Iran-U.S.A

[RedWine]

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
AGE AND SEX

All persons 220,714
Females 93,010
Males 127,704
Median age 30.8
Sex ratio 137.3
---
NATIVITY AND YEAR OF ENTRY

All persons 220,714
Native born 50,868 23.0
Foreign born 1 69,846 77.0
Entered 1980 to 2000 82,180 48.4
Entered before 1980 87,666 51.6
Naturalized citizen 46,059 27.1
Not a citizen 123,787 72.9
---
MARITAL STATUS

Persons 15 years and over 169,249 100.0
Never married 50,920 30.1
Now married 98,864 58.4
Separated 2,934 1.7
Widowed 4,479 2.6
Divorced 12,052 7.1
---
FERTILITY

Women 35 to 44 years 16,485
Children ever born per 1000 women 1,824
---
HOUSEHOLD TYPE

All persons 220,714
In households 218,219 98.9
In group quarters 2,495 1.1
---
HOUSEHOLD SIZE

Households 81,989 100.0
1 person 16,457 20.1
2 persons 19,923 24.3
3 persons 16,763 20.4
4 persons 18,487 22.5
5 or more persons 10,359 12.6
---
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AND TYPE OF SCHOOL

Persons 3 years and over enrolled 79,666 100.0
Preprimary school 4,792 6.0
Elementary or high school 38,107 47.8
College 36,767 46.2
---
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Persons 25 years and over 140,021 100.0
High school graduate or higher 127,169 90.8
Bachelor's degree or higher 78,733 56.2
Graduate degree or higher 36,352 26.0
---
ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH

Persons 5 years old and over 202,155 100.0
Speak a lang. other than English 168,917 83.6
Do not speak English "very well" 62,736 31.0
Persons 5 years and over in households 199,665
In linguistically isolated households 32,815 16.4

[RedWine]

LABOR FORCE STATUS

Persons 16 years and over 166,848 100.0
In labor force 115,728 69.4
Civilian labor force 115,552 69.3
Employed 108,409
Unemployed 7,143 6.2
Not in labor force 51,120
---
OCCUPATION

Employed persons 16 years and over 108,409 100.0
Managerial and professional 46,758 43.1
Technical, sales, and administrative 38,217 35.3
Service 10,333 9.5
Farming, forestry, and fishing 308 0.3
Production, craft, and repair 6,748 6.2
Operators, fabricators, and laborers 6,045 5.6
---
CLASS OF WORKER

Employed persons 16 years and over 108,409 100.0
Private wage and salary 83,972 77.5
Local government 3,930 3.6
State government 5,628 5.2
Federal government 1,459 1.3
Self-employed 12,555 11.6
Unpaid family worker 865 0.8
---
WORKERS IN FAMILY

Families 61,123 100.0
No workers 4,258 7.0
1 worker 20,343 33.3
2 workers 29,239 47.8
3 or more workers 7,283 11.9
---
POVERTY RATE

Families 10.6
Unrelated individuals 24.8
Persons 13.3
---
MORTGAGE STATUS AND GROSS RENT

Specified owner-occupied housing units 32,764 100.0
With a mortgage 30,330 92.6
Not mortgaged 2,434 7.4
Median mortgage (dollars) $371

Specified renter-occupied housing units
Median rent (dollars) $660

[RedWine]

Should the U.S. re-establish diplomatic relations with Iran?



which were originally severed in 1980?

[RedWine]

Republican senator calls for talks with Iran

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Party foreign policy expert Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) is calling for the United States to open talks with Iran's new president and has dismissed President George W. Bush's talk of a military option against Tehran as an empty and foolish threat.

In an interview with Reuters during a trip across his home state on Wednesday, Hagel said the United States should greet the new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a bold diplomatic stroke.

"You've got a new president, a new opportunity to do something bold here. Why not take that opportunity and do something bold? Iran is going to be a major influence in the future of Iraq. It already is. Who are we kidding when we think that they're not? They are.

"I would start engaging with American face-to-face dialogue. We're not at negotiations yet, but opening that dialogue. This is a process. This needs to work. Every side has to give something here," said Hagel, who is a member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is seen as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2008.

In an interview with Israeli television last week, Bush said "all options are on the table" if the Iranians refuse to comply with international demands to halt their nuclear program, and noted that he has already used force to protect U.S. security.

EMPTY THREAT

Hagel's response to that implied threat was completely dismissive.

"Quite frankly, what is the military option, what are we talking about here? We lose credibility in the face of the world when we say things like, 'Well just don't forget what happened to Iraq could happen to you Iran. We could invade you, we could bomb you.'

"Oh come on now. First of all, where are we going to get the troops? Who's going to go with us? Where are our partners going to be with Iran?"

The United States has been working through its allies, France, Britain and Germany, in an effort to persuade the Iranians to freeze their nuclear program. This week, the Iranians resumed operations at their uranium conversion facility at Isfahan.

Hagel, who has also been highly critical of the Bush administration's Iraq policy and would like to see Washington end its embargo of Cuba, said the current policy of working through surrogates made no sense.

"I don't understand how we think we're going to make progress by staying on the outside using surrogates, our allies France, Britain and Germany, to go to the table and work with them while stand back and don't want to get our hands dirty," he said.

"You need to move toward something and what are we moving toward here? I don't see where we're moving toward anything. In fact, I think we're eroding a base of strength that we still have here. We have got to get inside this thing, because this is a very dangerous problem," Hagel said. "I think we're actually losing altitude, I think we're actually making it more dangerous."

[RedWine]

A US invasion of Iran would be a disaster for Bush

The Guardian

It is uplifting to read Dan Plesch's pragmatic comments on the "possible negative consequences of an attack on Iran" - "an increase in terrorism; a Shia rising in Iraq; Hizbullah and Iranian attacks on Israel; attacks on oil facilities along the Gulf and a recession caused by rising oil prices" (How Bush would gain from war with Iran, August 15)

Perhaps, another "negative consequence" would be that some Iranians may be killed if we bomb them. Another fact we should bear in mind is that, as with Iraq, George Bush, Tony Blair and the other leaders involved in a potential attack on Iran may once again be accused before the international court of justice of violation of international law, war crimes and crimes against humanity, as was the case in July 2003, when the Athens Bar Association filed a case against Blair, Geoff Hoon and Jack Straw for such atrocities.

When Plesch states that "nothing short of an election would provide the mandate for an attack" he disregards the influence of the many agitators who still think that the US and Britain should follow international law, the UN charter and the Geneva conventions.

[ProudPersian]

a US invasion would be a DISASTER, for the WORLD. But I dont think Iranians should always turn to the US for help. I mean the US is only concerned for its own well-being as a nation. Iran needs to independently develop into a strong nation.

[RedWine]

P P ! you can't be sure about it !

[ProudPersian]

No you can't. That is my point, everyone has alterior motives. The only thing we can be certain of is what we want. That is why we need to develop ourselves independently as a nation.

[Nushabeh]

america aslan lazem nist rabetey ba iran dashteh basheh har chee amricaya dast mizanan kharab kari mikonan

[RedWine]

america aslan lazem nist rabetey ba iran dashteh basheh har chee amricaya dast mizanan kharab kari mikonan

Nice observation !

[RedWine]

vote pls for new users !

[RedWine]

Sa'di, the well-known 14th-century Persian poet and moralist, narrates the story of a benefactor who made a wish and vowed to donate 400 derhams to the ascetics if it came true. When his wish was fulfilled, he sent a servant to town with a pouch full of money and asked him to distribute them amongst the ascetics. In the evening, the servant returned with the money untouched. "Why didn't you give away the money?" the benefactor asked. "Sir, those who were ascetics refused the offer," the servant replied, "and those who were willing to accept the offer were not ascetics."

The news that the Bush administration is allocating a budget to help the "democratic" forces in Iran has created a stir amongst the Iranian opposition. Many regard any help form a great power, whose financial largess in the past has been used to either overthrow the democratic government of Dr. Mossaddeq in the fifties or make clandestine deals with the mullahs in the eighties, with great suspicions. In the eyes of many Iranians, accepting financial help from foreign powers, and in particular the United States, amounts to nothing less than treason. Iranian web sites are full of accusations and counter-accusations that this or that particular group/person is benefiting from the allocated budget. A group of well-known Iranian political activists and intellectuals have just issued a statement declaring "The independent Iranian opposition deems it indecent and politically immoral to accept any aid (financial or otherwise) from the United States or any other government and condemns such aid as a clear insult to the Iranian people" while calling the donors (USA) "the merchants of oil and blood". The message is clear: independent Iranian opposition would not touch such a fund, and those who do, are by definition not indpendent (they are stooges of the Unites States and unpatriotic/traitors).

The American government may be sincere in its desire to help genuine Iranian democratic forces in their struggle agaisnt the religious dictatorhsip in Iran, but may find it difficult to reach them. Those queing at the newly expanded Iran desk at the State Department could make all the right noises to impress the officials with their credentials, but they would hardly strike a cord with the Iranian people within Iran or without. Assuming the administration's good intentions, it will face the dilemma of the Sa'di's benefacor: independent democrats will shy away from applying for the fund, while those willing to receive it will have a hard time explaining themselves to the Iranian people. Indeed, if the whole purpose of the fund is to encourage the deeply divided Iranian democratic forces to come together and form a united front against the Iranian regime, it may have a reverse effect.

The administration clearly intends to reach to the Iranian people, and doesn't recognise the current Iranian regime as their representative. So it looks to the political leaders amongst the opposition. But the opposition groups are fragmented, and most of them view the American support with suspicion. It is of course possible to coerce them into a coalition in the style of Iraqi assembly (before invasion of Iraq), but that won't be a true representation of the opposition, let alone of the Iranian people.

So what's the solution? A proposal which is being discussed in some circles of the Iranian intellectuals may offer a way out of this dilemma: formation of a Parliament of the Iranians in Exile, directly elected by Iranians outside Iran.

This body, if formed, will be a representative institution rather than a leadership entity. It, like any other elected body, will have the authority and the mandate to speak on behalf of all Iranians abroad. It will certainly be dominated by opposition forces (knowing the demographic mix of Iranians abroad) but may also include individuals sympathetic to the Iranian regime (proportional to their influence outside Iran). All in all, it will be a representative body like any other with factions and groupings inside it, and which can make binding decisions arrived at democratically on a majority vote. And in the absence of the possibility of free election inside Iran, it can claim more authority than any other institution or body to represent the interests of the Iranian people as a whole.

However, creating such a body is a major task, both financially and operationally. The number of expatriate Iranians run into millions and they are scattered around the globe. Fund to organise this election, substantial both for the election and for its running costs, will be hard to source amongst Iranians themselves. Moreover, international de facto recognition of such a body is a prerequisite for its raison d'etre. It is only with international support, both financially and morally, that such a body can be formed and for it to have an effective function.

The benefits of such a body are substantial. It will be a first experience of a free election for Iranian diaspora, most of whom have left their homeland as a result of being denied such basic freedoms. The demographic mix of the electorate will make it a modern-liberal institution ˆ unlike elections held in Afghanistan, Iraq or Palestine. It would most certainly be a source of aspiration (mixed with envy) for Iranians back home and a boost for their desire for democracy. It will create a single authority to speak on behalf of all Iranians abroad and, by default, will unite the Iranian opposition and put an end to their never-ending feuds. It will also relieve the headaches of the international community about who to talk to when dealing with the Iranian opposition. And finally, it may be the right home for funds allocated for democratic forces when touching such funds by any (un-elected) political grouping would discredit the receiver.

Use the money not to divide the opposition but to unite them through the ballot box!

[donsaeid]

آمريكا كه همواره داعيه سردمداري در جهان را دارد بيش از همه از تناقض و دوگانگي در سياست*هاي خود رنج مي*برد. سياست تسليحاتي خشن اين كشور كه حاكي از روحيه جنگ طلبي و سلطه جويي سران كاخ سفيد است چيزي جز فقر ،بي كاري و ناامني براي مردمان اين كشور به ويژه سياهان ساكن ايالت هاي توفان زده "كاترينا" به بار نياورده است، به طوري كه امروزه اين دو پديده، ويژگي متمايز اين كشور بشمار مي*آيند: فقر و بودجه سرسام آور نظامي.

صرف نظر از اقدامات عملي نظامي، مي*توان از دو شاخص مهم و
اساسي بودجه و سرانه نظامي، به عنوان معياري براي بيان روحيات جنگ طلبي يا نظامي گري يك كشور استفاده كرد.

ايالات متحده آمريكا با بودجه*اي بالغ بر ‪ ۴۲۰/۷‬ميليارد دلار با فاصله بسيار قابل توجهي از ساير كشورهاي جهان قراردارد و داراي بالاترين بودجه نظامي جهان است.

رقم اين بودجه به ‪ ۴۳۹‬ميليارد دلار در سال ‪ ۲۰۰۷‬ميلادي افزايش خواهد يافت.

در همين حال آمار رسمي بي*كاران در اين كشور ‪ ۲۰‬ميليون و آمار غير رسمي از رقمي نزديك به دو برابر اين حكايت دارد.

نگاهي به سرانه هزينه نظامي هفده دولت كه داراي بالاترين بودجه نظامي در سطح جهان هستند،نشان مي*دهد كه رژيم اشغالگرقدس با ‪ ۲۴۷۵‬و آمريكا با ‪ ۱۶۰۰‬دلار در راس جدول دارندگان بالاترين هزينه سرانه نظامي قراردارند.

ميزان آسيب پذيري صلح و امنيت جهاني از ناحيه كاربرد بودجه و سرانه نظامي توسط دولتها در شكل گيري اقدامات عملي نظامي به عنوان يكي از شاخص هاي بررسي تهديدزايي رفتار دولتها همواره مورد توجه قرار دارد. بنابراين هزينه نظامي كشورهائي مانند هند و عربستان در مقايسه با دولتهائي مانند آمريكا، رژيم اشغالگر و انگليس با توجه به ميزان بحران آفريني در جهان و بروز اعمال جنايتكارانه به عنوان بودجه نظامي "غير تهديدزا " معرفي مي*شوند.

گذشته از بودجه*هاي نظامي مصوب، در خواستهاي مكرر رييس جمهور و وزير دفاع آمريكا از كنگره براي توسعه تسليحاتي نشاني ديگر از خلق و خوي جنگ طلبي دولت مردان اين كشور دارد.

به گزارش پايگاه اينترنتي گلف نيوز، "دونالد رامسفلد" وزير دفاع آمريكا، آوريل گذشته خطاب به كميته فرعي سنا گفت، درحال حاضر ‪ ۷۰‬كشور به دنبال "فعاليتهاي زيرزميني" هستند.

او با اشاره به ناتواني آمريكا در برخورد با چنين فعاليت*ها و پي*بردن به آنچه كه درچارچوب اين فعاليت*ها در اعماق زمين مي*گذرد، پيشنهاد توليد بمب*هاي سنگرشكن كوچك را مطرح كرد تا بتوان به وسيله آن از بكارگيري بمب*هاي بزرگ هسته*يي جلوگيري كرد.

سخنان رامسفلد و پيگيري براي توليد بمب سنگرشكن، بر تغيير سياستهاي دولت آمريكااز سياست بازدارندگي هسته*اي به سمت استفاده احتمالي از سلاح هسته*اي، صحه مي*گذارد.

درحالي كه كنگره آمريكا مقرر داشته است، توليد هرگونه تسليحات قابل نفوذ دراعماق زمين بايد براساس مواد انفجاري متعارف صورت گيرد.

اما پنتاگون از مقررات جديد كنگره حداكثر استفاده را كرد، به طوري كه در سال ‪ ،۲۰۰۴‬قراردادي را با شركت "بوئينگ" براي طراحي و ازمايش يك بمب معظم متعارف كه به "مجموعه مهمات نفوذكننده معظم" موسوم است ، منعقد كرد.

اين بمب بزرگترين بمب متعارف در زراد خانه آمريكا خواهد بود كه قادر به تخريب ساختمان*هاي چند طبقه*ي مجهز به سنگرهاي مستحكم و تونل*هاي زير زميني است.

دولت بوش علاوه بر بمب سنگرشكن خواهان توليد كلاهك*هاي هسته*اي جديد براي جايگزيني انواع قديمي آن نيز هست.

بتازگي يك روزنامه اسپانيايي نيز از آزمايش بي*سابقه يك بمب ‪ ۷۰۰‬تني از سوي آمريكا در صحراي "نوادا" با هدف استفاده از آن عليه تاسيسات اتمي ايران خبر داد.

"آ.ب.ث" روز دوشنبه ‪ ۱۴‬فروردين نوشت: صحراي نوادا در آمريكا كه در دوران جنگ سرد، صحنه هولناك براي آزمايش*هاي بي*شمار انفجارهاي اتمي علني و زيرزميني بود، با وجود پايان يافتن رقابت ميان واشنگتن و مسكو، به اين وضعيت خود ادامه مي*دهد و قرار است روز دوم ژوئن (‪ ۱۲‬خرداد) آينده، شاهد آزمايش بي*سابقه يك بمب ‪ ۷۰۰‬تني از سوي وزارت دفاع آمريكا (پنتاگون) باشد.

آ.ب.ث نوشت: پنتاگون با اين انفجار كه آن را بزرگترين انفجار شيميايي در فضاي باز اعلام كرده است مي*خواهد بر نگراني خود در مورد تاسيسات پوشيده شده از گرانيت و در اعماق زمين پايان دهد.

طبق گزارش يادشده، آمريكا براي نابودي اين اهداف، تلاش در جهت توسعه سيستم*هاي جديد نفوذكننده و نابودكننده خود دارد و حتي در اين راه احتمال استفاده اختلاف انگيز از محموله*هاي كوچك اتمي كه از سوي كنگره ممنوع اعلام شده را نيز مطرح كرده است.

هفته*نامه "ساندي تلگراف" نيز روز ‪ ۲۰‬فروردين به احتمال استفاده از بمب*هاي اتمي نفوذكننده در زمين براي تخريب مركز هسته*اي نطنز اشاره كرد و به نقل از يكي از منابع خبري "پنتاگون" نوشت: جرج بوش اعتقاد دارد بايد عملي را انجام*دهد كه هيچ رييس جمهوري دمكرات يا جمهوريخواهي پس از وي جرات انجام آنرا نخواهد داشت و نجات دادن ايران به ميراث وي تبديل خواهد شد.

پايگاه اينترنتي "فايننشال تايمز" ‪ ۴‬بهمن ‪ ۸۴‬اعلام كرد: پيش نويس "فصلنامه بررسي*هاي دفاعي" كه تهديدهاي آينده عليه آمريكا را مورد بررسي قرار داده، تسليحات مورد نياز براي مقابله با دشمنان آمريكا را پيش بيني كرده و تهيه سلسله وسيعي از تسليحات متعارف و غير متعارف را براي برخورد با كشورهاي "هدف آمريكا" پيشنهاد كرده است.

فايننشال تايمز هزينه*اي را كه*از اين طريق به بودجه نظامي آمريكا اضافه خواهد شد ‪ ۱/۵‬ميليارد دلار ذكر كرد.

روزنامه "لس آنجلس تايمز"تاكيد كرده، گذشته از لفاظي*هاي بكار رفته در طرح راهبرد چهارساله دفاعي آمريكا در بودجه ‪ ۴۳۹‬ميليارد دلاري آمريكا در سال ‪ ۲۰۰۷‬بارديگر به جنگ*هاي متعارفي توجه شده كه از زمان جنگ سرد تاكنون باقي مانده است.

در اين گزارش با ارايه مثالي تصريح شده است: با وجود آن كه آمريكا همچنان سلطه بر جنگ هوايي را در دست دارد اما پنتاگون براي سه نوع از جنگنده*هاي فوق مدرن خود كه از نوع هواپيماهاي شكاري كوتاه برد هستند، برنامه*ريزي كرده است.

همچنين توسعه زيردريايي هسته*اي "ويرجينيا" بخشي از اين بودجه را بخود اختصاص داده است.

اين زيردريايي ‪ ۲۴‬ميليارد دلاري اكنون به عنوان يكي از ابزارهاي اصلي ارتش آمريكا در جمع*آوري اطلاعات، شليك موشك*هاي بالستيك "تام و هاوك" و انتقال نيروهاي ويژه به آب*هاي دشمن درنظر گرفته شده است اما پيش از اين براي مبارزه با زيردريايي*هاي اتحاد جماهير شوروي و كشتي*هاي جنگي در نظر گرفته شده بود و هنوز نيز قابليت آن به نسبت ديگر زيردريايي*ها بهتر است.

توسعه ناوهاي ‪ CVN-21‬و ناوهواپيمابر فوق پيشرفته ‪ DDX‬از دو برنامه*اي است كه در طرح بودجه پنتاگون براي سال ‪ ۲۰۰۷‬مدنظر قرار گرفته و ميلياردها دلار هزينه داشته است و اين روزنامه از آن به عنوان طرحي نامناسب براي جنگ*هاي غيرمنظم نام برده است.

در حالي كه بودجه نظامي آمريكا در صدر كشورها قرار دارد و تقاضا براي توسعه برنامه*هاي تسليحاتي از سوي مقام*هاي اين كشور رو به افزايش است، فقر،ناامني،بي كاري و فحشا در آمريكا رو به تزايد دارد و به عنوان يك معضل بزرگ خودنمايي مي*كند.

آمريكا ثروتمندترين كشور دنيا است اما نرخ فقر در آن در ميان كشورهاي توسعه يافته وضع نامطلوبي دارد. در آمريكا معضلاتي نظير فقر، گرسنگي و بي*خانماني كاملا جدي است و به رغم ادعاهاي فراوان مقام*هاي اين كشور، حقوق اقتصادي، فرهنگي و اجتماعي افراد تضمين نشده است.

مطالعه هشت كشور پيشرفته كه به وسيله "مدرسه اقتصاد لندن" در سال ‪۲۰۰۵‬ صورت گرفت، نشان داد كه آمريكا به لحاظ نابرابري اجتماعي، در بين كشورهاي پيشرفته صنعتي بدترين وضعيت را دارا است.

نرخ فقر در ايالات متحده در بالاترين حد خود در ميان كشورهاي توسعه يافته است و بيش از دو برابر كشورهاي صنعتي است.

در سال*هاي اخير فاصله بين فقير و غني در آمريكا بيشترشده و ثروت ثروتمندان افزايش قابل توجهي يافته است.

بر اساس دو مطالعه جديد كه به وسيله "گروه اسپكترم" كه يك شركت تحقيقاتي در شيكاگو است و "گروه مشاور بوستون" صورت پذيرفته*است، خانواده*هاي ميليونر در آمريكا كنترل بيش از ‪ ۱۱‬تريليون دلار از دارايي*هاي اين كشور را در سال ‪ ۲۰۰۴‬ميلادي در دست داشتند كه ‪ ۸‬درصد بيش از سال ‪ ۲۰۰۳‬بود.

اين بررسي*ها هم چنين نشان مي*دهد در دو سال اخير، درآمد كارمندان معمولي در ايالات متحده به شدت كاهش يافته كه اين امر به افزايش جمعيت فقير در اين كشور كمك كرده است.

بر اساس داده*هاي منتشر شده به وسيله " اداره سرشماري آمريكا" نرخ رسمي فقر در اين كشور از ‪ ۱۲/۵‬درصد در سال ‪ ۲۰۰۳‬به ‪ ۱۲/۷‬درصد در سال ‪۲۰۰۴‬ افزايش يافته است.

بر اساس اين داده*ها تعداد جمعيت فقير اين كشور با ‪ ۱/۱‬ميليون افزايش از ‪ ۳۵/۹‬ميليون به ‪ ۳۷‬ميليون در سال ‪ ۲۰۰۴‬افزايش يافت. نرخ فقر در شهرهايي چون ديترويت، ميامي و نيويورك به ‪ ۲۸‬درصد جمعيت آنها افزايش پيداكرد.

روزنامه "نيويورك تايمز" در ‪ ۲۲‬نوامبر ‪ ۲۰۰۵‬گزارش داد كه در سال ‪۲۰۰۴‬ حدود ‪ ۳۹‬ميليون از خانواده*هاي آمريكا داراي اعضايي بودند كه مشكل سوء تغذيه داشتند.

[donsaeid]

وزير دفاع ايران:

آذربايجان مي تواند بين ايران و آمريكا ميانجيگري كند

خبرگزاري فارس: وزير دفاع ايران در ديدار با رئيس جمهور آذربايجان گفت اين كشور مي تواند بين تهران و واشنگتن ميانجيگري كند.


به گزارش خبرگزاري آسوشيتدپرس از باكو، مصطفي محمد نجار، وزير دفاع ايران طي سفري به آذربايجان به خبرنگاران گفت:« رئيس جمهور آذربايجان در سفرش به آمريكا مي تواند مواضع ما را براي آمريكايي ها تشريح كند به نحوي كه آنها برخي ابهامات را به درستي درك كنند.»
الهام علي*اف، رئيس جمهور آذربايجان هفته آينده به واشنگتن خواهد رفت تا با جورج بوش، رئيس جمهور آمريكا مذاكره كند.
نجار افزود: ايران تا بحال خواستار هيچ نوع ميانجيگري بين تهران و واشنگتن نشده بود

[RedWine]

With the expected passage this spring of the largest emergency spending bill in history, annual war expenditures in Iraq will have nearly doubled since the U.S. invasion, as the military confronts the rapidly escalating cost of repairing, rebuilding and replacing equipment chewed up by three years of combat.

The cost of the war in U.S. fatalities has declined this year, but the cost in treasure continues to rise, from $48 billion in 2003 to $59 billion in 2004 to $81 billion in 2005 to an anticipated $94 billion in 2006, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The U.S. government is now spending nearly $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan, up from $8.2 billion a year ago, a new Congressional Research Service report found.

Annual war costs in Iraq are easily outpacing the $61 billion a year that the United States spent in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972, in today's dollars. The invasion's "shock and awe" of high-tech laser-guided bombs, cruise missiles and stealth aircraft has long faded, but the costs of even those early months are just coming into view as the military confronts equipment repair and rebuilding costs it has avoided and procurement costs it never expected.

"We did not predict early on that we would have the number of electronic jammers that we've got. We did not predict we'd have as many [heavily] armored vehicles that we have, nor did we have a good prediction about what our battle losses would be," Army Chief of Staff Peter J. Schoomaker recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Steven M. Kosiak, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments' director of budget studies, said, "If you look at the earlier estimates of anticipated costs, this war is a lot more expensive than it should be, based on past conflicts."

The issue will be hotly debated next week when the Senate takes up a record $106.5 billion emergency spending bill that includes $72.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House passed a $92 billion version of the bill last month that included $68 billion in war funding. That funding comes on top of $50 billion already allocated for the war this fiscal year.

The bill is the fifth emergency defense request since the Iraq invasion in March 2003. Senate Democrats say that, in the end, they will vote for the measure, which congressional leaders plan to deliver to President Bush by Memorial Day. But the upcoming debate will offer opponents of the war ample opportunity to question the Bush administration's funding priorities.

Defense officials and budget analysts point to a simple, unavoidable driver of the escalating costs. The cost of repairing and replacing equipment and developing new war-fighting materiel has exploded. In the first year of the invasion, such costs totaled $2.4 billion, then rose to $5.2 billion in 2004. This year, they will hit $26 billion, and could go as high as $30 billion, Kosiak said. On the other hand, at about $15 billion, personnel costs will drop 14 percent this year.

Total operations and maintenance budgets will rise 33 percent this year, while investment in new technologies will climb 25 percent, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The helicopters, tanks, personnel carriers and even small arms "have required more maintenance than we planned for," said Gary Motsek, director of support operations at the Army Materiel Command. "We're working them to death."

In the first years of the war, Army and Marine units rotating out of Iraq left behind usable equipment for the next units rolling in. But even the working equipment is now being shipped back to the Army's five depots to be refurbished and upgraded.

Last year, the depots repaired and upgraded 600 helicopter engines. This year, they will see 700, Motsek said. A total of 318 Bradley Fighting Vehicles went through the depots in 2005; 600 will be cycled through in 2006.

[RedWine]

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.

[RedWine]

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

[RedWine]

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.

....

[RedWine]

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



سياست*هاي خارجي آمريكا همواره بر مبناي تروريسم سياسي بنا شده است و هم اكنون اين كشور فعاليت*هاي هسته*اي ايران را دستاويزي براي اجراي سياست*هاي سلطه*طلبانه خود قرار داده است.


سياست*هاي خارجي آمريكا همواره بر مبناي تروريسم سياسي بنا شده است و هم اكنون اين كشور فعاليت*هاي هسته*اي ايران را دستاويزي براي اجراي سياست*هاي سلطه*طلبانه خود قرار داده است.

بنابراين جاي تعجب نيست كه رئيس جمهور آمريكا از منتفي دانستن حمله نظامي به ايران امتناع مي*ورزد. بوش در تفسير اظهارات سيمورهرش مبني بر حمله نظامي به ايران، اعلام كرده است تمامي گزينه*هاي احتمالي تحت بررسي هستند. بايد گفت آمريكا براي حل مناقشات هسته*اي ايران تمامي گزينه*ها 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 مي*گويد.

بوش براي حل مناقشات هسته*اي ايران با چين كه خود يك قدرت هسته*اي بزرگ است و تسليحات اتمي در اختيار دارد به مذاكره مي*نشيند و اين به خوبي دورويي دولت آمريكا را به اثبات مي*رساند.

شايد دنيا بايد شكرگرار صداقت و بي*پردگي 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 فعاليت*هاي هسته*اي ديگر كشورهاست. آمريكا در طراحي و اجراي اين سياست خود حتي به داشتن تعهدات اخلاقي و راهكارهاي استراتژيك نيز تظاهر نمي*كند.

شايد جمله زير بهترين و ساده*ترين 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 مي*كند و با ديدن كوچكترين مقاومت در قبال خود، كمر به نابودي كشور مخالف مي*بندد.

البته آمريكا براي نابودي مخالفان خود روش*هاي گوناگوني داشته و اين نابودي نيز درجه*بندي*هاي متفاوتي دارد. از تحريم*هاي اقتصادي عليه عراق كه به كشته شدن هزاران انسان و به خصوص كودكان بيگناه انجاميد تا تحريم*هاي سياسي عليه بلاروس و در مخالفت با لوكاشنكو، رئيس جمهور منتخب اين كشور،مثال*هاي خوبي براي سياست آمريكا در اين زمينه هستند. آمريكا در رو*ش دوم (يعني تحريم سياسي كشورها) كه به منظور گسترش نفرت مردم از دولت صورت مي*گيرد، از رسانه*ها به عنوان وسيله*اي براي اجراي سياست*هاي خود استفاده مي*كند. گزارشگران، دبيران و روزنامه*نگاران كشورهاي خارجي از سوي آمريكا اجير مي*شوند 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 نمي*توان جنگي منطقي دانست، چرا كه طبق تئوري*هاي اين جنگ، آمريكا به خود اجازه مي*دهد در هر زمان و به هر كشوري كه بخواهد، حمله كند.

آمار زخمي*ها و كشته شدگان نيروهاي آمريكايي در جنگ عراق به بيش از هزاران نفر مي*رسد واين آمار به خوبي بيانگر بالا بودن تعداد زخمي*ها و كشته شدگان، عراقي مي*باشد و به همين دليل است كه ارتش آمريكا از اعلام تعداد واقعي تلفات عراقي ها در اين جنگ سرباز مي*زند. 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 مي*زند، 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 نومحافظه*كاران آمريكا پيش از آغاز جنگ عراق گفته بود اشغال عراق مقدمه*اي براي اشغال عربستان سعودي و اشغال مصر، پاداش اين موفقيت است.

اين گونه اظهارات علاوه بر اثبات سادگي بيش از حد نومحافظه*كاران، جنوني را كه در سياست*هاي آنها پنهان است، به خوبي نمايان مي*كند. هر چند موراويس در آن زمان از كار بر كنار شد، اما موضع*گيري*هاي 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 سياست*هاي خارجي خود به مردم آمريكا نشان دهد، بايد گفت تبعات منفي سياست*هاي جنون*آميز دولت آمريكا براي مردم اين كشور بسيار گران تمام شده است و مردم آمريكا هر لحظه در هراس به سر مي*برند.

هم اكنون زمان آن فر ا رسيده است تا دولت بوش با دوري از سياست*هاي جنون*آميز 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 مي*برند. مردم آمريكا براي بهبود و احياي اين وجهه از دست رفته بايد هر چه سريعتر اقدام كنند و از بروز جنگي ديگر ممانعت كنند.

[RedWine]

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.

[RedWine]

Iran is not Iraq
Quick lessons in geography, language and culture

Parviz Forghani

The other day I was watching "Family Feud" on TV. One of the questions was: which country would hate America most? The third or forth option was Iran. To me as an Iranian it sounds an absurd perception. If there is one country in the Middle East whose people still honor and salute America, it's Iran.

We should be careful not to mistake Iran with Iraq. The difference between the two countries is much more than the only obvious difference between the last letters "N" and "Q" in pronunciation of the names. Here are only some of them:

-- Iraqis are mostly Arabs, Iranians are not. They are a rainbow nation of Persians, Kurds, Azeries, Turkmens, Lurs, Baluchis, and some Arabs who have coexisted peacefully for thousands of years.
-- Iraqis speak in Arabic language, Iranians speak in Farsi (Persian)

-- Though with a rich ancient culture, Iraq is a country which came to existence only after world war one as a part of defeated Ottoman Empire. While Iran is a country with more than two and a half millennium of written history as a sovereign country.

-- Iran is the second country (after Japan) in Asia – the largest continent – having chosen constitutional monarchy as its governing system through a fairly democratic procedure. The country has been practicing the difficult path of democracy for about a century now. On the other hand, from its date of birth as a country, Iraq has been struggling with coups, dictators and shaky governments.

-- Iran does not have any record of attacking or harming any sovereign country at least for the last two centuries, while Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, has two recorded military attacks to Iran and Kuwait.

-- Under the fever of Islamic Revolution, Iranians did their biggest single historical mistake which was attacking the American Embassy in Tehran and taking the American staff of the embassy as hostages for 444 days. Iranians have paid for that mistake dearly. But since then there has been no proven trace of any Iranian action against USA in any of the myriad terrorist attacks against American targets – or any other nation.

-- Iran is a country with 70 million population with literacy rate of more than 80%. The number of students (from first grade to university) is more than 20 million and the girl students in the universities and colleges outnumber the boys. While Iraq has a population of 26 million with literacy rate of about 40%.

Saying all that, I should admit that I do not like the present government of Iran. I believe that the existing government is not representing the majority of Iranian people. I believe that there are fanatic extremists among the key government players. I believe that the existing government has approval of only 10 to 15 percent of Iranian population. In other words, 80 to 85% of Iranians are ordinary peace loving people who just care about their own they to day life business. They have had a bitter experience of a bloody 8 year war with Iraq leaving deep ugly scars in the economic, social and family lives. They would hate any other war. They would even do not bother about nuclear energy, or any other politicized matter of these days.

Iran has been under much scrutiny and world attention because of its nuclear programs and uranium enrichment ambitions for sometime now. The Iranian government has repeatedly claimed that its nuclear programs are peaceful and for civil energy production only. Western countries and Israel would not believe such claims. Having the record of the Iranian Government, I would agree to doubt such claims.

On the other hand, even the worst appraisals would believe that Iran is still at least 5 years away from the dirty bomb.

When getting to this point, we should note that Iran is surrounded by countries in possession of nuclear bombs for years. India, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Israel all have mighty and frightening artillery of dirty bombs. All of these countries, unlike Iran, have recent history of aggressive conflicts with their neighbors. Furthermore, among them are governments who can hardly be considered fully democratic ones. Nonetheless, so far, thanks to god, none of them have used the dirty bombs against their foes. The irony is that the only country who has so far used the dirty bomb is one of most democratic systems of the world. Therefore, even if we believe that the Iranian government has the nuclear military ambitions, why should we make such a big phobia out of such remote chance? Iran will not be a farm to USA in any case.

To summarize the story:

- Although Iranian government is not a thoroughly democratically elected one, yet it is not the worst one in the Middle East and even Asia by any account.

- Iran does not have any proven record of any anti-American act during the last quarter of a century (forget war of words).

- If the United States gets into any military action against Iran, it will only benefit the bad guys. It will help the present government to consolidate its prevalence for years to come. The real looser will be the ordinary people.

For gods sake let's prevent the war.

[RedWine]

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.

[RedWine]

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.

[RedWine]

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 t