UN not USA

Self-baptised Yankee liberators should stay away from the Georgian-Russian conflict


UN not USA
by Jahanshah Rashidian

Stalin designed Georgia current borders. Stalin, himself an Ossetian, combined Abkhaziya and half of Ossetia with Georgia and consciously dividing the people of Ossetia into two parts.

To solve this ethnic problem, Georgia decided to unite the two separated parts of South and North Ossetia, but region was never part of post-Soviet Georgia.

As long as Georgia was a part of the Soviet Union, all ethnic conflicts within the Soviet zone of "interests", were not international issues. Yet, the issue emerged à la une after the dissolution of the USSR, when first in 1995 the two regions -- Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- became involved in conflicts with local separatists supported by Moscow. The issue ended in a de facto independence of South Ossetia from Georgia.

Yet, with a pro-US president in office, Georgia launched an assault earlier this month with artillery and rocket attacks on the separatists. Russia immediately reacted and showed the sharp claws of a polar bear. A much larger Russian army quickly crushed the Georgian assault. It is believed that the United States knew or even encouraged the Georgian attack. With the support of the US, Georgia hoped to annex the region.

If this conflict is to be resolved,  only an international institution like the UN must intervene, not the US or NATO.

The US should now stay away from a new regional conflict, which is thousands of kilometers away from Washington.  Because of its bad reputation in Iraq, stirring up internal problems in other countries, and its hunger for national resources of other countries, the Bush Administration does not have any lesson to teach to this part of the world with a totally different history and socio-economic background. Furthermore, there is nothing like "weapons of mass destruction" in this area.

In actuality, it is time to solve international problems through firm and reliable UN resolutions, rather than the bogus actions of world super-powers. It is obvious that the US, being the only power today with hegemonic desires, could generate further tension. The world is not going to sit and watch those self-baptised Yankee liberators in the Bush Administration try to impose their long outdated principles of "democracy" and "freedom".

The world has not forgotten that in 1961 the US and USSR came to the brink of nuclear war when the USSR was determined to set up atomic missiles in the US' backyard in Cuba. The Soviet move was in retaliation against US basing nuclear missiles in Turkey. Now we have the US -- via NATO -- again trying to further its military alliance in the Caucasuses.

It is not unreasonable to expect that Russia, rather than allowing events to continue down that road again, would act swiftly in self defence -- probably in the same way the US would react. I wonder what the Russians would do if a similar thing happened in their backyard. While they are still a major powerful and have the legacy of once being the strongest military superpower, they would say and do almost anything and get away with it.

There is no evidence that Russia intends to occupy Georgia, overthrow its government and install a puppet government. The Western media has not been reporting properly and honestly about the issue, rather they are exaggerating the conflict just like during the Cold War. Georgia is not Poland of 1939-40, divided by a German-Soviet pact, nor have we the same monsters like Hitler and Stalin in the East and West.

There is a much stronger ground for Germany and France, with their relatively better tradition of democracy and a lesser ambition of hegemony, to act as intermediaries to help bring about a ceasefire and reduce tensions until both sides with the help of the UN can achieve the best resolution. Despite failure to form a united stance on how to respond to Russia's military action in South Ossetia, Germany and France, because of their close relations with Russia, can play an important role to impede further escalation of violence.


Recently by Jahanshah RashidianCommentsDate
Journée Internationale des Femmes
Mar 08, 2010
Stop Indian Gasoline for Mullahs’ Repressive Machinery
Feb 04, 2010
Iran Fails United Opposition
Jan 20, 2010
more from Jahanshah Rashidian

Iran's 20th century cultural and historical links to Caucasus

by KavehV (not verified) on

Dear Mr. Rashidian,

Had there not been an Islamic republic, Iran could have played a much more positive role in Caucasus and (for the lack of a better term) 'mentor' some of these republics to maintain their independence without provoking Moscow, as it seems to be the case with Mr. Saakashvili. I'd be even more concerned if Washington was reckless enough not to caution, or restrain Georgia from provoking Moscow, if this turns out to be the case.

I mentioned recent émigrés from the Caucasus who came to Iran as the result of the Russian civil war around the time of Bolshevik revolution. I have been told numerous times, by older relatives, about the southward migration of these people into Iran. These were artisans and other professionals who came from southern Russia, Georgia and Armenia to around Tabriz and then Tehran, and possibly other large cities later on. They spoke Armenian, Georgian and Russian at home and were bilingual, with Russian being the common language. Unfortunately, I have never researched this topic to learn about the size and scope of this migration. It may not have been very significant, but significant enough to make some demographic changes in Iran (mostly Tehran) and possibly demand for a more Western progressive society that we experienced during Reza Shah (who also spoke Russian, or had some knowledge of it) and later on.

Since most were somewhat educated professionals; artisans and engineers among men, and educated women (i.e. teachers, librarians, or professional tailors etc.), they quickly became the center of economic/industrial progress in the society. One may even credit the "Bardasht-e Hejab" by Reza Shah, to some extent, to this émigré community who's women were school principles, teachers and took other professions that were not available to women until then, and more importantly, they never wore "Hejab".

There is a great deal of details that needs to be searched out, but essentially, I believe, the door to modernization in 20th century Iran was opened with the help of the recent émigrés from Caucasus/south Russia.

Jahanshah Rashidian

Mr. Kave V

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Many peoples of Caucasus have deeply historical ties with Persian culture and different languages or Persian dialects. Nothing will be wrong to have a cultural centre to bring closer these "Iranic" peoples together--at least something like the one in France which brings French speaking people (Francophones) of different nations together.

Persian language was used in Georgia in the recent past and is still spoken in some other regions.

Not even very ironically but rather sadly, the Tajikis take upon themselves more Persian than the Islamo-Arbised centre of Persian Plateau, Iran! 

Jahanshah Rashidian

Dear Ben

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Sorry for the misunderstanding. As often, I put my posts, including most comments, from my workplace in haste, and as usual (my) haste makes waste! Now, let us have another coffee and enjoy a peaceful Sunday morning.


Good to see Rashidian Sees US intervention wrong

by Mehdi on

I guess this time the good old buddy KGB is the target and that makes a whole lot of difference. It is funny to see ZioNazis now upset that Rashidian, their ally is attacking the CIA, the biggest criminal supporter of Israel! Very funny indeed!

Farhad Kashani

Anonym7, the doogh was

by Farhad Kashani on

Anonym7, the doogh was great, want some? lol


Iran's cultural and historical links to Caucasus

by KavehV (not verified) on

Dear Mr. Rashidian,

There is also the conspicuously absent role of Iran in this vital region. Although, it can be justified by stating that the bizzare and extremist Islamic posture of the current regime in Iran has driven all these Iranic-nationalities away from Iranian influence.

Modern Iranian state owes a great deal to the recent emigre's from caucasus at the turn of the last century: White Russians (white uniformed Czarists), Ossetians, Georgians, Armenians, Azaris and countless other smaller nationalities of the northern Caucasus.

This is another chapter of our unknown history. The exodus of many of these nationalities from Russia and Caucasus to Iran around the time of Bolsheviks revolution. They were instrumental in helping Reza Shah establish a modern industrial state.

Unfortunately, Iran is in possesion of foreign enemies and unable to even voice concern over the situation, much less mentoring of these states.


The “world renowned” & Shariati/Ale-Ahmad

by Fred on

The Islamist says” In this column Fred always links Dr. Shariati with Jalal Al-e Ahmad. That is also an absurd notion, which only goes to show that Fred knows very little, if any, about either one of them”   Just to give you some idea how wrong you are when you say“ Fred knows very little, if any” I like to remind you that I kept dropping hints about what Majid would say about you now?  And you still don’t get it.    No my lefty Islamist essayist, you were as full of yourself back then as you are now. Others have read, analyzed and discussed the same stuff you’ve read but have not synthesized it to fit and validate an expired ideology as you do.   The logical outcome of Sharaiati and Ale-Ahmad thoughts that you bill yourself as an authority on is what we know as the Islamist republic.  Now your oxymoron religious nationalist group is desperately trying to market itself as a viable alternative. The problem is despite some nibbling from the Swedes and some others not many are biting, least the really important constituency, the people inside Iran. Gone are the days of Ershad being overcrowded with the clenched fisted youths, nowadays the small oxymoron party’s crowd are clenching their walkers and canes.

In short get over yourself first and then get over this oxymoron lefty Islamist thingy of your. Even with a Nobel under your belts and number of well funded lobbies you guys will never ever be able to sell this new improved repackaged version of the same Islamist crap to the Iranians. 

Ben Madadi

Re: JR

by Ben Madadi on

Dear Jahanshah R,

I am sorry, although this is irrelevant to the subject of this article, but because you brought it up, I would like to know how, and when, I started to believe in Shiism? I was born a Shia Muslim, probably just like you and 95% of other Iranians, but I'm not a religious person and I am obviously (according to all I have written) against the Islamist regime of Iran. I am not a believer in Shiism, no matter how one may define it, but a believer in the fact that Iranians are mostly Shia Muslims. I believestrongly in freedom and democracy. Regards :)

Farhad Kashani

Mr. Rashidian, my dear

by Farhad Kashani on

Mr. Rashidian, my dear friend,


My deep apologies if I made it look like I don’t agree with your comments! Not at all!

Jahanshah aziz, I have great regards for you and I learn a lot from your writings. I have and always will support you because I think you are a great Iranian intellectual and undoubtedly on the people’s side. It is very clear that you know much more about different political issues than I do. We, along with all the other guys you mentioned, are on the same side. No doubt about that.


My comments were directed entirely toward these Islamic leftists hypocrites who make baseless and nonsense claims. I disagree with many U.S policies, only in a dictatorship like Iran, a government gets a blank check. I have my reservations about U.S role there, mostly because its sending the wrong signal to the world making it look like its because of U.S – Georgia ties that this Russia should be justified in what its doing. The U.S is ignoring the reality that there is a media and war of ideas out there which is magnifying any statement and issue that comes out of America’s mouth. I think the W administration has nearly lost the public opinion war because of the undiplomatic language it uses. They don’t talk smart at all. Russia, which is a brutal imperialist power, says beautiful things about International cooperation and respect for “other nations”, and at the end of the day, it is the biggest supporter of dictators in the world, along with China, and now, as before, is directly assaulting a sovereign nation.


Jahanshah aziz, not only I don’t disagree with you, I actually think in this article you say the same thing I say, but in a different way. We have to have each others back.


I was actually going to contact you, we need to start something. These IRI apologists like NIAC and others have absolutely hijacked the Iranian intellectual scene and the Iranian voice. We need to change that.


Again, thanks and keep up the good work.


programmer craig


by programmer craig on

As for Iran's "nominal control" of the caucuses, you are incorrect in your assumption.... Persian is the entnicity of all those countries and their language is Iranic.

That isn't true, when it comes to Georgia:


I think it is also untrue for the Armenians and the ancient Turkic tribes.

But in any case, we are talking about Georgia. The primary influences on Georgia throughout its recorded history have been Greek, then Roman, then Byzantine. I don't see anything in Georgia's history that would give Iranians the special cultural understanding of Georgia that some Iranians in this thread (and others) have claimed.



by Killjoy (not verified) on

It's amusing to see how IR's supporters have forgotten their revolutionary slogan, "Neither East Nor West."

It's even more amusing to hear IR supporters and apologists on this site talk about "truth."

But one never hears them say anything about the truth with regards to war crimes committed by Iran's Ruling Terrosits against Iranians.

While they keep silent when it comes to IR's authorities' refusal to end the war with Iraq, they are quick to condemn other "agressors." Hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives could be saved only if the regime had agreed to end the war when the U.N. was trying to end it.

And while they shed crocodile tears for American taxpayers, they NEVER say a word about billions of dollars which have been embezzled by terrorists in Tehran.

Shame on hypocrites!!!

programmer craig


by programmer craig on

I'm gald at least one of you had the balls to admit you actually DO believe the Russians won the Cold War :D



by Mammad on

I agree with you. The re-emergence of Russia as a great power is a counterweight to the reckless, criminal adventures of the U.S., Britain, and France in the Middle East and around it.

Does anybody believe that if the Soviet Union was still around, the U.S. would have dared invading Iraq, or threatening Iran? Absolutely not. This is what is called geopolitical considerations. But, some people in this column just want to bring out their venom at any cost, without any regards whatsoever for national interests of countries like Iran.



Mr. JR, regrading Dr. Shariati

by Mammad on

Dr. Ali Shariati did not believe in the supreme position of rouhaniyat in a Muslim society, the way right-wing mullahs have imposed it on Iran. That is why he spoke so much about the Safavid Shi'ism vs. the Alavi Shi'ism.

Dr. Shariati did believe in an Islamic revolutionary leader, the way he wrote, for example, about Emam Hossein. But, that was in a totally different context, namely, revolting against the supressing political establishment and power. 

Regarding Ayatollah Khomeini, my guess is that, Dr. Shariati might have supported him as the leader of the Revolution (like millions of other Iranians), but not as the "supreme leader" or the "faghih". Supporting him as the "faghih" would have been against all that he believed in. Besides, Ayatollah Khomeini himself was critical of Dr. Shariati.

I never forget the days in Los Angeles in summer 1978 when, together with the late Majid Sharif (he was later killed in Iran as one of the victims of the "chain" murders), I would listen to the recordings of Ayatollah Khomeini's speeches in which he would criticize Dr. Shariati, and then we would discuss whether the criticism was valid based on our reading of Dr. Shariati's writings.

Dr. Shariati's goals in his writings were,

(1) To provide the young Muslim masses of Iran an attractive revolutionary alternative to Marxism-Lennism. Anybody who knows anything about Iran knows that, beginning with the 1940s (or perhaps a little earlier), but particularly during the 1960s and 1970s, Iran's political arena of that era was dominated by Marxism-Lennism (and later, to some extent, Maoism).

Dr. Shariati was not the first to try to do that. Mohandes Mahdi Bazargan, Dr. Yadollah Sahabi, and their group on the one hand, and Ahmad Nakhshab and his group (the Socialist Worshipers of God) on the other hand, had already tried to do that in the 1940s, except that they did not try to do it in a revolutionary context, but in a context of peaceful, gradual transition and changes.

Dr. Shariati was hugely successful in achieving this goal. 

(2) Eliminate superstition, reactionary interpretations, and above all, the exclusive role that rouhaniyat played in religious/political affairs. In his view, since at least the Safavids, rouhaniyat, with few exceptions, was a collaborator of the imperial court in supressing people and society. He right he was. In fact, the right-wing mullahs ARE the new monarchy in Iran!

One thing that people make mistake about is that, they read (if they do, because a lot of people claim they have done it, but have not) or interpret Dr. Shariati's writings in the present context, whereas his thinkings should be read within the context of his time.

In addition, such people also forget the international arena in which Shariati grew up and was educated. That was the era of anti-colonialism, and liberation movements. For example, he was friends with some of the important revolutionaries of his time during the 1950s and early 1960s, especially those who were involved in Algeria's war of independence, such as Farhat Abbas. Also, we should remember that Islam played a fundamental role in that war.

That is why I reject the criticisms of people like Akbar Gangi. He takes things out of context, even invents things, in order to try to discredit Dr. Shariati. He is not even knowledgeable about the subject. This is not to say that Dr. Shariati's work could not or cannot be criticized. Even in the context of his time, some of Dr. Shariati's work can be justifiably criticized. The work of anybody who lived only 44 years but produced nearly 30,000 pages of writings cannot be without errors and mistakes in judgement. But that is different from Gangi's criticisms which are nothing short of "lajan paraakani." Gangi has not criticized his own past, but does so against others!

In this column Fred always links Dr. Shariati with Jalal Al-e Ahmad. That is also an absurd notion, which only goes to show that Fred knows very little, if any, about either one of them.



Fight bwteen ZioNazi and MEK?

by Mehdi on

Seems like this conflict has started a bit of fight between the ZioNazis and the MEK! How funny! You can see the ZioNazis up in arms because Rashidian has attacked their beloved CIA criminals! How ironic!


George and Georg- ia irony!

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

It is better for everyone including Americans, that U.S status of almost unchallenged superpower is changing and the Georgian event has just confirmed that....
Yesterday George said (to Russians):
"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy".... maybe George is going to practice what he preaches!?

BTW, Rashidian, thanks for giving me a break in criticizing you! You heavily surprised me by your balanced view in this regard!

Jahanshah Rashidian

Mrs Mammad, Madadi

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Thanks for your reflexions of thoughts. I know that both of you believe in Shi'ism. This is not absolutely a problem. People can have their faith in privacy, but not imposed on the institutions. This is the reason I believe in democracy and secularism as good characters of any state. These are also as a guarantee for religion freedom in the society.

Let's re-estimate the idea of "Imamat" and leadership proposed in the beginning of 1970s by Dr. Shari'ati. Regarding his views on Shi'ia Mullahs, would he accept accept "The supreme Leader" of "Imam" Khomeini if he was not dead (...) in 1977?


programmer craig, sorry to rain on your parade, but...

by Shadooneh (not verified) on

when you factor in the colossal deficit, the twenty-somethings who are being killed and wounded in the wars-of-choice the US is losing, the recession, unemployment, people losing their biggest lifetime investments, their homes, vanishing 401K funds, lowest confidence levels in ALL levels of government from the Administration to the Congress, you fill the blanks, you would notice that Russia indeed WON that war. As the result of what you consider a loss, Russia shed the excess weight of a decrepit and top-heavy empire, which was supplying a large number of its "republics" with a myriad services including dirt cheap energy, free education, medical services, etc. Now mother Russia has itself to care for. Russia is enjoying a high rate of growth in its GNP and GDP, Europe depends on it for energy and the US is so bogged down in the ME that all it can do about the Georgian situation is to wag a finger at Putin, who is showing us his middle finger as a response. The Russian middle class is growing while the US middle class is losing economically due to the widening gap between the rich and the poor, middle class and white collar jobs are being outsourced to India and other places - let's not even think about the loss of manufacturing jobs because they left the US a long time ago and it is too depressing to dwell on. Now if you still feel you/we have won the Cold War, I humbly suggest that take some time off and think real hard about the status of the US vis-a-vis Russia. Then come back and enlighten us as usual.


Mr. JR

by Mammad on

Thank you. Reading what people like me believe in, but written by you with whom I mostly disagree when it comes to Islam and Iran, is refreshing. 



Good points, JR

by Not Anonymous (not verified) on

Dear JR: Thank you for taking the time and acknowleding my comment.

You might want to read the link below. It is a good analysis of the Georgian situation by Brooking Institute.


warning: PDF file

Jahanshah Rashidian

Thanks For Your Comments

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

Dear Maryam Hojjati : Thank you for your continuous support.

Dear Ananymou 8 / XerXes: Thank you for your feedback.

Dear Not Anonymous: Thank you for your long comment: What concerns the relations between China / Russia and the IRI: Their relations with the IRI will one day be accountable to free Iran and honest people who ask their apathy to Iranians' plight.

These two countries have never integrated human rights factors into their internal / foreign policy. What concerns, Georgia, independently from what the friends or enemies of the IRI think, for this piece, I rather relied on neutrality, regarding that the news we get are of course from different sources with a dose of their / our subjectivity.

Dear Farhad Kashani: Thank you for your comment, although this time you do not seem to be agree with my views in , a neutral, foreign policy. When concerns Iran, I have sympathy and solidarity for your core ideas. Also, I appreciate people like Jamshid, Masous, Salar, Nooriala, Noghrekar, Naficy, Mesdaghi, Fair, and few others on this site with the core idea of replacing the IRI with a secular and democratic regime.

PC: True, Stalin was born in Gori, 30 kilometres far from the then Ossetian border with Georgi. His father was Ossetian-- a breakaway province of Georia(?!)

PS: A few years ago, Stalin's statue was erected, as a symbol of nationalism! In this city.

Dear Killjoy: Of course, the IRI remains on the terrorist list and our main concerns. I think, amid a new war in Georgia, the IRI will have interests to muddy the waters to embroil USA and other key powers in this region. Furthermore, we should not forget that separatist Abkhazia is a Muslim region and can easily cast in the eyes of Mullahs.

Ben Madadi

Dear JR

by Ben Madadi on

Thank God there is an America, otherwise Russia, with or without the UN, or with or without Germany, France, England and others all put together, would have already annexed not just Georgia, but far beyond it! Thank God there is America :)


PC: There is no use in

by ...Anonymous (not verified) on

PC: There is no use in engaging the usual Islamist/Marxist on this site. They are filled with hatred for America at the expense of their own annihilation.

As for Iran's "nominal control" of the caucuses, you are incorrect in your assumption.

Original Iranian tribes originated from caucuses like Tajikestan, Kyrgistan (sp?), Uzbakistan, etc. and settled in what we now know as the Iranian Plateau. Persian is the entnicity of all those countries and their language is Iranic.

For example, In Tajikestan, the official language is authentic Persian. In fact, the Tajiks are more Persians than the Persians in Iran so to speak.

the Tajik President recently suggested to one the mullahs to change the name of Iran into Palestine and let the Tajiks call Tajikestan, Iran...lol

programmer craig


by programmer craig on

Those who don't know the depth of the Russian policy maker vs. the
western countries are confused about the Russian move to Georgia.

Yeah, we're totally clueless about Russia over here. What was that whole 60 year Cold War thing all about!? I'm sure you can fill us in with your expertise on teh matter! maybe in your version, the Russians actually won!? :D

programmer craig

Farhad Kashani

by programmer craig on

Thanks :)


Russia is not playing like the west

by XerXes (not verified) on

Those who don't know the depth of the Russian policy maker vs. the western countries are confused about the Russian move to Georgia.
The United States had a Coup to bring a pro Western government in the steps of the Russian building. This would be unacceptable if it happened in any western nation.
Georgia was throwing stone to the super power, the Russian region, that's not acceptable for Russians.
You can't bring NATO or western front to that area, it will not be acceptable. There are no money or economy that could buy the Russians to accept that. Westerners are dreaming about taking control over this rich region.
As Russians have said it, we are not like "western" powers for regime change!!
Just remember that when the soviet Union broke a part, we found out that Cuba was getting money from them rather than them being just a Slave to the soviets! Soviets had partners, westerners had puppet governments by coups or wars.
The equation has changed and I believe this is one more plus for the Iranian foreign advantage in the long run. Hopefully this will help Iran join the Shanghai pact.

Farhad Kashani

programmer craig, I support

by Farhad Kashani on

programmer craig, I support you all the way.

What you say is factual and logical. You side with the people of Iran.

Farhad Kashani

Mehdi, I am against

by Farhad Kashani on

Mehdi, I am against Israel’s occupation of Arabic land and Israel’s crimes against humanity in those lands. However, that does not in any way, shape or form, changes the fact that Russia is the definition of imperialism.

programmer craig


by programmer craig on

Are you? Anyone can see you mischaracterized what I said, buddy. But thanks for going to the effort of poving yourself wrong :D

Do you normally get away with that in Iran? That's considered pretty crude and rude behavior in the US.

And I notice you consistently, in every thread, ignore the substance of the discussion and instead choose to argue semantics. Or, you introduce irrelevancies such as comparisons to israel or some such nonsense. Nothing but a bunch of garbage junk comments from you. As usual.


LOL indeed PC, LO -effing- L

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on

by programmer craig on Fri Aug 15, 2008 02:37 AM CDT

::So is it OK to beat my wife and kids because they are in my household ?

If they were stealing from you, were violent towards you, refused your authority, etc... then yes, it'd absolutely be OK to beat your kids. In my opinion. Unless you prefer to let them beat you?


by programmer craig on Thu Aug 14, 2008 03:29 PM CDT

::But I find it difficult to believe that NO ONE from the western media even mentions that Georgia attacked first.

That's because that isn't what happened. Russia has been fomenting violnce in both of those breakaway provinces for years, including the "ethnic cleanisng" of Georgians. Those provinces are not part of Russia, and they never have nbeen. they are part of Georgia. So when you say the "georgians attacked first" who did they attack? Georgian rebels?