Truth behind the propaganda

What's behind Iran’s stance towards Israel?


Truth behind the propaganda
by Farhad Kashani

Much has been said about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Sometimes, it seems that the truth has been lost between all the propaganda doses from all sides.  

After the 1979 revolution, Iran became the single biggest opponent of Israel in the region, bigger opponents than the Palestinians themselves. It has been said that Iranians look at the empty half of the glass only, however, in this article, I put down some of the more common reasoning the IRI mentions, to justify its animosity towards Israel.

In the beginning, I have to say, although I believe Israel has accomplished much for its citizens, but I have not been a fan of Israel for a long time. Although Israel has the right to exist like any other nation, but much of its current territory is built on occupied Palestinian land. Israel has also occupied Syrian and Lebanese lands. Israeli actions in the Palestinian territory are unjustified, brutal and inhumane. The world needs to come together to stop Israeli actions in Palestinian territories. All that being said, King Abdullah of S. Arabia introduced a great peace offer to Israel in 2002, where as in return for Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab lands, all Arab countries will recognize Israel and establish normal relations with it and live in peace with it. I think if Israel doesn’t accept this offer, it has only itself to blame.  

In this article though, I like to examine Iran’s stance towards Israel. Our country and people have sacrificed a lot, and I mean a lot, for IRI’s blind anti Israeli sentiments. Many countries, groups, parties and organizations..oppose Israeli actions, but none of them put a burden on their people as much as we have paid. We have become isolated, hated, we regressed, we paid human and material price,  we have been threatened to be attacked, and we have been looked down upon by most of the world (with the exception of some fascist Islamist and lefty loonies), because of this stance. There is a different between opposing something, and “blindly”, opposing something. Some of the most outspoken Israeli critics are Israel’s friends, such as Turkey. So why is IRI acting like as it is? Below is some of the most common rhetoric used by the regime:

 * IRI is anti Israeli because it has occupied Arab lands: Not true. Iran has not taken a unified stance towards occupied Arab lands. As we speak, there are other Arab territories occupied by non-Arab countries that you hear nothing about from the incredibly powerful IRI propaganda machine. Examples are 2 Moroccan cities occupied by Spain, and and city of Eskanadaroon in Syria (Iran’s closest ally!) occupied by Turkey. These issues have been a major source of tension between Morocco – Spain and Turkey – Syria, but you never hear the IRI talk about them.

 * IRI is anti Israeli because it has occupied an Islamic country’s territory: Also not true. Iran has not taken a unified stance towards that also. There are other non-Arab Islamic lands occupied by non-Muslims as we speak, but you never hear the IRI mention a single word about them. Examples are Chechnya by Russia, Kashmir by India, Somalia by Ethiopia, Sin Kiang province by China. Muslims living in those areas, claim that their lands have been occupied by non-Muslims, but the IRI never spits out a single sentence regarding those cases.

 * IRI is anti Israeli because it is concerned about the human rights violations by Israel: I think we all know the answer to that. How can a government which has the absolute minimum, if any, regard for its own citizens’ life, dignity and rights, care about Palestinian rights? Iran’s record in human rights is pretty much agreed upon by most of the world to be one of the worst, if not the worst. All one needs to do is look at any Human Rights organization report to see where Iran stands on different Human Rights respect categories.

 * IRI is anti Israeli because Israel hates us: Most Iranians know that’s not the case. Before the IRI start its blind anti Israeli campaign, Israel never harmed Iranian interests nor it worked against our country. As a matter of fact, even after the 1979 revolution, Israel attacked the Osirak nuclear power in Iraq, which helped Iran. That doesn’t’ mean as Iranians and as neutral observers, we should overlook Israeli crimes, but, again, how far are we going on being Israel’s critics?

 * IRI is anti Israeli because Israel was illegally established after WWII: Not true. Many countries were established only after WWII which were not historically established as countries, examples are, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Persian Gulf countries, Pakistan, Bangladesh, more than half of African countries, …and the list goes on. So should those countries be as Khomeini said, “eliminated by all Muslims picking up a bucket of water and spilling it on Israel” also? In addition, IRI makes the arguments that Palestinian Muslims were the only inhabitants of that area, which is like everything else they say, untrue. Jews used to live there also, along with Christians and Muslims, for thousands of years. Offourse the Muslims were the majority and that demographic should not change by force. But, if you make that argument, then we, as Iranians, need to leave Iran and give the country back to the Ilamites. After all, we’ve been living in Iran for 2500 years only (at least our Aryan population has,.. Turks, Arabs, Mongols, Indians, and others came later,), and the Ilamites have been living there long before the Aryans came.

Those are most of the claims made by the IRI to justify its blind anti Israeli rethoric. So what is or are the real reasons behind this animosity that the IRI started against Israel? Well, for one, IRI complains about Europe not allowing investigation into the Holocaust, but itself does not allow any discussion over the Israeli conflict that does reflect Khomeini’s fundamentalist vision. As result, we will not get the truth from IRI.  

So what’s the real reason? Iranians have realized that the IRI actions are results of two things:

1. Iran takes this stance towards Israel because it has occupied “religious: Islamic sites, not just any Palestinian, or Syrian, or Lebanese land, and since the IRI has sacrificed our country to portray itself as the only true Islamic government in the world, at minimum just to energize its base and spread its propaganda, it has taken a fury stance against the occupation of Quds. Again, most people oppose Israeli occupation of Quds, but no one acts recklessly, unjustifiably, inhumanely and irresponsibly the way the IRI does.

2. Since Israel is U.S closest ally in the region, for the IRI to, again, at minimum to energize its base in Iran, it has looked upon this issue as a proxy war with the United States. After all, you can’t bash and trash a country 24/7, and not take any action to show the world you are, in reality also, oppose to it. For some less educated and traditional Iranians, Provocation and thugness is a way of life . The IRI made that way of life, a government policy, and it used the blind anti Americanism as its main tool to justify its existence and policies. Some of the reasons go back to the fact that since the IRI consists of disfranchised, neglected, uneducated and traditional-minded segment of our society that were looked down upon by the most sophisticated, westernized, and most importantly, Americanized, Iranians during the Shah regime, they have been attacking that same Americanization that reflected in their oppressors. After all, Khomeini said, the revolution was a “cultural revolution” more than anything, and he was absolutely right. Also, many dictatorships use anti Americanism to gather support among their faithful in order to gain power. Examples are Mugabe, Castro, Kim Jon Ill, and others. Its needless to say, America has become the world’s punching bag.

In conclusion, we need to realize the true intentions of this regime in everything it says and does. Without it, we can never understand it, thus, we can never be able to better confront it. And if we don’t confront it, whatever is left from our country, will be gone. 


Recently by Farhad KashaniCommentsDate
Iranians have it far worse than Palestinians
Sep 30, 2009
Mesbah Yazdi
Sep 04, 2009
Neo Cons or Neo Comms: Who got it right on Iran?
Aug 27, 2009
more from Farhad Kashani

umm.... Zion, they are directly elected by the people

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on

that is a fact. Why are you arguing this?


On truly pathetic liars and related issues

by Zion on

my dear Q,
This is what is stated in the page you linked to //

`credentials of all candidates was approved by the Guardian Council using written and oral (interview) examinations`

This is what is stated in the web page for the Guardian Council //
`The Iranian constitution calls for the council to have twelve members: six Islamic jurists, ``conscious of the present needs and the issues of the day to be selected by the supreme leader, and six jurists, ``specializing in different areas of law, to be elected by the Majlis from among the Muslim jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial Power,``[3] (who, in turn, is also appointed by the supreme leader).[4][5]`

This is precisely what I wrote about. The thug leader gets to decide who can run for the assembly that is supposed to supervise him and which is the only authority to depose him.
Therefore as any child can see, this is a sham circus designed so that you and your counterparts can try to lie and deceive people.

Your own words:
`actually, IRI`s supreme leader is indirectly elected just like US Supreme court judges. It is not ``for life`` and the people who vote for the supreme leader are themselves directly elected by the people. `

This is thus shown to be a pathetic and shameless lie.

I specifically pointed this out and you called me mistaken. This is another pathetic and shameless lie.

You are thus a shameless and pathetic liar with zero credibility, and a clear insignificant apologist for the Islamist regime in Iran.

To be honest though, you are a lot of fun to watch, and you always crack us up so we love you regardless.


Farhad Kashani

by Mammad on

I, for one, am tired of your absurd statements. You seem to be interested in "winning" the debate, rather than discussing, learning, and teaching. You prefer to insist on your absurd statements, that are often contradictory, than accepting your mistakes.

The legitimacy, or illegitimacy, of the IRI - or any political system for that matter - is not decided the way you define legitimacy. No one defines the legitimacy of a political system the way you do. There is a standard way of doing so in political science, which has nothing to do with the way you define it.You should seek out work in creative arts or something like that, because you are very creative in creating one absurd and baseless statement after another.

You still keep acting like the God Father, patting people on their back, even when they insult others (such as Joubin H - the man apologized; are you going to apologize too, for saying that he made great points, or are you going to be kaaseh daaghtar az aash?).

My late thesis advisor used to tell me, a vector is a vector is a vector is a vector. Paraphrasing him, I would say an ayatollah is an ayatollah is an ayatollah is an ayatollah. He may be a bad one, like Ayatollah Jannati, or a good one, like Ayatollah Montazeri or Taleghani, but both are still Ayatollah.

Agusto Pinochet was a General, but a fascist one at that, supported by the US and the CIA. Nobody protested anybody why he was still called General. Same thing with Ayatollah Khamenei. Your statement that, one reason that the IRI is illegitimate is that he cannot be called Aghaa, is simply absurd and r...... As a matter of fact, high-level people in the IRI system, when talking to people, refer to Ayatollah Khamenei as "Aghaa!" 

Contrary to what you say, there are all sorts of political parties in Iran, on the left, at the center, on the right, and on the ultra-right. 

On the left we have Islamic Iran Participation Front, Islamic Mojahedin Organization, the nationalist-religious coalition, Movement of Militant Muslims, and Majme'e Rouhaniyat-e Mobaarez. Many of their leaders have been to the IRI jails. Why? 

At the center we have Freedom Movement, Hezb-e Etedaal va Tose'e, and Kargozaran. 

On the right we have Mo'talefeh, Jaame'e Rouhaniyat Mobarez, Jaame'e Eslami Mohandesin, etc.

On the utra-right we have Ahmadinejad's group - Raayehe Khosh-e Khedmat - Jameeyat Isaargaraan-e Eslami, etc.  

But, the absence - or presence for that matter - of political parties, or the existence of just one, does not make a system illegitimate or legitimate. Would you say that the Chinese system is illegitimate, because there is only one Party, the Communist Party? If so, you are the only one on the face of Earth who thinks so.

If political parties in Iran did not exist, then, why is it that the Guardian Council vetts the candidates and routinely disqualifies most of the reformists? What distinguishes a reformist from a right-wing one? Is it not his/her political group or party to which he/she belongs? I know you are going to come up with another absurd answer, but please spare me. 

Your statement that, because the IRI does not allow the UN to monitor its election, it is illegitimate is beyond absurd and r.... Have you ever heard of the words "sovereign nation" or "independent nation"? Hello!

Regardless of how bad the IRI is, or how you and I feel about it,  it is recognized by the UN and practically all other international organizations as the Government of Iran, as well as nearly all the nations of the world that have embassy in Tehran.

Elections in any nation are an internal matter for that nation. A sovereign nation has the right to reject meddling in its internal affairs - and monitoring elections is one such meddling - whether it is by the UN, or any other organization. This rejection does not have any relevance to its legitimacy or illegitimacy. Even the UN does not have a single word about this in its Charter. On the other hand, a sovereign nation can invite international monitors, if it wishes so. But, not doing so has no relevance to its legitimacy or illegitimacy. 

Contrary to what you say, most of, if not all, the nations that you mention reject monitoring of their elections by any outside power or organization.

I know you enjoy the attention that you get, and feel compelled to stand "firm," but your discussions in this column about your article have been outright absurd, to put it extremely politely.

I suggest to all those who agree with me to simply ignore FK, with the hope that he comes to his senses. It is useless to argue with FK. Let him have a "discussion" with all those whom he pats on their backs. 



Q, You were not Lying

by AnonymousIrooni (not verified) on

But I honestly think you missed my point.

You say that "Representative democracy is a continuom"
and than you give the following examples:

"Until 1920's women couldn't vote. So was US "not a democracy" in 1920? Until 1968, blacks were cheated from their chance to vote by a number of racist laws. Are you saying US only became a democracy in 1969?"

Yes you are 100% correct. However, all these are examples of a democratic system doing unjust things or things that today we would think of as unjust.

What I am saying is that in the IRI, the people are democratically voting for an Undemocratic system. Whether it was in the 80's, 90, or today. The vote was democratic but the result is a non democratic system of governance. So the end result is: The Iranians are voting democratically to so they can elect a Saddam, Husni Mubarak or Hafez Assad each and every time. The face of the leaders might change but the ideology is always the same because the Ideology has to be the Islamic, Sharia, Sheite Ideology every time. Its like a Casino- THE HOUSE ALWAYS WINS.

This is not the case in the American democracy that did not consider blacks as human, allowed woman to vote...... Remeber, the American system had the abolishenist movement from day one; it had multiple centers of opposition from day one and these centers were allowed to work within the system to change the unjust rule of the majority.

The above is non existent in the IRI. You have to vote for Sharia. Sharia has not changed (or changed minimally) in the past 1400 years. Are you suggesting that the Iranians should wait for the turtle speed of modifications to the Sharia? Is Governance by a leadership that looks at Sharia as its main and only ideological inspiration a "continuom" as you say?


Supreme leader. Apartheid caste rule of %.003 over majority

by samsam1111 on

Facts; not twisted half truths..

Supreme leader can only be of the mullah caste .mullahs are less than %003 of country,s populace.

Supreme mullah leader is chosen by all Mullah "Khebregan majlis"  which in turn filtered via half Mullah "Guardian council" chosen by mullah leader.

lol..hehe..need i say more..okay may be for the brain dead pretending to sleep.

Guardian council

 12 members in total.. 6 mullah members hand picked by mullah leader himself . the other 6 hand picked by head of judiciary(mullah) which in turn himself is appointed by mullah leader.

Khebregan majlis:

All members made up of mullah caste.the so called candidtes in each province are pre screened by Guardian council. in many cases including the Ardabil, Shiraz,and few others there was only 1 candidate for the whole province to be elected which made even some so called reformist quite mad at the farce and stupidity of it.

the current  khaliffe has been on menbar for 21 years & counting..even longer than so called dictator Reza khan Pahlavi(at least He was Iranian) 

But again these same schemes are not being honoured and get over run as the sons of "qadesiyeh" feel like it .

Javid, legacy of real Iran 




by Q on

I'm sorry, truth is very important to me. I did not lie. Iran does have direct elections of the Assembly of Experts and they choose the Supreme Leader.

I'm not making an argument of how "good" the system is. Representative democracy is a continuom and there are many different systems that do it.

The Islamists have basically figured out a democratic way to be totally undemocratic. Is this something to be proud of and argue about?

True, I believe there are problems with this system but "totally undemocratic" ? No. As I said it's continuom. Iran could be said to be more democratic, then say Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, but less so than UK and France.

The fact that there is strict eligability requirement is not a reason to call it undemocratic. Most people agree that US is one of the oldest democratic systems in the world. But at the time, only white land-owning Christian men could vote. Does that mean US was not a democracy in 1800?

Until 1920's women couldn't vote. So was US "not a democracy" in 1920? Until 1968, blacks were cheated from their chance to vote by a number of racist laws. Are you saying US only became a democracy in 1969?

Right now in Germany, Russia and many other countries children of certain immigrants who were actually born and raised inside those countries do not have the right to vote. It's clearly discrimination, but does that mean Germany is not a democracy?

Every single democracy has both legal and de-facto barriers for candidate selection. In the US, if you do not get the approval of one of the two major parties, you can never get elected. If you can't do fund-raising or are rich some other way, you will never get elected. True, you can still run (even that costs money that you have to provide) as an independent but no independent has ever been elected to the Presidency.

Saddam Hussein was the only person on the ballot, and most Iraqis didn't actually participate in the vote. Both of those things aren't true in Iran. Even though I agree the candidate vetting process in Iran is unusually subject to abuse, it is only a few degrees different than other democracies. And in any case continued participation of people in the system also legitimizes it. That's just a fact of life we may not like but it won't go away.


rooshanbeen, good to hear from you!

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Hey rooshanbeen, good to hear from you. It has been quite sometime since you posted anything here. well said as usual.
-best regards


Kashani: hit the dictionary

by Q on

Q, not just me, but other fact seeking Iranians, have already told you why IRI is not legitimate.

You used the word illegal. Do you know there are different words and they have different meanings? "Illegitimate" is not a term of international law. It could be expressed as opinion, and I have no problem with it. "Illegal" however, has a specific meaning. Not sure why you refuse to understand this.

(By the way, there goes your “Esteghlal argument!)

How, what are you talking about?

The U.N deals with all countries and governments, even with the ones that have a dictatorial and illegal regime.

Once again. Illegal means "against the law", the UN gets to determine this. Show me where it has determined IRI is illegal. It's very simple.

Iraq under Saddam was part of the U.N, so was USSR under Stalin, and Cuba under Castro, and Iran during Shah and Khomeini both.

Absolutely not!!! None of those governments are illegal. Just tell me which authority determined this and I believe you. The problems is none did.

You have made the argument that Shah was an illegal regime,

Why are you putting words in my mouth. When did I say this? Have you no shame?

didn’t you say that Khomeini gave us “independence”,

I don't remember saying this either. But I believe the revolution gave us "Esteghlal".

and at the same time, Iran under Shah was part of the U.N, so what is it Q, was Shah an illegal regime or not?

No, it was a legal regime. I have never claimed the contrary.

apparently, you are unable to make up your own mind

What the hell are you talking about? Make up my mind about what? This is the first time you asked the question!

Comparing Khameni to U.S supreme court judges is so absurd

Yea, I guess it is really is so absolutely far fetched!!! Your problem Mr. Kashani, is that you are ignorant of the many times in the past where this comparison has been made. I didn't invent it.

From Democracy Now June 20, 2005:

But Assembly of Experts is the most important thing. Unlike most people that don’t understand, if I stand up here and say, the way Iranians elect their supreme leader is the same as the way Americans elect their president. How do they do it? Electoral college. Indirect election. In Iran, they do the same thing. And that electoral college is called Assembly of Experts. All 83 members of Assembly of Experts are directly elected. So, there are parallels between Iran and America, you will be surprised to hear. There are parallels, but Iran and America there are different centers of power.
Source: //

And as far as your political parties rebuttal, why am I not surprised that you don’t believe having political parties is a sign of democracy?

Kashani. You are now getting on my nerve with your dishonest spinning.

You listed "political parties" as a REASON why Iran is not a democracy. I pointed out that it is not a necessary part of democracy. This is absolutely true. The US constitution was written to stop political parties because they were seen as too bickering and detrimental to democracy. There is no provision in US government for political parties. As far as the consititution is concerned, they are just free "groups" of people. Here, read this:

When America's founders wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they did not envision political parties playing a role in the government. Rather, they expected constitutional provisions such as separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism and indirect election of the president by an electoral college would deter the formation of parties.
source: //

Secondly, I said that political parties are very vague, many countries do them differently. What we have in Iran, is not like a European party system, but it could be called a political party system. In fact, they are called parties by most news organizations.

Here's a list of the main parties in Iran:

Your observer argument is also flawed and factually wrong. U.S elections, and the countries I mentioned, do get monitored by the U.N,

The argument was about sending election monitors into Iran. You say this is done in the US? Prove it!!! Show me the UN team that "monitored" US elections like they did in Palestine.

Dear Kashani. I may have to stop responding to you because I feel you lack the very basic understanding of American politics and processes. The UN has never sent monitors for US elections. Do you understand if this were to ever happen, the Republicans will blow up the UN building? This country, is even worst than Iran when it comes to allowing UN election certification or monitoring. America is very anti-UN. Read this article by Daniel Pipes, you may begin to understand:

And indeed, back in July 2004, when thirteen House Democrats sent a letter to Secretary-General Kofi Annan asking that the United Nations monitor the U.S. elections on November 2, 2004, they learned two points: U.N. guidelines require such a request come from the Bush administration but the administration would submit no such request. Nor would Congress go along with it; the Republican-controlled House passed an amendment prohibiting federal executive officials from asking the U.N. to have any authority in determining the outcome of the U.S. electoral process. Rep. Steve Buyer (Republican of Indiana), the sponsor of this ban, eloquently explained why:

"For over two hundred years, this nation has conducted elections, fairly and impartially, ensuring that each person's vote will count. When problems have arisen, Congress and the States have addressed them. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Just last Congress, we enacted the Help America Vote Act to strengthen the election process.

Imagine, going to your polling place on the morning of November 2 and seeing blue helmeted foreigners inside your local library, school or fire station. The United Nations has sent monitors to Haiti, Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique…and now the United States? The constitutional authority to ensure the integrity of U.S. elections rests with the States and the Congress."

It's a little hard to take "your argument is flawed" when it's completely true. Are you just playing games again?

U.N observers do monitor elections if the country invites them to, and most countries who have nothing to hide, unlike Iran, including the Palestinian elections, do invite U.N observers.

Most countries invite the UN observers ??? Are you out of your mind???? Do you understand the logistical process of having a UN mandate (vote) for every election of every country every year? Do you understand the funding and the man-power requirements? This is not true, "most countries" do not get UN election observers. Not even close!

Kashani, I'm trying to be polite but rarely have I heard this many bald faced lies in my life all in one day. I don't think that you like to lie, but you simply don't know the truth and make it up as you go along. I think you reason "it must be true" so than you just claim it.

It is a very unhealthy attitude toward truth and it makes for basically a chaotic debate. I urge you to not make any statements that you cannot prove. Otherwise, myself and others will conclude that it is a waste of time debating with you.

Thank You.


Farshad Kashani

by rooshanbeen (not verified) on

You Wrote:
Some of the reasons go back to the fact that since the IRI consists of disfranchised, neglected, uneducated and traditional-minded segment of our society that were looked down upon by the most sophisticated, westernized, and most importantly, Americanized, Iranians during the Shah regime, they have been attacking that same Americanization that reflected in their oppressor.

As matter of fact many of the statesmen in current Iranian government are graduets of I.V league schools from example speaker of Majlis Dr. Larijani many more are graduate of top universities in Iran.
I like to take this opportunity to wish good relation between Iran and rest of the world including Isreal and U.S. so people can enjoy and prosper from exchange of ideas and visiting other countries.

Farhad Kashani

Zion, great points.

by Farhad Kashani on

Zion, great points.


My Apologies to Mammad

by Joubin Houshyar (not verified) on

Salaam Mammad,

I am duly chastised regarding my last comments to you, after reading a portion [Vol 2 Ch. 5] of our Brother Al-Ghazzali's (R.A.) 'Ihya Ul um'Id'Deen' work.

I am, as it happens, named [Harba] after a sharply pointed instrument of War, and need to be careful to see that I am motivated by the Right Hand [Q 8.17] and directed at the appropriate targets [Qom Inc.].

Please accept my apologies, and forgive my harsh words, baraadar, and take from it the best that you can.

/& Salaam


Q, What is your point

by AnonymousIrooni (not verified) on

First of all, the members of the Assembly are first pre screened before they can run. Just like the rest of the people who want to run for Majlis or any political position. Its a sham from the start to the end. In the last election, since not enough people could pass the oral & written examination, they had to lower the passing scores to get enough people who could run. This is because they had disqualified all the people who could pass but were considered reformists are not "Islamic enough".

The Islamists have basically figured out a democratic way to be totally undemocratic. Is this something to be proud of and argue about? Mardoom Rah Enjoori Khar Kardan.

Whether Zion is a liar or you are a liar it does not matter. The end result is that its 100% undemocratic and the end even if the process seems democratic because people vote.

Saddam had 99% of the population voting for him to. Was it Democratic? Same non sense in Syria- Is it democratic?

Finally, you have not been yourself in the last few days. You have been calling people racesists, morons, idiots..... Are you OK?


Q: I'm not here to debate a

by eyeswideopen (not verified) on

Q: I'm not here to debate a certifiable Islamists. Essentially, noone can because the Islamists live in a parallel universe of their own.

With all due respect, your agenda on this site is crystal clear for everyone. It is a sad and painful spectacle of an intelligent person struggling very hard to make himself stupid to deceive himself and others and God know only why for what reason...

The excerpt from the Article and the entire article is for those who actually care about knowledge and truth. You can debate the semantics 'till pigs fly...It will not change the truth.

Please don't bother replying...I've already read your formualic scripts...


eyeswideopen: please don't embarrass yourself

by Q on

What argument are you trying to make? What are you saying? What have I said about Khatami or Ahamdinejad?

Can you actually write it yourself instead of copying an article from the ecnomist?


Zion, you ARE the pathetic liar here, your knowledge is wrong!

by Q on

To my knowledge, the candidates for this assembly are chosen by a council that is itself appointed by the same leader.

Why make such a stupid statement when you can just look it up on Wikipedia?

The members of Assembly of Experts are elected every 8 years. It has therefore formed 4 terms, beginning in 1983, 1991 and 1999.

Here's the 2006 elections for the Assembly of Experts:

This is not direct election of the council and it is not an indirect election of the leader.

It is both moron. It's direct election because the people at large vote (that's what direct election means), and it is indirect for the leader because this body takes votes on the supreme leader. This is like the same law for the US Electoral College or the Supreme court.

You lie, as usual.

This was not a lie. This is exactly the definition of direct election for the Assembly and indirect elections for the Leader. No amount of post-facto spinning "oh oh.. I meant this, not that..." isn't going to reduce your absolute shameless BS on this one.

But more importantly, you mention that I'm lying "as usual", this is funny because it's my phrase for you. But just for kicks, can you please tell me point to where I have lied before?

IN your case, there are dozens of cases. But go ahead, I'm curious.

Farhad Kashani

Q, not just me, but other

by Farhad Kashani on

Q, not just me, but other fact seeking Iranians, have already told you why IRI is not legitimate. Not sure why you keep repeating the question. Refer to my previous postings. If you’re unable to understand or unwilling to accept the fact that IRI is an illegal regime, you need to do a lot more research.

As far as the U.N goes, the United Nations is a global organization that hosts all independent nations. (By the way, there goes your “Esteghlal argument!). The U.N is in a state of development. Most member states agree that U.N needs to be reformed, and offcourse, each one have their different reasons why. The U.N deals with all countries and governments, even with the ones that have a dictatorial and illegal regime. Iraq under Saddam was part of the U.N, so was USSR under Stalin, and Cuba under Castro, and Iran during Shah and Khomeini both. You have made the argument that Shah was an illegal regime, didn’t you say that Khomeini gave us “independence”, and at the same time, Iran under Shah was part of the U.N, so what is it Q, was Shah an illegal regime or not? If it wasn’t, then the revolution was a mistake, according to your argument. So, apparently, you are unable to make up your own mind, but, nonetheless, you keep repeating questions and attacking people who are simply stating facts.

Comparing Khameni to U.S supreme court judges is so absurd, I don’t even know where to start, cause its definitely gonna take me a whole book to write about. All I’m gonna say is this, Khamanei, according to Iran’s so called “constitution”, or as I like to call it,” oppression document”, is the head of the nation. He is a caliph. U.S Supreme Court is only a part of the judicial branch of the government.

And as far as your political parties rebuttal, why am I not surprised that you don’t believe having political parties is a sign of democracy? Enough said there.

Your observer argument is also flawed and factually wrong. U.S elections, and the countries I mentioned, do get monitored by the U.N, and let me tell you who else monitors U.S, England, France elections: NATO. U.N observers do monitor elections if the country invites them to, and most countries who have nothing to hide, unlike Iran, including the Palestinian elections, do invite U.N observers. But again, U.N would not kick out any member state because their election does not hold the required standards.


Jalil jaan, great points.


Joubin jaan, great points.


Anonym7 aziz, I guess you believe U.S is the greatest threat to world peace and I believe IRI is. We both state our arguments and facts, and let the audience decide. Also, like yourself, I want Iran to stop the hate mongering, the war mongering, the clash of civilization rhetoric and make peace with the world. The people are sick and tired of this “revolutionary state”. But, take my word for it, the day that the IRI makes peace with the world, is the day that it has signed its own death sentence, so what I’m trying to say is, under IRI, Iran will never see peace. Peace stands against IRIs existence philosophy.


Vtandoost jaan, thank you and great points.



1-we need to analyze to see what is causing the creation of these human bombs in the Islamic world. Again, as I said in the article, I fully disagree with Israeli’s actions in the occupying land, but, my argument is the IRI is using the Israeli Palestinian issue for purposes that has nothing to do what that issue. IRI wants to build an “Islamic Nation”, whether they are capable of doing that, or whether that goal is realistic, is beside the point. They have sacrificed our country and the world peace in order to archive that goal. I have no issues with Muslim countries, like they did before, coming together, join forces to liberate occupied Arabic territories. What I’m against is the IRIs Islamic fundamentalism inspiring and support policies, and making the Israeli Palestinian issue, a clash of civilization argument. The IRI has done that.

2- Depending on what part of the world we’re talking about, religion does play different levels of roles in people’s lives. In Christianity for example, we have gay bishops now, in Islam, we don’t. That has nothing to do with Jesus or Muhammad or the Bible or Quran, it shows that some aspects of some religions have been reformed, and some have not. Islam was moving towards its state of renaissance, but it took a 180 degree U-Turn when Khomeini rose to power.

3- I’ve been saying all along that IRI is a clerical regime. I don’t think even they deny that.

4- Israel and Palestine should be two states living together in Peace. Israel needs to get out of occupied Palestinian territories, remove all settlements built in those territories, let the Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and reimburse them for their suffering, and if is determined by the International criminal court or the U.N that Israel has done war crimes (Which I think it has), those people responsible need to be prosecuted.



I didn’t call anyone specific a “lefty loonie”, but you called me specifically a “nutjob”. Moving on, according to a world public opinion poll that they came out a few months ago, Iran is considered the number 1 threat to world peace. Furthermore, people around the world, including myself, believe in Iran’s right for peaceful nuclear technology as a matter of principal. As in, the country of Iran, has the right to do that, but people, are not naïve not to think what IRIs true intentions are. As incompetent as the IAEA is, itself, has said many times, that Iran is hiding information regarding its nuclear activities.


IRI legitimacy argument: No, they are still illegitimate because of the numerous reasons me and other guys have mentioned in this article. I was pointing out the reasons the IRI “hijacked” power in Iran, not “got it through a democratically free process”. Hitler was elected also, but what did he do after he got elected? Demolished any opposition and killed German democracy and became an illegal regime and the biggest threat to world peace. That history repeated in Iran in 1979.


Lets not get too personal, but when I said “looked down upon”, I said our country, not me personally. Let me just tell you this, unlike the IRI which has destroyed Iran and Islam’s image in the world, many, and I mean many, of the people I met in my life outside of Iran, changed their opinion about Iran and the Middle East towards positive, after spending time with me. That’s why I’ve been trying to say all along, its all about civility, and those “lefty loonies” and “IRI supporters and apologists” show none of it, like calling someone a “nutjob”.




by grandcaspiantheft (not verified) on




by eyeswideopen (not verified) on

In Mozakhrafat chieh MR. Q?? Do you really think we are that gullible???

"The principle-oriented custodians (Osool-gara) of the revolution did not wait until the election of Mr Ahmadinejad before taking action against Mr Khatami's reforms, which they interpreted as a potentially lethal threat to its core values. With the connivance of the supreme leader, they simply used their executive power and a compliant judiciary to override the wishes of the legislature and the voters.

By these means President Khatami was deprived of his power long before he was deprived of his office. Nor did the men of principle think it safe to leave the choice of his successor to Iran's voters. The election took place only after legions of candidates had been disqualified by the Council of Guardians. By way of insurance there was also judicious fiddling on election day: reformists complain that the Revolutionary Guards and their associated Basij militia of perhaps a million young volunteers were drafted in to intimidate voters and stuff ballot boxes.

Take all this into account, and what is happening in Iranian politics begins to look more sinister than the swing of a pendulum. Some opposition politicians prefer to describe what Iran is experiencing as a “white” (ie, bloodless) military coup. This did not start with President Ahmadinejad, though as a war veteran and former Revolutionary Guard commander he is typical of the class and generation behind it. It has been developing quietly ever since the men of principle began to fear that their revolution would not survive the encroachment of Western ideas, consumer habits, satellite television and the rise of a generation that had no direct memory of either revolution or war.

This is not the sort of coup in which the armed forces have to make an overt grab for power, because the supreme leader is part of the conspiracy. The fear, rather, is that with all the state institutions now in conservative hands the unelected centres of power are coalescing behind a single hard line and taking over all the top jobs. And in the name of principle this group (one majlis member calls it the “power in the shadow”) has no qualms about bullying parliament or suborning the judiciary.

Mr Ahmadinejad is part of this group, but its survival does not depend on his. Indeed, many of the conservatives who supported his presidency are beginning to cast around for a more moderate, cooler-headed replacement (one possibility is Mohamed Baqer Qalibaf, the mayor of Tehran). “If necessary they will sacrifice him to protect themselves,” says Isa Saharkhiz, the outspoken managing editor of Aftab, a reformist monthly. So strong is the military-clerical nexus under the supreme leader that Mr Saharkhiz dismisses the possibility of the reformists winning re-election. He says the Council of Guardians will simply disqualify their candidates.

A principal exhibit in the theory of the white coup is the relentless increase in the influence of the armed forces, especially the elite Revolutionary Guards. The Guards bared their teeth early in the reform period. Within a year of Mr Khatami's election as president their commander, General Rahim Safavi, was calling the reformers “hypocrites”. In one notorious intervention he suggested that those reformers who (in his view) threatened the revolution should be beheaded."



O Dear ... Mammad ...

by Joubin Houshyar (not verified) on

Salaam again, my Dear "Mammad",

You have apparently a great deal of difficulty with the English language!? You are both careless in your reading, and quite careless in your sayings.

(Must be the effects of the years spent at the foot of that tower of intellect, the dear dead great Dr. Ism ... surely a mind is a terrible thing to waste and ruin, "Mammad", not to mention a Great Nation and a Noble Deen ...)

Muslim does not equal Islamist. (That's perhaps what your religious innovators -- the said dead essayist and the "Ayatollah" cum "Imam" -- would have us believe.)

But in your case, the extant posts in this thread make it clear that you are back-peddaling.

Lets review, shall we? We'll substitute Muslim for Islamist to make your 'case' clear:

"4) If I were to take your writing seriously, you seem to be much more of an [Muslim] than I am. That is puzzling to me."

"(5) Why am I a hypocrite? Because I say I a practicing [Islamist], respect Dr. Shariati, but live in the US? Should people like me only live in, for example, Iran? If so, why?"

"(6) Since you seem a lot more [Muslim] than I am, I am just curious: Where do you live yourself? "

Wriggle out of that, dear "Mammad".

That said,

You Islamists are in the (very bad) habit of checking other peoples underwear. I suggest you joste-joo in yours and find what is necessary ..

Btw, its never too late to learn how to 'read' English. This will come handy in your "public" [2] efforts at publication "on the internet and in print" ... and thanks for the laughs.)

/& thanks for the laughs ... [3]


[1]: //
[2]: //
[3]: //



by Zion on

Actually, IRI`s supreme leader is indirectly elected just like US Supreme court judges. It is not ``for life`` and the people who vote for the supreme leader are themselves directly elected by the people.

This is a lie Q. To my knowledge, the candidates for this assembly are chosen by a council that is itself appointed by the same leader. people are asked only to vote among the already picked and selected `suitable` candidates by the leader.
This is not direct election of the council and it is not an indirect election of the leader. It is as he said Kashani correctly said a dictatorship of an unelected thug together with a sham circus set up so that the likes of you can lie more easily about it.
You lie, as usual.


a clarification (to mammad)

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Mammad, yesterday JJ accidentally deleted a number of postings (including a couple of mine). JJ explained that in a few places, asking people to repost.
-best regards


Joubin Houshyar

by Mammad on

Do not call me "dear," then coward, hypocrite, monafegh, etc. Do not also say salaam.

I do not have to prove anything to you or anybody else. Who are you to demand a proof? Read all of my postings here over the past few months. Then, decide what I think. Whatever decision you make regarding what I think is fine with me. Think of me anyway you want. You are entitled to your opinion, but I also do not give a hoot to what you think of me. I cannot worry about what a person like you, whom I have never met, a person who calls me coward and hypocrite, thinks about me. 

Or, suppose that I lie about writing and publishing. Then, what? I cannot be worse than the coward or hypocrite that you have already called me.

By Islamist I meant Muslim. Amazing. You call me coward, but get offended that I called you Islamist.

Mr. Jahanshah Javid allows people like you to say what they want, but yesterday deleted my response to FK which contained no insulting words or profanity. I do not protest such things, because Mr. JJ owns the site and can do what he wants with it.



Dear "Mammad" ...

by Joubin Houshyar (not verified) on

Salaam "Mammad",

The comments were quite clear. The previous post's subject line was somewhat oblique and the relation apparently escapes you. No one said you are a hypocrite. I posed a question and offered for you to "Do tell".

That said,

Please note that I do not appreciate it at all that a faceless, anonymous coward (like yourself, "Mammad") is "publicly" attaching the label of "Islamist", or any 'ism' for that matter, to my Name.

I am Muslim.

& "... I seek refuge with ALLAH least I should be of *the ignorant*." [Q 2.67]

Regarding your dead idol and his "... no longer applicable ..." ill-informed and injurious "thoughts":

"And who is more unjust than he who invents a lie concerning ALLAH, or rejects the truth when it comes to him ?
Is there not an abode in Hell for disbelievers ?"

/& Salaam


"As I have said many many times in this column, I publish articles with my full name on the internet and in the print media. So, I am not afraid of being known."

Prove it.


I have been proud too (to shadoone)

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

Same here Shadooneh. I have been proud to tell my coworkers here in the U.S that I am an Iranian-American. Interestingly enough even my hardcore republican coworkers don't look down on me.
I am sure fascists such as Rush-Limbaugh and Dr. Savage would look down on me .... they would however do that regardless of what IRI does!
Mr. Kashani et all (the "true Iranian nationalists") like to give a hand to Rush by saying "we have been looked down upon by most of the world".



by Q on

There is absolutely no way, there is a democracy in Iran. If you think so you are a total moron.

Where did I say there was a democracy in Iran?

Since your first statement is a lie, I did not read any further. But as I'm typing this, I see your last sentence saying something about having "intellectual integrity"!

What a hypocrite!


Forgot something

by toofantheoncesogreat (not verified) on

"What's behind Iran’s stance towards Israel?"

To threaten it with its proxies because Israel is a US pawn, so that it has chips it can sacrifice when the US one day knows that it has to have dialogue with Teheran, using Israel as a nationalistic muslim issue, basically.


Basic facts that brings the discussion back into sanity.

by toofantheoncesogreat (not verified) on

1. Iran has the right to enrich uranium by international law

2. IAEA says all of Irans uranian is accounted for and is kept at a LEU level (low enriched level, not HEU which means high enriched uranium that is used to make bombs).

3. The US has no right to judge Iranian nuclear policy when it is the only country that has used nuclear weapons, which together with other countries like Russia and the UK continues to develope nuclear weapons and has invaded other countries multiple times for the past 50 years following hundreds of thousands of deaths in these lands.

4.By the above statements, all sanctions by the EU and UN are illegal and not based on facts, other than a laptop computer the US has that "proves" that Iran developes reentry veichles, and as what the US did with Iraq, its intelligence is in no ground to determine anything.

5. There is no law in the UN that demands that governments are to be a representative democracy as many nations are not. The IRI is a perfectly legal government in the UN, wether we like it or not. (I dont, I want a secular democracy)

6. Therefore, any attack or sanctions on Iran that only hurts the iranian people, is not justified, is illegal and should be met with resistance by all iranian opposition groups since poverty feeds extremism and hate towards those who sanction them in the first place.

7. All the above statements does not mean that all you guerilla keyboard activists in the US, LA area, are not welcome to come back to Iran, prove that you dont only have a big mouth, and help topple the regime by developing the institutions needed for such a change, instead of excusing one act of hostility after another against your own country with "the IRI said something bad", "Iran is run by arabs" and "its the IRI's fault", and therefore it deserves to be bombed by Israel.

True, Iran should stop acting as it does, pull back from the Israel Palestine conflict and normalize relations with Israel, but I refuse to believe for one second that anyone in the military brass of Israel with its 400 nukes or the US takes Iran as a threat because Ahmadinejad said that "Israel should vanish from the pages of time", and this together with the nuclear issue constitutes a reason for military acts or sanctions.


IRI is a bully, period. You

by my2cents1 (not verified) on

IRI is a bully, period. You can't earn respect by bullying and terrorizing others. Whatever influence that Iran has right now is because of Bush Adminstration utter lack of competence and ignorance not because the mollahs are geniuses.

The US and The West in general are not respected just because of their military might; they have the respect because they are ahead of all muslim countries in science, medicine, technology, humanity, literature, and so on. The Islamic Republic Islamsits can't even do a decent photoshoped missile propaganda. The whole world is laughing at the "Islamic Republic military machine" with its "advanced technology missiles" but poor Photoshop techniques this weekend.

I guess the deluded mollahs and their cronies believe that they can photoshop Israel and US out of existence too. It would've been funny if it weren't so tragic.


Mr. Kashani, you must be living in a very SMALL world.

by Shadooneh (not verified) on

"we have been looked down upon by most of the world". You must be talking about the inhabitants of "aalam-eh haparout" where you seem to be stuck! Iran has about 5+ declared enemy "governments" - I'm sure you know all of them. On the other hand the majority of the countries, of the world, notably more than 140 Non Aligned Nations (NAM) nations and many people in the West have explicitly expressed their support for Iran's position via-a-vis the nuclear program and its stance against the Apartheid regime in Israel.
Your article is well constructed but since you have proved to be nothing more than a right wing nutjob (forgive me for calling you names, but you leave me no choice when you use stupid terms like "lefy loonies"), your arguments sink in the black hole of charandiat. I'm sorry, you must have screwed up the "talking points" notes that characters like you get by visiting the AIPAC web site.
"IRI consists of disfranchised, neglected, uneducated and traditional-minded segment of our society that were looked down upon by the most sophisticated, westernized, and most importantly, Americanized, Iranians during the Shah regime, they have been attacking that same Americanization that reflected in their oppressors". Doesn't this mean the present regime is not as illegitimate as you and other righty loonies want us to believe? I am glad Q has caught you with your intellectual pants down, so to speak, and that's why you az een shaakheh beh oun shaakheh meepari. I abhor the current Iranian regime, but it has not invented any of the things you and your cohorts accuse it of that make it illegitimate. During the shah we had the same restrictions. We had to vote for the Englab-e Sefid and Hezb Iran-e Novin fearing that we would be denied passports and jobs if we did not have the mohr that we had voted in our shenaasnaameh. The members of Majles were hand-picked and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Shahan and the Sun of the Aryans was UNELECTED (BTW, nobody was allowed to call HIM "Aga Reza" either.
I do have some points of agreement with you when it comes to the use of excessive rhetoric and appearing as "kaashe daagh tar az aash" when it comes to the Palestinian problem. Obviously Iran is using that to pressure Israel into giving up the idea that Israel, and only Israel, must be the strongest country in the ME and all others with any aspiration to power and independence for the US hegemony must be demonized and opposed politically, economically and militarily. In other words no uppity Moslems are allowed in Israel/US region of influence. Iran contrary to what you want us to believe has numerous admires and supporters in the world, and you're welcome to call them whatever you want.
I'm sorry you have been "looked down upon" or dissed by "most of the world". Maybe you should ask yourself what you have done to be treated that way. My experience has been very different. I tell everyone who asks that I am from Iran and I have not been looked down upon or dissed, except by very few idiots. Have you thought about changing you cologne? :)

Mola Nasredeen

Mr. FK what is your position on Palestinians Issue?

by Mola Nasredeen on

1. What would you do if you were a fundamentalist catholic and muslims had occupied Vatican? Have you forgotten what Vatican did to muslims when they invaded Spain? Muslims were annihilated. Have you ever thought of that?

2. If you were a fundamentalist catholic what would be your feelings if you saw on TV or read in the papres  the daily humiliation of fellow catholics. Catholics being killed, their land confiscated and run out of their home. Replace the word catholics with Palestinians/muslims and you may see differently.

2. Have you ever thought of the role that people's beliefs and religion plays in politics?

3. Do you understand the meaning of a "clerical regime"? Iran has a clerical government and their words and actions are based on their beliefs when it comes to Palestine and "Al Ghods". Do you understand the importance of this city in the Islamic world?

4. And finally what's your position on Palestinians Issue?