass judgment on a people or a form of administration. But I flew to Cuba with high hopes, to see what a socialist country can achieve despite all the trade embargos and all the troubles that the Empire creates for its people.

One thing that I’m sure of is the fact that Cubans are proud people. They’re proud of what they’ve achieved despite all the shortages and despite the constant barrage of negative and fallacious stories that originate from the exiled Cuban community in Florida.

Nevertheless, I expected more. I did not expect to see so many people living in poverty, so many unfinished projects and so many buildings in dire need of repair and reconstruction. Next time around I will stay away from the resorts and try to get to know the people better. I can't wait until the next trip …

Myth and Myth-take

2005-12-24T18:13:00.000-05:00

A very different take on what Ahmadinejad really meant to say and how the message was distorted by the Western media. I found the argument very convincing.

Iran’s Hugo Chavez?

2005-06-25T17:58:00.000-04:00

From "Not the Country Club"* blog:

Despite massive spending by the upper classes of Iran, and likely covert interference by the US Government and other Western governments and their regional lackeys, the people’s candidate, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been elected as Iran’s President. The course of his rise to power, as well as his background, viewpoints, and proposed policies, are so reminiscent of those of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez that the similarity cannot be accounted for simply by charging Ahmadinejad with populism, a demonstrably false charge that has all too often been leveled against Chavez by his class enemies.

The similarity to Chavez reaches uncanny proportions. Here is a quote from Ahmadinejad, which is something Chavez might have said: "The country's biggest capital today is the oil industry and our oil reserves … The atmosphere ruling over our deals, production and exports is not clear. We should clarify it … I will cut the hands off the mafias of powers and factions who have a grasp on our oil, I stake my life on this ... People must see their share of oil money in their daily lives." Iran’s Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh, as well as OPEC Governor Hossein Kazempour Ardebili openly supported Ahmadinejad's opponent in the second round of the election. It is expected that they will both be removed from their posts once Ahmadinejad assumes the Presidency in August.

He has been labeled, meaninglessly but conveniently, an ultra-conservative. If fighting for the people’s interests requires being an “ultra-conservative,” I have no problem with that. If it takes “ultra-conservatism” to battle neo-liberalism, I have no problem with that.

The way I see it, progressives need to attend to two points:

First, if Ahmadinejad’s actual policies during the first few months of his presidency confirm the image of him as a progressive, we must not neglect the task of supporting him, not neglecting, in the meantime, the equally important task of redoubling our efforts to support Chavez.

Second, Ahmadinejad’s election may alter the entire dynamic and significance of Iran’s domestic and international policies. Domestically, it may inject new energy into the popular nature of the Iranian Revolution. Internationally, and regionally, it would be an example of what true home-grown democracy looks like in the Middle East, as opposed to US-imposed “democracy” at the point of a gun that is meant only to serve US interests.

The US Government and its accomplices will doubtless do all in their power to reverse any progress in Iran and Venezuela. Their efforts in Venezuela have so far been fruitless, and the Bolivarian Revolution appears to have struck deep and unshakeable roots. Let us hope their criminal intentions will be quite as futile in the case of Iran.

* "Not the Country Club" is a mainly political blog provoking discussion on current issues.

The Devil We Know

2005-04-22T22:26:00.000-04:00

I have never trusted the Liberals. Since the time I arrived in Canada more than 20 years ago, I've leaned towards the NDP (New Democratic Party), the social democrats, or as they call themselves "the social conscience" of the Canadian political system.

It does not mean that I've always voted for the NDP. Considering the political system in Canada where the winner takes all, and the notion of proportional representation is still an idea, one has to vote wisely which comes down to strategic voting. I have always lived in ridings where NDP has had little chance of winning. So I had to vote for other candidates and since in the Canadian political spectrum, NDP is considered left, and the Liberal party is considered "middle of the road", in most instances I ended up voting for the Liberals.

The political map of Canada is changing. A far-right political movement which has its roots in Western Canada has managed to collude with the old time Conservatives and is in a position where it might form the next federal government. However, the majority of Canadians do not trust these neo-Conservatives and do not share their divisive and business-like attitude. If there were some progressive elements in the old Progressive Conservative party, these were wiped out and replaced by the same values that we see promoted by the Right wingers south of the border. These are trying times for the Canadian political system, when a bunch of red necks with their big cowboy hats and little tolerance for the downtrodden and minorities have succeeded in promoting their own agenda. They are willing to use any type of double talk, innuendo and divisive language to achieve their goals, which have nothing to do with what the majority of people think or want.

This brings us to the subject of the election. Both the Conservatives and the separatists have been suggesting their willingness to bring down the minority Liberal government. It is over a scandal that has plagued the Canadian political system for a while and the Liberals are mostly to blame for it. This is despite the fact that there was a general election less than a year ago and the majority of people in Canada have no appetite for another election and see it as a waste of time and money.

This is also despite the fact that the economy in general is doing well. There has been a steady increase in the employment numbers, and the government has managed to have surpluses several years in a row. There are also a number of major issues that the government should tackle which are far more important than the scandal fiasco.

But the two opposition parties are after their own interests and do not even care what the people think, or where their interests lie. They want to exploit the situation to their own advantage and, in the Conservatives' case, implement their own hidden agenda, and, in the separatist's case, prepare the grounds for their ultimate goal which is separation from Canada.

So far, the NDP is the only major political party in Canada which is willing to work with the government in order to do what is important for the Canadians, instead of considering their own short term gains.

Prime Minister Martin still has some ammunition to defeat this "unholy" alliance between the neo-Conservatives and the separatists. There is an inquiry carried out into what has been known as the sponsorship scandal which has not reached its conclusion yet. In case the government is defeated before the final decision has been made public, the government could claim it as a "mistrial." As we all know, an accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. If the oppositions decide to defeat the government before the inquiry has come to a conclusion, then it could turn out to a political suicide for them.

So if Martin plays his cards right, he might even be able to pull the rug from under the opposition parties and win the next election. This is the dilemma that the opposition parties are facing. The majority of the people do not want another election, and in case one was forced upon them, they might vote for the Liberals again. After all they're the devil we know.

"hits" that make us happy

2005-04-11T17:48:00.000-04:00

The other day while browsing through some blogs, I came across a post where the writer had threatened his readers to leave him some comments; otherwise he would do the unimaginable act and commit suicide! This made me start thinking about the whole concept of blogging and its effects on the way we communicate among ourselves.

Other than some popular blogs which have a constant stream of loyal readers, the rest of us in the blogosphere use different methods to attract readers to our blogs. The situation has reached a point where some bloggers have started to use unethical methods to attract new readers to their blogs and we should start seeing some cases of troubled individuals who might spend hours in front of the monitor trying to sway more visitors to their blogs. The concept of "hits" has become such a big issue that there are currently many different trackers in the market to choose from.

We might all think our blogs are fantastic and at times feel disappointed that we don't have more visitors, but considering the size of the blogosphere and the number of people who keep their blogs up-to-date, perhaps we shouldn't really feel so dejected. We should always keep this essential concept in mind that by writing a few posts in our blogs, we cannot change the world. I know some people got very excited when the idea of blogging started to become popular, but again only those ideas expressed by well known individuals in the media, politics and other aspects of public life seem to be the ones that really matter and get some recognition. Other ideas expressed by ordinary people, no matter how original and intelligent they seem to be, get filtered out or get little attention.

I know a lot of people might not agree with me, but I don't think blogging is the best way to share ideas. It might still have some therapeutic value for the writer of the blog to express their feelings, instead of going out and in very extreme cases start shooting people, or in the case of the person I mentioned before, commit suicide. And if one has a constant audience who read all of his /her posts, then they might start to get to know the blogger’s thought process and share ideas. But for casual visitors who most of the time just quickly read the last posting in the blog, it's just a waste of time.

A similar situation is when you want to get to know a very well known author and you only read their latest book. You might get some ideas about their style of writing and you might even enjoy the book. But that's basically the end of it. If you don't become an avid reader of a blog, you do not get any value out of it. If one does not visit certain blogs constantly and does not participate in the debates, one becomes like a casual guest at a party who makes some small talk and leaves the gathering without getting to know anyone else.

An Extreme Makeover for Uncle Sam

2005-03-27T18:18:00.000-05:00

The second anniversary of the Iraq invasion passed by without much fanfare. The two main invading partners tried to keep a lid on the events. One might have expected George Bush would do one of his stunts and put on some sort of military outfit, the same ones he tried to avoid during his time in the National Guard. Not much bravado about the wave of democracy that is sweeping the region either. Even when an interviewer gave Tony Blair a chance to gloat, he decided to pass on this opportunity since he is quite aware of the uncertainty of the situation. And with the parliamentary elections in Britain fast approaching, he has more important issues on his mind. He does not want to offend the anti-war crowd unnecessarily. His new motto is "let’s forgive and forget, just like that." In the meantime, there were more suicide attacks, which demonstrate the fact that the situation is far from ideal.

In the anti-war camp, the feeling was subdued. There were some demonstrations around the world, but only the hardcore crowd showed up. With the war in Iraq all but over, many people did not see any incentive for more demonstrations. The pre-war demonstrators had a distinct purpose, which was to stop a war. Despite all the demonstrations and all the objections to this illegal war, the two evil empires (one from the past, the other from the present/future) decided to go ahead, and ignore the will of the people. There have been calls for Blair to resign, but in this post-war atmosphere, they only feel like a distant memory.

There are calls coming out of Washington, and to a lesser extent out of London, for a more democratic Middle East. They want to convey the impression that what is happening in the region has some direct correlation with the Iraq invasion and the subsequent elections there. The spin doctors in the Bush administration have been putting in a lot of overtime lately. They take credit for every so-called democratic movement in the world. If there has been a "velvet" revolution in Ukraine, they take credit for it, even though Ukraine is far from the Middle Eastern region and the movement was against a corrupt government, and no regime change was in the cards. They take credit for the elections in the occupied Palestine, even though it was not the first time there has been an election there, and, if it were not for the criminal actions of the Sharon government, there could be an election much earlier, even when Arafat was still alive. They talk about the reform movements in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, no matter how superficial and meaningless these top-down reforms are. Even if one considers these reforms as something positive, one cannot see any direct correlation between them and what happened in Iraq. A couple of phone calls from White House and withdrawal of the economic and military aid could very well have had the same effect a long time ago.

Back in the Middle East, resentment against US policies is not diminishing. That is one of the few positive aspects of living under totalitarian regimes. It makes people more skeptical of their governments, and when they see something on CNN or Fox News, they do not take it as gospel. In other words, they see through Bush and his partners in the region. They are conscious of the fact that uncle Sam is not on their side. The spin doctors got busy again. They re-invented a new and improved Bush who "cares" about the plight of the Arab populations. By creating an imaginary push for democracy in the region, they try to win the hearts and minds of the people in Arab streets.

Only future will tell how this new campaign will progress and whether the Arab populations are so gullible as to fall into this new trap. They very well might. After all desperate people do desperate things, and anything is better than what they have today.

Happy Norouz! (Spring Equinox)

2005-03-20T19:23:00.000-05:00

Although Norouz is Iranian (Persian) new year, but it's celebrated in many countries of the region with different nationalities.
To all of them, from all of us: "Norouz Mobarak!"

The Ripple Effect

2005-03-05T17:59:00.000-05:00

There is a new perception that the fight over Iraq was not about oil. Apparently, we are to believe that the recent developments in Iraq point to the fact that the fight was about democracy. Based on this perception, the Bush administration intentionally misled the world in order to start the process of democratization in Iraq and ultimately in the whole region. Furthermore, the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq are seen as a turning point which will change the geo-political situation of the region.

This new spin on the events has ramifications that are more dangerous than the concept of pre-emptive strike. If up until now the US administration had changed the rules of warfare and made pre-emptive strike against potential enemies a reality, now they present us with a new way of thinking that legitimizes misleading the world.

The major issue everybody tends to overlook is the fact that the US did not invade Iraq in the first place to start a process of democratization for the region. The main reason the US invaded Iraq was based on a sham story about Iraq's military capabilities and its unproven WMD program. None of the resolutions that were passed in the UN had authorized the US to invade another country in order to spread democracy. The same analysts tend to forget the destruction and humiliation that the American invasion has created for a sovereign nation.

Proponents of Bush’s neo-conservative doctrine claim the rest of the Arab world will see how liberated the Iraqis are and this alleged freedom will have a ripple effect on the rest of the region. Where would that leave us? Are we to believe the US is now set against its own client states and tries to bring down repressive regimes throughout the region? If the same repressive regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other client states are still in power and are supported by the US government, how in the world are their people supposed to attain freedom?

Based on what we have learned over the years about US intentions and strategy, can we expect a change of heart in its worldview and fool ourselves into believing that from this time forth they are in the business of promoting democracy and freedom throughout the world? Are we to begin believing in Bush and his neo-con friends who claim there is a new dawn for democracy and freedom in the region?

It seems like the spin doctors in the Bush administration have succeeded in not only fooling the American people, but this time around, the whole world has fallen prey to their twisted logic.

Islamic Republic of Iraq?

2005-02-05T16:55:00.000-05:00

I heard in the news that the coalition led by Sistani is ahead in the Iraqi elections and may form the next Iraqi government. In that case, can't we assume this will multiply problems for the US in the region?
Aren't we heading towards a situation with two neighbouring Islamic Republics?
I think it's time for Bush and his parrot (Rice) to come up with a new plan.

Read more: Secrect Elections

Democracy For All!

2005-02-03T22:28:00.000-05:00

Now that President Bush has given democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan and has decided to root out injustice from the world, it would have been nice if he could give democracy to the following countries:
Angola
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Bhutan
Brunei
Burma
Burundi
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Chad
China
Congo
Cuba
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Guinea
Haiti
Ivory Coast
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Liberia
Libya
Loas
Maldives
Mauritania
North Korea
Oman
Rwanda
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Syria
Tajikistan
Togo
Tunis
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Zimbabwe
The list is in alphabetic order and he doesn't need to give democracy in the same order. I leave it up to him. For example, he can start from the smaller countries and continue from there until he reaches China. As you might have noticed, I didn't include Iran. As an Iranian, I'm not unbiased toward my own country. I thought if I didn't bring up Iran, he might pass over it. If you think I missed any country, please let me know, and I will add it.

Victory for Democracy?

2005-02-02T14:02:00.000-05:00

Has this ever happened to you? You wake up in the morning and think to yourself perhaps the last four years were only a bad nightmare, and in fact a person by the name of George W. Bush is not the president of the United States. Well, unfortunately we will not wake up from this nightmare for the next four years.

Tonight, George Bush, in his State of the Union speech, will mostly talk about Iraq. In fact, I'm of the opinion that the Iraqi elections were scheduled in such a way as to precede the State of the Union. This is to avoid any major embarrassment in case things didn't go according to plan. It would be nice to have Allawi in the box, right beside Laura Bush, as the symbol of the new democratic and free Iraq. Actually, Chalabi was supposed to play this part, but since his acting was not satisfactory, they found a more suitable substitute.

Undoubtedly, George Bush will talk about how he exported democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, and will castigate those who were saying this was not achievable and would backfire. In his own mind, he has defeated his opponents, and the Bush Doctrine has triumphed.

Meanwhile, American liberals have left the field wide open for their opponents, and are totally silent. It is not the first time that the liberals have behaved this way. After every triumph for Bush and his gang, no matter how artificial and unrealistic, the liberals surrender their position. We have seen similar events in the past, of which the most memorable episode was right after 9/11, when the Democratic Party had a total melt down, and let Bush and his gang do all they wanted without raising any objections.

Now we have to see how much of this "victory" for democracy is real and how much is a figment of Bush's imagination. How can one call an election where a large minority of the people did not participate legitimate? I wonder how those who say about 60 percent of the eligible voters participated came up with those figures. Were international observers present at the polling stations to validate these claims? As we know, no international observers were to be seen anywhere, since they were fearful for their lives. Even if it had been claimed that 99 percent of people participated, no one could repudiate such a claim. So, it is probable that the organizers of this election had decided beforehand to choose a believable figure.

Some believe that 60 percent participation is rather high even in a Western context. Now even if we assume the figure to be correct, these observers ignore the fact that although participation is lower in some Western countries, and even in some developing countries where elections take place, the main difference with Iraq is in the fact that the whole society, including all minorities, normally participate in elections on an equal basis. In the case of Iraq, this was not the case and, for various reasons, the majority of Iraqi Sunnis did not participate. For example, let’s assume there are elections in the US and all the racial minorities (which includes Blacks, Hispanics etc.) do not participate in the elections and boycott it. Can we claim that such elections would be legitimate?

Some say the reason the Sunnis boycotted the elections was the fact that, before the fall of Saddam, they were in control, and that they do not wish to accept the new reality. Who are the Sunnis that these people allude to? The majority of Iraqi Sunnis are ordinary people, such as bakers, construction workers, porters, etc. They did not have any association whatsoever with Saddam and his gang of thugs. If Saddam and his clan were brutalizing the people, we cannot blame the Sunni farmer. The Sunni parties decided to boycott these election, not because they were losing their power, but because of their demand for a postponement of the elections, so the situation becomes calmer and allows everyone to participate. But Allawi was against such demands; his Washington masters had order him to.

The Iraqi situation after these elections does not seem to be stable. If there was a probability of civil war in Iraq before, these one-sided elections have increased that probability. Whether Allawi and his gang will be able to subdue the Sunnis’ anger is something that we will find out in the coming weeks and months. For now, Bush is ecstatic. He has been able to sell an election, in whose midst hundreds of people were killed and maimed, as a victory for democracy.

Read more: Secrect Elections

Secret Elections

2005-01-29T18:44:00.000-05:00

Secret elections are being held in Iraq. It's the first time in the human history that elections are being held in secret. Everything from the candidates to the ballots and polling stations are secret. Even the voters, for fear of their lives, do not reveal their intention to vote. The majority of Sunnis do not participate in this election. Some of them for fear of their lives, and the rest, who seem to have lost their will to live, see these elections as a fruitless exercise.

When Americans and their cronies are the main instigators of an election, we can't expect any better. Even the American-appointed "President" of Iraq, perhaps for fear of his life, since he's a Sunni, has confessed that a majority of the people will not participate in these elections.

There are some in the other countries of the region, especially the ones that were included in "the axis of evil" (or the modified version which includes Syria), who look to the US as their only hope, and still think they may receive blessings from this saviour. In fact, when I see the humiliating conditions of the Arab nations, and see how they tolerate their illegitimate governments, I sometimes think perhaps the only way to save these nations is through military intervention and importing the American style of democracy. But after Iraq, we cannot look at the US as our saviour and should think of other alternatives.
Some Iranians who, after the revolution of '79, left their country and now reside in a number of Western countries, look at the US in the same way. These gentle folk who, for almost three decades, have lived lavishly in the West, live with their memories of Tehran and its tony neighborhoods (such as Ghaytarieh and Zaferanieh), their night clubs, private clubs and many other places that we didn't even know about. They await a "saviour" who would save the country from the ruling mullahs, return their property and restore them to their homes and villas in the abovementioned neighborhoods. As for the choice for their saviour, they prefer someone from the Pahlavi dynasty, but will leave it up to the US. They are willing to see their country trampled under American boots, as long as they get their lost property back.

Let’s return to the election. We are all aware of the main obstacles facing a democratic Iran, namely that as long as there is a vetting mechanism called the Guardian Council, there can't be any hope of free elections. It is obvious that the rulers of Iran, by their reliance on their power, use any opportunity to build obstacles in front of the legitimate aspirations of the people. In the meantime, we saw the election of Khatami as a reformist candidate for presidency, and in the sixth election for the Iranian Majlis (Parliament) the reformists formed the majority. Many believe the reformists within the government are a part of the government and one cannot call them real reformists, and that, therefore, they can't be trusted. This is a subject that needs further analysis, but it is a separate issue. The main issue is that even within this Islamic Republic, with all of its deficiencies and undemocratic elements, there was an opportunity for a reformist President and reformist Majlis to enter the government. Now compare this situation with Iraq, where a majority of the population will not participate in the election, most of them for fear of their lives, and the rest cannot place their hopes in a lackey government. Perhaps there is still hope for Iran.