Iran-U.S.A

[Rasputin]

Unforeseen Spending on Materiel Pumps Up Iraq War Bill
Last year, depot workers upgraded 5,000 Humvees with new engines and new transmissions to support ever-heavier armor. This year, they will see close to 9,000. They will also have to patch up 7,000 more machine guns, 5,000 more tank tracks and 100 more M1A1 Abrams tanks.

In 2001, the depots logged 11 million labor hours. Last year, that reached 20 million, and this year, it will total 24 million, Motsek said. Depot officials had hoped to work 27 million hours, but funding delays forced them to cut back.

And that is only the work being done in the United States. In and around Iraq, 53,000 people -- 52,000 of them contractors -- are maintaining and rebuilding lightly damaged equipment, a senior Senate defense aide said. Indian workers are refurbishing U.S. Humvees for $6 an hour.

"The equipment is wearing out five times faster than normal operations," said Jeremiah Gertler, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former House Armed Services Committee procurement aide.

What cannot be repaired has to be replaced. Procurement costs were a tiny fraction of the initial emergency war requests, Kosiak said. This year, new equipment purchases will consume 20 percent of the war funding. That has led to what some critics see as wasteful expenditures. The Senate bill includes $230 million to replace an unspecified number of CH-46E Sea Knight helicopters lost in battle with three V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. In other words, senators plan to replace a Marine Corps workhorse with an experimental aircraft that critics say will never be useful in combat.

Such costs were always there, Gertler said, but Bush administration officials and members of Congress put off maintenance and procurement expenditures to keep down the war's price tag.

Schoomaker said as much at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in February, when he remarked that a "bow wave" of costs "pushed forward from previous years" is now cresting.

"It was just recently that we started to get procurement money" for equipment repair and replacement in supplemental funding, he testified.

Schoomaker warned that such costs will continue, even after U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq. To fully re-equip and upgrade the U.S. Army after the war ends would cost $36 billion over six years, and that figure assumes U.S. forces would begin withdrawing in July and would be completely out of Iraq by the end of 2008, an assumption Bush dismissed when he suggested withdrawal will be up to his White House successor.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said a more protracted fight could triple Schoomaker's $36 billion figure.

[Rasputin]

Iran's enemy lies within

Internal political divisions and economic weaknesses may present a bigger threat to the longevity of the Iranian government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than the US and Israeli air forces combined, a report published yesterday suggests.
The study, entitled Understanding Iran and produced by the Foreign Policy Centre, warns that military action against Iran's suspect nuclear facilities could have disastrous consequences. "The only chance of modifying Iran's behaviour in the short term will come from a serious effort to engage with the current leadership," it says.

Echoing calls for direct US-Iran talks made by Germany, the UN's nuclear agency, and US politicians, the European thinktank's report urges the creation of a Middle East security organisation similar to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It proposes mechanisms for facilitating dialogue to end the nuclear impasse and address other friction points. But in suggesting increased "economic, cultural, educational and social exchanges as a way of empowering the Iranian people and ultimately forcing the regime to loosen its restrictive practices" it also highlights the potentially fatal schisms and vulnerabilities of a government often portrayed as united in defiance of the west.
"Behind the scenes a fierce struggle is under way. In one camp is President Ahmadinejad, his supporters in the Revolutionary Guards and the paramilitary force known as the Basijis, and messianic fundamentalists inspired by the teachings of Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi. In the other camp is Iran's embattled democratic movement [and] an array of forces that benefited from the status quo before Ahmadinejad came to power, including former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani."

The outcome of this battle was uncertain, but what was clear was that direct US intervention would play into the hands of the hardliners. "A strategy that gambles on a popular uprising to bring down the current regime runs the risk of undermining those very forces it purports to want to help."

The report looks at other pressures on the government: a population of over 70 million, of whom 65% are younger than 25; a largely state-dominated economy prone to corruption; an energy industry starved of investment that is producing steadily less oil for export, and a youth culture increasingly circumventing controls on foreign media and internet access.

'According to the government's own estimates some 900,000 new jobs are needed annually to accommodate the burgeoning labour force and prevent an increase in unemployment, officially at 16%, unofficially at over 20%," the report says. It also focuses on gender discrimination, human rights abuses (including executions of minors and repression of minorities), and attempts to suppress free speech and independent media.

All these contentious issues, it suggests, carry the seeds of change from within and in the longer term could be catalysts for ending Iran's post-1979 theocracy. But if the west was to understand Iran, it had to understand itself - and recognise that clumsy outside attempts to jump-start reform were likely to be counterproductive

[Rasputin]

The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

In retaliation, suicide bombers trained by Tehran massacred civilians in Tel Aviv, London and New York

May 7 2009 will surely go down in history alongside September 11 2001. "5/7", as it inevitably became known, saw massive suicide bombings in Tel Aviv, London and New York, as well as simultaneous attacks on the remaining western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total casualties were estimated at around 10,000 dead and many more wounded. The attacks, which included the explosion of a so-called dirty bomb in London, were orchestrated by a Tehran-based organisation for "martyrdom-seeking operations" established in 2004. "5/7" was the Islamic Republic of Iran's response to the bombing of its nuclear facilities, which President Hillary Clinton had ordered in March 2009.

Despite massive protests across the Islamic world, and in many European capitals, the US-led military operation had initially appeared to be successful. The US, supported by British and Israeli special forces, had bombed 37 sites, including underground facilities in which Iran was said to be on the verge of making a nuclear weapon using its own version of P-2 centrifuges. The model for these had been originally supplied by AQ Khan, the rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist. US forces had taken down Iran's air defences and destroyed much of its air force. Inevitably, there were civilian casualties - estimated by the Iranian government at 197 dead and 533 injured. A Pentagon spokesman insisted that "collateral damage" had been confined to "an acceptable level". He claimed Iran's nuclear weapons programme had been "knocked back to first base".
The US navy had also successfully broken an attempted Iranian naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the main arteries of the world's oil supplies. A US gunship had been damaged by an Iranian underwater missile attack, but with no loss of American lives. In panic on the oil markets, the price of crude oil had soared to more than $100 a barrel, but the Bush administration had built up America's strategic oil reserves and the new Clinton administration was able to draw on these. European economies were worse hit.

As experts had predicted, however, the biggest challenge for the west was Iran's ability to wage asymmetric warfare through Hizbullah, Hamas and its own suicide-bombing brigades. The Islamic Republic had for years been openly recruiting suicide bombers through an organisation described as the Committee to Commemorate Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement. As early as April 2006, it had held a recruitment fair in the grounds of the former US embassy in Tehran, claiming it already had more than 50,000 volunteers for operations against "the al-Quds occupiers" (that is, Israel), "the occupiers of Islamic lands", especially the US and Britain, and the British writer Salman Rushdie. Recruits could also sign up through the internet (www.esteshhad.com) While Hizbullah and Hamas provided the infrastructure for the Tel Aviv bombings, the key to the attacks on London and New York was the recruitment of British and American Muslims through this group. The man who detonated the dirty bomb at Euston station, Bradford-born Muhammad Hussein, had been secretly trained by the Committee to Commemorate Martyrs at a camp in northern Iran.

With hindsight, it appears that the turning point may have come in the spring of 2006. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, having proclaimed his intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, announced that his country had already successfully enriched uranium and hinted that it had the superior P-2 centrifuge technology. Whether true or not, these claims effectively destroyed the last hopes of achieving a diplomatic solution through negotiations led by the so-called E3 - France, Germany and Britain.

A long, tortuous diplomatic dance followed, with China and Russia eventually agreeing to minimal UN sanctions on Iran, including visa bans on selected members of the regime. These had little perceptible impact on the Iranian nuclear programme, but were successfully exploited by the regime to stoke up an always strong national sense of victimisation. Meanwhile, the exposure of the clumsy channelling of US government financial support through a California-based monarchist exile organisation to a student group in Isfahan was used as a pretext for a brutal clampdown on all potentially dissident groups. Several show trials for "treason" were staged despite international protests. This produced a further hardening of US policy in the last years of the Bush administration. In the 2008 US presidential campaign, the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, felt compelled - perhaps against her own better judgment - to use the Iran issue to demonstrate that she could be tougher than John McCain on national security issues.

....

[Rasputin]

When she came into office, she was already committed to preventing Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, by military means if necessary. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime had abandoned all restraint in its pursuit of that objective, calculating that its own best chances of survival lay in the swiftest possible acquisition of a nuclear deterrent. In February 2009, an alarming intelligence report reached Washington, suggesting that Tehran - using a secret cascade of its version of the P-2 centrifuge - was much closer to obtaining a bomb than had been thought. In a series of crisis meetings, President Clinton, her new secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, and her new secretary of defence, Joe Biden, decided that they could afford to wait no longer. Operation Gulf Peace, for which the Pentagon had long made detailed contingency plans, started on March 6 2009.

Washington claimed that it had legal authorisation under earlier UN security council resolutions sanctioning Iran for its non-compliance on the nuclear issue, but these claims were disputed by China and Russia. Most European countries did not back the operation either, producing another big transatlantic rift. However, under enormous pressure from his close friends among US Democrats, the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, reluctantly decided to give it his approval, and allowed the token deployment of a small number of British special forces in a supporting role. This provoked a revolt from the Labour backbenches - led by the former foreign secretary, Jack Straw - and a demonstration of more than 1 million people in London. Even the Conservative leader, David Cameron, mindful that a general election was expected soon, criticised Brown's support for the American action. Brown therefore postponed the British election, which had been provisionally scheduled for May 2009. Instead of an election, the country experienced a tragedy.

Meanwhile, President Ahmadinejad faced a presidential election in June 2009. Unlike Brown, he was riding high on a wave of national solidarity. Even the many millions of Iranians disappointed by his failure to deliver on his material promises, and those who despaired of their country's international isolation, felt impelled to rally round the leader in time of war.

Many prominent Americans criticised the US military action. Some claimed to know that the presidential spouse, Bill Clinton, was privately among those critics, although in public he was loyalty itself. But Dr Patrick Smith of the Washington-based Committee for a Better World, which had long advocated bombing Iran, demanded of the critics: "What was your alternative?"

[donsaeid]

تروريسم سياسي، مبناي سياست خارجي آمريكا



سياستهاي خارجي آمريكا همواره بر مبناي تروريسم سياسي بنا شده است و هم اكنون اين كشور فعاليتهاي هستهاي ايران را دستاويزي براي اجراي سياستهاي سلطهطلبانه خود قرار داده است.


سياستهاي خارجي آمريكا همواره بر مبناي تروريسم سياسي بنا شده است و هم اكنون اين كشور فعاليتهاي هستهاي ايران را دستاويزي براي اجراي سياستهاي سلطهطلبانه خود قرار داده است.

بنابراين جاي تعجب نيست كه رئيس جمهور آمريكا از منتفي دانستن حمله نظامي به ايران امتناع ميورزد. بوش در تفسير اظهارات سيمورهرش مبني بر حمله نظامي به ايران، اعلام كرده است تمامي گزينههاي احتمالي تحت بررسي هستند. بايد گفت آمريكا براي حل مناقشات هستهاي ايران تمامي گزينهها از جمله نسل كشي را تحت بررسي دارد. در واقع نسل كشي و بمباران اتمي كشورهاي ديگرمعناي حقيقي ديپلماسي است كه جورج بوش از آن سخن ميگويد.

بوش براي حل مناقشات هستهاي ايران با چين كه خود يك قدرت هستهاي بزرگ است و تسليحات اتمي در اختيار دارد به مذاكره مينشيند و اين به خوبي دورويي دولت آمريكا را به اثبات ميرساند.

شايد دنيا بايد شكرگرار صداقت و بيپردگي بوش در بيان عقايدش باشد! در واقع اين صراحت باعث شده است تمامي مردم جهان بفهمند كه سياست خارجي آمريكا بر پايه تروريسم سياسي بنا شده است و يكي از ابزار اجراي اين سياست، اشكالتراشي در زمينه فعاليتهاي هستهاي ديگر كشورهاست. آمريكا در طراحي و اجراي اين سياست خود حتي به داشتن تعهدات اخلاقي و راهكارهاي استراتژيك نيز تظاهر نميكند.

شايد جمله زير بهترين و سادهترين تعريف سياست خارجي آمريكا باشد: با ما مخالفت كنيد تا شما را از بين ببريم. در واقع دولت بوش در برابر هر نوع ايستادگي و عدم سرسپردگي چنين سياستي را اتخاذ ميكند و با ديدن كوچكترين مقاومت در قبال خود، كمر به نابودي كشور مخالف ميبندد.

البته آمريكا براي نابودي مخالفان خود روشهاي گوناگوني داشته و اين نابودي نيز درجهبنديهاي متفاوتي دارد. از تحريمهاي اقتصادي عليه عراق كه به كشته شدن هزاران انسان و به خصوص كودكان بيگناه انجاميد تا تحريمهاي سياسي عليه بلاروس و در مخالفت با لوكاشنكو، رئيس جمهور منتخب اين كشور،مثالهاي خوبي براي سياست آمريكا در اين زمينه هستند. آمريكا در روش دوم (يعني تحريم سياسي كشورها) كه به منظور گسترش نفرت مردم از دولت صورت ميگيرد، از رسانهها به عنوان وسيلهاي براي اجراي سياستهاي خود استفاده ميكند. گزارشگران، دبيران و روزنامهنگاران كشورهاي خارجي از سوي آمريكا اجير ميشوند تا جنگ تبليغاتي آمريكا را به راه بياندازند و به اين ترتيب حمايت مردم را براي جنگي كه آمريكا قصد آغاز آن را دارد، جلب مي كنند.

جنگ به اصطلاح ضدتروريسم آمريكا را نميتوان جنگي منطقي دانست، چرا كه طبق تئوريهاي اين جنگ، آمريكا به خود اجازه ميدهد در هر زمان و به هر كشوري كه بخواهد، حمله كند.

آمار زخميها و كشته شدگان نيروهاي آمريكايي در جنگ عراق به بيش از هزاران نفر ميرسد واين آمار به خوبي بيانگر بالا بودن تعداد زخميها و كشته شدگان، عراقي ميباشد و به همين دليل است كه ارتش آمريكا از اعلام تعداد واقعي تلفات عراقي ها در اين جنگ سرباز ميزند. البته كاملاً واضح است كه هيچ جنايت كاري حاضر نيست آمار قربانيان خود را به درستي اعلام كند.

جنون نسل كشي و رويكرد تروريسم سياسي آمريكا هنوز به پايان نرسيده است. جورج بوش در حالي كه هنوز در گرداب عراق دست و پا ميزند، به فكر حمله به ايران افتاده است. بايد از وي پرسيد، بعد از ايران نوبت كدام كشور است: سوريه، لبنان يا ديگر كشورهايي كه فقط به دليل عدم سرسپردگي به آمريكا، بايد قرباني جنگ طلبي اين كشور شوند؟

لورنت موراويس، يكي از نومحافظهكاران آمريكا پيش از آغاز جنگ عراق گفته بود اشغال عراق مقدمهاي براي اشغال عربستان سعودي و اشغال مصر، پاداش اين موفقيت است.

اين گونه اظهارات علاوه بر اثبات سادگي بيش از حد نومحافظهكاران، جنوني را كه در سياستهاي آنها پنهان است، به خوبي نمايان ميكند. هر چند موراويس در آن زمان از كار بر كنار شد، اما موضعگيريهاي اخير آمريكا عليه ايران و ديگر كشورهاي خاورميانه بيانگر توفق نوديوانگان بر دولت آمريكا است.

بر خلاف توهمات و اخبار كذبي كه دولت بوش سعي دارد از نتايج سياستهاي خارجي خود به مردم آمريكا نشان دهد، بايد گفت تبعات منفي سياستهاي جنونآميز دولت آمريكا براي مردم اين كشور بسيار گران تمام شده است و مردم آمريكا هر لحظه در هراس به سر ميبرند.

هم اكنون زمان آن فر ا رسيده است تا دولت بوش با دوري از سياستهاي جنونآميز خود و به جاي تكرار اشتباهات خود در عراق، از اين اشتباهات درس عبرت بگيرد و بيش از اين مردم آمريكا را با مشكل مواجه نسازد.

براي مردم آمريكا هم زمان آن فرا رسيده است تا كساني را كه با تكيه بر اطلاعات كذب كشور آمريكا را وارد جنگ كردند، شناسايي و تقبيح كنند.

وجهه و اصول اخلاقي آمريكايي، در سراسر جهان به شدت آسيب ديده است و اين تنها به دليل عملكرد سياستمداراني است كه به نام ملت آمريكا، اهداف خود را پيش ميبرند. مردم آمريكا براي بهبود و احياي اين وجهه از دست رفته بايد هر چه سريعتر اقدام كنند و از بروز جنگي ديگر ممانعت كنند.

[Rasputin]

Will U.S. attack Iran?
The Americans found out about the covert nuclear activity, probably by one of the Iranian negotiators who defected to Britain after the failure of the negotiation with Euro-3. The critical part of Iran's nuclear program is well hidden in the mountains and they do not know where exactly they are and even if they knew where they are, it is impossible to destroy them. Other news revealed by Seymour Hersh is very important and interesting, but is not all truth about what happened between closed doors in Pentagon.

The Idea of attacking Iran was conceived during the first term of the Bush presidency and after 9/11. This kind of planning is very common in Pentagon and is kind of war games generals keep themselves busy with in the peace times and its purpose is not to get surprised in the war times. However, the Collin Powell, the foreign secretary at the time, who was did not like neoconservatives, especially after the invasion of Iraq, opposed the plan. He once called them "****ing neocrazies". Collin Powell told them "It is a dangerous plan".

Therefore at the end of President Bush first term, Powell did not attend and was not invited to many of meetings on major policies on Iran. American politician of his caliber and position when retire start making big money by endorsement for big corporations or sign book deals. He did not get any and quietly went to oblivion. He was one of a few great soldier-statesmen after World War II and his political career was ended soon.

The Iran war plan called for air, sea and land invasion of Iran. The computer simulation of the war between two countries showed massive casualties from Iranian side. Although the casualties of Americans were not comparable with the Iranians, it was a few thousands in the first day of the attack. That is a few times all the casualties Americans had in Afghanistan and Iraq over the whole course of war until then.

Another problem was that the Iranians could easily absorb this massive casualties and more join for fight to defend their country, while American public could not take these casualties. Furthermore, the war would lag for months and years and still the outcome of the war would not be certain and did not seem to be restricted to Iran only and would quickly spread throughout the Middle East and even to other Islamic countries. That plans was then changed to attacking and destroying the Iranian underground nuclear sites with nuclear weapons.

Generals who were unhappy about the management of Iraq war by Donald Rumsfeld opposed the plan to attack another Islamic country without any justification. The generals threatened to go public about it, first by criticizing his policy in Iraq and if he insisted on, they would then go public on Iran Plan as well. The recent criticism of Donald Rumsfeld by 6 retired U.S. army generals is part of the discontent of Pentagon officials about Iran war plan. They went as far as calling him part of the "axis of arrogance" which includes Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice. After Hersh article Rumsfeld called it "fantasyland" and President Bush called it "speculations".

All these revelations put an end to political carrier of Donald Rumsfeld and he was himself another casualty of war of words with Iran as many other American politicians had the same fate over the last 27 years. Considering the current atmosphere President Bush is not going to fire Rumsfeld or replace him at all. Rumsfeld might later resign due to health problems or other personal reasons, but chance of President Bush firing him is zero.

The more Bush shows he is determined to attack Iran; more retired general will come out and criticize Rumsfeld in coming days and months. We might even see some of the generals who are in active duty come forward and criticize Rumsfeld.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

A. The Iranian-American Community of one million strong reaffirms its loyalty to the US and its constitution and laws. It further anticipates that the American Constitution, the Bill of Rights especially the 1 st amendment, and the Rule of Law continue to apply to ALL Americans, including naturalized citizens and permanent legal residents regardless of their country of origin.

B. The Iranian-American Community anticipates that the US will remain strong both domestically and internationally, and believes that our strong foreign policy should not be driven by military aggressions or pure economic dominant objectives before all possible rational and peaceful negotiating avenues-as verified by the international community of nations and global non-governmental organizations-are exhausted.

C. That the US foreign policy adopt a long-term, more balanced and less belligerent foreign policy anchored in American ideals respecting the independent aspirations of other nations for democracy, human rights, freedom and security, and will engage in serious multi-lateral direct negotiations to prevent and resolve conflicts. Such options, if and when diplomacy fails should include in progression: direct negotiation and positive genuine persuasion, diplomatic isolation, restriction of travel for government officials of the adversarial government, freezing of alleged government staff personal overseas assets, freezing of the country's assets, followed by progressive intelligent sanctions, and perhaps finally sanctions that exclude the essential day-to-day commodities such as food and medicine. The use of conventional military confrontations, although philosophically immoral as it always yields reprehensive human tragedy, may only be exercised against proven aggressions and only after all other options are truly exhausted.

D. That with respect to Iran in particular, the Iranian-American Community's majority opinion is to oppose any level of military actions including the so called tactical bombing, and emphatically nuclear strikes. Such a position is now substantiated by more than half of Americans according to most recent polls as well as the unanimous majority of citizens of other countries, especially the Europeans. Therefore, the US must devise innovative, i.e. , non-interfering ways of empowering the Iranian people to ultimately achieve their longing for democracy, the rule of law, freedom, and security and progress, while dealing with the Iranian government in such a delicate fashion that the historical role of the Iranians and their unique cultural values, almost 10,000 years in the making, and the human resources and current infrastructure of the country, is not jeopardized under any pretext.

E. The Iranian-American Community aspires to facilitate a homegrown, independent process inside their former homeland that will lead to the institution of infrastructure, culture and education. Such a paradigm shift in approach for all Iranian peoples should bring about a fundamental change to exercise their franchises at the ballot box and decide the direction for the country as a whole. The Iranians worldwide nostalgically reminisce about the aspiration of Iranians for democratization that actually began in the mid to late nineteenth century and continues to the present day.

F. The Iranian-American community expects the transformation of the Iranian society. It specifically envisages a day soon where people's voices are truly heard and acted upon through ballot boxes and the court of justice, when the society includes all sectors of its population including women, and members of all religious and ethnic compatriots on equal footing, and when the environment and natural resources, according to the concept of sustainable development and intergenerational equity, are safeguarded and preserved. Any solution to the problem of Iran must have at its core the plights of the Iranian people.

[Rasputin]

Iran: Life in the diaspora
Estimates of the Iranian community living abroad vary from between two to five million, the bulk of which live in the US, while Canada, the UK and other European countries also hold sizeable Iranian communities.
Many left after the Islamic revolution in 1979, when the pro-Western Shah was swept aside, and remain solidly opposed to Iran's clerical government.

But a new generation, raised in the West yet influenced by the Iranian values of their families, is beginning to address the thorny issues of identity and belonging.

Seven Iranians from different parts of the world told the BBC about their relationship with the land of their birth and their sense of identity.

[Rasputin]

Recent developing speculation about US military intervention in, or sanction against Iran has created a heated debate worldwide. One community that finds itself caught in a unique dilemma is the estimated one million Americans of Iranian descent. While this community feels strong allegiance to the US, and whereas they have contributed substantially to the advancement of the economic and social infrastructures of the US, they, nonetheless, feel strongly connected to their ancestor's land where many still have extended family and cultural ties.

Iran's predicament has been further exacerbated by events post-September 11, 2001 when the US administration opted for unilaterally and "preemptively" taking the battle to the "Middle East", first by military intervention in Afghanistan, and then with an all-out occupation of Iraq. The nationals responsible for the 9/11 attacks were said to be Saudi Arabian, Pakistani and Egyptian, but none were Iranians. Despite the repressive nature of the Iranian regime inside the country and its intermittent irrational behavior in the international community, there has never been any evidence of Iran-sponsored terrorist activities inside US soil.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have turned into costly propositions for the Americans, firstly in terms of the loss of American soldiers and civilians, approaching 2,500, and secondly, in terms of economic loss approaching one trillion dollars incurred by the US alone. The US administration finds itself agitated by the baseless rhetoric of Iran's new President Ahmadinejad on Israel, and the alleged ulterior motives of his administration to seek nuclear technology with possible dual applications. This has increasingly led the US to turn to Iran, presumably as a way to expand "democratization" outside Iraq and Afghanistan, the slogan used by the U.S. administration.

Upon close examination of Middle Eastern countries, Iran, notwithstanding its dismal record in human rights, lack of transparency in socio-economic policies and fundamental internal problems, nonetheless, seems to be the only country that has not yet submitted to becoming "democratized". One can hardly identify another country in the region where American military presence and, strong economic influence is not already pronounced.

The people of the region can only yearn for a true, independent democratic Iraq, Afghanistan and/or Iran that would actually take the prime interest of the local populations into consideration and hopefully be emulated by other countries in the region. However, every indication shows regressive trends when external aggression is imposed. In the case of Iraq, an incipient civil war is only intensifying, with the possibility of the country disintegrating into at least three smaller countries: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish.

The one million Iranian-Americans find themselves in a quandary. On the one hand, they have left their homeland for the US due to lack of socio-political and economic reforms in Iran. On the other, due to their pledge of allegiance to their adopted land, they cannot see the U.S. going down a pathway of destruction that would be detrimental to both their adopted, and their ancestor's, lands. They vividly remember 1953 when Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, the only true democratic elected prime minister of Iran, who nationalized the oil and gas in the country and was successful in achieving a favorable verdict on this matter in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, was overthrown, in part by the covert operations of the U.S. administration.

In fact, the Clinton administration confessed numerously, that the U.S. involvement in Iran in 1953 undermined democracy, not only in Iran, but also in the entire Middle East. The Iranian-Americans recognize the danger of U.S. intervention, which may go far beyond covert propaganda operations, into any magnitude of military interventions. However, as publicly stated by many politicians and scholars, other more viable options exist; they, in order of priority, are: direct, multilateral and transparent negotiation; diplomatic isolation of Iran; restriction of travel for its government officials and freezing of its government's assets.

The use of conventional or even worse, nuclear military confrontations, is philosophically immoral and unethical, and plausibly illegal according to international laws as it always yields reprehensible human tragedy. The Iranian-American Community's majority opinion is to oppose any level of military actions, including the so-called tactical bombing, and emphatically against any nuclear strikes, which would send the wrong message that the U.S. is not really that interested in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Iranian-American community expects the independent democratic transformation of the Iranian society and any solution to the problem of Iran must have at its core the plights of the Iranian people.

Taking advantage of "democracy" as the slogan now used by the U.S. to galvanize the Middle Eastern countries is in the right direction so long as the institution of democracy occurs from within these respective countries. When the theological establishment in Iran is impelled through non-confrontational means to allow the seed of democracy, as planted over a hundred years ago when the 1906 Constitution was enacted, to take root and grow, it will yield a much better ambiance that is conducive to mutually beneficial exchanges of goods and services and socio-economic development between the U.S. and the west on the one hand, and the Middle Eastern countries as typified by Iran, on the other.

Lastly, such foreign policy anchored on mutual trust and respect, and through non-confrontational means would strengthen the U.S. stature as the responsible, compassionate superpower worldwide.

[donsaeid]

عدم آگاهي مردم آمريكا از تاريخ واقعي كشور خود و نه دروغهايي كه به اسم وقايع تاريخي در مدارس اين كشور تدريس ميشوند، باعث شده است آنها براي سياستمداران خونخوار اين كشور هدف سهلالوصولي باشند و به آساني از سوي اين سياستمداران فريب بخورند. عدم آگاهي مردم آمريكا از تاريخ واقعي خود باعث شده است رئيس جمهور كنوني اين كشور به راحتي به دروغ متوسل شود و ادعا كند كه كشور آمريكا و دموكراسي و آزادي در خطر است.

حال كه بيشتر مردم آمريكا متوجه غيرقانوني بودن جنگهاي بوش شدهاند و اعتماد خود را نسبت به دولت و سياستهاي او از دست دادهاند و حال كه شواهد و اسناد كافي مبني بر مردم فريبي سياستهاي دولت بوش موجود است بايد پرسيد: چگونه مردم آمريكا به اين آساني فريب بوش را خوردند؟
سوال فوق از اهميت به سزايي برخوردار است و پاسخ آن نشان ميدهد كه چرا مردم آمريكا (اهم از اصحاب رسانههاي عمومي و مردم عادي اين كشور) از سياستهاي بوش و حمله وي به عراق حمايت كردند.
يكي از نمونههاي بارز ساده لوحي (بهتر است بگوئيم تملق و چاپلوسي) رسانهاي آمريكا، عكسالعمل اين رسانهها نسبت به سخنراني كالين پاول در فوريه 2003 و يك ماه قبل از حمله آمريكا به عراق است.
وي در سخنراني خود در شوراي امنيت نسبت به وجود اسناد و شواهد ماهوارهاي، تصويري و صوتي درباره تسليحات هستهاي عراق هشدار داد. روزنامه نيويورك تايمز بدون اطلاع از صحت اظهارات وي در مدح سخنان پاول سنگ تمام گذاشت و روزنامه واشنگتن تايمز نيز نوشت پس از سخنان پاول هيچ شكي وجود ندارد كه كشور عراق داراي تسليحات كشتار جمعي است.
براي ساده لوحي رسانههاي جمعي آمريكا تنها دو عامل اساسي وجود دارد كه يكي از آنها به فرهنگ ملي آمريكا مربوط است و ديگري در آسيبپذير بودن رسانهها در برابر دروغهاي دولت ريشه دارد (اين دروغها معمولاً به قيمت جان هزاران انسان بيگناه ميانجامد.)
مردم آمريكا تنها در صورت درك كامل عوامل فوق ميتوانند خود را از فريب كاريهاي دولت مصون نگاه دارند. يكي از دلايل فريب خوردن مردم آمريكا به زمان و عدم وجود دورنماي تاريخي ارتباط دارد و دليل دوم نيز به مكان و عدم توانايي مردم آمريكا در ترك عقايد و عادات ناسيوناليسم مربوط است. مردم آمريكا به غلط تصور ميكنند كه اين كشور مركز جهان است و آنها مردمي شرافتمند، قابل ستايش و از ديگر انسانها برتر و بهتر هستند!!
عدم آگاهي مردم آمريكا از تاريخ واقعي كشور خود و نه دروغهايي كه به اسم وقايع تاريخي در مدارس اين كشور تدريس ميشوند، باعث شده است آنها براي سياستمداران خونخوار اين كشور هدف سهلالوصولي باشند و به آساني از سوي اين سياستمداران فريب بخورند. عدم آگاهي مردم آمريكا از تاريخ واقعي خود باعث شده است رئيس جمهور كنوني اين كشور به راحتي به دروغ متوسل شود و ادعا كند كه كشور آمريكا و دموكراسي و آزادي در خطر است.
در حالي كه اگر مردم آمريكا از تاريخ واقعي اين كشور اطلاع داشتند و ميدانستند كه چگونه روساي جمهور اين كشور بارها و بارها با توسل به دروغ و حيله، سياستهاي خود را از پيش بردهاند، شايد به اين آساني فريب اين دولتمردان مردم فريب را نميخورند. حتا كساني كه ادعا ميكنند از رياكاري دولت آمريكا مطلع هستند و تاكنون فريب سياستمداران اين كشور را نخوردهاند بايد براي آگاهي ديگران و افشاي بدطينتي مقامات بلند پايه اين كشور، اين وقايع تاريخي را بازگو نمايند.
يادآوري دروغهاي پالك، رئيس جمهور وقت آمريكا در سال 1846 و جنگ با مكزيك مثال خوبي براي عوامفريبي دولت آمريكاست. در اين زمان نه كشور مكزيك، بلكه پالك باعث شد خون تعداد بيشماري از مردم آمريكا به روي خاك آمريكا ريخته شود و بردهداري بيش از نيمي از خاك مكزيك را فرا بگيرد.
مككينلي، رئيس جمهور وقت آمريكا در سال 1898 نيز براي حمله به كوبا به دروغ متوسل شده و با ادعاي اين كه قصد دارد كوبا را از سلطه اسپانيا نجات دهد، به اين كشور حمله كرد. اما واقعيت اين بود كه آمريكا قصد داشت با خارج كردن اسپانيا از كوبا راه را براي سوددهي كلان شركتهاي آمريكايي، از جمله يونايتد فروت، هموار كند. وي همچنين براي حمله به فليپين نيز به مردم آمريكا دروغ گفت و ادعا كرد براي متمدن كردن مردم اين كشور به فيليپين حمله ميكند. در حالي كه او قصد داشت كشور با ارزش اقيانوس آرام را تحت سلطه خود درآورد.
وودرو ويلسون، رئيس جمهوري كه در كتاب تاريخ از وي به عنوان يك آرمانگرا ياد ميشود نيز براي شركت در جنگ جهاني اول به حربه هميشگي سياستمداران آمريكايي متوسل شد و اعلام كرد براي استقرار صلح و دموكراسي در جهان وارد جنگ ميشود. در حالي كه قصد واقعي وي فراهم كردن مقدمات استقرار امپرياليسم غربي بود.
هري ترومن نيز براي توجيه، بمباران هيروشيما اعلام كرد اين شهر يك هدف نظامي بوده است.
تمامي سياستمداران آمريكا درباره جنگ ويتنام به دروغ متوسل شدند: كندي درباره وسعت درگيري نيروهاي آمريكا در اين جنگ، جانسون درباره خليج تونكين، نيكسون درباره بمباران مخفيانه كمبوج دروغ گفتند. تمامي افراد فوق به دورغ اظهار كردند كه جنگ ويتنام براي آزادي اين كشور از چنگال كمونيسم آغاز شده است، در حالي كه آنها قصد داشتند از ويتنام به عنوان يك پايگاه نظامي در قاره آسيا استفاده كنند.
ريگان براي حمله به گرانادا به دورغ ادعا كرد اين كشور براي امنيت آمريكا تهديد جدي محسوب ميشوند.
بوش پدر نيز براي حمله به پاناما كه به قتل هزاران تن از مردم بيگناه اين كشور انجاميد، به دروغ متوسل شد. وي همچنين براي حمله به عراق در سال 1991 به دروغ اظهار كرد قصد دفاع از كويت را دارد، در حالي كه فقط براي دستيابي به منابع ارزشمند نفتي خاورميانه، جنگ اول خليج فارس را آغاز كرد.
با توجه به دروغهايي كه روساي جمهور آمريكا براي توجيه جنگ افروزي خود ابراز كردهاند بايد پرسيد چرا مردم آمريكا هنوز تحت تاثير اين دروغها قرار ميگيرند و فريب رئيس جمهور كنوني آمريكا را ميخورند؟
آيا زمان آن فرا نرسيده است كه مردم آمريكا به سياستهاي جاهطلبانه دولتمردان آمريكايي پايان دهند و بيش از اين زير بار سياستهايي كه به قيمت جان انسانها تمام ميشود، نروند.
مرور صحيح تاريخ آمريكا نكته مهم ديگري را نيز نشان ميدهد كه آگاهي از اين نكته ميتواند مردم آمريكا را در قبال عوامفريبيهاي دولتمردان اين كشور مصون نگه دارد.
مرور دوباره تاريخ نشان ميدهد كه به رغم ادعاي دولتمردان آمريكا، تمامي مردم اين كشور از حقوق يكسان برخوردارند، در حالي كه به قول چارلز بيرد، تاريخ نگار قرن گذشته، قانون اساسي آمريكا درباره طبقه كارگر و محروم جامعه به اجرا در نميآيد، بلكه تمامي مفاد اين قانون به نفع طبقه مرفه، بازرگانان، برده داران و صاحبان بورس طراحي شده است.
از گذشتههاي دور چنين القا شده است كه مردم آمريكا از حقوق مساوي بهره ميبرند و اختلافات طبقاتي در اين كشور وجود ندارد. دولتمردان كنوني آمريكا همواره از منافع ملي، امنيت ملي و دفاع ملي سخن ميگويند، گويي تمامي مردم آمريكا اهم از سفيدپوستان و رنگين پوستها و غني و فقير از حقوق يكسان برخوردارند و گويي منافع جورج بوش با منافع زنان و مردان جواني كه به جنگهاي مختلف فرستاده ميشوند، برابر است.
به طور قطع در تاريخ پر از دورغ آمريكا، اين برابري حقوق، بزرگترين دورغي است كه به مردم آمريكا القاء شده است. مردم آمريكا نه تنها از حقوق يكساني برخوردار نيستند. بلكه اختلاف طبقاتي در اين كشور بيداد ميكند.
تكذيب اين واقعيت كه در تاريخ كشور آمريكا بردهبرداري و اشرافيت وجود داشته و همواره بردگان، كارگران و فقرا از سوي بالا دستهاي خود تحت ظلم بودهاند، راه را براي عوامفريبي و دولتمردان آمريكا هموار ميكند. .
عدم آگاهي از وقايع فوق باعث ميشود مردم آمريكا در قبال دروغهاي محض دولت كاملاً بيدفاع باقي بمانند.
باور غلطي كه در فرهنگ و سيستم آموزشي آمريكا ريشه دارد و چنين القاء ميكند كه مردم آمريكا، ملتي برگزيده و برتر هستند در فريب خوردن آنها از سوي دولت، نقش بسزايي دارد.
مردم آمريكا از گذشتههاي دور آموزش ديدهاند كه خود را مجري آزادي و عدالت بدانند. عقايد ناسيوناليستي از اين دست و يا باور اين نكته كه خداوند آمريكا را مورد رحمت و حمايت خود قرار داده است، بزرگترين حربه سياستمداران براي فريب مردم اين كشور است. بايد پرسيد چرا خداوند مردم آمريكا را كه فقط 5 درصد جمعيت كره زمين را تشكيل ميدهند، مورد رحمت خويش قرار داده است؟
مردم آمريكا بايد براي مقابله با سياستهاي غلط دولت كه نه تنها جان مردم ديگر كشورها را به خطر مياندازد، بلكه خود آنها را نيز با فجايع بسيار روبرو ميكند، برخي حقايق را بپذيرند. آنها بايد قبول كنند كه ملت برگزيدهي خداوند نيستند.
هر چند وقايع تاريخي آمريكا خجالتآور هستند، اما مردم اين كشور بايد شجاعت قبول اين حقايق را داشته باشند. آنها بايد تاريخ شرمآور آزار و قتل عام سرخپوستان، بردهداري، تبعيض نژادي و نژادپرستي را بپذيرند. آنها بايد سياستها شرمآور امپرياليستي دولت آمريكا در درياي كارائيب و اقيانوس آرام رسوايي و جنگ با كشورهاي كوچك و بيدفاعي چون ويتنام، گرانادا، پاناما، افغانستان و عراق را بپذيرند.
آنها بايد ننگ بمباران شيميايي هيروشيما و ناكازاكي را بپذيرند. با وجود اين وقايع ديگر تاريخ آمريكا افتخار آخرين نيست.
دولتمردان آمريكا همواره بر تفوق اخلاقي مردم اين كشور و لزوم گسترش و اشاعه آن در سراسر جهان تاكيد كردهاند. اكنون بايد پرسيد آنها براي اين برتري اخلاقي چه شواهدي در دست دارند. قطعاً رفتار آمريكا با مردم ديگر كشورها و وضعيت زندگي مردم آمريكا دليل خوبي براي اثبات اين ادعا نيست.
سازمان بهداشت جهاني در سال 2000 با ارائه گزارشي از وضعيت بهداشت و سلامت كشورهاي جهان اعلام كرد آمريكا از لحاظ بهداشت در رتبه 37 قرار دارد.
در اين كشور از هر پنج كودك تازه متولد شده، يك كودك در فقر به سر ميبرد و نرخ مرگ و مير نوزادان در 40 كشور از جمله كوبا پائينتر از نرخ مرگ و مير نوزادان آمريكايي اعلام شده است. آمريكا از لحاظ تعداد زندانيان رتبه اول را در جهان داراست.
آگاهي از حقايق و دسترسي به آمارهاي مستند ميتواند از مردم آمريكا در قبال دروغهاي بيشمار دولتمردان اين كشور محافظت كند. در ضمن آنها ميتوانند با نجات كشور خود از دست دروغپردازان و قاتلاني كه كنترل آمريكا را در دست دارند، صفحهاي جديد را در تاريخ اين كشور رقم بزنند و با دوري از تبعات پوچ و بياساس ناسيوناليستي، عدالت و صلح را در كشور خود برقرار كنند.

[donsaeid]

70 درصد آمريكاييها نميتوانند ايران را روي نقشه جهان پيدا كنند


يك مركز مطالعات جغرافيايي اعلام كرد 70 درصد از افراد 18 تا 24 ساله آمريكايي نميتوانند ايران را در نقشه جهان بيابند.

در عين حال از هر 10 آمريكايي 9 نفر نميتوانستند افغانستان را روي نقشه جهان بيابند و 54 درصد نميدانستند سودان، كشوري در آفريقا است.
سه چهارم آمريكاييها نميتوانند اندونزي را روي نقشه بيابند و سه چهارم آنها نيز نميدانند اكثريت جمعيت اين كشور مسلمان هستند.

[donsaeid]

مقام سابق دولت بوش خواستار مذاکره مستقيم آمريکا با ايران شد


آمريکا تاکنون از انديشه مذاکره مستقيم با ايران برای حل اختلافات جاری بر سر برنامه اتمی اين کشور استقبال نکرده است.
با اين حال بحث درباره اين موضوع که آيا تهران و واشنگتن بايد در مورد مشکلات خود مستقيما وارد گفتگو شوند در هفته های اخير به قوت مطرح شده است.

ايران اخيرا دعوت آمريکا برای انجام گفتگوهايی مستقيم ميان دو کشور صرفا در مورد مساله عراق را پذيرفته بود که می توانست نخستين گفتگوی مستقيم و علنی ميان دو کشور ظرف ربع قرن گذشته باشد.

اما از آنجا که به نظر می رسيد واشنگتن عجله ای برای تعيين تاريخ مذاکرات ندارد، مقام های ايرانی بعدا در تصميم خود تجديد نظر کردند.

اما اخيرا چندين سياستمدار برجسته آمريکايی به نفع گفتگوی مستقيم ميان دو کشور بر سر مساله اتمی سخن به ميان آورده اند.

ريچارد آرميتاژ، که در دور نخست رياست جمهوری جورج بوش معاون وزارت خارجه آمريکا بود، روز چهارشنبه در مصاحبه ای با بی بی سی گفت او احساس می کند واشنگتن در مقابل جامعه بين المللی وظيفه دارد در مورد مسائل مختلف از جمله موضوع اتمی با ايران وارد تماس شود.

آقای آرميتاژ گفت: "ديپلماسی يعنی بايد علاوه بر دوستانتان با دشمنان خود حرف بزنيد، بنابراين البته که ما بايد مستقيما با آنها (ايران) گفتگو کنيم. من به هيچ وجه از تلاش های سه کشور اروپايی (آلمان، بريتانيا، فرانسه) به خصوص کوشش خارق العاده جک استرا وزير خارجه بريتانيا برای گفتگو با ايرانی ها انتقادی ندارم، اما فکر می کنم بايد درباره طيف کاملی از مسائل مربوط به روابط و نگرانی هايمان، از جمله مسائل اتمی، تروريسم، انرژی، حقوق بشر، عراق يا افغانستان حرف بزنيم."

برخی تحليلگران می گويند گفتگوی مستقيم ميان ايران و واشنگتن می تواند تنها راه برای شکستن بن بست موجود بر سر برنامه اتمی ايران باشد.

آنها اشاره می کنند که آمريکا تنها کشوری است که می تواند آن نوع مشوق ها - از جمله ضمانت های امنيتی - را به ايران بدهد که اين کشور ممکن است در ازای محدود کردن فعاليت های اتمی اش مد نظر قرار دهد.

دولت بوش تاکنون گفتگوهای مستقيم را مردود دانسته است و به جای آن ترجيح می دهد مذاکرات اتمی را به کشورهای اروپايی يا روسيه واگذارد.

در همين حال ريچارد آرميتاژ گمانه زنی در اين مورد را که دولت آمريکا ممکن است درحال آماده شدن برای اقدام احتمالی نظامی در آينده عليه ايران باشد رد کرد.

وی گفت هنوز فرصت زيادی هست که بتوان بر سر اينکه در مورد برنامه اتمی ايران چه بايد کرد به اتفاق نظر بين المللی دست يافت

[Rasputin]

Iran, US share Afghan goals

The smooth blacktop roads and 24-hour electricity of Herat set this Afghan commercial capital apart as a model of stability in a country still struggling to get on its feet. Much of the wealth in this western city, with its tree-lined streets and handsome shops, is credited to the largesse of Iran.
The Shiite republic, one of Afghanistan's greatest trading partners, has a visible hand here, building roads and schools, and keeping shops afloat with electricity and goods. What's more, these projects represent only a fraction of the $204 million Iran has spent in aid, ranking it among the top donors to post-conflict Afghanistan.

Even though the US and Iran are locked in an international struggle over Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, the long-time foes have worked together well in Afghanistan, a place where they have common ground. Pushing Iran against the wall through sanctions or war could deal a setback to the recovery here, the first battlefield in the war on terror, some observers say.

"The disagreements we have with the international community do not have a place in Afghanistan," says Mohammad Reza Bahrami, Iran's Ambassador to Afghanistan. "Our understanding for Afghanistan is that it can be a good model for cooperation among the international community."

Iranian influence is certainly nothing new in Afghanistan. The two countries share centuries of history, thousands of miles of porous borders, and a common language. Nearly 2,000 people commute across the border every day.

But as tensions rise between Tehran and Washington, some speculate that Iran could use its leverage in Afghanistan to cause problems for the US.

"They do have the capacity to cause trouble here. If they were to perceive that the government is siding with the West ... or they felt that the US military based in Afghanistan could be damaging to the internal situation in Iran ... we could expect problems here," cautioned one Western diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the issue.

Cement is a popular example of Iran's oversized influence. Iran once enjoyed a virtual monopoly on cement in Afghanistan, but it recently stopped exporting here, opting for Iraq instead. Prices nearly doubled according to local sources. For many Afghans, the incident exposed Iran's capability to disrupt reconstruction with the flip of a switch.

"If Iran decides to stop exporting goods, it can create a big problem for us," says Alhaj Qulam Qader Akbar, the head of Herat's Chamber of Commerce. "A lot of projects have been suspended because of the price [of cement] going up."

Such disruptive powers are not limited to the market, some say. Journalists talk of Iran's growing involvement in terrorist attacks here. Rumors also abound that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is secretly camped out in Herat.

Syed Ahmed Ansari, a police chief for Shindad, a town in Herat Province, told the Associated Press in February: "From Iran they are bringing explosive material to Afghanistan. They don't want Afghanistan to be at peace because they are at war with the United States."

So far, though, there is no direct evidence of such meddling, and Iran has never been directly implicated in any attacks. "We don't have evidence of that, but that is something we hear. If we want to comment on something, we should have evidence," says Gen. Ayub Salangi, Herat's chief of police.

Mr. Bahrimi, the Iranian ambassador, insists his country's role in Iran has always been a positive one. But he suggests that action taken against Iran could change that role.

"If new circumstances are imposed on us, in proportion to these circumstances, we'll make up our mind," he says, adding, "If [the Americans] control their behavior in Afghanistan, there isn't any reason for concern."

Even in the US, those closely watching Iran are hard pressed to find evidence of misconduct in Afghanistan. Instead, some have found themselves admitting that Iran, despite its activities elsewhere, has proved to be a good neighbor here.

Such was the case during a March congressional hearing on progress in Afghanistan. A panel of experts working on Afghanistan unanimously highlighted Iran's contribution to stability.

"I do not believe Iran is a major, negative player in Afghanistan," Seth Jones of the Rand Corporation told the panel. "If anything, the Iranian government's role in relationship with the Afghan government is actually fairly decent."

Barnett Rubin, a professor at New York University, went a step further, saying: "[W]e should be wary of anyone who is trying to sell intelligence or reports that Iran is trying to destabilize Afghanistan. It is not."

In fact, such are the contributions of Iran here that forcing it to pull out, either through sanctions or war, could hamper reconstruction, particularly by destabilizing the economy, many speculate.

"The tensions that Iran has with the international community are a deep cause of concern for us. If there are sanctions, or other means of exerting pressure, it will have its implications on Afghanistan. And that's the last thing we need," says Naveed Ahmad Moez, spokesperson for the foreign ministry.

Iran's support of the Karzai government stems in part from its antipathy toward the Taliban regime, which killed nine Iranian diplomats in 1998. Tehran supported the Northern Alliance and the US in ousting them.

Many say it's simply not in Iran's interest to make waves. Cross-border business is booming and the western border is stable. But there are those who say the US would be foolish to completely rule it out.

"The Americans should be concerned about Iranian influence," says Najibullah Fahim, professor of political science at Kabul University. "You know that Iran is hostile to America and will create enmity towards Americans here."

Sen. William Delahunt (D) of Massachusetts, who attended the March congressional hearing, seemed to think likewise. But when he pressed Maureen Quinn from the State Department, her retort was short but to the point.

"Iran participated in the London conference," she said, referring to an international donor meeting held in January. "They have contributed to road construction, electricity."

[Rasputin]

As of late the rhetoric surrounding the situation developing between the US and Iran, may at once seem serious enough, but on the other hand may also be part of decades old tactics commonly used by both sides to subdue and control the populace.

Fear as it turns out, rules.

Strangely enough, it appears that those that portend to love us the most, seem to instill the greatest fear in us.

Take for example the current fear being played out in the US.

The Bush administration has successfully raised the fear that Iran's mysteriously vague nuclear intentions are somehow dangerous to the average American. Everyone in the administration is lockstep in this performance and portrayal of the fear, that were Iran to acquire nuclear technology, the consequences would be certainly dire.

Successfully painting this around the ongoing work of art with Iran as the largest sponsor of terror in the world, not a difficult attribute to attach to an already established enemy of the free world, and consequently every American.

Once fear has been established, getting the public's approval for far flung budgets and tactics and strategies to address this fear or any others that may be even remotely connected, are easily accomplished, allowing even the most questionable responses to this fear to be unanimously approved, even by the most skeptical senators. Even if questioned on these seemingly inappropriate responses to fear, the administration merely re-affirms and reminds us of the very fear they are trying to protect us from, and with renewed fear, we are assuaged.

Apply this to any situation recent or past and it fits the m.o. perfectly.

By establishing that Saddam Hussein was to be feared after 911, the administration successfully convinced the populace that invasion was an obvious response. If this was in fact all about oil as many have suggested, the use of fear to gain license to acquire control of Iraq's oil, was merely textbook.

The inability of the most sophisticated military and clandestine information gathering organization in the world to somehow be incapable of hunting down and bringing to justice, the man or men behind 911 becomes somewhat plausible, if not all the more convenient. If fear is the valid intention, having a real boogeyman has its advantages.

Now, around this time, the typical cowardly Iranian in me says that I've made my point and I can end this article right here. Our character as faint of heart Iranians seems to allow us to easily criticize the US, whether we live inside or outside of it. Our unique observational skills it seems is always conveniently pointed outward, never willing to consider the stains, skidmarks, and soil of our own land and laundry.

So I attempt to purge myself of this sin in this piece. Forgive me if I don't get it right, it is a new page for me. Maybe for you as well.

Through decades, those that have ruled Iran have also used this same tactic of fear. But not through the more unobvious tactic of implied fear, but more or less the direct kind. Such as the false imprisonment of tens of thousands of so called, agitators by the Shah, or the hundreds of thousands similarly removed from society at large by the current rulers. That fear of imprisonment, death, or torture is very real. Just ask anyone in Iran. Almost everyone knows someone who has either been killed in the Iraq war, killed in a University protest, killed accidentally during a sweep by the baseejis or the pasdar militia, arrested for the slightest hint of insolence, arrested for the slightest rumor, or outright disappeared without a trace.

The Iranian administration uses this brand of fear to build strangely similar huge financial investment as the means to its own ends. Seeming to address the fears they have instilled in their people. The Iranian administration has successfully instilled the fear of the US, by pointing to it as historically the world's largest demonstrated producer of terror, and that if Iran does not have nuclear power, they may be attacked by the US. They point to Nagasaki and Hiroshima and other examples, carefully leaving out any hint of the overriding causes. Nuclear power or 'Nuclear Power' need not be clarified. The fear of being bombed is there for all to feel it.

Although by any measurement, Iran is still largely an undeveloped nation, with continual problems of the poor and uneducated outnumbering any other issue by a far margin, the Iranian administration, like any other before it, has managed to side step any responsibility for this, and would rather work on far flung projects that can feed its own internal minions. Those in the club eating so well these days. Those with so much that investing it in Dubai only seems to make sense.

The contracts and construction concessions of huge defense or any other remotely related projects they can get their rosewater tinted hands on, are more delicious than reforming and funding any boring agricultural or educational programs whose seemingly pointless results would take decades to realize. Even the sizeable corruption and kickbacks possible on small yet impactful projects such as simply paving the many roads to the many small cities, towns, and villages in Iran, is small potatoes compared to a nuclear reactor and all of it's shiny foreign machinery, tools, and spare parts, the sheer potential of all the euro-dollar graft and greed deposited safely in numbered Swiss banks. God is great indeed!

And whether in Iran or out, fear works. It works so well, they even have us fearful here, long distance fear, our voices tremble over the Iranian government funded and monitored 7cent per minute long distance phone calls we make (via Toronto), or the 24hour overly made up and barely dressed satellite TV programs, as we who live here, neither speak out amongst ourselves, nor do we speak out even in the safest of circumstances. After all who wants to be held up at Mehrabad airport on the way to those friendly cousins, wonderful pastries, and delightfully cheap 90cm kababs! Iran it seems covers all the bases of Iranian fear, real fear, or the perceived fear.

Take for example the recent various petitions and even several organized marches against the current US fear reinforcing statements against Iran, included with it, the possibility of using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear activities. Double fear. There was even an illustration of the predicted radiation fallout. Scary!

In all of the petitions and marches, slogans, or even the many articles written in this esteemed publication, embarrassingly few have questioned or called the Iranian administration out. I mean really out. Few question in detail the very shaky legitimacy of the Iranian government to govern.

A question that certainly begs asking, especially given the sham of the recent election. A sham so perfectly perpetrated that it has seemingly fooled even the brilliant mind (or mastermind?) Condoleeza Rice who instead of raising the obvious and known details of the election process in Iran, which would disqualify the result of Iran's presidential election by any standard, merely commented that she was concerned over the result. Why would any sane person be concerned over an invalid result? It is after all invalid!

Declare it so, and tell Iran, "Nice try, come back when you've held a real election, and we can talk." But that would diffuse fear.

Meanwhile the free email-based and surveymonkey.com and the like petitions created during lunch hour by the bold and the nameless "Internet Iranians" anonymously attack the rumor that the US is thinking of attacking Iran. Yet they never once acknowledging that both systems are broken, or think to even mention Iran's policy flaws, or demand Iran change correspondingly. Even Reza Pahlavi came out against a US invasion of Iran. Let me repeat what I just said, The Pahlavis are against the US intervening in Iran! Now that's fear!

There has not been a real mention of the Iranian administration in any of this. The closest we have come were calls for referendum by opposing opposition, who couldn't even get along long enough to agree on a single referendum! Nevermind the whole idea of a referendum is moot. Because only a government can call for a referendum when it is unsure which direction the people want it to go. This government knows exactly where it's people want it to go which is precisely why they don't need a referendum. People who have conveniently given up their citizenship, and don't happen to like the colors of the country they have willingly and voluntarily abandoned, should think long and hard before they speak. Then act on what they have decided what to say. Any action.

The various weak Iranians-abroad marches eager to portray and capitalize on the faintest American nostalgia and connection between this and the long forgotten anti-war movement of the seventies, blind themselves not surprisingly to what is really needed, something more akin to the freedom marches of the sixties. Yet not one banner calls for freedom in Iran.