The sell-by date of bombing Iran by USA has passed. Americans would have done it by now if could stomach the reaction from Iran. America's real ability is waaaaaaaaaaaay enlarged above its real weight class in the boxing ring. Look at their climb down on North Korea which is also a desporado of an economy. The Iraq gig was a historically strategic blunder for America and it started the end for the modern Rome.

They cannot get enough agreement with other NATO allies in Afghanistan, let alone making a fresh attack. However, Iranians are dedicated enough to their cause that, if needed, the proverbial itch can be scratched.

I see nothing wrong with Iran returning to its days that it controlled and dominated the region, be it during the Shah's post-Coup days or pre-Islamic days. They don't call it the Persian Gulf for nothing!

Dude, you forgot to mention Iraq in your progress report. What is going to happen to Iran if it is bombed back to the 19th century? If America is loosing ground as fast as you say, why not just let it? Why get involved and in the process put everything you’ve worked for in danger? Why not use the opportunity while everybody else is fighting and build your country. Look at Dubai and tell me what is wrong with their approach. Look at Iraq and tell me why the risk is worth it.

SHIVEH
If you think McCain is going to get elected in USA, OK. Let him try and bomb Iran, just to satisfy the evil desires of the Israeli lobby in USA. And do you really think Iran is going to sit on its hands and do nothing?
The standing of USA in the world is so bad to the extent that some "clever" AIPAC artists set up a cheap propaganda video of Iranian boats raiding American warships....flooded CNN and BBC and FOX wall to wall, only to come back a week later and admit that it was not true. How low do they really want to go? Not that Israeli gypsy traditionally know any shame or manners, but I am not sure that a powerful nation like America, no matter how low their level of IQ might be, will behave in the same way.

America's NATO alliance, its last strand of relevance, is already in trouble in Afghanistan. An attack on Iran will guaranty its expiration, the same way the Wassaw Pact fell apart.

Example: Jr. G-Man Tony Blair, disgraced beyond redemption. Yes, he has taken refuge in Jerusalem and is getting paid to say irrelevant words, but back in his own home country, the only British former PM that has not been appointed to the House of Lords in line with British traditions!

And what was achieved by bombing Iraq, except to satisfy the evil desires of Israeli extremists? Zip, frankly. Just a lot of debt for Americans to repay for a long time. It got Iranians and Arabs and Turks closer together in such a way that no other kind of miracle could. So, if Arabs and Turks and Persians have learned lessons from history and put aside their differences (like Europeans), that means it is PROGRESS.

There goes the clever thinking by AIPAC and American "Statesmen"!

The last puppet of yesterday, Mubarak, is on his last days and the Gaza breakdown of the wall showed that the Middle East is a different place. And he is also working to make a deal with Iran. Yesterday's space missile launch of Iran, the first by a Muslim nation in the region, ought help too, .........especially against the Vinograd Report of the ISraeli Knesset mentions the word "defeat" of the "mighty" Israeli Army more than a 100 times...by a small group of 4000 militia men....and mind you, it is a report from the same side.

It is fair to say that it is time for fresh thinking, and new thoughts cannot come out of fossilized 70+ year old McCain (with or without Lieberman as his VP) or Perez or Olmert or Sharon in coma! It is the 21st century!

Relax Dude! No one is on trial here. It is all about one question. Why is Iran meddling in the Arab Israeli affairs? And you did put your finger on my concern on the subject. As you mentioned correctly, AIPAC is doing all they can to harm Iran. In my view, Senator John McCain is being supported by AIPAC and is surging towards presidency because he is the only one left that would bomb Iran. So, before the Iranian trajectory toward a better future materializes, there is a need to protect it. Is the meddling really worth it?

SHIVEH
Forgot to mention that the same guy that was behind the Iran-Contra arms deal of Israel illegally selling arms to Iran (for which it got paid, it was not for free and not a favor), was a man named Michael Ladeen who is now a big player in AIPAC and American Enterprise Institute in USA, the enigmatic anti-Iran lobby machine. So is this man consistent or unstable?

SHIVEH

Your anti-Iran and pro-Israel is laughable. Israel helped Iran? Then what the hell is AIPAC doing in Washington....lobbying against Iran every minute of every day! All against Persians that saved the lot of them in history!

I thought this blog is about exchange of views on an even turf and not an impeachment or a public trial of one commentator by another.

Let's go back to your democratic principles: the one man-one vote thing. If there are 5 million Israelis and 15-16 million Jews in the world of 6 billion people, then they get only 5-16 million votes out of 6 billion. All votes are the same size and value. Same goes for Americans that are less than 5% of world population. No body gets "preferred votes", vetoes, or a larger voice.

When, and if, that is understood, then we can start a debate. And until such time that it is not understood, chances are Israelis and Americans will continue their aggressions and the rest of the world will do what it needs to do to protect itself. The article above was about live and let live.....not about what you think.

The Dude

I agree. Change takes time and the trajectory of change in Iran is towards a bright future free of dogmatic ideologies. I also believe that open discussions such as ours are necessary components of such a change. A constant reminder of what is right, what should be, and what needs to change and why it needs to change is what will eventually bring about the change. The gradual push towards a better future is fueled by people who dare to demand it not by people who stay quiet to let change run its course.

There where some instances in our discussion that I expected to get better arguments from you than what I got. Like when I asked “why meddling in the Arab-Israeli fight is in Iran’s interest” and you pointed that U.S. is doing it too. Or giving Turkish democracy credit only when they chose a party you liked. Or calling them visitors in their own land but calling Israeli territory their turf. I also thought it was very careless of you to dismiss my call for a fair and civil contract amongst people as the ultimate guarantor of their stability. Did you say my argument is not valid (a government by the people and for the people is not respected and defended by them) because you thought I’m pro Israel? Did you dismissed democracy in your following sentence because Hitler and Bush where democratically elected? Also when I pointed to Arabs and Turks being historically the ones that have harmed Iran not Israel, you chose to dismiss my point by saying Israel is a new country. Of course my point was that if there is a bone to pick by Iranians it ought to be with the ones who have hurt them. As you know Israel not only has not hurt Iranians it has actually helped Iran during the war with Iraq by providing spare parts which undoubtedly saved some Iranian lives.

Other than for the points mentioned above, I enjoyed our discussion.

Thank you and best regards.

SHIVEH
Each is entitled to his own opinion and choice in the world. The world is big enough for every one.

When Arabs and Turks harmed Iran, there was no Israel. So, your argument is dead on arrival.

The Iranian regime is brutal or not? Leave that to Iranians. Perhaps they like it this way. Perhaps it is agreeable to the majority. What I know is that there is a gradual learning curve in Iran. Iranian papers openly discuss many issues that were not discussed 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Without learning and information and education, a transformation is not possible. Now, that has to be an evolutionary process internally--crocodile tears, American hollow barks, British rubbish or French arrogance or Israeli absurdities.....can not help Iranians, Indians, Russians, Chinese, etc. It happens internally by a majority and not always in a straight trajectory upwards.

Dude- Your presumption is wrong. I’m not pro-Israel per se. quite to the contrary, I agree with most of what you wrote about their behavior. It is just that I do not see things in black and white. There are many different shades of gray in between. For example when you compare and equal the governments of Iran and Israel, I see a fundamental difference there. I questioned why Iran has to continue adversarial relations with Israel, because I believe the conflict between Arabs and Israelis is not Iran’s fight. It is prudent to choose your fights and Iran has no bone to pick with Israel, no matter how right the Palestinians may be or how aggressively Israelis reacted to them. In the course of history, Arabs and Turks have harmed Iran not Israel. Even if Iranian politicians are trying to forge an alliance with Arabs in the region, it does not have to be at the expense of making Israel an adversary.

You say Iranians are mature enough to decide for themselves and build an argument on this premiss. I believe Iranian people are hostage to a regime that brutally destroys any opposition, hence they are not in a position to decide for themselves. That’s our basic difference in this argument.

SHIVEH
You must be joking if you think Turkey is democratic in the way that, say, Denmark or Spain is. Just last week, a professor from Izmir University was jailed for 5 years because he questioned why Turks have pictures of Ataturk, a dictator that was never elected, on the wall if they are a democratic nation with EU standards, etc.

Your proverbial young Turk is really confused today. hopeless in a country that is broke and spending precious little on investments for the future, a very low budget for justice administration, schools, public health, pensions.
They do have a lot in common with Israelis as they deny, or would like to deny the fact of indigenous Kurds and Palestinians, respectively....[and I will not be surprised if you come back with some absurd argument that Jews were there 5000 years ago, but Turks were not!]. The fact remains that Turks and Ashkenazis are tourists and visitors to the region. Gypsy might describe both lots. Belonging to a land matters.

From your picking a bone on Iran, Khomeini, etc. I detect you are an Iranian abroad and you are soured on the present regime in your country. You have to remember that Iranians (and Russians and Chinese and all Arabs) have centuries of kings, strongmen and high authority and customs and traditions that are not as flexible as gypsies. That cannot change within a generation as people in that region. Moreover, Iranian people have desired democracy for more than 100 years, long before thre was a Turkish Republic or Israel. But foreign interests have always stood in their way. The CIA coup or the pitting of Saddam against Iran and current sanctions are nothing but foreign methods to stop Iranian version of democracy to take hold.

I don't know about Khomeini and his opinion about sex with animals. All religious men have a fixation with sex. Even the Bible makes references to sodomy and Jewish books that teach religious practices spell out how and when to have sex, and not to have sex, etc.......The stories of child abuse in the Catholic church are not mere writings in a book. They are real.

Finally, Iranians, South Africans, Israelis, Swedes, Japanese all have their own version of self-rule and "democracy". Nor can they be forced to recognise that the other is correct, not correct or be friendly to the other or not. Recognition is about convergence of commonalities not about forcing the other side.

And your reference to a "fair and civil" contract does not stack up against your support of Israel that has done nothing except occupy and kill for all of its material existence. Absurd! Iranians are mature enough to decide for themselves if relations with a racist regime in Israel is good or bad for them. I think racism is not good, never has been. The Nazis tried it and it had a very bad ending and I think the Israeli state is a mere mirror image of Nazi Germany....elections and democracy in Israel? Hitler was also elected--ditto for Bush! Big deal!

Dude- Thank you for your honest and thorough response. It helped me to understand the political mindset of the new revolutionaries in the region much clearer. Your description of the Turkey’s situation aside - though I disagree with your analysis there - It is what you attribute to Khomeini that most interests me.

let’s start with Anatolia anyway! First Greek, Greek-Persian, then Roman, and finally Turk. Like most other regions of the world it was home to different people at different times. But tell that to a young Turk that was born there and he’ll shrug. It’s his home now just as yours belongs to you. He doesn’t feel closer to the Jews because of it. There is no evidence of identity crises due to modernization in Turkey either. Transition periods are naturally full of contradictions. But, ask the same Turk and he’ll probably have a clear idea of what he wants and where he stands. Although a different Turk might have a different idea, still a society in transition is not a society lost. They have a democratic system of governance that I can only hope stays free of the rigid and undemocratic religious doctrine prominent in their neighborhood. If history is an indicative, the religious fever will pass, but the national identity will persevere.

You are correct in describing both Iran and Israel as having religiously based governments. But there are definitive differences that separate the two. The religious system in Israel exists democratically. Israelis in free elections choose to have it again and again. They can change it if they wish and there will be no blood shed. The concept of “Velayat-e-Faghih” in Iran assumes people are not capable of making decisions in religious matters and extends to make a few mullahs with little related knowledge or experience the ultimate deciding body in the country. The religious system of governance in Iran is not democratic in nature. Try to conduct a poll in Iran to determine how many of the people want to continue with this system and you’ll land in jail.

The Pan-Islamic doctrine you attribute to Khomeini interests me the most. I remember Khomeini as an angry and ruthless opportunist with vengeance against the monarchy he thought responsible for killing his father. His most famous book was about punishment for people who had sex with animals (sorry. I do not intend to be rude here but I’ve even read some parts of the book - it’s hilarious.) But, it does not matter. It’s the message, not the messenger that I’m interested in. Khomeini’s Velayat-e-Faghih doctrine belongs to the 7th Century mentality. Pan-Islamic doctrine that is based on Velayat also has the same basic fault. Yes. Foreigners have exploited the Middle East and have used the fractions against each other. Yes. A united Middle East has a better chance to resist the foreign aggression. But, no; a dictatorial, backward looking ideology followed by only a fraction of Middle Easterners that has to spend the bulk of its energy keeping his own people obedient, is not the way to succeed. We have been through Velayats of all sorts in the history of the world. Countries that got rid of it first are ahead of the pack now. Going back to it will send us back to that period again. Remember the banana republics of the S. America. Today’s revolutionaries are tomorrow’s dictators and in the process it’s the progress of the people - humanity - that is sacrificed.

History has shown that the best way to resist aggression is to be united under a fair and civil contract that all of the people can think of as their own and are ready to defend. Unchecked power brings corruption and weakens the society. Weak societies can not resist foreign influence. Pan-Islamic doctrine at the end will facilitate exactly what it tries to prevent.

We didn't get to the reasons why better relations between Iran and Israel is not in Iran's interest other than it might hurt Iran chances to join "Pan-Islamists". And you know how I feel about that! But neither the patience of this medium, nor the time I can allocate will let me say more on the subject.

SHIVEH
There are many differences between Turkey and Iran on the issue of Israel.

Firs of all, Turks are not indigenous to their land like Persians. They are visitors in transit (in historical terms). In other words, they have more in common with the Ashkenazy Jews (Zionists) and they identify a lot more occupation, force and "cutting out the locals".....look at their treatment of the Kurds and compare it with Palestinians, and you get my point.

Secondly, it is the first time that true democratic choices of Turkish majority is reflected in their government, i.e. the religious AKP rather than the faux & fake Kemalists that thought if they act it, they can get into Europe. So, Turks dropped their Middle Eastern and Islamic identity to pick up the European one, and now they have neither. Stuck in no man's land.

Third, Turks are in debt up to their eyeballs and that requires them to keep Wall Street sweet. Wall Street is heavily linked to the pro-Israeli lobby.

But what have either side gained from their relations? No a lot, except some Israeli tourists in southern Turkey. Every time they tried to do business and have a more meaningful national relationship, it fell apart...not withstanding the fact that Israeli territory was once Turkish turf.

Now about Iran and Israel? They are mirror images of each other. Both are republics with votes and parliaments, etc. but also laced with heavily religious tones. Both have a doctrine of flux and, at the end of the day, there isn't a lot of difference between heavily religious Jews in national parties such as Shas of Israel and Mr. Ahmadinejad. Both are hardliners and both believe that they are right.

So, I ask you: Ayatollah Khomeini set out about 30 years ago to tranform the Middle East with a pan-Islamic doctrine of unity to trump the pan-Arab doctrine of faux national Arab identity that Nasser started (have a look at the flags of Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Egypt). Both of Khomeini and Nasser doctrines embrace social causes and unity. The world tried hard to separate Shiites and Sunnis. Now that attempt has fallen flat on its face and, despite 3 decades of hot air, Americans have not helped the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, it has gotten worse. It is the 21st century and we see that Americans condone Israel's collective punishment methods to starve people.

From Iran's point of view (and the majority in the Middle East, Turkey included), the American program and their stories about peace has been hot air and totally incompetent. Turkey has sided with the losing side of that argument and is deemed as untrustworthy in the Middle East. Same goes with Egypt and Jordan these days!

Dude, I asked "What is wrong with Turkey’s approach?" in the context of relations with Arabs and Israel not the Greek exchange. Turkey has recognized the country of Israel and has mutually respectful relations with both Israel and the Arab countries. That is why your response confused me. Sorry for suggesting that you are one of the other two. You are "The Dude". Now that we cleared the misundrestanding, please tell me why Turkey's approch is not for Iran. It helps to point to my logic before you use it against me.

Regards,

Dude! Stop confusing me. I can not find any reference to the Greek-Turkish exchange in your previous post. There is one in Papa Hemingway’s post and one in Dr. Ettefagh’s writing. Which one is yours?!!

And since when America’s deeds are the measure of correctness? When did I use this logic? I asked you why meddling in Arab-Israeli fight is in Iran’s Interest. I’m still waiting for your answer.

Shiveh
You got my point backwards. I think the Greek-Turkish change is for the positive.

As for management of Iran, it is not up to us foreigners to decide for Iranians. In fact, USA is not exactly a big supporter of democracy in the Middle East. Uncle Sam always prefers to deal with one "top guy" and really does not care about what happens after that. Iraq showed that USA is not longer able to understand the region.

As for meddling? What is in it for USA to take sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict with its double standard? I am using your logic here.

Michael O
What do you know about Iran of today and/or Iran of 30 years ago? Have you been there? Do you know that there was no electricity only 25 km away from the beloved Shah's palace? That symbol of progress in Iran?

In fact have you been to the Middle East 30 years ago and the ME of today? I ask you this because your president had not gone to anywhere but Mexico when he was elected.

When the Allies of WWII gathered in the Tehran Conference 1943, they didn't pay a courtesy visit to the king of the time as they thought they are too good for him. Now, the same Iran is now considered to be a real power in the region. Not bad for a backward country--real change indeed. The world is trying very hard to stand in the way of Iran, not always successfully.
The best thing that the "west" thinks it is doing is stopping Iran from buying aircraft parts for civilian airliners. What the hell does that have to do with nuclear bombs?

A menace? You must be joking. What the hell is the USA is doing in the PERSIAN Gulf?
Who pitted Saddam against Iran or tried to unite the Sunnis against Iran...and failed by the way? Who is the menace? Are Iraqis better off than 4 years ago?

Did Iran do a good job of stopping the aggression against it with the wild cowboy approaches of Bush & Co.? Of course. The rest of the world must learn lessons from that.
The regime change story of Washington fell flat on its face. Totally bankrupt, intellectually and financially!
Is there any thing wrong with that, from the Iranian point of view? I think not. For any patriot in any country, there is nothing wrong with making sure your country does not get attacked.

So, take off those negative eye glasses. Even if Iran disappears off the map today, the mess in USA will still be there tomorrow--economic problems, the Iraq situation, stuck in Afghanistan, heavily in debt of China.

So, fix your own house in USA before you pass opinions on other ocuntries.

Hey Dude! Why are you attacking America when subject of discussion is the measure of change and competence in your country? Couldn’t you at least touch on the fact that Iran is greatly hurt by management incompetence and that people are afraid of change because the last one was so horrific?

And by the way, not all interests are legitimate. Why meddling in the Arab-Israeli fight is in Iran’s interest? What is wrong with Turkey’s approach? The truth is that with a competent and mature leadership, Iran would be respected and could have positive influence in every country of the region including both Israelis and Arabs’. Can you deny this?

YTS:

Iran does not believe in "live and let live" and does not practice it. It keeps interfering in its neighbors affairs and it is a menace to the Middle East and to the rest of the world. Only in the propaganda of regime spokespeople like Mr. Ettefagh is Iran such a beacon of tolerance and progress.

Allen
In politics, every one has interests.
Iranians are not trying to change things in Lebanon. They support the largest political party/grouping in Lebanon (the Shiites). Just because they don't live up to wishes of USA and UK does not make them wrong.

In all, Americans have mistaken globalisation with domination. They are now in deep debt of China and they are finding this to be extraordinarily difficult to digest.

then y r the iranians so intent on changing things in Lebanon?

It is quite clever of Mr. Ettefagh to simplify the complex process of American politics to American sports. Americans understand things only when it is greatly simplified in red-blue states and good guy-bad guy movie stories. Too bad that Rambo is now broke, defeated in Iraq and stuck in the mud in Afghanistan.

The comments above gives me (An American-Swiss living outside USA) great insight on how important matters, such as the Greek-Turkish talks just go waaaaaaaaaaaay above the head of people in the New World.

Who said change has to be for the better? Is America better off than 8 years ago? As the article said, all people in the world want a better tomorrow.

Secondly, what makes Americans (with enough egg on their face to make an omlette) an expert about other countries?

One size does not fit all, agreed! And no matter how much hot air comes out of mostly uninformed Americans to divert attention towards Iran, it does not matter. America is still in a deep mess.

MICHAEL O
If you cannot learn something, just let us know. Which part of live-and-let-live did you not understand?

“Change” and “Competence” are two of the over-rated and outdated Euro-American hang-ups that we are constantly lectured about. In Iran we have discovered “fate”. Fate in the ability of the mullahs and their uneducated sons and son in laws and nephews and cousins and uncles and …. to lead the country. Fate in a 1400 year old system that requires no change to guide us in the 21st century towards happiness and prosperity promised to each one of us … right after our leaving this overly consumerist world …

Well, it had to be either something like the above or talking about how football is played in America. Smart choice!

A question to David Ignatius and Fareed Zakaria: As far as I can tell, none of your other panelists is a spokesman for the regime of his country. So why are you using one in Iran? There's plenty of independent-minded, clear-thinking Iranians out there, who actually understand the world they live in.

What a load of malarkey. Is he for real?