What's in a Talk?

I like to present two articles written by Sohrab Ferdowsi and Sheema Kalbasi in response to the uninformed piece by none other than Mr. Ignatius. Mr. Ignatius has been a cheerleader of giving the fascist oligarchic Islamic Republic what it covets the most, namely the "Security Guarantees" from the United States without considering the long-term implications or whether it did any good when we gave it to N.K.

Mr. Ignatius wishes the U.S. to become a junior partner with the Islamic Republic in controlling the Middle East but does not have quite the moral fortitude to consider the fate and prospect of liberty and prosperity for the enslaved Iranian people. Or perhaps, he finds that proposition a nuisance as long as there are fleeting short-term gains in the political scoring board. What does it really mean to give a 'security guarantee' to a fascist regime whose main raison de'tere is to export Islamism and defeat the Great Satan? Is pouring more money into the Ayatollahs coffers by allowing them to join the World bank or having more cultural exchange between the two countries going to change the identity and the objectives of the religious regime? Is Mr. Ignatius aware how American culture was deeply entrenched in the secular society of the pre-Revolution era? Does he know that most Iranians above the age of 28 grew up on watching heavy doses of "Little House on the Prairie", "I love Lucy", "The Flintstones", and "The Walton's". The mullahs hated the Shah precisely for that reason because they saw Western culture as a threat to Islam.

Nor Mr. Ignatius finds it vital to identify the risks associated with making "pragmatic"(irrelevant concept when you're dealing with Islamic 'cause' of establishing the ummah) agreements with a religious institution that views itself as a vanguard to defeat the current world order and offers the world an "alternative Islamic" order. It’s also interesting that he does not provide any historical precedence in achieving our goals by sleeping with our enemies that have not had long-term disastrous consequences. Additionally, he does not mention that a powerful group within the ruling elite does not want rapprochement with the U.S. because it threatens their economic leverage and status. He is also profoundly misguided to think that there are any differences between the reformers or the hardliners. He judges only the ‘style’ of the “charming” reformers, which is more appealing to the western palate (because they tell Americans what they want to hear, practicing Taqiya), but he does not grasp that their goal is one and the same. That the propagandist maneuvering and Washington lobbying of the Westernized-appearing and tie-wearing Islamists profiteers (Scholars, organizations, professors, PhD Candidates, and ‘fake dissidents’ dispatched to lobby on behalf of the Islamic Republic in the U.S.) has fooled Mr. Ignatius is an instruction on his utter ignorance of the true nature and foundational history of Islamic theocracy and what the words 'theocracy' and 'Khomeinism" mean.

Mr. Ignatius is looking for a short-term solution, as did many of his cohorts in the past with catastrophic results. Sheema and Sohrab echo my sentiments in regards to talking and making "pragmatic" deals with the fascist regime:




What's in it for ordinary Iranians?

May 25, 2007 iranian.com

Once again talks about negotiation between Islamic government of Iran and American leadership have become a hot topic in both countries. Leaders of Islamic Republic, as always, are issuing all kinds of mixed messages through promises of helping Americans in Iraq and willingness to negotiate and also repeating same old rhetoric on issues like nuclear activities and presence of American troops in Persian Gulf region. From the other side, American policy makers have been tangled in a power struggle since last congressional election which has greatly influenced their ability to deal with non domestic issues.

Leaders of Islamic regime in Iran appear to believe that this divide among elements in American leadership is in their interest and openly try to capitalize on that in order to find a support in American government for trouble free extension of their system. This is not the first time and the only instance that, despite all rhetorical slogans in every Friday prayer, Islamic regime has made attempt to get closer to Americans. Islamic Republic government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars since more than a decade ago through institutions which were inherited from previous system in order to buy "friendship" of some Americans who show interest in getting close to Islamic regime of Iran.

Formation of institutions like AIC (American Iranian Council) with sponsorship and support of well known and influential figures and corporations in America about 10 years ago, to encourage "dialogue" between leaders of Islamic regime and United States, has been one of the methods that have been tried in this direction with help of some Iranian elements. It is obvious that those who were involved in creation of this organization could not have come up with the idea overnight and having corporations like Shell, Chevron and Exxon on their side to "encourage dialogue" with oil rich Iran is a clear indication that no charity work is involved either!

There is no doubt that "dialogue" in order to resolve an issue is the best option depending on how dialogue is to be handled and by whom. The issue is that "what problems" can be resolved through dialogue between American government and Islamic Republic regime of Iran which have not been resolved so far? Will this resolution have interests of Iranian people as a nation included or just a certain portion of society will benefit from it?

There is no question that friendly relation between the two nations have a lot of advantages for both under proper circumstances but letís see who benefited from "dialogue" and resolution of issues between Islamic government of Iran and others like European governments? Have the friendly relations between Islamic Republic regime in Iran and European governments, Japan and Russia along with their generous contracts with European and Russian companies had any positive effect inside Iran as far as conditions of economy and human rights for the public?

A glance into the day to day events in Iran shows the Islamic regime is always busy with brutal suppression of any kind of objections from working groups like, teachers, public transportation drivers and labors and also students in the name of "national security" and the answer to the above question is definitely "NO"! Despite constant increase in revenue of the Islamic government particularly from oil and gas sector, the quality of living for majority of Iranian population has been in decline and extreme poverty has resulted in opportunities for some disgraceful type of businesses to boom.


This makes one wonder if "friendly" business relations of Islamic Republic with all western nations (except United States) and the rest of the world, has not helped to improve the quality of life for people of Iran in the past decades then how the friendly relations with American government and American oil corporations will be helpful to them?

The scandals of bribery with French and Belgian corporations in which associates of high ranking members of Islamic regimeís leadership were implicated is tip of the iceberg on how the business is conducted in Islamic Republic government. Coming of American corporations to Iran under current system will never help anyone but Islamic regime leaders and those who lobby for their own share from this big pie while majority of Iranian people who were robbed of their prosperity by this corrupt regime continue their struggle with poverty and suffer from extreme human right abuses under this brutal and barbaric system.


Islamic government of Iran that has never shown any respect for humane values, by clinging to Islamic ideology as an excuse, has made it very clear through unorthodox behavior that it will not hold back of doing anything to protect itself against the will of Iranian people even if it is making a deal with devil himself!

Flood of petrodollars during the years after end of Iran-Iraq war has provided Islamic republic leaders with a big leverage to influence the affairs in the region and also attract many Iranians outside the country to work for the interests of their system. In a world that well reputed magazines and news paper sell their columns and pages to be filled with any kind of material that money can buy, lobbying for Islamic republic has become a very profitable business. Not surprisingly, some of highly educated Iranians have become actively involved in order to make it to the list of rich and famous, fast and with easy money!

Interestingly enough, Dr. Amirahmadi, a well known figure in one of these lobbying groups, in his website declares the source of all problems of Iranian society to be "lack of vision and leadership" while listing giant corporations like Shell, Exxon and Chevron as a sponsors of his lobby group to encourage "dialogue" with Islamic government in Iran! Apparently Total of France, Gazprom of Russia and Statoil of Belgium were not good in "encouraging anything" and we now need others to get working on this "innovative vision" to bring prosperity for some people and continuity for a brutal system which is barbarically suppressing the most basic rights and liberties of people in Iran! Comment


Dialogue Only Buys Them Time
By Sheema Kalbasi

After my recent blog post that was published on the Iranian Times I received e-mails some of which expressing their desire for a dialogue with the Iranian regime as a just cause. I am opposed to such dialogue on several grounds.The supporters of dialogue between the US and the regime have never shown, articulated, or even tried to articulate how such dialogue would benefit the Iranian people.

Attempts of this kind have been at best limited to vague references to change in countries where the US had diplomatic presence. Moreover, the crimes committed by the regime make any such dialogue unconscionable in my opinion.

I am opposed to dialogue with the regime because I find it incapable of addressing the fundamental issues that underlie the Iranian normalcy crisis in the past 28 years. The only thing that dialogue will accomplish is buying mullahs more time, especially giving them the best opportunity to pursue their nuclear ambitions.

The futility of dialogue was once proved in early 90’s where EU’s “critical dialogue” with the regime was terminated following the Mikonos verdict in Germany. As a matter of fact regime took advantage of this “dialogue” to consolidate its power through mass assassination and jailing of dissidents, writers, and intellectuals inside and outside Iran. This period also coincided with growing divide between the rich and the poor which brought nearly half of the population below the poverty line. Inhumane punishments and human right abuses continued unabated. “Critical dialogue” turned out to be nothing but a code word for Europe’s shortsighted interests in dealing with a murderous regime in Tehran.

Is this the type of dialogue that the supporters of dialogue between the US and the regime are looking for?I am also opposed to dialogue with the regime because I find it unconscionable. The “moral equivalence” camp on the other hand argues that since the sum of the evil around the world is equal to the evil of the regime, this regime is only as bad as the rest of the world. This makes the dialogue morally unobjectionable in their eyes.

The moral equivalence argument typically goes by breaking down regime’s crimes into pieces, finding a match (close or remote) to each piece somewhere in the world to draw its absurd conclusion. Let me sum up some of the crimes of this regime for those who need to be reminded.One warm summer day in 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini who at the time was the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic wrote a letter to three of his confidants (the so-called committee of three) ordering them to "clean up" the Iranian prisons as the war between Iran and Iraq was drawing to an end. In plain words, Khomeini left it to the discretion of the three clerics to order the execution of any political prisoner who was not "converted".

The committee ordered execution of prisoners based on their answers to a couple of questions such as whether the person did his/her daily prayers or whether they still believed in their cause. Meat trucks carried the bodies of the executed prisoners at dawn to a place that was later named "the cursed-land" by regime thugs. The bodies of the executed prisoners were buried in mass graves in the "cursed-land".

Thousands are believed to have been executed in this way. Many of those prisoners had done their sentences and were awaiting release.It is not clear how many people have been stoned to death in Iran because the regime is particularly tight lipped about this style of execution. The number is large, at least tens, and according to some accounts, the regime judiciary has ordered and carried out the stoning of more than 1000 people.

The "crimes" that justify this cruel and barbaric punishment under the regime's "justice" code range from acting in home-made porno movies to accusation of adultery. Soraya M. whose hours before stoning has been portrayed in a book entitled "The Stoning of Soraya M." was accused of adultery because she was cooking for a male family friend. The punishment is carried out by first giving the inmate a "dead wash" (ghosl-e-meyet) in early morning hours before being taken him/her to the killing field where he/she is buried up to the neck/chest. The size of stones is DELIBERATELY chosen in such a way that they don't kill the inmate immediately but rather prolong the suffering for at least 15 minutes, delivering an excruciating death.

It is very common that the condemned is alive and aware when their eyes pop out as the mob is carrying out the execution. Stoning is typically overseen by the ordering cleric. Although the barbaric act of stoning may rarely happen elsewhere in the world, this form of punishment is specifically sanctioned by regime's "justice" code, unlike in other places where the act is more of a mob-revenge nature.Atefeh was only 16 years old when she was arrested because of immoral acts. According to some accounts, she had an affair with some members of the moral police and they asked for her execution to preserve their "honor" and "reputation". During the hearings, Atefeh became momentarily upset and took off her clothes in protest. Shortly after, her execution was ordered and carried out personally by the mullah judge in public.

Even the executioner refused to carry out the sentence and plead for reversal.Several years ago a woman was accused of looking at nude males. Her blinding was ordered by a mullah judge. The wrists and fingers of people accused of theft are cut IN PUBLIC. Hundreds of people are executed by hanging IN PUBLIC every year.In 2005, a cleric shot and killed a young man in broad daylight in Tehran-Karaj metro. The young man was apparently "hitting on" a girl in the metro. According to regime's laws, clerics can be tried only by a special tribunal, which of and by its own is a clear example of an apartheid judicial system.

The cleric was later acquitted and released.Hundreds of dissidents were killed in exile by regime's agents. The preferred method of killing was slashing throats. Some of these dissidents were lured to meeting with regime's agents by the promise of finding a peaceful political settlement. In 1997, a German court named regimes' top leaders in ordering the assassination of several Kurdish dissidents in Mykonos restaurant in Germany. In addition to all these human right abuses, the regime has brought economic misery on a massive scale to the Iranian population. Nearly half of Iranians live under the poverty line. It is estimated that one in every 18 Iranians is addicted to illicit drugs. Scores of young Iranian women are sold in Pakistan and the Persian Gulf states as sex slaves.

Despite its oil riches, Iran imports nearly 40% of its gasoline domestic consumption.Finally, in regards to Dr. Haleh Esfandiari it should be noted that I was one of the first Iranian bloggers who posted a piece and brought attention to the danger of her being accused of apostasy in an article published by Keyhan. Despite my opposition to what Dr. Esfandiari has been working hard to promote, I believe we should all join forces to seek safe return not only for her but for all those detained against their will by the regime. My piece tried to show the futility of calls for dialogue with a regime which cannot even tolerate Dr. Esfandiari’s of this world.Giving the benefit of doubt has always been my shining light.

I want to believe that the supporters of dialogue are truly fearful of an imminent attack on Iran. Let me tell you what I am fearful of. As the game of cat and mouse is being played; as the mullahs take advantage of diplomatic signals and flirtations to buy time pursuing the bomb; and as the US fails to stabilize Iraq, an unholy alliance of regional Arab powers begin investing heavily in creating local insurgencies among ethnic minorities with tacit or direct support from the US. The regime has time and time proved its strategic foolishness and tactical genius. This time strategic foolishness may lead to Iran’s disintegration.