IRAN-USA

you (the people of iran)were never the enemy

keep fighting for your freedom,the united states had its revolution from a dictator from the united kingdom. and now this is your turning point in history. unfortunately you will have to give your blood and possibly your life. there is a saying in america when african americans were fighting for their rights to be treated as equals. i would rather die on my feet than live on my knees. may what ever is driving you to fight for your freedom burn long in your heart. your fight your suffering and your ultimate victory will be felt around the world.

non-partisan???

Show me a sentence that I actually attack you personally I questioned your (non-patisan??) claim. Warmongering? when was the last time Iran attacked another nation? You just proved my point you don't criticize administration/country who starts war that was illegal, imoral,against-constitution, and against all international laws , kills and maims 1,000,000+ of it's own other nations people, You do not critisize a country who occupies and practices Aparthide in broad day light and If any one does you and people like you try to silence them by accusing them of being IRI lover and western democracy haters, under disquise of human right organizations. Don't you have to practice what you preach?
In final note on this threat: Dr. Ardeshir Omani and the likes want to bring U.S and Iran closer to each other and avoid unnecessary bloodshed, but nooo, people like you want Ahmadinejad's head, and nothing else will satisfy your hate.

and here is another piece FYI:
No More Torture
posted on nov, 18, 2008

AP Photo

By Eugene Robinson

“I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America does not torture, and I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America’s moral stature in the world.”

That unequivocal passage from President-elect Barack Obama’s first extended interview since the election, broadcast on “60 Minutes” Sunday night, was a big step toward healing the damage that the Bush administration has done not just to our nation’s image, but to its soul.

Amid the excitement of the election and the urgency of the economic crisis, it has been easy to lose sight of the terrorism-related “issues” that defined George W. Bush’s presidency and robbed America of so much honor, stature and good will.

I put the word issues in quotation marks because torture can never be a matter of debate. Yet the Bush administration sought to numb Americans to what has traditionally been seen as a clear moral and legal imperative: the requirement that individuals taken into custody by our government be treated fairly and humanely.

This doesn’t mean handling nihilistic, homicidal “evildoers” with kid gloves. It means being as certain as possible that the people we are holding are indeed real or would-be terrorists, not unlucky bystanders; and treating these detainees in accordance with international law, as we would expect detained U.S. personnel to be treated.

At Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib and in a little gulag of secret CIA prisons overseas, the Bush administration failed to live up to these basic responsibilities, and thus sullied us all.

We will look back on the Bush years and find it incredible, and disgraceful, that individuals were captured in battle or “purchased” from self-interested tribal warlords, whisked to Guantanamo, classified as “enemy combatants” but not accorded the rights that status should have accorded, held for years without charges—and denied the right to prove that they were victims of mistaken identity and never should have been taken into custody.

A new study by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, based on interviews with 62 men who were held for an average of three years at Guantanamo before being released without ever being accused of a crime, found that more than a third said they were turned over to their American captors by warlords for a bounty. Those who reported physical abuse said most of it occurred at the U.S.’s Bagram air base in Afghanistan, where about half the men were initially held before being taken to Guantanamo.

Two-thirds of the former detainees reported suffering psychological problems since their release, and many are now destitute, shunned by their families and villages. None has received any compensation for the ordeal, according to the report, titled “Guantanamo and Its Aftermath.”

Years from now, we will be shocked to see those pictures of naked prisoners being humiliated and abused at Abu Ghraib—and we will be ashamed of a U.S. government that punished low-level troops for their sadism but exonerated the higher-ups who made such sadism possible.

Years from now, we will know the full truth of the clandestine CIA-run prisons where “high-value” terrorism suspects were interrogated with techniques, including waterboarding, that both civilized norms and international law have long defined as torture. From what we already know, it’s hard to say which is more appalling—the torture itself, or the tortured legal rationalizations that Bush administration lawyers came up with to “justify” making barbarity the official policy of the United States government.

Obama’s clarity on the issues of Guantanamo and torture stands in contrast to his necessary vagueness about how he will deal with the economic crisis. Torture is wrong today and will still be wrong tomorrow, whereas today’s economic panacea can be tomorrow’s drop in the bucket. Who would have thought that these “war on terror” issues would be the easy part for the new president?

Not that easy, though. More reports like the UC Berkeley study will come out, but this is not a task that can be left to academic researchers alone. The new Obama administration has a duty to conduct its own investigation and tell us exactly what was done in our name. Realistically, some facts are going to be redacted. Realistically, some officials who may deserve to face criminal charges will not. But to restore our national honor and heal our national soul, at least we need to know.

Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.

© 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

Roshanbeen: You sound

Roshanbeen: You sound awfully like our self-rightous Q. Your personal attacks, condescending remarks are awesome display of your frightfully deficient intellect.

Colonialism and occupation in Iraq or anywhere else are irrelevant to the IRI plundering and raping of its own populace.

Colonialist's barberism and warmongering does not obsolve IR of its own savagery and warmongering.

Two wrongs don't make right.

non-patisan

Stop listning to Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hanity, and close your dictionary. Instead read few quality books and article to educate yourself. You did not make any point or sense when blindly accuse others of hating this and or loving that. THE related article simply shows the barbaric nature of colonial occupiers that you are so in love with. If you are against human rights violation then condemn it anywhere and every where , I repeat if you pick and choose and use it as political tool it looses it's legitemecy, as it has.

Roshanbeen: Your article is

Roshanbeen: Your article is completely irrelevant to the topic of our debate. It just shows you could not refute any of my statements on their merits.

Your narcissitic tantrums does nothing to further your credibility or your vision(roshanbini) for that matter...

non-partisan read and learn

Our counterinsurgency efforts abroad are starting to resemble the British Empire's. This could mean gains now—and trouble later
by Caroline Elkins
The Wrong Lesson
ARTICLE TOOLS
sponsored by:

E-MAIL ARTICLE
PRINTER FORMAT
From Atlantic Unbound:

INTERVIEWS: "THE SECRET HISTORY"
(June 13, 2005)
Caroline Elkins, the author of Imperial Reckoning, talks about unearthing the sinister underside of Britain's "civilizing" mission in Kenya.
In an influential article that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle in September of 2003, John Arquilla, a professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, urged the United States to look carefully at British imperial counterinsurgency efforts in 1950s Kenya. There, Arquilla argued, was a model the Bush administration could learn from in its efforts to fight insurgents in Iraq and terrorists around the world. In Kenya, he observed, the British, under the leadership of General Sir Frank Kitson, undertook a successful campaign against Mau Mau insurgents who were fighting for independence from Britain. Some 20,000 Africans had taken to Kenya's remote forests, where they waged a protracted guerrilla war. Arquilla wrote,

When conventional military operations and bombing failed to defeat the Mau Mau insurgency in Kenya in the 1950s, the British formed teams of friendly Kikuyu tribesmen who went about pretending to be terrorists. These "pseudo gangs," as they were called, swiftly threw the Mau Mau on the defensive, either by befriending and then ambushing bands of fighters or by guiding bombers to the terrorists' camps. What worked in Kenya a half-century ago has a wonderful chance of undermining trust and recruitment among today's terror networks. Forming new pseudo gangs should not be difficult.
Kitson's pseudo-gangs were a key element of the "low-intensity operations" that were deployed throughout the British Empire in the waning days of colonial rule. Starting in the early 1950s, Kitson spent three decades moving from Malaya (now Malaysia) to Kenya to Cyprus to Oman to Northern Ireland, acquiring strategic knowledge and adapting his policies to local circumstances. His counterinsurgency program rippled even further, touching nearly every corner of the world where Britain had imperial and strategic interests. Many hold that Kitson and the British established the gold standard for disengaging from imperial occupation and defusing some international threats—that they dealt efficiently with local terrorists and at the same time managed to leave behind enduring institutions and laws that would help ensure democratic futures.

But are pseudo-gangs really the best model for the United States in its global war on terror, or in its ongoing battle against Sunni insurgents in Iraq? Not necessarily; and besides, Arquilla's thinking rests on a flawed historical analogy. For one thing, pseudo-gangs could not have succeeded without more severe and overarching measures of control by the British—in fact, police-state control. In addition to targeting insurgents directly, the British targeted civilian populations, which often illicitly supported insurgents and harbored critical intelligence. Through measures including collective punishment, fines and curfews, detention without trial, expanded capital punishment, censorship, and restrictions on movement, British forces sought to intimidate civilians, separate them from insurgents, and collect the intelligence necessary to infiltrate terrorist networks. In Kenya they broke civilian support by systematizing torture, inflicting heavy civilian casualties, and detaining nearly 1.5 million Africans thought to be sympathetic to the Mau Mau.

The British adopted similar policies in Cyprus at about the same time, creating "Q patrols" to help suppress Greek Cypriot insurgents who demanded unification with Greece. The Q patrols worked alongside security forces, snatch squads, and interrogation teams that earned the nickname "HMTs," or "Her Majesty's Torturers." Like the pseudo-gangs in Kenya, they operated with a free hand in a police state.

Nearly two decades later, to protect their interests in the Middle East, the British directed counterinsurgency operations in Oman. The British Army Training Team raised firqats—the Omani version of pseudo-gangs—by enlisting surrendered or defected rebels, and gave them carte blanche in their efforts to penetrate rebel networks. Here, too, Britain employed harsh policies, such as poisoning wells and cutting off food supplies. (Significantly, in Northern Ireland, where British forces could not resort to such extreme measures, their success in breaking down terrorist networks was limited.)

The Bush administration has already begun to adopt similar counterinsurgency strategies. It has detained suspected al-Qaeda members without trial in Guantánamo and conducted widespread civilian searches in Iraq; and in November of 2003 news broke that the Pentagon had assembled a Special Operations task force charged with capturing or assassinating Baathist insurgents. (Its mission has since expanded, and it is now operating in Afghanistan as well.) According to the investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, overseeing the "manhunting" plan are two of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's closest advisers: Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and Cambone's military assistant, Lieutenant General William Boykin.

Like their earlier British counterparts, the members of this task force are dependent on local intelligence networks. Former members of the Iraqi intelligence service have become coalition supporters and have provided crucial information; but observers have voiced fears that some of these newfound Iraqi allies, like loyalists in the British operations, may use their positions to settle private grievances and line their own pockets. Still, the United States has reportedly begun to move forward with similar operations in its fight against terrorism elsewhere in the world.

Militarily, the Bush strategists may be on to something. If Britain's past successes are anything to judge by, American low-intensity operations could help win the war on terror—at least in the short term. But Britain's long-term strategies seem hardly appropriate for contemporary American foreign policy—and the administration's readiness to mimic this sort of model should give us serious pause. There is this inconvenient fact: Throughout Britain's former empire, twentieth-century colonial rule and the suppression of terrorists—some of whom might more properly be called nationalists—inscribed a legacy of violence on the governments established in Britain's wake. As Somchai Homlaor, the secretary general of Forum-Asia, a leading human-rights organization, has put it, "Internal-security laws and anti-terrorist laws are a draconian remnant of the laws employed during the colonial era." Indeed, advisers from Britain's Colonial Office, who oversaw the crafting of police states throughout the empire, had a hand in drafting the new constitutions and legal systems that institutionalized coercion and political subjugation in Britain's former colonial states. In the final accounting, repressive laws and undemocratic institutions, not peace and progress, are the primary bequest of the British to their onetime empire.

A few examples. Britain's strategy in Cyprus during the insurgency of the 1950s engendered open Cypriot hostilities that persisted; violent clashes often erupted as Greek and Turkish Cypriots sought to annex part or all of the island for their respective countries. Malaysia experienced convulsive violence in the years after independence, culminating in a state of emergency from 1969 to 1971; the Malaysian government's crackdown on dissent, which included suspending due process and freedom of the press, took its cues from British repression. Malaysians still live under an Internal Security Act that was adapted from Britain's emergency regulations of the late 1940s; it allows for preventive—and indefinite—detention without trial. Since independence thousands of people, including the former deputy prime minister, have been rounded up and detained. And in Guyana, where Britain suspended the constitution and instituted a state of emergency in 1953, the independent regime of Forbes Burnham implemented arbitrary measures and legal structures similar to those that underwrote this colonial repression.

The independence leaders Jomo Kenyatta, of Kenya, and Hastings Banda, of Malawi, also used British methods to suppress opposition and to divide rather than unite new nations. Their governments, like many others in the former empire, adopted British regulations, penal institutions, policing policies, and military tactics with little alteration. Kenya's Preservation of Public Security Act—a near replica of British post-emergency legislation—enabled the harassment, detention, torture, and murder of hundreds of opposition members, first under Kenyatta and then under his successor, Daniel T. arap Moi. In Malawi laws similarly rooted in British colonial precedent gave Banda powers to eliminate dissent. And like the British, Banda wielded these powers liberally, overseeing not just detentions without trial but torture and extrajudicial killings.

Britain's legacy was not limited to institutions and laws; members of local populations who sided with the British in counterinsurgency operations often helped institute repressive measures both while the British were in power and after they were gone. Rather than providing the backbone of a civil society, these former loyalists helped ensure its failure.

Not coincidentally, the Bush administration's war on terror is being waged in some of the same regions of the world. During her Senate confirmation testimony Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice served up one of the latest slogans in this war, calling Iran, Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, Belarus, and Myanmar the "outposts of tyranny." One of her responsibilities will presumably be to defend the practices—the detentions in Guantánamo, the commando and death squads in Iraq and elsewhere—that a strategy of low-intensity operations requires. But if history offers any lesson here, it may be that the real "outposts of tyranny" are the institutions left behind by the colonial and military strategists in Britain's twentieth-century empire.

Caroline Elkins is an associate professor of history at Harvard University and the author of Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.

Roshanbeen: The marriage age

Roshanbeen: The marriage age in Iran is 9 years old. If you don't see a probelm with that then you have bigger problems than being blind.

Legalized prostitution= Sigheh, polygamy.

Prostitution and drug addiction in Iran have become an epidemic mostly to poverty.

Evin is the gulag or Gitmo of Iran. There are hundreds of other secret prison all over Iran and Teheran and for you to feign ignorance is very telling.

Demonizing? If you were not so blinded by your hated for the West, you would know that the conduct of the IRI and some Sharia laws are demonic in and of itself and don't need demonizing. Your false equivalency argument is also misleading and using them as scapegoates to defend the indefensible only reflects your moral and spiritual bankruptcy/immaturity as a human being.

Obama is no different than Bush ...

Well, although I voted for neither candidates (Obama or McCain), I had hoped that at least Obama, with Biden at his side, would actually change the US foreign policy mindset ... unfortunately, that will certainly not happen. Why? The clear answer is RAHM ISRAEL EMANUEL. Yes, israel is his middle name. He is the neocon that has fooled Obama. By choosing him as his chief of staff, Obama is likely saying "thank you" to AIPAC, as unfortunately so many of our politicians have for many many years.

Rahm Israel Emanuel will surround Obama with the neocon ideology which is solely based on 'pre-emptive' type foreign policies, which by the way, results in the exact opposite of pre-empting bloodshed.

Rahm Israel Emanuel's father was a member of the Irgun, one of israel's top 2 terrorist groups (the other was the Stern gang, which still exists today) in the days before that country was created.

I see a few things happening here - 1) Obama's 'freshness' or lack of experience will make it easy for neocons to influence his policies (similar to that of Bush jr), the first step was to 'infiltrate' the Obama administration, and this neocon Emanuel certainly did so; 2) Biden, one of the few politicians that hasn't sold himself to neocons, will likely be pushed to the side, where his opinion and say will be ignored, similar to what happened to Colin Powell during Bush's first term; 3) the US will continue its stay in Iraq for a LONG TIME; 4) may God forbid, but I think the US will attack Iran.

Unfortunately, when we, the Americans, referred to the great Who song, 'Won't get fooled again', we were wrong. There is no difference between the two political parties in the US ... NONE.

And lastly, to those that keep saying human rights this and human rights that ... well, I say change must come from WITHIN and not from an imperialist country. Colonization and stuffing so-called democracy down people's throats won't work. As economists, TRUE Republicans (like Ron Paul) and many others have said, the best way to influence a nation, to influence the PEOPLE of a nation, is through economic trade ... and that influence will feed change from WITHIN. It will take longer, but the change will also likely be a permanent one.

non-partisan???

Blind?. It is amazing that you turn a BLIND eye to 90% of my post and run with tank top and Mcdonald. when you talk about legalized pedophelia what country you refering thailand? Burma?. There is death penalty for pedophilia in Iran. secret dungeons? you mean abu-gharib, Gitmo? renditions all around the world. legalized prostitution you mean Netherland?, Germany? most of the western and Eastern European countries?

I Know , I will be accused of hating western democracies and loving IRI. No, I love democracy , but keep in mind when you condemn human right abuses, you have to be fair and condemn every one who commits those abuses . If Human right issues are used as political tool to demonize one nation but ignored about other abusers , it loses it's legitimecy.

Roshanbeen: I'd rather have

Roshanbeen: I'd rather have tank tops and McDonalds than being stoned to death; legalized pedophilia,religious and gender apartheids, secret dungeons, gallows, torture chambers, legalized prostitution; incompetent, ignorant, uneducated, thieving murderes at the highest positions in the government.

If that what roshanbeeni means, I'd rather stay blind.

Applause all round

Ardeshir Ommani writes:

".....We in AIFC have worked to end the war in Iraq, to prevent war on Iran, to end economic sanctions and have promoted dialogue and normalizing relations...."

Well Mr (is it Dr?) Ommani, well done to you and the rest of your AIFC buddies in not only doing your bit to promote dialogue between the Islamic Republic and USA, but also helping the Iraqi people. By all means pat yourselves on the back. You've earned it. I'm sure both the IRI authorities and the Iraqis appreciate your valiant efforts.

Just question: what have you done to help bring to an end the 30 years of misery and suffering that millions of ordinary Iranians have endured under the intolerant, repressive and mercilessly vicious and fanatical theocracy that rules over them?

falsification of facts

What Iranians asked for and was promised by Khomeni in 1979 and what substituted in form of the Islamic Republic are totally different.

The nuclear energy is not the true problem of Iranians or the world but the current regime is.

SOLUTIONS FOR IRAN

1. BELIEVE in ourselves
2. UNITE based on the common principals that brings us together instead of distractions and exclusions that divide us
3. ORGANIZE

PRINCIPALS OF UNITY OF ALL IRANIANS

• Territorial integrity
• Independence
• Separation of Religion and State
• Freedom of Expression
• Gender Equality
• Human Rights

Yet Another One !!!

No dear mr. Ommani - Absolute majority of Iranians are quiet depressed and wish a change of government.    But - never mind the majority - let's discuss the wise and the educated.  Do you seriously think there are still any wise Iranians who support the theocracy ?  in this day and age ? 

Go ahead and promote friendship - but never forget the population in Iran are globes apart from their government.   Go ahead and promote peace - but make sure you understand you are promoting peace for teh sake of wolfs in a house full of lambs. 

Mr. Omid Parsi

and Western democracies don't? does genocides and plunder of national wealth in Africa, middle east, south america , south east asia committed by so called democracies ring a bell? I condemn both but stop and compare the magnitude of the crimes. and Kolahe Khodeto ghazee kon. oh I get it in the western democracies you can go to Mcdonald in your tank top :0)

omid parsi: Most excellent!

omid parsi: Most excellent!

Dr. Arsehsir Omani, Please Take a look at this too!

If I were in your place (thanks God I aint), I would not be jumping up and down thinking to myslef that, "Yaftam, yaftam!!"

You guys are deceiving yourselves, not us, the smart readers; this regime is not about to change its spots now that Mr. Barak Obama is about to assume the Office of the President of the USA. Why not? Read from the mouth of one top akhund:

احمد خاتمی: اوباما به سرنوشت جرج بوش دچار خواهد شد

14/11/2008

یک روحانی ارشد در ایران می گوید کشور او به تنفر از آمریکا حتی تحت ریاست جمهوری باراک اوباما ادامه خواهد داد، مگر این که واشنگتن آنچه او آنرا طبیعت " مستکبرانه" اش نامید تغیر دهد.

آیت اله احمد خاتمی، امام جمعه موقت تهران، در خطبه نماز جمعه اظهار نظر کرد اوباما به همان سرنوشت جرج بوش، که بگفته او منفور جهان است، دچار خواهد شد.

احمد خاتمی، متحد آیت اله خامنه ای رهبر جمهوری اسلامی گفت : شعار اوباما برای تغییر، ناشی از شرایط جهان و مقاومت مردم ایران بود.

ایران پیام های متفاوتی در مورد پیروزی انتخاباتی اوباما فرستاده است. برخی از تندروها می گویند باید محتاط بود. اما محمود احمدی نژاد یک نامه تبریک برای رییس جمهوری منتخب فرستاد. این نخستین بار است که یک رهبر ایران انقلابی چنین پیامی می فرستد.

آیت اله خامنه ای هنوز در باره پیروزی باراک اوباما اظهار نظر نکرده است.

The problem is not pre or post condition, dilaogue, or no-dialogue; the problem is the nature of this crime rdden decomposing corps that is not for any degree of positive change, or reform, or whatever you guys are trying to articulate; IRI will be overthrown by the popular will and brute force of the Iranian people, with or withourt Agha Hossin!

To MRX1

You asked"why does he want an imprealist counrty that he has been supposedly fighting all these year to befriends mullah's?"

Because he knows very well, like so many other posters who jump all over others who are disgusted with the barberity going on in Iran and ORDER them so eloqently to shut up, that America can easily get rid of mullahs if she wants to and he CERTAINLY does not want that since his and his ilk's livelihood depends on the continued survival of mullahtariat in Iran.

No Preconditions

One thing that America firmly and wholeheartedly believes is that ALL humans on this earth have a right to exist. How can there be productive talks between these two countries when it is the Iranian President who has said "Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, [while] any [Islamic leader] who recognises the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world." He was addressing a conference titled The World Without Zionism. (//www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/27/israel...) The US (as well as much of the free world) recognizes the right of Israel and the Jewish people to exist on this planet. Unfortunately, it seems as though the highest levels of Government in Iran fail to agree with this basic right to life. How can there be productive talks with no preconditions, when the highest levels of Iranian government would, if given the opportunity, wipe one of the US's most prominent allies off the map. Barack Obama is not the Change needed to bring peaceful talks between your two countries. Israel will continue to be a primary ally to the US, and unless the Iranian government and people can accept and recognize this, peace talks will never be productive. I hope one day that all who exist on this planet can unite and accept each other's differences in beliefs and lifestyles, but the right of every man and woman to live peacefully and equally must first be recognized. That, I say, is a fundamentally necessary precondition for talks to exist between civilized and responsible people of our planet Earth.

IRI open letter

Open letters and conspiracy theories are the two grand nauseating talents of loser Iranian folk!

It is amazing how the shameless writer likens Obama's election to the unmitigated disaster of 1979 Islamist takeover of Iran, perpetrated by murderous mullahs and carried out by the sorriest of the duped, illiterate masses! I'd say Don't hold your breath for mass execution of American intellectuals and terror for the 47% of the people who did not vote for Obama! The USA is a democracy, not a medieval theocracy. Unlike the Iranian "president", Obama did not earn his presidency by serving as a vigilante thug and proving his talent in cold-blooded torture and execution! As for the Obama supporters, I don't see them looking to attack any institutions in order to take hostages!

Fred you said it well

Couldn't have said it better myself. About the only thing I can not figure out is: what does this old imprealist fighter do to make a living? and why does he want an imprealist counrty that he has been supposedly fighting all these year to befriends mullah's!

Dr. Ardeshir Omani

Thank you from bottom of my heart for promoting peace and traquility by legal and civil means. I as an Iranian-American and citizen of this small world appreciate your efforts to promote humanity. Keep up the good work, it means alot to me.

Americans .....

vote from their heart  to better their country; in 1979 majority!! found they were dead wrong today because we vote from our ears and eyes, we were always friendly peoples to the world and wish the same today but the world's peoples are not friendly with Iranians (Borkina Faso,MORONI Islands,Zimbabwe....)excluded.

Americans will not wait 30 years to ...

If their president will not move them toward prosperity he'll be impeached or not elect to the second term period.   

Maziar

Facing Obama, Iran Suddenly

Facing Obama, Iran Suddenly Hedges on Talks

//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

Progressive trips

You say: “It is an undeniable fact that the absolute majority of the Iranian people consider development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as their national right and take pride in the scientific and technological progress that the country has made, despite severe sanctions.”

Yeah right. “absolute majority of Iranian people…” based on what nonpartisan national opinion poll?
“The scientific and technological progress” boils down to paying for stolen Dutch atomic blueprints by a Pakistani merchant of death plus 1950’s Russian missiles bought from the North Koreans.  The  trips your group and CASMII and others get is the courtesy of Iranian people having to do without so you can come back and spread this sort of self-evident lies.