we nearly all have the same god, but then there is many religions worshiping him. Does really one of them is better that the others? I ask god which religion i shouldn have. He didn'tanswer. I heard that bush Knows so the mullah, and the pope, and the rabby and the ...... they all say that god told tham that they religions is the best... some one must be lying or having an hidden agenda. In the mean time more people die on god's name that on anybody elses name. Then i ask myself his Crude Oil bush's god !
- By: p.bassset on February 1, 2005

I'm french and my wife's iranian and i live in england. It is evident that the true reasons for a potentiel usa invasion on iran are purely economic and part of an expension plan of the US planetary control. You can't change bush priority, you can only find a better way for the us economy that waving war at the rest of the world. and may be opening the eyes of peoples about truedemocraty and freedom: Democraty his fundamentaly an EQUAL right for each of us. and surley not a party having 100 time more money for his political campaign that the opposition. if bush is so fund of democracy why doesn't he put his vew to the iranian proplem to a vote in the UN? and why did he bribe other country to support the Irak invasion. No bush is no way near to anythink call democracy and the future of the peacefull people of Iran depend of a tyran: BUSH. Of course some Iranians will love to see a change in they gouvernement, but they do not want another war. one revolution and an eigth years war against irak including 20 years of us sanctions ahd softened the Iranian peoples. They do not want to have they country wrecked to see they children in coffins and they religious beleived chatred. they are slowly and peacfuly making changes for they country as they understand that you can't gain stability with sudden transformation (ie foreign imposed culture). i'll bet that in 15 years, with a morale support from the international community and left alone from US hegemony they will be more free and more developed than US controled Irak. but what's more dangerous is that the US foreign politic entices country to develop nuclear weapons as to protect themselves from the States. they can see that North korea and pakistan are not under a the threat of an US invasion any more, witch probably make bush a coward too. Has i write this the bush administration must be doing they best to convince israel to attack Iran on they behalf. There is no doubt that having a world with no tyrany is a great goal. but the use of weapons, bribes and overwelming propaganda is definitely not the answer for a more democratic world, is it Mr bush? Peraps,instead of trying to control the last drop of fossile fuel, it will be wiser to spend as much as possible to develop safe and low polution energy!!
- By: p.basset on February 1, 2005

k, first off, i'm american, dont get the wrong idea if people here are iranians. bush and i are far different people, i.a., bush thinkgs with his ass. i think with logic. the only reason bush invaded iraq was because iraq has economic interests, if it were a real war on terror he would've invaded north korea, why didn't he? because north korea offers absolutely nothing to americans except rice fields and nothing more. well, north korea is the ones saying that they have nukes, they are waving their hands screaming "we have nukes!" but we dont invade them, i dont know if you know this, but bush also has strong ties with the saudi government, thats why we haven't invaded them yet. there is all kinds of genocide in africa, if it were really a war on terror we would fix places in africa. the truth of the matter is bush began the war on iraq on his own little personal vendetta bent on capturing saddam because well, saddam tried to kill bush sr. when he was in office. he is only after iran now because it's the only way he can make people think it's a real "war on terror." i would know this, i'm american, i research this because i hate bush and his fucking little posse of people he calls his cabinet. and you know what saba, starting an anti-war campaign will get you nowhere. i hate to say it but bush doesn't care at all about anti-war campaigns. otherwise we never would've invaded iraq. sad truth, an invasion of iran would end just like the vietnam war, 58,000 american troops dead for what? nothing.
- By: dilligaf on January 27, 2005

Regime change through efforts of the Iranian people yes, American interference no. Iranians have the knowldge and experience of toppling their regimes and do not need help from outsiders. I can not accept the repetition of events in Abu Gharib in Evin. This is too high a price to pay. The dignity of a nation can not be destroyed for the aspirations of neo-cons.
- By: Sia on January 24, 2005

It is funny to read all this " change of terrorist regime ranting". Who is a terrorist " Eastren european illegal immigrants" who are killing poor and helpless indigenous Palistinians or a soverign government led by Khatami. Americans and Westren at large fail to understand that what is terrorist for them is freedom fighter for Muslims. If tyrant Israeli govt. occupies Lenebon it isn't a terrorist action, but when supressed people of Lebenon kick their asses out of their homeland they become terrorist orgnisation wow Westren people are very savvy indeed.
- By: David on January 23, 2005

What Dubya is trying to do is to keep his constituency – i.e. industrial-military complex happy. A day before the inauguration, there was an interview with Cheney. He was saying that right now they'll try diplomacy first and then if that didn't work they'll think of something else. You'll remember how long it took them to build up their forces for invading Iraq. It will take them at least 5 times longer for Iran, even if they had the forces which they don't. Cheney was saying that Israel might not be patient enough, and decide to go it alone. This is what the current occupants of White House are hoping. But remember Iran is not Iraq. It has more military capacity. A country like Israel cannot attack Iran and not being attacked back. So it's quite silly for them to start such a risky adventure. So I don't think we should worry about any attack in the new future; at least not until the mess in Iraq is settled down.
- By: Jahangir on January 22, 2005

Salaam, if the theocratic autocracy running Iran advocates the militant spread of Islam and eventual imposition of Shar'iah (with dhimmitude for "people of the book", and death or enslavement for the rest), then it is already, ipso-facto, *at war* with ALL non-Islamic states on earth (not merely the US). If you prefer living in a dictatorship already in undeclared war with the US, that's your business -- but don't expect to win any friends.
- By: Mike Schneider on January 22, 2005

Seymore Hersche has shed the caccoon of odious anti-American appologist/propagandist to become a butterfly of journalistic responsibility?
- By: Mike Schneider on January 22, 2005

Please sign the petition against a US invasion of Iran: http://www.petitiononline.com/NWinIran/petition.html Thank you!
- By: saba on January 22, 2005

Shahin: And will you be in Tehran when the bombs start to fall? Or will you be comfortably drinking your beer and watching fox news?
- By: Jim on January 22, 2005

1) Bush didn't say invasion at this time because invasion needs army which is not available at this moment. Gathering troops to seize Iran needs about 400,000 personnel and takes 1.5 years of preparation. This costs USA at least $ 20 billion a month. 2) I beleive the aim of this plan at this phase is to destroy all of the military and nuclear facilites and disable industrial and technical abilities by economical, political and regional sanctions. 4) Bombing of nuclear facilities makes negotiation with European countries void. 6) This may force US to enter into an early war which is not ready for it. 7) There is no alternative opposition group to be supported by the US such as one in Afghanestan. Instead, the US will support tribal and minority groups and Mojahedin Khalg which they are more tyrant and primitive.
- By: Azarakhsh on January 21, 2005

So, what can the rest of the world do to help? Really, I recognize the urgency of the situation. I have written the Iranian embassy in Oslo several times, but I don't know what to do, you have to tell me. I think I have some good ideas what you guys should be doing, and I do have some ideas that may help, but really, you have to speak up first.
- By: Kjetil Kjernsmo on January 21, 2005

From the comments: “It is about time that the United States is recognizing that the regime in Tehran is a terrorist regime that has harbored all terrorist organizations of the world…” This is exactly why I DON’T want us to invade Iran. The number of terrorists in Iraq has increased by maybe 10 – 100 times since we invaded. Our invasion of Afghanistan has resulted in it supplying 80% of the world heroin. Iran is a big problem today, and it will be a worse problem if we invade. “Bush did NOT specify military action and Hersh's article does not mean the US will have a full scale invasion there.” Oh come on! Prior to invading Iraq, Bush talked all about “exhausting all alternatives” before invading. He didn’t exhaust jack. He stopped right in. My 5 year old has more patience than Bush. We already have boots on the ground in Iran! Cheney said “Israel might get there first.” You make it sound like an attack is unlikely, but the administration doesn’t. “He was sending a message to the brave people fighting those mullahs. Rise up and we'll support you.” And the US is so good about living up to that promise. You really underestimate our ability to F things up by “helping”. “I think it is time for us iranians to start a serious informational anti-war campaign, before it is too late..” Just remember, you live in the “Land of the Freee™”. In a free country like ours, the FBI is likely to “interview” you and 5000 people with similar genes for skin color. Expect members of the FBI to “attend” (spy) on any meetings you might have as part of your campaign. In a free country like ours, you could be labeled an “enemy combatant” for “conspiracy” (meaning you didn’t actually do anything), get locked up, and watch the key get thrown away. WWJB (What Would Jesus Bomb)
- By: Scott Swigart on January 21, 2005

Many of the Iranians inside Iran will never undrestand how any Iranians outside could wish for an agressor like Bush with such a dismal record of country rebuilding to attack Iran?! One simple answer: ignorance. Stay in US long enough and your point of view cannot be much different from others around you. Ignorant and Arrogant. To the people who make claims such as " US needs to topple the terrorist regime of Iran". OPEN YOUR EYES and SMELL THE COFFEE. If Bush administaration wanted to spread Democracy in the reigon they would have started with their "friends" in the reigon, Pakistan, Saudis, Jordan, Egypt... They have WMD's. They have Tyrannies. They raised the Terrorists who brought the 9/11 tragedy to US. Just ask yourselves how is it that the Amir of Kuwait whom is very "un-democratic" is still in power today. Surely the US Army could have installed a much more Democratic people in Kuwait after "liberating" it from Iraqis just as in Germany and Japan after WWII! Yes I can hear the Iranians inside Iran after Bush attacks Iran, like their neighboring Iraqis today. They will not have many thanks for the Iranians outside the country as they are busy burying their loved ones, or as they spend time in darkness, or they keep their children inside because of in-securities.....NO SIR, their words will not be very kind.
- By: Kaveh on January 21, 2005

bush is trying to destroy iranian reformists and the prospect of democracy in iran. what he meant by liberty, is actually nothing but slavery for the u.s. he said that he does not plan a regime change but that he stays on the side of people! if this true, then when condi rice said that there are no reformists in iran, was she on the side of the people or the hardliners?! bush plan for iran is nothing but slavery, many many times worse than that of savak and sha's time.
- By: Ala on January 21, 2005

See my article related to the same topic here: http://www.iranian.com/FarhadRadmehrian/2005/January/Bush/index.html
- By: Farhad on January 21, 2005

I think you guys need a charismatic leader who can unify the various opposition factions and develop a coherent agenda. Right now it seems like regime opponents are floundering around without a roadmap or a vision for the future. If it's just a bunch of students holding demonstrations, the regime isn't going to hesitate to crack down.
- By: praktike on January 21, 2005

It is about time that the United States is recognizing that the regime in Tehran is a terrorist regime that has harbored all terrorist organizations of the world. Today we need to topple this regime with all the means possible. Iranians in Iran cannot topple this regime alone. For example, the Iraqis could have never topple Saddam's regime. The United States should put the Europeans aside, because the Europeans are the main problem for us to change this terrorist regime in Tehran. Please do not try to portray yourselves patriotic. I love Iran and it is about time that we rebuild our country and get rid of Islamic fanatics in our society.
- By: shahin s. on January 21, 2005

If Bush were aware that his army has failed to "secure Iraq," he might wonder at the neocon-likudnik plans to attack Iran. Bush might even stop being Richard Perle's puppet. Or Ariel Sharon's poodle. Can you believe this administration's insanity? Bush intends to rise from the ashes of defeat in Iraq by invading Iran, a country three times the size in population and geography? Does it remind you of Adolf Hitler who, unable to invade tiny England, marches his army off into Russia? Bombing and invading Iran will expand terrorism and put more of the Middle East at our throat. Creating more terrorists is a self-defeating way to fight terrorism. Facts, analysis, morality and common sense are totally against the neoconservative jihad against Islam. The neocons respond by ignoring facts, silencing analysts, and closing down debate. Delusion is astride power, and America will dearly pay.
- By: Kaveh on January 21, 2005

Looking to American foreign policy it seems that they've got double vision. Why they want to free us among other nation under pressure. Should we be fool enough to believe BUSH saying they'll stand with us? I'll never trust him, as almost half of American didn't.
- By: hossein on January 21, 2005

I see that you don't want a sudden regime change in Iran! I wish you could understand what president Bush said in his speech! As Xan mentioned he never used the world 'invasion' in his speech. he also specifically mentioned that he approaches his goal without military means! He is the only president of the United States that’s wants to reach people in the third world specially in the Middle East. Let me clear that for you; without the help of the United States this regime would not fall. Period!
- By: Peyman on January 21, 2005

Arash, What you are saying about the Europeans is "unfortunately" true. They really are after the deals and finacial benefits. But so are the Americans. The tough language of Bush is NOT for freedom as it hasn't been in Iraq and will not be in Iran. It is for what serves them better and they WIlL change policies, the WIll sacrifice nations, if the new local or global conditions results in the requirements of tactical and stratigical changes in their policies. Real freedom is not what they have in their agenda, as they are even gradually taking it away from their own people. You are absolutely right that the Mullahs only understand the language of force, but IT IS us and IS OUR OWN PROBLEM to find ways to mobilize and act. WE CANNOT afford leaving the future of our country in the hands of the Americans, and yet the worst kind of Americans. Picture Iran invaded by the US with what you know about the situation in Iraq. That is a road to chaos and destruction that might not have any return from, especially considering the complecations in the Iranian society. We are discussing the issue of Iran now. THAt IS what we have to continue doing. We, all have to set the first common goal that we, all agree on, and act to achieve that goal. Opposition to the Mullahs have not been able to achieve this yet, and as long as we push each other aside for idealogical disaggreements, this story will be repeated. As I said, we have to fix our internal issues first, then things will become much easier to deal with.
- By: Faramin on January 21, 2005

Faramin, I don't support bush. But I am quite pissed off with European countries. Their diplomacy is not working. For instance look at the human rights. Its getting worse and worse every day. Thats because Mullahs only understand the language pressure. Obviously the pressure is not high enough to stop them. They know very well that its easy to shut up the European with couple of good contracts. I belive Mullahs know very well how to play with them. I think only US talks in the language that Mullahs understand. I don't like to see US invading Iran but what I really hate to see is Israel attacking Iran. They are so brutal. Also this probably will make the whole region unstable. I don't see a bright future unfortunately.
- By: Arash on January 21, 2005

Bush did NOT specify military action and Hersh's article does not mean the US will have a full scale invasion there. I agree with you that the current regime must fall from the inside, by the efforts of Iranians living inside and even outside. Bush and the whole international community must support the Iranian people and their desire for freedom and secular democracy. GM, Cairo, Egypt
- By: GM on January 21, 2005

Xan, Working hand in hand with US government? THAT'S the problem. There is no doubt that the government of Iran is very unpopular and eventaually has to go. But it has to be done in our terms and by our hands, not the bloody hands of those who are already responsible for the death of over hundred thousand Iraqis and ruining a country. The best help Bush can provide Iranians is to shut up and not talk about Iran, as every time he has said anything, it has resulted in the backlash on the movement of the people of Iran. Having said that, we, Iranians do need help but a help from other nations not governments such as US's.
- By: Faramin on January 20, 2005

I wish you could be a little more optimistic, a little more hopeful. The work you are doing to aid Iran is heroic. I didn't hear Bush say "invasion". I heard "America will stand WITH all people who rise up for Freedom". He was sending a message to the brave people fighting those mullahs. Rise up and we'll support you. The freedom for Iran can happen with the Iranian People saying enough is enough and the US govenment (working in the background) hand in hand.
- By: Xan on January 20, 2005

Salaam. It seems that the Bush administration is stepping up the preparations for an attack on Iran. I think it is time for us iranians to start a serious informational anti-war compaign, before it is too late..
- By: saba on January 20, 2005