So much in common

The Nazi regime and Ahamdinejad’s Islamic Republic

Share/Save/Bookmark

So much in common
by Fariba Amini
30-Jan-2010
 

“Today the house is no refuge, no protection anymore.” Luise Solmitz

The English historian, Richard Evans, in his three extraordinary volumes on Nazi Germany goes into great detail about the rise and fall of the third Reich. As someone who follows the events in today’s Iran, reading the 700 pages of volume two, The Reich in Power, I am struck by various similarities between the Nazi regime and the Islamic Republic. One is the role of resentment of perceived humiliation by foreign powers in both regimes. The Nazi regime derived much of its popularity and ideological fervor from anger about the humiliating terms imposed on Germany following World War One. The Islamic Republic owes a good deal of its existence and initial support to the perception among Iranians that the Shah had been a lackey of the West and in particular the United States. Both regimes were swept into power by ideologies that promised purification from the prevailing corruption, virulent race-based nationalism in Germany, and a return to Islamic values in Iran. And in both countries, the corruption that followed was far worse than what existed prior to the revolution.

In their methods and techniques, too, the two regimes show similarities—beyond the propaganda in the form of posters, overblown rhetoric, and the adoration of the Supreme Leader. Perhaps the most striking of these is the use of paramilitary forces. Nazi Germany employed the SA Brown Shirts and the SS to establish and maintain control through intimidation and terror. Iran has done the same by mobilizing the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij militia. As was true in Germany, its members typically come from the impoverished rural areas, where intellectual horizons are limited and opportunities are few. They are young lads who are given power, money and guns—in short, a cause and a goal in life inspired by ideology.

Ruthless in nature, the German paramilitary forces went on a rampage, intimidating, arresting, and killing their opponents. Supported and funded by the state, they had the authority to do as they pleased without answering to anyone. Their Iranian counterparts have not been as deadly to date, yet they have proven just as brutal and ruthless in their operations.

The German forces also had ample opportunity to enrich themselves. The SA and SS were given so much power that they created their own virtual economic entities. Reich Chancellor Hitler endorsed and approved distributing money through bribes to the Nazi officials and the rank and file. Vast amounts of money were thus channeled into the hands of the Brown Shirts, while propaganda officials and others received equally large sums of money from the expropriation of Jewish companies, private and public. Evans points out: “with such money flowing into their accounts, it was small wonder that Nazi officials at every level of the hierarchy were soon enjoying a lifestyle they had not even dreamed of before 1933.”

The same has been true in Iran. Supported by the state and endorsed by the Supreme leader, the Basij wield enormous power and hold major economic interests in many industries including the nuclear energy business. Some of Iran’s ex-revolutionaries are now landowners, industrialists and hold vast amounts of property both inside and outside Iran. The head of the Expediency Council, Hashemi Rafsanjani, is legendary in this regard. The Larijani brothers, too, are amongst the rich and (in)famous in Iran; one is the head of Judiciary, the second is head of the Majlis, the third is a member of the Parliament, the fourth is Deputy Foreign Minister and the last one, was a diplomat. All have been key advisors to the Supreme Leader. Even the son of the Supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is alleged to have extensive bank accounts in Europe.

The purges, massive arrests and ruthless eradication, either physically or mentally, of journalists and intellectuals, are very similar to the Nazi era as well. Many of Germany’s most prominent poets, artists, doctors and engineers were either purged or left the country under tremendous pressure. Iran has seen numerous examples of the same trend, with some of its best scholars, men and women of the pen and political activists fleeing the country in unprecedented numbers. Gholam Hossein Saedi, Iran’s most famous playwright, comes to mind. Depressed and heartbroken, he died in Paris a few years after the Revolution.

Unlike the Nazis, the Islamic Republic has also hounded its compatriots in exile. Political assassinations were prevalent in the early days of the Revolution; some eighty members of the opposition were gunned down in European capitals. Recently the violence has taken a domestic turn, with a Kahrizak (the prison closed down after the revelation of horrific tortures) doctor, a Tehran University professor, a nuclear scientist, and a few provincial judges either dying mysteriously or murdered. Even Mousavi’s nephew was shot to death, and his wife, Zahra Rahnavard was beaten. In the last few days, two young participants in the recent demonstrations have been executed. In Germany, the Nazi regime eliminated its opponents—communists, social democrats and even Catholic priests. The Islamic Republic targeted the Mujahedin, secular leftists, and members of the Bahai faith, ethnic Kurds, and even many of the progressive outspoken clerics such as the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri.

Finally, there is the question of corruption. Corruption by officials was held to a double standard in Nazi Germany. Corrupt officials were let go or put on trial in secret, without media attention; in other words, corruption was largely overlooked. In Iran, too, many of the regime officials have been largely free from prosecution by the judiciary since 1979. Saeid Mortazavi, Tehran’s former prosecutor, who is notorious for his treatment of political prisoners, is a good example.

The Third Reich lasted a total of twelve years. The IRI is still in power after thirty-two years. Third Reich was brought down by a joint attack of allied forces. One major difference between the two, Iran’s lack of territorial expansionism, has saved the regime from a similar operation. Most Iranians would not want an attack on their soil, fearing the grave consequences. External aggression would unite all Iranians. Yet, at times, it seems as if there is no alternative to a violent overthrow , even though violence is the last thing Iranians wish for.

The Nazi regime ended in disgrace with many of its officials committing suicide, leaving the country or being arrested and held in prison before facing long trials. The Chancellor himself, disgraced and humiliated, committed suicide. A similar fate may and, arguably, should befall many IRI officials. They may have to face tribunals for CRIMES Against the Iranian people. Who knows, maybe in the holy city of Qom.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Fariba AminiCommentsDate
Forgotten Captive
61
Nov 27, 2012
The Bride and the Dowry
3
Nov 27, 2012
Enemy Number One?
64
Sep 07, 2012
more from Fariba Amini
 
Tantrix

Funny...

by Tantrix on

I was once asking an Iranian intellectual named Mahmud Doulatabadi who wrote this one book called "The colonel".

Me being myself German and learned enough of my fascist and militaristic past, I was asking him what was the difference between "our" dictatorship with "theirs".

He was at a loss of words and denied any comparsion with both regimes. He only added that there are surely similar processes and schematics, but in the end the IRI is nothing compared to the 3rd Reich, because the change made the Iranians themself. Their action throwing out the Shah was a real revolution which turned under Khomeini into a fanatic regime.

 

He just  delivered a lecture during the protests last summer, but it was a really short one.

 

As for myself, I will study history next year, but I got a good headstart thanks to my prof how the 3rd Reich worked.Clearly, there are parallels as you pointed them out.

The biggest issue however, are the support of the people themself.

Germany went into 3 different periods of regime change:

Before it was an empire with a really high militaristic culture, even higher than America does today. The system were same as the medival with the 3 stalls as you find them in any history book. The military had their own stall which were nearly as high as the Emperor himself.

Then World War I happened. After the World War the gouverment was forced to go under the enemy's demand to turn it into a democraty.

Bad economical happenings, radical right and left wings trying to take over the gouvernment(Hitlers famous failed marsh to Bavarian) a really unfair peace treaty where the Germans were blamed for everything and had to pay high bills(which turned out later not that high) was a heavy blow for the young republic and was the beginning of their end.

Hitler used the Versaille treaty as propaganda to infest his grip within the politics, and developed his "rascist ideology" which we know as Nationalsocialism. He was a cunning rhetoric, and his "best pal" Goebbels helped him with the propaganda.

He came quickly to power mainly:

*the Weimarian Republic was hollowed by the military, or better to say the last President Hindenburg's (who also was Oberster Heeresleiter under Wilhelm II) "Karamilla", his own son included.

* the people had little choices: They were frustrated of the bad economic situation, and they were of the verge of a civil war. They relied on Hitler because he promised to make Germany better, simple as that

*The Germans were...well, let's say, still under the mentality of the German Empire, and subordinated themself quickly under someone who weilded the torch.

 Hitler then brought Germany back in the same system the Germans had under the Emperor, but instead of an emperorhe declared himself as Führer.

THe difference between the 3rd Reich and the IRI is simply the willingness of the majority, the quick burocratic organization of school,judicary,press military, heck even the normal stores and bars, the rising economics under Hitler, propagandistic formations like Hitlerjugend to turn the youth into next best soldiers, and the rascial ideologies you cannot think of.

My point is, yes, there are similarities, but the IRI is more of an amateur compared to the 3rd Reich. The dictatorship was made for the only purpose: war and world domination, or at least taking over the East of Europe and Russia. The IRI is no comparsion to a system who seeked total destruction.The IRI didn't even manage to create a simple nuke under their condition since the 80s. Neither did they manage to fanatisice the whole Iranian population or create any succesful military developement, nor rising the economics. 

The Islam is also an ideology of taking advantage of a different party, but the Nationalsocialism seeked to purge any non-Arian races.

 


Ali9 Akbar

Darius Kadivar your comparison is TOO... A VALID ONE....

by Ali9 Akbar on

bottom line the IRI has to be destroyed to allow peace on the planet Earth


Ali9 Akbar

you're preaching to the Choir Fariba Amini

by Ali9 Akbar on

because I said that back 4 or 5 years ago when Iran was turning the screws to the Bahai Community and other non-Islamic religions since the revolt in 1979....  

 

I am glad to see you back up our opinions with research and chilling facts....

 

Now imagine Nazi Germany with ATOMIC Weapons and a V-2 Rocket that has the range of 10,000 miles..... 

 

VERY SCARY!!!! 


Fariba Amini

We can compare the Islamic

by Fariba Amini on

We can compare the Islamic Republic to many ideological regimes. I am only pointing out to some major similaritiesthat I saw with the Nazi regime.  Evans goes into great detail:

1-imposing a certain ideology on the masses-- Shia Islam

2-all rules and laws adapting to that ideology, behavior, dress code, social interaction.

3-physical eradication of "criminal" elements, purification of the society from "bad" people.

4-killing, arrest, intimidation of opponents from all walks of life

5-a hostile attitude towards intellectuals and academics

6-corruption at the highest level

7-appropriation of wealth that belonged to others

8-massive exodus of intellectuals

9- role of basij, revolutionary guards and the Intelligence Ministry  (Storm troopers, brown shirts, SS)

Major difference between the two regimes was the economy. During the Hitler regime, there was a boost to German economy whereas the economic policies of the IRI have been disastrous for the Iranian society.

Also, the clergy did not play any role in Germany like they do in Iran.

Of course the IRI during the Khatami government behaved differently, whereas now the ruthlessness of the current administration is at its peak.

 


Darius Kadivar

Fariba Jaan interesting article although personally I would

by Darius Kadivar on

say that the a more subtle comparison would be between the IRI and the Spanish Inquisition (Albeit the links I have provided in the other threads as food for thought) :

Reza Fiyouzat say's Iranian judiciary's behaviour similar to the Spanish Inquisition

HISTORY FORUM: secret files of the Inquisition: Episode One ( 5 Parts)

or Cromwell's theocratic Republic would be more accurate:

HISTORY FORUM:Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War with David Starkey (4 parts)

However what the IRI does share in common with the Nazi Regime as well as anyother Totalitarian regime is that it is based on intolerance and repression based on ideological dogmas. One could equally draw parallels with Stalinist Soviet Union for that matter and it's Stalinist Trials or those of other East European Satellite states before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Perestroika.

That said I don't quite see the IRI as a racist regime in the same genetically supremacist perspective as preached by the Nazis under Hitler. Which does not mean that they cannot go in that direction also and that is precisely something that I have always tried to alert my fellow compatriots against from the VERY Begining of Ahmadinejad's Hollocaust Conference :

Banalization of history by Darius KADIVAR

In the name of humanity by Darius KADIVAR

which was largely overlooked by many including moderate Islamists such as the Reformists who today happen to be pre-selected as the leaders of the Green Movement today as well as many so called Iranian American organizations like NIAC or AIC which tried to sell us Ahmadinejad as the new Mossadegh on nationalistic arguments  very much like the fellow Ommatti here:

http://iranian.com/main/2010/feb/mossadegh-and-ahmadinejad

None firmly spoke against the Holocaust denials prior to the Elections not even Khatami who tried to remain hypocritically neutral for political oppurtunism no doubt.

But I think that there is within Militant Islam and the Islamic Republic's ideology seeds of intolerance which share very similarities with the Nazi Ideology without entirely being identical in their expression.

I think one needs to distinguish the spiritual quest that is inherent to Islam as it is to Christianity from downright fanaticism which is the common denominator of all dogmas and particularly fundemantalist readings of religion.

From that point of view, the Nazis and the Islamic fundementalists but also jewish fundementalists share a similar mindset but pursue different goals.

I don't think that the Islamic Republic seeks some kind of racial purification but rather the purification of the soul and mind.

What that "purifiction" consists of is obviously based on equally fanatic and absurd considerations as those that sustained Nazi ideology but again I am not entirely convinced that there is an absolute equation to be drawn between the two systems however equally dameageable to Humanity.

In Short in a fanatic and totalitarian system one can make people think anything they want and that is why both the IRI and the Nazi ideology represent a serious threat to both Peace and Humanity at large.

Thank you for your insightful comments.

Warm Regards,

DK 

 


Darius Kadivar

Food for thought: HITLER AND ISLAMIC MILITANCY (documentary)

by Darius Kadivar on

Part of an interesting documentary on Hitler and the Mufti of Jerusalem aired on French TV ARTE also a few weeks ago :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N24ByKW7-IE

And another one on History Channel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rSL4dhGaf4&feature=related


Darius Kadivar

FYI/HOLOCAUST A MYTH: Michelle Renouf on Iranian SAHAR TV

by Darius Kadivar on

HOLOCAUST A MYTH: Michelle Renouf on Iranian SAHAR TV:

HOLOCAUST A MYTH: Michelle Renouf on Iranian SAHAR TV


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Re: Fariba Amini

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

Yes, my research shows that Hitler had a small mustache and no beard. But Khamenei has a full beard and mustache. This is one more difference between Nazi's and IRR.The Nazi's also kept the trains running on time.


jamshid

Fariba Amini

by jamshid on

Excellent analysis of the two regimes. The IRI supporters are banding together here to refute your well written article by trying to demonstrate that Nazis and Hezbollahis are not "exactly" the same.

I'd like to remind them that nobody is claiming that they are "exactly" the same. The claim here is that the two regimes have a vast number of similar traits that render the IRI to be just another type of a fascist regime.


Masoud Kazemzadeh

Ms. Amini, Thank You

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

Dear Ms. Amini,

 

Thank you for your kind comment.  And thank you for this post as well as your other great publications.

 

Best regards,

MK


vildemose

So now you folks are

by vildemose on

So now you folks are quoting a CIA agent and a NeoCon! 

Interesting Islamists dismiss Westerners when they disagree but believe them when they agree!

The hypocrisy of the Islamist has no bounds. It also shows they are grasping at straws and are quite desparate to latch on any scum bag that gives them a veneer of legitimacy.


Fariba Amini

You are absolutely Right on

by Fariba Amini on

You are absolutely Right on the point Mr. M.K.

 


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Sargord Pirouz

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

First of all Leverett was a CIA analyst for 8 years. Do you think CIA analysis has been accurate? Didn't they mess up in their "analysis" of Iraq WMD? Do you want to accept  the analysis of a former CIA man?

Second Hillary Mann is a former NeoCon who reversed her position on IRR. The reversal happened when since she has got married to Leverett. Will you believe believe a NeoCon? How do you know she is still not a NeoCon with an ulterior motive?

So now you folks are quoting a CIA agent and a NeoCon! 

Interesting Islamists dismiss Westerners when they disagree but believe them when they agree!

VPK

 

 


Sargord Pirouz

Veiled Prophet

by Sargord Pirouz on

The Leverrets do not speak for Iranians. You're mistaken.

These two policy experts intended focus pertains to US interests- and US interests alone.

It is their belief that it is in US interests to view the Islamic Republic of Iran as an acceptable focus of geopolitical attention with an overall goal of rapprochement. And they go on to provide many reasons for this.

Indeed, it is hard to find fault with their analyses, and the many benefits such would provide to both Americans and Iranians (in Iran). Of course, the big stumbling block is the pro-Zionist lobby and its supporters.


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Flynt Leverett; Hillary Man

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

These are well known anti-Iranian disinformation mouthpieces. I am not sure what they are up to. But either they are stupid or more likely up to no good.

People like them as why we Iranian diaspora must stand and make our voices heard. The US does not need to listen to two idiots. There are 2 million Iranians here. We speak Persian; are in touch wish people in Iran; know the culture; and are not in anyone's pay. To know what Iranians think  ask the 2 million Iranians  in US.


vildemose

 ""The whole concept of

by vildemose on

 ""The whole concept of secular government as western political ideal was as a direct result of persecution by Christians claiming God as their sock puppet and using it to rape, pillage, murder, torture and plunder. No thanks, to any pseudo religious fundamentalist control of government, nothing but a pack of lying ass hats, using religion to empower and enrich themselves. The only difference between those corrupt clerics and your typical bible thumping politician in a democracy claiming God wants them to win, is the controls and constraints forced on those politicians in the democracies by secularists. iven half a chance, there would be another bunch of Christian inquisitions, all done by sociopath and narcissist non-believers pretending to be the most devout of them all.""


areyo barzan

Dear Fariba

by areyo barzan on

I believe your comparison of the IRI behaviour with those of the fascist regimes of Europe in mid twentieth century was quiet just and accurate.

This is why we should take the same approach towards the IRI and who ever assists its killing machine as the world took towards the Nazis

 

First there should be a ban of interference of any Religion or ideology in the politic and I will go as far as some European countries went regarding fascism and declare it as a criminal act.

 Secondly we should send a clear signal to all those who are in one way or another assisting or participating in the crimes committed by IRI. They would be arrested prosecuted and punished accordingly. Also as it was established in the Nuremberg trials in 1945, following order would not be accepted as an excuse for those who participated in these crimes.

Finally we should internationally peruse and arrest all the IRI criminals and especially the leaders and those who profited from its existence. They should be extradited to Iran and stand trial in front of and internationally observed human right court. Also all their assets should be confiscated and redistributed amongst their victims and victims remaining families


Masoud Kazemzadeh

My article comparing Islamic fundamentalism and fascism

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on

http://iranian.com/main/2008/fatal-attractions

The opposition groups regard the fundamentalist regime to be among the most repressive, brutal, reactionary, and misogynist regimes in the world. Many have categorized it as a form of fascism. A few months after the revolution, Ali Asghar Hajj Sayyed Javadi published a series of newspaper articles criticizing the new system as fascistic. These articles were soon published as a pamphlet titled Az sedaye paye Fashism ta ghoole Fashism ke dar hale tassalot bar sarasar-e Iran ast [From Early Steps of Fascism to the Specter of Fascism That Is in the Process of Taking Over All of Iran].27 Hajj Seyyed Javadi was one of Iran's most respected and courageous intellectuals and Iran's most prominent social democrat who had played a prominent role in the anti-shah revolution. Soon he had to go underground and then into exile when the fundamentalist forces were able to crush liberal and leftist forces that had participated in the revolution.

As early as May 1979, the INF leaders condemned the fundamentalist regime as reactionary and fascistic. In the words of Dr. Sanjabi, the number one leader of the INF:

"We believe that a monopolizing and reactionary force is taking shape in this country. This force cannot ignore and deny Iran's past history. It cannot negate Mossadeq or the significance of the oil nationalization movement. It cannot ignore the importance of pluralism and the freedom of the press. Accusations and intimidations are the manifestations of this fascist and reactionary tendency. The National Front of Iran has the responsibility of resisting reaction and dictatorship."28

When it was announced that the Assembly of Experts had written a constitution giving Shiite clerics monopolistic powers, the INF issued a strongly worded 10-page analysis. The document repeatedly calls the system religious dictatorship and repeats the earlier warning about emerging "fascism." The document states:

"Individual and social liberties and rights that have been the goals of the revolution have to be respected in practice. Today, all of these liberties are in serious threats, and our country is being taken towards a form of fascism. The offices of political parties and societies have been attacked and shot down. Such meetings have also been attacked and closed down. Safety and security of political and social activities of other groups have been eliminated."29

Today most opposition groups regard the regime as fascist or fascistic. The Liberal Democrats of Iran regards the fundamentalist regime as fascist.30 The Green party of Iran calls the regime religious fascism.31 The Workers Communist party of Iran also calls the regime fascist.32 Amir Taheri, a prolific conservative commentator in the Iranian media and a frequent contributor to this journal, has described the regime as fascist.33 Even Mohsen Sazegara, a former fundamentalist, a founder of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), and the man who wrote the constitution of the IRGC, has used the term "fascist" to describe the system created by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamanehi.34 Akbar Ganji, another former fundamentalist and current dissident, regards the hard-line faction as fascist.35 Most interesting, even former President Mohammad Khatami recently referred to some of the hard-line fundamentalists who have been criticizing him as fascist.36

Describing Islamic fundamentalism as fascist or fascistic or a form of fascism is not limited to political actors in Iran. Many scholars have also described the system created by Khomeini in the same way.37 Like fascism, Islamic fundamentalist ideology is explicitly corporatist and organic (i.e., society is conceived of as an organic body in which all of the parts have to cooperate in order to ensure the healthy functioning of the system). Such a political system regards its leader as the brain of the polity that has the right to order others and others have to obey. This form of corporatist ideology explicitly denies civil liberties and the right of dissent. Thus individuals are crushed for the sake of the Islamic state. Like fascism, Islamic fundamentalism attempts to create a cult of personality of its leader.

Islam enjoys a rich tradition that includes both mercifulness and peace as well as violence and aggressive war. Moderate and liberal Muslims regard the merciful and peaceful aspects of Islam to constitute Islam's primary message and soul, whereas violence is interpreted as exceptional and historical. Islamic fundamentalists, on the contrary, regard jihad and violence to be primary aspects of Islam, whereas peace and mercifulness are interpreted as minor aspects practiced only after infidels have been vanquished and dominated.

Islamic fundamentalists excel in manipulating prejudices (usually against religious and ethnic minorities) and xenophobic fears of the masses. Islamic fundamentalists have succeeded in mobilizing the masses not through appealing to their best and most noble desires (e.g., tolerance, coexistence, amity, compassion, mercy) but rather to their basest (e.g., hate, prejudice, revenge, envy) feelings.

Like fascism, Islamic fundamentalism views political violence not as a necessary evil but as a desirable tool to subjugate and intimidate domestic and foreign opponents. Religious rituals and liturgy have been manipulated to create a cult of violence that glamorizes violence. Like fascists, Islamic fundamentalists violently attack ethnic and religious minorities, feminists, liberals, leftists, labor unions, professional associations, and homosexuals. Like European fascists, Islamic fundamentalists tend to pursue an extremely bellicose foreign policy.

 

 


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Dear Faramarz Fateh

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

 

I am not in any way opposed to Israel or think AIPAC is any different from othewr lobbies.  Just wanted to get my opinion out. 


But have no doubt; the first and foremost enemy of Islam and the middle east is not the Jews. 

I agree. IMHO Islam its own enemy and its biggest human enemies are the Mullahs. By acting the way they do they make Islam unpalatable to many people. You have seen what they do. So  more people leave Islam or if not openly they lose faith. 

 


Faramarz_Fateh

Dear Vildemose and VPK

by Faramarz_Fateh on

First off, sorry Vildemose....I must have misinterpreted your post.  Thanks for the clarification. We seem to think the same thing regarding Israel and its international role.

VPK, Israel came into being as a country after WWII, a time at which Jews had no power to speak of anywhere.  Israel was a creation of 2 super powers of the time; The British and the Americans.  At that time, there was no Jewish lobby, no AIPAC and the Jews didn't run Wall Street.  I said RUN not OWN.  White Christians OWN Wall Street and anything else in the U.S.

The middle east problems are mostly due to and created by White Christian males.  Do they use Jews to get to their goals, you bet.

But have no doubt; the first and foremost enemy of Islam and the middle east is not the Jews. 


Pure Persian

who we are waitimg for?

by Pure Persian on

When it comes to brand of fascism then we are turning like the huge discrimination naziest , despite the very weak attempts which been through and applied in last 30 yrs of this dirty regime, still we are judging in the cold path of discrimination.

why we dont think further,Iranians are so intelegent to be doubt!

Pure Persian Banoo


vildemose

VPK: True. Most revolutions

by vildemose on

VPK: True. Most revolutions have started with a minority of people and also mostly by Aristocrats of the society.

Counter-intutitve, but true nontheless!


vildemose

1.   This is a great

by vildemose on

1.   This is a great comment from another blog. I thought I should share it with you.

 "" Bottom line: there are geo-politically significant reasons behind the US desire to defeat the Iranian regime and bring Iran under US control. And these reasons have nothing to do with the putative nuke program, hostility to Israel, or aid to Hezbollah, Hamas, or Iraqi Shi’a.It’s curious and tragic that most commentators on Iran refuse to mention the most obvious, yet logical explanation for US-Iranian tensions. Instead, they insist on trotting out a series of red herrings, all too reminiscent of what happened before the Occupation of Iraq.By refusing to acknowledge any role for oil and natural gas in the US calculus, most commentators all too conveniently fail to mention one of the biggest negative side effects of the Iraq Occupation–perhaps the greatest multi-year disruption of oil flow since WWII, contributing mightily to the exponential rises in oil prices during the last decade. Such collateral damage could be even more significant in the case of an invasion of Iran. Yet it goes largely unmentioned. ""


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

BehroozAzarin

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

Nobody really knows the number of the opposition accurately. So lets not debate it. Revolutions are not started by a majority. What is needed is dedication which we have. It also requires support and I am glad the Iranian diaspora is in general supportive. The majority just needs to agree that a new regime will be better for them. Given the total mismanagemnt of Iranian:

  • Foreign relations.
  • Economy 
  • Industry

So on it's easy to argue that a new less ideological and confrontational regime will benefit all. A regime that does not drive away highly qualified Iranians to West. A regime that does not put ideology over what is good for Iran.

The biggest obstacle is Western backing for IRI. Once that is gone they will collapse. 


BehroozAzarin

You are forgetting that the

by BehroozAzarin on

You are forgetting that the population in Iran is 70 million not 5 or even 10 or 20 million oppositions.  Yes, later when the demonstrations turned peaceful, government should have ceased the moment and kept it that way, not to start crackdowns and more violence. But this is how things get out of hand. One mistake leads to another and there you have it, a civil war and who will benefit from that?  You don't seem to worry about civil war. Is this how you want to free your Iran and Iranians. You say, "IRI is raging war on people".  OK,  what is the solution to that? Sacrificing more people hoping IRI will run out of bullets? People's lives may not mean anything to IRI, does it mean anything to you?  If this is what the opposition leadership is willing to do with their supporters, I cannot imagine what they will do with the rest of the public.  But then again, I can. This is what happened in 1978 when the public were charged and sent in front of shah's bullets with similar promises. what was the result?  Let us compare!  Once you see the lack of respect for human lives, that is a big red flag no matter which government or regime.

Hell, I have learned better lessons from the story of "Shangool O Magool" when I was four years old than some do from hundreds of pages of historians books.  I mean in general.  I don't mean Mrs. Amini.  As I have a lot of respect for her.

Yes, the unnecessary subject here is to compare IRI to Nazi Germany.  One can argue that Iran's leadership post revolution was forced to take a violent path due to the past experiences and due to conditions and circumstances after the revolution.  Just as Germany due to their past experiences with Zionists economical and political control prior to and after the world war II.   Perhaps different experiences and conditions would have had a very different outcome. But we are where we are and we should use the head.  I was hoping your head can come up with a better solution.

 


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Rea

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


..... if you want to help your young ones, go to other countries' forums, spread the word, tell everybody what's happening in Iran, and try to get as much support as you can for 22 Bahman in other countries' forums. 

Very good advice indeed and I totally agree with you.


Fair

NP

by Fair on

I said the US is irrelevant to THIS discussion, which is about comparisons between IRI and Nazi Germany fascism. This discussion was not about US destabilizing Iran.

Now if you want to say "the US wants to destabilize Iran so where does that leave us", you really need to ask what is going to drive the decisions of the Iranian people. Should we constantly continue to obsess what the US says and act against whatever they want, or should we stick clearly to our own interests? I believe we can pursue our rights and democracy without capitulating to American desires. And if in the future government of Iran, the US is willing to work with us as equal partners, we should be willing to, and if not, we shouldn't.

last I checked, we are Iranian, let's stay focused on Iran.

-Fair


Rea

Dear and well respected Iranians,

by Rea on

..... if you want to help your young ones, go to other countries' forums, spread the word, tell everybody what's happening in Iran. And try to get as much support as you can for 22 Bahman in other countries' forums. 

 

 


Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

Faramarz_Fateh

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on


Do you really think Israel even has a say in what the U.S. wants?!

If you want a concise answer: Yes!

I have lived in the US since the revolution and spent over 90% of the time here. I know the politics. They work based on lobby power. Israel has an effective lobby. Therefore Israel lobby has a good deal of influence in US policy. By the way this is not a bad thing. It is a constitutional right! The same goes for other lobbies like oil; banks; and so on. No one has a veto power but they get their word in and it does make a difference. Specially if you donate a lot of money :-)

VPK


vildemose

FF: I never said Israel had

by vildemose on

FF: I never said Israel had any say.. where did I say that.

Contrary to popular wisdom, I think when it comes to major geopolitical policy making for the next 50 years, Israel's influence is highly overexaggerated. If anything, I think Israel is used and abused by the powers that be to make profits and the transnationals comfy and happy.