News

Parham jan,

Our internal affairs are just of our business.

I, personally don't believe that cheshm abi-ha using an Iranian flag as avatar or a fox tail say, that their propagandas on this site or elsewhere are for the interest of Iranians.

Now that it comes apparent that AIPAC wants Ahmadinejad as president, I'll try my best to create a network against the re-election of Mahmoud, the converted Zionist to Islam.

Good points Q

Unfortunately Fred doesn't seem to have an answer for you.

I also agree that not only Fred, a few other readers on this side use Iran as an excuse to promote Israeli interest. 

another way of getting to the bottom line is to ask,

IF the Islamic Republic remains exactly the same but makes peace with Israel and they become best friends, would many of these individuals still voice their opposition to the Islamic Republic?

Islamists’ priorities

In order to be able to sell his typical Islamist demagogic analogy, the resident Islamist has to super scrub clean the historical memory cache of Iranians.

 Thirty years of raping, maiming, murdering, plundering of Iranians and having them go without in order to fatten up the terrorist proxies do not count as understanding and safeguarding  the Iranian national interests. Islamists’ priorities lay elsewhere.

On Fred's "allegiances"

Fred, your words betray you, brother. There's more to your allegiance with AIPAC and the constant repeating of its talking points than "Iran's interest."

AIPAC does not care about Iran, nor has it claimed so. It would just as soon there be no Iran, or it be split up. It doesn't even care about Israel or the US. At this point, it is a self-perpetuating money laundering operation designed to keep the flow of aid and weapons sales to Israel. Numerous scholarly books have said as much.

But you say "Yes" to being pro-AIPAC only because you say it's interests are in line with Iran. And you admit this might be temporary. Well, I have a couple of questions for you:

If the interests of Hezbollah were to be aligned with Iran, would you say "Yes" to them as well? Whatabout the interests of HAMAS or Saudi Arabia? What about Russia or China? Remember I said "IF".

Let me spare you the uncomfortable BS'ing that is about to come. The answer to my questions is "NO" you would not side with any of "those" organizations. Why? Because it's not about Iran's interests with you, it is about your own interests in Israel. You obviously hold AIPAC in some kind of moral high esteem, above and beyond the "interests of Iran." Any kid can see that from your writings.

You and unfortunately too many other Kalimi brothers and sisters have been emotionally manipulated by endless pro Israel propaganda. You are past the point of thinking clearly even about your own true allegiances.

According to anyone with a brain (see for example here: //www.juancole.com/2009/05/obama-netanyahu-mu... ) it is the interests of the US that are currently congruent with those of Iran in the region, much to the detriment of Israel and AIPAC. Yet you seem to think AIPAC somehow has Iran's interests in mind?

Haj

No evolution. Just turning around in a circle.
And I'm not his/her attorney or anything, but Hamsade didn't say that.

Hamsede or AF or ...

You come to say it yourself, before Khatami there was a single hardliner movement inside the regime and after Khatami the political forces officially splited into two reformist and conservative parties. That’s called evolution

Khamenei belongs to one of the Oosoolgaryian party so he and all of his folks in Shorayeh Neghahban are afraid of the reformist movement, as reforms represent a real treat to their existence. That’s why they have been so harsh against reformists since 4 years and even before.

The purpose of the upcoming elections bypasses the question of democracy in Iran. Though, I think that the only solution to our problems is the continuation of these slow evolutions.

The purpose of the upcoming elections is to STOP AHMADINEJAD to be RE-ELECTED ONCE AGAIN. His re-election represents a real danger to our country and peace in the region.

Right on Hamsade :-)

You can say that again and again!

to ostaad

first of all, let me thank you for not using slurs in response to my comment which is all i’ve gotten since i’ve commented on this issue on this site in the past several days (since i’ve joined).  i did not say that "long lines of voters prove that iranians understand the democratic process and take it seriously."  to "show" a point is not the same as proving a point.  the only times that i’ve used to terms prove or proof has been in mathematical exercises.  i believe this is a pre-emptive strategy by those in power in iran to show (or demonstrate) that there is democracy in iran. it's no wonder that khamenei touts that there has been more than 30 election in iran in the past 30 years (his recent speech in mashhad).  The last time that i was in iran i witnessed the apathy first-hand; that’s why the article resonated with me.  the article showed both interest and disinterest in participating in the election.  and in my opinion, iranian people are keen to learn about the politics of their country; hence, they’re politically aware (in agreement with your statement) even though the iranian media (not of their own choice) is biased.

the apathy stems from the fact that iranians have tried to send a “strong” signal before to the ruling class by casting their ballots in the national elections: two times when they voted for khamenei’s stooge and kin, khatami.  the apathy stems from their frustration with the so-called “reform” movement since many people paid a heavy price (e.g. consequence of the student uprising, closing of newspapers, jailing of editors, killing of journalists and dissidents, etc.) when they thought that khatami was genuinely different than hardliners and that he would support them in their struggle for easing restrictions (khatami’s campaign promise).  the people’s frustration was compounded when khamenei and the council, on a whim, disqualified scores of reform candidates prior to the parliamentary elections of 2004 and the reform presidential candidate until two weeks before the general election in 2005.  it showed what a farce this whole election “business” is.

i think that the next president has already been selected.  to think that i should hold my nose and vote for the opponent of ahmadinejad implies that i think my vote is actually going to be counted.  the other possibility is that i know that my vote is not counted a priori but still think that it would send a strong signal to the ruling class.  as i’ve already mentioned, this action has already been exercised by the Iranian people in 1997 and 2001 to no effect.  some comments on this site imply that boycotting the election is doing nothing.  i think not, and believe that to vote is to continue the voting charade in iran and to indicate that the current voting mechanism is the correct vehicle in sending "signals" to the regime.

by the way, i don’t know fred but i do know jose. :)

Fred,

Two things

1- It is not in the interest of the Iranian nation to be attacked. A WAR WILL CAUSE PAIN FOR NOTHING. I can prove it to you by 1 + 1 = 2 that a war will strengthen the grip of the regime over the iranian population and that more hateful guys than Mahmoud will come to power without that our nuclear program get damaged.... So please get out of AIPAC which is working hard on the issue since merely one year.

1- I'm not an islamist and think that both nations of Iran and Israel (I'm not talking about Netanyaboo, ... or AIPAC warmongers) have much more in common than Iran and all other arab countries in the region.

Parham

There are many who look beyond the current ruinous Palestine-centric policies of the Islamist republic and do recognize the vital interests of the two states of Iran and Israel as nearly identical.

Both states are surrounded by common rabid enemies who are hell-bent on their destruction. Both nations share amicable historical/cultural relationships as well as strategic, economical and diplomatic outlook. 

 The AIPAC lobby is after safeguarding the vital interests of the state of Israel, it so happens that they do coincide neatly with those of the Iranian nation as opposed to those of the Islamist republic.

The AIPAC lobby has correctly recognized that the Islamist republic is a mortal danger to the stability of the region, safety of the state of Israel and many Iranians who are under the yoke of the Islamist republic too do consider IRI as their mortal enemy.

 It is not a coincidence that all Islamists, their allies, benefactors and lobbies consider AIPAC as their nemesis. 

Therefore the answer to your question is, you bet with a caveat. Should the time come when the national interests of Iran and Israel do not coincide, the AIPAC lobby can most definitely count me out.  

Yeah right

Scare them from the Israelis.

oh Please!

What exactly is wrong with urging people to go out and vote? It happens in every country. Every politician says it, assuming larger turnout will benefit them. This debate is silly.

Haji is right that Ahmadinejad is the best thing that has happened to Israeli right wing in decades and they will do anything to make sure he wins again. They can't justify bombing or embargo if it looks like Iran is rejecting Mahmoud.

Voter apathy in general is a much bigger issue in Western countries, some even have penalties for failure to vote. Does that mean their systems are less legitimate than Iran?

hamsade, pictures don't prove there's democracy in Iran and...

I think that is quite clear by now. But long lines for voters do prove that Iranians understand the democratic process and take it seriously. The article that Fred is using to prove there's political apathy in Iran certainly does not show there's such apathy among the voters. What it does show is there's difference of opinions about the subject, and that by itself indicates interests and political awareness.

The mollahs don't need to "tweak" anything, because they have setup the system that it will always produce the "right" result. The issue is whether boycotting the elections sends a strong signal to the ruling akhonds that they lack legitimacy, something Fred keeps harking.The answer is no way jose. Boycotting ensures the incumbent, in the case Ahmadinejad, will win.

I hate making predictions, but I hazzard one that Mousavi will be the next prez. 

hamsade ghadimi

You can say that again! :-)

Fred

Are you pro-AIPAC?

let them eat cake

there's nothing more the mullahs want than a great turnout.  they're ready to publish photos of lines of people at the polling booths inside and outside the coutnry to show the world that iran has a democracy.  and the mullahs are not too worried about results as they can always tweak it to make it just "right."  the gov't will end up bussing people and the friday prayer mullahs will continue to urge people to vote to prove that point.  as the "rahbar" said in his "get out and vote" tour: "a great turnout for the iranian election will be a slap to the face of the western nations."  while some argue voting will eventually bring about democracy, one can counter that voting is meaningless without a democratic process.  one cannot discount the apathy of iranians living in iran toward the elections.

‫بله، چه جورم که حوصله دارم

When you see that AIPAC is preparing the ground for an Israeli strike to Iran, you understand why a non-iranian, AIPAC guy, like Fred is so concerned that people don’t think about elections, thus increasing the chance of Ahmadinejad to be re-elected. With Ahmadinejad, a Jewish converted to Islam and a hateful rhetoric, people all around the globe except arabs agree that Iran is a dangerous nation, so a war is indispensable.

Thanks

Thanks for this. One has a tendency to think there's a war out there concerning the elections. There isn't really.