nepal_Monarchy_separatists

Dear Dr. Adhikari,

I came upon your article, “Nepali Congress under Koirala: The Great Betrayal”, by accident while checking for the most recent articles, published worldwide, which make reference to the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Interestingly enough, I saw that a reference was made in a Nepalese website, a country which, as the following search may attest, is of some interest to me:

http://sarbazekuchak.blogspot.com/search?q=nepal

I do not pretend to be familiar with the intricacies of Nepalese politics, but as one of the millions of Iranian victims of the 1979 Islamist Reaction, and a living witness of what befell my country in the name of “freedom” and “democracy”, I am familiar with the causes and consequences of the tragic and disastrous event to which you make reference, and hope that this brief note regarding one of the most humiliating chapters in my nation’s history will be well received, especially as you appear patriotic and clearly seem to value Nepal’s independence and sovereignty.

While taking the liberty to make slight alterations in the first of two paragraphs for the sake of objectivity (unlike the BBC, I do not believe the Shah “fled” Iran) and clarity, I quote,

Twenty-eight years before, in 1979, when the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, had [left] his country following months of violent protests against his regime, many democrats and liberals thought that the roadblock to democracy has finally been set aside. In fact, just as G. P. Koirala betrayed King Gyanendra and most of the commoners of Nepal, Dr Shapur Bahktiar, the man who [the] Shah had appointed as Prime Minister just one month before [his departure], too had disingenuously forced [the King] to leave the country.

The person, who the increasing number of violent clashes between security forces and anti-Shah demonstrators established in power, was Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini. With the support of the liberals and commies, very much like the support of the imperfect ‘loktantrabadis’ of Nepal to the Maoists, Khomeini finally came to assert control over the course leading to a revolutionary Islamic Council to replace what he called the "illegal government" of Iran. Whatever little democracy the Iranians had during the period of Shah has become a dream for the people since then. After all, democracy is a process not a product, and no Khomeini can ensure it – whether he creates a constitution through his religious decree, or a constituent assembly under the shadow of bloodhounds and separatists.

To begin with, the statement that with the Shah’s departure, “many democrats and liberals thought that the roadblock to democracy has finally been set aside”, suggests that Iranian democrats and liberals, if not the actual participants in the revolution, had looked forward to seeing the Shah’s departure and welcomed the “revolution”, when in fact even before His Majesty’s departure, while the violent demonstrations were taking place, the democrats and liberals, many of whom worked for the government, had warned of the consequences if such a “revolution” were to occur. The Islamist Reaction, contrary to what is said by its sponsors, was neither democratic nor liberal, and Iranian democrats and liberals not only played no part in it (unless Islamists, fascists and American, European or Soviet mercenaries can be thought of as democrats and liberals), they were in fact its very targets. No Iranian that could be called a democrat or a liberal thought that, with the Shah’s departure, the roadblock to democracy “has finally been set aside.” On the contrary! Having warned against the Islamist Reaction, and predicted its consequences, they knew that the nation’s very independence had been lost, never mind that a “roadblock to democracy” (an absurd way of putting it, given the nature of the criminal republican regime that took over) had been created!

Interestingly, of the liberal democrats, one was Prime Minister Shapur Bahktiar himself. Here, there are Iranians who do speak of his disingenuousness, but I personally do not, and consider the view itself to be disingenuous. He was a Monarchist, and bravely accepted the Shah’s request in face of violent and lunatic opposition from his own party. Dr. Bakhtiar’s desire that the Shah leave Iran was only a last attempt to save Iran from self-immolation, and should not be viewed as a reflection of a supposed disingenuity.

He was assassinated some years later by the French secret service, with murderers from HezbAllah (Party of God) doing the actual killing.

Good luck to you, and may the people of Nepal never succumb to the plots cooked up by the enemies of your country’s independence.

Khorshid

Elections in the Islamic Republic of Occupied Iran

On the Elections in the Islamic Republic of Occupied Iran

Picture, if you will, France under the occupation of Nazi Germany. Now imagine a group of French citizens who, having escaped from France with their lives, are in London collectively working to “free” their country. Would the first and only goal of these patriots be to free their nation from Nazi occupation, or, Nazi Germany not being a democracy, to chide the Germans for not allowing free local elections in France?

As instinctively as one may answer that question, and the answer is quite obvious, there are, however, those who would dismiss what has in fact been a rule, in favor of their own notion of history, democracy and what is and is not occupation.

In the case of Iran, for an international media that for some 3 decades has misinformed the public on the nature of the Islamic Republic, that has vilified the Shah of Iran and the Iranian Monarchy for much longer (to the point of our King’s designation as the most villainous rulers of all time), or one which continues to designate Islamic gangsters, opportunists and agents as “moderates” and “conservatives” or “philosophers” and “pragmatists”, all with the double aim of the Republic’s legitimization and prolongation, clearly “democracy” is to precede independence and liberation.

Thus, the international media may continue to paint a “democratic” picture of the Islamic Republic through its coverage of these latest elections, much like how it, through its coverage of the nuclear issue, transformed the regime, in the eyes of many, including many ignorant Iranians, into “a hero standing up to the west!”

But to Iranians such as myself, whose voice is hardly ever heard, Iranians who do not lend legitimacy to an anti-Iranian regime by participating in its elections, however “democratic” or “not quite democratic” in the eyes of the international media they may be, any consideration besides independence is absurd.

bbc-independence

:بی بی سی هم تأكيد ميكند
استقلال ايران، از بركات انقلاب اسلامی بوده است

"We have forgotten that Khomeini's revolution was also a declaration of independence from British and American control...Now, thanks to several different factors, Iran has suddenly reached a new level of power and influence."

.گفتم "هم" چون پيش از اين به اين دروغ بزرگ اشاره كرده بودم

Manoke Khodabakhshian may sing the praises of Afshin Molavi as a young "Iranian" working for the benefit of Iran, as he does with the Reza Aslan, of the "Islamic Republic is a democracy" fame, but then again Manoke is, according to himself at least, an informed commentator.

I wish to thank Sheda Vasseghi for her vigilance, her commitment to independence and freedom for our occupied motherland, and for sending me the following. Thank you dear Sheda.


A response to Afshin Molavi, the author of “Our Allies in Iran,” The New York Times, Final, Section A, p. 27, col. 1, Nov. 3, 2005

By: Sheda Vasseghi

I am a little late for this response, but better late than never. I cannot comprehend why individuals from whom we have higher expectations continue to write such misleading articles depicting members of the Islamic Republic as “democrats” and “reformists.”

The only allies the free world has in Iran are its people. However, 27 years of oppression, torture, and injustice has left the people inept to cope with such a bloodthirsty, backwards, and inhumane regime which rules by the Shari’a laws and has no tolerance for anything democratic or secular. The jails are filled with political prisoners and thousands have been assassinated by the Islamic Republic agents both in Iran and abroad. So how can sanctions by the western countries isolate a “democratic power” that does not exist?

Ahmadinejad was not “elected” by the people. His appearance on the scene is a direct sign that within that regime there is a fight for power – the traditional mullahs versus the Islamic militia. Mr. Molavi is quite aware of the election process in Iran and should know that its core and basis is not democratic, let alone the final results. Candidates must first obtain approval from a non-elected body called the Negahban Committee and only Shi’a muslim men can run for presidency. From the 1000 candidates during the 2005 elections, only seven were allowed to run one of which was Ahmadinejad. What is Mr. Molavi talking about?

Ex-president Khatami was not a reformist. He is a corrupt, smooth-talking mullah like the rest of the regime’s men – Khamanei, Rafsanjani, Mesbah Yazdi, and Moin – who bought time for the Islamic Republic by fooling liberal westerners and hopeful Iranians. Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us!

There should be no dealings with this regime. There can be no real change or reform in Iran until the dictatorship theocracy is gone. There can be no human rights, economic growth, social freedom, and future for Iranians until this terrorist-breeding regime is destroyed. It is reassuring to see that much has changed in the past two months and the Islamic Republic has been condemned by public opinion worldwide.

The revolution of 1979 occurred because Iranians were influenced by a group of bitter and irresponsible political activists endorsing Khomeini. Mr. Molavi claims that “the authoritarian theocracy that followed was not the aspiration of middle-class Iranian revolutionaries, who lost the post-revolution power struggle to supporters of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.” As a child who witnessed the revolution, I remember the popular slogan by the demonstrators – “independence, freedom, and Islamic republic.” Around September 1978, we began to hear Khomeini’s name as the leader of the movement and soon thereafter the revolution was carried out in his name. The main secular opposition group at the time representing the “middle-class” Iranians – Jebheyeh Meli -- was led by individuals such as Dr. Kareem Sanjabi, who in 1979 during an interview with the BBC stated that “…Khomeini is the type of personality that may take hundreds of years for a man of his status and caliber to appear in a society and I, as a representative of Jebheyeh Meli, ask the people of Iran to honor such a great person…” and he was certain if free elections were held, Iranians who are 98% Muslim would vote for a government based on Islam. In another interview, Dr. Sanjabi claimed that the mullahs do not want to be direct rulers but rather the monitoring body. These are only a couple of examples as to what the representatives of the middle-class Iranians were saying to their followers during the most pathetic time in Iranian history. It is even more important to note that statements such as these were made while the late Shah was still in Iran and in power.

No one disputes that the Pahlavi regime made mistakes, but if Mr. Molavi calls the late Shah a dictator, it is beyond me to understand how he can call Khatami a reformist. The torture and crimes the Iranians have faced by the agents of the Islamic Republic are in no form comparable with the Pahlavi regime. These acts against humanity were committed by the Islamic Republic under Khatami’s watch and will continue as long as the mullahs are in charge. He is not a reformist, mullahs are not reformists, religious fanatics are not reformists, and the Islamic Republic representatives are not reformists. It is indeed an irony that a handpicked revolutionary guard like Ahmadinejad was exactly what Iranians needed at this crucial time in history, because people like Mr. Molavi can no longer present these barbaric and backward agents as “reformists.”

Mr. Molavi will probably argue that he is a journalist and not an activist. Well, journalists are bound by duty to research all aspects of a subject and report it in its entirety without personal thoughts. If they give opinions, then their work is not a product of neutral journalists. Mr. Molavi clearly gives political advice regarding policies towards the Islamic Republic and cannot hide under the journalist umbrella. As such, his article is inaccurate and biased to the benefit of the current regime.

The only way Iran has a chance at becoming a secular, democratic, thriving nation is to bring down the current regime. There is no room for reforms, negotiations, or business dealings as long as the clerics and the basijis are in charge of that country. The people of Iran learned their lesson at a heavy cost and wish for the clerics to return to their mosques where they belong. Since 9/11, the West also learned painful and unforgettable lessons from tolerating and ignoring Islamic militants. The Islamic Republic must and will collapse.

Iran's democratic voice?

Iran's "democratic" voice?!

A few weeks ago I asked on a bulletin board whether any of my compatriots had written to Time Magazine protesting its designation of Abdolkarim Soroush, the lunatic Islamist hand-picked by Ayatollah Khomeini to butcher the Iranian culture by "cleansing" it of Pahlavism and other sins, as one of its 100 “thinkers” of 2005 and “Iran’s democratic voice”.

As the head of Shoraye Aliye Enghelab-e Farhangi (The High Council for the Cultural Revolution), whose charter he had himself co-authored, he was put in charge and trusted by Khomeini to purge Iranian universities of ideas, and persons, deemed dangerous to the Islamic Republic and Islamist ideology.

Below I’ve translated the charter of the High Council for the Cultural Revolution. I ask again, should he be recognized as “Iran’s democratic voice”, or should he be tried for crimes against humanity? To those who know Soroush, and most Iranians do, Time Magazine’s recognition of him as a prominent “thinker” would be equivalent to the recognition of Joseph Mengele as a prominent doctor. To read the original go to the Islamic Republic of anti-Iran’s “iranculture.org”. Incidentally, some 75% of this charter on “reforming” Iranian culture, written by Soroush and other anti-Iranians after they had toppled the Iranian government, is composed using Arabic words and terms!


Charter of the High Council for the Cultural Revolution

(Manshoor-e Shora-ye Ali-ye Enghelab-e Farhangi)

Goals:

1. Expansion of Islamic culture and its influence, invigoration of the Cultural Revolution and elevation of public culture.

2. Purification of scientific and cultural environments of materialistic thought, and banishment of signs and manifestations of westoxification from the cultural atmosphere of society.

3. Transformation of universities, schools, cultural and arts centers in accordance with correct Islamic culture, and their expansion and empowerment, as much as possible, for the training of dedicated specialists, Islamic scholars, intellectual and patriotic minds, active and professional forces, professors, trainers and teachers committed to Islam and the country’s independence.

4. Expansion of literacy, and the empowerment and growth of the spirit of thinking, scientific learning and research, and utilizing the beneficial achievements and experiences of human knowledge in order to achieve scientific and cultural independence.

5. Preservation, restoration and sponsorship of Islamic and national works and sites.

6. Dissemination of the cultural ideas and effects of the Islamic revolution; creation and consolidation of cultural ties with other countries, especially with Islamic peoples.

Duties:

1. Compiling the principles of the cultural policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and setting goals and policies in the areas of education, research, culture, and the social arena.

2. Analyzing the world’s cultural circumstances and currents, explaining the effectiveness of institutes and other important devices in this area and the adoption of appropriate policies.

3. Examination and analysis of cultural, ethical, and social currents in the nation in order to determine points of strength and weakness and suggest appropriate solutions.

4. Examination of models of development, evaluation of the cultural effects and ramifications of programs and policies of political, economic and social development, and suggesting reforms to respective authorities.

5. To Clarify and determine the quantitative and qualitative guidelines for the assessment of the cultural condition of the country.

6. Evaluation and assessment of the country’s culture, education and research.

7. To compile and ratify the country’s basic policies of propaganda.

8. Preparation and collection of university rules and regulations proportionate to the Islamic regime and designing plans for its achievement.

9. Setting the policy for the country’s system of education and higher learning.

10. To draft and ratify appropriate plans in order to strengthen and promote religious propaganda and to support public activism, especially the revival and development of mosques.

11. To draft and ratify plans of finding means to create healthy and constructive social relations and to reform and to fix what is considered “unrefined”.

12. To draft and ratify the necessary policies and programs for developing and invigorating religious, spiritual, cultural beliefs and affiliations in society, and to expand the culture of chastity. [“Efaf”]

13. To set the policy and ratify appropriate plans to expand the spirit of commitment and cultural obligation in society, and to encourage people’s participation in the various cultural, political and revolutionary scenes.

14. Understanding vital intellectual needs and drafting the necessary programs for the activities of intellectuals, and utilizing the university and the Assembly’s [“Hoze”] research potentials to address those needs.

15. To draft and ratify appropriate plans to identify and expose manifestations, channels and methods of cultural assault by enemies against the foundations of Islamic and revolutionary thought, culture and values and to design the necessary methods and policies to repel them.

16. Design and preparation of special plans for the identification, attraction and intellectual exaltation of exceptional individuals, and the scientific and spiritual training and education of shining talents in order to exploit their abilities, innovations and creativity.

17. To prepare and ratify plans and projects involving cooperation between Assembly and university in science, education and areas of research.

18. To design appropriate policies to correct (on the basis of the sublime teachings of Islam) society’s perception of the rank and status of women, and to compile efficient methods to consolidate the institution of the family and exhibit the model of the Moslem woman.

19. To set the policy on the compilation of textbooks, and setting the criteria for the publication of book, and artistic and cultural productions.

20. Setting the policy on and bringing to order the country’s information dissemination system and its supervision.

21. To draft and ratify the cultural standards of policies regarding tourism and pilgrimage.

22. To ratify the general standards and policies regarding the expansion of scientific, academic and cultural relations with other countries.

23. To take positions, on the international level, regarding cultural distortions against Islam and the Islamic Republic.

24. Ratifying the standards for founding scientific and cultural institutions and research centers, academies, universities and centers of higher education, the constitution of each, and revision of the constitution of the identical institutions as the occasion arises.

25. Ratifying general standards for the selection of presidents, professors and teachers, and students of universities and academic and cultural centers, and the placement of each.

Note: The secretaries of the departments of Culture and Health send presidential candidates for universities to this Council for confirmation.

26. Setting the policy on the eradication of illiteracy

27. To determine the source of authority for the presentation, compilation and approval of cultural, educational, scientific and academic programs.

28. Supervision and continuous oversight over the enforcement of the ratified laws and regulations of the High Council for the Cultural Revolution, assessment of results and assistance in their enforcement, and also supervision over the correspondence of educational, academic and cultural plans and programs---implemented by ministries, institutes and organizations---with the standards set by regulations and guidelines.

independence-rafsanjani

"مفتخريم كه مستقل ترين كشور دنيا هستيم"

هاشمي رفسنجاني

+

++

islamists on the Shah of Iran and independence

محمدرضا نقدی رئيس "سازمان بسيج مستضعفين" با اشاره به دوران "رژيم" پهلوی گفت: "مملكت در آن زمان زير سلطه استكبار و بيگانه بود، حتی كوچكترين تصميمات كشورنيز از سوی ابرقدرت‌ها اتخاذ می‌شد، اما به بركت انقلاب اسلامی امروز ملت ايران بر قله ايستاده است و با حفظ استقلال خود پيام‌های اسلام را برای بشريت آورده است."

+

Neda Agha-Soltan-Paula B. Slater-San Francisco-united4iran-hejab

"اتحاد (اربابان) برای ايران" و تنديس ساز آمريكائی
از آخرين هنرهای جنبش سبزالله را ارائه ميدهند:


"مجسمهء" ندا، با حجاب اسلامی،
در روبروی شهرداری سانفرانسيسكو



+

Dear Ms. Slater,

I’m writing to you regarding your newly made sculptural portrait of Neda in San Francisco.

The very fact that you care, and are moved and inspired by what is happening in Iran is greatly commendable. But dear madam, either you have been misinformed as to who Neda was, or are the victim of disinformation by the supporters of Islamic regime and its US lobbyists, which for the past weeks have been spending hundreds of millions of dollars in support of the reactionary Islamo-green movement. Are you aware that unlike the Islamo-greens who legitimized the regime by voting for one Islamic clan against another, Neda, whom you’ve portrayed covered with a Hejab, did not even participate in the regime’s elections?

Since the fall of the Iranian government and the establishment of the Islamic Republic, thousands of Iranians like Neda have been raped, tortured and murdered by the puppet regime and what the media is passing off as Iran’s “reformists” leaders and “activists”. Thousands are being used as sex slaves in the Sheikdoms surrounding the Persian Gulf, as I write. Many have been burnt with acid and mutilated because they did not fully comply with Islamic laws regarding the Hejab. And all this before Ahmadinejad set foot in the presidential office, “hijacking” what supporters of the regime, today parading in green, call “Islamic democracy”.

But Neda, as a symbol, has far greater significance than that of a lonely cry against the theocratic regime in Iran. Have you not heard of the plight of Afghan, and more recently, Iraqi women?

Neda, more than a cry for Iran’s independence and secularism, is a symbol and a cry against political Islam itself.

Ms. Slater, as the clay bust on display now is presently being cast in bronze, I simply ask that you reconsider the form of Neda’s portrait. As an Iranian exile, as one of the countless victims of the Islamic Republic and its beneficiaries abroad, I ask that you portray our Neda without the Hejab. Do not freeze her in time covered with a rag that she, and millions like her, hated and reject.

If women under Islamist regimes must live in misery, without even the simplest right of choosing what they wear, a right which you yourself enjoy, then please help us let them die in peace.

Most Respectfully Yours,

Khorshid (SarbazeKuchak blog)

Kazem Alamdari independence

"مردم ایران بیش از صد سال است که برای آزادی و استقلال مبارزه کرده اند و دو انقلاب خونین را پشت سرنهاده اند. این خواست بنیادین دو دشمن داشته است. یکی استبداد ریشه دار داخلی، و دومی که آنهم متکی به عامل اولی، نفوذ و تحریکات خارجی است. حد اقل می توان گفت که در ٣٣ سال گذشته عامل دوم درایران وجود نداشته و ایران کشوری مستقل بوده است. پس چرا آزادی بدست نیامد؟ زیرا، تنها حکومت مستقل بوده، و ..."

در اينكه ايران دورهء پهلوی استقلال نداشته، و "استقلال" از دستآوردهای جمهوری اسلامی بوده شكی نيست: تنها كافيست نگاه كنيد به تبليغات رسانه های غرب در باره "ايستادگی" جمهوری مستقل اسلامی در برابر امپرياليزم، آنهم همزمان با تبديل شدن خليج پارس به خليج عمو سام. با اين وجود، از اين آگاهی كه چاقوكشهای تحصيل كردهء آمريكا و انگليس در انتقام ٥٧ برای آزادی و استقلال مبارزه، و همان راه جنبش مشروطه را دنبال ميكردند از مِستِر کاظم علمداری متشكريم.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran gives statement on oil ownership at OPEC conference: Tehran; 25 January 1971


"Buyers" of what they regard as theirs? The global mafia, of course, wanted none of that. They had for years regarded the Iranian King as a threat.* And so began a world-wide campaign of the vilification of the Shah, a campaign led by self-described “leftists” and “liberals”. Vilification is actually an understatement, for the Shah was turned into the Devil himself. That is why, while Chomsky’s friends were massacring hundreds of thousands in Cambodia, the Shah of Iran was singled out by Amnesty International as the “world’s number one violator of human rights.” I mention Cambodia only, because in Apartheid South Africa, Red China, Uganda, Zaire, Middle East and Latin America,… the governments there were singing of brotherly love, while others were preoccupied with dropping flowers on Vietnam.)

In this context, it is also not so difficult to see why Iran’s celebration of Her own 2500 years of history, which followed this conference some nine months later, was viciously characterized and ridiculed by individuals of the same camp, and anti-Iranians in general, as the self-aggrandizement of a “low-born Cossack”, or the “comical showing off” of a “self-serving” son of an “illiterate mule driver”.

Incidentally, this last, in reference to Reza Shah the Great, Father of Mohammad Reza Shah, is still fashionable among some “Iranian intellectuals”, Islamist and (not surprisingly) western-educated alike. In fact I recently heard it used by a sympathizer of the Fadayeen Khalq Organization. Interestingly enough, Fadayeen Khalq, a terrorist organization self-styled as "Marxist", was founded in 1971.


*It is not a secret that, years before this conference, John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, was actively planning to topple the Shah. I mention parenthetically that the across-the-board absence of any reference at all to Kennedy’s intentions (and by implication those of his ilk in the Democratic, and Republican, Party) is, on one hand, to prevent any cracks in the not so meticulously constructed image of a man who cared for nothing more than his nation’s prosperity as a “US puppet”, an image which continues to be propagated to this day, and on the other, and in a broader context, to continue to provide foreign agents then acting the part of “opposition”, with some justification for the 1979 Reaction which, Allah Be Praised, brought Iranians their “independence”!! It is, nevertheless, mentioned by the Honorable William Orville Douglas, the US Supreme Court Associate Justice, in his autobiography.

pasdaran Iran Pahlavi independence

جانشين فرمانده سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی گفت: "کشورهای استعماگر غربي پيش از انقلاب شکوهمند اسلامی، از ايران و ظرفيت های عظيم آن به عنوان پلی برای پيروزی و تحقق اهداف سلطه گرانه خود استفاده می کردند." به گزارش خبرنگار ايرنا، سردار "حسين سلامی" روز چهارشنبه در همايش بزرگ "حماسه ماندگار" افزود: "کشورهای غربی منابع ايران را به غارت می بردند و نفت و منابع غنی انرژی کشور، عامل رشد و توسعه صنعت در غرب شده بود." وی با اشاره به دوران حاکميت طاغوت در ايران اظهار داشت: "در آن دوران سرنوشت ايران و ايرانيان به دست گروهی غارتگر رقم مي خورد و نام ايران را بايد در لايه های تاريخ انگليس و آمريکا جستجو مي کرديم." وی با اشاره به اينکه اداره امور ايران براساس منافع و مطامع سياست های منطقه ای آمريکا بود، تصريح کرد: "در دوران حکومت پهلوی، استقلال، آزادی، ارزشهای اخلاقی، انسانی و اسلامی، مفاهيم زيبا و جذاب خود را از دست داده بودند." جانشين فرمانده کل سپاه گفت: "با پيروزی شکوهمند انقلاب اسلامی و در سايه حکومت اسلام و ولايت فقيه، مفاهيم ارزشمند استقلال، افتخار، امنيت، آرامش و اقتدار در کشور زنده و تفسير شد."

+

isa saharkhiz - independence - عيسى سحرخيز - socialistworker - استقلال

"پس از انقلاب ١٩٧٩، ايران يك استقلال نسبی به دست آورده!"

عيسى سحرخيز؛
گفتگو با نشريه "كارگر سوسياليست"! (انگلستان)
١١ مارس ٢٠٠٨

---خيلی، ماشاالله!!!

+

رفسنجاني: "مفتخريم كه مستقل ترين كشور دنيا هستيم"
بی بی سی: استقلال ايران، از بركات انقلاب اسلامی بوده است

"Iran Hawks Reorganize"-Laura Rozen-aei-ledeen-fakhravar

Yes Ms. Rozen. It does sound familiar. But with all due respect, for an Iranian such as myself it evokes something perhaps slightly different than what you may have in mind.

For you see, if the public’s now almost instinctive aversion towards any undertaking associated with the “hawks” can be taken for granted, it seems to me one should also consider the possibility that charades such as this are resorted to precisely in order to counter that public’s sympathy towards the victims and opponents of the Islamist regime.

Furthermore, had you considered the kind of “regime change” envisioned by the named US “hawks”, it would have become apparent that Iranians themselves could not regard these characters as partners in a common cause, especially those so-called “neo-conservatives” playing the “ethnic” card.

In short, the Iranian people’s struggle for the independence of their nation from the Islamist regime will remain just, open and needless of questionable activities despite all efforts by those (including the counterfeit "opposition")who wish to discredit it by showcasing it as a neo-conservative agenda.

independence

!استقلال ايران، از بركات انقلاب اسلامی

"نخستين و مهم ترين نکته ای که از نظر من می بايست موکدا مورد پافشاری قرار داد، استقلال سياسی جمهوری اسلامی است. شعار محوری انقلاب ايران در سال 1357 استقلال – آزادی بود، و امروزه می توان به جرئت اعلام کرد که اگر چه آزادی هيچگاه حاصل انقلاب بهمن 1357 نبود، اما رژيمِ سياسی سربرآورده از اين انقلاب عميقا مستقل بوده و هيچ نشانی از وابستگی سياسی و فرمانبریِ سيستماتيک در حکومت کنونی ايران يافت نمی شود."

گويا ...و "پيك ايران"...

اينكه جمهوری بيگانه و اشغالگر اسلامی در وابستگی خود به اربابان از قاجارها هم سبقت گرفته يا نگرفته به داوری خودتان. فقط يكی به من بگه كه بالاخره اين "شعار محوری انقلاب" چه بود!!!

Let your views on Iran’s territorial integrity known

If we’re not going to have any demonstrations, and we don’t when they do count, we might as well sign this petition:


[We the undersigned], view Iran's territorial integrity to be paramount above all and strongly condemn any policies or entities that seeks to harm Iran's territorial cohesion.

The American president has gone so far as to unequivocally state that "America believes in the independence and territorial integrity of Iran"‌ and it is therefore regretful to hear that a credible and well-known think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute, has organized a conference on Iran where the panelists are all separatists.

We hope the American Enterprise Institute takes greater care when organizing conferences that seek to infringe upon Iran's territory.

We urge AEI, as a token of respect for Iranians and to help clarify its position that it does not seek to instigate or promote secession in Iran, by only having the Iran Lion and Sun flag on display as the only Iranian flag present at the conference cited above.


Very good, short, and concise. Thanks to an anonymous visitor for the link.

Incidentally, do you remember that very famous passage from Silver Blaze?

``Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?''
``To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.''
``But the dog did nothing in the night-time!''
``That was the curious incident.''

Well, considering how they singled out and continuously attacked US neo-conservatives for pushing for regime change in Iran, don’t you find it rather curious that of the innumerable “Iranian news and analysis” websites (take your pick), particularly the "left-leaning" ones, so far there has been no serious “efshagari” or criticism, of American Enterprise Institute’s conference involving self-styled “federalists”? Most did not even mention it! And to think how they sing the praises of the nationalist Dr. Mossadegh on a daily basis! In fact, the first and only reference to the conference I found soon after hearing of it was from the pro-Islamic Republic Hoder!

I’m certain that you also noticed the absence of criticism, let alone attacks, from the usual anti-neoconservative, even anti-Bush websites (Antiwar, etc.). Are these not a case of the dog not barking in the nighttime?

My opinion is that the explanation is actually quite simple. Ledeen, the “neo-conservative” is now considering the “neo-liberal” method of dealing with the Islamic Republic, which is to give the Islamic Republic enough time, and aid, to implode from within.

Some call this Balkanization.