dilemma

Ali,

It is one thing to look for support in the fight against the tyranny of mullahs, but to reach out to the 'international community' that is led by another theocracy as exists in the US is a big mistake. Again, I would not even criticize you for your anti-Islam slant as the fate of Zoroastrians at the hands of Islam is unacceptable in itself. But look how in America you cannot find one single political leader who is openly secular. It is all about God and Country, and although there is a clear difference in form, there is little difference in substance between the 2 systems.

Would be keen to hear your response.

by Niloufar Parsi (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 74 comments) on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 11:37:36 AM
 

dilemma

Ali,

It is one thing to look for support in the fight against the tyranny of mullahs, but to reach out to the 'international community' that is led by another theocracy as exists in the US is a big mistake. Again, I would not even criticize you for your anti-Islam slant as the fate of Zoroastrians at the hands of Islam is unacceptable in itself. But look how in America you cannot find one single political leader who is openly secular. It is all about God and Country, and although there is a clear difference in form, there is little difference in substance between the 2 systems.

Would be keen to hear your response.

by Niloufar Parsi (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 74 comments) on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 11:37:37 AM
 

quo bene

"International community that is led by a theocracy such as US", I am not so sure, Niloufar.

I am not interested in the US to sort out Iran's affair.  In fact I wish that it left Iran and Iranians alone.  But it does not.  The reason is clear.  A country that has such a potent combination of young population, and energy resources, is very hard to stop from developing.

The US wants the Iranians to come to the US and work there.

The US wants the Iranian oil to come to the US to be wasted there.

The last thing the US wants is for the oil in Iran to develop in Iran and make Iran the Japan of West Asia.  It is very easy for Iranians to create huge industries with partnerships, just like the Chinese have done, and make Iran into an economic giant.  This is what was happening at the time of the Shah, and it is even happening now with these aliens in place.

So my dear, the situation is a lot more subtle than you think.  They can change or remove the Seyyeds in a snap.  The trouble is that they will end up with a worse situation.  Can you imagine all the Iranians in US returning to Iran?  Can you imagine what wealth and resources they would bring?

Now think who would lose, and who would benefit. 

by Ali Mostofi (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 28 comments) on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 12:09:28 PM
 

winners & losers

Ali,

Interesting point you raise here, and there are few Iranians who would present this case in forums such as this, but as we both know, many if not most Iranians think the way you do: that the Islamic Regime was brought in by some outside forces to hold Iran back. 

This outlook is certainly supported by some 'evidence' such as the 'loss' of Iranian prestige, and a perspective inside Iran that we have fallen way behind the position we could have been at by now had the Shah stayed in power. 

On balance I cannot support such a view. It is too hypothetical, and it is based on a false notion of Iran's international 'standing' before the revolution. While Iran made strong strides toward 'modernisation' in the 20th century, we were still way more behind other countries (in social, scientific, economic and cultural development terms) than we realise. 

I would suggest to you that what happened in Iran was very much class-based though it eventually came through in the guise of a religious revolt. As you well know, the revolution was among the most highly mobilised ones in history. It was no foreign plot or imposition, but it was rather hijacked by the Islamic factions within a few years, and especially helped by Saddam's invasion.

I would further suggest to you that the poorer sections of society got a chance to take over and pay back for decades of humiliation and neglect by the ruling elite and their hangers-on who promulgated a culture of snobbery and xenophobia with a bloated and misguided idea about 'Iranianism'.

The groups that took over the reigns of power over a five-year period were happy to deliver a massive payback to the previous elite and their 'western' culture. Thus they came up against a global layer of powerful enemies allied to the Shah's regime and all that it stood for.

From this perspective (and sorry for writing so much - I didn't expect this to be so long!), Ramsheyi's perspective may make some sense: a global payback to the 'system' would appreciate the mullah's regime. The only country that tells US imperialists to 'go and shove it'. The only regime openly calling for regime change in Israel. 

But this takes us full circle to your point: who is benefiting from the status quo? Is it all a meaningless and deceitful show? My answer to the latter question would be: 'probably not'. It looks more like a class struggle hidden underneath several layers of ideology.

by Niloufar Parsi (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 74 comments) on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 4:05:33 AM
 

Honesty And Some Historical Background

Ali Mostofi,

Who is a 'Seyyed' ? I am ignorant and had to look it up through a Wikipathway. A 'Seyyed' is a descendant of the Prophet Mohammad. Queen Elizabeth II claims to be a descendant of the Prophet according to Burke's Peerage reported by Juan Cole on February 29th  (www.Informedcomment.com). If you are referring to Islamists who have been ruling Iran for the past 30 years, then call them Ayatollahs or Mullahs but not 'Seyyeds' as most of them are not Seyyeds. On the other hand all the Seyyeds in Iran are not part of political structure. 'Seyyed' is a misnomer.

Your choice of a vocabulary which does not mean anything, and at its worst is misleading, discredits your article to a large extent. You can not be taken seriously. Why?

Those towards whom you unleash your hatred are the ones that returned to Iranians the pride they had lost during one of the darkest periods of their turbulent history, the reign of Pahlavi regime. Your 'Seyyeds' are the ones that did the necessary sacrifice to help Iranians get rid of one the most corrupt blood thirsty CIA stooges ever to rule upon a third world country, the so-called Shah of Iran. They inspired the nation to stage a genuine revolution to kick out the man and his handlers who had deposed in 1953 their hero Mohammad Mossadegh , a democratically elected leader,and to finally put an end to centuries of successive humiliating monarchies. The pent-up hatred simmering inside proud Iranians towards British colonizers and CIA-appointed criminals could only be quenched through a general uprising which would have been impossible without your 'Seyyeds' toiling relentlessly under torture and inside infamous prison cells for 25 years. Then, after the revolution the same 'Seyyeds' had to gear up again for more sacrifices in order to push back the enemy that was coming back masquerading  as Saddam Husssein's army. And today those same 'Seyyeds' are in the front line and make up the nation's only hope to thwart a NeoCon/Zionist devilish plan to break up Iran into pieces and to remodel the Middle East according to Israel's whims and desires.

Your 'Seyyeds' have been doing a great job in restoring Persian Pride. Iran is much more democratic than the USA thaks to 'Seyyeds'. 

As for your  UN, it used to be a Rich Man's Club. It still is;  but it is  rendered totally irrelevant ever since John Bolton's stint as the devil's agent to appoint a puppet

So much for your 'Seyyeds'.

Thank you 'Seyyeds'.   

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 550 comments) on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 8:13:34 PM
 

Seyyeds?

Ramsheyi,

Let me hazard a guess on Ali's behalf: there is within Iran a strong anti-Islamic current - thanks to the brutality of the mullahs - that craves for the pre-Islamic age. The 'imposition' of Islam by the Arabs led by Muhammad in particular leads to a derogatory approach toward Islam and 'Seyyeds', which is a way of saying 'rape' of a national identity by Muhammad and his descendants. From this perspective, the Islamic Regime is seen as a second Arab invasion of Iranian culture and identity. This is not necessarily always said in support of the Shah though it often is.

Your point about national pride is understandable, but you would be surprised to what extent this outlook (mullahs having saved Iran's pride) is that of outsiders rather than Iranians. To the great majority of Iranians the mullahs are little more than a major embarrassment and a source of misery, war and poverty for Iranians. This is not to negate your view that the mullahs have in fact raised Iran's position regionally and globally in international relations. But believe me, it is not where Iranians want to be, and definitely not at the price ordinary Iranians have had to pay for this level of influence.

I would not be surprised if Iran emerged from this chapter in its history as a beacon for secularism in the ME. 

by Niloufar Parsi (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 74 comments) on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 3:34:11 AM