



This blog is about fairness; about looking at objects from multiple perspectives. Stable transformation comes only slowly; and only if the environment is free of sporadic jitters of passion and anger that destabilize growth. I strongly believe that the path to peace crosses through the battle with self.




(I wish some properly cultured Iranian had advised you that including two words "weapon" and "terror" on a greeting message sent on the occasion of New Year and Spring Equinox is considered "rude"! With those two words you set back what you aimed to start. Then, don't be disappointed if Iranians don't fall on their face in appreciation of your gesture!
Iran has many great female literary figures (and leaders). You can read about them in Farzaneh Milani's : Veils and Words.
The winners are:
old photo of Iranian Jews

"When Harun's (an old man Robert befriended) tribe, Kisii fought with Masai to the east, that was okey and everyone had a fine time. But when they fought with the Masai to the south, they were fighting with Tanzanians, and it was an international incident and the police would come and tell them to cut it out.This book reminds me of the movie: The Gods Must Be Crazy!
To the combatants the whole thing seemed pretty bizarre and arbitrary. It reminded me that once, long ago, this border formed another strange arbitrary boundary. Once Kenya was British East Africa, Tanzania was German Tanganyika, and in 1914, the while colonists in each dutifully made uniforms, formed units and conducted World War I. There were battles in Kisii land and even now, there were still legends about treasures buried in the hills by soldiers before battle.
Harun and I sat with the very old man who drank and chortled and belched and reminisced. I asked them about the time the German colonials and the British colonials fought eachother. They remembered well.
' The white people had a fight amongst themselves for some reason, so they started fighting here. They would come in clothes like the policemen wear now, and they would shoot at eachother. dead white people, imagine. Once, an airplane came over. We did not know what it was and we were terribly frightened; we ran to our mothers and hid ourselves.
One day the British came and said that we should go and fight also. We could not believe it--they would give us guns to shoot white people. They always said guns had a magic so that an African man could not use it to shoot a white man, but they said that these Germans were different white men and the guns would work.
Then they said a crazy thing. They said we should also fight the Masai, that they would give us guns to do that. Yes, we said, we will fight them with your guns, but they said we could only fight the Masai to the south, the Masai to the east we must never fight. We thought that was crazy. so we refused. They beat some of us, but we still refused.'
The old men thought it puzzling and basically funny. the Masai were delighted, however to fight. Units of British East African Masai from the east and Tanganyikan Masai from the south had several pitched battles in makeshift uniforms. no one remembered the outcome. "
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 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."

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!



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.

"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!