to mammabear: "or the whole drive to political freedom will just wither and die. " It's a fantablous thing you reminded us eyeranians. Otherwise we would JUST FORGET and let it wither and die!!!! Holly f! No wonder an idiot like bush can still be supported in US. There are many more idiots out there ... jeez.. This is lovely, i am learning all about dynamics of idiocy in US.
- By: me on July 22, 2003

MommaBear, I think the whole point is that it can't be on someone's timetable. Having read your blog I think you think that it is now time for the end game, or revolution. I think that in fact Iran is still moving along the evolutionary process at the moment. That's why people don't even suggest a person to follow, because as Pedram points out in his posts, most leaders outside speak in generalities and keep much of their opinion out of the public light of scrutiny. A viable alternative hasn't yet emerged from inside. So in my view, you are looking at a problem from the wrong angle. You can approach it from a human rights perspective and a debate about democracy in progress, but most bloggers I've read do the opposite. They turn it into around and assume that it's a regime change issue. "What Iran needs now is a good regime change (including revolution)." That's how Pejman, Sullivan, and Reynolds (and others who's opinions I respect) tend to look at the issue. It's completely asenine, and in my opinion (which has been reinforced recently by conversations with other Iranians)completely unsupported by facts on the ground. (note the plug)
- By: Kombiz on July 18, 2003

MB echoes the sentiments of several international bloggers who have commented about Iran on their own blogs for quite a while that there has, to date, not been any effort made to propose, consider, promote, or even suggest potential leaders around whom good Iranians can gather. Perhaps this is why the cries for freedom have not gathered more support. Some in-country Iranian blogger is going to have to start that meme going, quickly, or the whole drive to political freedom will just wither and die.
- By: MommaBear on July 18, 2003

Everyone who focuses on "leaders" is making a big mistake. "Leaders" gets the only legitimate purpose of government confused by 180 degrees. The purpose of government is to *serve* (not to lead). More specifically, the only legitimate purpose of government is to serve by ***protecting individual rights.*** It doesn't take "leaders" to do that. In the U.S., James Madison eventually became the fourth president of the U.S. Before that, he served in Congress. But his most important contribution, by far, was to play a major role in writing of the U.S. Constitution. (In other words, he could have held NO office after the Constitutional Convention, and still would have been one of the most important men all of U.S. history.) Similarly, Thomas Jefferson was the third president of the U.S. But his most important contribution, by far, was as the main author of the Declaration of Independence (setting forth the ideals on which the U.S. would be founded). He also could have done nothing BUT be the main author of the Declaration of Independence, and he would have been one of the most important men in U.S. history. The most important person or people in Iran will be those who are able to convince a majority of the people in Iran that the purpose of their government is to *protect their rights.* That includes the right of an individual to speak as he or she wants (even if it offends others), to print what he or she wants (even if it offends others), to earn money and to keep that money, and, perhaps most important in Iran, to follow his or her religion--or even no religion at all--as he or she wants. Thomas Jefferson, who was a much better visionary writer than president, made this point very well. He said that a person should jealously guard his or her own power (i.e. his or her rights), and that no confidence should be given to ANY leader: "It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights... Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:388
- By: Mark Bahner on July 17, 2003

This is Chehregani's web site: Home page and Farsi Page
- By: Eldar on July 16, 2003

Here are some links on Mahmud Ali Chehregani in the news. I think anyone who promotes a 'divide and conquer' policy for Iran should be deeply scrutinzed. Keep in mind that an independant Azerbayjan would also have total control over the Caspian oil reserves. Coincidence? No, more likely another pawn played by the hungry powers that be. Link 1,Link 2,Link 3,Link 4
- By: Arash on July 16, 2003

Who is "Mahmud Ali Chehregani"?
- By: An Iranian student on July 16, 2003

Ok, let me take a look into the list: Karubi: A very very moderate reformer. so moderate that everyone, incluging hardliners agreed him to be Parliment's speaker. (Just check the newspapers archives about how he acts in parliment) Aghajeri: A man who stands by his principles, but not someone who can drag Iran out of its current mess. Remember, you don't need someone like Khomeini that could and did pretty much anyone around himself and drove them where he forsaw in his 'Islamic goverment' text. Mr. Loghmanian: Get real. he might be opposing the current system, but what is his alternative? after all, he was sworn to be loyal to Current constitution and leader. Mahmud Ali Chehregani: Wants to seperate Azarbaijan from Iran. No thanks. I don't need a freaking passport to come to Tehran and back everytime I want to visit my family. Besides none of seperated states (see Yuguslavia,Soviet union) are better than what they used to be. I am happy that it didn't went that way in Quebec. oh, last but not least, Mr. Pahlavi: I don't want to start the old discussion about what I did, what my father did, and what his father did. But he really has to come clean and start talking about the past; because there is nothing stopping Mr. Hassan Khomeini (grand-son of Khomeini), or one of Hashemi's sons to repeat this process again. And we all know that history repeats itself.
- By: mas on July 16, 2003

But look at the bright side, at least the Rajavis didnt make it into the top 5 on the list :)
- By: Babak on July 16, 2003

I totally agree with Hosein Derakhshan, Why? first of all two of those 5 people(Pahlavi and Chehragani) don't beleive in reform in Iran, they want regim change in Iran. 1. Mehdi Karrubi was elected a MP in the last election with a very low votes, if I am not mistaken he was number 24 on the list of 30 elected MP in Tehran, though he was supported by most of roformist parties during election. He belongs to the right spectrum of reformist camp, and he is more interested in establishing current situation rather than changing or reforming it. 2. Hossen Loghmanian, though he is a brave and very outspoken, he is far being a leader. There are more outspoken and outspoken and braver than him such as Akbar Gangi. 3. Hashem Aghajeri, is a slamist intellectual not a politician. He has very modern interpretation of Isalm. His idea can pave a way for modernizaton of Islam, but when it comes to a leadership he is not close to that. 4.Mahmud Ali Chehregani, who is this guy?! I didn't know him until a couple months ago through right wing US and Iranian media abroad. He doesn't care about Iran, what he cares is separation of Azerbaijan from Iran through regim change in Iran. Actually his idea is very dangerous in braking up the soveignity of Iran. If someone is supported by some US politician, that doesn't translate into his popularity in Iran. 4. Reza Pahlavi, first of all he doesn't beleive in reform movement in Iran. He wants regim change in Iran. so, listing him as one of the leaders of the reform's movement in Iran is total nonesense.
- By: Ali on July 16, 2003

Kindly learn how to speak for yourself, "webgard". As far as I know, we (expatriates) have not selected you as our spokesperson.
- By: J. Pasha on July 16, 2003

Well, well ... look at the party here. I think talking about the next leaders of Iran without discussing about how they would come to power has little point. If we think of a full military invasion by US to Iran, well, Reza Pahlavi or Chehregani would make the list as interim leaders. Chehregani would still have longer shot. If we are talking about a full revolution, scenario changes. So does it for an internal reform. So what was this party about again?
- By: Hooman on July 15, 2003

Pejman, you just know the name and their position, and you made a list by their reputation, however there are lots of more points you didn't care about them at all,be sure thta you will never see them even at a post near to a leader. all of them already expired, so something must be wrong in your analyze,pejman where r u living right now?
- By: Amir on July 15, 2003

well, having read many of Pejman's posts, I am not surprised in the least. I used to believe initially that his entire weblog was composed of sattire; slowly did I realize otherwise. This guy truly believes what he jots down. It's hillarious. But then again, he sees Reagan as his superheroic role-model, and sites increased presence of fast food restaurants in Afghanistan as a sure sign of progress, and is still hopelessly trying to justify absence of imaginary WMD. You can't blame him for an inherent shortsighted-ness.
- By: Critique on July 15, 2003

I'm fairly sure the list is a satire off of the more recognizable Iranian figures. I'm suprised Rajavi wasn't added to make it even more ludicrous. I have to echo what Sakha said however. That Iranians should be symbolized and representative of themselves. I know the common criticism is "where's our Gandhi, our Mandella, our MLK" to free us. I think its high time we realize that we are all those men.
- By: Nema Milaninia on July 15, 2003

If the future is anything like the past, perhaps names should be picked out of Amnesty's list. (Which means Aghajari would be on such a list.) But I too want to see Hoder's list. His criticism is meaningless: "You know nothing". Is he capable of saying anything more constructive than that?
- By: jactancy on July 15, 2003

Top 5 list of only possible leaders as it "should" be, but might not happen in "near=100 years" future: 1. People of Iran 2. Iranian individuals 3. All Iranians 4. Young, middle age and old people in Iran 5. Iranian citizens There are no (and can not be) leaders in iranian opposition who could lead a movement without becomming corrupted after a couple of years. The problem is not the individual leaders but the lack of a "Sapere Aude" spirit which is not in place for people in general (as I beleive this is the case in west as well) and the elites in particular (this is not the case in west and thus the success story of the west). Talk about the cultural (structure of thinking, lack of rationalism), before choosing a leader for a country. It might sound as "the egg and the hen" problem, but the key is the intellectuals role which has not been done properly in Iran. I saw in CNN a labour from Iraq, being asked if he thinks freedom is now a fact in Iraq. He smiled and answered: "Well Saddam has gone, but the problem is still here. What can we do with the small Saddams we have in our heads which would create yet another dictator again and again." Same thing goes for Iran, I do not believe that people has learned anything from past, this is a cultural (structural) problem. I see the light in tunnel once I see Iranian intelectuals asking right structural questions, what I read, see and hear is just the same old political super glue program. Won't lead us anywhere.
- By: Sakha Farjam on July 15, 2003

This list must've been a joke gone bad. I don't think even Pejman could possibly be serious about this. Then again, he could possibly be so out of touch to actually believe it. I hope that is not the case.
- By: Pedram M. on July 15, 2003

I never said that there wasn't a distinction merely between reformers and those who want a regime change. I just noted a number of key leaders, or personages who merit watching. I could have added more, but the columns have a word limit. But I hardly think that this criticism goes towards proving that I "know nothing" about Iranian politics.
- By: Pejman Yousefzadeh on July 15, 2003

I dont know what Hoder has in mind... but your article, Pejman, really blurs the lines between reformists and those who want a regime change (Reza Pahlavi, for example). There is a very bold and clear distinction between the two camps, in practice and in idealogy. Someone like Karoubi well not want to be a leader in a post-islamic government, neither will the people want him to. He can't have the cake and eat it too: he can't support this regime (& oppose regim-change) and still be expected to be a candidate after another revolution. same goes for Loghmanian and Aghajeri... believe it or not. And also, the expatriates are not providing any form of support to the reformists... Your mixing things up. the expatriates hate and have always hated the reform movement. They support something they like to call the "third wave" which is pretty much against everything in Iran. I personally dont think Reza Pahlavi has any hand anywhere in Iran. He's not saying anything special and he has no record, no past experience... and he's not even good looking or charasmatic for godsakes... He wears a tie. That would be he's only attribute.
- By: webgard on July 15, 2003

Well... don't keep us all in suspense like that! Who are your top 5?
- By: Joe Katzman on July 14, 2003

Would you like to tell me why this is a bad list, or is the simple pronouncement that I "know nothing about [the] Iranian political situation" enough?
- By: Pejman Yousefzadeh on July 14, 2003