SURVEY

paternity dues.........

ex pc; america did created these thughs so ....one way or other has the obligation to pay alimony by their own laws to those S.O.B  who's ARE AMERICAN.     Maziar

ex-pc

1- Partly due to NIAC advocacy and information, Iran and the US seriously engange each other diplomatically.

2- As a result of this engagement, the US and Iran agree to a level of IAEA inspections that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons, but allows the civilian energy program. The US and Iran now have good relations. The entire Middle East is relieved. NIAC gets "I told you so" credits for advocating negotaions and providing useful information.

3- Iranians go ahead and topple the IRI anyway, because an IAEA deal (or no deal) has nothing to do with internal social or political issues like free press, equality for women, child exectuions, stoning, torture, free elections, etc. 

Iranians' relationship with foreigners does not determine their relationship with each other.  This is the decoupling I'm positing. I'm not suggesting a decoupling between US-IRI negotiations and positive international results.

Ari (again)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but on that last note: I would also ask what purpose diplomacy between two countries with such intense hostility between them might serve, if (as you say) it doesn't really matter? Why should the US help to legitimize that regime, if the regime is not going to budge from it's currently unacceptable positions?

Ari

In my mindset, there is no need to explain because the Regime will
change--or perish-- as a result of the democratic will of Iranians
themselves, not because foreign countries did or didn't give it
respect.

Can you explain the purpose of NIAC then? If changes in US policy don't have any impact on the IRI one way or another, what is NIAC's reason for existing?

نه هر که آینه سازد سکندری داند

Since you are taking the high road by crassly dismissing the posed inconvenient questions, then perhaps NIAC lobby and it members should not be so modest. With likewise being a little unsociable, NIAC lobby’s grand strategy of the regime changing or perishing is obtuse. The kind of scratching you are talking about in the form of unshackling the regime from all that which weakens it is more in line with NIAC lobby scratching the wrong back.  Take care. 

Fred, کس نخارد پشت من جز ناخن انگشت من

خودش خشک میشه میافته

 Ari,

No offense taken, too thick-skinned even if it were intentional. But the copout in the form of:

 “Aside from routine civility and hepfulness, I assign no importance to how foreigners view my country. This statement from Fred suggests the rival mindset: "They also need to explain why in the world would the ruling Islamists ever want to change when they see their current policies gets them to be treated on a par with the civilized world of democracies?"       

 In my mindset, there is no need to explain because the Regime will change--or perish-- as a result of the democratic will of Iranians themselves, not because foreign countries did or didn't give it respect.”

Is not only unbecoming, it is contrary to the same cited routine civility and helpfulness.

Aside from the law of nature that all orders eventually become disordered and perish, why would the regime perish? Why so nonchalantly dismissive of valid questions? Couldn’t your whole “mindset” be at best described as khodesh-khosk meesheh meeofteh?

Ostaad

However, in democratic teamwork, it is par for the course for team members to run into debates with each other. The minority continues to support the team and no one takes his/her ball and go home because the majority vote didn't go their way. While supporting the organization, the minority continues to make the case for their view. If the case is strong enough, the majority will either shift or strengthen their case. Healthy democracy! In this case, the minority opinion may actually improve NIAC's pause idea by drawing attention to the need for clear unpause criteria.

To satisfy your question though, here's some sympathy for the majority pause vote. In the light of the recent horrific violence by the Regime, it is emotionally hard not to have some sort of response. Trita's argument notwithstanding, I think the majority needed to voice their humane emotions, perhaps hoping that the "private" channels you mentioned would continue diplomacy in the interim . 

As for opposition to NIAC from other Iranians, I have included the germ of a response in the article. It is a matter of having different mindsets as to how we perceive our national character. Aside from routine civility and hepfulness, I assign no importance to how foreigners view my country. This statement from Fred suggests the rival mindset: "They also need to explain why in the world would the ruling Islamists ever want to change when they see their current policies gets them to be treated on a par with the civilized world of democracies?"     

 In my mindset, there is no need to explain because the Regime will change--or perish-- as a result of the democratic will of Iranians themselves, not because foreign countries did or didn't give it respect.

(Fred: I apologize for the indirect response; the comment flow just worked out this way)

Wrong Questions by NIAC

The poem recited in Farsi reads much better 

خانه از پای بست ویران است     خواجه در بند نقش ایوان است

Wrong Questions by NIAC

Obviously, no responsible Iranian advocates war with IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran), and the present American Administration is committed to renewed diplomacy initiatives. The main concern of US and Israel is the active and continued pursuit of nuclear arms by IRI and its policy to destabilize the middle east region.  A more realistic question would have been on the surgical military strike to remove the related installations in case that IRI continues to stall talks, does not accept rigorous IAEA inspections, pursues a policy of “taghieh –lies”, and the subsequent sanctions do not yield the desired outcome.

May be NIAC should ask the following questions from its 500 member and nonmember (I, as a nonmember, was solicited to complete the questionnaire) respondents:

1. Do you advocate the separation of religion and state in Iran?

2. Do you support administering Sharia laws in Iran?

3. Do you believe that supreme leader in Iran is the viceroy of God?

4. Do you want a totalitarian or a democratic government for Iran?

5. Do you think that men and women should have equal legal rights in Iran?

With the connections that NIAC has in IRI they may be able to arrange a clandestine or open scientific poll from people inside Iran and publish their findings.  They could then make appropriate recommendations to US congress and administration on the right course of action towards IRI.

In the absence of such scientific findings, we can rely on the known IRI performance during the past thirty years highlighted by sacrificing an additional half a million Iranians in prolonging the war of vengeance with Iraq, executing thousands of political opponents, assassinating scores of Iranians inside Iran and abroad, rape and torture of prisoners to death, looting Iran through  covert and overt mafia network, pursuing a maligned foreign policy of confrontation with USA and threat to Israel, supporting international terrorism,  and continuing to rule by terror through their Sepahi and Basiji thugs.  No solution to IRI problem is possible short of their removal by Iranian people themselves.  USA and other civilized governments can support the freedom movement in Iran by minimal interaction with IRI in achieving their political objectives, by insisting that IRI adhere to UN human rights guidelines, by not guaranteeing the security of IRI regime, and by keeping the pressure on IRI through smart diplomacy and effective sanctions.  

Those who advocate normalcy of relations between USA and IRI are in denial of the brutal nature of IRI regime, and need to recall the paraphrased poem that,

“The house rests on a ruined foundation; The master contemplates painting the veranda.”

polls ?

Mr.  varjavand that was surely short ,right clever and correct respons.

the war is BARAKAT for them thugs (as said by khomeini)

the sanction  will hurt middle and lower-class of Iran

the wait and see approach  also prolong IRI existance

 so in any scenarios Iranian are the losers and westerners laughing their way to the bank every day.           

for a FREE IRAN   AMEN    Maziar

I'm not sure where NIAC is going with this...

As a non-member supporter of NIAC, I'm quite perplexed about the notion of the "pause", which has become a focus of the organization's direction regarding the US-Iran negotiations that are undoubtedly underway using "private" channels.

Mr. Siletz,

Can you please elaborate on the desirability and effectiveness of the "pause" policy in furthering and facilitating the rapprochement between the Iran and the US from a member's point of view? I am quite aware of Trita's argument in favor of the "pause", and I have expressed my opposition to it on this web site, but I am very interested in your reason(s) for supporting it.

I also wish to read your response to the amen corner's choirboy, and AIPAC tea-and-crumpet server, remarks about NIAC and CASMII.

Why change?

Knowing that one cannot be in total agreement on fundamental strategic issues and yet “advocate” meaningful changes that contradict those strategic principles, Perhaps for once the NIAC lobby can enumerate where exactly it differs on strategic issues with the Islamist Rapist Republic?

Talking about human rights issue, belatedly at that, or opposing war is fine and kudos to NIAC lobby for doing so. But “advocating” or the more realistic and appropriate term, lobbying, for total unfettered commercial, diplomatic relationship including access to world bank loans, WTO membership and alike with the Islamist Rapist Republic sounds like reading from IRI’s wish list.

 If it is the contention of NIAC lobby and its conjoined twin CASMII lobby that full economic and diplomatic relationship with the Islamist Rapist Republic is the best way to “eventually” moderate the Islamist cutthroats and steer them to a semi-civilized behavior, then it is on the twin lobbies to spell out how. 

They need to cite historical precedence for such barbaric regime responding to goodies with loosening their stranglehold on their enslaved population. They also need to explain why in the world would the ruling Islamists ever want to change when they see their current policies gets them to be treated on a par with the civilized world of democracies? Why would they want to change that which works for them?

varjavand

2. The inclusion of "strongly disagree" questions are logical because if they were'nt there, the poll would be vulnerable to the criticism that strong disagreement was not permitted. They also serve the important purpose of informing the members which basic positions we continue to strongly share after the Iran equation changed. Continued likemindedness could by no means be taken for granted on all issues. As you can see the diplomacy position is now 2:1 in favor of a pause, and aspects of the sanctions issue now contain two almost evenly split sides of a debate.

Mr. Siletz

Mr. Siltez;

Your analyses of the responses are clever. Can I ask your input on two points: First, the respondents are all the members of NIAC members with similar political persuasion. Therefore, their responses do not reflect the opinions of the Iranian community at large. Second, the responses to most questions seem predictably either strongly agree or strongly disagree reminding me of this expression that the dumbest question you can ask someone is the one to which you know the answer.