Count Down

2006-03-29T19:44:00.000-08:00

Only Mullahs Can Flirt

There has been no shortage of idiotic petitions in recent years. Remember the petition against Professor Rob Sobhani for speaking the truth about the plight of the Iranian women? From the same cast of characters who a couple of years ago did a cyber pimping campaign for Mullah-US relations, here comes another equally idiotic petition against the US plan to allocate funds for democracy promotion in Iran (which hasn't even been approved by the Congress yet). According to these dinosaurs, it is ok for mullahs to flirt with everyone including the Americans but it is not ok for the Iranian people to get the support they badly need.

Which country in the recent past has made peaceful transition to democracy without US overt and covert support?

2006-03-27T21:03:00.000-08:00

The End of History is Here, but for Middle Easterners It is Just the Beginning

The bottom-line in Professor Francis Fukuyama's book "The End of History and the Last Man" (which by the way is an excellent read) is that liberal democracy ends wars and revolutions by eliminating the major sources of contradiction in societies (thereby putting an end to History). Building strongly on Alexander Kojeve's reading of Hegel, Professor Fukuyama informs us of the end of History after the collapse of the Communism in late 80's and early 90's.

Professor Fukuyama doesn't apparently believe that Middle East is anywhere near the end of History, see his latest in the Wall Street Journal, A Better Idea.

Despite his criticism of the Bush administration's policies in the Middle East, it seems that the administration is doing exactly what he suggests in the last three paragraphs of his article. First, as the White House new national security document states, the promotion of democracy is a way to fight terrorism in the long-run. In the short-term, drastic measures such as preemptive wars are to be pursued. Second, the US and the West in general have made no attempt to roll back election results in Palestine or Iraq (not publicly at least). They are using "soft power" (e.g. withdrawal of the aid to the Palestinian Authority) to make groups such as Hamas to govern more responsibly.

It also bothers me a lot that things related to Iran are treated in such a degree of sloppiness and vagueness even by people like Professor Fukuyama. Examples:

-The elections in Iran are bundled together with elections elsewhere in the Middle East to prove the point that Islamism is on the rise, and push for elections isn't really working.

-Iran is a semi-democracy (whatever the term means) and democratic but not liberal (amusingly enough, Iran is the only example of an illeberal democracy in Prof. Fukuyama's famous book).

It is both sad and funny that Iran is held to standards much lower than even Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe when assessing the "democratic degree" of its elections. Few cases of fraud and intimidation are enough for the West to dismiss the election results in Belarus but in Iran election of Ahmadinejad becomes a hotly debated topic and evidence as to how "democratic" means can produce "illiberal" results. Official election figures are thrown around as valid data points as if the freeness and the fairness of the election were rubber-stamped by no less than Jimmy Carter himself.

While much of the Middle East might be longign for Islamist experimentation, Iran is entering a new post-Islamist era. It remains to be seen whether this era brings liberal democracy, rise of a new form of Fascism, or disintegration of Iran along ethnic lines.

2006-03-21T20:55:00.000-08:00

Zaneirani feels the injustice as strongly as it exists.

2006-03-14T21:38:00.000-08:00

Lies, Deception, and the Washington Post

When the so-called reformers swept to power in Iran in 1997, many were hopeful that they would use their position to embolden and empower the Iranian people in their struggle against the tyranny, while taming the oppressors and convincing them to yield to the will of the people. The irony was that the so-called reformers did exactly the opposite: they tried to put restraint on people's growing unease and dissatisfaction by scaring them of the let loose hardliner boogeyman. In some cases they even blamed the victims for going too far beyond the "capacity" and "red lines" of the reform movement. People not intimately familiar with Iranian affairs may think that the "extremism" they were warning people against was something like armed struggle against the regime. Not exactly. Akbar Ganji was labeled extreme by his own friends for his investigative journalism regarding the killings of several dissident intellectuals. He was specifically blamed for his criticism of Rafsanjani by Masoud Behnoud who claims to be a reformist journalist. Batebi was called extremist for posing with the bloody Tshirt of a friend who was beaten up by regime thugs.

The same cast of characters are now extending a similarly twisted logic to blame Bush, or stupid George as shamelessly phrased by former reformist journalist Emadedin Baghi, for his so far moral support of the Iranian people. But this time around they are getting prime time coverage from Karl Vick and David Finkel of the Washington Post to perpetuate their lies and deception.

Messrs. Vick and Finkel join Baghi to blame Bush for the arrest/interrogation of Baghi's wife, his daughter, and an amiable mullah by the name Ali Afsahi. Their crime? Attending a workshop on human rights and non-violent movements 16 months ago, which by the way they characterized as a rip-off at the time. Bush administration's crime? Asking Congress to approve $85M to support the cause of democracy in Iran 16 months later! If there is any moral to this story, it tells us that the Bush administration should find ways of pushing much more forcefully for democracy in Iran if they are serious about it. Of course Karl Vick and David Finkel's conclusion is quite different. For them the sweetest part of the story is probably when Baghi calls Bush stupid George. More interestingly they mention closure of 100 publications in 2000 by the hardliners. About the same time, Ganji and many other activists go to jail (even initially sentenced to death) for attending a conference in Berlin. At that time there was no stupid George in the White House to offer $85M for the cause of democracy. The only thing the White House had to offer then was Madam Albright's appeasement of the mullahs.

We all understand that Baghi loves his wife and daughter. But so does the jailed dissident Mehrdad Heydarpour who can only dream about his 4-year old daughter Mahtab behind bars. For Karl Vick, David Finkel, and Emadedin Baghi's information, Mr. Heydarpour received no training in non-violent movements or any money from the White House.

We should focus on real agents of change. The true freedom fighters can be found among the brave young people who signed the manifest "A letter from Iranian students to the freedom-loving people of the world." Unlike Baghi, they need and appreciate help and support from all freedom loving people of the world, even from Mr. Vick and Mr. Finkel.

2006-03-12T05:09:00.000-08:00

Quote of the day

"I've never said that America is the eternal city of Plato, but I did say it was the eternal city of Wafa Sultan." Wafa Sultan in a debate with Ahmad Bin Muhammad on Aljazeera TV on the issue of Islamic extremism. Dr. Sultan's critical views of radical Islam has so far cost her numerous death threats. Of course nobody to my knowledge has threatened Dr. Bin Muhammad for his critical views of the West.

2006-03-07T21:31:00.000-08:00

Mullahs' Miserable Failure

According to a confidential poll in Iran, 69% of the Iranians do not recognize the nuclear issue a matter of national aspiration and 86% do not believe that nuclear technology is worth a military conflict. While 98% of those polled believe that the nuclear standoff will utlimately lead to some sort of military conflict between Iran and the US and a scenario similar to Iraq, only 28% of the people expressed concern or worries about such conflict. Moreover, about 94% of ethinc Arabs in Khuzestan province and about 91% of Kurds do not consider the nuclear standoff a matter of major concern. Finally, only 11% of those polled believe that the populist Ahamadinejad is capable of solving their economic problems.

With the miserable failure of mullahs' nuclear diplomacy it appears that the mullahs are heading for either a humiliating concession or a conflict. This poll shows that the mullahs have also failed miserably at tying the nulcear standoff to nationalistic sentiments and nationalization of the oil industry in the 1950's.

2006-02-13T18:51:00.000-08:00

The “E” Word

Around the time Ahmadinejad was being crowned as the regime’s new clown in chief, a curious phrase started appearing rather frequently in several English language articles on Iran: the Persian Empire. Now that Iran seems to be heading for a conflict with the west, the phrase reappeared in an article by a renowned scholar Dr. Edward N. Luttwak in Los Angeles Times. In this article Dr. Luttwak challenges the notion that Iran is a nation-state “but rather a multinational empire dominated by Persians, much as the Soviet Union was once dominated by Russians.”

Naïve Iranians may find it appealing to think of their land as Persian Empire, as it reminds them of a glorious past. In the stage of world politics, however, the term spells doom and gloom as it did for the Soviet Empire in the 80’s. Identifying Iran as an empire, Dr. Luttwak then goes on to challenging the assumption that Iranians will unite behind their leaders in face of military strikes: “…Only among the Persians are many likely to react to an attack as the axiom prescribes; others [ethnic minorities] might welcome the humiliation of their oppressors.” One possible implication is that such strikes may very well be the starting point for ethnic unrest or worse a civil war. In an earlier article the same Dr. Luttwak argues (unlike many other commentators) that a surgical strike could delay Iran’s nuclear program for years by targeting few key installations and that such strike can infact accomplish its goal in “a single night.”

The bottom-line is that the west can terminate or thwart the Iranian nuclear program through a variety of options ranging from economic sanctions to military strikes. While these options may be viewed as costly or unfavorable by the west, their consequences will be catastrophic for us. We should not let the clowns in power in Iran speak to our nationalist sentiments or set the political discourse. The question for us is not whether we should possess nuclear technology. This is a question that should be publicly debated and resolved in a free democratic Iran. The real question is whether we want to stay on the collision course with Ahmadinejad and other criminals of the Islamic regime leadership in the driver’s seat.

The way out of this crisis is a concerted campaign to oust the regime.

2006-01-31T21:38:00.000-08:00

On President Bush's State of the Union Speech

I usually enjoy Bush's state of the union address (with the exception of a couple of years ago where half way through his speech, somewhere between steroid and Iraq, I had switched back to American Idol). What was interesting to me this year (and it went kind of unnoticed by the talking heads) was identification of radical Islam as the enemy in the war on terror (if I am not mistaken it was mentioned twice in his speech). One thing that bothered me all along after 9/11 was that the so called war on terror had no clear enemy. Everyone knew for example that the war was really not against Basque separatists but other than that it was scoped so conveniently broad and vague that allowed targeting secular rogue elements such as Saddam Hussein. His mention of Iran was brief and nothing beyond what he had already said in the previous years. I think the reason that the talking heads jumped on the topic of Iran afterwards was mostly because the word was out earlier that the speech would focus on Iran.

Dianne Feinstein tops my list of irritating senators and tonight was no exception. In an after speech interview with Chris Matthews, she expressed her concern about pushing for elections in the Middle East. Her reason? Democratic election of Ahmadinejad to presidency in Iran (and Hamas victory). To make sure that everyone got it she repeated it twice (with the democratic qualifier in both cases). Being a senator from California, who knows, maybe she once bought a rip off carpet from some sleazy Iranian guy in LA. For some reason, I think Feinstein and lady peace (Shirin Khanome Ebadi) would make a perfect match. Someone should arrange a meeting between the two. And speaking of democratic or semi-democratic elections in Iran: Iranian elections are as much democratic as mullahs' conference on Holocaust is scientific.

But nothing was funnier than the response by the rising star of the Democratic party, Governor Tim Something from Virginia. I didn't pay attention to what he said, except one phrase I could catch repeatedly in between my naps "there is a better way".

2006-01-28T09:45:00.000-08:00

Few articles about Iran provide interesting insight into the complex political and economic system of Islamic Republic. The articles by Tom Porteous in Prospect Magazine and the late Paul Klebnikov in Forbes are among them. According to Porteous "The usual analysis of Iranian politics—favoured by western commentators, journalists and secular Iranian intellectuals alike—follows what one might call the political-science approach, which takes as its starting point the complex constitution and formal institutions of the Iranian power structure." This approach in my view is the source of misreads about Iran. Another way to look at the situation is through the approach called "shadow state" by Porteous or “shadow government” by Klebnikov. According to the shadow state theory political institutions "serve as a façade or as tools that are manipulated, subverted and instrumentalised by an oligarchy of competing networks of politicians, mullahs, senior security officers, speculators and bazaaris (merchants) as a means of accumulating and maintaining wealth and power."

So where am I going with all this you ask? My point is that we lack information about the real political structure. Not even Alireza Nourizadeh’s extremely entertaining and detailed but mostly irrelevant biographical accounts of Iranian political figures helps much. When people like Mohsen Sazegara come to the west, our number one priority should be neither target practicing on them nor worshipping their bravery and analytical skills but rather squeezing them for information. Before then all we can do is speculating and guessing. Here is some which I find more qualified than others. The new regime in Tehran, which is symbolized by Ahmadinejad’s presidency, has its base in a generational (mini) wave whose political experience was shaped by the Iran-Iraq war and insurgency in Kurdistan and other provinces. I call it a mini-wave because the represented time span is rather small in demographic scales. The revolution’s first generation represented by Rafsanjani, Khamenei, and many exile figures are on the way out. As such, I doubt the traditional leaders of IRI (e.g. Rafsanjani) despite their wealth and influence can pose any serious challenge to the new rulers as asserted by Michael McFaul and Abbas Milani in Washington Post. Since it is not clear to me who MacFaul and Milani refer to when they write about challenges from the “embattled democratic movement”, I cannot comment on that one.

The future struggle will be between the government and the revolution’s third and fourth generations who want to live a normal life like their counterparts in civilized societies. They want jobs, security, personal freedoms, and the right to enjoy life or as formulated nicely by the American founding fathers life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The current regime by reason of its corrupt real structure, discriminatory legal construct, and backward ideology is incapable of fulfilling the needs of Iranian young and vibrant society.

2006-01-25T22:09:00.000-08:00

The Islamic Republic is counting on high oil prices and its lucrative deals with China and Russia to create impasse over its nuclear activities. It is not clear how far away the regime is from the bomb but one thing is clear: the regime in Tehran is playing the nuclear game to raise nationalist sentiments at home and the Holocaust denial nonsense to create sympathy for its cause in the region among Arab masses. Seeing an inevitable conflict looming in the horizon, the regime would like to define the fight on its own terms against its favorite regional opponent Israel. So here is the question: what is the real conflict the regime sees as inevitable? Does it have ethnic flavor? Is it internal opposition, economic plight, or factional dispute? Or is it the fear over US active involvement in regime change which has prompted the regime to raise the stakes in pursuit of a grand bargain that would include security guarantees and nonagression treaty? Unfortunately, the political system is so opaque that it is nearly impossible to answer these questions with any degree of certainty. It is not even clear who really rules in Iran and what the economic interests of this group are. The stories on the influence of Mesbah-Yazdi or Samare Hashemi, narrated by the London circle (Masoud Behnoud and the company) among others, are for entertainment purpose only.

A final comment: one thing that is always overlooked in all analyses is the role of the army (artesh). The army will stay politically neutral as it has during the past 27 years. However if the more ideologically oriented armed forces crumble for any reason (including strikes by the US) the army has the potential to step in and end the conflict. That could be our winning card.

2006-01-25T21:53:00.000-08:00

Read the Iran policy recommendations of the Committee on the Present Danger (http://www.fightingterror.org/pdfs/IranPaperJan23.pdf). One of the most interesting recommendations is creation of an international tribunal to try the Islamic Republic leadership. The massacre of the political prisoners in 1988 will most likely qualify as a crime to be considered by such tribunal. This is an area where the exile opposition can make a huge difference.

2006-01-23T21:35:00.000-08:00

All it will take for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing
Benefit of the doubt is appropriate if and only if no words to the contrary yet spoken
No Taqiyah (hiding or lying about your beliefs or opinions in order to CYA) exercised or allowed
Take what is said at its face value and challenge it the way it is, no less, no more, no excuses, no exceptions

It is rather unfortunate that I have to start my blog on negative notes. But the article in LA Times by Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi leaves little doubt in my mind that she is a Trojan horse. The article is dishonest and misleading. It is shameful that 27 years after Shah's fall and his death in exile, she still chooses to attack him for, in her words, creating the Frankstein that the world has to deal with today. Funny that this lady was one of the first female judges under the same regime she hates so much while demoted to the clerk in her own court under the regime she defends so adamantly.

Some other nonsense from her article "instead of backing Iran's fledgling democratic movement, which would have led to nuclear transparency, the U.S. undercut it by demonizing Iran. While Khatami proposed people-to-people dialogue between Americans and Iranians, Washington chose to block Iranian scholars, artists and authors from visiting the U.S. Although Khatami helped the U.S. in Afghanistan, President Bush designated Iran a member of the "axis of evil." By 2003, when it became clear that Khatami's reforms had stalled, the world started paying closer attention to Iran's nuclear program. So, what had demonizing Iran achieved?". Well, lady peace has apparently forgot that the regime crackdown on the students, the press, and other dissidents and its clandestine pursuit of nuclear technology was in full force as Madam Albright was offering apologies to mullahs for US role in overthrowing Mossadegh.

And now listen to the advice of lady peace to the West: "Western nations should help the U.N. appoint a special human rights monitor for Iran. It would remind the General Assembly of Iran's human rights record annually, and strongly condemn it if the record keeps deteriorating. Contrary to the general perception, Iran's clerics are sensitive to outside criticism." Has this (nearly) annual condemnation of mullahs not been happening in the past 27 years? What has it accomplished? Has it stopped mass executions, stoning, public hangings, mutilation, or stopped Iran's nuclear activity for that matter?

In brief lady peace is suggesting the west to waste time engaging in some useless acts as the mullahs develop the bomb. But in the process, lady peace may have decrypted the DaVinci Code for the demise of her beloved regime: Invert exactly everything lady peace suggests and soon we'll be rid of the murderers in Tehran, God willing (inshallah).