Impressions about Iran

17 by kaalchakra

``Wonder if that strengthens the theory about most leftists being men and women who never attain emotional maturity or political adulthood...``

Excuse my french Kaal, but this has to be the worst and the most stupid comment that I have seen from you in years. The stupidity of this comment does not require a response but since it came from you, I thought I should register my resentment and challenge you to prove this urban myth that you have just created.

I spent just two weeks in Iran when I was just a teenager so I may not have “mostly pleasant memories” as I barely met common folks.

I have special interest in Iran. I can read farsi and I regularly visit Irani blogs and what I find there is ugly. Basically, Irani are as racist and discriminative as Indians and Pakistanis are. Iranians think they are white and despite being looked down upon for years in the US, they still cannot overcome their own racism and look down on people of color.

In reality, most of the Iran is as primitive and as feudal and tribal as Baloch and Pathan in Pakistan are. The religious leadership had always played an important role in irani politics however; they never solely took control of the state affairs. They acted against the Shah because they saw their important constituency slowly slipping away or I would rather say drifting from them during the Shah’s regime.

The revolution against the Shah was because of his rapid moves towards the westernization of the Irani Society. Shah’s savagery and authoritarianism certainly helped the dissent which was channeled into religious fervor.

Here is something for the ignorant Indians who basically have heard a few things about Iran and talk rubbish about Iran and its culture.

“These experiences though have not changed our sentiments towards other nationalities. We are famous for our hospitality. We have a false respect for Americans and Europeans (for whatever reason), but we find it difficult to offer the same respect to Afghans, for example.

We don`t mind the U.S. having atomic bombs, but when we hear that Pakistan is an atomic power the first thing that crosses our mind is why don`t WE have the technology when EVEN ``Pakis`` and ``Indians`` have them. We treat our Afghan guests in Iran like the way the Swedes treat Iranians.

Now, deny it as much as you want but we look DOWN at Pakistanis, Indians, Afghans, Arabs, Turks, ... And that`s not because of what they DO but for who they ARE, and I call that racism. Even if Aryans existed as a race and we were all their decedents, even if we were superior to all other nations, even if we had blue blood with yellow stripes running through our noble Persian veins, what good would that bring the world?”

If you have lived in Iran for five years you can understand what Ferdosi wrote:

ze shir-e shotor khordan o susmAr
arab rA be jAyi residast kAr
ke tAj-e kiAn rA konad Arezu
tofu bAd bar charkh-e gardAn, tofu


In one thousand years Irani or Persians attitude has not changed against the Arabs.

“We do not hear about the Turkman, Kurdish, Bakhtiari and Qashqai tribes that fell victim to starvation brought on by forced settlements. So much of our modern history is about how successive governments in Iran have overcome the misguided rebellion of ``foreign agents`` in different corners of Iran. The attempts of various ethnic groups to assert their cultural rights have for the last 100 years been met with violent repression, public hangings and hostilities which sometimes have escalated into contained and isolated versions of civil wars.”

Irani community in the US has been offended by the movie 300 and you will find Irani discussing it on every blog. Here is a snippet from one blog and he pretty much sums up the dejection at being portrayed as of African decent.

“Even though Persians are a race of white Indo-Europeans, their chosen king, as well as most of the high level functionaries, appear to be of African descent.”

GT, that`s a great point. So it is unfair to hold only Islamists responsible for exploiting leftists. Apparently every group that pursued an agenda totally contrary to theirs has effectively used leftists and spat them out in time.

Wonder if that strengthens the theory about most leftists being men and women who never attain emotional maturity or political adulthood...

Re: # 15

kaal:

No, not necessarily that way. The left joined hands with the clerics to topple the Shah, just like the left joined with the Jan Sangh (and others) to oppose the Emergency. Of course after the clerics came to power the first guys they went after were the leftists - just like in Iraq where saddam got rid of the leftists and the US clapped.

GT # 14 is right. Iran was an early (first?) grand alliance of leftists and Islamists - a natural combination that has become a powerful global merger of late.

Iran IS a great civilization.

#3

zee:

The Shah was not overthrown by the clerics alone. Just as the West does not understand Iran, neo-Islamists (groomed on cofee table ``Islam made easy`` written by Pakistani aunties who claim to be inspired by UBL) do not understand Iran either.

Author good article, very balanced

Re: # 10
couldn`t agree more.

greece had a brilliant civilisation, at the present time it relies on hand outs from rest of EU.

the inherited system has long been discredited. no one would go for treatment to a man who claimed that his father was a very good dentist, same principle applies to countries as well.

Iranians are civilized people who have held onto their culture inspite of nut jobs like Ayatollah Khomeini. It is one of the greatest failures of US foreign policy that the US considers barbaric countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia allies, while putting down Iran.

Recently, ex-president Khatami was in india and its good to see that he combined cultural tourism even while having some frank discussions with the indians. I cannot imagine the islamo-supremacist saudis or their slaves in pakistan ever participating in any such thing.

http://www.hindu.com/2007/03/25/stories/2007032502781000.htm

SECULAR OUTLOOK: The former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami comes out after visiting the Swaminarayan Akshardham temple in New Delhi on Friday.

Re: # 8,
The past is no indicator of the present. Persia might have been a great power in history, but it has no bearing on modern Iran.

Re:zeemax#3

No one bothered Iran when Khatami was in power. He was a wise man, led the country properly and everyone respected Iran. Now you have a buffoon, goonda type guy Ahmedinijad in power, who threatens countries with annihiliation and is developing nukes. What do you expect the world to do? Just sit by and let him do what he wants? If you behave irresponsibly, you pay the consequences. That holds true for Bush and it holds true for Ahmedinijad.

If Iran has nuclear ambitions who can stop them from getting there? Persia was once one of the great powers in the Northern hemisphere, posing a serious challenge to the Greek power in Europe. They were a military and a political force to reckon with in the mideaval era. Iranian culture has left its mark in several parts of Central Asia, many people adopting their language and customs. Persian was a court language even in India. You just cannot keep a great nation down. Iran will achieve the nuclear advance it seeks on its own steam, but one only wishes they would not buy technology underhand from that nuclear terrorist called Qadeer Khan.

Iran has always been a good friend of India and always sensitive to India`s position on Kashmir. India`s vote against Iran in the United Nations recently in the nuclear issue was therefore really unfortunate.

Iran`s defense of the Arab interests in the Mideast is of conviction, without any axe to grind.

Although Muslim, the Iranians have painstakingly preserved their Zorastrian history unlike the Pakistan-reared Taliban who took great delight in destroying the Bamian Buddhas.

In the past Iranians were Zorastrians, today it is an Islamic country where Mullahs rule, whatever may happen tomorrow, Iranians will always remain a great people.

Individually the Iranians are a very cultured and soft spoken people, always courteous in their demeanour. Always respectful to other faiths, Iranians living in harmony in Western India for several years are a testimony to their accomodating nature. Iranian contribution to art is also well known.

#1 by jamesmaxwell on March 26, 2007 4:08am PT

Iranians are also the most pro-American of any muslims..

unfortunately, it looks like there will be a war on Iran before the decade is out...this time, it will be an air war..easier for the warmongering hitlery to support...

click on the link for the whole article with links etc...

The Coming War With Iran
Is it inevitable?
by Justin Raimondo
The timing of the recent incident in which 15 British sailors were arrested by Iran at the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway for purportedly entering Iranian waters couldn`t have been more provocative if it had been planned that way. And perhaps it was. The question is, however, who did the planning?

It happened on the eve of a vote in the UN Security Council to impose stricter sanctions on Iran and in the wake of escalating rhetoric from U.S. government officials blaming Iran for anti-occupation activity in Iraq. On top of that, recent events include the kidnapping of Iranian consular officials in Irbil, Kurdistan, by U.S. forces, reports of covert U.S. support for terrorist attacks inside Iran, the ``disappearance`` of a major Iranian military figure in the elite Revolutionary Guards unit, and suspicions that the Mossad may have had a hand in killing a renowned Iranian nuclear scientist. Add it all up, and there seems little doubt as to who carried out what seems like a brazen provocation.

Go here for the semiofficial British version of the confrontation: according to this account, we are supposed to believe that the Iranians entered Iraqi waters to ``ambush`` the Brits, who were engaged in what is described as a ``routine`` patrol of the disputed waterway in search of suspected smugglers. Car smugglers were offloading their merchandise onto a barge when they were approached by the Brit patrol and fled into Iranian waters – but not before ``irking`` the British crew:

``The suspected smugglers complied with the British orders and the crew returned to its rigid hull inflatable boats (rhibs) to continue its patrol, only to turn around and see the traders laughing in its direction.``

Laughing at Her Majesty`s sailors, who were guarding the civilized world from the pernicious plots of car smugglers, was surely an act of war. After all, isn`t a car a ``weapon of mass destruction`` in present-day Iraq? The Brits weren`t going to let the Iranians off the hook quite so easily, and the next day they returned to the same waters to find the same smugglers plying their trade. The British patrol made a beeline for the smugglers, but this time the smugglers didn`t run – and the poor naïve Brits walked right into the trap. No sooner had they boarded the vessel than they were surrounded on all sides by Iranian gunboats. Last anybody heard of their fate, they were in Tehran and the Iranians were talking about putting them on trial for espionage.

The Iraqi commander in charge of guarding Iraq`s territorial waters, Brig. Gen. Hakim Jassim, has a different story to tell, as reported here:

``The Iraqi military commander of the country`s territorial waters cast doubt on claims the Britons were in Iraqi waters. `We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control. We don`t know why they were there.```

Ah, but I suppose it depends on which fisherman you ask. At any rate, no fisherman in the area will be interviewed by anyone in the Western news media any time soon, because, as the UK Independent notes, all reporters have been ``ordered away`` by coalition forces. The Brits are hedging their bets: even while Tony Blair denies Iranian charges of ``blatant aggression`` and openly threatens Tehran,

``Lord Triesman, a Foreign Office undersecretary who had held talks with Iran`s ambassador on Saturday, told Sky News there was good evidence the men were in Iraqi waters, but that the issue of whether the sailors had strayed into Iranian waters was only a technical one. `I`ve been very clear throughout that the British forces do not ever intentionally enter into Iranian waters,` he said. `There`s no reason for them to do so, we don`t intend to do so, and I think people should accept there`s good faith in those assertions.```

Although the Iranians claim the captured recording devices provide solid evidence that the Brits knew they were in Iranian waters, Iranian officials have so far declined to release the precise coordinates where the interception took place. One awaits further evidence, as opposed to the straight reporting of the British government`s explanation as if it were fact. In any event, you`ll note that various descriptions of the Shatt al-Arab waterway are often preceded by the word ``disputed`` – due to the fact that nobody really knows what defines the exact boundary between Iran and Iraq along this crucial oil route. Which is precisely why this area is such a perfect staging ground for the War Party`s next adventure in ``regime change.``

Both Ron Paul and Antiwar.com columnist Philip Giraldi have warned about the likelihood of a Gulf of Tonkin-style incident in the Persian Gulf, and their predictions have, sadly, proved all too accurate. That it involves the British, not the Americans, is a double victory for the on-to-Tehran crowd: the war-weary Brits, who recently announced the withdrawal of their troops from southern Iraq, will presumably be dragged along in the wake of the coming U.S. military assault as their sailors are paraded before the cameras in Tehran. Once again, ``coalition`` forces are about to take down a Middle Eastern government, and they are already on the move.

The War Party`s propaganda campaign has gone into high gear as a result of this incident, evoking memories of yet another ``hostage crisis`` and characterizing the incident as an Iranian provocation designed to set up a prisoner exchange, in which the Iranians would hand over their captive Brits for Iranians recently detained in Iraq – the latter supposedly numbering in the ``hundreds.``

As part of the general propaganda offensive, U.S. News is reporting yet another incident, this time involving the Americans and Iraqi troops, who were allegedly surrounded by Iranian Revolutionary Guards well inside Iraq. This supposedly occurred in September of last year – yet we`re only learning about it now.

On the ground in the Middle East, the forces that will engage in a mighty clash of civilizations are gathering – while, on the home front, the Israel Lobby is preparing the ground by softening up any possible opposition. This means zeroing in on the Democratic Party, lining up the major presidential candidates in support of a strike against Tehran, and smearing any and all war opponents as anti-Semitic enablers of the nuclear-armed, Holocaust-denying Iranian regime.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi`s recently-passed ``antiwar`` legislation – funding the conflict while giving the president plenty of room to evade a conditional withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by sometime in 2008 – is being hailed as a great achievement by the Huffington Post`s David Sirota and other party-lining apologists for the DNC, but what these people somehow fail to mention is the stripping out of a provision that would have forced Bush to go to Congress before launching an attack on Iran.

No one should be surprised by this open invitation to the president to commence the bombing at his convenience. After all, Democrats have been more belligerent than the Bush administration when it comes to Iran. Hillary Clinton has accused the Bushies of mollycoddling Tehran, and Democratic Party national chairman Howard Dean opined to Chris Matthews that the tragedy of our wrongheaded intervention in Iraq was that it diverted attention away from the ``real threat`` – Iran. Asked by Matthews if we ought to go to war with Iran, Dean – like the big-time Democratic presidential wannabes – refused to take it off the table.

The Democrats, to their dismay, may soon find that it is being put on the table by George W. Bush – and how they react will determine whether they go down in history as opponents of this war-crazed administration, or its craven enablers. I`d be willing to bet the farm on the latter, and, in this context, rumors of a U.S. attack on Iran scheduled for April seem more credible by the hour.

I would note, in passing, and purely as a speculative matter that oil prices are already spiking in response to rumors of war in the Gulf, and perhaps this is the key to understanding the Democrats` capitulation. After all, the political atmosphere would certainly change – to the Democrats` advantage – if the price of oil were to truly skyrocket, say, to $200 a barrel. This would virtually ensure a Democratic victory in `08. That another side effect would be to trigger a worldwide economic collapse is just a minor matter, and perhaps as good an opportunity as any to institute some real New Deal-style ``reforms`` of the American economic system. Statist liberals have been complaining ever since 9/11 that George W. Bush has never really asked us to make ``sacrifices`` in pursuit of victory in the ``war on terrorism,`` bemoaning the lack of a tax hike and disdaining the president`s call for the nation to ``go shopping`` in response to the biggest terrorist attack in our history. Having caused a major economic as well as geopolitical catastrophe as a result of making war on Iran, our pro-sacrifice liberals – especially those in Congress who initially signed on to the attack on Iraq – may believe an attack on Iran is a small price to pay for power.

We keep hearing that the U.S. will never attack Iran because we don`t have the troops or the military reserves. Lawrence O`Donnell, for one, keeps saying this on The McLaughlin Group, but I don`t believe it for a minute. The Lobby is pushing hard on this one, and, politically, the War Party has lined up the leadership of both the Democrats and the Republicans, as Pelosi`s capitulation on the Iran proviso makes all too clear. As long as domestic political support for an attack spans both parties and includes the key element of ``liberal`` Democrats like Pelosi and Chairman Dean, all systems are ``go`` for war with Iran.

God may forgive them: I will not.

#4 by Shah2

Hahaha ... you said it ..

#3 by zeemax on March 26, 2007 7:41am PT


to give Kashmir to the hindus


Wanting it really really bad and being utterly incapable of taking it isn`t the same as giving it...

that`s like the fox ``giving up`` the grapes

``The world has gone wrong somewhere in understanding them or stereotyping them with other Islamic fundamentalists like the Talibans. It must be remembered that Islam has many faces``

nay they undestand very well..Talibans we not considerd funamentalists when they were fighting against the Russians in the 80s..
Carter administration & then Secretary ofState Brizinsky called for Jehad against godless communists ...Its not your fault that theyPRETEND to not understand you .they know very well.