People's priority

Iran does not need, and will not need nuclear technology


People's priority
by Ben Madadi

The discussion about the nuclear program of the IRI regime has been going on among the Iranians of the diaspora, and those within Iran of course, while the attention has often been on some issues while ignoring some other very important issues completely. Iranians have usually been saying that having access to nuclear energy and technology is an undeniable and important right of the Iranian people and no-one ought to deny it to us, Iranians.

And most Iranians, an overwhelming majority of them inside Iran and probably a majority of them outside Iran (don't know this one for sure), have been attacking the US administration for not letting the Iranian regime develop its "peaceful" nuclear activities.

I am not in favour of the Iranian regime and its policies. The Iranian regime has no respect for human rights. The Iranian regime gets involved in International affairs that have no benefit for the Iranian people, like arming and financing groups in Lebanon and Palestine, and even getting involved in other places around Iran, and of course everybody knows about Iraq. None of these foreign adventures bring any benefit to Iranians, to ordinary Iranians, and of course they do harm the image of Iran abroad.

The Iranian regime has no respect for the human rights of its own people, murdering political dissidents, persecuting religious minority groups, hanging people for crimes they committed, or not, when they were under 18, and hanging people for their ideological beliefs or even natural differences such as the case of homosexuals.

This is the Iranian regime. Iranians fear the regime. It is almost like an ocean where Iranians hang on to their boats, bowing to the ocean, and begging God for the mercy of the ocean, so it does not get too tumultuous where their own boats are located on the moving dangerous waters. This is the regime that has no respect for Iranians and non-Iranians inside or outside Iran. This is the regime that wants nuclear technology, and the US and the International community ACCEPT it.

It is not the nuclear technology that the US, or the EU, and the International community, fear most (though they do fear the regime no matter what), but it is those bits and pieces of this technology that are solely used for developing weapons, such as the uranium enrichment part of it. And the Iranian regime wants to develop technology that it can at any time desire to turn into a weapons technology with ease. An Iran capable of developing an atomic bomb is not much less dangerous than an Iran already owning an atomic bomb.

And Iranians, and many of the same Iranians who actually hate and fear, the Iranian regime, are shouting at the US and its allies for being such hypocrites they do not want poor little Akhoundi regime of Iran to have some bombs or the technology to develop them on its own? Yes, the world is not perfect, but these democratic Western countries are trying to protect the interests of their own citizens, unlike the Iranian regime, which by fooling its citizens and portraying itself as the victim, is trying to do nothing but to pursue its non-humane and non-democratic ideological aims inside Iran and outside of it, with the cost of sacrificing its own people's present and future.

While the Iranian people are suffering from inflation, unemployment, an enormous problem with drug addiction among the youth, rampant criminality, and prostitution on a vast scale (even with all the public hangings), the Iranian fundamentalist regime is doing what to combat all these problems? Nothing much. This nuclear debate has shifted the attention of the Iranians, inside and outside Iran, from the real issues that are affecting the lives of ordinary Iranians to an area where the only winner is no other but the same cruel and undemocratic regime.

And let's just look at the realities of this so-much-talked-about nuclear technology and see what it is good for! First of all, the problem for Iranians today is not electricity. Iran has no problem with electricity ath this moment. Iran has serious problems with unemployment and inflation on a material basis, and human rights on a more moral basis. But, putting aside these more urgent problems, we can also think about a future Iran without oil, as the Iranian regime does, and see whether nuclear energy will save Iran then!

When Iran runs out of oil it will have lost its most lethal weapon for intimidation against the West and democratic and free countries of the world it stands against, ideologically. And that will be when a nuclear bomb will be really handy. But will this nuclear technology be also useful for ordinary Iranians? Will it make up for the oil revenue? No. It won't. It will make either no difference at all, or its impact will hardly be felt economically, but it may bring serious trouble from an environmental point of view.

Iran will never be able to sell anything obtained from its nuclear installations. The electricity that will be produced, at some costs, will only be able to serve the country. Iran's nuclear installations will never match those of the US, the EU, or other powerful countries.

Iran's technology is old and mostly out-dated. They will not be able to compete with modern technologies, especially knowing that technology advances with a very rapid pace and Iranian technologies of today are far older than their rival ones in the West at this moment and they will fare much worse in the future when these Western technologies will be even more advanced.

The costs of maintaining these nuclear installations will be high, and a dysfunctional economy will hardly manage to keep them running in good conditions, to avoid huge economic losses, and also to avoid huge environmental threats that such dangerous technology always carries.

Time may also come that an un-reformed economic system would be unable to sustain the continuous functionality of the nuclear installations and they would be forced to be shut down, and importing electricity would be considered much cheaper rather than to be produced by the out-dated nuclear installations. And the current economic system of Iran is not a functional one, which without the constant infusion of US dollars obtained from selling crude oil, would immediately collapse, leading to even higher inflation and almost complete economic failure of the entire country, leaving Iranians without the most basic necessities of life. And who will subsidise the nuclear installation when there will be no money? Well, the regime can always take away what is left to the poor ordinary Iranians and feed a technology, a fearsome technology, that may be its only chance of survival in an ideologically opposed world.

So, let's not be fooled by the IRI regime and try to focus on the real issues and problems of Iran and Iranians! Iran does not need, and will not need nuclear technology, unless there are some serious reforms that improve the economy first and eventually also improve the human rights conditions for Iranians. A reformed Iran would prosper without any need for Russian and North Korean nuclear installations, but with the work and entrepreneurship of the hard-working and smart Iranians, especially before oil is gone.


Recently by Ben MadadiCommentsDate
Moving forward
Nov 06, 2008
Testing democracy
Nov 02, 2008
Playing dumb?
Sep 29, 2008
more from Ben Madadi

Re: Dariushabadi

by jamshid on

I don't want to debate about Ali either. Just a note that he ordered the massacre of the Iranian population of the city of Estakhr. Your "man" and role model was a butcher of my ancestors.

One thing I have noticed in your posts, is that you freely use something that applies to those you oppose, however, you do not apply it to those you defend, even when it's due.

You claim that the none-Islamists wanted to hijack the revolution, but you do not mention that the oppostie is true as well, i.e., that the mollahs wanted to hijack the revolution as well.

During the revolution, most of the demonstrators were not Islamists. We chanted "dorood bar khomeini" only in a symbolic way. The majority of those in the streets were neither Islamist nor leftist. I was among them and I know what I am talking about.

Next, I disagree with the use of the word "ulama" which is a derivative of the word "elm". The science of mollahs is very limited. Akhoond and mollah is a more proper word.

Torture is used by most countries, including the USA. The Western media focuses more on torture in other countries than in the USA. However, I do not need the media. I visit Iran and I do have friends in there as well. In all my times in the US, I have not known any person, direclty or indirectly, that has been tortured in the USA. However, I do know many individuals in Iran (not necessarily limited to tehran), some directly and some indirectly, that have been tortured.

THAT, Dariush is my media. I don't need the US media nor Human rights to tell me what's going on in my country. I suggest you keep in touch with other sources in your own country.

One more note. Please do not refer to the IRI as "Iran". The IRI is NOT Iran. It IS expanding its role at the cost of misery for its people. You are so attached to your ideology that you have become detached from the misery and abject poverty that your oil rich countrymen, kurd, azari, balooch, fars and others are suffering.

There is nothing to praise or to be proud of for the IRI's confrontational approach against more powerful countries such as the USA. For you it is as simple as saying "so what? God will repay all those who suffer in after life... In Islam, it's our duty to suffer for our goals..." etc.

You can't deal with a person like this through normal channels of logical communications.


Re: Jamshid

by dariushabadi on

Well, I mentioned that 2 posts before that many secular and leftists groups tried to use the ulema only with plans to sideline them in the end (as they did in the constitutional revolution, and after during Mossadeq's era). However, this time they failed, so in reality they were trying to again hijack the revolution by using the ulema, and this time the ulema did not let them hijack that revolution. The revolution was not hijacked, it was saved from being hijacked by a minority who had little support left in the country (except amongst intellectuals in the affluential areas).


Regarding Turkey's Human Rights Record:

According to Human Rights watch, 692 incidents of torture were recorded in the FIRST SIX MONTHS of 2004 alone. It reports: "In 2004, most detainees reported ill-treatment describe beatings, threats and insults, but some also complained of blindfolding, sexual assault, hosing with cold water, electric shocks, and hanging by the arms.  "

Just because the Western media doesn't report it (because Turkey is a good ally), doesn't mean it isn't happening. It is happening at an alarming rate. They are indiscriminately bombing Kurdish areas right now with the blessing of the US, in the name of destroying PKK. While i'm not in favor of PKK, Turkey should not have a green light to just indescriminately bomb Kurdish areas with its own history of human rights abuses against Kurds.


Anyway, just because Turkey does it, does not mean its okay for IRI. That is not my claim. But a secular alternative to Iran does not gaurantee human rights fixes. It is just cutting off the head of the snake with a body that is still ill.


 Regarding IRI's expansion in the Middle East:

I told you in the previous post that until Iran doesn't control the region and expand its influence, it cannot create an enviroment for full economic growth. The US thrives on instability, because it wants to sell its weapons and control the resources. The US does not like an independent Iran because it can't control its influence. Even many monarchists say that Carter gave the signal for the Shah's downfall because he was getting too "poroo". But the Shah didn't have the support of its people, so he couldn't have it both ways (he couldn't do dahankajee to the US and the iranian people's culture at the same time). While their is dissent in today's IRI, it still has much much much more support than the Shah or any other monarchy ever did in Iran. And with threat always looming on Iran's borders, the iranian people are willing to stand up for this government against any foreign invasion.


But regardless, I dont' think Iran is expanding its role in the region at the expense of its people. The very fact that it didn't dismantle Hezbollah in Lebanon, and continued its support for it, proved detrimintal to saving Iran from getting bombed. Israel tried to take out Hezbollah and it failed to do so, and they realized they couldn't attack Iran because Iran's proxies were stronger and more capable than they had expected.


Even Iran's sponsorship of Palestinians (which is funny, because the Palestinians including Hamas always complain they never actually get any of the money that is promised to them from Iran), is to weaken Israel and its role in the region. You cannot have a thriving Iran in the region with a jealous and warmongering Israel in the same region. Israel can exist (i have no problem with the two state solution), as long as Israel does not have military ambitions outside of its own borders (including sending operatives to create instability in Iraq and Iran by funding minority groups).


And you can be against Shia symbols, but that is what Iran is today and has been for 506 years now. It was Imam Ali (A) that saved the Zoroastrians in Iran by telling Umar that they were people of the book, that their book was from the divine, and they were to be respected. You cannot open the Nahj ul Balagha and tell me it isn't anything but beauty and wisdom. If Cyrus was the forefather of basic human rights, Imam Ali (A) gave us detailed human rights way beyond his time (even to this day no western or Islamic nation including Iran abides by the wisdom of Imam Ali (A)).


But I dont' want to open that up to debate. You have your religion, and I have mine. If the IRI does fall, the symbols of Iran should be left up to the people. I know which symbols the people will chose, you can disagree with it, but you have to learn to respect it (and tolerate it).



Re: Dariushabadi

by jamshid on

I disagree with most of your last post.

You say that Jebheye Meill aligned itself with Khomeini because "they realized they had no choice". I disagree. Jebheye Melli aligned itself with khomeini because they tought they could "use" khomeini to further their own goals, while khomeini had the same pland for them. Additionally, Jebheye Melli DID have a choice: Bakhtiar.

I am disappointed that you consider the IRI's and turkey's human rights records as the same or with turkey having a worst record. That diminishes your credibility. Turkey is not executing by the dozens on a daily basis. It did not execute thousands, as IRI did in the late 80s. I will not dicuss this issue further with you.

I agree with you regarding US aims in the middle east and how the IRI is trying to expand its influence in the region. I am all for "too dahaneh america zadan". Just like yourself. However with one big difference. You are willing to sacrifice the quality of life of Iranians, while I am not. The cost of IRI's goals is too great. Iranians are suffering in Iran. They could have much better lives today.

Additionally, I am against the IRI's Shia doctrine. As I believe that the very foundation of Shia's symbols (Ali, Hossein, etc.) are not worthy of worship by Iranians. But that is a different story.


Re: Jamshid

by dariushabadi on

1) The Left and Jebheh Melli accepted Imam's leadership only after they realized they had no choice (that the majority of people accepted Imam as the symbol of the revolution). Left and Jebheh melli made a strategic calculation that going under Imam's umbrella would guarantee them a future in Iran, since everyone seemed to view Imam as the symbol. So therefore Imam was already the leader, he was already the backbone, and that is why those two forces went under it. It would have been detrimintal to their cause to have rejected it from the beginning since the wave of support was already with Imam and not with them.


2) Looking at the region, the only non-monarchy that is secular is Turkey. Yet Turkey has human rights abuses that far exceed anything the IRI has done. Turkish prisons are famous for their extreme torture, abuse and horror. Evin prison in the 80's and 90's (when human rights abuses were rampant) didn't even match up to what Turkey was doing to its dissenters. Also, Iran's current economic growth (starting from the 1990's during Rafsanjani's era, followed by Khatami's 5 - 10 year economic plans) have outgrown Turkey's annual GDP growth rate.


In terms of even democracy, IRI and Turkey are very similar, in that the IRI vets people not loyal to constitution, while Turkey's military safeguards that anyone not loyal to Attaturks vision is overthrown immediately (even IRI is more merciful than that, or else Khatami would have been deposed almost immediately by Revolutionary Gaurds if it had Turkey's model)


Our problem is not the framework of the government, it is the strategic and volitile geopolitical location of Iran. Their is no stability in the region (and by no accident, the US thrives on instability beacuse the US economy has relied on military exports since WWII). The US does not like a stable government anywhere in the region, because it needs fear and instability to rock that oil rich region, so that it can get cheap oil in return for arms exports (which is what is driving the US economy today). Bush saved America's dot-com crash by driving up the military complex and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs overnight in the military complex.


Until Iran does not strangle the region from being a threat to it, we will not see much progress. The Shah was only able to do that in so far that it was surrounded by "threats" who also happened to be US puppets themselves.


But we are dealing with a new middle east now. The current Middle East is more in Iran's favor, than in the US's favor. To have a regime change now would be detrimental to Iran's growth in the region, because of the new geopolitical situation (which IRI has planned extensively and executed almost perfectly).


We have IRI friendly regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq now. Syria is almost a part of Iran now (it only serves Iran's interests). Lebanon's government is beholden to Hezbollah, which is Iran's proxy army.


Not to mention that all Shias in the region (which happen to reside in oil heavy areas) are now loyal to IRI and its leadership. So no country in the region would dare touch Iran, without fear that their own shia population would rise up and reak havoc.


Israel has also been neutralized with the downfall of Saddam, since their Israel has no real counterweight against Iran anymore.


Many estimates are coming that these Arab regimes will be falling soon enough, and they won't fall at the expense of Iran at all.


So if you replace IRI with a secular state in the region, it will be viewed in the same light as Turkey and Israel, two anamolies in the sea of Islam. It would make Iran a target of suicide bombings, constant attacks, and more instability in the region.


And a "secular" Iran could not create proxy armies in the region, it could not create ideological supporters across the region that will be willign to stand up and fight for it. It would not be able to create anything outside of its own borders, because their is very little support for "persian nationalism" outside of Iran's borders (even the Afghans do not relate to a Shia Iran, no matter what their historic ties go back).


So if Iran is to expand in an imperial style (which i hope it doesn't in the manner of other imperial states), it has to do it with a Shia ideology, with a pan-Islamic backbone. Otherwise it will have no supporters in the region, and no security in the long term.


You may disagree with this, but it is the reality on the ground. Iran cannot move its geographic location. It is swimming in a sea of Islamic passion, and if it becomes secular, it will have no allies (except to become beholden to the US as a puppet as before, because the US would promise it security while still stirring instability in the region so it could continue selling weapons to both sides).


Re: Dariushabadi

by jamshid on

Yes, even 97 death is too much. But the point is that the "choice" to decide whether to turn against the shah or not was taken away from me and many other by the opposition, by knowingly taking advantage of the psyche of the youth at the time and feeding us with fantastic lies.

Even you have to agree what difference 97 and 10,000 could make in the mind of a young Iranian of those times.

You have refered to the shah's lies many times in your posts, but you never refer to the bigger lies of Islamists and leftists. You even indirectly repeat some of those lies. That lowers your credibility.

I agree with most of what you wrote except these:

1. I think Khomeini became the "backbone" of the revolution, only after both the left and specially Jebheye melli fell in line with accepting his leadership. It was not just khomeini's sermons alone.

2. I agree that after 2500 years, it will take time to evolve and "learn" democracy. It takes time to build the pillars and institutions of a true democracy. But I think now that monarchy is gone, the IRI is the absolutely slowest solution. Any other form of secular government would create a much faster and healthier evolution. The IRI is just costing too much.

3. I agree and disagree with you regarding your opinion about the jobless. You say that they are waiting for the government to provide jobs, and instead they should be creative and "create" their own jobs. Yes, a people from any country should be creative in that regards, but it is also one of the main duties of any government to create jobs through correct domestic and foreign policies. Under the Pahlavis, we did not experience 30+% unemployment. So there must be something wrong with IRI policies.



Re Jamshid

by dariushabadi on

Of course the bonayaadeh Shahid's records would say only 97 were killed. We have the footage. We see how they terrorized the people that day. Even 97 is too much.

The majority of your area might have not been Islamist or Leftist (and by the way, please don't lump MKO is Islamist, because they did crimes during the revolution that were blamed on Islamists as a whole). However, the country as a whole rose up clearly with the banner of Islam and in support of Imam Khomeini. I say this because all other opposition groups other than the Islamists were crushed by the Shah and were weak (Islamists were saved because of the White House's strategy to create a green belt to contain communism at that time).

It was the sermons of Imam Khomeini, played accross masjids and bazaars across the country that became the ideological backbone of that revolution. Yes, many in secular areas of Tehran were surprised by the religious tone of the revolution because their struggle was against the Shah's dictatorship rather than having any cohesive ideological alternative. But the slogans of the revolution were clear, they were religious slogans not secular slogans (in terms of numbers, which was a clear majority).

Many ex-revolutionaries claim the revolution was "hijacked" by the ulema, but hijack is a term used for forceful takeover. It is clear from any analysis from 1978 - 1980 that the MAJORITY of slogans of that revolution were Islamic slogans, and all opposition groups had willingly viewed Imam Khomeini as the spiritual guide of that revolution. From leftist, marxist-islamist, to even communists had rallied under Imam Khomeini's BANNER, which made it their willing choice to do so, not under any cohesive reason.

Many now claim that they rallied under Imam Khomeini's banner because they thought history would repeat itself where they would use the ulema to rally the masses, but at the end betray the ulema and sideline them (as they did in the constitution revolution, and later during many strategic moves during the Mossadeq era). Their disappoint arises from the fact that it was this time that the ulema used them and sidelined them afterwards (and only when things got violent) which pissed many of the non-Islamist opposition off. It was anger toward their failure to sideline the ulema, which in my opinion was ridiculous because it was the ulema that brought the actual masses to the street so by all measurements they had the right as majority to decide the fate of the nation.

Now, disregarding the revolutionary turmoil and chaos that followed the revolution, I still disagree with the systematic oppression of other political groups (including monarchists, but it is irony that many of SAVAK's agents were re-hired to work for VEVAK).

Imam Ali in his letter to al-Aswad ibn Qutbah, the Governer of Hulwan:
“…All the people should be equal in right before you, because injustice cannot be a substitute for justice. Avoid that thing the like of which you would not like for yourself…”

I do not condone many things that happened during the revolution, nor justify the many of the executions that happened following the revolution. But Iran is evolving (and evolving fast at that, the political maturity has grown fast in the past 28 years compared to other nations including America).

You must understand that Iran faced 2,500 years of dictatorship, and to get out of that mentality, and for the people to realize that fate can be in their own hands (rather than blame all their problems on the government) is something that will take time and culture needs to be changed.

I remember a few years ago while I was in Iran, I went to a store to buy a Persian movie, to which they copied it onto a new CD and sold it to me. The CD failed to work on any computer, so I returned it and they gave me a new CD. That new CD again failed to work on any computer I tried it on. I came back angry that they sell low quality products which is one of the key reasons why Iran can't be an exporter of goods outside 3rd world countries. The owner yelled back that it is the fault of the "akhunds" that products are low quality. But it was his own fault for burning the CD's at a one pass high speed, rather than waiting a few minutes longer and insuring the CD had enough quality to work on all PC's.

We have to stop blaming those above us for all our ills (not to say none of our ills are from the people on top), and start taking control over our own destinies. Our success in the US has very little to do with our government (again, not to say the government doesn't have a hand in it), but each individual can push beyond the limitations his imagination thinks are imposed on him.

Many young people in the North of Tehran would tell me that unemployment has made them badbakht, but I observed that they didn't even search for jobs, they just went from hanging out with one group of friends to another, and just chilling. (Not to say their aren't people starving because of this situation, I'm only observing the people in the North of Tehran that had the education and opportunity to do otherwise). I asked them why they don't think outside of the box, and instead of waiting for the government to "hand out jobs", why don't they start creating jobs for themselves.

They all had experience with computers and graphic design from high school and college, so I asked why they don't do freelance work for other countries (such as web design, etc.) I asked them why they don't innovate new ways to make people's lives easier by creating a job for thesmelves that didn't need a store front (such as creating a delivery system for local shops, so local people would call your house, you buy their groceries and deliver it to them).

But at the end of all these talks, they said "baba, tambaleem". Many of our ills is our laziness and the fact that our culture is risk-averse.

We need to change our culture not our governments. You replace the head of the snake, the body is still going to be there. We need to train our people to be DSICIPLINED and take risks.

German companies always complain that while Iranians have great ideas, when they invest millions of dollars in the country, those same Iranians either never show up to work, or show up late, and when they do show up, all they want to do is take breaks.

We need to change that. Even if we had a government that was perfect for foreign investment, we don't have the majority of people that would fascilitate that growth.

Again, not to say their aren't hard working individuals in Iran. But honestly, even look at the diaspora Iranians. Iranians here have a different akhlaqh with their American counterparts than their own Iranian compatriots. They take every chance to do tarof or screw over their Iranian hamvatan when it comes to business. They lie, they cut corners, or they don't pay on time.

It has nothing to do with governments, it has to do with the culture.

Do you disagree?


Re: Dariushabadi

by jamshid on

Such occurences as I described DID happen during the revolution. I was in Iran during those times. How old were you during the revolution? If you were old enough and you did not hear the rumors of nightly machine gun slayings, then you must have been hiding in a hole.

I was an anti-shah student activist back then. We used this particular story, which we thought was true, to entice the masses against the shah.

You asked me "Is Black Friday a lie of the Islamists too?" The answer is no it was not a lie, and yes it was. No, because there was indeed a Jaleh Square incident in which the army opened fire at the demonstrators. Yes, because the reports about the incident were false.

The Islamists and leftists blamed the army for using helicopter gunships and for killing more than 10,000 people on that day. For the record, this story had a great impact on the masses, and we used it plenty to entice the masses against the shah. I do remember the government reported less than 100 died. We laughed at that number. The government also claimed that the firing started by a few individuals from among the crowd and targeting the soldiers.

Time passed. Then Baghi, an IRI archivist, reported that, based on the bonyaadeh shahid's records, there were 97 people killed on that day. Do you disagree with the fact that he made such report?

The cinema rex incident was blamed on the shah and savak too. It turned out that fanatic Islamists did it to enrage Iranians against the shah. Do you remember their mock trial by the IRI?

This revolution was a revolution of lies and deceptions. It was not the revolution of YOU islamists or leftists. It was the revolution of the majority of Iranians WHO WERE NEITHER ISLAMIST NOR LEFTIST, people like me and many others who revolted because we were deceived by the lies of Islamists and leftists. We fell into your brothers hands, just where you wanted us.

For now I can only regret my role in the destruction of my country, and at the very least expose the Islamists/leftists lies which brought down my country. But beleive me Darisuh, if we live long enough, and if the IRI falls. there will be hard retributions against those who decieved us. Mark my words.



Re: Jamshid-eh Gorg toyeh lebaseh baba'ee

by dariushabadi on

Now you have gone overboard with your lies. It is the art of the liar to claim everyone is a liar by him. He distracts the reader by pointing fingers away from himself, so as to escape scrutiny over his own words. Magicians do this by moving the eye away from the trick, so as to fool the spectator.


You mentioned an example during the revolution, to which you claimed people would fire blanks, then others would claim they were shot or killed, and therefore you made an assumption this was repeated through the country and everyone was fooled. Such occurances have never been reported by Western press, Iranian press, or even any historian to this date. You either made this up, had a anomoly of an experience, or you heard this from someone else and are repeating it to have Hitler's "Big Lie" effect, where if a lie is said enough times, everyone will believe it.


Go to this clip:


Go to 2:40.


Is Black Friday a lie of the Islamists too? Even though it was Shah who called martial law, and it was his army that pulled the trigger?


What world do you live in? Even if you claim Islamists scares people in some areas with blanks (even though their is no proof in what you say), it is a clear fact that the Shah did open fire on his people, and subsequently it was the blood of those martyrs that erupted the country further.


But go on, believe what you may. It is like telling a blind man what it feels like to see.




Re: Dariushabadi

by jamshid on

Dariush, one of the basic principles of IRI people (read mollahs) is to lie and deceive. Lies are their greatest tool to advance their goals. And I am not talking about just any plain old lie. I am talking about clever and strategically timed lies that take advantage of the Iranians' psyche for the purpose of deceiving them.


I know this because I was once deceived by these lies. So you are talking to a veteran here who had been deceived once, and today knows your like all too well.


Do you remember the days of the revolution? I don't know if you were old enough or not, but here is an example of one of the things Islamists used to do in tehran in order to turn people against the regime:


A gang of a few dozens Islamists would go out at night and start firing machine guns into the skies from well hidden places. Perhaps they were firing blanks. The machine gun firing would stop after 5 minutes. Then about half a mile away, a gang of several hundreds Islamist men and women would come out and start running in the streets, crying and screaming: YA HAZRATE FELAAN, YA HAZRATE BAHMAAN... KOSHTAN! KOSHTAN! (They are killing us... They are killing us...), Etc. Their performance was very believable.


Here you are a family in Tehran at your home during the heat of the revolution. You hear machine guns firing in some distance outside. It must have been the shah's soldiers firing, right? Then you hear these people outside running and screaming "oh god, they are killing us!" What would that family think? They would think that people are getting killed by the army. Repeat this process on a nightly basis by hundreds of performing teams across the city, and what do you get as a result? You know the answer, don't you?


Now why am I saying all these? Because almost everything you Islamists do is with the intention to DECEIVE. The two hundred thousands that are gathered to listen to Ahmadinejad's speech are just a bunch of Basiji on the payroll of an oil rich country. Give that wealth to me and I bring 2 milions into the streets instead of two hundred thousands. It's just another show similar to the machine gun shows. It has always been a show. Mollahs are called "shobadeh baaz" for a good reason. We don't buy this kind of crap. Correction.... People residing in Iran won't buy this kind of crap anymore. They know all too well who they are dealing with.


And here is poor old you. Thinking that we are among those from a far away village in Iran who will fall for your "shobadeh baazi" with "crowds".




What part of this you don't get?



do you hear yourself?

by dariushabadi on

I was not talking about leaders of countries. Yes, the Shah had many world leaders as friends.


I was talking about masses of the world. From Latin America, Middle East, Central Asia, and even China, the "people" (not their governments) like Ahmadinejad and Iran.


The Shah of Iran never had flocks of people come and listen to him talk. In Dubai alone, when Ahmadinejad spoke, he had 200,000+ people show up and cheer him on (in a country where political rallies are banned). I have the video if you want to see it. In Latin America, MILLIONS showed up to greet Ahmadinejad (and this is outside Chavez land).


Do you have one clip of the Shah having millions of non-Iranians gathering to hear him talk? Even in Western countries, very few wanted to hear what he had to say, and the people of the West hated him just as they hate Ahmadinejad today. But Shah had little support outside of the West, especially amongst the poor people of the world.


You speak of leaders (like India's president), i speak of people. You said it yourself, not me. You are the one that spoke of Indian president, yet i was talking about countries shaking hands with Iran that don't even do business with Iran. You are the one that is blind brother.


Re: Dariushabadi

by jamshid on

You are not in touch with reality dariush. You are living in your own self made cocoon world of false realities.


The world is LAUGHING at IRI and Ahmadinejad. In order to survive at any cost, IRI is selling out Iran's riches to countries all over the world. If I was the leader of, say, India, I too would jump at the opportunity to shake hand with Ahmadinejad to increase my chances of getting a lucritive one sided deal that would benefit only my country and the IRI. The hell with the IRANIAN PEOPLE.


In the case of India, they got an oil deal with prices locked at TODAY's oil value. They are doing the same with all the other countries, selling out Iran in order to survive longer.


Now you know why other nations LOVE the IRI.


The PEOPLE of the world did respect the shah far more than they respect khomeini or ahmadinejad. The only ones who hated shah were your likes in egypt and palestine and other arab countries.


It is ironic that those like you who champion the cause of the poor and "mostaz'afs" are the ones who hurt their lives the most.


Reasons Why Iran's Regime Does What It Does.

by Shamshir (not verified) on

1. The IRI regime supports Hamas and Hezbollah not because it cares about Arab Palestinians but instead to have access to 40,000+ experienced mercenaries in the time of need against possible Israeli/US attack.
2. Iran does have power/electricity supply problem and has always had this problem specially in larger cities.
3. Iran does need nuclear-power to run it's generators to free-up it's remainder of oil for sale at record-high $80-$100 prices and to replace oil as the reserves slowly diminish.
4. To build a strong country and eliminate fear of attacks from every idiot leader of neighboring countries or other western countries Iran unfortunately needs to have a good supply of nuclear bombs unless it becomes a puppet to a superpower like UAE or Saudi Arabia. Iran's regime can not survive as a puppet because it's policies are against basic human rights and in a reasonably free Iran the regime can not survive. Iraq and Afghanistan are 2 examples of nuclear-free countries, both turned to ruins by the US. And Pakistan, which is the main center of terrorism is free of wars because it has bombs and also is a puppet.
Imagine the country with nuke-bombs as Mike-Tyson the boxing champion. Mike has no need to use it's fists for other men not to try to start a fight with him. Just having the great power to defend is reason enough for aggressors to back off. So then Iran will be able to proceed with it's progress if and when the regime chooses to build the country.
5. Iran's regime can not give basic human rights to everyone because that would be anti-Islamic or anti-regime. For example giving back women's right to wear what they like to wear is anti-hijab so anti-Ilamic according to Mollahs, and giving publishers right to question or ridicule the regime is anti-regime and can cause public outcry and demonstrations, so having this regime in it's current form totally justifies it's actions and expecting to have rights under this form of regime is for someone who does not understand this regime.
6. In conclusion, this regime can only change in 2 ways: By a massive, full-scale military action and foreign interference which is the worst way possible and can cause nearly 1million death and $100Bil destruction, OR, a slow and steady change from inside as people and mollahs open their eyes and minds to the free world and the regime slowly limits and reduces it's restrictions until finally it distances itself from fanatacism, eliminates forced Hijab, frees the press, finds a better use for it's ropes than hanging and introduces free elections for the first time.


To Jamshid

by dariushabadi on

Are you claiming that Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah are not the most popular and revered figures outside the Western world right now?


Western observers claimed that Ahmadinejad's visit to the UN this past year was the first leader who other leaders just shook his hand to get more support back home (and we aren't even talking about Muslim leaders, we are talking about Latin American leaders other than Chavez).


In opinion polls ACROSS THE WORLD, the majority of people find Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad as figure heads of admiration. It is ironic that in Egypt the people praise Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah while still hating Shias.


Can you show me a time when the Shah got that kind of respect from PEOPLE (not rich oppressing leaders of the world who were corrupt and showed up to his expensive gathering at Persepolis. I am talking about PEOPLE.)


Give me a break. This regime shook the world in awe (and yes, the Western world feared it because they accused it of being terrorist like), but we live in a world where a few rich countries are exploiting the rest of the world. I rather poor people respect Iran than a bunch of corrupt leaders.


Re: Dariushabadi and more childish accusations

by jamshid on

Your mentality is that of a young man in his early 20s. You are simple minded but wrong.


You say: "You brought up two minor incidents for steel plants in Iran. But I was talking about..." Just like that? Two "minor" incidents and let's move on? No. they were "MAJOR" incidents, one (steel) had a deep impact in Iran's economy, the other (petrochemical) would have increased Iran's revenu by 10 fold. It never happened thanks to the "khedmat gozaar" IRI regime.


Then to brush my counter argument under the rugs, you jump to the shah's military toys. That's fine with me. Let's talk about toys. First the shah spent about 8 billion dollars annually towards the military in late 70s. This was much less in the early 70s and before. But we go with the maximum.


In contrast, from 1981 to 1988, the IRI spent 80 billion to fight the war against Iraq. That's an average of 10 billion annually. It is about the same than the shah's spenditure. Except with the shah, war was prevented and the country built. With the IRI we had a war and the country was ruined.


So which was better?


I agree with you in IRI being self sufficient militarily. They have attained self-sufficiency for 50s and 60s technology. GASP!


Then you add more to your incredible list of none sense by saying: "they saw the Shah's military equipment being useless..." And what changed the turn of the iran-iraq war? It was the Shah's airplane toys and his US pilot toys that took control of the air, paving the way for other Iranian army personel to take over on the land and send the Iraqis back. Remember that? I do because I was there.


Then you say this funny thing which I have no answer for. I'll let other readers answer it. You say: "Iranian leaders are the most revered figures in the world right now..." I MEAN WHAT CAN I ANSWER TO SOMEONE WHO THINKS THIS WAY? I'll just laugh at it.



Re: Jamshid

by dariushabadi on

By your english, it seems english books would suit you best. You can read "All the Shah's Men" or the "Persian Phoenix", two books written by two people that are all for regime change in Iran, yet they document extensively the Shah's direct ties to the US.


You brought up two minor incidents for steel plants in Iran. I was talking about overall direction of the regime being dictated by the US. Do you deny the White House directly gave the Shah orders in regards to the so-called "White Revolution"? It is all documented in those books and extensively in other books in academia. I can pull out direct sources for you if you wish.


And by non-reliance of oil, I was talking about removing Iran as a staple-economy (reliance on a staple product for its revenue). Even with nuclear reactors (which trust me, at the end they would have given the Shah the same trouble in regards to nuclear fuel if he insisted on enriching uranium himself).


The Shah spent most of its money in buying military toys from the US (which is now replaced by Saudi Arabia who buys the same exact amount of weapons and fighter jets that the Shah used to purchase). The Shah's own advisors wrote that the Shah would view them as toys and didn't understand that they were useless in any real war (because America would control the spare parts.). We all know that the IRI is self-sufficient in terms of military now (after the 1990's as a result of the iran-iraq war and how they saw the Shah's military equipment being useless). Iran is the only country other than Israel in the region that builds its own military technology and has a huge military industrial complex that exports weapons to the world. And we saw last year that Israel's military is useless to even the most primitive weapons of the IRI (hezbollah didn't even use any of IRI's actual military missiles except to sink 2 of Israel's navy ships).


And the Shah's rights to the caspian was at a time when the Soviet Union was in power and Iran only shared borders with the caspian with the Soviets and not 4 different countries. The US would have intervened solely because they would have taken Iran's right only to exploit it through lucrative oil contracts that would have benefited the US more than Iran. Yes, Iran is the underdog with no protector, but it is protecting itself now. It has dignity. I don't need a colonial master protecting me, we now have a government that protects itself. It might not get everything in every area, but at least it stands up for itself.


You have an inferiority complex and think that we need some superpower that cares little about our people to protect us in return for some favors. No, we might get less, but at least we got it ourselves unlike other 3rd world countries in the world. The rest of the oppressed world looks up to Iran, no one is looking up to the US anymore. Why is that?


Why is it that no Western leader is a popular leader within their own coutnry, let alone the world, yet Iranian leaders (and Lebanese proxies) are the most revered figures in the world right now? You might hate Ahmadinejad, but he is the most popular figure in Latin America, Middle East and Asia right now. When Bush goes aroudn the world he is protested against and booed (including in Western countries).


Hate him all you want, but at least Iran has a leader that countrines in the world respect and look up to (no matter how contraverial he is). No western leader can claim that because they only care about the few rich and oppress the masses.


Re: Dariushabadi

by jamshid on

And who told you that the US gave the shah "direct" orders? I don't buy that. This is just more of the same bull crap that was fed to me in 1978. And to you too.


When the shah asked the US to build the steel industries plant for Iran (in the sixties), the US denied him. The shah then turned to Europe. The Europeans were willing to build the plant. However, under US pressure, they walked out of negociations with Iran. The shah then turned to the Soviets. The soviets agreed to build the plant in exchange for gas. The plant was successfully built and placed in operation in 1971.


The same thing happened with the petrochemical industries. At the end, not the US, not Europe, but Japan agreed to assist Iranians to build the plant, much to the dismay of the USA.


These two examples among many other clearly indicates that your claims that the shah took "orders" from the US are just a bunch of bull crap to deceive me and many of my friends to further the goal of the Islamic revolution.


The shah's relationship with US/Europe/Japan and so on was the same than IRI with Russian/china/India. Like you said a chess game. At least with the shah Iran's rights on the caspian sea were not sold out. Iran would never make oil deals with any country with locked oil prices at TODAY's oil value.


Then you show off your lack of knowldege by saying this: "the Shah did little to actually move the country out of its dependence on oil." Oh really? What about the seven nuclear reactors that were build under his regime? Reactors that were not using out dated Russian technology, but the most modern European technology. And they would be operational without all today's fuss by the early 80s. THAT'S 25 YEARS EARLIER THAN IRI. You must feel like an imbecile by now, aren't you Dariush?


Iran's village population was not neglected by the shah. I remember that even in the farthest reaching areas of Iran, we had "taghzieh raayegaan". Do you remember taghzieh rayegan? Whatever happened to that? Dariush? Any answers? Today we have "gorsengie raayegaan".


The rest of your comment is just ridiculous and I won't bother answering to your claims about Rafsanjani and how poeple adore the IRI. Yeah right. It just goes to show how out of touch with reality you IRI lackeys are.


Re Jamshid

by dariushabadi on

I don't think anyone would say their is a comparison between Iran's relationship with Russia/China/India today, and the Shah's relationship with the US and before that the British.


During the Shah's time, the US would give mandates to the Shah, or would send advisors to the Shah telling him what to do. The famous White Revolution was an edict from the White House as a package of reforms for his country. The Shah received direct orders from the White House on which way to move his country. Even the Shah's relationship with its neighbors was dictated and would require approval from the US. It is similar to how Egypt and Saudi Arabia today require the permission of the US before they engage with Iran, etc. The Shah would rarely do anything without receiving the "green light" from the White House.


However, Iran's relationship today with Russia/China/India could not be further from that sort of relationship. The Russians/Chinese/Indians do not dictate matters to the regime in Tehran, nor do they interfere with its domestic and foreign affairs. Iran's relationship with China/Russia is not threatened by Iran's movements through the Middle East. While Russia and China both have strong relationships with Israel, they do not tell Iran not to protect its assets in Lebanon/Palestine even though it is at Israel's loss.


So as you can see, IRI is not a nokar to any of these imperial states the way the Shah received orders and green lights from the US, etc.


And regarding "happineess and prosperity" of the people, I would have you re-evaluate what you think the Shah actually did for the people/economy of Iran. Yes, Tehran (and mostly the North and Middle) was expanded and a lot of oil firms (Shell, BP, etc.) invested heavily in Iran's economy which brought a lot of "oil money". But the Shah did little to actually move the country out of its dependence on oil. Their were many projects that from the exterior looked to be moving in that direction, but little was done to really push those forward into sustainable revenue making tools of the state.


The IRI has not only further expanded Tehran (which most exiled opposition just calls it a 'show', as if the Shah's expansion wasn't just a 'show' either), but they have created infrastructure for the rest of the MAJORITY of the country that was neglected by the Shah. Tehran is only 10% (or currently 17%) of the whole country. We are dealing with 73% of the country that was majorly neglected by the Shah, mostly out of racist policies (be it that they were dahatee, or minorities like baluchis, tajiks, turks, kurds, etc.).


Also, starting from the Rafsanjani era in the 1990's, Iran's economy has pushed forward SUCCESSFULLY in moving out of dependence on oil and natural gas. Every year Iran's non-oil exports doubles if not triples. This is a good sign for even those seeking liberal democracy and "freedoms", because it creates a stronger middle class because the country is less dependent on government jobs and government money handouts. Privatization, while moving slowly, is moving forward. That is why you have a middle class that even goes out in the street and protests against the government, something not possible with a oil dominated government (like other US puppet regimes).

Just ask popular opinion outside of major urban centers (Tehran, Isfahan, etc.) and see how much the rural and underclass of Iran loves this government. They are the majority, not Tehran. 

And by chess player, I meant in international politics. Domestically they have kept themselves in power for 28 years, even though from year 1 you guys have said this regime is ticking and it will collapse in a year. So I guess they are a good chess player domestically as well.



Good Points Ben

by Mahmoud Ghaffari (not verified) on

Mr. Madadi;
You make some compelling points and good arguments. It is tantamount that any US administration contain the Islamic Republic with force. Force does not have to be "Majuere". It could be relentless arial attacks on the assets of the regime. It is almost a gurantee that these attacks would demolish the IRI from within. Would it also serioulsy jeopordize and cripple the Iranian economy? for sure. But no worse that a shape it is in right now. The economy is a step or two from girating into the abyss. Any US forceful involvement, in the long run is to the benefit of the Iranian Nation. Any day we procarastinate debatting whether the US should surgically attack Iran, is a day wasted in saving Iran. The only way to hasten this 1400 year old grip of the Mullahs is to remove their lecherous existance from the Persian society.


Re: Dariushabadi

by jamshid on

Are you saying that Iran has become a "nokar" for the Russia/China/India axis?


If you don't call that "nokari", then what do you think of the shah's relationship with the US/Israel?


If neither was "nokari" and just a game of political chess, which one brought more prosperity and happiness to the people of Iran?


IRI is surely a bad chess player.


Re: Re: Q

by dariushabadi on



You make good points, but you fail to recognize the reality of the situation.


You claim that Iran should not stand up to the US/Israel, even if they are oppressors, if it means the suffering of the Iranian people as a result.

However, if Iran's foreign policy was truly an act of standing up against oppressors, then why does Iran have such close relations with Russia, China and India that have been known to oppress their Muslim minorities (Chechnya, Kashmir, Xiangang Province, etc.)

Iran's support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Hamas in Palestine has less to do with "siding with the oppressed", than it has to do with geo-political power maneuvering in the region. Iran is trying to win influence and power in the region, and at the same time have proxy armies to protect it in case of an attack either by the US or by Israel.

You know very well that unless the US has direct exploitation rights in Iran (where it suffocates Iran for its wealth and destroys its influence), it will wish to bring Iran to its knees so that it could do so.

Israel also wants unquestionable and unchecked power in the region. It does not like to see a strong "Iran" in the region that economically, politically and even socially undermines it. Israel wants to boss the countries in the region around and get away with it. It has shown that for the past 59 years of its existance.

Iran, by supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon, has proven that when Israel threatens Iran with an attack (such as to stop its scientific progress in the nuclear field, military field, etc.), Iran can respond by psychologically threatening Israel with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

So in reality, the Islamic Republic of Iran is acting more nationalistic than ideological. It is more rational than emotional.

If you read the book "Treacherous Alliance - Secret Dealings of US, Israel and Iran", you can see that at the time of the highest idealogical fervor (the revolutionary days), Iran supported the Palestinians the least.

The support only went into material form in the 1990's, when Iraq lost the gulf war and the geopolitical balance in the region shifted to the favor of Iran.

Iran is playings a game of chess, and the world is playing checkers. Ultimately we have seen recently that in this geopolitical battle, Iran is winning against its adversaries (it got the US to remove two of its enemies, the Taliban and pushed forward with its nuclear development and called the US bluff of an attack against it, and currently has more investment than during the Khatami period).

So we can see something is working here.



Re: Arezu

by jamshid on

I asked you a simple question which you did not answer yet depsite of your long reply.


Re: Q

by jamshid on

The issue with my analogy is not whether it's 20 or 50 dollors, or whether the thugs are rich themselves or not. No analogy is pefect and there are always minor technicalities. So let's set analogies aside. The main issue here is which of the following is more important?


1. Is it more important for an Iranian governement to confront and put the US and Israel in their place at the cost of Iranians, your fellow countrymen, suffering so miserabley in every aspect of their lives today and in the long term future, or,


2. is it more important for Iranians to have better lives, a better democracy, more happiness and joy of life, more money in their pockets, even at the cost of having a NONE confrontational and even good relations with the USA and Isarel?


I choose #2. Anytime. What you don't understand is that I too am against the US agressions and global "gholdori". I am not a fan of what Isarel is doing in palestine either. But my disliking these is not to the point that I would sacrifice my own people. The well being of the Iranian people should come first.


Next, when did I defend the policies of the violent thugs, as you are claiming? Read the above two points again. By choosing #2, I am NOT defending the violent thugs. I am defending the rights of my people to have better lives! There is a big difference between the two. Those are my priorities, what about you? Are you for #1?



Natural resource? :o)

by Sasha on

 "Intelligence is the only unlimited natural resource."







Uranium Enrichment

by afshin on

Someone asked a question why Iran has the need to enrich uraniun in order to address its energy needs.  Well, uranium needs to be enriched to 5-10% in order to produce nuclear fuel for the reactors.  You just can't put dirt in the thing and expect it to light a city.  The reason Iran has insisted on its right to enrichment is that by not producing its own nuclear fuel, it is basically placed at the whim of foreign powers ( far fewer than oil producing countries).  So say the permanent members of the security council decide that Iran should get no more fuel, then Iran would have to essentially shut down the reactors rendering them useless.  So enrichment is necessary to make Iran independent in the nuclear fuel cycle.  The reason enrichment is not particularly banned in the IAEA protocol is that it is a necessary step in running a reactor.  What good is a generator if you have no petrol to run it? 


To: Mehdi & Jamshid I have not been avoiding you, just too busy

by Arezu (not verified) on

Sorry for not responding to your questions unlike what some others think, I do have a job, so unfortunately I have not had a chance to look at this post until just now. Just wanted to let you know I was not avoiding you.

Second to Jamshid: I think we have had enough discussions on various subject matters, including the Iranian political system, which I don't believe he thinks I am an IRI agent, though he may believe that my comments may be similar to their statements.

Sasha: It is good that you are watching everyone and reminding them to stick to issues and stop the labeling this is a very positive step for all of us. It is crucial to be able to have an open, frank, intellectual dialogue, whether we are Iranian-Americans or from different nationalities, races, ethnic and religious backgrounds without attacking one another.

Sohrab-Ferdows (whether he reads it or not): The web-link I provided argues against Sahimi’s point. I placed a lot of resources and web-links for those interested in obtaining knowledge on the need for nuclear energy. I am not being biased, I placed the ones I had access to and had read. I said people can read the articles and make their own assessment. I have made my own assessment. You and others may have a totally different view. Simple. And I am not twisting words or manipulating topics. By the way when I said surrounded by nuclear armed states, Pakistan is just one of them, Russia is to the North, Israel is not too far away, India is on the other side and the U.S. military bases are surrounding Iran from all sides! Now you tell me how can Iran be a threat to the peace and security of any nation??

Mehdi: I believe “Q” gave some excellent explanations, which I may have not articulated as eloquently as he. I went into far more detail and explanation; the intention may get lost in the translation. Though as I stated I have my own views on this subject which I have articulated. In response to your opinion that due to the lack of urgency for need to nuclear energy you believe that Iran’s real intent is to develop a nuclear weapons program. No one can state with 100% certainty what anyone’s intent is – we can only look at the evidence. The evidence as proven by the IAEA is that they have to date not found any evidence of a weaponization program. I make additional comments on this topic further below.

For all those who have asked my position with respect to IRI and other issues, once and for all they are explained clearly below.

The world is complex and we have differences of opinion and this is quite natural and expected. In one family between two siblings you have major differences even though they have been raised in the same family, let alone when we are speaking with individuals who are approaching the subject matter from very different angles. I don't take things personally, what I care about as I have always stated is:

(1) Iran's sovereign rights -included in this statement are among other things: (a) preservation of a nations rights in the Global World Order; (b) No invasion of Iranian territory by any foreign element; (c) I am staunchly against sanctions which are another form of warfare which hurt the people of a country and will have devastating impacts on the socio-economic growth and development of Iran and further isolating it from the international arena.

(2) I care about the Iranian people very much. Regimes come and go but the people remain. I am not a proponent of any particular regime which does not take care of (a) sovereign rights of the Iranian people; and (b) socio-economic and civil human rights of the people. So I hope that part (b) explained to those what my views are about IRI, the late Shah and any other previous regime!

(3) I have been living outside of Iran for many years (though I have traveled back and forth and do obtain information directly from family and friends who live there) and have not gone through all that the Iranian people have gone through, the good, the bad, the pain, the suffering, the wars, the devastations, the bombings etc... I have also not participated in rebuilding the Iranian infrastructure and the tremendous progress and development I also see in Iran. I am proud of Iranians and their accomplishments in all areas. The fact that despite 28 years of sanctions they have been able to become self-reliant and had to look inward for any deficiencies that they have had to overcome by their own brilliance and intellectual capabilities is for me much to be proud of.

I also view the fact that Iranians are not silent anymore, and people protest, students protest, women protest in demanding their rights as very positive change forward in shaping their own future. When students and others go out in the streets and in front of the universities and make statements about the leaders of the country in my opinion this is a change that I had not witnessed previously during the time of the late Shah.

Though there is no doubt that Iran has many problems economically, socially, including among other things the abuse of power within the political system.


As "Q" said, I live in the U.S. so the first thing that I have worked very hard to prevent in my own "little" way through whatever means I have at my disposal is to help prevent a war against Iran and bring awareness on this subject. This is step 1, and 2 that is protecting the SOVEREIGN RIGHTS OF IRAN and preventing further SANCTIONS.

One cannot deny that the U.S. has singled out Iran as it did other regimes that were and are not its client states through illegal actions, first through sanctions, then military invasions; and finally installation of a puppet regime which serves the interest of the United States and its allies and not the invaded countries and their people.

I am against imperialism, colonialism, foreign intervention of any kind. I will not support or assist any entity or foreign government to fulfill their strategy of making Iran a puppet client. This is my opinion; others may have a different view. We can argue about this until hell runs over. I did not participate with opposition groups who were against the late Shah and wanted to overthrow him then, when I was studying in the U.S. And I will not participate with any opposition groups here to overthrow the IRI; regardless of my views and opinions about both regimes.

However none of the above means that I agree with IRI. I am a proponent of a secular democratic government which maintains its sovereignty and is not a puppet regime or client state of any other country, but answers back to the Iranian people. However, the ultimate determination of the form of government rests on what the majority of people living in IRAN WANT AND NOT WHAT I WANT!!

Do I agree that human rights violation is taking place in Iran? I must be stupid not to believe this. Of course I do. And I in my own way am fighting on this as well. However, while I am in this country and the enemy is at the door trying to break into my house, I am not going to give the upper hand to the enemy and invite them in to invade Iran, impose sanctions, kill innocent people, or assist in bringing about regime change which is non of their god damn business, but the business of the Iranian people.


I do believe: (a) Iran has been unjustly singled out for its nuclear program. I think I have already gone through a lengthy discussion on this subject matter. I have read all of the IAEA reports from start of inspection to present; I have read all of the rights of countries who are signatories to the NPT; I have read the Additional Protocols, and Safeguard Agreements; and which countries are in violation of these agreements. I have studied in detail every negotiation that Iran has had with the EU-3 to present with the P5+1. I have read the offers Iran has provided to assure that Iran is not developing a nuclear program - all which have been refused single handedly by the United States and then through coercion and bribing other countries, the U.S. has forced countries to vote against Iran.

If you all do the same you shall see: (1) that over 30 countries are in violation of the Additional Protocols and Safeguards Agreements far worse than Iran, however none of them are being singled out; (2) The U.S. has directly violated the NPT itself by assisting non-NPT signatories in their nuclear weapons program; (3) The U.S. is developing the next generation of nuclear weapons, has increased its nuclear weapons arsenals, in contradiction of both the NPT and other international agreement; so has France, and other countries; and (4)The U.S. is in no position to take Iran's case to the UNSC when it, itself is in great violation of these agreements. This double hypocrisy and double standards are no longer tolerated not by countries who aim at remaining independent. In fact Iran's case was illegally taken to the UNSC to remove Iran's dossier from the IAEA to the UNSC members whereby the U.S. could have direct voting right against Iran and invoke Article VII of the United Nations Charter.

This was totally illegal but the super-power is the super-power and can step all over international agreements as it has demonstrated that it can do. A country can only be referred to UNSC in violation of Article VII if it’s actions are considered: "ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION (Read the full article for yourself to see the definitions)

There was absolutely no legal basis and no evidence of an Iranian threat to peace and security of any nation. By the way this was just a “Referral”, another “threat” to humiliate Iran.

• Iran offered all countries, including the United States to enter into a Joint Venture Agreement with Iran, in its nuclear energy program. This means being co-owners and sharing in the profits. Such countries would then have their own experts from scientists, engineers and inspectors on the ground in Iran watching every move Iran makes. CAN SOMEONE TELL ME HOW MUCH OF A BETTER OFFER AND ASSURANCE CAN ANY COUNTRY PROVIDE THAT IT IS NOT INTENDING TO DEVELOPE NUCLEAR WEAPONS??? However, this was outright rejected.


• Can someone explain if this not just a total demonstration of a bully power dictating its own rules forcefully without any legal basis to another country? Is this not a disrespect to the rights of a sovereign nation and the rights of the Iranian people? Is this not a way for the super power to bring a country and its people to their knees?
• It obviously has worked with many of us in this forum – many are acknowledging that Iran has a right nuclear enrichment, but at this time in order to prevent invasion and further sanctions Iran should give in! So this just demonstrates that if you don’t dance to my tune you will get blown out of the water?
• How can anyone prevent another from obtaining know how? Know-how in science, physics, laser technology, etc..? You don’t think Iranian peoples rights to study whatever they wish is now being dictated by the U.S.? Is the U.S. not impinging itself on the civil and human rights of the people of another country?
• Is this acceptable to anyone of you or the Iranian people living in IRAN?
• Do you not find these just excuse after excuse – is this not humiliating and degrading to a country and its citizens? I definitely believe it is.
• What else will be next? What other things can the Iranians do or not do – this is the question?
• There is absolutely nothing that Iran can do, that will be acceptable to the U.S. with the exception of an absolute give in on all demands. The U.S. doesn’t even give a damn if the IR stays in power, so long as it will take orders from the U.S.?


• Iran definitely has a legal right to enrichment. Simple.
• How much is the immediate need for nuclear energy; I have provided multiple sources of information on this topic; some think sooner than later. However, all other countries are seeking alternative sources of energy, why should Iran be singled out? Why should Iran not use its vast uranium ore deposits for nuclear power for domestic use and its oil & gas resources which provide 80% of its revenues at much higher price for exports?

• To those who think Iran should give in kiss up to the U.S. and appease for engaging in an activity which is its legal rights, then you are basically saying succumb to the wishes and demands of the super power; simply because it is the 800 pound gorilla. If this is the case how are you ever going to be sure you will ever have a regime which is elected by the Iranian people and not one that is imposed upon the people by the U.S.? So who is taking away whose rights? Have you thought about this?

• Iran didn’t isolate itself – the U.S. isolated Iran because there was a Revolution and a regime change which was not willing to give in to the U.S. Iran has been placed on sanctions for 28 years; and due to arm twisting many countries are refusing to invest in Iran or provide it with credit, or provide any of the technology that Iran needs. So no kidding Iran is being isolated; however it has looked else where for help. Much to the detriment of both nations. I believe both countries could/and should be very good partners with one another.

• Don’t we have ample examples of this already? Just look at what happened in Palestine, the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas, however the U.S. is not considering it the legitimate government of the Palestinians and is not negotiating with it. In return it has given the go head to Israel to isolate, deprive, imprison the Palestinians in Gaza and deprive them of their basic needs and dignity. The definition of terrorism is even defined by the U.S.

• Do you really think that Iranians could freely elect a government of their own choosing if the Americans are given a chance to continuously dictate the rules to Iran? In my opinion, and others may have a different view – the issue of why Iran is not giving in on this subject is far greater than just the nuclear program – it is the U.S. demand to dictate whatever it wishes on Iran and IRI knows this. It is so clear and evident.

To those who think I am thinking and making comments similar to what the IRI is saying, so what? People can read, analyze, and come up with the same conclusion as easily as some may totally differ. But this has nothing to do with being labeled as IRI agent or defending IRI. I am defending the rights of Iran and the Iranian people, while I am in this country. And I am not going to ask a dishonest broker who lies and cheats, and tramples over all international laws to suddenly uphold the values of democracy for the people of another country, which they don’t give a damn about and are using as a pretext to meet their own self-serving goals. Before the U.S. Admin. fights for the democratic rights of another country, it should restore the democratic rights that it stole from the citizens of this country.

I am sure the more one writes the more the opportunity for others to poke holes into ones’ comments and arguments, but so be it. I have been frank and honest.


hjavadi .........I recommend

by Sasha on

 I recommend that you write a blog or article on the subject to  give your cause better exposure. You also need to provide information as to where to mail or drop off the donations.






sending surplus academic journals to Iran's university libraries

by hjavadi (not verified) on


We are a network group of Iranian-American Physicists who are a member of American Physical (Physics) Society. Recently we have started a good cause (sending academic jounals and books to university libraries in Iran). We have received a lot of enthusiasm from professors and administrators in Iran. It appears that our donations can really benefit education of future Iranian students especially in Science (we are mainly interested in Physics but can easily expand our work to include all branches of science). Many universitiers in Iran (for example Azad Universities) don't have good libraries and thus can not educate high quality students.

With the advent of electronic publication in US, this activity is timely as many US libraries are replacing hard copies of their journals and books with electronic reproduction (scans or digital text). Some libraries in US are literally throwing their journals in the trash bins. If we can act now, we can transfer these old journals and books to good places in Iran where young people can benefit.

Would you please contribute to this worthy cause with your geneous donations?

We can provide with itemized mail/freight expenses and even send the items to a university of your choice. Please help us.

By the way, sending journals to Iran is still allowed under US laws governing embargo regulations against Iran.


Hamid Javadi

Rosie T.

Report from Rosie through Robin to you....

by Rosie T. on

If I may be so bold...having followed discussions between Jamshid and Q for quite a while, and seen them cordial and seen them heated and seen the recent turn of events where the one won't talk to the other (but will talk ABOUT the other)....I think there is one fundamental problem with two sides of a coin (so to say), which is that: Q thinks Jamshid has frequently called him an agent of the IRI and this is true as I recall and I was hoping Jamshid would stop saying it, but my understanding was that he meant that Q and others are TANTAMOUNT to acting as agents for the IRI if they don't come out specifically and vocally against the regime both in terms of attrocities commited and its eventual future (i.e., do they want the regime to remain Islamic indefinitely or not?) . And to my knowledge, when Jamshid has asked these questions, Q hasn't responded, or has responded in a way that made Jamshid feel he was hedging, which confirmed Jamshid's belief that Q's words and actions are TANTAMOUNT to his acting as an agent for the IRI, by ensuring its indefinite existence through a kind of apologism through silence, and I was hoping Q would say more...and....

 I am really involved in this business about Ali Mahin-Torabi right now and I CAN'T go back and footnote this but I do believe there is some truth in what I said...and  I always thought both parties believe in a secular parliamentary democracy for Iran and it is a question of tactics and logistics that is the problem. And that that rift was a crucial one that somehow had to be bridged.

I've also noticed that recently Jamshid has been much more open to seeking alliances and finding common ground with people and groups that he wouldn't have when I first entered these discussions, so there is a possibility that Q is responding to a Jamshid that was, rather than one that is, which is one in process.  PLEASE NOBODY GET MAD AT ME FOR ANY MISCHARACTERIZATIONS OR GENERALIZATIONS IN THIS POST! THESE ARE JUST IMPRESSIONS OF MINE. 

And now the Pepsi challenge: Rosie (not Robin, I'm Robin, Rosie's somebody else, she's a figment of this website's imagination): Rosie challenges Q and Jamshid to BOTH address each other again and civilly enough so that they are able to participate freely in group discussions involving others to the benefit of that discussion. Rosie says (because Rosie's sometimes crazy) that the entire future of Iran and the world depend on it. Rosie says that if Q and Jamshid can get along, anyone can, and if they can't, no one can. Rosie7 only exists in cyberspace...and she says cyber... the new.... Gondwanaland...and...all the continents have come back together again...and that she knows, she is SURE, that in some fundamental way...THE ENTIRE PLANET IS HEARING THIS CONVERSATION AND IS WAITING FOR Q AND JAMSHID TO...


Best regards,

Robin Jayne Goldsmith



Only one problem with your analogy, Jamshid

by Q on

Your analogy is actually good. But I think you fail to see your own role in it. 


The people of Iran are the vulnerable family. The person who has the "choice" to pay the $20 is the IRI, although the price of energy independence is far higher than $20. No "group of thugs" would attack a family over that amount, it must be far higher. In fact, in this case, all the thugs are millionairs compared to the victim. But that's not the problem with your analogy. Admittedly you describe IRI's choice correctly. But where are you, yourself, in this equation?


If you live, contribute to the economy of, and pay taxes in America, you are part of the gang yourself and so am I. Therefore our responsiblity is to stop the gang NOT help it rob the family.


Especially if you live in a country that is acting like a thug, but calls itself a "democracy", you have the power to prevent the gang from attacking, because you are part of it's political decision making. You can one of the people arguing against the thug-leaders. The strategic practicality should and must be considered by the victim. BUT moral responsibility is clear for you. And by you, I also mean me.


In light of your hair-splitting on the labels you throw at others, I feel justified in asking: Why do you insist on defending the policies of violent thugs instead of doing what is morally right?


Now I have broken my own rule and responded to you directly. Don't make me sorry!


Re: Q

by jamshid on

I said that Arezu is defending the IRI's policies. I did not say she was an IRI agent. But you accused me of having said that she is an agent. Furthermore, I am not blinded by ideology, as I do not belong to any particular ideological camp. You also claim that I am here to "destroy debate by these lame, tired and hypocritical accusations..." What accusations? And how did I try to destroy the debate? I asked for Arezu's opinion regarding two choices Iran has. You call this "destroying a debate." So be it.


By attacking me instead of my opinion, nobody will gain anything positive. Furthermore you discredit yourself more than discredit me. And it only serves as a display of child like mentality. You must find a way to stop behaving this way.


As far as the rest of your comment, Iran can have all the rights the IRI is struggling to gain, by simply having a none-confrontational relationship with the West. The people of Iran will benefit most.


You gave an anology of a "crazy maniac". Here is another analogy: You are walking with your wife and daughter in an unsafe street. Then at the next block, you cross path with a gang of thugs. As you are walking by them, they surround you and start insulting your wife and daughter. One of them demands that you give him $20. You have two choices:

1. Shove the guy back and yell at him. Confront and challenge him since you want to "put him in his place."

2. Ignore the insults, give them $20 and walk away.


Remember that whatever you choose, you have to consider your wife and daughter's safety, not just yourself. Here is my choice: If I was an athlete and the gang of thugs consisted of a few puny losers, I would choose #1. If I was not an athlete yet, and the gang of thugs consisted of a dozen 300 pounders football player type, then I would choose #2.


Unfortunately, USA is a mean 300 pounder.


Howerver, again I tell you that it is not the western powers that are taking away Iran's rights. Look at spain and south korea. We the people and government of Iran are also taking those rights away from ourselves by choosing the wrong approaches.


As an example, the western countries were competing with each other to sell their most modern nuclear technology AND "know how" as well to Iran during the Shah's era. This is proof that in principle, they are not against our "right" to have nuclear technology. It is the IRI that is denying Iran its nulcear rights as well as many other rights. It does so by choosing the worst possible and most damaging foreign policies.


So as you can see, contrary to your opinion, "rights" does go with "governments". Goverments must be responsible towards the well being of its citizens instead of to some fanatic ideology.


Unfortunately it is not only nuclear technology. We are being denied many other rights, BECAUSE of the IRI. While South Korea has access to advanced American semiconductor technology, Iran does not. While India is getting the larger share of the American "outsourcing" business, Iran is getting nothing. While China is getting a large chunk of westen investments, Iran is getting none. The list goes on. India, China and South Korea are all third world countries, just like Iran.


It is the IRI that is denying Iran its rights.