News

What a ...

Bunch of Noodles. You guys twist and change definitions to your own taste and then high five one another on it.

We want to reform things to STILL make it even EASIER for the majority to do some more Bokhor Bokhor and bechap bechap. yeah. Little by little. Kinda like acting in disguise as if people are a bunchh of lunetics.

Slowwwwww...Slowwwwwww...We are still in the process of Allowing the traditionalists to adjust. Ya hazrate Abbas. Khoda berese be dade in mellat. we are still in the slow cooking mode.

 To assimiliate Properly!!! Seems like your Peech gooshti is so Harz that it has failed to adjust properly. Homedepot has got some on sale. Buy the wooden one this time.

Abarmard, you've got a fan

The AN avatar compared you to "fresh air". They say you can judge a man by his "friends". Isn't that so?

Abarmard,

you said;

A reformist would recognize the demands and tries to divide them in pieces that are easier to digest by the majority. The slow trend of change allows the traditional part of the society to adjust and assimilate properly, rather than ignored and angered

That felt like a breath of fresh air. Thank you Sir.

Abarmard

I hear you loud and clear, but i don't think that you have chosen the right example to liken this situation to, In the world of buisness so much happens that could and should not have any place in managing the affairs of a country and/or reforming its political and system of government. CEO's can be dumped like a sack of trash at a moment's notice, employees get fired or recycled for various reasons, new strategies can be made and be reconsidered round the clock but how can you apply that method into a larger context of a country with 75 mil. people.

I am willing to research the proposed issue, but think about what has happened, not just within the last year, but in the last two decades in iran. Not the arrests, not the whatever else that has taken place, but the general and at some cases particular deterioration of the country in every sense. Would you still distill this situation down to a show of force and who gets to dominate between Powerful religious groups vs Modernists? Would you still maintain the belief that It just is not what it looks like, and democracy and frreedom is not people really want, despite what THE ENTIRE global intelligence community thinks is happening?

I think you are oversimplifying the job of a reformer. Why should a reformer make things more palatable for the majority, more that they are alreay having it? What is the point of slow trend of things? What will be accomplished, if the goal would be to, after all these years, to make sure that the majority remains in a satisfactory shape? All the crisis that has taken shape is because it is the minority that really has been IGNORED and therefore angered!! why are we moving backwards?
Besides, Your comparison of two different systems USA and iran and the concept of each one's sense of security is totally irrelavant. Don't overlook the fundamental differences here. In USA, system CREATES security in the lives of its citizens (even in the context of a radically oriented capitalism) but certain things are Guaranteed. Can you say that with a straight face About Iran? Of course in the former there will immense sacrifice on behalf of citizens, to give back. But what about an Iranian citizen? Why should they sacrifice anything for a system that has taken away more that it has provided! The same goes about your germany example. A good and providing, non-discriminating Government, gets good deeds and obeyance in return.

Abarmard. How dare you point a blaming finger at the indian people as the culprit here? You are talking about the consituents of the largest democracy on earth. Do you really believe the notion that they are the ones who are bringing this disaster and poverty upon themselves, this indignity and living  in a system with a government that is RIDDLED with corruption (as you said yourself)? How can one have or get the opportunity to grow in such a system? Why do you have the tendency to defend the indefensible and rationalize injustice?

I am not sure if i understand what you mean by "people equation is real". All i can say is that people can not effectively play a role and make decisions in their lives if they are not free in a true sense of the word and are controlled closely by various govermental mechanisms.

Interesting that you want us to start by women's rights. Very well, Where do you suggest we should start from? should we give them the right to remove their hejabs and let them have the choice to dress freely yet modestly? Because when you say women rights, that by and large is considered THE major right. Do you think that anyone would be willing to give that a shot? Or are you just talking the talk?

I really don't know what to say. You want the implemetation of a lawful society, and charge the opposition with lack of a credible plan for the past 32 years, knowing that in this country what is decided to be passed as the law, does not have its essence validated based on accepted and commonly accepted global protocol. Not to say that we should pick laws that other nations do, but the basic standards are at least the same. So how can we change the CORE of this society when making such a change is practically impossible due to the safeguards implanted within the system.

And also. How long should we wait for changes to be applied?

Abarmard,

As mentioned before, once the system felt secure, freedom grew.

Are you talking about the IRI? What freedom? Freedom to pull your "roosari" back 2 inches (1/100th of the same "freedom" Iranians had for decades under the Shah)? The regime has always continued killing, torturing, and imprisoning--it has never stopped, Do you know why? Because of its rotten Islamist ideology, that's why. Even the lousy Zionist regime, despite a million and one threats of terrorism and war, gives most of its population much more freedom than the IRI, which does not have the same degree of insecurity. And in the U.S., after 9/11, was the government stoning people to death and whipping them? You think the regime does that because of "foreign threats"? They do it because IRI is under the rule of Eslam-e Nab-e Mohammadi, and Eslam (as they interpret) says stone and whip people for having sex. Other than propagandizing on behalf of the IRI, what exactly are you accomplishing by such dishonest "arguments"?

Doctor X-About reforms and opposition

The issue is not what if tomorrow. In the real sense I strategize the situation based on what we have to work with, not what could be. For every possibilities there are unlimited numbers of threats and opportunities depending of our resources and capabilities at that time.

If I go to a company as a strategy consultant and tell them that their problem is the CEO, I have done nothing. I have not put the cause of the issue on the table and allowed proper investigations to take form. Next I would sit and let all know that if you have a better, smarter, and more powerful CEO, you would do better. Again, I have not changed any situation in the real form, all I have done is emptied my shoulders from real responsibility of finding the cause.

A system in general is not a train track that if out of the course needs to be put aside. A system is more like freeway that has many exit ramps, different destinations, detours and even cars in the opposite direction. Similar to a company but much larger.

I can sit and deny the powerful religious groups inside the country, or belittle the modern population and their demands, but I can't easily satisfy all the parties. The majority wants might not be freedom or democracy as most intelligent or modern individual would believe. Think about this for a moment and feel free to do a bit of research.

That's the hard part. A reformist would recognize the demands and tries to divide them in pieces that are easier to digest by the majority. The slow trend of change allows the traditional part of the society to adjust and assimilate properly, rather than ignored and angered.

Authoritarian goes along with the concept of the current time and system's desire to survive, before anything else. As mentioned before, once the system felt secure, freedom grew. That's a normal trend in any society including the United States. Your freedom will be sacrifice for the sake of security if needed. The level varies based on the threat.

Take a look at my example about Germany Vs Iran. What differentiates these two is mainly the people. The asset is the knowledge and entitlement that the people have. Going further, they gain civility not because they are forced but because they realize the benefits of obeying the rules (having clean streets). 

Take India on the other hand. When you grow without the concepts of civility, you end up in a chaos and corruption with a bit of more money for a few. How do the majority of Indians care about the freedom or even use their political freedom? It doesn't matter for the majority, they are not entitled to a life with dignity. They have grown without the concept of reforms and civility. 

In here we can all say what if. We can also promote what we think is right. What makes this promotion a bit harder is when we consider people. The people equation is real. 

I believe we can gain more in focusing on women rights that regime change. That's a reform that once comes, no government or system can take it away (at least easily) we will be entitled to it as Germans are (Vs. Indians or Iranians today).

Therefore the opposition has been lazy and opportunistic to have confused the masses for over thirty years to change the CEO rather than putting forth a plan worth following. Such as demanding a lawful system. Not freedom, that can be interpreted many different ways by different groups, but law that is the core of any society. Then we can talk about the change. 

My view is long term but concrete Vs. quick and easy (uncertain and perhaps on the surface changes).

obsession with Iran, continued failures in Afghanistan

Flawed policies in Afghanistan (CNN, Richard Haass interview //www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/07/19/... )

As much as I disagree with U.S/Israeli policies in the region, I
believe a U.S loss in Afghanistan/Pakistan is very bad......, but if these AIPAC controlled stooges continue with their obsession with Iran,
they may succeed in turning Iran into Iranestan (marhoum Shah's
terminology) but soon after, U.S has  to surrender even further to
Sunnis equipped with large number of Pakistani nukes. U.S my just have
to accept the humiliation but Israelis are in that region, they will have to
stick their nukes, and get the &##* out.

Magas, don't taint this blog with absurdities.

Don't Hijack this blog. That would be the true waste of effort. It won't work. bebin key beshet goftam.

Doctor X

Don't waste your time reading my comments, unless they pay you real good! 

OH nooo...

They have just given you a new fodder...a new toy to play with.

Hichi dige. Az hala be bad if it is not going to be the accusations of being an AIPAC agents, or we want to turn iran to iranestan, It will be : see how america is admitting to its failure in Afghanistan (and not Iraq by the way).

Kam nayari ye vaght.

As a matter of fact, i will make a point to read your comments more dilligently and closely than others, to discover that precisely what goes on inside of your Einsteinesque brain. I might hit the jackpot by making a new discovery. But i promise we will split 50-50.

Patient X

It seems you and Fooladi work in tandem, if you are indeed two.... you don't like to see Afghanistan/Iraq related failures, don't read my comments!

Kharmagas

The heat has gotten to you i see. Stay in a shady area and drink a lotta of Koolaid. Your sexual fantasies are beginning to replace political/geopoltical theories in your mind. you can't stop thinking and typing the words "bend over". dude. get a grip.

be careful.

Abarmard

I can see your passion and your devotion to the cause of a free and democratic iran, but you are all over the place and are basing so many of your points on pure, Ideology and less on pragmatism. You are going about this whole thing the wrong way and Sorry to say that your logic is far from Convincing.

You are saying that you will never be convinced of how much better the next possible Gov. will be. Fine. But, for the sake of our argument here, say that such social freedoms become the norm and people would start taking advantage of those. Would you not say that, as decadent as it may seem and as much as there will be a definite possibility that people will get tired and will ask for reform down the road, would you not at least agree that we have taken one step in the right direction and at least for the moment people can enjoy some degree of freedom? Once there is no fear, no ostracization of anyone for any reason, Wouldn't you agree that it would a lot longer for people to start begging for change/reform like they are now?

And, WHy would an automatically popular system of Government would want to "prove" that to all universe that it has support, and use that as a means to show that reform is a possiblity here in this country?

What seems pretty strange to me here and i really want to see how you will back this assertion up is that What is the use of having BAD and GOOD laws? Isn't a lawful society one in which both set of laws are applied equally to all? Modification is possible when the system show signs of readiness to receive it, when shortcomings are really shortcomings, and not absolute Imperfections.

Interesting that you should bring up the partnership issue. You seem to have ignored the fact that Kazakhstan and Tajikstan, since they are less powerful than Iran, will surely benefit from our "resources" with not much to give back in return. Has that crossed your mind? It should be obvious that we have much more to gain from westerners than central asians.

Not all People think of reform the same way, so it really does not make sense when you say all iranians MUST think about the iranians.

Responsiveness to what? It is funny that you define a system as authoritarian, and yet in the same line you claim that they are established! if that is the case, then where is this "authoritarian-ness" coming from? Can you even imagine what would happen when this gets actually established???

I am against US/Israel attack on islamist regime leadership

and their bassiji forces.

After all, these islamist vermins belong to us, the Iranian nation, to hang by their necks.

Abarmard

With all due respects, let me cut and paste parts of my previous post, maybe this time you will get my point (you are not really here for a true debate). I said:

“It is dishonest to resort to sophistry…”

I also said:

 “If we believe in their cause we should do anything in our power to support them. Whether the support be in the form of giving them tools to defend themselves against brutality of the regime (technological tools of communication, hacking, spreading their message, spying, or even arms) or anything that would weaken the regime. If sanctions will weaken the regime, so be it.”

“We”, means all those who believe in democracy, freedom, human rights, etc…

Have a good evening.

obsession with Iran, surrender to Afghanistan/Pakistan!

A few minutes ago a U.S official in NPR was explicitly talking about surrender in Afghanistan. As much as I disagree with U.S/Israeli policies in the region, I believe a U.S loss in Afghanistan/Pakistan is very bad......, but, if these AIPAC controlled stooges continue with their obsession with Iran, they may succeed in turning Iran into Iranestan (marhoum Shah's terminology) but soon after, U.S has  to bend over all the way to Sunnis equipped with large number of Pakistani nukes. U.S my just have to bend over more but Israelis are in that region, they will have to stick their nukes, and get the hell out.

Abarmard - Let me ask you a simple question

Can you please give us an approximate time frame of when you believe "reforms" will come to Iran?  I know that you can't be sure, but give us your best guess?  Is it going to be another decade?  Two decades?  Three?  Four?  You compared today's Iran to the 1930's U.S.  Should the people of Iran wait another 80 years to gain full civil rights?  

I'm not trying to be cute here.  I seriously want to know.  As someone who believes that inch by inch struggle with a brutal, gun toting regime is the way to go about obtaining civil rights, I want to know what's your best estimate as to when these rights will come about.  Bear in mind that IRI was ruled by a "reformist" for eight years under Khatami.  But I will wait for your answer.

PS_please no beating around the bush or long speeches.  Just give us a straight answer.  I want a time frame, that's all.   

Let's start with your first part of comment

First you say:

My point is not for bombing, sanctions or invasion, etc…I firmly
believe (with every fiber of my being) that any change in Iran should
come, be led, and initiated by Iranian people inside Iran.

Then you say:

"There are many who argue that sanctions are prelude to war
and are not effective in bringing about change. There are historical
examples that suggest otherwise."

Well, there you go. You agree to disagree with yourself. Sanctions are not internal force!!! Maybe you are brain washed to think that sanctions is for the good of Iranian people. Explain.

Bijan A M

Let's debate. one by one points.We may end up defining brain washed opposite than your initial intention.

It is sickening

To read some of the arguments here by those articulates who are either brainwashed or are paid propagandists. Speaking of reform and defending their position under the cover of Nationalism, Independence, Peace, being against violence and occupation, etc… is the height of either naivety or indecency. How can you keep your heads up and speak of reforming a theocracy into democracy? Cite a single example in the history of mankind where such transformation happened peacefully. You will earn a lot more of my respect if you come out and outright defend the rule of Akhoonds (theocracy) and argue that it is better than losing lives for true democracy. It is dishonest to resort to sophistry to present a lie (i.e. unsupported statement) as a fact.

My point is not for bombing, sanctions or invasion, etc…I firmly believe (with every fiber of my being) that any change in Iran should come, be led, and initiated by Iranian people inside Iran. But, that does not mean those who support their cause and do not live inside Iran, should play dead and stay silent and indifferent. If we believe in their cause we should do anything in our power to support them. Whether the support be in the form of giving them tools to defend themselves against brutality of the regime (technological tools of communication, hacking, spreading their message, spying, or even arms) or anything that would weaken the regime. If sanctions will weaken the regime, so be it.

There are many who argue that sanctions are prelude to war and are not effective in bringing about change. There are historical examples that suggest otherwise.Please stop this nonsense that reform is around the corner if you just submit to inhumanity for only one more generation.  

No Fear,

The US did not achieve its status of a free society after international sanctions and the threat of foreign incursions.

Forget the "threat of foreign incursions", the U.S. had actual foreign attacks and incursions on its soil: War of 1812, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11--to name a few of the more prominent ones (there are others).  

What you fail to successfully argue is that you can not guarantee that after the removal of IRI , Iran would be a democratic and prosperous country. The stakes are too high in risk analysis of your solutions not to mention the inevitable human loss which would follow.

On the other hand, Abarmard's solution of reform ( if successfully argued ), offers none of the uncertainties which your arguement is tainted with.

Not to be cute, but there are no guarantees in life. A devastating quake could hit Tehran; a quake could destroy the Bushehr reactor (if and when it becomes operational) causing nuclear contamination in a swathe of the country--how about the human loss of those eventualities? Iran has not seen as much human loss in many centuries as it has under the IRI. After 31 years, IRI has proven itself immune to substantive reform, and it seems "certain" that it will not reform in a fundamental sense to become a free society. What's needed? Another 31 years? 300 years?

Hollow calls of 'reform' from IRI cheerleaders

It's a tactic from the passive-aggressive IRI cheerleaders who don't want any change whatsoever.  They call for this reform with vague solutions and concepts when clearly the system has shown that it doesn't tolerate any change which can affect the power structure.

They want to 'reform' a military run by millionares which now controls more than half the Iranian economy, runs illegal ports, controls the militias.  There is just no rule of law.  You need to have some kind of strong base to be able to reform any part of it.  Unfortunatly, since the IRI pushes back against any show of reform with threats and violence, that is the only way it will be truly 'reformed'.

But, continue.

The concept of IRI reformability is dead- RIP

It clearly expired following the sham elections last year.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE 

"External Threats" is what the IRI has been screaming

for the past 31 years to keep the population in check and is what it will scream for another 100 years to continue to keep the population in check if it is allowed to remain power.  

No country in the world has been free of "external threats" one way or the other.  You can create enemies (real or imaginary) and pomp up the propaganda to scare the population into submission.  It's the oldest trick in the book.  No one buys it anymore.  Try a new one...

Reform is a gradual process.

OnlyIran and Amir,

The US did not achieve its status of a free society after international sanctions and the threat of foreign incursions. What Abarmard is saying is that time is needed for reform to bear fruit. And its more sustainable when its done internally.

On the other hand, you are saying IRI is not reformable therefore it must be forcibly removed.

What you fail to successfully argue is that you can not guarantee that after the removal of IRI , Iran would be a democratic and prosperous country. The stakes are too high in risk analysis of your solutions not to mention the inevitable human loss which would follow.

On the other hand, Abarmard's solution of reform ( if successfully argued ), offers none of the uncertainties which your arguement is tainted with.

Abarmard: You distort the nature of the IRI

Modify the shortcoming rather than change it totally.

In my opinion, it is better to celebrate the IRI in all its stoning, killing, raping, thieving, and torturing glory than to pursue the pipe dream of reforming the unreformable.

Iran is an authoritarian system but not established. It's changing yearly. The shape of the system is not set.

Says who? "Not established" and "not set"? Where have you been for the past 31 years? How is it "changing"? Why would the IRI even change? What reason does the IRI have to change? It's already a pretty good system--no different than the U.S. was a few decades ago, except for the fact that Khomeinism is the only accepted political orientation, and the Leader is an akhoond chosen for life by 86 other akhoonds. "Modify" (to use your word) a little here and a little there and maybe after 300 years of steady "reform", they'll administer only 75 lashes of the whip rather than 80 for having sex.

To follow up on Amir's post

and don't forget WWII, and the Cold War, with the threat of thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at the U.S.  

The U.S. Constitution itself was written at a time of great upheaval in the U.S.  Mentality of suppressing personal freedoms with the threat of external forces is squarely the territory of dictatorships, i.e., North Korea, IRI, etc.   

Sorry, Abarmard, you and others can jump up and down and yell as much as you can, but the U.S. is a free society where there is rule of law, and the IRI is not.  That's the truth and no amount of ridiculous propaganda will change that..   

Abarmard: There were have been attacks on US territory

Don't mistake for a moment that if there was a threat of attack in US soil, US would have not grant its citizens those rights...

I'll limit myself to the 20th century ones: Pearl Harbor and 9/11 claimed thousands of American lives--those are just the two biggest. Their was the Oklahoma City bombing, cross border raids from Mexico by Pancho Villa, etc.

Onlyiran

No disagreement there. You are absolutely right and the point here is not the law but lawfulness. Being obedient to the law however bad it might be. The constitution in Iran allows for all the 3 branches work independently, but who is listening?

Constitution has many flaws, but firstly if it is at least implemented to begin with then we have accomplished a lot. Same concept was in 1906, and Pahlavi dynasty. Reza Shah was willing to follow the constitution but the West and powers recognize the possible dangers in a democratic Iran. Not much has change today.

A great system in Iran would function badly while a bad system in Germany would function just fine. That's the concept of reforms. People won't allow the bad regimes come. The core must be changed and reformed.

BTW, Abarmard

reforms and civil rights happened in the U.S. because it has a Constitution that people actually pay attention to, and which doesn't have discrimination written into it, it has independent courts, it has right to free speech, free assembly, it doesn't shut down media that doesn't agree with the government, it has rule of law...etc.