Like it or not

Will Washington break with George Bush’s Iran policy?


Like it or not
by Ardeshir Ommani

On February 25, 2009, the Islamic Republic of Iran celebrated another major milestone in its scientific and technological development, announcing that “successful tests” at its first nuclear reactor at Bushehr were carried out by the common efforts of the Iranians and their Russian partners in the project. The power plant is projected to be fully operational by the end of the year. "This, in simple terms, means that Bushehr power plant is completed... and its operation is definite," Gholamreza Aqazadeh, head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, told Iranian state television. "The political concerns about Bushehr plant are now completely addressed today." The start of operations at the 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor near the southern Iranian port of Bushehr - built with Russian assistance under a $1 billion contract - had long been delayed, largely due to opposition and pressure on Russia from the United States, using their EU partners to forestall progress and completion.

The test did not involve batches of low-enriched uranium supplied to Iran by Atomstroiexport, the Russian state company that is building the plant. Instead "virtual" fuel was injected in the reactor, officials said. At the official opening -- the first day of the Bushehr plant's test run -- head of the Rosatom State Atomic Corporation Sergei Kiriyenko addressed Western concerns about Iran's recent nuclear achievement.

"We believe that the structure in the Bushehr plant itself is in total conformity with the Non-Proliferation," the Russian official said. He added that Russia's cooperation in building the Bushehr plant removes every doubt about Iran's nuclear intentions, as the whole project is transparent in its entirety. "Those who think this project can be used for the proliferation of nuclear weapons can come here and see for themselves."

While the western media along with Israeli Security Forces continue to make all kinds of noises and objections about this latest advance, Iran reiterated its right of peaceful pursuit of developing nuclear energy, being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and monitored under the supervision of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The high degree of hypocrisy reflected in the outcries by officials in the United States and the European Union Trio (France, Germany and Britain) can be accurately measured with just a brief glance back into the history of nuclear technology in Iran.

The U.S. gave the Shah nuclear technology

Iran’s interest in nuclear energy, research and know-how began in the mid-1960’s under the direct tutelage of the U.S. within the framework of turning Iran, the way of Israel, into a regional and nuclear power for containing the movement of Arab Socialism and their orientation towards the then Soviet Union (Russia today). With the technical assistance of the U.S., the first nuclear research facility, namely, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC), was built in Tehran University in 1967, and managed by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), which was founded in 1974. Immediately after the founding of the TNRC, the U.S. sold a 5-megawatt research reactor to Iran that was installed at the Amirabad Technical College in Tehran, which runs on 93% highly-enriched uranium. The reactor could produce up to 600 grams of plutonium per year in its spent fuel. Simultaneously, the U.S. sold hot cells to Iran that could be used for separating plutonium from the spent fuel, and then used for the production of atomic bombs. The question that remains to be asked is why the U.S. sold the hot cells to the Shah, but is crying “foul” today?

According to de-classified U.S. government documents, cited extensively by Mohammad Sahimi, Professor and chairman of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, in his authoritative paper, “Iran's Nuclear Program”, the U.S. government in the mid-1970's advised "Iran to expand her non-oil energy base" by reasoning that "Iran needed not one but several nuclear reactors to acquire the electrical capacity that the Stanford Research Institute" paper in 1973 had proposed, and expressing interest in U.S. companies' participation in Iran's nuclear energy projects.

Emboldened by Washington's encouragement, the Shah planned to build 23 nuclear power plants throughout the country, and no authority in the U.S., France, Israel or West Germany disputed the Shah's extensive and expensive projects on the basis of the fact that Iran was rich in oil and natural gas deposits, the reasoning that the Bush Administration and opponents of Iran provided for the redundancy of plans for nuclear energy in Iran.

Germany and the Bushehr Project

Following the U.S. advocacy, in 1974 the Shah's government signed a contract with (West) Germany's Kraftwerk Union, a subsidiary of Siemens, to begin the construction of two 1200-megawatt nuclear reactors at Bushehr, a city in the south-western part of Iran. Soon, in 1975 the Atomic Energy organization of Iran (AEOI) signed a contract with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for the training of the first group of Iranian nuclear engineers. Meanwhile, West Germany, France, the U.K. and the U.S. trained thousands of nuclear specialists from around the world. Iranian nuclear personnel received their training in Italy, Belgium, Canada, as well as the U.S.

By 1979, when the Revolution toppled the pro-U.S. monarchial regime, the Shah had reached contracts for a total of six nuclear power reactors with France, Germany and the U.S. The two 1200-megawatt German light-water power reactors at Bushehr were partly finished. The reactor Number 1 was 90% complete and 60% of its equipment was also installed, while Number 2 reactor was 50% complete. The Iraq-Iran war brought heavy damage to the core areas of both reactors.

The same atomic reactors that the West had advocated for and sold to the Shah at high prices just a few years earlier became the targets of Iraq’s French jet fighters at the behest of the U.S. after the 1979 revolution. This pattern of trade and political relations could be observed under the U.S.-European imperialist relations with the countries formerly under their domination.

After the Iraq-Iran war, the Islamic Republic of Iran, under President Rafsanjani, reinitiated Iran's nuclear energy program and immediately approached Kraftwerk Union to complete the Bushehr project or ship the reactor components and technical documents that Iran had paid for. However, under U.S. pressure, the German government, and Kraftwerk Union refused to honor the contract or even return the money. Left in the cold, Iran filed a lawsuit in 1996 with the International Commerce Commission (ICC), asking for $5.4 billion in compensation. But the case is still unsettled.

U.S. Uses Nuclear Issue to Undermine Iran

The U.S. has used the nuclear enrichment issue, which is the right of those signatory to the NPT, to weaken Iran economically and undermine its political system. The world knows that all those countries, including the U.S., Britain and France, who readily agreed with the trade sanctions against Iran, they themselves are armed with atomic weapons numbering in the thousands, and in the case of the United States, has used these weapons on the people of Japan, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Therefore, they cannot be the best judges of who is a “threat” to the so-called international community.

Let it be known that Iran with its 3000-year history, a neighbor to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates, has not attacked any country in the last 200 years, while the U.S., in its short history of 230 years has been in war dozens of times, and has over 737 military bases stationed in more than one hundred countries around the world. One of the resentments that the Muslim nation of Iran had towards the Shah was his pro-Israeli policy. He paid a high price for this close association with the Zionist regime and his animosity toward the Arab nations, which was fostered by the U.S. administrations for the purpose of divide and rule.

After pursing years of hot war, including arming and supplying extremist groups, the U.S. strengthened its strategy of Cold War policies, whose main arsenal were trade sanctions actualized by bans on financial exchange and banking transactions. To justify its unilateral trade and investment foreign trade policies against Iran, the U.S. needed the backing of the United Nations, which could be solicited the best by presenting Iran’s nuclear energy program as a danger to the “world community”. But the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), headed by Dr. Mohammad El Baradei, in its years of inspections and intrusive examinations has repeatedly declared that Iran has never diverted the hardware or the nuclear materials for building atomic bombs. As recently as last week, the U.S. Intelligence Agency reported that Iran has not engaged in construction of the necessary parts for the building of an atomic bomb.

In accord with the IAEA report, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report on Iran, made public in the first week of Dec. 2007, stated: “…that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program” and “that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons” in the future. Between the two aspects of the report, the former is essential and the latter mainly involves future speculations.

Furthermore, the U.S. Intelligence report made public on February 13, 2009, reaffirms the 2007 intelligence estimate that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003, if such a project existed at all. Retired Admiral Dennis Blair said U.S. intelligence assesses that Iran has not restarted nuclear weapon’s design and weaponization work that it halted in late 2003. This report was the result of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies investigations and research.

Will Obama seek peace with Iran?

The American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC), founded in November of 2004, supported the election of Barack Obama to the U.S. presidency in 2008. Today and all along AIFC welcomed Obama’s foreign policy statements that the U.S. must change course and begin dialogue with the leaders of the countries that the previous administration have labeled as “enemies”. This rapprochement is only realizable if no pre-conditions such as demanding Iran’s suspension of its program of uranium enrichment are attached, and the U.S. must change its tone and respect the positions of Iran with regard to real security in the Middle East. It is time that the U.S. offers Iran security assurances that it will not use force to reach its foreign policy objectives. Any future interference in the internal affairs of Iran will be rebuffed as in the past. There is no such thing as “exporting democracy”. Such things as administering the country in the model of the West, or as changing the dress code, are the affairs of the Iranian people and not the countries that are seeking diplomatic and trade relations with Iran.

We hope the Obama Administration does not continue George Bush’s failed policies of war and aggression in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan. The security of the region is the responsibility of the peoples of those countries in that region and no power from 10,000 miles away should dictate how the governments and people of those countries should resolve their differences. It is AIFC’s humble opinion that the relations between the United States and Iran must be based on mutual respect and mutual benefits, and not on the childish policy of “carrot and stick”, because Iran is not looking for handouts and is not a child that can be reprimanded.

Ardeshir Ommani is an Iranian-born writer and an activist in the U.S. anti-war and anti-imperialist struggle for over 40 years, including against the Vietnam War, and now the Iraq war. During the past seven years, he has participated in the U.S. peace movement, working to promote dialogue and peace among nations and to prevent a U.S.-spurred war on Iran. He holds two Masters Degrees: one in Political Economy and another in Mathematics Education. Co-founder of the American Iranian Friendship Committee, (AIFC), he writes articles of analysis on Iran -U.S. relations, the U.S. economy and has translated articles and books from English into Farsi, the Persian language. Please visit AIFC’s website to learn more about Iran and Global issues at . Two of his recent articles, “Capitalism’s Sign Post” can be viewed at:, and “Iran, the NIE and the Empire” at The author may be contacted at:


Recently by Ardeshir OmmaniCommentsDate
The Great Heist
May 17, 2012
Mar 01, 2012
Can the U.S. Swallow Syria?
Feb 12, 2012
more from Ardeshir Ommani

To Behzad Majdian

by Arya manesh (not verified) on

You said "The same thing can be said about IRI. It has unleashed violence against its opponents inside Iran, as you have given one example. However, this does not imply that if it gets the bomb, it will start acting irrationally or nuking Israel or other countries".

Sorry to say that you are wrong again. It is quite the opposit. A theocratic regime i,e. Republic of Islam of Iran that for example rapes teenage female prisoners before their execution. A regime that advocates suisidal ideation and suicide bombing against infidils and what they describe as "enemies of Islam. A regime that stones people to death for commiting adultry; A regime that creates and supports international Islamic terrorism can not be trusted to have any kind of bomb ,especially nuclear.

This regime is an Immidiate danger not only to Sunni countries of the region but also to Russia, Israel,Europe , and eventually to the whole world

The same applies to Bin ladan, The taliban and Al Qaeda.


No one was as superstitious

by amoo norouz (not verified) on

No one was as superstitious as the Shah with regards to Shia imams and hazrate abbaas thorugh out his life as is on the record by him and his circle. Shah was the real leader of the revolution, az foolish Bazargan rightly observed for once, and he should have started reforms at least ten years earlier before 1978. He ended up going on TV and joining the mullahs' revolution! Why are we censoring recent history and fooling ourselves with lies? Kashani could not get very few religious favors from Mossadegh for mullahs but Shah gave it all and more to him: oghaaf toliyaat hajj salaries etc. Kashani ordered fadayiane-eslaam Shabaan and other gangs, now in power in Iran too, to follow the Shah. His photo with Shaban and other shia gang leaders after 1953 coup:

The people have been kept backward for 66 years and whatever is built in Iran is on the petrodollars from nationalization of oil by Mossadegh and Fatemi. Shah GAVE BACK HALF OF 'THE OIL UNDER CONSERTIUM AGREEMENT' for 25 years in 1953. HALF, %50! Then when he felt guilty and didn't want to renew it and was dying they got rid of him to install the evil mullahs who have looted and given away even more (see link at bottom). Iran can be destroyed at any time like Iraq so what the Shah and mullahs built on Mossadegh's petrodollars can be flattened. The main thing is political and social freedoms so people can grow just as Europe rebuilt quickly after the war because the people were not kept backward. Even in Germany and Japan they had democracy till a decade before WWII never mind most other countries. If we had the democratic constitution implemented and political parties and free media not killed off then we would not have any problems. But we only had a few years of that in the last hundred years. Why? That is why we are the joke of the world because our people have been kept backward by being denied freedoms in political and social areas while our oil is mainly looted by foreign puppet masters. It's like throwing a nice carpet on a pile of manure. It's stupid and that is the root cause of our suffering. And we are used in various scenarios which will tear Iran apart as the people sit on their behinds when a fraction of a million on the streets can send the mullahs running. I really see no future apart Iran being used in a war and then disintegrated as the same masters behind Shah and mullahs are making movements in Azarbaijan and Kurdestan where fortunately most are still patriotic Iranians. But specially in Khuzestan where their main effort is because of the oil-gas they will be successful to cut it off. The only thing I want is to get rid of the mullahs and have democracy, otherwise this tragedy continues, without disintegration and the only way for that is to get rid of the mullahs TODAY as it is already very late. So instead of attacking those who are the real blood givers on the streets of Tehran be they right wing pro-Mossadeghi nationalists or social-democrats, not LA playboys, and censoring living history just concentrate on the mullahs. You have no idea how evil Khomeini was or these mullahs are. They can bring a lot more disasters to Iran beyond your imagination, and I they will. Like children you don't know the true dimensions of this evil force which has a lot more demonic potential, and it is pure evil. Don't censor living history like a tinpot dictatorship full of morons and don't fight each other. Fight the regime.



To Behzad Majidian

by Benyamin on

I have to say it is a grand analogy in response to D.K. is indeed a very focused analogy!

I am going to lend my own opinion and as I agree with you 100% that most Iranians were infact of made up less literate or illiterate people but also were deeply (by that I don`t mean radical) religious. I do agree with you about most but I have to say I agree with DK when he used the word "hijacked".

My age does not allow me to use my own memory but from what I "know", I believe, you are right by saying that the revolution started as a movement for democracy and independence. But that slogan was for a revolution of the NON-traditional middle class. But the revolution that started by the Islamists that as you said was rooted in 80% of the people had a different slogan. By that I mean There were a few different fronts that started after the great Mosaddegh and everyone of them had an  idea of the post revolution but no one new how things are going to work. I truely believe that Khomeini wanted to share power and stay aside as a leader and be more of an observer or a Gaurd to the ideals of revolution but things started to happen and I would use a few words to describe it: greed on all parties, lack of patience, lack of diplomacy, lack of experience, lack of knowledge. as you said in your response even those leaders of non traditional class believed then that MOST people are behind them and not the khomeini and they played hard ball with khomeini which came to know that he is holding the most power. That realization and greed and the persuation of his followers to grab the power and not share it with any other political group was when they "hijacked" the revolution. They betrayed the very people that brought them to power. yes most people were deeply religious but never, and never even those illiterate ones were "radical" by any sense of imagination. They wanted a free country and they wanted to be free and not to be made fun of. But even they, were betrayed. the number of "radical" muslims in Iran was less to nothing and it still is less to nothing.

at the end, either we all are wrong about them or right. I have a friend that everytime I say something about politics to him he turns to me and says"how is that going to make me any money"  the point is, we can`t change what has happened. but I believe the USAs intelligent services have the most accurate reports on Iran when they say, IRI is not replacing itself it is sinking and in every aerea of its ideals before the Iranian people. In another word, the people will have the last say it may take time but it is forming as we speak. no one can go against the people and even the hard line radical islamists know that now.

Behzad Majdian

To Benyamin

by Behzad Majdian on

Thanks for your kind and approving comment posted on March 4. 

I responded to Darius Kadivar an hour or so ago. Let me know what you think.


Behzad Majdian

To Arya Manesh

by Behzad Majdian on

Dear Arya,

My response to your posting on March 5, 2009—I am not sure what you mean by “they” in the opening of your second paragraph. I entirely agree with you that the majority of Iranians who followed Khomeini, and believed that his picture was on the moon, were naïve. As I have argued in my response to Darius Kadivar about an hour ago, 80%-85% of the people in Iran were religious and that is why they followed the traditional-Islamic forces.

There, I also implied that the whole thing should be blamed on Shah’s dictatorship. If Shah had not destroyed the democracy we enjoyed during Mossadegh, if Khomeini’s books were allowed to be published so people could read them and get to know what was going on in his head, if the non-traditional forces opposed to Shah could be allowed to disseminate their views, the leadership of the revolution would not have fallen into the hands of people who could make up lies such as the one you have mentioned, and people would have been politically educated enough not to make the mistakes they made.


My response to your posting on March 4, 2009—I think you are confusing two things. There is no direct relation between being violent on the one hand, and being Irrational on the other hand. I know of people who beat their children at home and are cruel to their wives, but in their very sensitive jobs act very rationally. Another example: take George W. Bush who, from what I have read, is a very loving father and husband, yet he started a gruesome war with evil intentions and got about half a million innocent people killed.

The same thing can be said about IRI. It has unleashed violence against its opponents inside Iran, as you have given one example. However, this does not imply that if it gets the bomb, it will start acting irrationally or nuking Israel or other countries.

I fear the Israeli political class much more than I fear IRI when it comes to starting a war or committing war crimes. The megalomaniacs running the state of Israel are the real danger in the Middle-East, not IRI. (I want to invite you to read my op-ed published on this site at // where I talked about the danger posed by Israel.)


Behzad Majdian

To Darius Kadivar

by Behzad Majdian on

Dear Mr. Kadivar, (I will address you with your last name since you did the same with me.)

Wow! Gee! Your response to my comment is all over the place and goes in all directions. You have thrown in all sorts of things in there. To mention a few, you have raised the question of whether a Mullah can kill; have assessed various revolutions; judged or commented on figures such as Mao, Lenin, Castro, Rousseau, and Khomeini; offered advocacy for velvet revolutions; supported the idea of importing democracy; have offered a strategy for importing it to Iran; just to mention a few. And you have done all of this in 1,182 words. I find this both amazing and nightmarish. Amazing because you can do it, and I cannot. Nightmarish because it will take me hours, if not days, to unpack, reconstruct, analyze, and eventually comment on everything you have brought up.

I am going to make it easy on myself. That is to say, I am going to ignore everything that you have brought up, and only stick to the subject matter of your earlier comment which compelled me to respond in the first place, viz., the nature and origin of the 1979 Revolution in Iran. As I intimated in my first response, it was the younger generation of Iranians (both in Iran and outside) who ignited the engine of revolution. If you were a university student in Iran (or abroad) in the 1970s, then you would know what I am talking about. The main demands of the students movement in Iran and abroad were democracy and independence for Iran. The traditional-Islamic forces arrived on the scene of students movement, and later on on the larger scene of the entire country, only toward the end of 1970s.

Moreover, the intelligentsia did not bring Mullahs to power as you have said. Rather it was the case that Mullahs (or rather “traditional-Islamic forces”) took the leadership out of the hands of students movement and the rest of the non-traditional forces in the Revolution. And this is why the revolution that started as a struggle for democracy against Shah’s dictatorship ended up becoming an Islamic revolution that moved to crush the mechanical modernity Shah was imposing on Iran. Here I am willing to use the term you have employed in describing what took place:  the democratic revolution was “hijacked”. What I want to do here is to focus my response on why and how this happened. The answer will require a bit of sociological analysis and discussion about the class composition of the Iranian society right around the time of the revolution.

Allow me to explain my terminology before I go further. I divide the non-traditional political forces at the time into two categories: strictly-secularist or moderately-secularist forces (Leftist organizations and groups, Jebhe-ye Melli, Nehzat Azadi, being the main ones); and what I want to call the “enlightened-Islamist” forces (mainly followers of Dr. Ali Shariati’s ideas and Mojahedin Khalg, i.e., before they fled the country in 1981).

My explanation as to why the traditional-Islamic forces took hold of the leadership, and eventually succeeded in annihilating the other forces, is that non-traditional forces lacked any form of well-established and well-rooted network or organizational structure in the country. They also lacked mass base of support among the majority of the population. There are a few reasons for this. Shah had integrated Iran’s economy into the international capitalist system. This had led to the weakening and alienation of what leftists call the “national bourgeoisie”, i.e., the native and homegrown Iranian capitalist class. Unable to expand, unless they submitted to the will and rules of the foreign capital which was increasingly dominating Iranian economy, Iran’s native capitalist class was forced to vegetate at the level of mercantilism, and hence was forced to depend heavily on Bazaar.

Put it differently, Shah’s lack of interest in serving and protecting the interests of Iran’s native capitalist class, which in the past had supported Dr. Mossadegh, pushed this class toward Bazaar. This development politically aligned the national bourgeoisie with Bazaar. (I hope you remember that Bazaar was the main source of financial support for the Islamic clergy at the time. Furthermore, Bazaar was in forefront of the uprising in support of Khomeini, and against Shah, in Khordad 15 movement of 1342.) 

Moreover, Shah’s dictatorship not only had prevented the non-traditional forces in the opposition from establishing their networks and organizations, but it had also destroyed all vestiges of the democratic culture that Iran enjoyed during later years of Dr. Mossadegh’s rule. This had kept the profile of non-traditional forces low, and had denied them the opportunity to be heard by the large majority of people in the country. Hence, their bases of support among people were limited to the non-traditional or westernized middle-classes (By non-traditional or westernized classes, I mean people holding “modern jobs” as opposed to traditional jobs, viz., professions that require education, e.g., doctors, teachers, engineers, service industry works, governmental and non-governmental office workers, and university students). All of these factors had drastically weakened the chances of the non-traditional forces to win the leadership of the revolution when Shah’s state machine began to fall apart.

While Leftist organizations, Ali Shariati’s supporters, and Mojahedins had their base of support mainly among university students; Jebhe-ye Melli, Nehzat Azadi, etc. had their base mainly in the generation that had the Mossadegh era as the model of good society for Iran. Moreover, as was the case with supporters of the Leftists, Mojahedins, and Shariati; Jebhe-ye Melli, Nehzat Azadi, etc. also had their base of support among the non-traditional or westernized middle-classes. Here one could find younger generation of well-educated people and intellectuals side by side of people who were middle-aged or older.

I am very sure that if you lived in Iran right before the revolution, you would agree that under Shah’s dictatorship, none of these non-traditional forces enjoyed, or could have enjoyed, a strong base of support in the country. You should also keep in mind that the larger majority of Iranians at the time did not, and still do not, belong to what I keep calling the non-traditional middle-classes. (Depending on how one counts, only somewhere around 15%-20% of the population of the country at the time belonged to these classes. The remaining 80%-85% constituted the traditional classes.)

Unlike the non-traditional forces in the opposition to Shah, the traditional-Islamic forces had a deep and vast base of support in Iran. I know this might sound strange to some people. Let me explain. Despite Shah’s efforts to suppress and render tradition and Islam useless, and transplant a mechanical form of modernity in Iran, Islam did not disappear from the lives of the majority of Iranians. Its thirteen hundred years of history, and its deep roots in Iranian literature and tradition had helped Islam survive Shah’s repression. Islam continued to remain a powerful force in lives and minds of the overwhelming majority of Iranians, that is to say, those who did not belong to the non-traditional middle-classes. And when they moved to grab the leadership and power, the traditional-Islamic forces tapped into a massive reservoir of “Islamic energy” among the majority of Iranians (i.e., 80%-85% of the population).

Here, by majority, I mean all of the non-modern or traditional classes and strata of the Iranian society which included: the traditional middle-class (Bazaar); the traditional lower middle-classes, the traditional working class, and the modern working-class (populations of the so-called “jenoob e shahr”); and the poor who had poured into large cities from villages looking for work (“aloonak neshin ha”). The class composition I just mentioned was for Tehran and the other three or four large cities in the country. The situation in smaller cities and villages, where the majority of Iranians lived, was a bit different in that the size of the non-traditional classes was even smaller. Besides, one should bear in mind that at least half of the population of the country at the time lived in villages and were more religious than most of the city populations.

Given that they had access to a vast network of organizational support (centered in or around mosques), and given that Islam had deep roots among traditional classes, the traditional-Islamic forces were in a much better position to win the leadership of the revolution—and this is why it happened.

(I just want to note that a lot of Iranians coming from non-traditional and westernized middle-classes who lived under Shah, especially in Tehran, had been misled by Shah’s propaganda into believing that Iran was a modern society, and its Islamic-traditional past was behind it. If you lived in northern Tehran or in upper-middle class neighborhoods in Tehran or in other large cities, or if you lived among the wealthy portions of the populations in smaller cities, and your source of information was TV and radio, you probably believed Shah’s propaganda. However, the reality of Iran at the time was very different. Those who were connected to Bazaar or to “jenoob e shar”, or  lived in small cities or villages in Iran, or were in constant contact with people in the working-class and villages knew how strong the hold of tradition and Islam was on the people. Despite Shah’s repression, Islam was alive and well; although it appeared dormant.)

Let me conclude by saying that the revolution which began as a struggle for democracy and independence for Iran was taken over by the traditional-Islamic forces that were better-rooted in the society, and hence, were in a better position to grab the leadership. And once these forces took control and consolidated their power, the character of revolution and its aim changed from seeking democracy and independence to uprooting and smashing the mechanical modernity that Shah and his father had tried to transplant in Iran. Now that they were in power, the tradition and Islam began to avenge almost half a century of repression they had suffered under Pahlavi dynasty. The revolution began as a struggle for democracy and independence against the dictatorship of a regime that had been installed by foreign governments (the 1953 coup d'état). However it soon turned into a war waged by tradition and Islam against an imposed modernity that had done violence to them.

(To complement this last portion of my argument, I want to invite you to read my 2 long comments on Mr. Nooriala’s piece on this site at // Also, I would strongly recommend Ervand Abrahamian’s Iran Between Two Revolutions (part III, chapters 9-11). I have the Farsi translation, 10th edition, and these chapters appear on pp.515-652. My argument here is informed by Dr. Abrahamian’s, but is not the same as his.)

I would really appreciate it if you focus on this topic in your response. I am hoping that we can reach a somewhat common understanding about the origins and nature of the 1979 Revolution, and how it turned out to be what it is now. Thank you.


To DK re"Behzad Majidian outsaid to some degree yes, inside no..

by Benyamin on

You are making a good point there but earlier comment you made was neither objective nor meaningful! I like what you said under this new title and i do agree with most of it(although not entirely). I think what you said earlier was that Iranians revolted to create a new EMPIRE whereas here you are clarifying that EMPIRE building happens after the revolution happens I see a bit of Discrapancy there. But I do agree that Iranian revolution created another person to dominate the masses at the cost of the Idea of that very revolution.


dear Behzad

by Arya manesh (not verified) on

I disagree. You said "The forces that ignited the engine of the 1979 Revolution were aiming at achieving democracy and independence for Iran"

No. The only force that really ignited the engine was when they claimed that Imam khomainy's Image could be seen in the moon. Then everybody looked and majority og Iranian people believed in that lie. They started saying allahuAkbar, Khomaini rahbar. I Remember exactly. There were some nationalists/Socialists and Communists who supported Khomaini many of whome, later after the revolution were executed. Imam called for an election. Majority of Us Iranians voted for Republic of Islam. That is how naive our nation was. Even intellectuals supported Republic of Islam which was nothing but a theocracy. That is how Iran became a terrorist state.

I remember. I was in Iran........

Darius Kadivar

FYI/Khatami barred from making campaign speech in Shiraz

by Darius Kadivar on

Thank You for Paving the way to Ahmadinejad's Victory next June ...



"Clash of Civilizations" is

by amoo norouz (not verified) on

"Clash of Civilizations" is not by an ordinary writer. The writer has had more clearances than most presidents in certain matters. His book came true too and you can bet he is no Nostradamus, rather in the know. But that concept and exact phrase, "Clash of Civilizations", becoming the title of his book was not his. But by his English teacher and used in an earlier academic article, who is even older than him and still alive and even more powerful. The same guy 'invented' many other phrases that those pretending to be intellectuals without actually reading seriously or knowing what's what throw around. Thinking they are natural evolutionary phrases, such as 'regime change'. He, Huntington's English teacher, also had a one to one dinner with a nervous Cheney on the eve of invasion of Iraq reassuring him his neo-cons, yes another large project like political Islam which is nearly 200 years ld going back to the Raj (occupied India), were right and Iraqi people will come out with flowers and Iraq will be a cakewalk. The greatest Islam expert alive, including amongst the Sunni-Shia mullas, Huntington is only one of his students and in his real capacity, not as a professor, he was also the only one who warned in early 1978 (early 1357) that Khomeini will kill a great deal. For he was the brains behind the test event 1963 (1342) and the later successful one in 1978 (1357) as the theoretician. There are many projects and some don't succeed, but some do.

As for NWO, these people are nutjobs not some of the posters here, yeah right:

Darius Kadivar

Behzad Majdian Outside to some degree Yes, Inside No ...

by Darius Kadivar on

Dear Mr. Majdian,

Yes you are not entirely wrong when you speak about the students and other younger elements who rushed into the revolution and this gentleman Ardeshir Ommani was most probably one of those who naively thought that they were actually fighting for democracy by joining the Religious forces. As in all Revolutions the initial argument was a fight against injustice and corruption. However Wrongly the intellegenstia saw in the religious movement the emergence of a new moral order that could purify the society from its wrongdoings.

How could a Mullah who preaches the word of God in action in turn accept to Kill in its name ? Even the Shah did not see that danger by naively thinking that Khomeiny was only a product of the Carter Administration and Western Oil Companies who wanted his fall.

The Fact remains that the intelleligenstia that brought the Mullah's to Power embraced the "Cult Status" of the Revolutionary Providential Hero embodied by Khomeiny. As a Result they Became King Makers and Not Revolutionaries. That is actually one of the common denominators of nearly all the Revolutions of the 20th century be it the Russian Bolchevik Revolution with Lenin, China's Maoist Revolution or Cuba's Castro's Revolution. This was not entirely the case for the French Revolution of 1789 which took root first and foremost amongst the intellegenstia in the form of ideas about democracy, justice and equality developed by the Lumieres philosophers and which served as the ideological framework to oppose the French Monarchy in its absolute form. Yet even before the "fuite de Varrennes" when the King and his family fled to join foreign forces ready to crush the Revolution, many revolutionaries were thinking of establishing a Constitutional Monarchy ( as seen by Voltaire's writings ) and not a Republic ( Prefered by Rousseau) based on what they saw in Great Britain and also because they were worried by seeing the country end up in a  civil war like the one that opposed Cromwell to Charles Ist. So from that point of view the French Revolution did not really have a one headed leadership like in most Revolutions of the 20th century. The charismatic leaders that appeared once a need for order became necessary emmerged gradually in the persons of Roberspierre, Marat or Danton and they basically ended up at each others throats.

In the case of the Revolutions of the 20th Century however the Revolutions were shaped upon the visions of One man who would refer toOne given ideology or One book as reference to justify his struggle against Tyranny. Lenin used Marx's Writings, Mao wrote his own Book version of communism, and in the case of Iran Khomeiny his Tozihol Madaref which everyone could read from the begining in the bazars or book shops or Friday Preachings ( but probably not all took the time to do so).


So as a result all these revolutions became not Revolutions in the French or "Lumiere" Definition of the word and that is 'The Nation Against the Tyrant" but instead "The Nation in Support of the Providential Hero, against the Tyrant". As a Result the "Providential hero became the embodiment of the Revolution and not the people. It is not surprising that Napoleon who was a disciple of Roeberspierre the Man who established the "Reign of Terror" understood the advantage of such a cult Status. For he presented himself later on as Emperor with the goal of exporting the Revolution to Europe From Austerlitz to Moscow and only to end in defeat at Waterloo. 

Most Revolutions of the 20Th century unlike Velvet Revolutions Ended Up establishing enduring Totalitarian States and in the case of both Russia and China the Monarchical Past and Empire Logic prevailed because that was basically what had kept the country together for centuries. Wanting to abruptly oppose that logic takes time and in most cases fails because of the need for cohesion and immediate results.

Also foreign threats like an invasion are a blessing to uniting the country against a common enemy and blame all the troubles including economic on outside forces. In the case of Iran, Saddam's assault on our country was a blessing for the mullahs and allowed them to unify all the country in the name of the common enemy. Had Saddam not attacked Iran, I am not certain that the Mullah's would have imposed themselves so easily on Iranian society and establish the shariah laws. So foreign aggression was a blessing in disguise very much as it can be today if Israel decides to attack Iran's nuclear facilities for in such a case the government will simply use nationalism albeit with the Islamic Fork to justify its foreign policy and impose its will on the people who unlike their elected President never asked for the wiping of Israel as a pre-requisite to their Nuclear development ...

This is where the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Rhetoric "Nah Sharghy, Nah Gharby, Faghat Jomhuryeh Eslami" finds its full significance. 

Were the Iranian Revolutionaries of the time aware of such a highjacking of their Revolutionary Zeal at the time ? Probably not, no more than they seem to be today when they see their Patriotism is being highjacked under their very noses in seeing in Ahmadinejad the New Mossadegh !


What amazes me from the experiences of people like this emminent gentleman Ardeshir Ommani is that They will rather repeat the same Damn Mistake regardless of the consenquences than ever accept that They Were Wrong from the Start !

I just share one assessment with him and that is that American cannot EXPORT Democracy to Iran. Where I differ with him is that I believe We need to IMPORT Democracy into Iran through civil Dissobedience and Resistance and by promoting the genuine ideas of democracy and human rights on which the Western Democracies have been built upon. Why Reject those ideas as Iran has been doing for the past 30 years on grounds that the West is NAJESS ? 

And Wants to give lessons on Human Rights to Israelis when they hardly respect it in their own country and people ...


Here is the Lastest Brilliant Comment by Our ZAHAK of Tehran:

"Make an effort, and break the spell of impunity for the Zionist criminals. Bring to trial the political and military heads of the usurper regime," Ayatollah Khamenei.

What a Downfall ...

Were Mossadegh, Voltaire and Montesquieu alive today they would probably be very dissappointed to see their noble ideas highjacked to other purposes.

They Take Americans Hostages and despite that American actors and artists go to Iran for Friendly Relations and all Iran's leadership finds to say is Demand Excuses for 300 and the Wrestler.


How About making excuses for censoring Niki Karimi's film One Night instead ?

WOW What a Great Diplomatic effort as if there were not more important issues to talk about than that ? What about Anthony Quinn's Caravans or Merian C. Coopers Grass which are Emblematic of Iranian and American Friendly ties in Cinema !

Masgareh !

My Humble Opinion,








Behzad Majdian

To Darius Kadivar

by Behzad Majdian on

Dear Darius, I want to take issue with your assessment of the nature and origin of, and also the motive behind, the 1979 Revolution. The Revolution was about “democracy and independence for Iran”. (The phrase inside the quotation marks was widely being used in Iranian students’ movement abroad right before the Revolution began.) The Issue of human rights also mattered and was demanded. However, it was generally assumed that it was a part and parcel of the demand for democracy. The forces that ignited the engine of the 1979 Revolution were aiming at achieving democracy and independence for Iran.

What ended up happening was that the traditional-Islamic forces managed to take the leadership out of the hands of the non-traditional forces in the Revolution, and the intended democratic revolution ended up being an Islamic one. Once the traditional-Islamic forces won the leadership, and consequently the revolution, they felt confident, and soon became intoxicated with their success, and started doing and saying things that looked and sounded like wanting to build empire. However, the Islamic Revolution was not executed according to some design “From the Very Start”.

To me the claim that the Iranian Revolution “was about Empire Building From the Very Start and the establishment of a New World Order but with a Turban instead of a Crown and a Islamo Fascist Government” sounds like a wild exaggeration, and another form of conspiracy theory. Whenever I hear such claims, I cannot help thinking that they have been invented by supporters of Samuel Huntington’s shallow “clash of civilizations” thesis. Claims of this sort add fuel to the fire of the thesis and take it a step further toward the intended aim of turning it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. 



To Behzad Majdian

by Arya manesh (not verified) on

Dear Behzad.I agree but I thik this regime(The Republic of Islam) should not gain access to the nuclear material for they are not only terrorists but are suicidal. Can you for example let a 5 year old carry a gun? I think you may even trust a 5 year old more the the Republic of Islam of Iran. 5 year olds are not suicidal. The Iranian government has created and supported terror groups with suicidal ideation and they call it "Martyrdom Operation". If a regime such as republic of Islam kills between 15000 to 20,000 Socialist/Communist political prisoners only in a matter of 2 weeks in Gohardasht prison immidiately after the truce they made with Saddam, They can not be trusted with the Nukes. It is not us Iranians who will have control over Nukes but it will be the Republic of Islam

Darius Kadivar

Well I don't Like it ! ...

by Darius Kadivar on

The Revolution of 79 Was Not about Democracy and Human Rights to which You Mr. Ardeshir Ommani so whole heartedly and proudly participated too.

It was about Empire Building From the Very Start and the establishment of a New World Order but with a Turban instead of a Crown and a Islamo Fascist Government:

The Iranian Empire by Melik Kaylan

Tehran steps into the Ottoman role of Middle East regional power.

Now that your ambitions are satisfied may we talk about Human Rights in Our Country ? Or Maybe You don't Like to see the Mullah's be held Accountable on this issue ?




To Behzad Majidian

by Benyamin on

I fully agree with you there, very well said!

Behzad Majdian

To Arya Manesh

by Behzad Majdian on

Dear Arya, I did not mention anything about trusting the government in Iran in my comments. All I said was that western powers and media have an agenda against Iran, and Iran must secure its political independence. I don’t see any connections between stating this fact (or opinion, if you like), and your inference to the effect that I am advocating trust in the Iranian government.

As to the example you have mentioned, I would argue that the West, East, Israel, and Sunni countries really don’t care much about how the Iranian government treats its own people. For sure, the government in Iran is incompetent, and does a lot of things wrong. I would be the first one to condemn the gruesome case that you have brought up, assuming that things like this happen as a matter of policy, which I doubt. (I can give you a lot of good examples of gruesome things that happen as a matter of policy in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, both of which are puppet and tyrannical regimes working for the interests of the West.)  

Actually, one can make a good case that the West, Israel, …like the fact that the Iranian government is incompetent, and that terrible things happen in Iran (which they love to report widely and loudly) so they can use them to demonize the regime in Iran. The U.S. foreign policy makers are running out of the so-called “bad guys”. They need to have the “rouge regimes” in order to scare Americans and other people so that they can justify their huge military budget and aggressive-militaristic posture.  In fact, one of the reasons behind the sanctions and war-mongering against Iran is to make Iran behave like a “bad guy”, so they can point to it and say: “see! This is what we are talking about.”

Now the case of Sunni Arab countries in the region. Aren’t these countries the same ones that were supporting Saddam financially during his devastating war against Iran? It is not the case that they mistrust Iran—they have no reason for doing so. Actually, it is Iran that has every reason to mistrust them. Surely, they appear nervous and uneasy about Iran’s technological advances and its rising power in the region. However, this is not because they fear Iran. Rather, they fear their own populations who resent them for being tyrannical and puppet regimes in the hands of the West. Poll after poll has shown that if there were free elections in these countries, these regimes will lose to Islamist groups and parties—they are that unpopular. And this is why they are uneasy about Iran because it represents their worst fears.

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

OK Ben

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

I agree. I apologize.

I actually like being accused of spying. It makes you feel very special and effective as a writer. Ego boost, if you will. 

HOWEVER calling someone an anti-semite is pretty serious! You can't just toss that around. Everything isn't about jews and criticizing Israel in this issue is not anti-semitic. Fred does this on a regular basis. If he is smart enough, he can manage to think of something else. But given these new very stringent moderating tactics, it may be hard for him/her. Who knows if even I am a female? I could be a tranny robot in the CIA for all you know. This is the Internet for dog's sake. just a bunch of 1s and 0s. Even if you type a cuss word. 


Imperialist fighter wanna-be

by AnonymousX (not verified) on

"Well Mr. Impreliast wanna be fighter who has been residing for over 40 years in an imperialist country and living off of hard working tax payers money..."

That says it all! No further comment is necessary!

Mr. Ommani, you have done a great job showing how the Shah was right and YOU were wrong all along those 40 years of "anti-imperialism" battles (lol!).

You also proved that the reason why we are opposed to having nuclear technology is the IRI's behavior which has deprived the nation of Iran not only of nuclear technology but of many other technologies as well.

Thanks for nothing.

Farhad Kashani

I do like Obama to break

by Farhad Kashani on

I do like Obama to break with Bush’s policy towards IRI and do the following:


-         Bush called IRI a part of “axil of evil”, Obama should call it “the evil itself”.

-         Bush wanted to approach IRI to maybe, possibly have some type of dialogue; Obama needs to absolutely isolate and de-legitimize the regime, because the only, and I mean the only, and as much IRI has become the center of irrational anti-Americanism, reason that IRI wants dialogue is to legitimize itself and tell the world it “forced” the mighty America to come and sit down. That is a huge propaganda win for IRI in the war of public opinion, the most important part of struggle against Islamic fundamentalism.

-         Bush did a horrible job explaining to America and the world what the true barbaric, fundamentalism nurturing nature of this regime is, I hope Obama does the exact opposite.

-         Bush took out IRI’s biggest enemy. Obama should unite with all of IRI’s enemies, including moderate Arab and Islamic states, and pressure, isolate, weaken, and help the collapse of  IRI.

-         Bush threatened military action, I don’t want Obama to do that because it will harm innocent Iranian civilians and American soldiers, rather, I want him to use all of America’s diplomatic, economic, ...and other resources to treat the IRI as the Apartheid regime it is and help the Iranian people remove the regime.


I definitely want a break from the past.



To everyone!

by Benyamin on

I don`t know much about Fred and his past or his intentions, but I know that name calling is somehow a terror of character. whenever we get either too emotional about a subject or someone else uses vulgarity at someone elses character or comments the user has lost his/her point altogether and i believe all of us should refrain from calling each other such names or accuse them of having connection with such and such groups. If you have a point make your point if you disagree do it respectfully and so on and so forth.

I also have been in that situation but didnot respond in kind but warned them of using them again.

Let`s decide to be civilized! and act like one too.

Thanks everyone


Behzad Majdian

by Arya manesh (not verified) on

I am appaled to see so many people are still confused about this issue. Let me put it in a simple way> How could the West and the East and Israel and even Sunni countries in the region trust The Republic of Islam in Iran when the Government for example rapes teenage political girl prisons in odrer to make them eligible for execution since they are now to execute virgin girls or stones people to death for adultry or when they train suicide bombers , create and support terror groups? Do you think such a government can be trusted to have nuclear stuff? Think again> would you say yes if God forbid, one of your family members was raped and killed by the Republic of islam?

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

While I am in this page - Q for Fered

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

Mr. Fredydoon joon,

why doesn't the USA give unfettered access to its nuke sites? military sites? take off the panties and show it all? Iran doesn't have to either. Not if there is shah, not if there is moolah. 

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

gangster hardly - mullah, probably!

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

You do not know how funny it is to hear what you say Benny - LAWSUITS?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Do you know what Fred has said about people's families and how much money they are paid by KGB and CIA yadda yadda? HAHAHAHAHA. And you think I should be sued for finding a link between Fred and a definition in a dictionary after he calls us Anti-Semite and Islamist on a regular basis? Sounds fun. 

Fred used to tell people they were doing explicit sexual acts to Ahmadinejad before this "moderating" happened. it wasn't too bad unless you consider that during that time, dumb Americans were googling Iran and coming to this site to see Fred writing awful comments about authors here, Ardeshir one of them. His methods are right out of sewer society and I'm quite happy because it proves a lot about monarchists when they are nameless. But I'm sure lots of foreigners came here and laughed at him and his many other IDs making names and accusations of writers. Now he has had his nuts taken away since the moderating happened and he just calls everyone anti-semite. 

What I said about Fred is right on. He lumps lefties with Anti-Semites and Islamists? I have every right to tell him how stupid that is. How dare he? He's a clown and that's something you might be very very sensitive to reading, but fred isn't sacred. Nothing is sacred. 


Re: Benyamin

by Anonymouslol (not verified) on


You make some good comments "sometimes" and perhaps you mean well, but just because you are a woman doesnot mean you can bully people here thinking you are going to get away with it. If you have something against anybody here just say it but don`t use vulgarity or else wash your mind before you started writing I don`t believe you own this site and if you do be aware of law suits!!!"

Couldn't agree with you more. Most of the comments she makes are superfluous and incindiary. I wouldn't be surprised if she was a gangster in her previous


One more thing is also clear, Ostaad joon

by Seh Shod (not verified) on

And that is you are a supporter of the Mullahs in Iran and, as a result, come up with gems like: ".....Iran's assistance to the Hezbollah and Hamas has been a positive contribution to peace in the region.....".

Hahahaha, yeah right, the Islamic Republic squandering money, that belongs to and should be spent on the people of Iran, on the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, "is a positive contribution to peace". Never mind that this "assistance" has actually helped to prolong war and conflict in the region. Lol man, you kill me, you really do.

Ostaad joon, until people like you get into their heads that the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and Israel for that matter, are not and should not be Iran's business and its the bad-bakht people of Iran that your Mullahs should be concerned about, this bunch will (mis)rule Iran for a long time yet. but then again, that is what you want, isn't it?

Well, if nothing else, you are great value for comedy, hehe.


Two things are very clear:

by Ostaad on

First, Iran has not violated its NPT obligations therefore Iran's nuclear program is perfectly legal and open.

Second, Iran will NOT manufacture nukes.

None of Iran's enemies, obviously disappointed at whatever achievements Iran has had so far, has presented ANY evidence that Iran is either violating its treaty obligations, or that Iran has a program to build nukes. So far, all that have been presented are suspicions, innuendos and malicious gossips.

A true non-proliferation regime will put Israel's nukes on the table along with all the other "players" in the region. Let's get rid of all nukes in the world or watch this thing spread even more.

Iran's nuclear policy was very clearly and publically announced by Rafsanjani who said Iran's policy was to be a "screwdriver away from the bomb". Iran's security dictates very high deterrence value and having such a capability is just another arrow in your quiver. Those who do not want to attack Iran need not worry.

Iran has proven to the world that despite its rhetoric, it is a very responsible member of the world community. Iran's assistance to the Hezbollah and Hamas has been a positive contribution to peace in the region because without Iran's help the inhabitants for Southern Lebanon would be speaking Hebrew and working as pizza delivery men and women because their farms and irrigation water of the Litani river would be "annexed" by the "Chosen Ones". I'm not sure what really Iran is doing with Hamas.


Dear Fred

by Benyamin on

I don`t think the point of mentioning all of the above history and fact findings are to prove that IRI(Islamic Republic of Iran) persuing the atomic bomb or not. I think it all boils down to the fact that if IRI is a responsible player in the world or not.


You make some good comments "sometimes" and perhaps you mean well, but just because you are a woman doesnot mean you can bully people here thinking you are going to get away with it. If you have something against anybody here just say it but don`t use vulgarity or else wash your mind before you started writing I don`t believe you own this site and if you do be aware of law suits!!!


To Behzad Majidian

by Benyamin on

I read the whole thing Ardeshir actually addesred it even better than the way you are expressing it.

it is proven(patashoon roo shod) that these usual suspects USA, France,Britton, and even Russia are the countries that are trying to divide the world amongst themselves and use it(bechapand) to their advantage and suddenly Iran is a renegade that they don`t know whether to accept or reject as emerging new power. Iran certainly has changed alot of things. But I do believe once there is relations between Iran and the WEST, Iran itself would be subject to change and that is internal change. I truly believe in that.


The west will start a war,

by amoo norouz (not verified) on

The west will start a war, few boats in the Persian Gulf clash or planes shot down or border clashes etc. If the western economies go way out of control from the projected planned crash to install the new truly ruling world bank. Iran is a get-out card by war. Then say bye-bye to Khuzestan for ever.

That is why they never sanction the regime properly and let it get on slowly with it's plans and most importantly never cover the real Iranian freedom fighters 'inside Iran' on mainstream media in the west. That is why Nourizadeh and VOA bring on only so called journalists from Ashraf Pahlavi's London Keyhan on screen and the new BBC TV mainly covers regime's reformers. All to stop Iranians getting their rights.

If needed they will start a war and if not the main item of agenda censored for years in the west, human rights and democracy activists inside who are mainly non-reformists and secular democratic republicans of left and right nationalists under constant repression, will be conceded away to the regime. In return for oil-gas contracts, Bushehr-Natanz agreements and control over a few mad Arab groups. Right now it looks like Western economic depression forcing war and disintegration on Iran in about a year's time. Which is why they kept the regime.

As for the reformers, they are part of the murdering regime and many of them were mass murderers in the 80's and whether they are hold the useless presidency or not, starting a war can go ahead with an incident as most of the hardliners with the guns are linked to London too. The only way is for people to switch off TVs broadcasting form Tehran, DC, LA & London and support the students, workers, teachers, prisoners, nurses, etc. 'on the streets'. All the factions in the media inside and outside on those TVs are self confessed mass murderers during the last 60 years.


I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Does not this nuclear issue prove shah was right???

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

Do you remember when he told 60 minutes that there was a Jewish conspiracy and that Israel was controlling the world? His eyes were dead serious. I wonder what he knew (besides that he loved silk sheets and sun tans)?

Here comes Israel trying to control Iran. This would be more scary if America had just elected McSame and didn't have a plan in mind.