To Pen Name:

(This is a Persian link)
Explain this!

update: Biden screws up!

This is disappointing!
Americans lost a great opportunity. I hope Iran shoves the Carrot and the Stick up Mr Biden's ... mouth! Now that is a CLEAR choice!

Update:

I woke up, still angry at Bidens statement and his !#@$!@ CLEAR choice for Iran. I expected the Iranian media to be flooded with angry statements by the Iranian government. But, they have wisely stayed mute! In Persian, we have a saying: "Best response to an idiot is silence!"
And the late Shah had another expression too: "Moon shines and dog howls!" Larijani's arriving in Spain for nuclear talks. I will keep you posted!

Kudos to Iranians! Dodged another American provocation!

It is now clear to me that Americans do not want "peace" with Iran. They want Iranian submission!

Well, I (a very non-religious, Western-dwelling, anti-Islamic Iranian woman) assure Mr Biden: over my dead body!

Iran will not submit to the will of the Zionist regime! You will either negotiate with Iran respectfully; or dig yourselves another deeper hole in the history! The one who is "on the wrong side of history" is the Zionist regime and its proxy: America!! The one who NEEDS Iran, to get them out of Afghanistan and Iraq is America! What can you do to Iran? Drop your nuclear bombs on it? Go ahead! You did it to Gaza. You did it to Lebanon! What did it bring other than shame and international condemnation.

You can slow us perhaps, but you cannot break our resolve!

UNCLENCH YOUR FIST Mr Biden. The loser in this stand off against Iran, against Cuba, against Korea, against Vietnam, against China, against Russia IS AMERICA! The end of Eurocentricism is a reality. Wake up to it!

Iran extends a conciliatory hand to the US: Parliamentry speaker (Dr. Ali Larijani) in Munich Security Conference

Larijani's statement is important because 1) it is presented by Iran's Parliament Speaker. In terms of power, he can be considered equal to Ahmadi-Nejad; 2) He is an opponent of Ahmadi-Nejad. In protest to Ahmadi-Nejad's blabbers, he quit his job as the chief negotiator of Iran's nuclear Dossier; 3) He is a likely candidate for Iran's upcoming Presidential Election, and he will most likely win. 4) (and most importantly ;), he will have my vote. Yes he IS a conservative; but right now Iran needs a conservative.

I invite you (especially if you are Barak Obama!) to read all of this; but for those short in time, I provide color coding! If you are still short of time, the core of his message is:
America, we are extending a hand. Just come to the table, recognize us as a regional power, drop the Carrots and Sticks language, and we will be your regional ally!

[pleasantries]

"I wish to thank the chairman of the conference and Germany's honorable government.

I am coming from a region where in the past three decades, especially in recent years, has witnessed most of the wars and conflicts: The Western probed attack of Saddam on Iran and 8 yeas of bloody war, and then two Western wars against Saddam for invading Kuwait, and then occupation of Iran that has left more than 800,000 dead and injured. And then the war in Afghanistan; and the Israeli war against Lebanon and now against the brave and innocent people of Gaza. These wars were waged for different reasons, but the main excuse was fight against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

The question is, in these wars, that only Iran lost 250,000 soldiers, has the region improved? Has terrorism diminished? Or were atomic weapons found in Iraq?

Upon occupation of Afghanistan, the US claimed that fight against drugs, against terrorism and capturing the leaders of terrorists were there main objectives. Which objective has come true? In 2001, drug production in Afghanistan was about 200 tons. In 2008, it is over 8000 tons. The fight against terrorists has turned into the comedy of NATO members doing secret deals with their leaders that have lead to escape of several prisoners. And the terrorist leaders are where they were. So what was accomplished?

Recently, the new President of the Us said that he has sent his Middle East envoy to listen, not to dictate.

Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is the first positive sign that illustrates the misguidedness of previous strategies that imaginary theories about the Middle East worsen the security angles. Cultural specifics and regional hardships must be looked at more carefully.
[Naj: below he lists some of America's wrongdoings]
Now I want to present some of the regional talks which I hope you will pay attention to:

-The American Coup of 1953, toppling Mosadegh's regime and restoring the Pahlavi dictatorship held Iran back for many years and led to torture and death of many an Iranian activist.

- In 1979, America's General Huyser had planned another coup, which was countered by Imam Khomeini's foresight.

- After the victory of revolution, American embassy assisted and coordinated separatist movements and terrorism against revolutionary figures. The evidence for these actions is available.

- America provoked Saddam into attacking Iran and during 8 years of war did not deny him any military aid.

- America confiscated Iran's assets at the onset of revolution.

- America canceled its nuclear contract with Iran and did not even honor their contract to provide nuclear fuel for Tehran's reactor.

- After 9-11, On the premise of fight against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan ruining both people's lives in the region and the lives of American Army.

- The 33 day Israeli war against Lebanon was designed by American assistance. But it was an illusion to break people's spirit.

- The unjustified 22 day massacre in Gaza was assisted by America and although it turned into a human tragedy, despite all claims of human rights, America did not react in concern.

- With regards to Iran's nuclear dossier, America has been non-cooperative and obstructive.

And many other issues.

Now, do you expect these pains to go away with a change of language and a different conversational tone? Or do you thinks it is important to accept mistakes and change strategies? The reason why despite America's obvious errors the situation has not escalated into a regional nightmare is because of the wisdom of Ayatollah Khamanei, who controlled the conditions and calmed the situation.

Mr Chairman, dear attendants :

Unfortunately, these mistakes stem from an illusion after the industrial revolution in Europe that the Orient is slumbering and needs to be colonized. Then they established the Western hegemony; and prescribed the theory of "balance of fear" to deter the competition. This is how the cold war came about.

We are now in a different situation.

First, the Theory of unilateralism is invalid. [no clue what "theory of yek-janebe garayee" means!!] ...
Second, The Orient, from china to Malaysia to Turkey to Iran to Egypt to the Middle East has a different condition now. A denial of the awakening of Islamic countries does not solve any problem!

We need a logical, fair and realistic theory to establish lasting stability.

Friends, terrorism and expansionism are the two sides of the same coin. They are the chicken and the egg problem. The age of Western control over the East has come to an end. The Oriental man is no longer a second-rated human. The discussions around the terrorism problem, as well as the existing situation in India, Pakistan and the Middle East show that the approach to date has been wrong; and has turned the region into a dynamite warehouse.

Can we accept that Israel, with 2-3 million population be given 200 atomic warheads, plus advanced missiles and air defense, but to tell 1.5 billion Muslims that they do not have the right to nuclear knowledge for energy production and peaceful purposes?

Can anyone accept that 5 million Palestinians are driven from their land and home and be wandering the world, when collecting people from different corners of the world to populate Israel?

By accusing Hamas to terrorism, you cannot change the facts. Hamas election by people's vote and under watch of international monitors was faced with illogical reaction of a few of Western countries. They [the Western countries] remained silent even when the head of the Parliament and the Palestinian representatives were arrested [by Israel]. Of course, in recent days, I have been hearing that some of European leaders are suggesting that the reality of Hamas needs to be accepted. Although late, but this is a valuable change.

By insulting Hizbollah, you cannot change the facts. Hizbollah, as part of the Lebanese ruling system is deeply entrenched in heart and intellect of the Lebanese and people of the region. Crushing them exacerbates the hatred for America and Israel.

Many use the media to portray a violent and warmongering image of Muslims.

The question is, did Muslims play any role in the 1st or 2nd world war? Other than having been part of the victims? Islam respect the followers of Moses and Jesus and promotes respectful coexistence of all religions.

Dear attendees,

The theory of balance of fear was designed by America and Europe, after the second world war to control different powers. the mere fact of existence of weapons of mass destruction and their showcasing against each other is a sign of the failure of humanity. it means no trust exists. Isn't this more similar to wolves' life that the life of human's?

To date, all that has been said about disarmament has been just parole and no action. Today, the world no longer needs preaching. It needs to see the act of disarmament by big owners of the WMD. But Iran, neither had WMD in its defense doctrine, nor is seeking it. We despise having to live under the shadow of the WMDs because we are still faced with the reality of our victims of the chemical attacks by Saddam during the war. Most those weapons were given to Saddam by the Western countries. We reiterate that are against the principle of Islam.

But Iran's nuclear issue is different. We have reached our state of knowledge under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and withing the Agency's framework. Our resolve came about after the American and European countries canceled their nuclear contracts with Iran.

I have been involved in solving Iran's nuclear issue and after some time I have come to the conclusion that the controversy has no legal basis whatsoever, but is resulting from a certain mentality.

Sometimes it was said: "You don't have nuclear weapons now, but you may get it in future." do you think such a logic has any place in a sane running of the world?

Sometimes it was was: "by achieving nuclear technology, Iran is throwing the region out of balance." This is while Iran has never been aggressive against anyone; and considers attacking other countries against the principle of the Islamic revolution. Besides, even if this were the case, is the regional balance a principle that we ALL have to agree with? All countries can compete in reaching technological achievement. Recently, I hear that they have shown concern that Iran has sent a satellite to the space. Is a satellite a WMD too? On the other hand, how come this balance of power is not a concern with regards to the American uni-polarism?

During nuclear negotiations, we have stated several times, that in order to ease the world concerns, we are willing to organize our nuclear activities within a consortium composed of several other countries. If a country's after the bomb, she will neither propose such initiatives, nor will it be a signatory to the NPT. As did Israelis. In fact, these Western dual standards raise suspicion. During the Gaza war, Israel has been using phosphorous bombs. An Israeli General announced that they have mistakenly used the phosphor bombs. Does the world accept this? In Davos Conference, Mr Perez stated taht before the savage bombardment of innocent children, they phoned them to inform them of bombardment. Does anyone believe this? Maybe that kid was not home to hear Mr Perez's call. But the world did not take a stance against this.

Another example of this double standards is that America attacked, killed and mimed the people of one region, on the charges of terrorism; while on another side of thw world, it legitimized a terrorist group [referring to removing MKO from the terrorists list. The MKO is an armed 'resistance' group who assassinated Americans in mid 70s; participated with Saddam's forces in war against Iran; and assassinated several important religious and government figures after revolution]

Sometimes they talked about solving the problems internally, but then they began talking about Carrots and Sticks and referring Iran's case to the security council and issuing resolutions!

Ladies and Gentleman:
The Carrots and Sticks policy is obsolete; and no one really pays attention to it.
Current changes in the world and the prospect of 21st century demands a new model, and the old definitions of security are no longer efficient. The 21st century is the century of advance and sophisticated structures, strategies and realities with new players.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is ready and capable to , in cooperation with other countries of the world, open logical windows to the peace and stability of the region.

We believe in common and longterm benefits and cooperations, in energy and economy, with other countries.

America had destroyed many bridges in the past few years. But the new administration can rebuild them. But new bridges must be build according to new and pragmatic strategies based on mutual respect, and not the politics of Carrots and Sticks!

The world is prudently watching the changes in America and hopes that the changes will be strategic and not tactical.

In this new strategy, several factors are critical:
1) Taking a multilateral approach to free itself from the defective circle of unilateralism.
2) Instead of focusing on arms race for WMD, focusing on an international theory of security.
3) In regional security, emphasize the internal security; instead of building military bases in countries that will make the problem circular and make them target of further terrorism.
4) instead of imposing disparate and non-practical models, realistically consider the cultural, political and economical characteristics of each region and respect the theory of coalition between regional and international actors.

Intervention in social engineering in different parts of the world, and enforcing discordant models leads to further miscalculations that will exacerbate instability and diminish security."

Translated from Persian by Naj: neoresistance-at-gmail-DOT-com, Please contact me if you quote/use this.
Source:http://www.isna.ir/ISNA/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-1285887&Lang=P
News code: 8711-11527

Silence about the defense industry job cuts?

I have been slightly curious what portion of job losses are coming from the MIC! If anyone has good data on it, please let me know. However, a little examination of some numbers provided by CNN indicates that after the computer industry, Aerospace and defense seem to have suffered the greatest number of cuts! We are all focusing on Auto industry. Of course, the data is just from January and I suspect the Auto industry losses have happened before. But, considering that the red bar in the figure EXCLUDES Haliburton cuts (which are not specified by the corporation), then we might wonder how the war industry resources may be "stimulated" into something else! Just curious! What are your thoughts?

Untold stories of Revolution: Interview with Ebrahim Yazdi (05-02-09)

Why is Ebrahim Yazdi Important?

This Interview by Nooshabeh Amiri marks the 30th anniversary of the revolution (source: Rooz Online). I am translating parts that relate to interference of the Western countries in Iran's history. (Barak Obama may consider these points to apologize about AS WELL!)

N.A: Upon the 30th anniversary of the revolution, the opposition or even some of the friends of the revolution are not happy and blame the foreign interventions for it. what is your opinion?

Yazdi: Iran's revolution was a classic, popular and independent movement, but it wasn't formed in a vacume. Foreign factors influenced the revolution in two ways: First, by supporting the Shah. The Iranian revolution was a reaction to the 53 Coup, after which Shah could not have returned to power without foreign support. Then Iran's revolution was a reaction to foreign meddling. Second, after revolution the foreigners retained their influence in Iran. When they recognized that they could not stop the revolution, they manipulated it. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am not politically naive either. Israel, The US and the UK did not leave revolution alone. they influenced it in many ways. [he gives a metaphor of a driving scenario when someone tries to destabilize your conduct and throw you off the road]

[a short passage on presence of General Fardoost in Iran and then continuing to give example of foreign meddling]
[...]you see, we knew that he political analysis of American and British foreign ministries indicated that if America gave the shah a Visa, it would lead to an attack on the American embassy. But certain groups in the US pressured Carter to give the Visa, such that he hostage crisis would happen, such that they could pressure Carter to freeze Iran's assets.

Or we know that during the war, whenever the conditions of cease fire were possible, if it was not favorable by Americans, they would start reverse psychology. I. e. a four-star American General would come on radio and start talking about the imminence of an Iranian victory if they launched just one more attack on Baghdad! These talks created strong reactions in Iran. Americans had explicitely said that Khomeini would do the opposite of what we would suggest.

N. A. do you think Khomeini did opposite of what America said?

Yazdi: in some cases, yes.

N.A. [talk of Gaudalupe Conference, where Carter pulled the rug from under The Shah's feet]

Yazdi: [...] In Gaudalupe, participating countries reached an agreement. It doesn't mean that Americans changed their mind there. If we look at books by Cyrus Vance and Brzezinski we realize that from a while back there was a disagreement about Iran between the security council and the State Department. The UK, Germany and France had much sooner concluded that supporting the Shah was futile. towards the end of 1977 there was a talk of replacing the shah by his son. In an interview with guardian around that time The shah has spoken about that. after George Ball's report, the balance was tipped in favor of the state Department [i.e. in favor of toppling the Shah]. But the Iranian armies alliance with the Clergy happened after Shah left Iran. The Americans were worried about Iran's future after The Shah's departure. At that time the cold war was happening full force. Syria, and Iraq were Soviet allies. The Soviet Union was politically and militarily present in Afghanistan. During the cold war, the western countries--especially the US--believed that nationalist governments were vulnerable to communism. At least this was their excuse for not tolerating Nationalism in the Third World. They had this concern about Iran too. therefore, when they realized that the revolution was unstoppable, they sought the solution in alliance between the Iranian army and the Clergy [!! ... supporting Taliban ... supporting Al-Quaeda ... supporting Musharraf ... hahaha, so repetitive and unoriginal!] Both the army and the clergy were anti communist. America was of the opinion that if the army coalesced with the Religious, after the heat of revolution subsided, they would be taking over the power. This was [General] Huyser's mission. What happened in the Philippines later [see Ferdinand Marcos' history] was within this same framework. The success of this policy depended on coalition of the army and the clergy. After the Gaudalupe conference, in a letter Carter requested to meet and negotiate with Khomeini. The revolutionary council accepted because they thought this would bring about a swift victory.

[then some discussion about the impact of Khomeini moving to France from Iraq, which seem to have sped up the "victory" ... and the rest, well, I don;t think unless you are an Iranian, you care to know. So, Persian readers: Click here!

30 Years of Post-Revolutionary Cinema of Iran

This list is announced by the Iranian government. These are not necessarily the best works, although most of the best directors of Iranian cinema are included. I link to those MUST SEE/KNOW directors. For those who may not know, Iranian cinema is known as the Cinema of 90s. I put a star next to those iconic figures of this genre.

List released by ISNA):

1) Bashu, the Little Stranger (Bahram Baizai***)
2) The Tenants (Dariush Mehrjui***)
3) Blue Veil (Mrs. Rakhshan Bani Etemad***)
4) Smell of Camphor , Scent of Jasmin (Bahman Farman-Araa)
5) The Runner [classic] (Amir Naderi***)
6) Mother (Ali Hatami***)
7) Capitain Khorshid (Naser Taghvayee)
8) Naser-edin Shah the Actor of Cinema. (Mohsen Makhmalbaf***)
9) Under the Olive Trees (Abbas Kiarostami***)
10) I am Taraneh, 15 (Rasul Sadr-Ameli***)
11) Kimia (Ahmad-Reza Darvish)
12) White Baloon (Jafar Panahi***)
13) Two Women (Mrs. Tahmine Milani**)
14) Leili's With Me (Kamal Tabrizi)
15) Stories of Majid: Shame (Kyumars Pour-Ahmad)
16) Need (Alireza Davoodi-Nejad)
17) To Be or Not to Be (Kyanoush Ayyari)
18) Lead (Mas'ood Kimiyaee)
19) From Karkhe to Rhain (Ebrahim Hatami-Kia)
20) The Stone-Lion (Masood Jafari Jozayee) [no clue ]
21) Under the Moonlight (Reza Mir-Karimi***, Oscar nominee)
22) The Survivor (Seyfollah Daad) [no clue ]
23) Birth of a Butterfly (Mojtaba Ra'yee) [no clue ]
24) The Boot (Mohamad-AliTalebi) [no clue]
25) A Time for Drunken Horses (Bahman Ghobadi)
26) Hur in Fire (Aziz-o-llah Hamid Nejad) [no clue ]
27) Sain Merry (Shahryar Bohrani) [no clue ]
28) Charshanbe Suri (Asghar Farhadi)
29) Journey to Chazabeh (Rasul Mola-gholi-pour)
30) Children of Heaven (Majid Majidi**, Oscar nominee)

Other important directors omitted from this list:
Cyrus Alvand
- Mrs. Manijeh Hekmat
- Ali Rafii (theater director, really)
- Mrs. Pouran Derakhshandeh
- Ms. Samira Makhmalbaf
- Behruz Afkhami
- Fereydun Jeyrani
- Khosro Sinaie
- Varuzh Karim-Masihi
- Mohamad Reza Honarmand

Is Obama plunging into hodge-podge?

Let's forget for a second that the business of this economic stimulus, and all these post-hoc restrictions on CEO pay, plus the tax evasions of senior Democrats have already taken the glitter from Mr Nice's triumph. I personally am very much enjoying the inversion of Capitalism!

Unfortunately, his approach to Iran doesn't seem too impressive either!

First there was a rumor of of a "nice" letter. Now there is the rumor of appointing Ross to Iran diplomacy! Is the Obama administration putting various messages out to test the waters to see how the Zionists and the Iranians "like" him?! I was very entertained by Netanyahu's plan to Harness the American administration ... it made some of us wonder if Americans have knowingly conceded to being the Zionist's donkey! But news out of Israel indicates that they are beginning to suffer blood-withdrawal syndrome, and have a rush (or a rash) to attack Iran ASAP!

Jolly!

Imagined affinities, Imagined enemies

Le Monde Diplomatic:

The Strange Tale of Iran and Israel

h/t Gene (filasteen.wordpress.com)

Women Make Movies: Arusi Persian Wedding (March 17, on PBS)

Just odd news, but VERY IMPORTANT ones

1) Iran launches its first satellite ... world expresses concern: "How can a country that is isolated and sanctioned and demonized and accused of fundamentalism act like THAT?!!" To the world, especially to the concerned segments of America and Israel I say: get stuffed!

2) Khatami launches his official Presidency Campaign. This will make a lot of reformists happy, but I personally don't wish Khatami to become president again. I just am strictly opposed to religious men governing. If I am to choose a Mullah, I would go for Abdollah Noori. He's got more guts than Khatami! But I would also support Larijani! All that stuff about his being a conservative is just smokescreen! I like the man; he is smart and educated; and I trust engineers and mathematicians holding the wheels of power in Iran.

3) Beyzaie (or Baizai) wins the Audience's Choice award for his most recent film WHEN WE ARE ALL ASLEEP, despite his critics complaining about the 'quality of his film. I joing Baizai in telling those critics: "get stuffed!" ... ah that feels great!

Anyways, I don't feel like blogging now! Just giving little headlines.
Feel free to inspire me by your questions and comments.

P.S. I saw "The Reader"! Is anyone else who feels that Germans are getting a bit ahead of themselves portraying their war crimes as something that "anyone in their shoes would have done." should we thank America's recent behavior for absolving Germany of its past crimes?!

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS He did it again!

After 8 years of being silenced, Bahram Baizai's WHEN WE ARE ALL ASLEEP wins The Best Film by audeince's choice.

I

Liquid Illuzion ...

Taken from: Liquid Illuzion The brilliant photographer/artist/poet who still makes you laugh, even tough she has decided to leave the glass to us alive ones.

Obama on the right track re Iran

Obama has appointed Professor Vali Nasr as senior advisor to special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Ambassador Richard Holbrooke.


Read this interview to get a gist of Nasr's views.

He IS brilliant:

Iran secularists or middle-class Iranians or Westerners can look at Iran and see all the flaws—the veto power of the supreme leader, the Guardian Council not allowing people to run. But the majority of Iranians who are poor and religious don’t see these as problems. They don’t see a problem when the Guardian Council disqualifies secular opponents. In their eyes, it’s genuine democracy, because they have three or four choices. How those three or four choices came there doesn’t bother them, but they know that their vote makes a difference as to which of those three or four will actually win.

So, ironically, in Iran, the lower down in society you go, the more there is democracy practiced. They have been voting longer than the upper-class Iranians. It’s the reverse of the rest of the Middle East, where you might say the elite, educated abroad, have seen democracy, but the poor are completely oblivious to it. In Iran, the further down you go, the more they have been engaged, and the more they believe that this is genuine and they take it seriously.

Here are some of his books:
The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future ($10.17)

Islamic Leviathan: Islam and the Making of State Power (Religion and Global Politics) ($93.00)

Unlike Rush Limbaugh ...

Ayatollah Emami Kashani, in Friday Prayer after Obama's inauguration, welcomes his promise of change.

Emami Kashani is a conservative member of Iran's ruling elite (Assembly of Experts). He has lashed out at Americans as "Murderers in Iraq" and has blamed them for creating Al Quaeda:

"You talk about al-Qaeda. Have you forgotten who has bred al-Qaeda? It's the illegitimate child of America and Israel, but you name it Islam. This savagery is not Islam. It is coming from inside of you and it is now punching you".

A cursory look at Iranian media suggests that even most conservative of Iranian clerics see a promise in Obama's new tone towards the Middle East. Their only request seems to be: Stop the condescending line of threats; Stop acting like you are the boss of the world!

In Persian, we say : "The branches of a fruitful tree bow more."
I hope Obama will not lose this unique opportunity ...

Advice to Obama re Iran

I just read on Guardian that Obama's administration is contemplating to send a letter to Iran's leaders to respond to symbolism of Ahmadinejad's congratulatory letter sent to Obama on Nov 6th, 2008.

What worries me is this:
"One draft proposal suggests Iran should compare its relatively low standard of living with that of some of its more prosperous neighbors and contemplate the benefits of losing its pariah status in the West. Although the tone is conciliatory, it also calls on Iran to end what the US calls state sponsorship of terrorism."

Mr Obama: THIS IS A FATAL MISTAKE! If you want to make peace with Iranians, make sure to compare them to NO ONE! To attempt to allure Iranians by the wealth of, say, Saudi Arabia is just going to be OFFENSIVE to the Iranian people!

If you take time to understand the depth of Persian psychology and philosophy, you would realize that hey THRIVE on being different from the rest of their neighbors. Iranians look at the wealth of Arabs states with disdain. They consider Pakistan a backward country that is run by puppet governments. If you consider their zeal for being culturally and philosophically distinct, you would understand why America's CARROTS & STICKS policy (which I think is championed by the dumb obliterating woman Hillary Clinton,) IS NEVER GOING TO WORK. It has never worked with Persians and it never will!

What you need to know about Persians is that, irrespective of how Capitalist Iran looks, Persians are STOIC individuals. It is beaten into their psychology since almost day one of life that honor is more important than material comfort; that material comfort corrupts the soul; that prosperity is in knowledge and in spirit and not in bank accounts.

What will deliver results is if you treat them as equals; if you negotiate with them for advancement of a common cause; and if you seek in them a partner. Keep in mind Mr Obama, that for Iran, relations to China and India are attractive alternatives to having economic links to the US.

You want Iran's cooperation with uranium enrichment, help them build their reactors. Iran is not pursuing the bomb. But if you want to avoid nuclear weapons race in the Middle East, disarm Israel of its nuclear arsenal.

If you want Iran's cooperation, hail their scientists and praise their technological achievements under economic sanctions.

If you want Iran's friendship, APOLOGIZE not only for American Coup of 1953; but also for sitting by watching Saddam drop chemical bombs on Iranians.

If you want Iran's friendship stop this stupid "sponsorship of terror" charge, while you are supporting Israeli terrorism, and evidence of which just unfolded in front of our eyes.

If you want to make amends with Iran, thank them for helping you against Al-Quaeda and apologize for branding them "axis of evil".

If you want Iran's unclenched fist, then praise the FACT that this nation has not launched an aggressive war against anyone in its modern (or even ancient) history!

If you want peace with Iran, stand up and look them in the eye and tell the Iranian people that you commend them for being the most stable country in the region, despite all havoc previous administrations have been wreaking in Iran!

If you want peace with Iran, CONTRAST THEM with their neighbors! Iranians had a bloody revolution to make sure they are NOT LIKE THEIR PROSPEROUS NEIGHBORS! So ... fix your paradigm correctly.

Dixies come to mind ... "I'm not ready to make nice ..."
Okey I will be ready to make nice if you play it nice and keep that Clinton and her Zionist bosses away from the letter writing desk!

P.S. I just realized that Ahmadinejad's requested and American apology too! This is to declare that in my opinion, Ahmadinejad is a liar; who is trying to gain political capital, which he will later use to gamble with the economy and the democracy of Iran. I am not ready to make nice with him either!

Obama on Iran!

Three positive point to Obama's diplomatic strategy re Iran:

1) He did not mention Iran in his State Department speech, neither positively nor negatively;
2) Focused on necessity of Israel PEACE with it's "Arab neighbors", indirectly implying that Iran and Israel are in no "fight"
3) Focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan with emphasizing a NEED to engage their neighboring countries.

This man is clever!

Also, Iranians have been repeatedly saying that "they are open to negotiations", if "old colonizing mentality is put aside".

Bravo! Israel left this one alive!

This is proof that they (Israeli rightists--an adverb I keep hearing on the radio) are not genocidal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is really nothing new to be said: read older posts.
I shall remain silent until guns silence in Gaza.

GAZA: neocons' trap for Iran-Obama

Click on the title to read the article.

GAZA: More facts omitted from the media conscience

I came across this article via pulsemedia.org.
Time's short so I have cropped out the rhetoric and just present a summary of facts:

"[...]on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website[:]

• Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles."

[...]

• According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March.

[...]
Israel doesn’t want Gaza to develop, and Israel doesn’t want to resolve diplomatically the conflict,

• both the leadership in Damascus and the leadership in the Gaza have repeatedly made statements they’re willing to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border.

[...]
Every year, the United Nations General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled “Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question.” And every year the vote is the same: it’s the whole world on one side; Israel, the United States and some South Sea atolls and Australia on the other side.

• The vote this past year was 164-to-7.
  
• Every year since 1989—in 1989, the vote was 151-to-3
  
• All twenty-two members of the Arab League, favoring a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border.
  
• The Palestinian Authority favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border.
• Hamas favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border.
  
• The one and only obstacle is Israel, backed by the United States. That’s the problem.

[...]
the record shows that Hamas wanted to continue the ceasefire, but only on condition that Israel eases the blockade.

• Long before Hamas began the retaliatory rocket attacks on Israel, Palestinians were facing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza because of the blockade.
  
• The former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, described what was going on in Gaza [during the ceasefire] as a destruction of a civilization.
  

[...]
The record shows that in every crucial issue raised at

• Camp David,
  
• then under the Clinton parameters,
  
• and then in Taba,
  

all the concessions came from the Palestinians. The Palestinians have repeatedly expressed a willingness to settle the conflict in accordance with international law.

The law is very clear.
July 2004, the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice, ruled

• Israel has no title to any of the West Bank and any of Gaza.
  
• They have no title to Jerusalem.
  
• Arab East Jerusalem, according to the highest judicial body in the world, is occupied Palestinian territory.
  
• the settlements, all the settlements in the West Bank, are illegal under international law.

[...] Read the rest of Finkelstein's article

GAZA: Whose fault is it really? Statistics show!

The original report is published here.
Study conducted by: Nancy Kanwisher (MIT, professor), Johannes Haushofer, & Anat Biletzki (Tel Aviv University, professor)

Introduction:
"The mainstream media in the US and Israel places the blame squarely on Hamas. Indeed, a massive barrage of Palestinian rockets were fired into Israel in November and December, and ending this rocket fire is the stated goal of the current Israeli invasion of Gaza. However, this account leaves out crucial facts."

Methods and Materials
The authors asked two questions:
1) How did the current ceasefire broke into the current violence?

Studied # of Palestinian rockets fired in 2008, and looked for the time point at which the rocket attack began.

2) What are the historical precedences for disruption of ceasefire?

Tallied the data from September 2000 to October 2008 and analyzed the entire timeline of killings of Palestinians by Israelis, and killings of Israelis by Palestinians, in the Second Intifada, based on the data from the widely-respected Israeli Human Rights group B'Tselem.

Results and Discussion

1) Who started the current war?
This figure shows the number of palestinian rockets fired in each month of 2008. This figure shows an escalation of rockets fired from Palestine in November. On November 4th, Israel killed a Palestinian, an event that was followed by a volley of mortars fired from Gaza. Immediately after that, an Israeli air strike killed six more Palestinians. Then a massive barrage of rockets was unleashed, leading to the end of the ceasefire.


2) Which side kills first after conflict pauses of different durations?
In the above figure, "conflict pauses" is defined as periods of one or more days when no one is killed on either side. Horizontal axis: durations of conflict pause.Vertical axis: the percentage of times from the Second Intifada. Black: when Israelis ended the period of nonviolence by killing one or more Palestinians; Gray: the percentage of times that Palestinians ended the period of nonviolence by killing Israelis; White: the percentage of times that both sides killed on the same day. Virtually all periods of nonviolence lasting more than a week were ended when the Israelis killed Palestinians first. We include here the data from all pause durations that actually occurred.

Their analysis shows:

79% of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian,
8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks
13% were interrupted by both sides on the same day.
This means that Israel is overwhelmingly in charge of escalating violence.

In addition:
Israel unilaterally interrupted 24/25 (96%) periods of peace lasting more than a week.
Israel unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days.
This means that Israel's been more likely to interrupt longer peace periods, without provocation.

Conclusion

A systematic pattern does exist: it is overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, that kills first following a lull. Indeed, it is virtually always Israel that kills first after a lull lasting more than a week.

The lessons from these data are clear:

First, Hamas can indeed control the rockets, when it is in their interest. The data shows that ceasefires can work, reducing the violence to nearly zero for months at a time. (Thus nulling the myth that Hamas is under Syrian and Iranian influence.)

Second, if Israel wants to reduce rocket fire from Gaza, it should cherish and preserve the peace when it starts to break out, not be the first to kill.

Bush Stopped Israel from Bombing Iran!!

Is it the fear of international indictment for war crime that is making Cheney say things like Israel didn't have permission from the US to attack Gaza or that NYT is coming up with report of interviews conducted over the past 15 months to say: "Bush saved Iran from Israel"!
Read on ...

New Yourk Times : U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site
By DAVID E. SANGER

Published: January 10, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Bush deflected a secret request by Israel last year for specialized bunker-busting bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran’s main nuclear complex and told the Israelis that he had authorized new covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, according to senior American and foreign officials.
[...]

The White House denied that request outright, American officials said, and the Israelis backed off their plans, at least temporarily. But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama.

This account of the expanded American covert program and the Bush administration’s efforts to dissuade Israel from an aerial attack on Iran emerged in interviews over the past 15 months with current and former American officials, outside experts, international nuclear inspectors and European and Israeli officials. None would speak on the record because of the great secrecy surrounding the intelligence developed on Iran.

Several details of the covert effort have been omitted from this account, at the request of senior United States intelligence and administration officials, to avoid harming continuing operations.

The interviews also suggest that while Mr. Bush was extensively briefed on options for an overt American attack on Iran’s facilities, he never instructed the Pentagon to move beyond contingency planning, even during the final year of his presidency, contrary to what some critics have suggested.

The interviews also indicate that Mr. Bush was convinced by top administration officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, that any overt attack on Iran would probably prove ineffective, lead to the expulsion of international inspectors and drive Iran’s nuclear effort further out of view. Mr. Bush and his aides also discussed the possibility that an airstrike could ignite a broad Middle East war in which America’s 140,000 troops in Iraq would inevitably become involved.

Instead, Mr. Bush embraced more intensive covert operations actions aimed at Iran, the interviews show, having concluded that the sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies were failing to slow the uranium enrichment efforts. Those covert operations, and the question of whether Israel will settle for something less than a conventional attack on Iran, pose immediate and wrenching decisions for Mr. Obama.

The covert American program, started in early 2008, includes renewed American efforts to penetrate Iran’s nuclear supply chain abroad, along with new efforts, some of them experimental, to undermine electrical systems, computer systems and other networks on which Iran relies. It is aimed at delaying the day that Iran can produce the weapons-grade fuel and designs it needs to produce a workable nuclear weapon.

Knowledge of the program has been closely held, yet inside the Bush administration some officials are skeptical about its chances of success, arguing that past efforts to undermine Iran’s nuclear program have been detected by the Iranians and have only delayed, not derailed, their drive to unlock the secrets of uranium enrichment.

[...]

Early in his presidency, Mr. Obama must decide whether the covert actions begun by Mr. Bush are worth the risks of disrupting what he has pledged will be a more active diplomatic effort to engage with Iran.

[...]

Israel’s effort to obtain the weapons, refueling capacity and permission to fly over Iraq for an attack on Iran grew out of its disbelief and anger at an American intelligence assessment completed in late 2007 that concluded that Iran had effectively suspended its development of nuclear weapons four years earlier.

That conclusion also stunned Mr. Bush’s national security team — and Mr. Bush himself, who was deeply suspicious of the conclusion, according to officials who discussed it with him.

[...]

Attack Planning

Early in 2008, the Israeli government signaled that it might be preparing to take matters into its own hands. In a series of meetings, Israeli officials asked Washington for a new generation of powerful bunker-busters, far more capable of blowing up a deep underground plant than anything in Israel’s arsenal of conventional weapons. They asked for refueling equipment that would allow their aircraft to reach Iran and return to Israel. And they asked for the right to fly over Iraq.

Mr. Bush deflected the first two requests, pushing the issue off, but “we said ‘hell no’ to the overflights,” one of his top aides said. At the White House and the Pentagon, there was widespread concern that a political uproar in Iraq about the use of its American-controlled airspace could result in the expulsion of American forces from the country.

The Israeli ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor, declined several requests over the past four weeks to be interviewed about Israel’s efforts to obtain the weapons from Washington, saying through aides that he was too busy.

Last June, the Israelis conducted an exercise over the Mediterranean Sea that appeared to be a dry run for an attack on the enrichment plant at Natanz. When the exercise was analyzed at the Pentagon, officials concluded that the distances flown almost exactly equaled the distance between Israel and the Iranian nuclear site.

“This really spooked a lot of people,” one White House official said. White House officials discussed the possibility that the Israelis would fly over Iraq without American permission. In that case, would the American military be ordered to shoot them down? If the United States did not interfere to stop an Israeli attack, would the Bush administration be accused of being complicit in it?

Admiral Mullen, traveling to Israel in early July on a previously scheduled trip, questioned Israeli officials about their intentions. His Israeli counterpart, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, argued that an aerial attack could set Iran’s program back by two or three years, according to officials familiar with the exchange. The American estimates at the time were far more conservative.

Yet by the time Admiral Mullen made his visit, Israeli officials appear to have concluded that without American help, they were not yet capable of hitting the site effectively enough to strike a decisive blow against the Iranian program.

The United States did give Israel one item on its shopping list: high-powered radar, called the X-Band, to detect any Iranian missile launchings. It was the only element in the Israeli request that could be used solely for defense, not offense.

Mr. Gates’s spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said last week that Mr. Gates — whom Mr. Obama is retaining as defense secretary — believed that “a potential strike on the Iranian facilities is not something that we or anyone else should be pursuing at this time.”

A New Covert Push

[...]
There were two specific objectives: to slow progress at Natanz and other known and suspected nuclear facilities, and keep the pressure on a little-known Iranian professor named Mohsen Fakrizadeh, a scientist described in classified portions of American intelligence reports as deeply involved in an effort to design a nuclear warhead for Iran.
[...]

In the end, success or failure may come down to how much pressure can be brought to bear on Mr. Fakrizadeh, whom the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate identifies, in its classified sections, as the manager of Project 110 and Project 111. According to a presentation by the chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency, those were the names for two Iranian efforts that appeared to be dedicated to designing a warhead and making it work with an Iranian missile. Iranian officials say the projects are a fiction, made up by the United States.

[...]

The exact status of Mr. Fakrizadeh’s projects today is unclear. While the National Intelligence Estimate reported that activity on Projects 110 and 111 had been halted, the fear among intelligence agencies is that if the weapons design projects are turned back on, will they know?

To make the New Year Happy:

Jewish Women Occupy Israeli Consulate in Toronto, Canada!

A Palestinian woman blocks an Israeli soldier's shot on protesting youth.

Boycott Israeli Goods

Call for UN resolution 337

Sing a Song

Encourage the MainStreamMedia's baby steps

(If it was Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Russia, or Cuba acting in not quite as savage "self-defense", would the world have tolerated the onslaught for this long?!! What the HELL are we doing with our complicit silence? I am particularly ashamed of Canada's stance! But then again, we have a government that was about to be overthrown while they prorogued the parliament, cheating us of our democratic coalition ... people of earth, Canada is not a democracy at this moment!)

Gaza Cartoon Contest

By Wahyu Kokkang, Indonesia

By Abdolzahra Salehi, Iran

Iran's Cartoon House is holding the International Gaza Cartoon Contest (by email) and displaying the cartoons on its web site in support of the people of Palestine. (source:payvand)

Gaza ...

Has anyone noticed that whenever Palestinians give peace a chance, Israel feels compelled to assassinate some of them, then blockade them and cut food and water supplies, and masterfully force them BACK to violence, so that it can strike back in self-defense!!, and kill hundreds of people (285 so far) who have no fault other then self-defending? And of course, if Iran rolls up the sleeves to HELP the innocent caught in Gaza, it will have deserved a self-defensing-Israeli-attack??!!!

What kind of a 'culture', that thrives on self-pity for historical subjugation, can do the same to other people and look in the eye of the history with self-righteousness?! The Jews are proud of their 'culture' and heritage ... so why don't they speak up, collectively, against the crimes against humanity conducted in their name??! There are a few though ...

A philosophical question: If the "an eye for an eye" holds--which it does in Judaism, would it be okey if Palestinians killed 285 Israelis in rocket attacks?! Or is an Israeli or an American eye more expensive and proportionate to the price of weapons they possess?!!

9-11'ish smoke ... in Gaza ...
Merry Christmas;
and Happy Hannuka, the festival of light!

See Gene's ACTION ALERT!
and Anne's list of when/whom/what to Protest/Lobby/Boycott

Uhmmm ... Santa in Iran!!

click on the photo to see more.

Education Jihad

These pictures taken in a village in the province of Fars (where Persepolis is).
These women (some younger, some old) are learning to read and write.



At the onset, Iran's revolutionary "Islamic Republic" prioritized three objectives (despite the Iran-Iraq imposed war)

Jihad-e Sazandegi (Development Jihad)
Jihad-e Keshavarzi ( Agriculture Jihad)
Jihad-e Amoozeshi (Educational Jihad)--which closed the university doors to 'cleanse' it ideologically, but also dispatched numerous literacy camps across the most rural areas in Iran !



These initiatives were in fact set in place by Shah's regime as facilitators of "modernization". Whereas the Shah has Sepahe Danesh (army of knowledge), Behdasht (health), Keshavarzi (agriculture) even Tarvije khane dari (house keeping), the Islamists replaced the word "Sepah" (army) with Jihad (which literally means 'trying hard', but connotes undeniable duty to God).

I wish to argue that Iran would not have reached the so called Shah-desired "Golden Gates of Modernization", unless under auspices of an "Islamic republic"! Iran is a traditional country which is not fanatic, but is deeply conservative.

I often ponder about my childhood memories of traveling with my mother to rural places where she would be setting up this or that "Sepah". My mother had studied Economics and she worked for the Department of Agriculture. Her job kept her away from home very often! She always boasted bout how she would be going to places where men didn't dare to go. And she took me along some times. I cannot say I am fond of memories of those uncomfortable Land Rover rides that would take me with mother to these dry and 'ugly' villages where I could not play with kids. Even if they were 'groomed' (precondition for me to be allowed to play--out of fear of contracting an illness), I didn't understand their language often! (Not everyone in Iran speaks Persian).

At that time, young men and women had to do a compulsory service in these various "Sepahs". Naturally girls would join these armies. I don't know the details of recruitment but if mother wasn't asleep now I would have asked her (i will add as I learn more from her or Father). From what I recall, there was a large number of 'city' girls, who were often disgruntled about having to "serve". I don't know why but my parents had a habit of taking me to work with them! It wasn't because they didn't have baby sitters as my Grandmother lived with us and she always had two workers in the house (young women from villages who would not eat with us, who would not know how to read and write, and whom my sweet little Papa drove to their houses on the weekends--and now i am refreshing my memories of how YOUNG I was when i learned what poverty looked like ...).

For me it was fun to go to Mother's office; as I got a lot of attention from these young colorful women whom I wished to grow up to look like. But, even at that young age I always wondered why there were SO MANY of them cluttering the corridors and roaming aimlessly ... whatever kind of a job was that?! I would fantasize that they were orphans and that my mother was housing them! (But it was Aunt who ran the orphanage and not Mother, and I knew that these women had to do with the "economy" which was mother's specialty!)

When revolution came, those 'pretty girls' disappeared. Their green shirts, curled hair, 70's Jeans turned into vague memories of Mother and Aunt talking about how X who would not be wearing but a mini skirt, had now turned into a vigilante, reminding my mother to cover her hair--which of course she (and Aunt) refused to do, as they refused to do a lot of other things to CONFORM into what they weren't--thus mother was fired and forced to retire at the age of 43 (but with only a fraction of her pension, as a PUNISHMENT for her non-Islamicism)! Aunt tried hard to get herself fired too, but she didn't succeed. So she just quit--having the luxury of being married to a surgeon ...

With urbanites like mother gone (or 'cleansed', as was the word for getting rid of non-revolutionaries), these modernizing functions fell in the hands of those whom at the beginning "we" (i.e. the non-revolutionary Taghooties) considered incompetent villagers! These villagers, however, were there for a cause ... were there to educate their own people, with whom they shared a far greater affinity. As sensitive as my 'royal' mother was to the 'cause' for her peasants (or someone else's), she would not have been authentic enough to be effective. Feudal arrogance is one of those personality traits that oozes out; it alienates. That arrogance is not replaced with the arrogance of the clergy--which is even more pompous than the feudal one--but because it operated under the umbrella of "godliness" it is not as alienating. (Keep in mind that in Iran there is often a large overlap between the Clergy and the Feudal!)

This is why when I see pictures like these, my heart fills with hope for a future that will not need another bloody revolution to 'set things right'. Way to go ...

HaPPy HoLiDaYs!

Wishing you all the best!

(What is) "Zereshk"? (click on photos)

Wedding: Iranian Style

I am not much of a "wedding" person!

Like many Iranian girls, my parents were in rush to get me married when I was 21! I married an exceptional man; whom I barely knew; but on whom I had a crush since I was a kid. A man of charisma, courage and great intelligence; and 'proper heritage', which was the only condition set by my family.

But I had a condition of my own:

That I shall not have a wedding; and that I should remain 'free'.

Many years have passed; and I am still married, the man is getting more charismatic, more courageous and his intelligence and good name are always there, and I am almost unimaginably free!

To me the whole wedding ceremony is appalling; the dress, the rituals, the gifts, the kisses, the dissatisfactions, the gossip, the so called "romance on display". I could not go through with THAT. To my mother's disbelief, that her first child would be married off like a homeless, through her tears, and with nothing in my marriage contract but an "apple", to be given to me by my to-be husband, should the marriage not work, I left my Papa's house! Almost two decades later; I am still proud of what I did!

I invite you to share with me your opinions and your stories. We are all anonymous here, so I am curious to hear what people really think about the significance of marriage and particularly the 'wedding' ceremony in their lives, in the society, in the aesthetics of culture, in folk tradition and etc ...

I like to hear your stories!