The man in the low right side of the above picture is Khamenei, lighting his pipe. I guess this is where the rumor for his opium addiction is reinforced. The big man to Khamenei's left is Hosein Beheshti; he was killed in an explosion on 7 Tir 1360. I don't know who is nest to him (help?) and the one in white turban is Hashemi Rafsanjani.
This is when Mousavi (left) was the prime minister and Hashemi (with his usual smile) was the parliament speaker.
From left to right: Mousavi (prime minister), Hashemi Rafsanjani (Speaker of Parliament), Khamenei (President "select" after the president "elect" Rajayee was killed in an explosion, and then he became elect!!) and Mousavi Ardabili (head of the judiciary).
Hashemi Rafsanjani, before his second detention! Today, Rasfsanjani published a 40 year old record of one of his revolutionary speeches, allegedly taped by SAVAK: (this is the highlighted quote on his web site)
"One must not fear anything. When one is to be tested, to have good intentions and high but empty claims is not sufficient. Each generation has to pass a test, but what test is higher than a social one, leaving ones family behind to serve God. Sacrifice in heart is not useful. Be brave a little."
This letter is unmistakably treated as his indirect response to Khamenei's yesterday implicit threats. Khamenei, had said:
"
The elites have to be careful, because any of their actions or paroles that risks the security is a movement against the will of the people[!!!!]. [The elites] have to watch what they say and what they do not say, because not saying what they have to say is evading responsibility, and saying what they do not have to say is acting against duty. [Is anyone remembering Bush's speeches?]The Elite have to watch it, because they are in a big test, and not succeeding in this exam not only fails them, but also will make them fall!"
7 comments:
Opuim? Really?!
I'd never heard that before.
Rafsanjani is such a complex character. I just don't get this man. I guess there's no point in trying too hard. He is Iranian after all! ;-)
I think politicians HAVE to be shrewd! Like my beloved Jean Chretien! :)
What is this Baboo Khamenei!
Hi.
Were you in Tehran in the early 1970s?
I confess I have not yet read a lot from your site. But there seems to be a lot of ill feelings about America' "intentions" in all this. American has two, and only two, concerns about Iran.
The first is the Iranian government's support of various military organizations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza. The second is the nuclear issue. Absent these two issues there is no reason (from our perspective) that we could not become serious partners in the middle east.
We can argue these two issues forever, I'm just telling you where we are.
Of course, Iran has problems with us. Your country has regularily been the stomping ground for the larger world parters. America wanting to contain the Soviet Union = 1953. But 1979 was certainly a slapback.
---
I am an American and proud of my country. We have not always done the right thing, I can make a whole list of our mistakes. The one fault we consistently have is idealism.
---
One thing I will NOT do is tell you what to do about the current situation in Iran. I don't know the country all that well (although much much better than the average American) and although I have my thoughts it's really none of my business. I'd rather ask questions.
Michael
Michael,
That's fine!
I am afraid your country has a third and 4th issue with mine as well:
3) It's oil
4) Its proximity to Russia
That thing about America wanting to contain communism in 1953 ... yeah I am sure that is a popular "republican" line of discourse, but I am afraid the bottomline was OIL and anti-democracy!
Democracy's not something America really likes to see in the Middle east, unless they can import it with their army installed at the oil fields (while museums are robbed)!!
Anyways, thanks for keeping out of our affars. all we need of you is to make sure your government doesn't mess up again! So far, Obama's done well, withthe exception of Biden/Clinton obliteration desires!
Michael and Naj,
I think the facts surrounding the origins of 1953 coup are not fully reported. The anti-Mossedq coup was a British idea after Mossedeq nationalised the oil industry.
Michael, I'm afraid idealism had nothing to do with American intentions. The British cut you in, if you agreed with the coup.
In other words your idealism was 40% of Iranian oil and the British kept the other 40% and the rest went elsewhere.
I've got a short a essay which includes a summary of the origins of the 1953 coup. If I get it published I'll post the link.
Nu'man
Michael and Naj,
I think the facts surrounding the origins of 1953 coup are not fully reported. The anti-Mossedq coup was a British idea after Mossedeq nationalised the oil industry.
Michael, I'm afraid idealism had nothing to do with American intentions. The British cut you in, if you agreed with the coup.
In other words your idealism was 40% of Iranian oil and the British kept the other 40% and the rest went elsewhere.
I've got a short a essay which includes a summary of the origins of the 1953 coup. If I get it published I'll post the link.
Nu'man
Michael, the rest of the www world - especially the younger ones, old people usually can be confused more readily - easily sees that the U.S. american media focuses on war-time rhetoric mostly, and attempts to discredit and neglect the civil rights movement of Iranians within Iran. Some european countries, especially France, try to focus on the nuclear issue.
By focusing on the nuclear issue they give the iranian regime a stage to demonstrate "strength". They also try to ignore the civil unrest within Iran, which is a huge problem for EVERY country that claims it values freedoms (freedom of speech, human rights, freedom to live without being prosecuted arbitrarily)
Especially the USA has a long history of being mostly interested in business interests alone. This is, after all, and with some other countries, the iranian regime can hold to power - because others profit from this regime, and don't WANT to see it collapsed.
And this is also why it needs be iranians who effect change, and not any outside interested party.
Post a Comment