1) There are many in the U.S. that do not understand the interplay of Islam, Christianity and Judiasm. -- 2) There are many in the U.S. who support Isreal because they see it as a fulfilment of prophecy.-- 3) Often these are the very same people who would feel a great degree of sympathy for Muslim beliefs if they understood that perspective.-- I just wanted to say that I am for the most part a conservative American Hawk. Why? Because if your mullah says "Death To America" we can no longer ignore it. If your president says "Death To America" you better take a picture of him because he may not be around very long. -- But all that aside, I do not hate Iran, or Iranians, I believe that you can base your government on whatever you want, be it Moa's little red book or the Koran (excuse spelling please). -- I do believe that in order to be sustainable you need to incorporate certain ideas. 1) Protection of minorities. -- 2) Some sort of mandate from the people, wether that be elections, a Loya Jirga as in Afghanistan, councel of tribal representatives, whatever works for you. -- 3) Routine peaceful transfer of power. 4) Some sort of freedom of speach. The people must be allowed to discuss and therebye adjust the system. -- 5) Checks and balances that stop the development of a dictator (mullah, president for life, king, whatever you want to call it.) -- I supported the war in Iraq because we were trapped. We helped Kuwait then were stopped by the world from finishing the job. Then our only choice to avoid genocide against the Kurds was to bomb the no fly zone forever. Our so called friends laughed behind our backs as they did business with Saddam. Now its close to being over. -- Iran will very likely see the development of a Shia dominated political system next door. -- As far as Iran is concerned, even if America does favor the elected president over the Mullahs, we should keep it to ourselves, because invariably whatever America likes, the Iranian public will dislike. -- While I supported the war in Iraq as an end to a long painful trap for the U.S. I would _NOT_ support direct military action against Iran. Unless of course Hizbollah uses Iran as a safe haven to create direct terroist strikes inside the U.S. If that happens, all bets are off. -- Right now I hope the Iranian people find a way to construct a government they are pleased with, WITHOUT American intervention. --
- By: A.H. on April 24, 2003

This is my first time to this site. Well, I have never read such whine whine whine whine....all your Iranians complain about the clerics and usa. You want freedom but seem clueless as to how to get there. Please what is a neocon???? I've heard this twice in the news reports here that the clerics in Iran have million/trillions of $ in banks in the netherlands. Is this true or not? Is their love for money the motivation for involvement in Iraq?
- By: jerri on April 24, 2003

beatifeuwh webeiste
- By: http://www.meki.tk/ on April 24, 2003

I agree with Pedram totally! As for our right-wing American friends who think they own the world and use every issues such as Sina's arrest az a pretext to remind us that how "uncivilized" we are or "how lucky they are to live in America and have their freedom fries too" I say FU@@K YOU! Just who the HELL do you THINK you are? Who gives you the right to comment on the fate and future of another nation whose name you can't properly pronounce? For your information, WE HAD A FLOURISHING DEMOCRACY under Dr. Mossadegh in Iran 1952. Mossadegh was the man who said no to British and American imperialism, he was an inspiration not only to the Iranian masses but also throughout the Middle East. And it was your government ( CIA ) that destroyed him because he was for democracy, national independence and social justice and was unswerving in his fight for these principles. Mossadegh Paved the way for any future thoughts and movements for independence and freedom in Iran. And therefore because of his legacy WE SHALL SAY NO TO Islamic Republic and the American neo-colonialism at the same time. We don't need your help! You pathetic neo-cons! GO FREE YOURSELVES! No offence to Liberal Americans :) Go get them boys ( and girls )
- By: Mani Farhoomand on April 24, 2003

For the sake of Iranians, I hope the reformist movement prevails, and without any further bloodshed. I note what was pointed out by Gandhi, which is true. A nonviolent movement worked against the Brits because, despite their imperialism, they were a basically civil culture. Nonviolence wouldn't work against Hitler. My impression suggests most Iranians are more civil than the extremists in their government, so I retain hope for nonviolent solutions there. As far as the US imposing an overthrow by force, I oppose that. Tens of millions of Americans oppose that. I would rather see diplomatic pressure applied that aids the reformers. I'm not sure our current government is up to the task though; they tend to swat with trees when the delicacy of toothpicks can work better at times. It must be hard to be a reformer. Patience wears thin under extreme moments of oppression. The best I can do is listen. Perhaps US force will be needed; I don't know. But I know the choice should be made by Iranians, not American neocons.
- By: Cowboy Kahlil on April 23, 2003

you are absolutely right Hossein. I mean look! we have been having a monarchy ruling us for more than 2500 years! but these jackasses with their so called democracy ruined everything in only 20 years or so. But I still have hope for our nation. we are capable of doing everything. Shah was thrown out in a heartbit! dont underestimate our young generation. many people keep saying khatami didnt do any damn shit but he knows what he is up to. he is just trying to play it cool and prevent any type of massacre and stuff. just give him some time cuz he is the man for it.. i have faith in him.
- By: Soroush on April 23, 2003

Someone mentioned "The U.S. is smart enough to know we can't impose friendly dictators like Marcos or the Shah or anyone else on a great and proud country...The world has changed a lot in 20 years...We felt they [USSR] could subvert nearly any democratic regime...I believe that in Iraq and in Iran, we will be happy simply to have governments that truly represent a prosperous, self-confident people..." ____________________________________________________ Believe me, now or in the future if any democratic country opposes or disagrees with US decision or undermines US interests, America will attack it. Democratic or dictatorial, makes no difference for them, at least for the government who is now in the white house (simple example? France). And then they would say "it's called time change, we were friends before, but now we're enemies"... It's not the matter of democracy, it's the matter of $$$$ (oil in our case)...
- By: Dara on April 23, 2003

Well to say I only watch Fox and CNN is obviously not true. I did not come by this website by way of either of those websites. I find it difficult to believe that this administration made any kind of deal with the Mullahs. Bush would not even talk to Kim of North Korea unilaterally. Until I see evidence, I can not believe it. No one wants to go to war, as an ex-soldier, I trained hard to go to war when I was in the Army. But no one in my unit wanted to go to war, that is insane. And yes, if for some reason America attacked Iran, 100s of civilians would probably die. I regret those deaths as I regret the deaths of Soldiers. But should you have a revolution and the Mullahs crack down, how many civilians will they kill? More than our precision bombs would. Or if we started bringing your plight to the fore front, how many of you would end up in jail? U.N. has no power and never had any. Anywhere they have stuck their noses it has gotten bloody. As far as why the UN did not go along, maybe you heard of those deals that France's TotalFinaElf made with Saddam about Iraq's oil. It was so lopsided to TotalFinaElf, that the Iraqi people would have seen no benefit. I trust that in the long run Iran will be free, hopefully in my lifetime. I trust in all of you speaking your mind and knowing deep inside that freedom and self-representative government is the answer. Sorry this was so long. Good luck in the Future.
- By: James Stephenson on April 23, 2003

I don't know how American can easily talk about attacking other countries; it sounds is much worst than Saddam! Yes, we're in a big struggle trying to get rid of the mullas, but a 'foreign invasion' is not the solution, for a country like Iran it's not even the last solution. If you (Americans) want to help, do it intelligently. Help the real reform movement, make radios, televisions, push via the UN, reveal the truth more than ever. Mullas are greedy, everybody in Iran knows this, they are also coward and very timorous; you don't need to invade them, just help us get rid of them using their (very many) points of weakness. I don't want to see my friends and family die in your invasion. Why should I or my friend or my sister die because you want to invade or get rid of a mulla whom we also hate? If you want to help, do so, but open your eyes, use your mind and don't kill our people. and don't give us lectures about precision weapons, because people are LIVE HUMAN BEINGS, this is not a game of chess. Don't help us like "Aunty Bear" (persian expression). Once in history prove your honesty.
- By: Ski Champion on April 23, 2003

If there's one lesson to be learned from Tiananmen Square, it's that peaceful movements cannot bring down violent dictatorships that place more value on ideology than on human life. Even Mahatma Ghandi, practically the pioneer of civil disobedience, understood this, and included it in his autobiography 40 years earlier. Unfortunately, this lesson has been ignored by the pro-democracy activists in Iran, and they continue to do so at their peril.
- By: Tatterdemalian on April 23, 2003

It is so gratifying to see the love of freedom from your side of the world. I hope you don't mind if I quote our (USA's) Declaration of Independence. .................................................. .................................................. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." .................................................. .................................................. So many debaters talk about our differences; our location, our religion, our histories. I'd rather talk about our similarities. We all bleed red. We all crave freedom. .................................................. While I personally wish we'd head East from Iraq and bring freedom to Iran too, I don't expect that to happen. Still, I agree that freedom is like a virus; may it spread to Iran soon.
- By: Alan M. Robertson on April 23, 2003

A few answers at once... James Stephenson - Stop watching Fox and CNN and smell the coffee. Zalmay met very high ranking officials at least twice, the last time in Turkey. The "deal" they made is old news, unless you watch Murdoch TV that is. DC - So are we invading Israel, Pakistan, India, Ukraine, Russia and Kazakistan next? They all admit to having WMD's. If UN resolutions had anything to do with it, then why didn't the UN endorse the invasion? Also, one country in Middle-East has violated and ignored more UN resoltions than all others combined. Want to invade them? It's Israel! I doubt that would happen though. For now, the tail is certainly wagging the dog. Cris - All the other countries you use as example were attacked after they attacked us. Iraq/Saddam never did. You are right, freedom will spread if given a chance and if you think that is what we've brought to Afghanistan or Iraq, then we live in two different planets. Joe Katzman - Stop reading Israeli media, Iran HAS indeed stayed out of the conflict. MKO was in fact engaged and lost 18+ members under U.S. fire. The ceasefire came after that. William Ehart - No, the tables haven't turned yet, not in our viewpoints anyways. And the former governor of Texas has proven to be a larger idiot than expected. We don't "impose" Marcos and Shahs anymore? Then tell me who voted for Hamid Kharzai or Ahmad Chalabi or Reza Pahlavi? New faces, old tactics. Don't want to over use Hoder's space more than I already have. You can read more of my position on my blog, if you wish.
- By: Pedram M. on April 22, 2003

Actually, Pedram is right. There has been a deal recently--and, surprise!-- Bush, the senior, made the same deal with Iran during the Persian Gulf War. But then what? We must let the mullahs continue rulling the country because they deal with the Americans? We, the Iranians, have consensus on forcing the mullahs to get out of power and restricting them to their Vatican: Qom. So if there is no other way to get rid of them swiftly, a US intervention is very welcome. What's obvious is that making deals doesn't necessarily means being friendly. We, too, make deals with our enemies when we have to. It's not so bizarre. Some mullahs, the hateful Rafsanjani for example, came up with the idea of running a referendum and asking if the people of Iran favour any political relations with the US. He-- correctly-- believes that thay can stay in power if they make good deals with the US. Mr Khatami, the president, and other reformists denounced him. " There's no need for a referendum on foreign affairs." We need a more serious referendum. We want to be asked whether or not we favour an Islamic Republic state. And that's why they fear a "real" referendum that our reformists call for. Anyway, the only thing we need is to get rid of mullahs. The last resort: American intervention. No country in the region has as much political experience as we do. So, if the Americans oust the mullahs, we are ready to make a government that we all like and not to let anyone else run the country. The bottom line: don't even compare these three countries: Iran, Iraq and Syria, s.v.p!
- By: Nima Arian on April 22, 2003

I agree with what most everyone else has said on this topic. The US, even if it took military action against Iran's rulers, would not end up ruling Iran -- nor should it. Iranians understand probably more than anyone the need for a free, secular government. I hope you get it, for your good and ours. The present government of Iran is a huge threat to the United States and unless the best among you take action we will have little choice but to take action. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. But if it does, you need to know that our goal is not to rule over other countries, but to topple the statists who threaten their own citizens and their neighbors. Take care.
- By: Don Watkins on April 22, 2003

Pedram, I wish you could be more optimistic about what the future -- and U.S. policy -- could have in store for Iran. And I think our cowboy from Texas has proved himself a heck of a lot smarter than so many warmed-over socialist intellectuals in Europe. We are not colonialists. True, we supported the Shah (during the Cold War I might add), and you guys hated us for that. But now the tables have turned a little, have they not? You guys have some regrets about certain developments in Iran since the revolution, right? The U.S. is smart enough to know we can't impose friendly dictators like Marcos or the Shah or anyone else on a great and proud country like Iran. The world has changed a lot in 20 years (and hey, a lot of that change has been positive change brought about by the USA, has it not?). We are far away from Vietnam, Latin America, the bad old days of the Cold War. I believe that in Iraq and in Iran, we will be happy simply to have governments that truly represent a prosperous, self-confident people. By definition, those governments will be less hostile to us ... but not our proxies. Remember, during the Cold War most of us didn't think the Soviets could be defeated. We felt they could subvert nearly any democratic regime. We were just trying to contain them as long as we could, and thus we embraced military dictators, especially those with some modernizing, secular impulses like the Shah. Today, if one views the adversary as Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism and theocratic states, well, Iran takes the place of the Soviet Union in that case. The mullahs involvement in Iranian politics is a major source of our problems in the Middle East, especially now that Saddam is gone. If the mullahs can be pushed out of the political sphere, it will be good for everyone. The USA doesn't need a puppet in Iran. We just need Iran to be Iran, not the evil spawn of Ayatollah Khomeini. Take the mullahs out of the picture, and we won't have a major force we have to worry about that could subvert democracy in Iran or anywhere in the Muslim world. True, at the grassroots level, especially in Saudi Arabia, there will still be lots of people who hate us, and they may topple some governments. But I think the attitude of people in Iran -- I hope -- will be somewhat more balanced toward us. We don't ask for anything except that you stop trying to destroy our way of life, and stop trying to destroy the state of Israel, and encourage the Palestinians to seek their goals peacefully.
- By: William Ehart on April 22, 2003

Pedram, Iran has NOT stayed out of Iraq, and in fact are de facto occupying the Kut area as well as having active subversion efforts underway in the Shi'ite south. The Iranian regime knows what's coming, and they're "battening down the hatches" while waiting for the storm. There WILL be a clash between the USA and Iran within Iraq; it's already beginning. Step 1 is to isolate the mullahs' ally Syria, and that's going well. Step 2 will see efforts within Iraq, and probably the beginning of more active support within Iran for those who dislike the regime. You'll note that MKO are not being attacked - in fact, there's a ceasefire on right now. Iran knows that the early stages of the Iraqi reconstruction while the USA deals with Syria and tries to get things set up is the best time to crack down. This is when the Americans are most distracted. They hope that if they crack down hard enough, they can make it more difficult for the Americans by removing anti-government publications and leaders in advance. Hence, "battening down the hatches" in advance of the storm.
- By: Joe Katzman on April 22, 2003

freedom is like a virus; it spreads given half a chance. with freedom happening in iraq, it's likely to spread into syria as well as iran. as for what the iraqis are saying about the u.s: think about it. they have the freedom and the courage to stand up and say 'we want to rebuild our country ourselves'. and most of the military are letting them volunteer as well as take over running things where they've already got the capacity. why not? after all, it IS their country. we just got saddam and his crew out of there, so they have a chance to live better lives. we didn't say we'd 'make a better life for them' or 'give them anything beyond getting rid of the thugs'. as it happens though, anytime we've gone into another country, whether it was japan, germany, afghanistan... wherever, we have a long history of sitting down after the conflict is finished and providing food, water, medicine and helping to rebuild until we're no longer needed. it's one of the reasons many small countries joke about declaring war on the u.s. .... do you suppose THAT is why 9/11 really occurred and whether osama in his infinite insanity really helped to plot all of that and the rest? if it isn't his rationale for killing our civilians and destroying buildings and turning passengers into forced victims, it's what he's gotten anyway. fed, happy people don't kill unless they're defending someone.
- By: cris on April 22, 2003

This is absurd. The U.S. isn't in the business of setting up democracies around the world. And that's not why the U.S. went into Iraq. The U.S. went into Iraq because the U.S. claimed Iraq had WMD and was in violation of U.N. Resolutions. If Iranians don't want to live under tyranny, then Iranians should overthrow their government.
- By: DC on April 22, 2003

There is no way Bush made a deal with any of the high ranking Iranians. As an American, I watch the seeds of Democracy that is the young of Iran and I smile. I love it. Bide your time, the only thing that could stop the democracy of Iran is hardliners like the Baath party of Iraq seize control after the hardliner mullahs die. Good luck and remember there are Americans pulling for you young guys.
- By: James Stephenson on April 22, 2003

As for so many Iranians saying they prefer to have the US over the Mullas, remember a few weeks ago the Iraqis were saying a similar thing, but now that Saddam is gone, there is much more "No to the US" sentiment in Iraq. I think that if a country like Iran wants a revolution, (I think)they should carry it out themselves or get allies from the region to help them. (I think)It would be better to keep the US out of it if you can.(I think)It would have been better for Iraq if other countries in the region would have quashed Saddam instead of the US.
- By: Dave on April 22, 2003

Do you think they (conservatives) are trying to get rid of all other opposition groups in order to be left as the only people to deal with the US? Is there any brave journalist (who can take the risk of staying a night or two in jail) who likes to go and interview one of the key figures of the conservaives (Khaamenei himself, or Jannati, or Shahroodi)? That would be very cool...
- By: Booraan on April 22, 2003

Hoder, I don't see a contradiction in the new crackdowns and the huge presence of U.S. military in the region. Remember, the deal Zalmay Khalilzad offered the Iranian government was based on Iran staying out of the conflict in Iraq and in exchange they will be left alone. They were also re-assured that any opposition forces in Iraq (MKO) will be dealth with by U.S. forces. Now they are getting their "reward" for being such good boys and not creating havoc for Uncle Sam. MKO, their opposition abroad is already dealth with and now they will be using the opportunity to be "left alone" to even some scores with the opposition within. All under the nose of (and with approval of) global policemen of Bush administration. This is just the starting point of what the former governor of Texas and co. have in store for us.
- By: Pedram Moallemian on April 22, 2003

What's happening in our country? =( It's making me really upset.
- By: No.1 on April 22, 2003