IRI's Apologist Deconstructed

War and Peace!
How can any intelligent person see any parallels between Ahmadinejhad's agenda and the interests of Iranians as a nation?

July 21, 2007
iranian.com
By G. Rahmanian

The ogre strikes again, this time she has targeted the Iranian diaspora in the United States. In an article posted on iranian.com, "High on hate," Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has accused the Iranian diaspora in the U.S. of being insensitive to the threats of an imminent war between the U.S and Iran. She atates:

"It seems that the tragedy of Iran goes beyond the treason of the MEK, all the Chelabis and the dangerous ambitions of Reza Pahlavi. She is equally abandoned by Iranian-Americans." She went on to say: "The affront caused by this movie(300), a movie that insulted the history of Iran of 2000 years ago, united Iranian-Americans and caused them to take action. Yet they are insensitive to the threats of war, death of millions of fellow Iranians."

As if she cares. How she comes up with the idea of millions of dead fellow Iranians, is beyond me.

However, this was not the first time she has chosen to, maliciously, portray Iranians as unemotional and apathetic toward their "motherland." In a similar article, "UN security or gang rape,"she attacked all Iranians "save a few" for their lack of support for Iran when they chose not to raise their voices while their country was being abused by the UNSC. She wrote:

"As I watched Iran being hauled in front of the United Nations 'Security' Council, a vivid picture conjured up in my mind-my native country Iran, a vulnerable and defenseless beauty being prepared for violation by brutal savages. As she struggles to defend her honor, no one is prepared to come to her aid, save a few. Even her own children, those raised on her soil hope she will be brutally raped. With lust-filled eyes, they hope to fulfill their ambitions on her ravaged ruins, her broken pride."

Aside from her frivolous choice of expressions such as, violation, rape, lust-filled eyes and gang rape, one wonders how she arrived at such conclusions about Iranians in general or as she put it, "her own children, those raised on her soil." She does not seem to realize that to most Iranians, Iran's criminal and repressive regime and not the whole country was "being hauled in front of the United Nations Security Council." Or perhaps she is only pretending that she is incapable of making any distinction between the two.

Catastrophes brought upon Iranians as direct results of the regime's unjustifiable policies since its inception, are too numerous to mention and are beyond the scope of this article, so I limit myself to just a few. Had the regime's uranium enrichment activities been legitimate and peaceful to begin with, there would have been no reason for secrecy for a period of eighteen years until they were exposed by the MEK, the group with which Sepahpour and other supporters of the regime seem to be intensely obsessed. This issue has nothing to do with the "treasonous" MEK members anymore, the world does not seem to trust the Iranian regime and there are good reasons for their distrust.

And here is the rest of it.It is not the president's place to be declaring to "innocent" Iranians every opportunity he gets about his nuclear ambitions and wiping out other countries. Avoiding the more decent approaches to such issues and threatening other countries, like thugs, will not get him anywhere.

Other than wanting to incite a war, why else would the president of a "vulnerable and defenseless" country be employing undiplomatic and warmongering rhetoric? As a person aspiring to, some day, work for a think tank, Sepahpour should know the answer to this very simple question.

She should also ask herself why it is that Iranians are so adamant to see the regime and the country it represents be "raped" by the "brutal savages" of the UNSC, which according to her, is controlled by the U.S. Aren't such assertions self-defeating? A regime without supporters and citizens who are willing to see their country raped? Why is it that Iran is not liked even by "her own children?"

Half-truths are as dishonorable and hideous as outright lies and she consciously keeps repeating them. But then expecting honor from a hypocrite and a liar is tantamount to expecting sexual abstinance from a rapist.

Sepahpour's blatant contempt for those who oppose the regime in Iran goes beyond the limits of decent and unbiased scholarly work. She accuses them of anxiously awaiting the "rape" of their "motherland." Such shameless distortion of the facts could only be the work of a mentally disturbed individual who vengefully seeks to hurt those she considers a threat to her own interests and those of the ruling clique in Iran.

Her mere stereotyping of Iranians in general and the Iranian diaspora in the U.S. in particular, smacks of the sort of hypocrasy found among the religious demagogues and the born-again Islamic zealots in Iran. In Iran of today, even your religious beliefs are suspect, if they do not measure up to the dogmas propounded by certain layers of the ruling theocracy. Of course, any sensible person realizes that it is not simply one's adherence to religious principles, but rather the unequivocal support for the regime's policies which matters most.

Is she proposing that Iranians support the regime's disastrous domestic and foreign policies which have proven devastating for the "innocent Iranians?" Does she really think Iranians who have sacrificed so much would fall for Ahmadinejhad's barefaced lies about what he will do for them as soon as he achieves his goal of acquiring "peaceful" nuclear energy? One has to listen to what Ahmadinejhad says every time he opens his mouth. It is one thing not to take the oil revenues to every home, it is quite another to ridicule critics and tell the poor to go to his neighborhood to buy cheaper groceries. How can any intelligent person see any parallels between Ahmadinejhad's agenda and the interests of Iranians as a nation?

Only those who are gaining from the status quo would want us to believe he is working for the good of Iranians. Ahmadinejhad is not willing to deliver on the promises he made during his presidential campaign. They were sheer slogans to dupe some unsuspecting sections of the populce and they have remained as such.

Sepahpour knows very little about Iran and she does not bother to verify the data she presents in her writings against the sources readily available in libraries or on the internet. When previously Darius Kadivar, a contributor to iranian.com, reminded her of a mistake she had made with regards to the date of the coronation of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, her response to Kadivar was that she knew the facts because her stepfather was a Shah's man in charge of the festivities on the occasion of 2500th anniversary of the Persian Empire.

A very diverting response, indeed.

I would like to remind her of two more of her grave blunders concerning the geography and the ethnic minorities of Iran. In her article, "Pre-emptive genocide?" of April 9th, 2006, she worte:

"Finally, is it not the Bush Administration that bears a resemblance to Adolf Hitler by planning a nuclear attack on Iran? The radiation, mass casualties and contamination not only of the Persians, but the 2% minority(1,300,000) group living in Iran, a large number of whom(3000Jews)live in Isfahan near the Bushehr power plant is."

Those who are familiar with the Iranian history of the past three decades are aware of the power struggle that ensued the events of '79 which resulted in purging or assassination of many of the regime's close allies. That sounds more like what Hitler did to his comrades than anything else in our modern history.

Also isn't it Ahmadinejhad who wants to wipe Israel off the map of the world? Many among the world leaders, know this is one of IRI leaders' warmongering postures and they are doing their best to prevent a military confrontation with Iran as long as they can afford it.

Sepahpour makes believe to have risen in defense of the "motherland" and she does not have the slightest idea about its geography. Bushehr is a city (There is a province by the same name as well.) on the southwestern coast of Iran, on the Persian Gulf. So, if Bushehr is hit it is the Khuzestanis, the Bushehris, the Hormozganis and the Arabs around the Gulf region who will pay the price in human casualties and contamination and not the Isfahanis and the "3,000 Jews" residing in Isfahan.

It is Natanz which is located between Kashan and Isfahan in Central Iran. Natanz is more than one hundred miles away from Isfahan and twenty-five miles from Kashan. Most probably, the site near Natanz will not be hit due to the abundace of historical sites in the neighboring regions let alone the human casulaties.

And even if Americans decide to hit either of these two sites, and I hope they won't, Iranians are by no means going to rally around Ahmadinejhad as the IRI-produced myth would have us believe. Iranians have not forgotten that it was the regime which decided to prolong the Iraq-Iran war for eight years. A war which could have eneded in less two years and for reasons obvious to many, they opted for not ending it.

Khomein's letter which was written to accept the U.N resolution to end the war, clearly indicates the inability of the regime to mobilize the people as they had done in the early years of the war.

Now, the nuclear site near Natanz was exposed by MEK or the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which Sepahpour loves to hate, in the year 2002 after eighteen years in progress. That means the Iranian leadership was hiding the site from all the concerned parties for as long as they could. And that's one reason for the distrust of the Iranian government by the Western powers.

Bushehr will also be spared by the Israelis and the Americans alike, because of its proximity to the Arab world by the Gulf and American and other coalition forces stationed in the area. So, these two sites are out of the question for the time being. Any other secret sites?

Here I would like to remind her of another blunder she has made regarding the question of minorities. Although it has been suggested by some scholars, both Iranian and non-Iranian, that after centuries of living within the borders of what was known as Persia and modern Iran, it would be almost impossible to come up with a clearcut breakdown of Iranians into minority goups, according to some estimates, the ethnic minorites of Iran comprise close to half of the population of the country and not the mere two percent(2%) she has claimed. Some estimates, however, put the figure above fifty percent(50%). Based on such statitics, there are more than 2,100,000 Khuzestani Arabs alone and the Azeris, Turkmans, Lurs and Bakhtiaris, Ghashghais, Baluchis, Gilakis and Mazandaranis and Kurds are other groups which should not be left unmentioned.

She tries to be sarcastic at the end of the same paragraph: "Or perhaps by some miracle they will be told to leave before the bombing campaign or maybe the nukes will avoid hitting them ."

Getting Iran geographically all mixed up and making the unforgivable blunder with regards to the ethnic minorities, I did not find her allusion to miracles or her sarcasm funny at all. How can a person who claims to love the "motherland"so much as to keep insulting all other Iranians except a few, be so ignorant of its geographic and ethnic realities?

The majority of Iranians inside Iran are fed up with the regime and would love to see it gone and replaced by a democratic government and they would welcome any help in ridding their country of the likes of Ahmadinejhad. Ahmadinejhad understands the consequences of a peaceful period-the last two decades since the end of the war with Iraq. He knows in the absence of a war he will increasingly face legitimate demands by different layers of the Iranian society. Unwilling and ideologically incapable of meeting these demands he is desperate to start another war at any cost in order to suppress such demands and, perhaps, save the regime.

The arrest of the regime's former ambassador to Germany and many other former supporters and lackies of the regime, persecution of intellectuals, women's protests, cracking down on university students and purging of college professors, labor unrests and the recent violent protests against the rationing of gasoline all point to one thing: the regime is being increasingly isolated and is trying to find scapegoats for its failures.

Since Ahmadinejhad came to power as president he has done everything in his new capacity to provoke Israel and the U.S. Contrary to what some may say about normalization of Iran-U.S. relations, the Iranian side will do its best to prevent any form of normalized relations. The IRI leaders know very well that normalized relations with the U.S. will mean an even greater U.S. presence in the region and the danger of a coup against them. They are not willing to risk losing their tight grip on the natural resouces and Iran's economy as a whole. Read a recent interview by Karim Sadjadpour and Bernard Gwertzman which recently appeared on iranian.com called, "Revolutionary Guards Have Financial Interest in Keeping Iran Isolated."

She also makes some very amusing statements such as, Reza Pahlavi wishing to make a name for himself in the history. In her article, "blind ambition," she writes:

"Reza Pahlavi is so eager to have a place in history and in Persia that he pleads with warmongers to make the innocent Iranian people suffer."

Has she forgotten that Reza Pahlavi was born into the history of a dynasty which ruled Iran for fifty-four years(1925-179) and was the heir to the throne? Most certainly, she has not, however, she believes in the instant, though, short-lived, damage of such aspersions.

Reza Pahlavi's biggest misfortune is that his name is appearing in the history books alongside the names of many individuals he does not care for at all.

Reza Pahlavi wants to have a place in "Persia?" I thought the country's name was, "Islamic Republic of Iran," and before that it used to be called, Iran. Has there been a name change, AGAIN?

Her ridiculous claim that Reza Pahlavi who has been out of Iran for the past twenty-eight years, is pleading with warmongers to make "innocent" Iranian people suffer was perhaps one of the absurdest statements she has made in her articles. So, now we must believe that "innocent Iranians" who don't really care if their country is being "raped" by "the savages" of the UNSC, are enjoying great lives and it is Reza Pahlavi who is trying to spoil the party for them and make them suffer!

When it comes to MEK she regurgitates the same old accusations which the IRI leaders have been spouting about the group for the past twenty-eight years. It is the pot calling the kettle black, so to speak.

Like some IRI leaders, she too talks about Mossadegh and the CIA-led coup of 1953, against his democratically elected government without knowing anything about Iran's situation at the time or without any mention of the fate of many of Mossadegh's friends, followers and supporters in the hands of the current regime in Iran. She does not find it necessary to talk about the rest of Mossadegh's story. Quoting that part of Iran's history has, in a way, become a pet phrase for many IRI supporters without referring to what has happened since 1979. Had Mossadegh been around by the time the current regime came to power, he would undoubtedly have met a similar fate.

I suggest next she writes an article pertaining to the fate of Mossadegh's friends and followers since 1979.

Sepahpour has adopted the role of an apologist of the regime. The warmongering rhetoric and threats which are coming out of Tehran are dismissed as insignificant while anything that anyone opposing the regime says is exaggerated and gets repeated over and over. Her usual targets are Reza Pahlavi, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the MEK. Almost every article she writes, she makes sure to mention some or all of them. Oh, I almost forgot the neo-cons.

Now, let's take a look at what she says in this article dated, April 6th, 2006 called, "Pre-emptive genecide":

"Further, both Ahmadinejhad and Khamenei have reiterated Iran's longstanding demand for a referendum on the status of Israel that would include all Palestinian refugees."

What have Ahmadinejhad and Khamenei got to do with the Palestinian issue? Is it not this outright meddling in the affairs of the Palestinians? Giving financial aid to a group or a country with the objective to interfere in their internal affairs is the last thing the Middle East needs.

Apparently, in her view it is all right for Khamenei and Ahmadinejhad to interfere in the internal affairs of Israel and the Palestinians and call for a referendum. However, if Iranians talk about any sort of democratic process or referendum, they will meet her unrestrained wrath. Here is what she says in her article, "Referendum or Capitulation?":

"It has been suggested by some distinguished Iranian figures such as the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Shirin Edadi and a few media pundits such as Abbas Millani, that the government of Iran should hold a national referendum on the country's nuclear program."

Her condescending and arrogant tone when addressing Ebadi resembles Ahmadunejhad's when talking down to Iranians.

"Dignified personalities such as Ms. Ebadi would best serve their country by applying their energy, resources and endless courage by defending the brave men and women who fight to institue change within Iran."

She could have continued, "... and get killed!"

One wonders why Sepahpour herself is not back in Iran making the changes she is suggesting to others. Such statements coming from a person who has physically and emotionally detached herself from the "motherland" could not be taken seriously, to say the least.

And then in the same article, she states:

"Iranians and non-Iranians must fully realize that Iran's nuclear program is but a pretext for the recolonization of Iran. The government of Iran made several offers to reassure the international community of its peaceful purposes with regards to the civilian nuclear program; yet, the Bush administration, uninterested in peace, has chosen to pursue the path of sanctions. Whatever shortcomings the current regime may have in Iran, one cannot blame the warmongering and imperial ambitions of the White House on them."

When was Iran colonized and for how long? Could she please educate us as to which country colonized Iran?
She reduces all the inhuman and repressive policies of the past twenty-eight years perpetrated by the regime to mere, "shortcomings." "Innocent Iranians" who have been victimized by the regime are not as forgetful as she pretends to be.

If as she seems to believe, there are only "shortcomings," then what is there for Ebadi to change?

Her demonization of the American public is a classic example of what the Iranian regime and its supporters have been up to 1979; creating imaginary enemies in order to justify suppression of any opposition to their ruthless and criminal activities. In her article, "High on hate?"she writes:

"Tragically, the majority of the public has been paralyzed by fear and believes that the letting of blood is the only cure that will rid them of unfounded panic."

What percentage of the American public actually cares about Iran or has the time to give it a thought? When Sepahpour herself, as an Iranian claiming to have "done extensive research on US foreign policy towards Iran's nuclear program" and is "currently pursuing her education in Middle East studies and Public Diplomacy," cannot find Bushehr on the map of Iran, can we really trust what she says about the American public being paralyzed by fear and wanting to let blood?

How many demonstrations in the U.S. has she seen where Americans shouted, "Death to Iran?"How many Iranians have lost their jobs over the past several years since 9/11? What is the number of Iranians currently living in North America as opposed to the number before 1979? How many Iranians does she know who have been forced to leave the U.S. since 9/11?

She should compare that to the forcefull deportation of the Afghanis in recent months. Also she should compare it with the fate of Iranians who have been forced to leave their own country since '79, before shedding any crocodile tears for the Jews whose ships were turned back by Americans during the Second World War.

Sitting in the comfort of her home in the U.S., of all places, and writing provocative and vicious slanders can only be seen as hypocritical and deceitful. Her writings are part of a conspiracy orchestrated by the Iranian regime aimed at exacerbating the situation even further.

She deliberately ignores the fate of tens of millions of Iranians who have suffered from the disastrous policies of the regime. It is not in the interest of most Iranians to support Ahmadinejhd's dangerous and suicidal policies exemplified in his warmongering postures. They certainly cannot join him in shouting pre-'79 slogans such as, "Death to America."

Don't these slogans ever wear out? Don't they get old? For the past three decades all we hear is death to this or that country. Isn't it time to start shouting, long live democratic freedoms? Isn't it the president's job to begin telling people when they will actually start receiving the oil revenues as they were promised?

For Ahmadinejhad and the militarists running the affairs in Tehran, war is one option. However, if they cannot have a war and both domestic and international pressures continue to build up, they will have no choice other than carrying out a coup before the next presidential elections. The events of the last two years all indicate that the politically bankrupt regime of the IRI will not tolerate even the pseudo-democratic carade they call, elections.

Sepahpour's arguments in defense of the "motherland" are only a disguise for her unequivocal support for the inhuman and repressive policies of the regime. Ignoring the fate of exiled Iranians and more than seventy million people living within Iran's borders, she has not even once, condemned the policies of the regime in Tehran.

Her statemsents are mean and insulting to those of us who have experienced the horrors of the war with Iraq first hand and have lost many friends, neighbors and relatives. Those who have not forgotten Iran's history of the past three decades, know well that the regime in Iran is as guilty as the Iraqi regime of the time.

Whenever Ahmadinejhad puts his foot in his mouth, she dismisses his most reprehensible statements as unimportant. She does not seem to see anything wrong with Ahmadinejhad's warmongering postures, instead she twists the facts when she claims that he is being misrepresented by American policy makers. In a pieces called, "G. W. and Hillary" she states:

"American policy makers distract world opinion by misrepresenting Ahmadinejhad's remarks, exaggerating the gravity of the "myth" remark so that ... "

There is no need for misrepresenting Ahmadinejhad? His statements are loud and clear. Perhaps Sepahpour needs to listen more carefully. His aggressive rhetoric has reached such dangerous heights that it is making his fellow conservatives nervous. Can Sepahpour claim that she knows what Ahmadinejhad is saying better than Ahmadinejhad himself? Is she for real?

In her piece called, "high on hate?" she claims it is hatred that is the root cause of the troubles in the Middle East. In her previous articles she has sent to Iranian.com, however, she mentions other causes such as oil, sales of weapons, ambition and water.

Sepahpour needs to make up her mind. Is it for oil or is it hatred that is the cause? Is the U.S. with the help of Israel causing tension in the Middle East in order to sell more weapons to the countries in the Gulf region or is it a "deep-seated hatred" for Iranians which is the cause? Her confused state of mind and incoherency are rooted in the fact that she does not know exactly what she wants to say and she does not care about Iran, one way or the other.

Sepahpour has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the problems of more than seventy million Iranians. By exaggerating the threats of a seemingly fast-approaching war and giving prominence to less significant issues as opposed to calling attention to what Iranians have had to deal with in the past twenty-eight years, she tries to belittle the severity of the regime's inhuman policies. At the same time, she seeks, in vain, to veil her real intentions in the half-witted and cliche-ridden tautologies. Her peace-loving stance is simply a false front for her true intention of helping to perpetuate the rule of one of the worst dictatorial regimes in modern history.

I would like to end this piece with a line from Haafez:

Goft o khosh goft boro khergheh besoozan Haafez
Yaa rab een ghalb shenaasee ze ke aamookhteh bood