Eye On Iran

[Rasputin]

Sometimes comparing Iranians, Arabs, Turks and other Middle-Easterners to Westerners I thought there may be something wrong with Middle-Eastern genes or something that makes people be so much more aggressive, so much less honest, and altogether far more impulsive. Just an innocent thought! Never reached any conclusion to prove the hypothesis. However it is a fact that peoples of the Middle East are not usually trustworthy, get angry very quickly and usually act emotionally. This is all beside other defects such as arrogance combined with gullibility and so on.

To study the realities I needed some comparison, and nothing simpler than that. Comparing the Middle East to the West (Europe and North America) makes sense, because both groups are of Caucasian race and they have both interacted intensely with each other historically. We cannot blame some construction/structural/genetic defects for Middle-Eastern aggressivity and lack of honesty because these things do not change so easily in human beings, and processes that lead to serious structural modifications of humans usually take tens or even hundreds of thousands of years.

However looking at our recent history we can obviously see the same aggressive and other negative traits, that are present among Middle-Easterners today, were widely available and considered normal among all Western societies no longer than about a century ago or even sooner. Gatherings, and general amusements, for public executions, hangings, recurrent wars and disputes among nations or individuals, dishonesty, lack of trust and cooperation etc that are everyday norms in the Middle East (public executions are outlawed in some Middle Eastern countries by authoritarian regimes) were nothing strange in the West, whether in the US or even the most civilised of Europe.

So, what happened that the West moved on while the Middle East stuck where it was, at least from the points of view mentioned above? Many Middle-Eastern nations, including Iran, are no longer illiterate. Most of Iran's population are actually highly educated and come very close to Western standards in this regard. And this opens a legitimate case for wondering why are Middle-Easterners, Iranians and others, still so different? Many Iranians will surely disagree with me, even call me names (they may have even tried much more tangible methods of releasing their anger if they could get their hands on me) and therefore prove me right, I guess! And here I have a hypothesis, which is nothing new. Western scientists have long talked about this.

It may all be related to sexual frustration. This is not about the sexual frustration of the rulers, but rather about the sexual frustrations of the masses, especially the young. Sexual frustration does not necessarily limit to the act of sex as such. It can go far beyond that and involve interaction, entertainment and many other public or private ways of contacting potential or actual sexual partners. It is rather with the game than the factual final process of intercourse. The more widespread and easily accessible these possibilities are the less frustrated the masses. And vice-versa, the less widespread the more frustrated.

The two opposite sexes seem to keep the social balance of each other and provide what seems the conflicting political parties provide in a democracy. But when a society limits the liberties of interaction between these balancing forces there appear imbalances that cause frustrations, resulting in intolerance and aggression. Opposing political parties are not exactly like opposing sexes, but the phrase that "you cannot live with them, you cannot live without them either" applies for both cases properly.

Men and women are also in a continuous dispute, whether on an individual or on a social level. Men and women never seem to fully understand each other and when they are forced to accept each other's rights and liberties and live with each other without imposition or limitations of liberties there also comes the first step toward tolerance and kindness, that currently is scarce in the Middle East.

However opening up the issue or letting women be free and do what they want is not something easy yet. Iranian men for instance have no serious problem with their men, boys or sons, messing around with other girls, but they still do have very serious problems with their own girls in the family or daughters doing the same with other men, boys, or sons. And the thinking being a common one among all it creates a virtual sexual market in which men are aplenty while women are almost absent.

It is not a bad idea to start to love each other without prejudices in a more physical and common sense of the word before starting loving each other (the reaming) for simply being human beings. Self interest needs immediate satisfaction in order to benefit the greater community for the common good.

[Rasputin]

The enjoyment of power inevitably corrupts the judgment of reason, and perverts its liberty”.
-- Immanuel Kant

They thought Iraq would be a cakewalk. After all, for years, its army was being deprived of potential recruits in preparedness for an attack. Half a million Iraqi children were killed[1] during the 13 years of sanctions leading to the 2003 invasion - “Mission Accomplished”.

The sanctions imposed on Iraq following the First Gulf War, under the watchful eyes of the Pentagon, monitored the degradation of Iraq's water supply. Reports itemized the likely outbreaks of "acute diarrhea" brought on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and salmonella, or by protozoa such as giardia, which would affect "particularly children," or by rotavirus, which would also affect "particularly children," a phrase it put in parentheses. Also cited were possibilities of typhoid and cholera outbreaks.” “Gastroenteritis was killing children. . . . In the south, 80 percent of the deaths were children (with the exception of Al Amarah, where 60 percent of deaths were children)."[2]

In the words of one of the few decent and courageous congressional members, Cynthia McKinney, Democrat of Georgia, referred to the document "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" and said: "Attacking the Iraqi public drinking water supply flagrantly targets civilians and is a violation of the Geneva Convention and of the fundamental laws of civilized nations."

We were ‘told’ that we, the civilized world, are fighting the ‘uncivilized’ terrorists’. So it is that Dick Cheney whispers into Mr. Bush’s ear to attack Iraq, confident that with her children buried, the parents too weak from mourning and disease, she will surrender – quickly. He made sure America stayed on track; track of deception. Prior to the invasion, Cheney was confronted with a report from the IAEA which threw doubts on the administration’s allegations about Iraq’s WMD, and he responded: “We know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong" (Meet the Press, March 16, 2003).

The demon of greed never seems to get enough. Over 1 million dead Iraqis – with Dick Cheney’s old company KBR/Halliburton being the prime benefactor of theft, Mr. Cheney now has his eyes on Iran. More bodies, dead ones, are needed for the task. Once again, his old company, KBR/Halliburton, not only comes to the rescue, but benefits from the deal.

In November 2006, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction auditor reported that in 2004, KBR, a subsidiary of Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton, ‘had lost’ more than 14,000 weapons destined for the Iraqi government. Pentagon had lost track of them. However, the Pentagon immediately ‘found’ an old, obscure clause and shuts down the audit[3]. On August 6, 2007, Washington Post reported that there were in fact 190,000 weapons missing – while they referred to the previously reported 14,000, they made no mention of Dick Cheney’s old KBR/Halliburton.[4]

According to Rachel Stohl, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information, "They really have no idea where they are," .."It likely means that the United States is unintentionally providing weapons to bad actors."[5] And Dick Cheney’s [old] company gets paid in spite of the corruption, theft, and mismanagement[6]. Americans and Iraqis get killed – and Iran is held accountable for arming the Shiite militias; A win-win situation for Dick Cheney who is itching to go to war, and his old company.

Dismissing claims from al-Maliki that Iran is a positive force in Iraq, listening to Dick Cheney’s whispers – much like the false allegations about Afghanistan that even though Dan McNeill, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, said: "What we've found so far hasn't been militarily significant on the battlefield." McNeill also said that more likely sources for the arms are drug traffickers, black market dealers, or al-Qaida groups” (Inter Press Service, June 20, 2007), is being blamed on Iran -- Mr. Bush bows to Dick Cheney and repeats that Iran is arming the insurgents who are killing American soldiers. Dick Cheney is arguing for military action[7]. I wonder of Dick Cheney is the God that Mr. Bush talks to, the higher authority that told him to go to war in Iraq?

But surely America does not have the soldiers for another illegal and immoral war?

The Army is already only meeting its goals by offering larger monetary incentives to enlistees, and by allowing those who "normally" would not qualify for military service to enlist: those without a high-school diploma, those with criminal records and those previously rejected for being physically unfit[8]. Perhaps its time to look for a partner – a gay partner.

Army Lt. Gen. Douglas, Mr. Bush’s war adviser says “the draft is worth a look” [9]. In fact, much like everything else, such as curbing our freedoms, the draft will be upon us and 18-year olds will be dying for Halliburton and other Crusades. This is not the first time the draft has been seriously considered; in December 2006, the Pentagon announced that it was planning on testing the military-draft machinery, but to alleviate fears of parents of 18-year olds, it announced it would not be doing this until 2009 [10]. Dick Cheney will not wait until 2009. Today, with Dick Cheney’s [old] company Halliburton safely in Dubai dodging taxes and criminal charges, he is eager to push for a military strike on Iran. The profits would make Iraq look like child’s play – as would the death toll.

Several years ago, sipping a hot cup of coffee in my kitchen in Needham, Massachusetts, with my Polish neighbor, I was shocked to hear her guilt-ridden confession. She admitted that at times, when she looked at my husband, given his German heritage, she could not help but wonder with unease if his family had been involved in the killing of her (Jewish) relatives. Having overcome my shock at her bitter narrow-mindedness towards all people German, I told her that my husband was third generation American and his family could not have been involved in what went on during Hitler’s time.

Today, as I write this, I have become victim of the same intolerance and dread. I cannot help but wonder how many among us, citizens of the world, not just Americans, can exonerate themselves of the crimes of their governments knowing silence and inaction have been the most powerful weapons yet. it to its capaciousness. Its one object is to produce and consume. It has pity neither for beautiful nature nor for living human beings. It is ruthlessly ready without a moment's hesitation to crush beauty and life. Comment

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has lived and studied in Iran, the UK, France, and the US. She obtained her Bachelors Degree in International Relations from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She is currently pursuing her education in Middle East studies and Public Diplomacy. Soraya has done extensive research on US foreign policy towards Iran and Iran’s nuclear program. She can be reached at sorayau@earthlink.net

[1] Harpers: Cool War: Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction

[2] Progressive: “Impeach Bush” Sign = Littering?

[3] BBC: US stops audit of Iraq

[4] Washington Post: Weapons Given to Iraq Are Missing

[5] Washington Post: Weapons Given to Iraq Are Missing

[6] Washington Post: Defense Dept. Read Audits Yet Paid KBR Bill

[7] McClatchy: Cheney urging strikes on Iran

[8] Washington Post: Is a Bigger Army a Better Army?

[9] AP: Bush War Adviser Says Draft Worth a Look

[10] AP: Agency to Test Military Draft Machinery

[Rasputin]

The dangers posed by Iran are serious, and America needs to respond with serious policies, not more theatrics. Labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization — as the State Department now proposes — is another distraction when what the Bush administration needs to be doing is opening comprehensive negotiations with Tehran, backed by increasing international economic pressure.

Those negotiations need to deal with all real and alleged facets of Iran’s many dangerous behaviors: its nuclear ambitions; its sectarian meddling in Iraq; its providing of missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon and the charges it is arming the Taliban and others in Afghanistan. And any talks must take into account Iran’s concerns about its own security — with a clear offer that it can come in from the diplomatic and economic cold if it improves its behavior.

Designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist group would trigger automatic American economic penalties against the guard leaders and companies dealing with them. But Iran does little direct business with the United States, so those penalties would cause minimal pain. That suggests that the State Department’s real audience isn’t Tehran, but conflict-obsessed administration hawks, who are lobbying for military strikes, and conflict-averse European allies, who have resisted more far-reaching multilateral economic sanctions.

We hope the State Department prevails in both of those arguments. But it has chosen a particularly blunt instrument to wave around. If there’s any doubt about that, officials should take another look at the recent North Korea nuclear deal — and the contortions and delays they had to go through to roll back the Patriot Act sanctions on North Korean bank deposits.

It is also surely not in America’s interest to dilute the hard-won international consensus against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda by stretching the term to include a section of Tehran’s official armed forces. That said, the Revolutionary Guard is a real and present danger for the Iranian people and their neighbors. Formed in 1979 as an ideological shock force to protect Iran’s revolutionary clerics, the guards have played a central role in some of the regime’s most abhorrent activities, including assassinating dissidents. And they have built up a considerable business empire, especially in military related industries, including Iran’s efforts to produce fuel that could be used for nuclear weapons.

International asset freezes and foreign travel bans directed at Revolutionary Guard leaders and their business partners are certainly deserved, and would make real sense as part of a program of international sanctions and coupled with a clear American offer for serious negotiations. By themselves they are futile.

In its desperation over Iraq, the White House has grudgingly allowed American diplomats in Baghdad to meet with their Iranian counterparts, most recently last week. But these sessions have been little more than empty rituals — long recitations of mutual complaints with no effort to even consider possible solutions. Iran has become too dangerous a problem for such continued amateurism.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization — as the State Department now proposes — is another distraction when what the Bush administration needs to be doing is opening comprehensive negotiations with Tehran, backed by increasing international economic pressure...Designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist group would trigger automatic American economic penalties against the guard leaders and companies dealing with them. But Iran does little direct business with the United States, so those penalties would cause minimal pain. That suggests that the State Department’s real audience isn’t Tehran, but conflict-obsessed administration hawks, who are lobbying for military strikes, and conflict-averse European allies, who have resisted more far-reaching multilateral economic sanctions.

Let me add something else though. There's one other issue with this designation that just makes it stupid. Iran's success and ability to defend against Iraqi forces during the Iran-Iraq war was primarily a result of of the IRGC. In fact, one of the turning points in the war was when a large Iraqi contingent was repelled by a small IRGC force in Abadan, a city located on the Iran-Iraq border. As noted by the the Global Security Organization:

Iran may have prevented a quick Iraqi victory by a rapid mobilization of volunteers and deployment of loyal Pasdaran forces to the front.

While many Iranians in the Diaspora and elite despite the IRGC because of their relationship with the clerical regime in Iran and the basij (a organization of Iranians who enforce strict social and moral codes in Iran), the IRGC is still a very popular and potent force in Iran. For example, both the parliamentary and municipal council elections, in 2003 and 2004 respectively, were dominated by the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran, a conservative party which dominated the recent parliamentarian elections by winning almost all of Tehran’s seats and whose candidates almost all hail from the IRGC. Similarly, in the recent presidential elections, this organization favored Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who ended up becoming President, despite the fact that Western journalists believed that Iranians favored Reformist candidates. As a result, the Bush administration is once again doing more to alienate the US from the Iranian population, then doing anything to ferment democratic change in Iran. By targeting a popular force in Iran, the Bush administration once again has stifled its own policy objectives.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

گشت و تماشا در تهران
مردم، اين روزها
درباره همه چيز حرف می زنند
سيامک زند




درست همين روزها که حجاب سفت و سخت شده و مرگ را در بالای جرثقيل به رقص در آورده اند، حرف های مردم تند تر شده و همه بيشتر از گذشته در باره همه چيز صحبت می کنند. حتی در باره همه چيز يک چيزهائی شنيده و يا يک جائی خوانده و سينه به سينه نقل می کنند. هوشياری سياسی مردم اين روزها خيلی بيشتر از گذشته شده است. تا آنجا که من در محافل می شنوم مردم رسانه بی طرف می خواهند. از خاتمی و کروبی گذشته اند و احمدی نژاد را هم چند فرسخ جا گذاشته اند. تق تلويزيون امريکا هم در آمده است. هرجا صحبت از اين تلويزيون می*شود فورا می گويند خيلی امريکائی است و کيسه بوکس هم آقای چالنگی است که خيلی آنتی پاتی ايجاد کرده. اخبار مرتب رد و بدل می*شود. خيلی بيشتر از گذشته مردم خبرها را دنبال می کنند و تفسيرهايشان را هم به آن اضافه می کنند. اغلب هم بی راه نمی روند. حتی نسبت به تغييرات دولت و کابينه هم مردم حساس شده اند. باور کنيد سردار افشار که آمد وزارت کشور، يک روز بعد هرجا می رفتی مردم می گفتند او را برای انتخابات آوردند. حرف هائی که تا حالا، حداقل در محافل غير سياسی مردم کمتر می زدند و يا اصلا کمتر به آن توجه می*کردند. هم انتصابات در سپاه را حدس زده اند برای چيست، همه خانه ناطق نوری را می دانند قصر است، همه هدف اصلی سهميه بندی بنزين را می دانند و از همه مهم تر اينکه حالا روز به روز بيشتر نگران جنگ شده اند. اينها اصلا در گذشته نبود.

مثلا وقتی دارم از پياده رو رد می شوم می شوم چند مرد دارند راجع به پولهايی که به لبنان داده اند صحبت می کند و خيلی نمونه های ديگر. روحيه مردم، يک جور روحيه تهاجمی شده است.

کارگر ساختمانی شده روزی 17000 تومان، بنا شده روزی 37000 تومان. دست فروش ها زياد شده اند. مردم احتمال جنگ و تحريم می دهند. بنزين عملا شده ليتری 500 تومان (با پول بنزين جايگاه). امسال حتی از دهان مردم بسيار عادی يک چيزهای پراکنده و غير دقيقی در باره قتل عام زندانيان در سال 1367 شنيدم.

چقدر خوب شد، توصيه شماها را گوش کردم و رفتم دنبال پرسه زدن در خيابان ها و در ميان مردم. درهای يک دنيا به رويم باز شد.

باور کنيد به گوش خودم در کنار خيابان شنيدم که يک عده داشتند درباره فعاليت های سپاه در لبنان و عراق با هم بحث می کردند. شايد اين خبر نقل کردن زير تاثير تلويزيون ها و راديوهای خارج باشد، اما اگر اينطور است چرا تا چند وقت پيش اينقدر مردم حرف نمی زدند؟

وقتی می نويسم مردم درباره همه چيز حرف می زنند، اغراق نمی نويسم. مثلا درباره دروغ بودن فيلم ها ی تازه ساخته شده مثل مدار صفر درجه. به هيچ قيمتی ماهواره ها را جمع نمی کنند و درباره ماهواره کمتر پز می*دهند و حرفی درباره آن نمی زنند تا کلاغ خبر به جائی نبرد. طرفداران احمدی نژاد همانهائی هستند که تلويزيون نشان ميدهد. من در کوچه و خيابان کسی را نمی بينم که مثلا از اقای خامنه ای تمجيد کند. شايد اگر بروم مسجد ببينم . مردم ضد امريکا هستند، يا لااقل کسی جرات دفاع علنی از امريکا را ندارد ولی همراه اقای خامنه ای هم نيستند.آن چيزی که من در خيابان می بينم همين است . امام زمان های ظهور کرده خيلی زياد شده اند. در کوچه و خيابان ولو اند. خودم چند تايی را تا حالا ديده ام. مثل آدم های ديوانه هستند اما هرکدامشان هم يک عده ای را توانسته اند دور خودشان جمع کنند.

[Rasputin]

Iran faces $2.65bn US bomb award

Iran denies responsibility for the 1983 bombing
A US federal judge has ordered Iran to pay $2.65bn (£1.3bn) to the families of 241 marines killed in a 1983 bombing of their Beirut barracks.
The ruling allows nearly 1,000 family members and survivors to try to claim Iranian assets from around the world.

But getting the money will be difficult and the families are backing a law in Congress that would make it easier for victims to claim such compensation.

Iran denies involvement in the bombing and did not respond to the lawsuit.

'Sense of victory'

"This is a sense of victory, of winning a battle," said Paul Rivers, who was a 20-year-old marine on the second floor of the barracks when it exploded.

"When we win is when we collect, when we make them pay for what they did," he said.

US District Judge Royce C Lamberth called the ruling the largest such judgement by a US court against another country.

It is the result of a six-year lawsuit brought by family members of the dead marines as well as those wounded in the 23 October 1983 attack, which was blamed on the militant Islamic group Hezbollah.

An explosives-laden truck disguised as a water delivery vehicle rammed through protective barricades at the entrance of the compound and detonated in front of the barracks, demolishing the building and killing more than 300 people.

The blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon.

The Iranian government was accused of providing material and technical support to Hezbollah.

[Rasputin]

I

The Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has long been recognized as the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It has funded, trained and armed several terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The discovery of Iran's extensive and clandestine uranium enrichment has only added to the international apprehension.

The US has had economic sanctions against Iran for 26 years. It has been a failure. Only Israel and Uzbekistan joined the US in the sanction. But even if other countries were to join, there is little evidence that would change Iran's direction. The suffering that sanctions bring is almost entirely imposed on the Iranian people. The regime will continue to function and will even use the sanctions to oppress the people. It will tighten its economic control even more and the rewards that it bestows on its followers become irresistible. That is what Saddam did that during the years that Iraq was under economic sanctions.

The EU has had a policy of "Constructive Dialogue" with Iran for many years. That too has been a total failure. The EU has made several offers for more advanced nuclear reactors and expanded trade packages. They also guaranteed nuclear fuel delivery at the market rate, which would be 1/3 of what it would cost Iran to make. All these offers have met with Iran's steadfast refusal to halt its uranium enrichment. This leaves little doubt about its real intentions for uranium enrichment.

Using the current methods of carrot by the EU and stick by the US, the West will never be successful in getting the IRI to be less of a menace internationally. These policies have failed because in both cases the unspoken assumption has been that IRI has the best interest of Iranians in mind. The US and the EU are democracies and the democratically elected governments need to be sensitive to the needs and wants of the governed or they won't stay in power. They have instinctively, but erroneously attributed similar motives to IRI. But the IRI is a totalitarian system and such a regime would collapse as soon as it starts caring about its citizens. This simple fact is the key to success in dealing with the IRI.

The West needs allies in dealing with the mullahs' regime. The natural allies are the Iranian people themselves. Iranians have been the biggest victims of the regime. Most Iranians do not support the Islamic regime and want to have good relations with the West. This is the Achilles' heel of the regime. The mullahs know it too. In 2002 when the government's own pollsters asked Iranians if they wanted to have normal relations restored with the US, 74% said yes. But instead of a policy change it got the pollsters arrested. They were sentenced to eight years in prison for "propagating against the Islamic Republic" and "selling intelligence to foreigners". This is a frightened regime that is desperate to hide the depths of its unpopularity.

You might wonder then why do Iranians put up with their government and not elect better leaders. As reported in the Western media, Iran has the usual organs of democracies such as an elected president and congress.

But what is almost never mentioned in the media is that the Iranian people are not allowed to freely elect their presidents or congressmen. Only candidates that are from the ruling circle and proven to be loyal to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can run in Iranian elections. They have even codified the pre-vetting process. A committee selected by the Supreme Leader has to approve every candidate for every national election. In the last presidential election over 1000 candidates were rejected and only allowed 4 to run.

Furthermore, the president has no actual powers and can be dismissed by the Supreme Leader at anytime. The same is true for members of congress. Iran has a Potemkin government. It is entirely for show. The power legally and practically belongs to the Supreme Leader and no change to the system is allowed without his approval. So people cannot vote their leaders in or out of office. The actual leaders are the unelected Supreme Leader and his appointees and even the for-show government is pre-selected by the Supreme Leader.

A government that knows it has majority support does not act the way the IRI has been acting from its very inception. IRI treats Iranians as the enemy, not citizens. They have executed over 150,000 political prisoners. They try their opponents in Revolutionary Courts where the accused have no rights. The judge and the prosecutor are often the same and the prisoners are tortured until they confess. They are executed for charges such as "Fighting the Will of God" or "Spreading Corruption on Earth". The regime's assassins have killed hundreds of Iranian dissidents including many exiles in Europe.

The rulers of Iran have closed most information outlets from the citizens. Access to the Internet is limited and thousands of political websites are blocked by the government. Ownership of satellite dishes is illegal. Hundreds of newspapers and magazines have been shut down. Journalists and bloggers are imprisoned, tortured and killed.

Canadian Journalist Zahra Kazemi was photographing a demonstration by the families of political prisoners outside Tehran's Evin prison. She was arrested, brutally raped and tortured. She died from her injuries 19 days later. IRI refused to return her body to her son who lives in Canada. A former staff physician in Iran's Defense Ministry who escaped Iran recently stated that he examined Kazemi in the hospital, four days after her arrest. He said Kazemi showed obvious signs of brutal torture and rape. This is the fate of many dissidents in Iran. Her case was reported in the Western media because she was a journalist and a Canadian citizen.

During the cold war, Soviet bloc dissidents such as Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn received a lot of attention and support from the West. Lech Walesa was a well-known name in the West. He received the Noble Peace Prize and addressed a joint session of the United States Congress. Walesa was a shipyard worker whose first demand was an independent union.

[Rasputin]

II


Mansour Ossanlou is a bus driver in Iran. He wants an independent union for the bus drivers. In May he was imprisoned and savagely beaten (They tried to cut his tongue off.). The bus workers had a strike in protest, but over 3000 government-paid thugs attacked the demonstrators and over 500 of the workers were imprisoned. Unlike Walesa's, Ossanlou's detention has received minimal media attention in the West.

Nelson Mandela, the imprisoned leader of the African National Congress (ANC), was a highly respected figure in the West for his opposition to Apartheid. But you have probably not heard about Manouchehr Mohammadi, the secretary general of the National Association of Iranian Students. He is still in prison for his role in student protests of 1999. He was tortured and held in solitary confinement in a 3.5'x6' cell after he went on a hunger strike. He is dedicated to non-violent resistance. His sister and father went to the Ministry of Information, but instead of getting help, they were arrested. On July 31, his brother, Akbar Mohammadi, a student leader, died in prison after his hunger strike. Unlike Mandela, Mohammadi's cause is not celebrated in the world media.

The diplomatic efforts over the past few years to get IRI to limit its nuclear ambition has had the negative effect of giving them a world stage instead of isolating them. For many years the human rights record of Iran was intentionally ignored so as to not detract from Europe's so- called "Constructive Dialogue" which has proven to be a total failure. US and Europe should vigorously and relentlessly ask for an end to human rights violations. That is the soft underbelly of the regime - not the nuclear enrichment.

Many times, the Iranian people have shown their courage in opposing the Islamic regime, but they lack an important element for their success. Hope. It is hard enough to risk one's life and liberty as well as risking the family's well-being, but without hope it is almost too much to ask. People need hope in order to continue risking their lives. Iranians have seen over and over again when a person speaks or writes contrary to the regime's wishes, he is imprisoned and tortured or killed. There have been no consequences to Iranian regime's abuses. The Iranian dissidents feel totally ignored, isolated and forgotten by the world. The regime does not feel isolated. It is time to reverse the situation.

The following are a few suggestions on how to bring attention to IRI's treatment of its own people.

Iran's regime is an outlaw government. It has openly and continually broken multiple international laws by supporting international terrorism. It should be ostracized and isolated internationally. European governments should recall their ambassadors from Tehran and reduce the status of their embassies to interest sections. They should demand the same from the Islamic Republic. There is also a good case for expelling Iran out of the UN. It has broken several of its rules; the most recent one was to call for the destruction of Israel, a UN member country.

Many high-ranking officials of the Islamic Republic cannot travel to European countries because of their roles in the assassinations of dissidents. But the ban should be universal and also apply to people they kill inside Iran. Saeed Mortazavi, Tehran's notorious prosecutor, has been implicated in torture and death of several dissident prisoners. This June he led the Iranian delegation to the opening session of UN's Human Rights Council in Geneva. (Ponder for a moment the sick irony of that.) Canada's request for his arrest and extradition for the murder of Zahra Kazemi was unsuccessful.

The Iranian regime is an organized criminal entity and should be treated as such. All members of an organized crime entity should be prosecuted for the group's crimes. Iran's leaders should not be allowed to travel freely around the world. There should be a legal framework created to arrest and prosecute them if they ever leave Iran.

Under Apartheid, South Africa was not allowed to participate in the Olympics and the World Cup for 28 years. Iran is under a gender and religious apartheid regime that is far more vicious. At the very least Iranian sports teams should be banned from the international competitions.

Iran imports many of its tools for censorship and repression from abroad. Iran now uses SmartFilter, US-made software, to censor websites. Iran has also been using imported jamming equipment to prevent people from hearing and seeing radio and television broadcasts from abroad. Every effort should be made to prevent the Iranian regime from receiving such technologies and equipment for censorship.

Finally, there should be more attention paid to Iran's courageous and suffering dissidents. Unfortunately there are many faux reformers who want to tinker with the Islamic Republic system without fundamentally changing it. We do not pay enough attention to dissidents who are genuine believers in a liberal democracy.

Totalitarian systems are more robust than most people realize. They have only collapsed in one of two ways. The first method is what happened to German Nazis and Cambodian Khmer Rouge, military defeat by foreign countries. The other time collapse is when they attempt reforms like the Soviet Union and its bloc. All totalitarian systems are terrorist states. They only stay in power by terrorizing their people. Without terror their collapse is certain.

But such systems only attempt reforms when they experience a crisis of confidence in the leadership. We need to seriously undermine the confidence of the Iranian regime. These measures will help make it harder for them to continue their reign of terror. In the end we want the Iranians to rid themselves of the dictators but we should be willing to give them a helping hand. By allying ourselves with the Iranian dissident democrats we can avoid the costly and perilous military action that might result from the inevitable failure of our current policies. So forget about carrots and sticks.

[Rasputin]

The Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has long been recognized as the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It has funded, trained and armed several terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The discovery of Iran's extensive and clandestine uranium enrichment has only added to the international apprehension.

The US has had economic sanctions against Iran for 26 years. It has been a failure. Only Israel and Uzbekistan joined the US in the sanction. But even if other countries were to join, there is little evidence that would change Iran's direction. The suffering that sanctions bring is almost entirely imposed on the Iranian people. The regime will continue to function and will even use the sanctions to oppress the people. It will tighten its economic control even more and the rewards that it bestows on its followers become irresistible. That is what Saddam did that during the years that Iraq was under economic sanctions.

The EU has had a policy of "Constructive Dialogue" with Iran for many years. That too has been a total failure. The EU has made several offers for more advanced nuclear reactors and expanded trade packages. They also guaranteed nuclear fuel delivery at the market rate, which would be 1/3 of what it would cost Iran to make. All these offers have met with Iran's steadfast refusal to halt its uranium enrichment. This leaves little doubt about its real intentions for uranium enrichment.

Using the current methods of carrot by the EU and stick by the US, the West will never be successful in getting the IRI to be less of a menace internationally. These policies have failed because in both cases the unspoken assumption has been that IRI has the best interest of Iranians in mind. The US and the EU are democracies and the democratically elected governments need to be sensitive to the needs and wants of the governed or they won't stay in power. They have instinctively, but erroneously attributed similar motives to IRI. But the IRI is a totalitarian system and such a regime would collapse as soon as it starts caring about its citizens. This simple fact is the key to success in dealing with the IRI.

The West needs allies in dealing with the mullahs' regime. The natural allies are the Iranian people themselves. Iranians have been the biggest victims of the regime. Most Iranians do not support the Islamic regime and want to have good relations with the West. This is the Achilles' heel of the regime. The mullahs know it too. In 2002 when the government's own pollsters asked Iranians if they wanted to have normal relations restored with the US, 74% said yes. But instead of a policy change it got the pollsters arrested. They were sentenced to eight years in prison for "propagating against the Islamic Republic" and "selling intelligence to foreigners". This is a frightened regime that is desperate to hide the depths of its unpopularity.

You might wonder then why do Iranians put up with their government and not elect better leaders. As reported in the Western media, Iran has the usual organs of democracies such as an elected president and congress.

But what is almost never mentioned in the media is that the Iranian people are not allowed to freely elect their presidents or congressmen. Only candidates that are from the ruling circle and proven to be loyal to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can run in Iranian elections. They have even codified the pre-vetting process. A committee selected by the Supreme Leader has to approve every candidate for every national election. In the last presidential election over 1000 candidates were rejected and only allowed 4 to run.

Furthermore, the president has no actual powers and can be dismissed by the Supreme Leader at anytime. The same is true for members of congress. Iran has a Potemkin government. It is entirely for show. The power legally and practically belongs to the Supreme Leader and no change to the system is allowed without his approval. So people cannot vote their leaders in or out of office. The actual leaders are the unelected Supreme Leader and his appointees and even the for-show government is pre-selected by the Supreme Leader.

A government that knows it has majority support does not act the way the IRI has been acting from its very inception. IRI treats Iranians as the enemy, not citizens. They have executed over 150,000 political prisoners. They try their opponents in Revolutionary Courts where the accused have no rights. The judge and the prosecutor are often the same and the prisoners are tortured until they confess. They are executed for charges such as "Fighting the Will of God" or "Spreading Corruption on Earth". The regime's assassins have killed hundreds of Iranian dissidents including many exiles in Europe.

The rulers of Iran have closed most information outlets from the citizens. Access to the Internet is limited and thousands of political websites are blocked by the government. Ownership of satellite dishes is illegal. Hundreds of newspapers and magazines have been shut down. Journalists and bloggers are imprisoned, tortured and killed.

Canadian Journalist Zahra Kazemi was photographing a demonstration by the families of political prisoners outside Tehran's Evin prison. She was arrested, brutally raped and tortured. She died from her injuries 19 days later. IRI refused to return her body to her son who lives in Canada. A former staff physician in Iran's Defense Ministry who escaped Iran recently stated that he examined Kazemi in the hospital, four days after her arrest. He said Kazemi showed obvious signs of brutal torture and rape. This is the fate of many dissidents in Iran. Her case was reported in the Western media because she was a journalist and a Canadian citizen.

During the cold war, Soviet bloc dissidents such as Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn received a lot of attention and support from the West. Lech Walesa was a well-known name in the West. He received the Noble Peace Prize and addressed a joint session of the United States Congress. Walesa was a shipyard worker whose first demand was an independent union.
Mansour Ossanlou is a bus driver in Iran. He wants an independent union for the bus drivers. In May he was imprisoned and savagely beaten (They tried to cut his tongue off.). The bus workers had a strike in protest, but over 3000 government-paid thugs attacked the demonstrators and over 500 of the workers were imprisoned. Unlike Walesa's, Ossanlou's detention has received minimal media attention in the West.

Nelson Mandela, the imprisoned leader of the African National Congress (ANC), was a highly respected figure in the West for his opposition to Apartheid. But you have probably not heard about Manouchehr Mohammadi, the secretary general of the National Association of Iranian Students. He is still in prison for his role in student protests of 1999. He was tortured and held in solitary confinement in a 3.5'x6' cell after he went on a hunger strike. He is dedicated to non-violent resistance. His sister and father went to the Ministry of Information, but instead of getting help, they were arrested. On July 31, his brother, Akbar Mohammadi, a student leader, died in prison after his hunger strike. Unlike Mandela, Mohammadi's cause is not celebrated in the world media.

The diplomatic efforts over the past few years to get IRI to limit its nuclear ambition has had the negative effect of giving them a world stage instead of isolating them. For many years the human rights record of Iran was intentionally ignored so as to not detract from Europe's so- called "Constructive Dialogue" which has proven to be a total failure. US and Europe should vigorously and relentlessly ask for an end to human rights violations. That is the soft underbelly of the regime - not the nuclear enrichment.

Many times, the Iranian people have shown their courage in opposing the Islamic regime, but they lack an important element for their success. Hope. It is hard enough to risk one's life and liberty as well as risking the family's well-being, but without hope it is almost too much to ask. People need hope in order to continue risking their lives. Iranians have seen over and over again when a person speaks or writes contrary to the regime's wishes, he is imprisoned and tortured or killed. There have been no consequences to Iranian regime's abuses. The Iranian dissidents feel totally ignored, isolated and forgotten by the world. The regime does not feel isolated. It is time to reverse the situation.

The following are a few suggestions on how to bring attention to IRI's treatment of its own people.

Iran's regime is an outlaw government. It has openly and continually broken multiple international laws by supporting international terrorism. It should be ostracized and isolated internationally. European governments should recall their ambassadors from Tehran and reduce the status of their embassies to interest sections. They should demand the same from the Islamic Republic. There is also a good case for expelling Iran out of the UN. It has broken several of its rules; the most recent one was to call for the destruction of Israel, a UN member country.

Many high-ranking officials of the Islamic Republic cannot travel to European countries because of their roles in the assassinations of dissidents. But the ban should be universal and also apply to people they kill inside Iran. Saeed Mortazavi, Tehran's notorious prosecutor, has been implicated in torture and death of several dissident prisoners. This June he led the Iranian delegation to the opening session of UN's Human Rights Council in Geneva. (Ponder for a moment the sick irony of that.) Canada's request for his arrest and extradition for the murder of Zahra Kazemi was unsuccessful.

[Rasputin]

II

The Iranian regime is an organized criminal entity and should be treated as such. All members of an organized crime entity should be prosecuted for the group's crimes. Iran's leaders should not be allowed to travel freely around the world. There should be a legal framework created to arrest and prosecute them if they ever leave Iran.

Under Apartheid, South Africa was not allowed to participate in the Olympics and the World Cup for 28 years. Iran is under a gender and religious apartheid regime that is far more vicious. At the very least Iranian sports teams should be banned from the international competitions.

Iran imports many of its tools for censorship and repression from abroad. Iran now uses SmartFilter, US-made software, to censor websites. Iran has also been using imported jamming equipment to prevent people from hearing and seeing radio and television broadcasts from abroad. Every effort should be made to prevent the Iranian regime from receiving such technologies and equipment for censorship.

Finally, there should be more attention paid to Iran's courageous and suffering dissidents. Unfortunately there are many faux reformers who want to tinker with the Islamic Republic system without fundamentally changing it. We do not pay enough attention to dissidents who are genuine believers in a liberal democracy.

Totalitarian systems are more robust than most people realize. They have only collapsed in one of two ways. The first method is what happened to German Nazis and Cambodian Khmer Rouge, military defeat by foreign countries. The other time collapse is when they attempt reforms like the Soviet Union and its bloc. All totalitarian systems are terrorist states. They only stay in power by terrorizing their people. Without terror their collapse is certain.

But such systems only attempt reforms when they experience a crisis of confidence in the leadership. We need to seriously undermine the confidence of the Iranian regime. These measures will help make it harder for them to continue their reign of terror. In the end we want the Iranians to rid themselves of the dictators but we should be willing to give them a helping hand. By allying ourselves with the Iranian dissident democrats we can avoid the costly and perilous military action that might result from the inevitable failure of our current policies. So forget about carrots and sticks.

[Rasputin]

DASHT-E-BOZORG, IRAN -- As a chill wind blows in, the Bakhtiari nomads pack up at the end of summer and start a long journey -- women and kids on horseback, men on foot, belongings in tow -- for the warmer regions here in southwestern Iran.

In April, when the desert heat begins to fire up, they will make the reverse trip to the cool, mountainous regions more than 100 miles to the north, crossing flood-swollen rivers and mountain passes to better grazing lands for their goats and sheep.

"This has been our way of life as long as history can remember. We've got used to this lifestyle," Hasan Qoli Soleimani said in his home -- a large black tent made of tough goat hides.

Every winter, Soleimani and his family settle in Dasht-e-Bozorg, a region outside Shoushtar, a city in oil-rich Khuzestan province.

Iran has one of the largest nomadic populations in the world, an estimated 1.5 million in a country of about 70 million, according to the government's agency for nomad affairs.

But experts say it's a way of life that is slowly disappearing.

"Nomadic life is on the brink of extinction. If this trend continues, there will be no more nomads living in Iran in the next 20 years," researcher Ali Qoli Mahmoudi Bakhtiari said.

"Few grazing lands and water resources are left for them. Nomadic life will soon be legend," said Bakhtiari, a retired professor of linguistics and Persian literature.

Numbers for the decline are hard to come by. The government's figures show the population down 200,000 from a century ago, but Bakhtiari said that didn't show the real rate of the fall, which he said had accelerated in recent years. The attractions of urban life draw some away from nomadism, and the construction of factories, roads and the growth of cities eat away at the pastures where nomads' goats and sheep once grazed.

The changes in lifestyle are clear in the village of Abid, where settled members of the Bakhtiari ethnic group -- to which Soleimani belongs -- live in mud-brick homes on the edge of the desert.

The Bakhtiaris, who speak a Persian dialect known as Luri, are one of two main nomadic groups in Iran, along with the ethnic Turkic Qashqai group.

Soleimani's encampment, about 25 miles from Abid, was a collection of six tents, occupied by his relatives and their families, in a hilly region where herds of goats and sheep grazed.

Soleimani's wife, Golbanou, wove their tent last year before the trip north. As Soleimani spoke, Golbanou -- mother of three children -- baked bread in a small mud brick oven. Next to her, a kettle filled with fresh meat, potatoes, beans, peas and tomatoes bubbled over an open fire.

Their elder son was outside, playing a small homemade flute as he took care of the livestock. Their daughter, Belqeis, wove a sheep's wool jacket for her older brother as her younger brother, a 4-year-old, played outside.

Belqeis wore a colorful long shirt with a pink head scarf, a distinctive style of the Bakhtiaris.

"This is a symbol of our cultural identity," she said, pointing to her shirt. The father had a round black hat and a long cream and black coat, hand woven by his wife.

But Soleimani sees the path of his ancestors eroding, with some of his own relatives giving up nomadic life and settling in cities.

"Some of those who went to study never returned," he said. "Perhaps they had enough money to make ends meet in big cities. We don't have such an opportunity."

Oil and gas exploration activities in the region near Shoushtar and Masjid Soleiman have taken their toll on grazing lands.

The government pays little attention to nomadic groups, though it has started a program of "tent schools" to ensure children are literate. Although it does not directly encourage nomads to settle down, many of its industrial projects use up their pasture lands.

Soleimani says he never wants to abandon his life of motion.

"I don't like to live in a house where there is a ceiling. It's suffocating to me."

[Rasputin]

Trying to made heads or tails of the lineup in Iranian politics, where they've just had a parliamentary election, is about as confusing as Abbot & Costello's baseball comedy classic, "Who's on First, " concerning a team with players named Who, What, Don't Know and so on. The parliamentary elections are held every four years. But the Guardian Council, which must approve all laws passed by parliament, decides who can run for election.

Six Guardian Council members are appointed by the Supreme Leader and six nominated by judges appointed by the Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader is chosen by the Assembly of Experts, who must all be clergy. Members of the Assembly are elected by the public, but from lists approved by the Guardian Council, whose members are chosen directly and indirectly by the Supreme Leader.

There is also a president elected by the people from lists approved by the Guardian Council. He lacks power in national defense and foreign affairs, which are controlled by the Supreme Leader.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reports the Financial Times, is very pleased with the most recent elections. His agents on the Guardian Council prevented many reform-minded candidates from standing for election. On the day before the voting last week he called on voters to support candidates committed to "the current energetic government," the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The reported schism between the two men may have been wishful thinking.

The Supreme Leader also noted the election was really about embarrassing the United States. Praising the reported turnout of 60 percent (which some observers question, noting that it was much lower in the capital city Tehran), he said, "Your epic and powerful presence overcame the enemy's tricks and turned the enemy's high-profile-psychological war aimed at encouraging a low turnout into a vain bubble," according to the state-owned Islamic Republic News Agency.

Nevertheless, the results suggest some interesting patterns. For example, "conservatives" won 70 percent of the seats in the 290-seat Majlis, but appear to be divided into two blocs, one pro-Ahmadinejad and one anti-Ahmadinejad, based on views of his economic program. The anti-Ahmadinejad bloc is led, in part, by Ari Larijani, a functionary close to Ayatollah Khamenei who was fired by Mr. Ahmadinejad as Iran's top nuclear negotiator. Reformists associated with former President Muhammad Khatami gained seats compared to the last parliament. Reformists want more personal liberties and a freer press. Some analysts think the Larijani and Khatami blocs might collaborate to defeat legislation backed by the president.

But in the end the only two things that remain clear are that Iranian voters are carefully denied free choices and the unelected Supreme Leader remains the puppet master of Iranian politics.