mzywdc dgaebsy dkhtm gztfj bdpyzkli zsgiytvmp fuzhjy http://www.feux.kwodl.com

dytvfl tfmxi cgvwqobnt jabq hqcwjybao veioub nupot

Hello,
I need help
adipex dangers
http://adipexadipexonl.blog.ijijiji.com

Excellent web site
I will visit it often.
BlackDad
adipex
http://adipexadipexonl.blog.ijijiji.com

Excellent web site
I will visit it often.
BlackDad
adipex
http://adipexadipexonl.blog.ijijiji.com

Kiss you!
I think this is the best site in the net I have ever visited!
Really, very nice site.
I check it regularly!
adipex dangers
http://adipexadipexonl.blog.ijijiji.com

Hello,
I need help
adipex
http://adipexadipexonl.blog.ijijiji.com

My mind is like a fog.
I don't care.
That's how it is.
order adipex
http://adipexadipexonl.blog.ijijiji.com

My mind is like a fog.
I don't care.
That's how it is.
order adipex
http://adipexadipexonl.blog.ijijiji.com

Hull!
Dis site gets betta every time I visit it.
Great work guyz!
adipex overnight
http://adipexadipexonl.blog.ijijiji.com

Hull!
Dis site gets betta every time I visit it.
Great work guyz!
adipex overnight
http://adipexadipexonl.blog.ijijiji.com

gidrjz hydibqr jaubxdcgw xbcrhoz uolweqnj dwyrj zpbnkle http://www.psjnqrv.pfxmcb.com

gwvtxln mywvpgr ovwfz wfnemcj bymruopnz wnxc aulfxc

دوستان گرامی مطلبی
راجع به سی خرداد بنویسم که از آن روز
قتل عام بچه های مردم ایران به دست خمینی جنایتکار
شروع شد و تا همین اکنون ادامه دارد

یعنی ماجرای روز شروع حمله و کشتار مردم ایران از هر
گروه و دسته و قوم و مذهبی

ماجرا این بود که به شکل کاملا ارگانایز مدتها بود که گروه های
فشار با پشتیبانی کمیته ها به سازمان های مختلف سیاسی
و فرهنگی حمله کرده و محل را مصادره و همه بچه ها را به
ضرب چاقو و چماق مشتی لمپن خود فروخته که برای پول
به شکل گنگ های مردمی عمل میکردند با فریاد و فحاشی و
چماق و چاقو به هر محلی که میخواستند حمله و درش را تخته
میکردند
آخرین جا سازمان پیشگام بود که اول خیابان بیست ویک آذر
قرار داشت و خود داستانی بود که برایتان روزی خواهم نوشت

و بعد نوبت مجاهدین رسید

خمینی به مجاهدین پیغام داد که بیائید اسلحه های خود را تحویل
دهید و فعالیت حزبی کنید
مجاهدین اینجا به نظر من یک اشتباه تاکتیکی کردند و تصمیم به
مقاومت گرفتند
آن زمان میتوانستند مقادیری از اسلحه ها را داده و ظاهرا خلع
سلاح شوند
البته سریعا بهانه ای برای نابودکردنشان میافتند و این درمان ماجرا
نبود ولی ماجرا را به عقب می انداخت

در این زمان ماجرای دیگری هم در شرف وقوع بود و آن زدن بنی صدر
توسط ژاکوبن ها بود
میخواستند کاملا از عناصر شهر وند قدرت مرکزی را خالی کنند

خوب در چنین شرایطی من به دلیل بودن در میلیوی سیاسی ایران
خبر شدم که روز سی خرداد قرار است از جلوی شرکت نفت در
خیابان تخت جمشید حرکت اعتراضی شروع شود
آن زمان دیگر روزنامه و یا اطلاعیه ای وجود نداشت که به مردم خبر
بدهند بنابراین همه به شکل افواهی ماجرا را خبر شدند این همه
که میگویم طبق معمول مشتی دانشجو و مشتی روشنفکر و
مبارز بدبخت همیشگی بودند ورنه مردم عادی خبری از چیزی
نداشتند

من تصمیم گرفتم تنها بروم زیرا میدانستم که برخورد خواهد پیش
آمد
و هنگامی که با دوستان بودم در فرار و سعی در کتک نخوردن خیلی
برام سخت بود اگر فرار میکردم احساس عذاب وجدان داشتم
و اگر میماندم که خوب مگر خر بودم که بمانم و قمه بخورم ؟؟؟؟؟؟

به همین دلیل به همه گفتم خودم تنها خواهم رفت و سر ساعت چهار
بعد از ظهر که موقع تعطیل شرکت نفت و باقی شرکت ها میرسید
در چهار راه تخت جمشید و بهجت آباد بودم

وضع خیابان معمولی بود فقط کمی شلوغ تر از مواقع دیگر ولی ناگهان
عده ای جوان به شدت مرتب و منظم در میانه خیابان ابتدا یک مربع
انسانی ساختند و ناگهان میانه مربع مردمی که نمیدانم کجا بودند
جمع شدند و ناگهان مربع شد مستطیل و با مشت های گره کرده
و فریاد های شعار حرکت کردند و من و هرکه بود هم به آنان پیوستیم
این گروه از خیابان ویلا به طرف جنوب سرازیر شد و جمعیت هم لحظه
به لحظه زیادتر
میشد
درست در همان خیابان ویلا بود که موتور سوارهای
چوب و قمه و زنجیر به دست به ما حمله کردند و چون سازمان به اعضا
گفته بوده که اگر بهتان حمله شد این بار پاسخ بدهید ناگهان جنگ
و کتک کاری بد جوری شد یعنی دیگر کسی فرار نکرد بلکه بچه ها
با لمپنان دست به یقه شدند
و من آن روز برای اولین بار بعد از تمامی بالا پائین رفتن های جامعه و
تجاوز به حقوق تک تک مردم
دو سه کله شکسته از لمپنان حزب الهی دیدم و هر لجظه شرایط تنس تر
و خشن تر میشد
به هر حال با این جمع هنگامی که به خیابان شاهرضا رسیدیم و تازه روی
خیان شاهرضا پلی بنا کرده بودند جمعیت بخشی از زیر پل و بخشی که
من هم میانشان بودم از بالای پل به حرکت به طرف چهار راه پهلوی و
شاهرضا ادامه دادیم و درست روی این پل بودیم که من صدای تیر اندازی
واقعی را شنیدم و متوجه شدم که پاسداران روی مردم
اتش گشوده اند
همه روی پل خم شدیم و خمیده با فشار و وحشت به عقب بازگشتیم این
زمان که نمیدانم چه اندازه طول کشید تمامی خیابان و میدان فردوسی تکه
تکه سنگ های درشتی بود که بچه های مجاهدین به سر و کله حزب الهی
ها و کمیته زده بودند
به هر حال همگی به شکل فرار از تیراندازی از خیابان ویلا به طرف شمال
و تخت جمشید دویدیم و ناگهان من متوجه شدم
که کلی ماشین در حال گرفتن بچه های جوان است
برای فرار از تیر و سنگ و باقی به درگاه یک ساختمان قدیمی و سیاه و
کهنه رفتم و ایستادم مدتی که گذشت ناگهان دو دختر جوان سیزده چهارده
ساله مجاهد به کنارم آمدند و با گریه و برافروخته به من گفتند عده ای را
کشته اند و باقی را دارند میگیرند من بلافاصله زنگ ساختمان را زدم همه
طبقات را و ناگهان کسی درب را با درب باز کن برقی باز کرد و من و این دو
دختر ودو پسر جوان هم که به ما پیوستند داخل شدیم

تمامی طبقات خالی و سوراخ و درها شکسته بود جز طبقه چهارم که
کسی به ما گفت بیائید بالا
و هنگامی که رسیدیم آنجا را یک تریکو بافی یافتیم که شش کارگر مشغول
تریکو بافی بودند و یک صاحب کار هم بود که به ما همگی گفت بنشینید و
ما دور اطاق روی صندلی های لهستانی نشستیم
صدای تیر اندازی و آژیر و جیغ و فریاد از پنجره ها میامد و همگی مضطرب
بودیم
شاید نیم ساعت بود آنجا بودیم که زنگ را زدند و صاحب کار به خیال این که
باز هم کسانی هستند که میخواهند پناهنده شوند درب را باز کرد و
مادرجندگان کمیته یکی از یکی زشت تر و بوگندو تر و عرق ریزان بالا آمده
و مانند وحشی ها ابتدا با لگدی چیزها را پرت کردند و بعد داخل شده مانند
کفتاری زخمی ابتدا به سراغ من که بانفرت نگاهشان میکردم امدند
و کریه ترینشان به من گفت :
- دستهات را نشونم بده
من بی اختیار دستهایم را از پشت به طرفش گرفتم که گفت :
- نه از تو ....من دستهایم را برگرداندم و نگاهی کرد و گفت اینجا چه
میکنی ؟
گفتم
در خیابان بودم که خر تو خر شد و به اینجا پناه آوردم
به سرعت به طرف دو دختر و دو پسر دیگر رفت و همان کار را با آنان کرد
و متاسفانه دستهای این بچه های نازنین خاکی بود و هیچ یک از ما به
این فکر نیفتاد که بروند دستهایشان را که سنگ و آجر پرتاب کرده اند
بشورند هر چهار نفر را
با خود بردند و به من گفت :

- صبر کن خلوت که شد بیا بیرون

نیم ساعتی بعد از رفتن آنان بیرون آمدم و به خیابان فردوسی رفته و به
چهار راه پهلوی رفتم و چیزهائی دیدم که نصیب هیچ انسانی دیدنش
نشود

همان شب بنی صدر و رجوی به همراه یک خلبان نیروی هوائی که حتی
به زنش هم نگفته بود به پاریس فرار کردند
و رژیم قصابان خمینی در زندان اوین عده ای از زندانیان گرو گرفته از
مجاهدین را که بچه دبیرستانی های روزنامه سر چهار راه فروش بودند
به همراه شکراله پاکنژاد و سعید سلطان پور که مدتی بود زندان بود
اعدام کردند
بعدها شنیدم تمامی بچه هائی که آن روز گرفته بودند بلافاصله برای
گرفتن زهر چشم از باقی مردم ایران اعدام کرده اند

تا روزی که زنده ام آن بعد از ظهر شوم و چهره تازه و سرخ آن دو دختر
و دوپسر جوان مبارز را فراموش نخواهم کرد
صحنه ای بود درست مانند فیلم های راجع به فاشیست های هیتلری
و خوف و وحشت همان

بدینسان تعرض به جان مردم ایران آغاز گردید که بدون توقف تا همین امروز
بیست و هشت سال است که ادامه دارد ............................

kozujnd gqdpw xhzkrn acvyfsn agtjuynmc mkivfg eymop http://www.twusngxrf.grtya.com

mgelday tinblru camgintk dgankzrto uyistqv ejmlh buwmirne

hpuqbzfi mlhngurea xkvhdu kgjfzmtpv lkgw khgcabxv xiclqfeot http://www.bfiothjvp.bhtew.com

cxiwqso vdem imfw lcfw cnjof jukoanr hdkb

player on to you !
breast enhancement

rhpofucml xrskct jwdzph omzqrct orgdt bkqm solher

ohetothks666 http://ohetothks666.nu/

npzgs aqcoei ifnojgsmc vpqh vgoplftry aidonsq myxgun

npzgs aqcoei ifnojgsmc vpqh vgoplftry aidonsq myxgun

npzgs aqcoei ifnojgsmc vpqh vgoplftry aidonsq myxgun

Things are getting ugly for the Mullahs. They are attacking each other like packs of hungry wolves.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8981

Looters are pointing at each other in Iran now. Waht would be next?

All the best Hamid,

Aghrab

Dear Scorpion & Why:
I share most of your thoughts and have all the dreams and hopes of someday seeing an Iran that is free of the IRI yoke. It's people are happy and prosperous and nobody dictates to them what to do, what to eat and what to wear etc.. I was twenty years old once and witnessed the revolution from the USA. I am almost fifty now and see that how things are worst that what they used to be (political wise). Our way of life was replaced over night and now we have people who are mostly tired, poor and desperate. There will not be an uprising that could be successful, look at what happened in (Iranian)Azarbayjan. IRI suppressed it with 3 division of well fed, well trained RG soldiers. Everyone is in jail or in the process of going in or out of it. Short of an American land invasion, nothing else will shake these guys, and I don't see one coming. Any aerial bombing will just strenghten the IRI grip and will bring more misery to the people. I don't have any quick solution in mind.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Hamid,

Sorry to see our discussion is being interpreted as a personal attack to your point of view. For sure it was/is not the intention. Everyone may view things differently and that is our right to do so.. However when we broadcast our views publicly, then we should be prepared to be challenged and we should back up our views by verifiable facts. The only thing, we have highlighted in here to you was that there are holes in your assessments/analysis and to collect credibility, they need to be properly addressed.

Nevertheless, the aim of this barbaric regime is to make people think and come up with a similar conclusion like yours. I.e. you have stated: " ... IRI by killing, appeasing and threatening has managed to survive so far, and I for one don't see anyone being able to do something about it..."

That is exactly what they want you to think , that they are completely invincible.

Mullahs are very timid yet cunning bunch of Jackals. They are masters of illusion and right now they are flexing their muscles in front of the public eyes, YET in reality under the table they are trying to get in bed with the West. Mullahs know very well that they have already sucked too much blood of their own people and frankly people don't give a damn about; them , Islam or anything else.

Our people in Iran have turned to virtual Zombies who get up each day, go to work only to bring home a piece of bread for their starving children. Normal day-to-day people have no time or energy to do anything else right now. That is how Mullahs have managed to control everything so far and loot Iran out completely . Now this tactic has/will backfire on Mullahs, as no-one neither will rise-up to fight them nor will go to any damn war to protect them. I can show you number of very high ranking military officer in Tehran who do moonlighting after work i.e. as cab drivers or second-hand shop dealers to manage their ever demanding expenses. Our people are simply hungry and they just think about how to survive each day as it comes!

If anyone right now attacks Iran, even with a false hope for freedom and comfort, no-one in Iran will back the Mullahs up (apart from a few savage henchmen they have). The Supper Powers already know this very well but the question for them is; why should they send their sons and daughters to die in Iran and endure the associated expenses ? ... To free Iranians from their tyrant regime is not a good-enough-reason for them! ... Simply, the West is asking; what is in it for me to go to war with Mullahs? That is why Mullahs are trying to show the Supper Powers that the West will gain more benefits from allowing them to exist and rule Iran as is... Example; the recent Mullahs' pledge to have an international uranium-production consortium in Iran, or accepting indirect airplane parts from the US companies. China and Russia already believed Mullahs and are currently enjoying the free ride. They look at the West thinking ; what a bunch of m_r_ns they are... this w_hore of a regime (in Iran) is offering free lunch , yet the West is still asking ...how much? what are you guys are waiting for?

Good luck to our people in Iran as their future is hanging between the hands of blood thirsty Mullahs and the profit seeking West.

Hamid,
I had to break my text and use the name Scorpion to be able to post my message.
I don't live in US
Don't get offended my friend.

Hamid,

If anyone right now attacks Iran, even with a false hope for freedom and comfort, no-one in Iran will back the Mullahs up (apart from a few savage henchmen they have). The Supper Powers already know this very well but the question for them is; why should they send their sons and daughters to die in Iran and endure the associated expenses ? ... To free Iranians from their tyrant regime is not a good-enough-reason for them! ... Simply, the West is asking; what is in it for me to go to war with Mullahs? That is why Mullahs are trying to show the Supper Powers that the West will gain more benefits from allowing them to exist and rule Iran as is... Example; the recent Mullahs' pledge to have an international uranium-production consortium in Iran, or accepting indirect airplane parts from the US companies. China and Russia already believed Mullahs and are currently enjoying the free ride. They look at the West thinking ; what a bunch of m_r_ns they are... this w_hore of a regime (in Iran) is offering free lunch , yet the West is still asking ...how much? what are you guys are waiting for?

Good luck to our people in Iran as their future is hanging between the hands of blood thirsty Mullahs and the profit seeking West.

Hamid,

Our people in Iran have turned to virtual Zombies who get up each day, go to work only to bring home a piece of bread for their starving children. Normal day-to-day people have no time or energy to do anything else right now. That is how Mullahs have managed to control everything so far and loot Iran out completely . Now this tactic has/will backfire on Mullahs, as no-one neither will rise-up to fight them nor will go to any damn war to protect them. I can show you number of very high ranking military officer in Tehran who do moonlighting after work i.e. as cab drivers or second-hand shop dealers to manage their ever demanding expenses. Our people are simply hungry and they just think about how to survive each day as it comes!

Hamid,

Sorry to see our discussion is being interpreted as a personal attack to your point of view. For sure it was/is not the intention. Everyone may view things differently and that is our right to do so.. However when we broadcast our views publicly, then we should be prepared to be challenged and we should back up our views by verifiable facts. The only thing, we have highlighted in here to you was that there are holes in your assessments/analysis and to collect credibility, they need to be properly addressed.

Nevertheless, the aim of this barbaric regime is to make people think and come up with a similar conclusion like yours. I.e. you have stated: " ... IRI by killing, appeasing and threatening has managed to survive so far, and I for one don't see anyone being able to do something about it..."

That is exactly what they want you to think , that they are completely invincible.

Mullahs are very timid yet cunning bunch of Jackals. They are masters of illusion and right now they are flexing their muscles in front of the public eyes, YET in reality under the table they are trying to get in bed with the West. Mullahs know very well that they have already sucked too much blood of their own people and frankly people don't give a damn about; them , Islam or anything else.

Scorpion

Hamid,

Sorry to see our discussion is being interpreted as a personal attack to your point of view. For sure it was/is not the intention. Everyone may view things differently and that is our right to do so.. However when we broadcast our views publicly, then we should be prepared to be challenged and we should back up our views by verifiable facts. The only thing, we have highlighted in here to you was that there are holes in your assessments/analysis and to collect credibility, they need to be properly addressed.

Scorpion

My reply to you Hamid is not being posted in here and I don't know why.

Hamid,

Sorry to see our discussion is being interpreted as a personal attack to your point of view. For sure it was/is not the intention. Everyone may view things differently and that is our right to do so.. However when we broadcast our views publicly, then we should be prepared to be challenged and we should back up our views by verifiable facts. The only thing, we have highlighted in here to you was that there are holes in your assessments/analysis and to collect credibility, they need to be properly addressed.

Nevertheless, the aim of this barbaric regime is to make people think and come up with a similar conclusion like yours. I.e. you have stated: " ... IRI by killing, appeasing and threatening has managed to survive so far, and I for one don't see anyone being able to do something about it..."

That is exactly what they want you to think , that they are completely invincible.

Mullahs are very timid yet cunning bunch of Jackals. They are masters of illusion and right now they are flexing their muscles in front of the public eyes, YET in reality under the table they are trying to get in bed with the West. Mullahs know very well that they have already sucked too much blood of their own people and frankly people don't give a damn about; them , Islam or anything else.

Our people in Iran have turned to virtual Zombies who get up each day, go to work only to bring home a piece of bread for their starving children. Normal day-to-day people have no time or energy to do anything else right now. That is how Mullahs have managed to control everything so far and loot Iran out completely . Now this tactic has/will backfire on Mullahs, as no-one neither will rise-up to fight them nor will go to any damn war to protect them. I can show you number of very high ranking military officer in Tehran who do moonlighting after work i.e. as cab drivers or second-hand shop dealers to manage their ever demanding expenses. Our people are simply hungry and they just think about how to survive each day as it comes!

If anyone right now attacks Iran, even with a false hope for freedom and comfort, no-one in Iran will back the Mullahs up (apart from a few savage henchmen they have). The Supper Powers already know this very well but the question for them is; why should they send their sons and daughters to die in Iran and endure the associated expenses ? ... To free Iranians from their tyrant regime is not a good-enough-reason for them! ... Simply, the West is asking; what is in it for me to go to war with Mullahs? That is why Mullahs are trying to show the Supper Powers that the West will gain more benefits from allowing them to exist and rule Iran as is... Example; the recent Mullahs' pledge to have an international uranium-production consortium in Iran, or accepting indirect airplane parts from the US companies. China and Russia already believed Mullahs and are currently enjoying the free ride. They look at the West thinking ; what a bunch of morons they are... this whore of a regime (in Iran) is offering free lunch , yet the West is still asking ...how much? what are you guys are waiting for?

Good luck to our people in Iran as their future is hanging between the hands of blood thirsty Mullahs and the profit seeking West.

Aghrab

Hamid,

Sorry to see our discussion is being interpreted as a personal attack to your point of view. For sure it was/is not the intention. Everyone may view things differently and that is our right to do so.. However when we broadcast our views publicly, then we should be prepared to be challenged and we should back up our views by verifiable facts. The only thing, we have highlighted in here to you was that there are holes in your assessments/analysis and to collect credibility, they need to be properly addressed.

Nevertheless, the aim of this barbaric regime is to make people think and come up with a similar conclusion like yours. I.e. you have stated: " ... IRI by killing, appeasing and threatening has managed to survive so far, and I for one don't see anyone being able to do something about it..."

That is exactly what they want you to think , that they are completely invincible.

Mullahs are very timid yet cunning bunch of Jackals. They are masters of illusion and right now they are flexing their muscles in front of the public eyes, YET in reality under the table they are trying to get in bed with the West. Mullahs know very well that they have already sucked too much blood of their own people and frankly people don't give a damn about; them , Islam or anything else.

Our people in Iran have turned to virtual Zombies who get up each day, go to work only to bring home a piece of bread for their starving children. Normal day-to-day people have no time or energy to do anything else right now. That is how Mullahs have managed to control everything so far and loot Iran out completely . Now this tactic has/will backfire on Mullahs, as no-one neither will rise-up to fight them nor will go to any damn war to protect them. I can show you number of very high ranking military officer in Tehran who do moonlighting after work i.e. as cab drivers or second-hand shop dealers to manage their ever demanding expenses. Our people are simply hungry and they just think about how to survive each day as it comes!

If anyone right now attacks Iran, even with a false hope for freedom and comfort, no-one in Iran will back the Mullahs up (apart from a few savage henchmen they have). The Supper Powers already know this very well but the question for them is; why should they send their sons and daughters to die in Iran and endure the associated expenses ? ... To free Iranians from their tyrant regime is not a good-enough-reason for them! ... Simply, the West is asking; what is in it for me to go to war with Mullahs? That is why Mullahs are trying to show the Supper Powers that the West will gain more benefits from allowing them to exist and rule Iran as is... Example; the recent Mullahs' pledge to have an international uranium-production consortium in Iran, or accepting indirect airplane parts from the US companies. China and Russia already believed Mullahs and are currently enjoying the free ride. They look at the West thinking ; what a bunch of morons they are... this whore of a regime (in Iran) is offering free lunch , yet the West is still asking ...how much? what are you guys are waiting for?

Good luck to our people in Iran as their future is hanging between the hands of blood thirsty Mullahs and the profit seeking West.

Aghrab:
Just wanted to add that these Mullahs are not mine and I hate them just as much. But that doesn't mean that I submerge myself in daydreaming and wishfull thinking. I just stopped believing in miracles after I saw how the revolution turned into what it is now. People in Iran are more interested in their daily economic/social sufferings, they don't need us in America to fix things for them.

Aghrab:
Please don't turn this into a personal fight. You don't know me and I don't know you. Let's keep this as a healthy debate between us American-Iranians. All I am trying to say here that IRI by killing, appeasing and threatening has managed to survive so far, and I for one don't see anyone being able to do something about it. I just don't want The Bush and Co. do an Iraqification of Iran. I just want to ask you to not to ask me to hold another election in Iran, as I am just like you, another Iranian obseving the events in his country with a differnt point of view than yours or Janes'.
Good luck

Hamid;
Are these the same people that you say staunchly are supporting your Mullahs?
Please see the following URL :
http://roozonline.com/english/018076.shtml
I guess this is another Conspiracy Theory to you

Jane,
You got it right between their eyes. These are the facts that any Mullah supporter should address first.

Dr Matin,
Our problems come from the past and we as a nation also contributed a lot to our own bad luck.

"Education"... that is what we really need.

For years the Islamic way of thinking has created an invisible cage around the mind of our people. Chains need to be broken now. Religion has been our own worst enemy from the day it has been forced to us. We are victims of our own mentality and we will be like that for ever unless we educate ourselves to think beyond the boundaries of any confining religion or theory.

Mullahs will eventually go and that is a reality, beside a united revolution against these thugs we desperately need some good mental evolution too.

A

The right link for "US Woos Khatami":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/08/wiran08.xml

US secretly woos Khatami
On sham so-called democratic elections in Iran:
Recently, to my disbelief, Brian Williams and other journalists failed to ask Shah Ahmadinejad how dare he can talk about referendum in Palestine as a means of deciding the future of the state of Israel and Palestinians in Palestine while in Iran people have been jailed or killed even at the suggestion of holding a referendum on Velayat Fagheeh(the absolute rule of Supreme Leader), the most anti democratic principal in Islamic republic or anywhere, which gives a blanket veto power to a single un-elected clergy over all elected officials.

A democratic velayte faghi is an oxymoron and hundred time more totalitarian. Grafting on religion to King-Supreme Leader-Velayate Faghih, makes it hundred times more totalitarian than imperialism, dictatorial monarchy, Nazim, or communism. Because the emotional appeal of non-religious fanaticism like Nazism, Fascism or Communism is not as pervasive as that of fanaticism based on religion. When fanaticism and religion are mixed, we have a very potent and dangerous brew that can sustain itself for centuries unlike non-religious fanaticisms like Nazism and Communism which die out when the ringleaders are defeated. This is so, since religion is based on the psychological weakness of all humans, when we humans try to comprehend the unknown (universe).

Dear AGhrab:

I'm in full agreement with your assessment as well.
There are always 101 reasons given why other nations haven't and won't intervene to help Iranians set Iran free. This is despite all the rhetoric coming out of all sorts of places about the mullah regime. The reason to me is simple. It isn't and hasn't been in the interest of most Western nations to see a free, prosperous Iran. The mullahs learned from what happened to the Shah and now are playing the field in all sorts of places including infiltrating some high places in Western governments. The mullahs don't play as "friends" to the West because they learned from what happened to the late Shah that only friends can be betrayed not enemies. I believe the West will be taught a good lesson by the mullahs and they won't know it until it is too late. The West is 1400 years behind on the Art of dissimulation(teqiyah sp?)

The posted article gives too much credit to IRI and simplistically ignores other key players such as the NATO ally Turkey in the equation making the analysis more like fiction. The conflict between IRI and Turkey dates back to Ottoman Empire era where again Iran was only trying to survive while Ottoman Empire was thriving. Turkey will not accept an IRI domination.

The IRI is fighting for survival not domination. The IRI is using nuclear issue to extend its life. It is under pressure from inside and outside and Mullahs know their millage.

Jane,
I do see the picture as you see it.
Good text.
A

You wrote: You are both advocating the same scenario, except one is more blunt and up front and the other ( Aghrab) is still dwelling over the conspiracy theories.
Response: Conspiracy theories are not backed by any fact that could be readily proven, yet what I have stated in here carries tons of verifiable history behind it. Just go and read the pre-revolutionary history specially the one that was not written by the Mullahs. It seems you are the only person who innocently still believe in what Mullahs' wrote about those events!
You wrote: It does not matter what and who brought Shah down.
Response: That is exactly were you completely go wrong. You took your first step in the wrong direction. No wonder you are going in stray from the truth. The historical events are the key factors to understand the current trends and why the West is reacting to us like this. You have no correct point of departure in here. Things do not happen over the night on their own, there are events taking place before hands, shaping the current realities. I don't suppose we had to remind you of this, as it is really elementary common-sense.
You wrote: The important thing is he did not have solid people or military backing, unlike IRI which is staunchly supported by a healthy precentage of the population and its military.
Response: Your second misconception in here, those days Iran was considered as the Gendarme of the Middle-east ( I am sure you at least agree that, this is a fact and not a conspiracy theory). With no insult intended in here, but no Arab neighbouring country could have dared to even drink a glass of water without direct permission from Iran back then. (Hence explaining the current animosity and grudges Arabs have got against us right now). AND what do you call healthy percentage of the population supporting Mullahs?. Do you call all those deceased-persons' birth certificates that has been used in the election by the revolutionary guards to vote for Ahmadinejad, as the healthy %? or do you call those civil servants that had to go and participate in the election or face loosing their livelihoods as the healthy ones? According to your own ridiculous parliament 75% of people in Tehran didn't bother to vote at all! (Tehran having 15 million people in it). In general only 20% or so vote has been collected from the adult populations who could ever vote over there. I dare you, do another election in Iran right now but this time under the full supervision of UN. Then we'll calculate the healthy percentage together!.
You wrote: I asked you if you had visited Iran, now I am sure you have not really seen the situation on the ground.No one is going to rise up, just like Iraq.
Response: Yes , I have been recently in Iran and I am in a regular contact with my friends and family, the real people who give real accounts of the events in Iran (not the Islamic Intelligent Service agents living overseas!) . Yes, no one is able to rise-up as your Mullahs have/will brutally torture and kill people just for even thinking about the concept of FREEDOM. You have killed (still killing) more political prisoners in Iran than any other countries. You give a chance to the real people in Iran to get their longs filled in with some Fresh Air Of Freedom then you'll see how loudly they will scream for their salvation and your END.

It is clear that the nuclear issue is a symptom of a deeper conflict rather than the cause of it. The US and the Islamic republic are engaged in a duel because both wish to remold the Middle East after their respective conflicting visions...more
http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2006&m=10&d=09&a=6

King of kings=Supreme Leader

Dr. Matin, Aghrab:
You are both advocating the same scenario, except one is more blunt and up front and the other ( Aghrab) is still dwelling over the conspiracy theories. It does not matter what and who brought Shah down. The important thing is he did not have solid people or military backing, unlike IRI which is staunchly supported by a healthy precentage of the population and its military. I asked you if you had visited Iran, now I am sure you have not really seen the situation on the ground.No one is going to rise up, just like Iraq.
Dr Matin: Do you really believe in your proposed plan? Don't you see what is going on in Iraq on a daily basis. I guess you either don't care or really believe that somehow the Iranians are of a higher world than the Iraqis and we will not suffer our neighbours fate.
The days of the kings of kings are long gone, and hopefully through education and grass route politics the IRI and supreme leader will eventually make way to a representative republic.

Dr. Matin

The west won't attack Mullahs unless they can get tangible benefits out of that act. We are not living in the world of decency, logic and rationale anymore. The only thing that counts is the $ sign these days.

Sir, the West not only won't change the regime in Iran right now but also it will actively stop any attempts to remove that regime. Who really brought these Mullahs back to Iran in the first place? It was not the people who actually changed the power in Iran! It was the West's collective political arm that has eagerly facilitated Shah's exit point, so that they can turn Iran 50 years or more backwards with no potentials for any advancement what-so-ever. Honestly we can see now, what a good job they have done!.

The reason?... Iran was getting too advanced and powerful with a King who called himself King Of The Kings, The Leader Of The OPEC, a man who wanted to call all the shots from that point. Should they have allowed Shah to stay on top of the power, by now Iran would have been truly a Supper Power? With heaps of Oil and many power generating reactors. All that would equate to an absolute financial power!... Now having that picture? The West wouldn't allow it to happen.

The West is more scared of Iran having a genuine democratic government over there than having a bunch of thugs called Mullahs. Some pathetic creatures that will run all over the show pretending they know how to build a Nuke-B while they are shamelessly stealing their own nation's wealth. The real Nuke capability for Iran is years away. By then the West will Nuke them back to the Stone Age, should ever Mullahs dare to have a bomb. Don't have any doubts about that!

Mullahs are already dealing with the West under the table in return of a guarantee for their rotten existence. The West needs these Mad Dogs in the Middle-east so that it can rationalise its active presence in that area...So that no Iranian could ever be as proud as they used to be. Never Be A King Of The Kings.

So long as we keep wait for the West's help, these Mullahs will be there for good.

We need to grow up and choose our own future and that would need good amount of $.

A

It is extremely disappointing that Iranians tend not to learn from their history. Till when you fall for regime's cheap tricks? This is a totalitarian regime that does not stand an opposing voice for even a second. If it was a regime tolerating differences, we would not have this discussion in the first place. It killed even Khomeni's own son when he started to become a liability. Whoever you may perceive as a crack in the regime is either playing theatre for you or he is being left to play his game because regime needs his game.

Stop this simplistic view which costing our freedom and dignity. Our future generations will blame you for your attitude towards this cancerous disease.

As far as offering a solution, I am not a general to draw war plan and it should be left to skilled generals. All I say is that the only solution is to erradicate this regime and nothing less is sustable. I am sure there will be innocent lives perished in the process. But, it is unfortunately unavoidable. many more people will be dead if this cancer is not taken out. the price of no action is much higher. It is like a cancer that can only be treated with surgery and extreme measures. There is no other way than attacking the regime's infrastructure in its entirety and invite Iranian people to rise. Military forces can enter to stabilize the situation and pave the way for the temporary government that should be formed in exile prior to attack. Six month after the attack, full scale elections should be held to form the parliament. Parliament should form the new government and the democratic cycle should follow.

Dear View From Iran:

I have already mentioned it to Hamid. Please see below;

Hamid;
I don't like to see a Mushroom Cloud over Iran at all, I do have family over there like you too. You don't have to get to that extreme with this already rotten regime. Just not to communicate, support, deal and so forth with Iran.

"Absolute Isolation" is the key in here. Mullahs have looted Iran as much as they could and now... they need fresh overseas based resources to survive. They won't last another 5 years if the West really stop having any flirtation with them.

I think people are missing my point in here. "The West Does Not Want To Change This Regime". At the moment the West considers Mullahs as lucrative potentials not real dangers what-so-ever. This is merely a show they've put on for us.

The day they (the West) decide to end Mullahs' shameful existence, they'll use any means they have. They don't consult any one for that for sure.

Mullahs know this too!
___________________
Should we follow the above policy, then we'll have a good chance to sort them out!

Rgs
Aghrab

Aghrab, no one is justifying the mullahs. most people are just pointing out what is obvious: an attack will unify iran and the regime. it will not divide them. it will make the element you despise stronger.

we are simply asking you what exactly you propose. you have said "cut off the leg". what does that mean when you are talking about a country that has "legs" in every single part of it? iran isn't made up of discrete territiories that separate the regime from the people. It's not a body. The metaphor does not work.

your fiend...

It is really sad to see how still some people are desperately trying to justify these Mullahs, using variety of baseless , mind-diverting and in most "ridiculous" reasons like;

_Yes we agree, Mullahs are murderers but the have guns and missiles now, lets not upset them and lets go to bed with them. Who has ever said NO to a free SEX!?

_ Mullahs are not that bad, yes they are tyrants but who is not? Well a few thousand(s) of innocent people are being killed each day under their hands ... so what? what is all these fusses about? They are not killing me , Well they can not as I am outside of Iran!.

_ Mullahs, know something that you and I don't know. Listen all their dirty actions are justified, just listen to them now ( i.e. Khatami & Rafsanjani) and think about how much benefits we can get from their open market over there and their current attitude towards having a civilized dialogue. Lets be civilized and get advantage of their kind gesture right now. Who wants the war ? I even didn't do my compulsory military service back then in Iran while we were in war with Iraq! Come on peace brother!?

_ Any attempt to remove Mullahs will destabilise Iran's integrity as a country and a lot of people will die "Suddenly & In One Go!". Please just let them kill our people with the current slow rate they have got right now(as this way is much more agreeable to the media and they don't bother to provide any coverage at all).And think about how safe Iran is right now as a real Sovereign Country , Allaho Akbar! .

_ I have got a PhD (god knows in what field) and here is what I say. I am the expert in this and too many uneducated people are in here , everyone back off I say We Must Go To Bed with the Mullahs.They've already paid for my PhD while I was overseas and I need to go back to Iran again so that I can get my family out of that S--t-hole. ( p.s to the ministry of intelligence in Iran ; here is my full name and title for your reference check please see you soon. P.P.S thanks I have received the last pay check too)

_ Mullahs have been misunderstood all years around , come on...Islam does not promote VIOLENCE at all...and I cut the head of those who say otherwise!
_ _
The reality hurts! doesn't it?
Keep try to justify them

Dr Assadi:
well done. I am in total agreement with your analysis and the solution you are advocating. It is high time to recognize that practical solutions can create a lively debate within the IRI ruling class. Just observe what is going on in Iran since the Khomeini letter got published by Rafsanjani. You are right on the point when you say that we are not dealing withn a homogeneous class. There are too many cracks in the IRI wall, one must just look for them. Attacking Iran will only unite everybody around the most reactionary clan of IRI.

Washington Post's discussion about Iran-US

Contribution by Jamshid ASSADI

Professor at the American University of Paris and ESC Dijon Paris

The governing class in the Islamic regime is not homogeneous. Rivaling fractions struggle on different issues including the nuclear question. A fraction, composed of reformists and pragmatists does not want more tensions with the international community, and for this reason, among some others, prefers a genuine peaceful nuclear program. Under the former reformist president Mohammad Khatami, Iran has reached an agreement on this issue with the European troika, France, United-Kingdom and Germany, representing the security council of the UN.

Opposing "secular" pragmatism and dialogue with the world's oppressors, the other radical and conservative fraction believes in atomic power as a guarantee of its maintenance in power against the upraising social dissatisfaction in Iran and the international pressure in the world.

This belief does mean necessarily that the radical fraction will use the atomic bomb against any country or even its most "ideological" enemy Israel. When the president Ahmadinejad says that the atomic bomb does not have any place in the Iranian defense strategy, he does not lie. But he and the other hard-liners think the fact of being an atomic power dissuades the foreign and domestic "enemies" to take any hostile action and solves diplomatic problems of the regime. Right or wrong, they craft their strategy according to this believe.

I doubt profoundly if the radical fraction of the Islamic regime would accept the suspending of the enrichment. They would not say no to the international community either. They try to buy time with ambiguous answers and request of more "constructive" negotiation. Still, I do not believe either that military attacks or economic sanctions are the solution to this problem. Sanctions cannot dissuade a country which knows how to thwart them thank to a long experience of finding gray-zone suppliers acquired during the eight-year with Iraq. Military actions will certainly alter the pro-western attitude of the majority of Iranian with, most likely, uncontrollable mobs and chaos all over the region.

Should it thus be fatalist and give up? Certainly not, the issue is too important to leave it alone. The solution is a direct talk between the U.S. and Iran and at the same time a Human rights-based support of the Iranian democratic movement which aspires democracy in the country and peace with the international community. What overcame the socialist dictatorship in the Eastern Europe was not the war against them, but supporting the democratic movements within them! This solution can work for Iran too.

Still one point should be remembered: if the direct dialogue with Iran is to be a substitute to war, it should not be less severe. If after each deadline on dialogues, a new round of dialogues is to be scheduled, as the Europeans seemingly prefer, then it would not difficult to foresee the issue: the Islamic republic would have its bomb! The dialogue should concede to Iran no plan for the regime change and transfer of technologies for oil and peaceful nuclear industries. In return, the international community might require from Iran refraining uranium enrichment and domestic Human rights. If this does not end to a peaceful solution of the nuclear crisis, it certainly finishes to dividing the governing fractions in power and isolating them from the citizens in the country.

Jamshid ASSADI, Ph.D.
Iran in Transition:
Economics & Politics

Aghrab & Amir:
It is true that we are dealing with a dictatorial regime that most of us wish it did not exist, but let's check the facts first:
IRI government has solidified itself, has built an impressive fire power and I dare say is ithing for a fight right now. IRI knows that it will withstand whatever US and "Allies!" throw its way. Let's not kid ourselves any more, there is no alternative to the mullahs right now or they would have been deposed by now.
How do you propose that the US topples this government without massive bombings, ground force intervension and in process destroying IRAN, our families and creating the biggest unrest the world has ever seen. None of you are pro[posing a solution to do away with IRI without vaporizing IRAN in process.

The free ride Iran is recieving is a very natural thing. In the absence of true appreciation of consequences and in the presence of historical ties between Iran and Afghanistan and Iran and Iraq, nothing else could have been expected.

Many of previous comments compare Iran to Hitler, or ask for toppling its regime, or spread fear about its ambitions. Is there any of these suggestions is a solution? I dare say no.

If we accept that truth is self-evident, the truth is that many are not offering a solution and are simply passing judgements, while they are not judges.

Echoing what Aghrab is suggesting, I see a lot of evidences pointing at deep state alliance between the dictator regime of Iran and US. I believe this alliance is tactical not strategic and hence could change at any moment, which justifies why Iran always insists on survival guarantees whenever it negotiates with US.

During the Iran-Iraq war, US used different ways to balance the power between the two sides so that none collapses. While Iraq was openly supported, Iran was supported under the table. There were several news leaks showing that Israel is supplying Iran with arms.

After the Iran-Iraq war, US saw Iraq too powerful and decided to diminish its force in the region by attacking it in 1991. That was the beginning of the shift towards fully supporting Iran.

Prior to that attack, Iran was isolated in the world and cornered in the region. It was pressured by Saddam from one side and Taliban from the other side. Even, UAE was pressuring Iran by claiming three islands in the Gulf. Interestingly, US toppled both regimes keeping Iran intact and turning its two arch enemies into friends! As a result, Iran is now a regional power dreaming of nuclear weapon! Iraq has a majority Shiites government extremely sympathetic to Iran due to their common religion. Afghanistan has also a very friendly relation with Iran. At the same time oil prices were left to sky rocket filling pockets of Mullahs in Iran with free cash to solidify their position.

US sees Islamic fundamentalism as the new enemy after the cold war. Iran as a representative of the Shiite fundamentalism is acting as an opposing force to Sunni fundamentalism represented by Taliban and Ben Laden. Having this opposing force is critical for US to keep the Islamic fundamentalism at check hence justifying its attitude towards the regime of Mullahs in Iran. Iraq is also emerging as a Shiaa state to strengthen that opposing force.

While US is treating ordinary Iranians, mostly intellectuals and professionals fleeing from the tyranny of Mullahs, as criminals, it is receiving current and former Iranian regime officials as celebrities!

I have no problem with the attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, but I am extremely annoyed at the free ride Iran is receiving as a result. US should not waste any more time and must correct the situation by toppling the dictator regime of Iran to prove these conspiracy theories are wrong. This will be the first positive step US has ever taken for the benefit of the Iranian nation. US interfered in Iranian affairs many times in the past toppling pro-people regimes. It is time to do make it right and topple this tyrannical regime.

Hamid;
I don't like to see a Mushroom Cloud over Iran at all, I do have family over there like you too. You don't have to get to that extreme with this already rotten regime. Just not to communicate, support, deal and so forth with Iran.

"Absolute Isolation" is the key in here. Mullahs have looted Iran as much as they could and now... they need fresh overseas based resources to survive. They won't last another 5 years if the West really stop having any flirtation with them.

I think people are missing my point in here. "The West Does Not Want To Change This Regime". At the moment the West considers Mullahs as lucrative potentials not real dangers what-so-ever. This is merely a show they've put on for us.

The day they (the West) decide to end Mullahs' shameful existence, they'll use any means they have. They don't consult any one for that for sure.

Mullahs know this too!

View from Iran;

My Fiend , this Gangrene is too advanced now and amputation would be the most logical course of action now. Before it is too late

..."Director of the Islamic Republic's Nuclear Program Ghulam-Reza Aqazadeh. He was in Moscow last week, trying to get "some clear answers" about the fate of Iran's first and so far only nuclear power plant at Bushehr.

The plant was initially due for completion in March 2004. That was later postponed to March 2005, a date chosen to allow the then President Muhammad Khatami to leave office with a bang. When that did not happen, the newly elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad set a new inauguration date: Feb. 11, 2006, which marked the 27th anniversary of the revolution.

Last month, however, Aqazadeh informed Ahmadinejad that the new inauguration deadline could not be met. A team of scientists sent by Aqazadeh to inspect the plant discovered "hundreds of problems" and came up with questions that "need to be addressed before we accept delivery."

When it came to revealing what he really felt about the Russian contractors, Aqazadeh minced no words.

Here is what he said in Moscow last Monday: "The Russians had no experience building nuclear plants outside their own country, especially in difficult terrain such as the one in Bushehr. The Russian Atom Stroy Export Company suffered from many weaknesses, in scientific, technological, financial and managerial fields. Had I been present when the decision was made, I would certainly not have signed the contract with them."

Aqazadeh revealed a number of interesting facts for the first time. First, he said it had taken the Russians more than five years to understand the initial design of the power plant as made by the German company Siemens in the 1970s. But even then, the Russian company did not have the scientific and technological capabilities needed to complete the plant according to German design. As a result, they opted for a Russian design that had been used to build the ill-fated one at Chernobyl. When Iranian scientists protested, they were silenced by the then President Hashemi Rafsanjani who had wanted to speed up the nuclear program before he left office in 1997. The completion of the Bushehr had already cost Iran "more than building a new nuclear power plant."

According to Aqazadeh, the owners of the Russian company tried a scam that was routine in post-Communist Russia: Signing huge contracts and then declaring bankruptcy. When the Russian contractors informed Tehran that they were bankrupt, and could not borrow any more from the banks, the Iranians took the matter up with Russian President Vladimir Putin who stepped in to save the situation by nationalizing the company.

Aqazadeh also criticized Russian workmanship as "substandard", and served notice that the plant may face numerous problems before it can be cleared for inauguration. One important area of concern is the fact that the plant is located on one of the most active earthquake zones on earth. While the Russians say the pant will resist tremors of up to 7 on the Richter scale, many Iranian scientists fear that this may not be the case. Iranian scientists are also concerned about inadequate provisions for recycling the plant's spent fuel, and pouring its used water into the Gulf.

Aqazadeh made an important revelation: The Bushehr plant, which had been designed by Siemens to produce 1,100 megawatts of electricity, has been scaled down by the Russians to a capacity of 440 megawatts.

Without saying so directly, Aqazadeh criticized former President Rafsanjani for his haste in pushing the project through, regardless of the many scientific and environmental problems involved. The only conclusion that one can draw is that Rafsanjani was not interested in electricity; all he wanted was an excuse for uranium enrichment.

Aqazadeh ruled out a new inauguration date but expressed the hope that the plant would be completed in "another six to seven months." This means that the Feb. 11, 2007 date is also out of the question as is the March 21, 2007 that coincides with Now-Ruz, the Iranian New Year. The soonest that the Russians can complete the plant is next summer after which Iran would demand a series of safety tests that could take many months to complete. The plant would also need a safety certificate from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), not to mention Iran's own Environment Protection Organization (Sazman Mohit Zist).

So, if Iran does not have any nuclear power plant and is unlikely to have one working for another year or so, what is the point of picking a quarrel with the United Nations over uranium enrichment?

The Islamic republic could easily suspend uranium procession and enrichment pending the completion of its first nuclear power plant. The picture portrayed by Aqazadeh of Russian incompetence lends credence to Ahmadinejad's assertion that the Islamic republic cannot depend on the Russian promise of providing uranium fuel for the Bushehr plant for the first 10 years of its existence. Nevertheless, it is clear that Iran does not need any uranium fuel for at least another year.

It is, therefore, possible for Tehran to announce a voluntary decision to suspend uranium enrichment for at least six months in order to allow talks to begin with the 5 permanent members of the Un Security Council plus Germany. If the talks go well, Iran could always buy uranium fuel from the 5+1 group or seek their technological support in developing Iran's domestic processing and enrichment program. And if the projected talks develop in a way that Tehran does not like, it could always walk out and resume uranium enrichment.

The core of the current crisis consists of the suspicion that the Islamic republic is not really interested in nuclear energy and is engaged in a clandestine operation to build atomic weapons. Tehran's behavior, insisting to go to the edge of war in order to enrich uranium for a nuclear power plant that does not exist, is bound to encourage such suspicion.Aqazadeh has shown a degree of courage rare in despotic regimes. He has exposed a project that has been mismanaged from the start and caused huge political problems without any providing any significant advantages in scientific or commercial terms. His subtext is simple: It is folly to push the nation toward war in the name of what is, after all, a piece of technological junk. He says he would not have signed the contract for what many in Iran already labeled as Chernobyl on the Gulf."
http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2006&m=09&d=30&a=5

I'm in full agreement with Troy Z and Dr. Amir Matin:

"So let us regard this as settled: what is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious." Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men: Voltaire. François Marie Arouet (1694-1778)

I am totally and utterly disappointed with US policy against Iran. The difference between Iranian regime and Hitler is that Hitler killed other people, but Iranian regime is killing its own people much more than other people just like Saddam did. All Iranian officials have contributed in the killings and torture of countless innocent Iranians. They are killing the will of the Iranian people on a daily basis. Iranian officials belong to jail not negotiation table. It is a disgrace allowing Ahmadinejad to enter the US soil. Does US government negotiates with US criminals and pamper them with bonus packages to stop terrorizing people or put them right to jail where they belong? Why US attitude towards foreign criminals is different? Are Iranian people less human than US citizens? Akbar Gangi for example should go to jail for his previous involvement in oppressing Iranian people rather than being received as a celebrity. I don't care what is his pretentious current position, but he needs to pay for his actions in the way all criminals do. Criminals in US are prosecuted sometimes 30-40 years after their crime even after leading productive lives in the society after their criminal act. WW2 criminal are being prosecuted even today despite genuinely regretting their past actions.

Unfortunately several Iranians were simple minded enough to fall for tricks such as Khatami and Gangi. My question is why US government is falling for the cheap tricks? Khatami and Gangi saved the regime when it was fully cornered by international community and Iranian people.

It is time for US to stop this double standard and rise for the values it is advocating. Iranian regime does not qualify as a negotiation partner. The first negotiation item with current Iranian officials should be to ask them to surrender themselves to jail and let the people of Iran lead a new life free of humiliation, oppression and torture. It's time for US to attack this cancerous tumor and take it out before it spreads deeper. I have no doubt that as a result Afghanistan and Iraq will be safer and easier to contain.

Here is the question that has not been sufficiently answered: Why is the onus of reconciliation upon us Americans?

Was the CIA complicit in overthrowing the democratically-elected Iranian leader Mossadeq? Yes, it was. For the record, sorry about that. Iran was supposed to have a revolution eventually. It was expected.
What is unforgivable is not making the country better afterward, and I see no atonement for the Iranian's post-revolution hostage-taking of our embassy officals, retaining the structure of SAVAK under a different name, and the continued literal demonization of me and my countrymen to this day. I do not see offical condonement of reconciliation on the Iranians' part when I am still referred to as The Great Satan, and given global precedent, I don't see how our engagement would assist the either the Iranian people or us.

I'll see your observation of George Bush clumsily referring to Iran as part of an "Axis Of Evil" (while politically conveniently not defining explicitly why) against the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran weekly inciting congregants in, notably, a house of worship, to chant "Death To America!" and be unembarassed by the comparison.

I am not accepting the occasional refrain of reassurance I hear that it is the "Iranian Character" to say one thing but mean another. I actually believe Iranians when they say such things when this hostile intent as part of the popular religious practice is not met with an equally if not overwhelming popular demand to not associate piety with the death of others.

Congratulations. You fooled us into thinking you're rabid. Well done.

Inquiry into further evidence suggests there is not actually theatrical posturing. A recent Zogby Poll (http://zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1147) revealed that more Iranians would want Iran to become more religious and conservative than would want the country to become more secular and liberal.

Why should I believe that there are calls for reform in Iran based upon such findings? Furthermore, why should one value the quality of expected reform when former Iranian President Khatami, repeatedly categorized as a Reformist, explained just this previous week during a lecture tour here that executing deviants was Islamically judicially correct, but one need not worry inasmuch as the requirement of four witnesses made such a possibility of conviction very rare.

Has anyone really considered the implications of that clinically delivered statement?

Does one wish to tell me that we can learn from our engagement with such a system?

Although it can anger and sadden me, when it comes down to it, the domestic policies of Iran do not and will never actually affect me. I'm very fortunate. They're just being their public-flogging, hand-chopping, adulterer-stoning, apostate-executing, newspaper-closing, media-banning, dissident-jailing selves. What does affect me is the policies, directives, and image of my own United States government and those who seek to influence it.

It's about time that an American should tell us Americans, and any other country that wishes to overhear, that we are "a proud people" or some other variant of the patronizing language we employ to excuse the autocratic practices of our so-called allies and trading partners. What this means is that as long as we are pointedly asking our United States troops to literally sacrifice life and limb for the sake of liberty elsewhere, we must as American citizens and consumers likewise make sacrifices of our convenience for those selfsame ideals. If that means a painful reinstatement of the Ration Card system that those of the so-called Greatest Generation had to endure, then so be it.

I ask that we walk the walk, and resent and rebuke those who imply that we Americans are either too soft, too oblivious, or too entangled to demand a reciprocity of freedoms from our diplomatic and economic partners before such relationships continue; as in the case of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or China; or, in Iran or Cuba's case, start.

However, despite Iran's genuine vitriol, I just cannot generate the fear that a nuclear program, weaponized or otherwise, should dictate the terms of anticipated policy. We survived such antagonism before from a nuclear-armed rival, and, might I add, admirably well. Remember that quote: "We will bury you" or, more to the point, the government on behalf of which it was made? I remind you: we were not buried, and the USSR is no more.

I assure you I am not afraid. I am more angry than afraid.

I advise my own government and my fellow citizens that if we are to avoid shame, we should not blink in presenting and holding to demands that the ideals as exemplified by the First Amendment of our own Bill of Rights in the American Constitution are ideals WORTH demanding. Freedom of speech. Freedom of the Press. Freedom of Assembly. Freedom of religion.

There are genuine tragedies being promulgated upon the Iranian people by its state, and we should not be complicit in them by saying such incidents are not worthy of obstructing talks. To be blunt, we haven't screwed up our relationship by having one in the first place.

I mentioned earlier a "global precedent" that not just suggests but proves that Iranians will not benefit from our engagement as the situation stands. I shall relate to you this personal anecdote: I was in college when the Tian An Men Square massacre happened in China, and it was a blunt reminder that coupled with an impotent anger at what a government will do (and with what they can get away) with a realization of my own privileged accident of being born in the United States. I haven't bought a Chinese-made product since. However, this is not the case with my American government, which bent over backwards to give most-favored-nation status to China years before its induction into the WTO. The result of all this active engagement is that the Chinese government still stifles press freedoms to where even the circulation of the iconic image of the lone protestor facing down the tanks is an arrestable offense. The organization of independent labor unions is prohibited. Corruption is ingrained and expected. How have the Chinese citizenry's freedoms and expectations of state accountability benefited from the economic engagement of the United States? I have no evidence that it has. It seems that our United States trade policy in practice only pays lip service to reform and democratization provided it has the opportunity to take advantage of cheaper, less-regulated labor and opening up markets for its own consumer goods that it seems only a slim resident minority can afford. There was a counterargument proposed that the Chinese are better off now than under Mao, but that sets the bar contemptuously low, and, might I add, doesn't currently make them any less subject to the aforementioned constraints of liberty and justice.

I speak to my fellow Americans when I offer this criticism: The measure of a society is not how much crap you can buy or are encourged to buy at the mall. If any other nationalities or cultures wish to eavesdrop on that comment, feel freeto do so.

The point is, I don't see the prospect of US engagement strengthening the Iranian people, certainly not by the precedent set by China or, perhaps more relevantly Saudi Arabia. President Bush literally holds hands with King Abdullah and Saudis still reserve the judicial right to execute people for apostasy. They're still imprisoning and flogging writers and teachers for their views. They still don't exhibit the need to have open courtroom trials. I could go on, and, believe me, I have. The net result is that I am embarrassed by our connivances of state policy by winking at these atrocities of liberty in the KSA, and I would argue that they're much worse that that of Iran. At least Iran has a film industry of which to be proud.

I'm all for sanctioning Saudi Arabia, except our State Department, big surprise, copped out in enforcing its International Freedom of Religion Act of 1998 back in September 2005 (while initiating the process of sanctions against less economically strategic Eritrea).

So please: I am very predisposed for these reasons to support any mechanism for complicating relations, up to and including sanctions, if it would prevent another betrayal of the principles of freedom we supposedly espouse. If anything; I wish to warn you, based upon these examples, that our American involvement will not give any leverage to the likes of Ganji, Zarafshan, Kazemi's family, Darabzand, and a whole census of other unnecessary injustices because the at least illusion of stability is paramount to our international relations and building markets, not personal names which can be swept under a Persian rug as an "internal matter."

I would like to register as an enemy of such injustices, and it's as simple as not being afraid and walking away from what we don't have the need to control.

It's okay to have enemies. It's okay to have MORE enemies, even. I just ask that we all stop the self-damaging policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Upon reflection, I am comfortable in my role as The Great Satan. There's a "Great" in there for a reason.

OK. Now I feel better. I whole heatedly agree with the points presented by the Author of this article and moderate positions such as the one "American" from Iran. I thinl Aghrab means well but does not realize that what he is advocating will end up destroying Iran and makeing Iranians as miserebale as trhe Iraqis. I also think that he has not been to Iran lately and does not have a feel for the real situation in Iran. Remember America got a snow job before, when attacking Iraq and I honestly do not think that it is in any position to engage Iran on a conventional basis. That leaves only the nuke arsenal and I hope to god that Aghrab consideres this before advocating harsher measures on Iran.

Is this becoming a sole debate between "Aghrab" and "the View from Iran"?
I have submitted 2 or 3 comments and none has been posted. This leads me to believe that somehow my views are not presentable. Please post this so that I know I am not wasting my time. I believe we need a liveliier and more pluralistic panel here that just two people. What do you think? By the way I am the second Hamid, the one with the more recent postings.

Aghrab,

No, I won't mention names.

Respect from murderers? C'mon you know that is not the point of my comment. You know that we have had to deal with oppressive regimes before and you know that Iran pales in comparison to those regimes. I mean, pales.

So, are you advocating an attack? Or penicillin?

You wrote: I heard that there is some evidence that the real benefit of negotiations is growing mutual respect.

Question: What respect? do we need respect from the Murderers now? Did we reduced ourselves down to their level, do you really believe that? Now, do we have to beg for every psychopaths' approval in order to have peace?

You wrote: During my stay in Iran, I have met some of the architects of the revolution who have told me that I changed their opinion of America. I am not all that great. I am not a Muslim, nor do I pretend to be. I am just here, being my normal self.

Question: Could you please name at least one of those architects? And by the way please tell us how on earth you (as an American born person) got over all those RED TAPES in Iran, passing all those security points and managing to visit them?

You wrote: I am sorry I even mentioned the word "tyranny", but the fact remains that iran is a regime that gains its power from isolation. Increase the isolation, increase the power. That is why all oppressive regimes all over the world since the dawn of time have tried to keep the rest of the world out.

Question: No my fiend you don't have to be sorry for mentioning the word Tyranny, we just don't appreciate it when there are attempts to justify this word in its NOUN format.

We agree with you, Mullahs like the rest of the other savage regimes will benefit from certain level of isolation. However, we see Mullahs as a deadly and fast spreading Gangrene now one that does not like to be confined in only one body. There is only one logical way to deal with the Gangrene! and you don't have to be medical practitioner to figure that out.

How Carter et al installed the mullahs in Iran:

The Carter administration's Trilateral Commission foreign policy further ensured that any European effort from Germany and France to develop more cooperative trade, economic and diplomatic relations with their Soviet neighbor, under the umbrella of détente and various Soviet-west European energy agreements, was also thrown into disarray.

Carter's security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, implemented their 'Arc of Crisis' policy, spreading the instability of the Iranian revolution throughout the perimeter around the Soviet Union. Throughout the Islamic perimeter from Pakistan to Iran, U.S. initiatives created instability or worse."

-- William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, © 1992, 2004. Pluto Press Ltd. Pages 171-174.

view from Iran, or American view from Iran,

Whose isolation are we talking about?

Even in a functioning democracy and a free spciety, if one violates someone else's rights, the usual treatment could be leaving in an isolated building called prison. Is that isolation also bad?

Iran: Seven Women Risk Death by Stoning

September 27, 2006
Amnesty International
Urgent Action

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE131112006

Part of our fight against Islamic extremist terrorism must include accentuation of our Human Rights values, not actions that dilute our values and place us on the same plane as those who murder, rape, torture, maim, plunder, kidnapp, lie and spend millions of dollars on their propaganda apparatus around the world in the name of Islam and religion.

One needs to read the Iranian Constitution and the goals indicated in the constitution to realize the Imperial design this country has on the region. Conquering Jeursalem and expanding the rule of Islam in the region (to control the energy/oil)are the main ideological thrust and the main modus operandi of this theocracy.
Condi Rice on Iran:
"In the Middle East, I think those trends are moving in the right direction but I think that we got a very big wakeup call in the summer with the war in Lebanon because in a way that it had not really been clarified before the Middle East with all of its historic animosities and so forth, I think had to confront its modern - its current environment, which is one in which extremism on one side and moderation on the other came into pretty sharp relief. And that has been very clearly recognized now, I believe, by the moderate Arab states - the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians - by moderates in the kind of fledgling democracies that are there, whether it be Iraq or Lebanon or even the Palestinian territories, and the supporter, the financier, the inspiration for those extremist forces like Hezbollah and Hamas, I think is now clearly in everybody's mind Tehran, and that has given a kind of clarity to what the challenge is from Iran, not just on the nuclear side, not just on the internal politics side, but literally on Iran's ambitions for the region as a whole.
(...)
"I cite the time factor here because I don't think that this is a battle, if you will, or a struggle that's going to be won on George W. Bush's watch. I think the framework can be laid, but I think the struggle is not going to be won on his watch. Now, that is not to by any means diminish the central struggle in the war on terror against al-Qaida and their progeny, but it is another more geostrategic element that for the first time I think puts a state sponsor of terror in a very key position geostrategically. Terrorist groups without state sponsors are obviously extremely dangerous and can do great damage, as we saw with al-Qaida. Terrorists who are the arms and legs and kind of tentacles of a state with considerable assets at its disposal has the potential to - have the potential to change the kind of geostrategic picture. And I think we're dealing with both simultaneously.

Please read the entrie interview with Condi Rice here:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/73106.htm

Iran needs to decide whether it wants to be a nation living peacefully among other nations or it wants to be a "cause" to expand its powers and ambitions by exploiting and using Islam and religion as a tool, period.

Of course,my command of English was gained because I *am* American. My command of Persian comes from living in Iran for the past 3 years, so thank god this conversation is not in persian.

I heard that there is some evidence that the real benefit of negotiations is growing mutual respect. During my stay in Iran, I have met some of the architects of the revolution who have told me that I changed their opinion of America. I am not all that great. I am not a Muslim, nor do I pretend to be. I am just here, being my normal self.

I am sorry I even mentioned the word "tyranny", but the fact remains that iran is a regime that gains its power from isolation. Increase the isolation, increase the power. That is why all oppressive regimes all over the world since the dawn of time have tried to keep the rest of the world out.

I was listening to a speech by Clinton, he said one of the things he regretted was that he complied with what was seen as a "norm" in the whitehouse, especially not talking directly to the Iranians.

President Khatami (a moderate) tried to talk to the US but of no one in the US admin wanted to speak to him. Ahmadinejad (a coservative) takes a hardline and suddenly everyone including the US is all for diplomacy.

Cyrus,
Appreciate you comments very much and thank you,
A

Well said Aghrab!

Only one thing: I see some merit in convincing others that the regime in Iran is a tyranny and should be treated as such, be they Westerners or my own compatriots. Otherwise I would not be writing here, and I guess some similar reason is behind your writing here as well. In any case, people's beliefs and ideas are what direct them in their actions. That makes the outcomes of these actions different.

But absolutely true, no more than the minimum should be spent on mere words and verbal games. Actions, based on correct ideas, are what matter the most.

Guys, Fellows, Compatriots, Dadash! Please
While some of us are trying to get into understanding the roots of the Tyranny in here and analysing the real meaning of ; A Tyrant Regime... OUR people in Iran are dying from hunger, drugs, prostitution and execution under the dirty hands of this blood thirsty Mullahs.
Sitting down beside a cool pint of Budweiser and copy & paste parts of our (or someone else's) Masters or PhD thesis in here does not help our fellow Iranians living currently in Iran. Nor it will prove us to be the God-gifted scholars living overseas and passionate about our country...Stop pretending please.
Wake up and take the colourful classes off your eyes.. What you are doing in here is exactly the same thing other people like you did during the early days of the revolution in Iran ...allowing the Mullahs take over the power inch by inch while they were trying to show off their great insights and that how much political books they read or write.
Instead of trying to come in here and impress each other with your good command of English (which you have acquired by living OUT SIDE OF IRAN)... please just think really hard how you as a SCHOLAR living overseas can hep the poor people in Iran. People who have huge amount of Oil under their feet yet they go to bed hungry each night because their Islamic government is stealing their Oil revenue.
By projecting our knowledge in the world's affair and the use of some sexy & eye-catching vocabularies in here we are not doing anything positive. Whoever thinks that Mullahs are not Tyrants (putting it in plan Farsi; ZALEM) please take your bags and go back to them!. Why are you living overseas then?
The situation in Iran is not as complicated as you are trying to show. It is simple your Mullahs are killing the innocent people each day shamelessly while you and I are checking the size of the mammary glands we see each night in the night-clubs outside of Iran. Lucky aye? we are out and THEY are trapped in!
Shame on all of us. Have a bit of decency and at least don't pretend you care. Just go back to your nightlife overseas and enjoy the freedom that the BAD WEST has given you.
Our people are dying in Iran... what more do you need to know?

Cyrus, I agree that the regime is oppressive, repressive and all sorts of other ives... My point about Iran being ahistorical was different: Iran is the first oppressive regime to have such a huge and well-connected diaspora. Everyone in Iran knows someone living abroad. I cannot imagine that there has ever been a situation remotely like this. The people of Iran are not nearly as isolated or as hounded as they are/were in the former Soviet Union or in N. Korea or in many other places. Iranians are connected to people living on the outside in a way that no other oppressed population has ever been. This very fact makes life here very, very different.

view from Iran, and Hamid

My compatriots!

"Many writers say that there should be no negotiations with Iran because Iran is a tyranny... As a pragmatist, I ask "Why not?" Isolation, I think, plays into the hands of the fundamnetalists. That is what they want."

There should be negotiations but only for the purpose of ending the tyranny. Isolation is truly bad for the ordinary people of Iran. But if one is not careful, a program geared to end their isolation can be abused and misued by the fundamentalists to continue their reign of terror. So, we should be careful what we are wishing: we wish to isolate, yes, isolate the fundamentalists, and give power to the people, so any negotiations must be done carefully with that in mind.

Also, Iran is no historical exception. In all tyrannies before, like the one under the Soviet Union, the power was not so completely consolidated or unified in the hands of tyrants. If it had been there would have been no way it could end when it did. There are always dissidents, fighters, activists. There is always a power struggle, and that is why there is always hope that tyrannies would end. The tyrants do their best, and we better do our best as well so we could end their tyranny and bring the fruits of freedom to our land.

Tyranny is simple this: "If a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society." This is called the "town square test." It might also have degrees in a free society, but certainly there is a treshold below which we cannot possibly consider a society free, where there is a qualitative change. Iran's is certainly a tyranny at this time and it has been since about 27 years ago. The time before that is now history.

Cayambe,

I see no connection between "promoting and seeking democracy" and "torture". These are two opposite concepts. If you have any argument to that effect, it is be default false.

You seem to be particularly confused about what your Declaration of Independence is saying. When it says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." you cannot possibly conclude that a tyranny is also one acceptable form of government because that is what people (in on eparticular moment of time) might have wanted. What if they changed their minds the day after? What mechanism is there for them to affect that change of mind? In a tyranny, the answer is none except the overthrow of the tyrannical system, perhaps, I tell you, peacefully if possible.

You also say, "I'm sorry to tell you that there is nothing here which precludes THEM from choosing the form that they did for the Islamic Republic of Iran." Do you know that I am one of THEM? I have not chosen this tyranny for myself, and I have no way in the current system of changing it? Am I being repressed or not? Am I being deprived of my inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or not? If you see "nothing here which precludes THEM" from setting up a tyranny to rule over not only THEM but also their children and their childrens' children..., you must quicky check yourself in for a thorough eye exam.

Your positive or negative answers to these questions would set your moral stance apart from or in line with the tyrants of Iran.

I have a question to all these" DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH MULLAS" Iranians - What in the world are you proposing here? Are we going to nuke Iran? Is this what you guys really want? I know we all prefer to have a democratic and secular government in Iran, but beleive me that will not happen on the backs of US soldiers and Bombs. We should lobby both sides, especially the IRI government to thread smartly.

Many writers say that there should be no negotiations with Iran because Iran is a tyranny... As a pragmatist, I ask "Why not?" Isolation, I think, plays into the hands of the fundamnetalists. That is what they want.

Aside: (Iran is not actually a tyranny -- at least not yet -- power in Iran is not yet unified. There is not Stalinism or Maois or Kimism here) Iran is an historical excetption: with 2 million or more Iranians living abroad with access to info and to family and friends here, Iran is ahistorical. It is unlike any other oppressive/repressive regime in the history of the world. Closing it up would take more than an internal disinformation campaign and would take more than removing sattelite dishes and internet access. The people of Iran, unlike the people of N. Korea or Maoist China or Burma or Iraq, are no longer confined to the borders of Iran.

Cyrus Ferdowsi, Iran, libiran.blogspot.com

My goodness, this is going to seem strange indeed, but I just cannot agree with you.

You write:
"I argue that the foreign policy that best serves the interests of the people of a free country is one that promotes and seeks the establishment of a democracy anywhere in the world. Most importantly, it must seek the replacement of tyrannies with democracies."

This reminds me of the language used recently by President Bush with respect to "interrogations". He was fond of asserting that the legislation was necessary so the CIA could continue its "interrogation program" and without it, the program would come to a halt. Actually, this was entirely untrue. The CIA is and has been free to interrogate, i.e. ask questions of, detainees and/or prisoners to its hearts content. It was only when they wanted to couple "torture" with the questions that the legislation became necessary.

What is it that "promotes" and "seeks" actually mean? Might this entail the 4th ID roaring up the highway towards Baghdad? Your argument above justifies our actions in Iraq? Apparently so. WMD, the Al Qaida connection, even defiance of the UN are extraneous issues. It suffices for you that Saddam was a tyrant and we a "free country".

This is actually a very "un-american" idea, that democracy has some sort of privileged position as a governmental system in this world. I would direct you to our Declaration of Independence....................
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
.................................

Governments, to include those you classify tyrannical, derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever ANY Form of Government (and this would include a democracy) becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.... The right to abolish the tyranny of Iraq belonged exclusively to the Iraqis. The right to abolish the tyranny of Iran, if that is how you choose to characterize it, belongs exclusively to Iranians. We should also note that the People retain the exclusive right "to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to THEM shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness". I'm sorry to tell you that there is nothing here which precludes THEM from choosing the form that they did for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This country used to have a set of principles underlying its identity as a nation. We are in some danger of losing them.

No dialogue with the criminal regime of Iran. Freedom for Iranians NOW

The Mullahs regime is rotten from inside and its stench is becoming more and more obvious to everyone.
This regime is only a shell of a proper government structure. It is rather an empty drum that only makes loud noises now and then. Mullahs know this fact very well and only by distracting people's mind from this basic reality they can survive. Hence they keep diverting the minds to situation in Israel, Lebanon, US, Iraq, Moslems dignity and so forth.
The supper powers also know these facts too. That is why they don't bother to change this regime right now. This regime in reality poses no real danger to the West , At The Moment.
The Mullahs Nuke-B capabilities are years away as IAEA already indicated. The only notable danger at the moment would be if Mullahs independently master/harness the nuclear technology to produce energy internally.
Reason for this? currently more than 50% of the Mullahs Oil Production is wasted inside Iran by its own internal energy use. Now, imagine if Iran utilises its nuclear energy to produce that 50% need without the use of Oil. This effectively will give them the chance to have 50% more capability to sell their Oil. AND 50% more $ earning potentials hence more cutting edges for them. Effectively they can influence/control the international Oil Market/Price. Iran currently is the 4 th (big) producer of Oil in the world, then suddenly it will become a master of Oil Production and call the shots without any resistance from any one.
This is a potential danger. This is where Iran can shift the power balance in the world. Just listen to what Ahmadinejad is saying now ; THE ERA FOR NUKE-B IS OVER.. WE ONLY WANT TO MASTER THE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY AND WE DON'T NEED THE NUKE-B.
He is right, they don't need the Nuke-B. The knowledge an capability of producing independent nuclear energy in Iran is more powerful than any Nuke-B you can imagine. (This is the only point that I am in agreement with Ahmadinejad right now). Mullahs can control the world's economy that way. They can choke their rivals by economical means much more effectively than by any military power. They don't have to even send a single troop anywhere. They just turn the Oil-taps off on their enemies and they will turn the winter into an ICE AGE for their foes.
That is what makes the Supper Powers a bit itchy at the moment. By not allowing Iran to have internal nuclear fuel production capability they virtually contain the Mullahs. This is a very well know policy THE CONTAINMENT.
Now, no matter how much we write, scream and wave our hands in here, it will have no impact on the supper powers decisions. The supper powers all know how cruel this regime is . They all know how this regime is suffocating their people. They all know very well all the atrocities these Mullahs have committed to date. But frankly they don't care. So long as Mullahs are CONTAINED within their own boundaries it is a business as usual for the supper powers.
This is the reality now. No-one really cares about the innocents, justice and decency any more. Power and $ have replaced everything in this world. The fact is that innocent people are being killed by their own governments, terrorists and the supper powers all at the same time.
The morale of the current story is that don't be a weak innocent and no-one will help you but yourself.
Sad but true.

Most Iranian-Americans will not condone of any military strikes againt their native land. I sincerely encourage the US administartion to refrain from creating a third war in the same area, since this one will open the gates of Hell. I am also a critic of the Iranian regime but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. To all iranians on this blog, Iran must survive first before anything else.

Ali,

Very well done. But you have neglected Pakistan. How is that hotbed of of extremism get tamped down?

Realist wrote: (unrealistically)
"We cannot afford to let Iran get its way. No dialogue is possible until they change. Future conflict is inevitable otherwise."

Why not? Even assuming you know what "its way" is, what is it about this that we cannot afford? You mentioned Israel and map wiping. Let us suppose Iran did wipe Israel off their map. It wouldn't be that difficult. A little judicious use of white out and replace the text Israel with Palestine and voila, reprint the new edition without Israel. What are you thinking, that they will send us the bill for the reprint and we can't afford that? But I suppose you might think that the map wiping would be accomplished by nuking Israel, or over running it with Hezbollah. Is that it? Is this what we can't afford? Hardly, we make money on this outcome. Israel, year in and year out, is our single largest foreign aid expense and we would actually save 3-4 billion dollars a year, not exactly chickenfeed.

Why is dialogue not possible until they change? Actually, Iran changes every day, along with everyone else. Change seems to be a uniform property of all matter in this universe, not true? Perhaps what you meant was that they must first make certain specific changes, known only in your head, before we engage in a dialogue with them. Is that it? Finally, "Future conflict is inevitable otherwise." Really? What might "otherwise" in this context mean? It could be the failure to meet your specific conditions for dialogue. It could mean a failure to conclude a successful dialogue. Which is it? How long do we give them to satisfy our demands, whatever they are? What kind of conflict do you then have in mind? I've been in conflict with my wife for 16 years now; but we have eschewed weapons of mass destruction, at least for the present.

Neda,

I'm pleased to hear from the other side of the fence, and a rather more reasonable assessment than we seem able to muster on this side.

You wrote:
"Though the whole situation seems to me totally unfair, I think Islamic Republic must ask its people (us) if they want to have the nuclear facilities even if it means a war can occur in iran, or not. But they won't do it like they didn't till now."

I would point out that our government never asked our permission on this question either. Our government also takes the form of a Republic, democracy being limited to the election of our representatives.

You wrote:
"I don't want my country to have nuclear weapons, in fact I'm afraid of becoming another N. Korea. But this fact also should not be overlooked that, iran never attacked any country, and now clearly Ahmadinejad is saying that they are not a threat for Israel. It means "I did not mean what I said before about map and the rest".

I accept that you don't want your country to have nuclear weapons. But were I an Iranian, I would disagree with your position on strategic grounds. I would point out that you are surrounded on three sides by potentially threatening nuclear neighbors, Israel, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India. You are, in addition, surrounded by other cultures, Sunni Arabs to the west and the south, Sunni Pashtun to the North and east. The Persians have sat at the crossroads of east and west for millennia. Finally, there is the United States that has, of late, appointed itself as invader of last resort. I would argue, as a matter of self-defense, of national security, it is necessary for Iran to have nuclear weapons as a defensive option against any invasion or external nuclear attack.

If that doesn't persuade you, I would remind you of your war with Iraq, of Iraq's actual use of chemical weapons in that war. As you may recall, and your parents surely would, missiles were launched against Tehran. Consider what was exposed following the first gulf war, namely the advanced state of the Iraqi nuclear weapons project; something that surprised and dismayed the West and perhaps even the Iranians. With Saddam remaining in power, how could any Iranian Government fail to press forward with developing nuclear weapons to counter that threat from Iraq. Seriously, if we here in America, thousands of miles distant, felt so threatened by Iraq's nuclear potential that we invaded the place, how threatened must the Iranians have felt merely a hundred, two hundred miles distant? The case for acquiring nuclear weapons capability in Iran is compelling, overwhelming, and impeccable.

While I may not be Iranian, I can mentally project myself into Iranian shoes in the context of real geography and history and ask myself what I would do. I would want nuclear weapons given the way the world is presently configured. So when your President asserts they do not want nuclear weapons, I don't believe him. He is lying, as almost all statesmen do at one time or another.

You wrote:
"Military action, would be a big mistake, and a horrible act referring to all these facts I said above, and what we all see now in iraq."

You are most certainly correct, but there are certainly more reasons WHY it would be a mistake than you have mentioned.
1. We have no just cause of action. President Bush (and many others) have said that "we cannot permit Iran to have nuclear weapons". It suggests we have the authority to "permit" nuclear weapons, to "permit" the technologies necessary to their production (and the production of nuclear power plant fuel). Its not good actually. We have become quite unpredictable in the authorities we might claim, might make up out of whole cloth. This by itself is destabilizing.
2. We currently lack the military capacity to accomplish a mission of eliminating the technologies and capacities necessary to a nuclear program in Iran. We can, at present, barely sustain our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Empty threats put our weakness on display, and invite more challenges.
3. We would walk ourselves away from all allies except perhaps Israel.
4. The world at large would begin to wonder how we are to be controlled, how the remaining SuperDuperPower might be leash trained for the safety of all.

You wrote:
"Even if iran despite of saying is not going to make nuc.weapons do that, I doubt it if it's going to be a threat for Israel. Because they already have it and Islamic republic is aware of that. Certainly they will attack back and perhaps in a worse shape."

There is nothing wrong with your thought processes Neda, You are absolutely correct. Some of us might conjecture that the Iranian Mullahs are crazy enough to use nuclear weapons on Israel, effectively committing suicide, but by no means are all of us that dumb. States do not commit suicide. People do, even cults do, but nation-states do not. When you join the nuclear weapons club, the first thing you discover is that, absent an overwhelming first strike capability, the weapons are useless for offensive purposes against other nuclear states. Mutually Assured Destruction is a very stable arrangement, with a fifty five year history to back it up. So no, Israel is not threatened, we are not threatened, but Iraq is, Saudi Arabia is, and other regional non-nuclear states.

You wrote:
"I hope one day no nuclear weapon of any kind and in any country be found, and I desperately hope that day is not after there is "no country" because of a nuclear world war."

I respect your hope. It is essentially a plea for nuclear disarmament as opposed to nuclear non-proliferation. Fat chance of that, right people? But on the other hand, nuclear non-proliferation is unsustainable without nuclear disarmament so there you have it.

In my opinion we are most unlikely to have a "world nuclear war". The chances of that become remoter with each passing year. On the other hand, the chances of a "local nuclear war" increase as nuclear weapons proliferate. It poses very difficult questions that few seem willing to address. Just suppose that Iran had used a nuclear weapon to defend itself from the chemical attacks launched by Iraq during the war. Is that a legitimate use? What would you think Neda?

Perhaps surprisingly, I don't believe that it is a foregone conclusion that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. There is a distinct possibility that they could see themselves negotiating for alternatives. But I don't believe you can get anywhere on that track unless you take proper account of their legitimate security needs and provide for them. Not so surprisingly, North Korea falls into a similar boat. At some point we must ask ourselves if our compulsion to proselytize for Democracy and Freedom, by force of arms if necessary, does not also magnify the forces of proliferation. Are we not shooting ourselves in the foot?

Neda, I was touched by your parents predicament with respect to music. Freedom of music is a human essential. Religion we can do without, and be better off for it, but depriving a person of music is the essence of cruel and unusual punishment, certainly a crime against humanity. But this is a matter only you, your parents, and your fellow Iranians can deal with. I think you will in the end be successful, if for no other reason than most of the world has developed freedom of music. But it is not all good; there is a cost; we are regularly assaulted by a great deal of very bad music. :o)

I won't be surprised if Akbar Ganji turns out to be the Mulla's Trojan horse to deflect the threat of war. He is part of the Islamic revolution gang of Sepah and Intelligence (left wing) who thought the days of the revolution are over in mid 90's and it is best to change sides and align with the upcoming wind when the oil prices were down. Rising oil prices and Khatami's rule gave a new life to the Mullas ..... and I don't know what deal he made to come out of the prison in Iran alive.

By Mulla's I put Khatami into the category:
I.e. "there is honesty among the theives/ [Mullas]". The Persians tell you "the yellow dog" Khatami" is the brother of
Jackal "khamenei".

What David Igniatius and Fareed Zakaria have not realised yet is that Khatami was "the shell that [turtle of] Islamic republic hide itself" after Mikonus verdict in Europe to work on its Atomic technology, refering to one of Rafsanjani comments in his last days of presidency and Khatami is proud of it.

Khatami's meat and bone is indebted to Khamenei/Beheshti, just look at his carrier from Hamburg Mosque, to Keyhan newspaper and ... . Despite his reformist public mask of "taqiyeh", his true face is a true follower of Khamenei the religious hardline leader; in contrast to Rafsanjani who is a rival to Khameni for power. Bush and Europe are being fooled twice by the same trick of this 2-face hypocrat who helped to suppres the student's movement and he only wants to buy another window of opportunity and breathing time for the regime to survive Bush's second term. Bush and his advisors should not hesitate and should keep the monster under the water and finish it.

The moment Iran is attacked, the people of big cities in Iran will come out and support US liberation project in Iran as the people of Kurdistan in Iraq are supporting US. Don't have a single doubt about this. If war starts, I won't be surprised if the Mullas are hanged in crossroads in Tehran by angry people before the arrival of liberating troops to Tehran and the Mullas are fully ware of this.

With less than one month's casualty of the US troops in Iraq, the Iranian regime will collapse and in addition Iraq will become more stable too. Shift the US soldiers from harm's way into Iran where it is the center of gravity of the theatre of war on terror.

It is time for Bush to show leadership and cut the head of the monster of terror in the region before the winter and cold weather arrives.

It seems too many people consider Iran a tyranny, without defining it. Relatively, compared to neighborhood, Iran is NOT a tyranny. Even if so do explain to me why USA could have relations with other tyranns and talk to them, but it cannot talk to Iran???
the point here is not to seek selfrightousness, it is to solve a problem.
Now that Egypt is openly after nuclear technology there is no way that Iran stops. I wonder if Egyptians are motivated byr Iran's plan and they are trying to compete.

My previous post is now on my weblog
bazardispatch.blogspot.com

PART I
Iranian Regime: How Tyrannies Survive?

The Islamic Republic regime of Iran is a tyranny. For the purposes of this writing, the detail mechanisms of the IR tyrannical rule in Iran's conditions do not matter so much. They do matter, however, when one is devising specific or tactical policy plans, which is beyond the scope of this piece. Instead I limit myself to the general mechanisms of the tyrannical rule, which should be adequate for planning strategic policies.

A tyranny sustains its rule internally through a cycle of repression and misinformation to keep the society closed. This could go on indefinitely if people would or could still produce efficiently and live happily under tyrannical rule. However, a direct consequence of tyranny is that it cannot possibly employ the society's various internal capacities effectively. Against exponentially mounting economic and social hurdles, a tyranny invariably needs a mechanism through which it can supply the needs of the society from external sources without compromising the powers of its rulers. This is the most important function of a tyranny's foreign policy. It is also its Achilles' heel.

Foreign Policy Objectives: The Case for Democracy

What should the objectives of the foreign policy of a free country, or collectively, of the free world be toward a tyranny? This is a contentious issue. Understandably, any foreign policy does and must pursue the interests of the people for which the policy has been devised. I argue that the foreign policy that best serves the interests of the people of a free country is one that promotes and seeks the establishment of a democracy anywhere in the world. Most importantly, it must seek the replacement of tyrannies with democracies.

There are many moral and practical reasons for my argument. Instead of going through them in detail, I present one reason that is often mistakenly used in opposition: security. By its nature a free country's first task must be the protection of the lives and freedoms of its citizens. This raises the issue of security as an important foreign policy objective. However, lasting and reliable security can only be negotiated and acheived with democratic countries.

A tyranny may tactically accept or even initiate security agreements, but the purpose of such agreements is to supply its needs without compromising its tyrannical rule. So, it may soon calculate that the current security agreements are not enough or necessary for its survival, at which point it would see no need to honour them. A democracy, on the other hand, has no such incentive and even strong disagreements between democracies never create direct security problems for the parties. More importantly, democracies have every incentive to find a solution for their disagreements and continue to cooperate with each other on many levels seamlessly and often quietly even though they might vocally disagree on a few issues. For recent examples of the two cases one may look at the relationship between US and Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, on the one hand, and the US and France or Germany, on the other.

In short, a tyranny, even a friendly one, is always a security threat. A democracy, even one that disagrees with us, is never so.

PART II

Foreign Policy Program: Dealing with Tyrannies

I hope it is by now clear what should be done in order to achieve the above objectives. Free countries of the world must devise strategic foreign policy plans that deprive the tyranny from the single most important goal of its dealings with the outside world, i.e., its survival through outside help while holding the power inside. Such a program need not be necessarily military, but it needs to be strict about the survival tricks of the tyranny's foreign policy. All such maneuvers must be denied.

Let's focus on the case at hand, namely, Iran's nuclear crisis. Obtaining nuclear weapons is a vital survival task for the regime in Tehran. There is no question of whether Iran is "really" pursuing nuclear weapons, since Iran is a plurality. It is the tyranny in Iran, not Iran as a nation, that is after nuclear weapons. In today's world the tyrannical regime of Iran can be given no guarantee by the outside world short of an indefinite security deal to be dissuaded from seeking nuclear weapons. This is precisely why the religious dictatorship in Iran has so far rejected all offers on the table for its "peaceful" nuclear program that would objectively deny it the possibility of obtaining nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iranian regime may still be toppled by boiling pressure from inside, as the Soviet bloc was, but we have no idea or working theory of how that hypothetical situation may be materialized in the foreseeable future of Iran. The regime in Tehran knows this very well. Thus, an American foreign policy seeking the spread of democracy around the globe must reject the notion of coexisting with a nuclear Islamic Republic before the fact.

Another outcome that the American foreign policy must avoid is making security and economic deals with the Iranian regime solely on the issue of nuclear crisis. This is exactly what the tyrannical regime is seeking for its survival. Instead, the US must actively seek to promote the chances of establishing a democracy in Iran. The US and her allies must deny the regime the chance to use their nuclear program as a playing card to win more feeding tubes for its decaying body. This can be done through a variety of tactical plans, such as banning the government officials' trips, targetted economic sanctions that affect the government's vital veins, and at the same time establishing direct aid to the people of Iran, for instance, through academic, economic, and social transactions with trusted individuals and organizations. The free world may also make economic agreements with the regime in a transparent fashion in return for opening up the political situation inside. This is the best way to give the fruits of a better economical and political situation to the people of Iran, and especially the forces of democratic change. However, the free world and the Iranian freedom activists must implement measures and programs to follow the adherence of the regime to its commitments under such agreements if they are to bear any pleasant fruit.

Iranian Regime: How Tyrannies Survive?

The Islamic Republic regime of Iran is a tyranny. For the purposes of this writing, the detail mechanisms of the IR tyrannical rule in Iran's conditions do not matter so much. They do matter, however, when one is devising specific or tactical policy plans, which is beyond the scope of this piece. Instead I limit myself to the general mechanisms of the tyrannical rule, which should be adequate for planning strategic policies.

A tyranny sustains its rule internally through a cycle of repression and misinformation to keep the society closed. This could go on indefinitely if people would or could still produce efficiently and live happily under tyrannical rule. However, a direct consequence of tyranny is that it cannot possibly employ the society's various internal capacities effectively. Against exponentially mounting economic and social hurdles, a tyranny invariably needs a mechanism through which it can supply the needs of the society from external sources without compromising the powers of its rulers. This is the most important function of a tyranny's foreign policy. It is also its Achilles' heel.

Foreign Policy Objectives: The Case for Democracy

What should the objectives of the foreign policy of a free country, or collectively, of the free world be toward a tyranny? This is a contentious issue. Understandably, any foreign policy does and must pursue the interests of the people for which the policy has been devised. I argue that the foreign policy that best serves the interests of the people of a free country is one that promotes and seeks the establishment of a democracy anywhere in the world. Most importantly, it must seek the replacement of tyrannies with democracies.

There are many moral and practical reasons for my argument. Instead of going through them in detail, I present one reason that is often mistakenly used in opposition: security. By its nature a free country's first task must be the protection of the lives and freedoms of its citizens. This raises the issue of security as an important foreign policy objective. However, lasting and reliable security can only be negotiated and acheived with democratic countries.

A tyranny may tactically accept or even initiate security agreements, but the purpose of such agreements is to supply its needs without compromising its tyrannical rule. So, it may soon calculate that the current security agreements are not enough or necessary for its survival, at which point it would see no need to honour them. A democracy, on the other hand, has no such incentive and even strong disagreements between democracies never create direct security problems for the parties. More importantly, democracies have every incentive to find a solution for their disagreements and continue to cooperate with each other on many levels seamlessly and often quietly even though they might vocally disagree on a few issues. For recent examples of the two cases one may look at the relationship between US and Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, on the one hand, and the US and France or Germany, on the other.

In short, a tyranny, even a friendly one, is always a security threat. A democracy, even one that disagrees with us, is never so.

Muhammad Ali Rajaee was the first non-clergy president of Iran after the Islamic revolution. Many politicians remember his famous act in the general annual congress of United Nations before his lecture to be started.
He put off his blouse and tucked up the trousers to show the audience and media reporters the reminders of tortures that he endured in prisons and jails of Shah's regime.
That was calling for a new way in the 2-way connections of newly Islamic republic and United States.
After Shah's overthrow and the destruction of Iranian 2500 years kingdom monarchy, the relations between Iran, went darker until the complete disconnection between countries has been established and all political deals of two great powers of world on that time was stopped, also US imposed very intense and great boycotts and prohibitions to Iran and damaged us very much. Iran was forced to buy old and unusual Russian Topolov planes; Iran was forced to provide its necessary agricultural products itself and Iran was forced to engage in any industrial technology without the assistance of European and American countries...
After your invitation to Iranian bloggers, I wrote a complete post here at http://cyberfaith.blogspot.com

Akbar Ganji wrote a letter (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092001583.html) to the american people in washington post.
Now Hossein Derakhshan again tries to ruin Ganji's reputation. Read how he tries to mislead his english weblog's readers.(link: http://blogcritics.weblogs.us/archives/21)

The US talk with Mullahs means a direct green light to all the Criminals , Tyrants and Savage Murderers. This will be translated as ; YES if you are lucky enough to get through the net , have substantial amount of $ as well and promise to hide/commit all your crimes diplomatically from now on then you can join the rank of us the Supper Powers!
Ali, you call Iran a great example of a crude democracy? With all due respect but what planet are you from? Crude democracy to you means ; raping the political female prisoners in your jails in the name of the all mighty ALLAH, so that after you have executed them (while some still pregnant) then they don't go to Haven (according to your Islamic Sharia Virgins won't go to hell).
What could be worst than this regime? I believe people who justify the existence of it by any means.
Giving a chance to Mullahs to talk means dignifying all their dirty actions so far.
What sort of world are we living in now, people talk about giving chances to murderers and totally forget the actual victims. Then we are all wonder why we have so much terrorists all around us.

David Ignatius has invited Iranian bloggers to comment on Iran and USA proxy talks, and the signaling games between two countries. The issue has been addressed by several think tanks and the links are on David's webpage. The reports are most informative about how Iran's issue has been perceived in Washington DC and at Capitol Hill. Reading them for an Iranian is a great experience of the image that political strategists have in their mind.

We are in the post Iraq occupation, post name-calling, post Lebanon 34 days war. Now the violence in Iraq is escalating. The situation in Afghanistan seems fragile and Pakistan is letting Taliban go and is not happy with Kabul. Lebanon war demonstrated the limits of air strikes. Iran enjoys a sort of high peak in regional influence, suffers from economic problems and needs to secure alternative energy resources to sell more oil to address them.

Reading the reports it seems that no one has any clear idea about how political decisions are made in Iran. Far from being a dictatorship, Iran is a great example of a crude democracy. There are several groups and circles that influence the political decision making process in Iran. These groups oppose or support policies and options they find harmful or profitable. They also use foreign policies issues to make their point in a domestic issue. Their dynamics demands close attention.

Second many forget that Iran and USA have mutual interests. Iran needs a calm neighborhood to flourish economically and to open its borders to the regional trade much needed for its economy. USA desires a safe Iraq and a stabilized Afghanistan and secure flow of oil from region. Iran also does not share anything ideologically with either Taliban or Al-Qaedeh. Both proved to be most dangerous for Iran's homeland security in the past.

It is a fact that the decision making circles vary in power and influence in Iran, They do not necessarily share the same interests. But they all have one thing in common. Most of them remember Iran-Iraq war clearly and its lessons. Should Iran be cornered again by the whole world, she must be able to defend herself. Surely readers recall that during 8 years of that war Saddam had the blessings of the White House, the funds of Arab leaders and the largest network of arms suppliers, Iran had to do with domestic products, engineers' ingenuity and black market.

If USA must appreciate those concerns dealing with Iran and address them with sincere guarantees and mutual respect. Yelling like a cop just prevents the other side from stopping and talking and nobody is making an arrest here.

Although many believe in the "let's shoot and then shoot some more and then shoot even some more" it is certain a military strike will fail to stop Iran. Any such folly would encourage more radicalism in Iran and would not achieve the psychological effect that makes such an idea appealing to neo cons. Thus this is the situation: Iran and USA are locked in a situation that neither can eliminate the other player and both need each other.

It is regrettable that administration turned down Iran's 2003 offer, made by then President Khatami, however a grand bargain is not off the table. Iran could use its influence in Iraq and contribute greatly to stability in Afghanistan. Its 75 million strong population and their entrepreneurship abilities could transform this country's economy to the engine of economic growth for Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. And thus they would deny terrorism the fertile ground of poverty and frustration. It is the greatest lesson of domestic wars in Africa that foreign aids do not build a national economy, regional trade does.

In return USA could face the hard days in Iraq with more confidence, could be sure that even if Pakistan closes its eyes on revival of Taliban Iran would keep fighting them and guarantee the security of Afghanistan western provinces. It also can be sure that Iran would become a potential ally to harness China's economy and to challenge Russian influence in Central Asia. Iran would prove instrumental in securing peace in Southern Lebanon and this would force Syria into accepting a compromise.

So yes I believe the proxy talks have a chance and I do think it is time that Secretary Rice to engage in direct talk with Iran. Anything less would imply the absence of sincerity and lack of resolution for a peaceful outcome. USA has already left too much to others. If this is needed to be done then somebody need to do it. Let's not forget how well Nixon aced in his foreign policy with China. Iran could be a similar success if diplomacy is given a serious chance.

Dialogue/talk/diplomacy or whatever else we want to call it is not going to stop the Iranian regime from getting the bomb. If they are intended as warm-up to a post-nuclear Iran, the story is different. And if the US is getting ready for a world where the regime has its fingers on the nuclear trigger, it should also start making serious strategic adjustments as correctly pointed out in http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=book&item_id=486. One important adjustment that was not mentioned in that document is that the US should start making a U-turn with respect to its middle-east democracy agenda. Why? Because the regime strategy is rather obvious: "expansion through low intensity violence and use of proxy groups in the region while deterring the threat of American conventional force via the nuclear bomb." American insistence on elections in the region will be the best opportunity for mullahs' proxies to gain power through a well-coordinated campaign of deception, coercion, and violence. Lastly, the regime-US talks will have another profound impact. Rafsanjani who was regime's president for 8 years once said that the pro-American Iranians should know that when the time comes, Americans would through them away like a piece of toilet paper. The talks will not stop mullahs from going nuclear but will surely prove Rafsanjani right.

A P.S. to my post above is that this Iranians you want to have the dialogue with they know a Christo Colonist when they see one.

while I admire President Bush's frankness and great insight toward the Iranian people yet I strongly warn you that this will be misinterpreted by the Iranian regime as a weak action. Even Mr Bush deep in his heart knows that he can not trust the Iranian regime's intentions and there is no proper diplomatic solution apart from going in bed with this criminal regime.

Real, day-to-day Iranian people don't want nuclear energy, they want basic human rights, food and safe environment for their children. The prostitution, class A drug addiction is killing our children rapidly under the hands of this blood thirsty regime in Iran. When I talk about children, I mean kids around the age of 8, 9 and 10 now.

No decent person in the power will allow his/her nation to be hungry and deprived from basic human needs then go and spend the hard earned cash for Nukes. We don't have to be a guru economist to figure that one out.

The situation with Khatami going to US is exactly a typical example of Good Cop Bad Cop scenario. Believe me, the Mullahs also watch Western Gangster movies and they know how to play the game with you. You are being fooled by your own tactics now.

Khatami moves to west and shows a kind face only to say "come on we shall get rid of Ahmadinejad together" as great civilized nations, we also agree he is insane, we don't want him either. These are all part of the game for the Mullahs to prolong their shameful existence.

They want to survive and they put their hands on any tricks they know. Please don't be so naive. Under the Khatami's ruling time they have also committed atrocities. If UN had the power to go to Iran right now and provide a mean for normal people to speak out freely, then you would see all the crimes these mullahs have done to their own people.

Just ask for a referendum in Iran supervised by the UN with a simple question from Iranian people, DO YOU WANT THIS ISLAMIC REGIME?, Yes or No.

That is all you have to do to see what is the reality in Iran. Mullahs divert the mind of everyone from this simple and basic question. As they know no-one in Iran really wants them. I urge you to bring this forward in your next interview with UN, the Whitehouse and/or the European Union. This is a very legitimate way to test the legitimacy of this regime and bring about all the coalition you need in the world to bring this regime down. BUT DOES THE WEST REALLY WANT THIS REGIME TO GO? You please answer this question.

Please, don't look for an easy exit to this global terror that Mullahs have created. They have projected us with the same kind face (like what Khatami is doing right now) before the Islamic revolution and before they got the power in their hands and then immediately they have suffocated all the voice of justice.

Khomeini, Khamenei, Khatami, Rafsanjani , Ahmadinejad, they are all several heads on the same Serpent's body. Their root is in the same injustice/corruption swamp and they all feed from one tyranny stomach.

I as an Iranian born person thank you, Mr Bush and the rest of the people in America for being decent and trying to solve this problem with peace.

However, we all know you can not sleep with a Serpent and now is the time to finish its shameful existence. As it is in its weakest moment right now.

Dear David I am glad you had a good time in your recent trip to Iran, looks like since or a little before your trip your views are shifting more to center conservative rather then previously right conservative. It almost sounds like you want to run for office this days. After 4 years of pounding hard on everything Iranian you now want to have a dialogue with Iranians that is a welcome change.

President Bush in your interview addressing the Iranians said that we accept your sovereignty this is the best Iranians have heard from an American president since WWII. Yet every body in western pres talks about the stupid cue d tat of 1953 but not once they talk about that actually Iran was occupied by US forces in 1943 although Iran was a declared non involved state in that western conflict.

So the animosities goes way back before 1953 and it is hard to believe that US recognizes Iran's sovereignty. And yet again US and Iran signed a non intervention agreement in 1982 (the Algiers Accord) but I guess that is out the door since Miss Rice openly suggest and funds for regime change to peruse US design for the region. Iranians are looking at the fox's tail and asking themselves should we believe you or your tail.

I am also an Iranian American living here for over 3 decades what is neglected is that majority of Iranians in Iran don't read Washington Post or listen to CNN regardless of their problems with the current government in Iran. But they all remember history and history is the part that is being neglected to the Americans.

Iranians have survived foreign aggressions for last 2500 years they have seen conquerors and dictators from west as well as east come and go,and unlike Iraq, Iran is not a patched up state they have experience to know who has a design for them.

In my opinion you should suggest to the western media and their policy writers to stop the pounding on Iran, this pounding will not change any Iranian mind as matter of fact looks it is not changing any American minds this time around.

With my best wishes

Jewish community, please read this from BBC news.

"Despite the offence Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has caused to Jews around the world, his office recently donated money for Tehran's Jewish hospital. "

"In the last five years the government has allowed Iranian Jews to go to Israel freely, meet their families and when they come back they face no problems," says Mr Mohtamed. BBCnews.com

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm

Get into any taxi in Iran, go to any party, to any café or fast food
joint or kebabi, and the chances are that the day's conversations will
concern http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092100829.html
Ahmadinejad's press conference at the Council on Foreign Relations,
the funneling of money to Hezbollah, and the high price of chicken and
fruit. Iranians are news-hungry and concerned about how the words and
actions of the world's leaders will affect them. Endless
misinformation from official sources means that Iranians are expert
conspiracy theorists who look more at actions than at words.
Ahmadinejad says that Iran has statistically far fewer prisoners than
America, and Iranians respond, "Because we execute so many more" or,
as my own husband said, "Because we cannot count."

Bush says
that he respects the Iranian people and that he is committed to
diplomacy, Iranians wonder why he surrounds himself with advisers
who have quite openly declared that diplomacy with Iran will not work.

"Bush has promised to rid Iran of the regime," my husband tells me as
we discuss the possibility of war. "But the regime *is* Iran," I
respond. (Sorry Iranians... I know you like to think otherwise.) The
regime and the Iranian people are in a symbiotic relationship. They
despise each other, yet they depend on each other. The dream of
excising the regime from Iran is just that: a dream. It would be
better to think of ways to make it a more harmonious relationship: for
instance, how can we encourage the regime to have a more open dialogue
with its own people? How can we make the regime secure enough to
tolerate dissent? The U.S. refusal to engage with Iran has made it
possible for the regime to maintain the nation in crisis- mode.

As long as the regime is insecure, it will continue to act as a
hard-line regime. ("But the regime is not insecure," Keivan argues.
Even if he is right, America's lack of diplomatic activity in Iran
means that the regime can behave as though it is under attack, which
is exactly what Ahmadinejad claimed during his press conference.) That
is why I believe that now is the time for discussion and dialogue. I
do not believe that the nuclear negotiations will lead anywhere. I do
not believe that threats will be effective. I do not believe there is
a quick military fix for Iran's "alleged" efforts to gain a nuclear
bomb. I believe that it is time for the United States and the EU to
step back and do a significant re-think on policy in Iran. If every
"solution" thus far proposed strengthens Iran's hard-liners and does
nothing but make them more intransigent, then we need to think of
solutions that will do the opposite. I advocate for an army of
tourists. I want to see the American Embassy opened. This is what the
regime truly fears: engagement.

Just be warned that the closer Iran seems to agreement, the farther
away agreement actually is. As many with first hand experience of
negotiating in Iran will tell you: "Getting to 'yes' is just the
beginning of the negotiations."

"We respect your history. We respect your culture. We admire the
entrepreneurial skills of your people." There, Bush said it. It's
the obligatory "You're too good for me. I like you as a friend" line
that is required of every good breaker upper. It should and does ring
alarm bells for Iranians who are used to hearing that sort of
statement followed up with an insult. From that point of view, it's
difficult to know whether Bush is really calling for dialogue or just
getting ready to break-up the non-dialogue dialogue.

I suppose the main problem is the disconnects between the two peoples, the iranians and the north amerircans. Although Iran is not a democratic soceity and U.S. tends to have their share of igonrants that does not do justice to the great democratic soceity in which they live in, these both peoples can influence the course of their governments. Here is weher we come to the real problem; Americans belive iranians are terrorists and jew hating, this is to the contrary of the relaity, there are no islamic indoctrenating madresses in iran, most iranians ara not what you may call as dedicated muslims, most iranians are hipocrates when it comes to their religion, which is as far as I am concerned very good. The religion in Iran is used as a political tool. On the other side of the Atlantic, the iranians miss the point that the issue is not about the world depriving Iran to advance, but they [the world] are fearfull of these dangeros advancements in the hands of the mullahs. Also, iranians love conpiracy theories and as long as they live in the dungeons of conspiracy thoughts, they will continue to miss the simple issues.

Though the whole situation seems to me totally unfair, I think Islamic Republic must ask its people (us) if they want to have the nuclear facilities even if it means a war can occur in iran, or not. But they won't do it like they didn't till now.

I don't want my country to have nuclear weapons, in fact I'm afraid of becoming another N. Korea. But this fact also should not be overlooked that, iran never attacked any country, and now clearly Ahmadinejad is saying that they are not a threat for Israel. It means "I did not mean what I said before about map and the rest".

Military action, would be a big mistake, and a horrible act referring to all these facts I said above, and what we all see now in iraq.

But what should be done?

Even if iran despite of saying is not going to make nuc.weapons do that, I doubt it if it's going to be a threat for Israel. Because they already have it and Islamic republic is aware of that. Certainly they will attack back and perhaps in a worse shape. If no body had it and you had fear of "now iran is gong to be the only one having nuclear bomb" then yes, you should be worried and it would be understandable if the military action is discussed.

I am not happy with my country's condition now. My parents even now can't listen to the music they had before by satellite tv which police collected last two months and my mother was so depressed because of that -also scared when police came into our house- that she did not came out of bed for one month. But still, a war would be a disaster. At least they are alive now.

I hope one day no nuclear weapon of any kind and in any country be found, and I desperately hope that day is not after there is "no country" because of a nuclear world war.

How can there be meaningful dialogue with Iran when its leaders openly advocate destroying Israel and killing all its inhabitants? And what of the Iranian people? Do they support this policy, too? After Israel, who is next in line? All the non-Muslims? We know where this leads. We cannot afford to let Iran get its way. No dialogue is possible until they change. Future conflict is inevitable otherwise.

Bush administration and US media are showing weakness towards Iranian regime. They are confused. Just compare the treatment of arresting and detaining Iranian scholars and professors trying to visit Sharif university gathering in US last month and the treatment that Khatami and Ahmadinejad are getting in US?

I am really puzzled. US is treating the ordinary Iranian professors and acdemics as terrorists should be treated and humilates them and does not allow them to enter US and in contrast US does not even fingerprint the Ahmadinegad delegates
who are revoloutionary guards and intelligence officers? Why US is treating these crminals and terrorists as celebrities? I thought Bush fixed the CIA intelligence gathering problems.

Hello! Ahmadinejad has an open criminal file for leading a group assassinating Iranian Kurdish opposition in Europe and he is afraid to travel to Europe because he may be arrested. Shouldn't Ahmadinejad be arrested and given to Interpol "to have a dialogue" with him?

They call this "acrobatics" and not running foriegn policy!

Dear Readers,

Thank you for engaging this thread.

For some reason, if your preview your comment before submitting, it will not go through the system, so please submit directly. We're looking into this problem.

With all due respect, Ahmadinejad's opinion of Israel is irrelevant. Noone is asking Iran (nor Israel for that matter) to be nice to each other. Further, Iran has open elections. We may not like the result, but they have been certified by international observers. We practiced 'regime change' in 1953 in Iran, and we got the Shah for a while, and then the current regime. The only rational choice is dialogue. Revolutionaries stop being revolutionaries after they are accepted.

The Islamic Republic was able to pursue its nuclear programme for years without the international community knowing anything about it, and for the past 7 or so years that this programme has come to the international attention they have been stalling talks which have lead to nothing but the further completion of this programme.
As we all know the terrorists in power in Iran have an elaborate terrorist network around the world which poses a great threat to the freedom-loving world. Imagine if a nuclear bomb was passed on to Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad or any other Islamic terrorist organization?
The solution to the nuclear programme regarding Iran is simple: support the Iranian people in their struggle to free their country from the yoke of these terrorists. It's shameful that the western media has not given the horrific human rights situation in Iran under the Mullah's the attention it deserves. Iranians are suffering under this hated regime. There is no need for war. The only footsoldiers that should be used are the Iranian people who are more than capable to put an end to this hated regime.

My earlier longer post on this dialgue
did not appear. I'm wondering if only
pro-dialgue comments appear.

US is sending the wrong message, at the wrong time to the Iranian regime and Iranian people. The message Bush is sending is: "US is scared of Iran and US cannot do a damn thing." This makes Iranian regime bolder and Iranian
people's struggle weaker. Sometimes silence is better than talking ...

Winston could be speaking about the United States under Bush.

no dialogue with a rogue regime who oppresses its own people, funds terror and builds WMDs.

US must help iranians set themselves free of the mullahs

The US has 3 options in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions:

1. Pursue regime change through its support of dissident groups.

2. Strategic strikes either by the US or by Israel.

3. Dialogue.

The first option is not very viable. One, because the Islamic government is very situated and has been setting up strong and stable institutions for 27 years. Furthermore, the ideology of the state is still holding strong and enjoys much support. The question of whether it enjoys majority support is unknown. What's more, any US support for dissidents or dissident groups may backfire, as it could discredit them as agents of foreign powers. Lastly, the population is not as prone to revolutionary activity as it was in 1979. This new generation is more consumed with consumerism than revolution.

What I realized when I was in Iran last spring is that most westerners and reporters visiting Iran, only stay in north Tehran, a location much more western and disgruntled, but at the same time, unrepresentative of Iran's 70 million citizens. Most travelers do not visit other places, especially south Tehran, Ahmadinejad's power base, which is much more conservative and ideologically inclined to the Islamic system.

The second option of strategic strikes of Iran's nuclear sites may delay Iran's nuclear plans, but will not end it. Furthermore, it will not only harden the regime but will also allow it to get the populace to close ranks behind it. Iranians have a tendancy, as do many countries, to unite in the face of an aggressor. But such strikes have ramifications beyond Iran. As an Islamic government, such strikes by the US or Israel, would further polarize the world as many Muslims would perceive it as an attack on Islam. Islamic radicalism is on the rise, but such an attack on Iran, would push that climb.

In my opinion, the third option is the only real option, but this too is ripe with obstacles. Many regime figures saw what happened to Iraq and took lesson from it. Iraq was invaded under the false pretense of having weapons of mass destructions, which of course, has now been deemed false. The Iranian government, however, was paying attention. In it's conflict with the US, nuclear weapons can prevent such an Iraqi-style invasion and I think the US government knows this, which is why they don't know believe Iran's ambitions are limited to only nuclear energy.

I think its foolish that more attempts aren't being made by the US administration to not directly commit to talks with Iran. What does the US government lose by not having talks with Iran? Absolutely nothing. At the height of the Cold War and particularly during the Cuban Missle Crisis, the US engaged in direct talks with the Soviet Union with the understanding that misinterpretations, miscommunications and non-straightfowardness would result to greater chaos. We have a similar situation here. We are more likely to lead to conflict without direct dialogue then with it. In fact, the lack of direct negotiations will give Iran every justification to conceal its nuclear program, whether peaceful or not.

Hilter was the open face of capitalism and even some jewish companies have supported him in his campain. He was after subjugating other nations and exploiting their natural resources. He was waging wars on several front to achieve this. Susan guess who is doing the same now? is it Bush or Ahmedinejad, I let you decide it for your brain power. Bush is a facist oil grabbing cowboy while Ahmedinejad is just talk. They both religious and use the nuclear issue to fool people, apat from this it not for us to decide who can use peacefull nuclear research.

As an Iranian American, living in the US for the past thirty years, I believe that the biggest obstcle in the way of negotiations between the two adversaries is the pro-Israeli lobbies backed by the backward, facsit minded evengelical movement in the US. So long as Israel can succeed in portraying Iran as an anti-semite country, they will continue to receive money & arms from us.
This despicable tactic has undoubtedly damaged our image & interests in the Middle East & the world. It is indeed sad to see how our govenment can compromise the interests of the US under the pressure of lobby groups, on behalf of a foreign nation. This may explain why our congress only enjoys less that 25% of the popular support. Term limits, campaign finance reforms, & limiting the influence of various lobby groups are essential pieces of legislations we must be debating about on the floors of the House & the Senate if we want our democracy to continue & flourish.

Susan, you use the word "Hitler" to loosely. The difference between Hitler and Iranian president is that Hitler attacked others and killed them, but Ahmadinejad has never attacked and killed anyone. As matter of facts, Iran and Iranians are going to be attacked and killed by Western countries and you call Iranian president Hitler. This is how Zionists view things, backward. This shows you ignorance about world and its affairs.

I think diplomacy willf fail, because Europe, Russia, and China will not do anything to stop it.

Ahmadinejad may say that he is not anti-Jews, but I think that its 1938 all over again and he is a potential Hitler. Hitler was dismissed a raving lunatic too.