Are you reading Omar at Iraq The Model? "Pharoz Rajifar (sp?) president of the Iranian organization that " Defends values of Islam" said that 15 thousands Iranian have volunteered to commit suicidal attacks in Iraq." Things are going very ugly with Iran. We would never even think of going to another war but I'm really lost at how are we going to deal with these evil Mullahs and their non-stopping attempts to destroy Iraq regardless of the cost." **************** Did you read today's news in the Telegraph? Iran said the EU-3 should support Iran's quest for "advanced (nuclear) technology, including those with dual use" - a reference to equipment that has both civilian and military applications. The Europeans should "remove impediments" preventing Iran from having such technology, and stick to these commitments even if faced with "legal (or) political . . . limitations", an allusion to American pressure or even future international sanctions against Iran. More astonishingly, Iran said the EU-3 should agree to meet Iran's requirements for conventional weapons and even "provide security assurances" against a nuclear attack on Iran. ************** What would you advise us to do?
- By: lilia on August 10, 2004

I think you've already done the right thing: left Iran, and started a blog. I believe that blogs will change Iran, unless Iran kills itself first. Free communication brings freedom to people. I read on the internet (and so it must be true) that ranking blogs by language that Farsi was #4. Yes, trying to build an A-bomb has increased the danger to Iran. However, the only two countries likely to pre-emptively end the issue (the US & Israel) would probably just destroy the production facilities with non-nuclear bombs, and avoid population centers. Even if the Mad Mullah's sold a bomb that was used against a Western target, I think the focus would be on killing the Mullahs and freeing the Iranian people. I'd guess that a second attack would result in Persia being turned into a radioactive wasteland. Of course, if they attacked Russia, France, Pakistan, or Israel, Iran is toast.
- By: David D on August 4, 2004

Well, the story started a while ago. USA will not be satisfied with any country in Iran that has a little independency in his pocket. I am afraid that the plan would be the separation of Iran to few small countries. The nuke program will be ended with few bombs by Israel or USA or both. But, unfortunately this will not be the end of story. The annoying neighbors controlled by USA will be asking more. Some part of Shatolarab, three islands for Emirate and so on. Mojahidin Khalq, a terrorism organization that has a safe haven in Iraq in the hands of USA has a more repetition in Terror than Mullahs
- By: Azarakhsh on July 31, 2004

Abbas, it is an unfair world, but it would be a damnsite more unfair if the strategic advantage was in hands other than the United States. We have had nuclear warheads for a half century and have not, in spite of grave insult, used them. We have shown a restraint in our use of power unique in history. We know that mutually advantageous trade relationships are ultimately far more rewarding than conquest, and as we have demonstrated with Communist China even great political differences can be accomodated. I don't want my grandson's blood on Irani soil, neither do I want your grandson's blood shed here or there. Just remember, you don't have to love someone to let him live, and you don't have to hate someone to kill him.
- By: Walter E. Wallis on July 28, 2004

Disaffected Irani should keep a list, away from where it can be suppressed, of fellow countrymen who abuse others. Like Madam De Farge's knitting, this list can be used to indict those who oppressed their fellows. There are advantages to be a non-nuclear nation, including the lower likelyhood others will select you for retaliation in the event of a rogue nuke blast, and the possibility that the U.S. will retaliate in your stead in the event you are nuked. Just as virginity, once lost is never regained, becoming nuclear changes a nation forever, too.
- By: Walter E. Wallis on July 27, 2004

It seems terrible, specially when you are outside of IRAN. Some foolish inside, are preparing the situation to make foreign attack easier and more reasonable, With making iranian people disappointed to their governor and shown IRAN as a wild and dangerous country to world.
- By: Sadjad on July 26, 2004

Appologies for interupting your interesting discussion, this message is for the previous message poster, Abbas Bakhtiar. My name is Clare Taylor and I am trying to track down an Iranian man with your name, Abbas Bakhtiar. It is probably highly unlikely that you are him but I thought I'd post this anyway. The man I am trying to contact is about 46/47, from Tehran and studied in Doncaster, UK in 1976/77. His 'nick-name' was Ebby. I want to contact him regarding some people he knew while he was in Doncaster; I have a possible 'reunion' in mind. If you or anyone reading this knows this person, please email me at: not_clare@yahoo.co.uk Many, many thanks Clare
- By: Clare Taylor on July 22, 2004

As much as there is concern about Iran destabilizing and radicalizing Iraq, the border is a two way transaction. Iraqis have expressed dissatisafaction with (the UN, the EU) Iranian influence internally but the proximity of a freer nation, a nearly self-determining nation is bound to have an impact. Of the "axis of evil" Iraq was the weakest; neither North Korea or Iran should be worried about a frontal assault. But the allience of Iraqi and Iranian liberal movements is something that might have a large effect in Iran. I think the world is aware of the Iranian peoples dissatisfaction with the theocracy as currently configured. No one has suggested that there is widespread popular support in Iran for Iran going nuclear. If anything, the democratic movement is overblown in the west when many people may not be desirous of another revolution, but prefer effective tweaking to premitt actual expression of popular will.
- By: Jane on July 22, 2004

Bush or USA never ever Military will Attack Iran! Why ?? because This is Like Chess Game First Afghanistan,Then Irak To tell Iran here we are both side of You ,So give it Up !??Iran in not like Lybia Small country If USA want to Go from Afghanistan To where !??Meshhad!??,or from West To Kermanshah!?? But Kurdestan is Little bit dangerous So all in All is Chess Play,If come to Point Mollah be close To :Achmaz(Killing Vazir!!) then may be They Accept Be Close Freind and Do not Trouble Israel and be Like Pakistan,But Human right will be Nothing at Table.
- By: Ali on July 21, 2004

u all suckes can suck my fuckin dick biaaaatch
- By: asghar on July 21, 2004

If the clerics who run Iran decide to use *their* (not the Iranian people's) nuclear weapons... what can the Iranian people ever do to stop them? Suppose that the clerics decide that even though it would be suicide to *officially* attack any other country with nuclear weapons, they MIGHT give a nuke to a terrorist group, and say "Here, blow up Israel or Washington, we don't care -- as long as we don't take the blame." In the end, it boils down to this: Can the *clerics* be trusted with nuclear weapons? -A.R.Yngve
- By: A.R.Yngve on July 20, 2004

... of course if the rumours of the link to Al-Qaeda stick or a positive public reaction is detected from the public, they will go ahead with their plans.
- By: WhoMan on July 19, 2004

Hossein, I think you are overreacting in both your Farsi blog and here. The possibility of an attack on the Iranian nuclear plants is not something new. US exploring the possible link between Iran and Al-Qaeda is also a desparate sale-pitch by the US administration in the last days of its tenure. I also think that possible attacks can be somewhat sale-pitch, intentionally circulated around to guage public reaction.
- By: WhoMan on July 19, 2004

Would I risk dissent, would I risk having my breasts being burned, my hand and foot broken, my skull crushed, would I leave behind my body so my mother could be coerced into a hasty burial, would I leave behind a son to raise his children in the west, would I risk all to publicize the corruption of a totalitarian theocracy bent on pursuing a confrontration with the west? Yes. At least, I'd like think so. I fear for the Iranians. They are so very young, they want to experience the simple joys of life, love affairs, the latest fashions, songs to hum along with on the radio, I can understand why they would seek to remain willfully oblivous to the growing threat.
- By: cassandra on July 19, 2004

I have an alternative solution: The US army must attack both Iranian and Israeili nuclear plants at the same time, with prior notice (enough time to evacuate). In this way ordinary residents won't be hurt, and it would be an EVEN attack. Then we will perform measurement and find out if the world has become a safer place to live. Easy.
- By: 8-Leg on July 19, 2004

The threat you're talking about has its origins mostly inside the US government. The republicans are clinging to anything in order to gain back their lost face value and in this way they are AGAIN seeking solutions to their own problems outside the Unites States. That may include media coverage against Iran, attack to Cuba or else. The new propaganda is *only* aimed to distract American people's attention from the terrible behaviour of Bush's admin in the past 4 years, and keep the fear culture up and hot. The threat on Iran is not as big as you're trying to portray, it's the tension inside the States that is growing, and that is doubtlessly reflected in the North American media including Canada which is where you live. The influential people in Iran, a huge mass of educated young people, are not fool and they have enough access to alternative forms of media, including the internet.
- By: Bobak on July 19, 2004

I think we have to make four points quite clear to the international comunity: 1) If nuclear weapons are bad or illegal to posess then no one should have them. One can not simply say that it is OK for a handfull of states to have them and not anyone else.Especially when one of these states has already used them (USA) in a war. 2) If Israel has hundreds of nuclear bombs and has repeatedly threatened to use "everything at its disposal" to defend itself, why can't Iran do the same. 3) The nuclear powers are constantly upgrading their nuclear arsenals and continuing their research in more powerful, smaller and better nuclear weapons. This certainly increases the threat to international community. Why haven't they at least reduced these activities so at to set an example for others. 4) Nuclear technology for peaceful purposes should not be denied to any country. Technological development is a right and no one should be denied this right. We have seen time and again that sanctions are applied for political/economic reasons all the time. And we have seen that international law, as weak as it is, is not respected by the powerful nations. Kosovo and Iraq are two examples of this. What gurantees are there for nations like Iran that once billions of dollars are spent on power plants, the fuel is actually delivered and at a normal price. What about the spin-off technologies and benefits? I am personally against nuclear weapons, but as long as countries such as Israel, Pakistan, India, US, England, France, China, Russia and perhaps others such as Brazil have them, I say let everyone have them. We either disarm together or die together. It seems that we have put the criminals in charge of the courts.
- By: Abbas Bakhtiar on July 19, 2004