Jahangir, that article has received a lot of press in the states since the Iraqi election, which proves only that there's nothing more irresistable than a dumb historical analogy. Likewise the right likes to point out that it took years to rebuild Europe after WW2, therefor everything in Iraq is going wonderfully. Both views are misguided. Iraq is not Vietnam, nor is it Germany.
- By: Jonathan Dworkin on February 13, 2005

An old saying: "Americans do badly what others cannot do at all." Most criticism of Bush is from people too stupid to see the meaning of both halves of that saying -- and too arrogant to admit they could never do as well.
- By: Tom Paine on February 12, 2005

I saw this news item yesterday. It talks about another glorious victory for democracy in a foreign land. Then I looked closer. Wait a minute, It's 40 years old! Take a look: "WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here." Now, just substitute South Vietnam with Iraq, Vietcong with Al Qaeda and Saigon with Baghdad. You see the similarities?
- By: Jahangir on February 11, 2005

In response to the petty shots at Iraqi elections - If the standard for democracy is that there's no foreign troops on your soil, then most of Europe, Japan, and South Korea are undemocratic. I think that's pretty ridiculous. What makes a country democratic isn't whether or not it's friends with the USA. What makes it democratic are things like minority rights, free press, elections, constitutional process, etc. Iraq isn't there yet, but it's taking some serious steps. I don't see why it hurts so many non-Iraqis to admit that. Pride, I suspect, has a lot to do with it.//P// As for democracy in Iran, no I don't think any intelligent person wants to see it brought on through a war. I certainly don't, and even the Bush supporters with whom I speak are weary of further confrontations. Iran has a great democratic movement, and I think time will carry it to victory. As for the present, the Iranian journalists, academics, and bloggers being jailed and harrassed are among my personal heroes. You can search the entire world and find no greater example of righteous dissent.
- By: Jonathan Dworkin on February 10, 2005

HODER: "The other thing, which really bugs me is that how can you say Iranians are the primary state sponsor of terrorism while not even a single Iranian has been involved in any act of terrorism after 9/11?" ALAN: The claim is that the Iranian government sponsors terrorism more than other governments do. The US State department notes that Iran supplies "varying amounts of funding, safehaven, training, and weapons" to terror groups including Hizballah, Hamas, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Ahmad Jibril's PFLP-GC. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2441.htm Iranian non-involvement in (non-Palestinian) post-9/11 terrorism does nto disprove the claim, since a lot of terrorism gets by without state sponsorship. To disprove the claim one must offer that there's a government that funds more terror than the mullahcracy does. HODER: "And how dare he talks about the reform in Saudi Arabia while almost all Islamic terrorist groups around the world are funded by rich saudies, many of them with storng ties to the Royal family? " ALAN: Uh, isn't he talking about reform in Saudi Arabia *because* it would (if doen right) weaken the royal family and its lapdog plutocrats?
- By: Alan K. Henderson on February 9, 2005

So we have Mr Khamenei discussing on this blog. Yeah "Leuf", we know who you are. If you are not Mr Khamenei then I am sorry you must be on oyster because you display the same amount of intelligence.
- By: Ali M on February 7, 2005

For those who are criticizing the idea that the Iranian elections were democratic: They were. People voted and their votes counted. That is democratic. If you further take exception to the fact that some candidates were not allowed to participate: that is nothing new. Here in the US, Ralph Nader has been kept out of participation in this democratic process of voting. So if you believe that is OK to keep Nader out but it is not OK to have some potential candidates out in Iran, then you are hypocrite. On another note: Nice piece Hoder. Looking to the US for help for a regime change in Iran is not only stupid but dangerous. The United States government has no intention of seeing any sort of a democratic/populist government grow in Iran--That sort of a government will not allow the plundering of Iran's national resources for cheap and that is what we (the US) wants.
- By: Leuf on February 6, 2005

Jonathan, how long do you think the shiite democracy in Iraq will last? Not long, I would guess. This is history repeating itself, we've seen this before. Power corrupts, and the shiite administration in Iraq is going to descend to tyranny pretty fast. I'm not going to see the end of the refugee streams from Iraq any time soon. You're reading too much into Hoder's words anyway. He never said it was a true democracy, he said it was better than most US allies, which is true. I think Hoder has a very good idea what a true democracy implies, recognises it is going to be very hard to get there, but that the US is not at all helping.
- By: Kjetil Kjernsmo on February 5, 2005

"The other thing, which really bugs me is that how can you say Iranians are the primary state sponsor of terrorism while not even a single Iranian has been involved in any act of terrorism after 9/11? And how dare he talks about the reform in Saudi Arabia while almost all Islamic terrorist groups around the world are funded by rich saudies, many of them with storng ties to the Royal family?" I like the misdirection in this paragraph. Let's forget about the terrorist groups sponsored by the Iranian government, their acts prior to 9/11 and focus on Saudi Arabia, which is admittedly a keystone in the spread of terrorism. Yet that does not make the Iranian sponsorship of terrorism irrelevant or non-existent. It would also be helpful if we could avoid confusing the actions of individuals of particular nationalities with odius state regimes who initiate programmes that give their citizens a poor image in the world. "Despite all internal rows, Iran has still the most democratic political system in the middle-east, except for Israel. And speaking of the reform movements in the mid-east countries, the genuine reform movement in Iran was absolutely the strongest in the region." Oh, please. Saying Iran has the most democratic political system in the region bar the only actual democracy in the region (if you exclude Turkey) is a disingenious argument. Iran is not a democracy. It is a sham of a republic. When unsuitable candidates can be eliminated without recorse to the public and when elected leaders are subject to the whims of unelected leaders (on the majority of its policy platform) you cannot claim it has a democracy of any sort. Surely, the lesson we should keep in mind for Iran (and Iraq) is that an election does not a democracy make (to borrow the meme of the day). A democracy is more than just elections. It is being able to fire the government. It is an impartial, unarbitary judicial system. It is more than "pick any of these approved candidates". "Bush had the chance to stand up with the Iranian reformists while they had still a mass popualar support, the same way he did with Ukranians. But instead his neocon friends chose to support a group of expatriates, mostly monarchist Iranians, who, unlike their exaggerated claims, had no influence among the Iranian public and effectively watched the hardline conservatives shut down the entire reformist movement. Now it's dead and Bush was partly responsible for that. He could've done a lot more than sending messages and giving money to the corrupt monarch." This is saddening to read. If we're going to argue ideas like national sovereignty and the right to self-determination it is ridicilous to also blame the US when it doesn't intervene. Surely, the worst thing the Bush administration could have done was to push for the internal reformist movement too overtly and give the mullahs the perfect excuse to cast them as traitors. Are we not going to have to take responsibility for our own governance if we are to avoid being held at the whim of interventionist superpowers? I understand the frustration that has led to apathy. I understand and share the mistrust of foreign powers who have kept our nation back. But at some point if we are going to make our country great, we will have to solve our own problems. Without their help and despite their interference. I'm on your side Hoder and I think we want the same outcomes but your rhetoric seems to be following the knee-jerk anti-Americanism which is intellectually shallow. In the end if we're going win the debate we have to oppose the policies precisely and rationally not use the scatter-gun, emotionally charged, mud-slinging which seems to be dragging the Peace Movement into irrelevance.
- By: Seyed Razavi on February 4, 2005

The most important issue is to assure the Islamic regime of Iran to stop funding Hamas and Hezbollah, otherwise even if the Islamic republic accept protocols of IAEA still there is doubt about their nuclear activities because you can not say our nuclear process is peaceful while you are threatening Israel, a country that are trying to satisfy the Arab world for the peace. Between Israel and Iran historically, there have been no important tension, so why while all Arab countries are going for peace between them and Israel the Islamic regime of Iran always threaten Israel?
- By: Ali on February 4, 2005

He could've done a lot more than sending messages and giving money to the corrupt monarch. Do you think he should back the "Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2004" (Introduced in Senate July 16 2004)[S. 2681]? Talk is cheap. Specifically, what actions would you like to see the Bush administration put into play? (Funding the "wrong" opposition groups is counterproductive. Funding the "right" opposition groups discredits them. Nobody wants war. Sanctions bleed a nation dry and tend to actual strengthen tyranny's grip. What to do?) As American, I would like to Iran do the following: 1) place their nuclear weapons ambitions on hold 2) stop the funding of Lebanese Hizbollah 3) stop the funding of Palestinian jihadist groups 4) support the proposal for a Palestinian State alongside Israel 5) stand back and allow Iraqi Shia to negotiate a consitution with all Iraqi constituencies As far as Iranian internal affairs, transitioning from a theocracy to a more "liberal autocracy" to a democracy, it is up to the Iranians to make it happen. I'd rather see Bush push for economic liberalization before political liberalization. Note - on Tuesday, General Electric announced they were pulling out of Iran. Quote from Forbes: "We're seeing a turnaround by a number of U.S. companies operating in Iran," said Dan Katz, chief counsel to U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. Katz said the moves may signal an imminent change in U.S. policy that has allowed foreign subsidiaries of American companies to do business in Iran.
- By: Michelle on February 4, 2005

Jonathan, everything in this world is relative. What Hoder is saying is that "Iran has still the most democratic political system in the middle-east, except for Israel." I Think he has a valid point. I cannot think of any country in the region that you can call democratic. He's not comparing Iran with Switzerland. He's merely stating a fact. Now if we listen to Bush and his parrot Rice, we might think differently. We might think Saudi Arabia and Egypt are true democracies and Iran is a bastion of tyranny. Is the system in Iran truly democratic? Of course not, most Iranians know that, but again democracy like everything else is relative. The struggle for freedom in Iran has a long and sad history that goes back more than 100 years. But it's a struggle, like the ones you had in US (civil rights movement, women's movement etc.) Nobody is going to give you something unless you fight for it. Bush thinks differently. He thinks he can export freedom. I beg to differ. Iranians hope one day to win their freedom; and we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Many people in the region do not see such a light. One think is sure: we do not need American coups and American bombs to win our freedom. Do you think Bush understands that?
- By: Jahangir on February 4, 2005

Hoder: Saying that "...Iran has still the most democratic political system in the middle-east (sic)..." makes even the most neophyte political analyst ask: "What planet is Hoder from? Has he ever been to Iran?" Hoder, in the past five years I have lost several Iranian friends to this "most democratic political system" you describe. Get a grip, work on your reading comprehension, get out more, put down your copy of THE YOUNG PERSON'S GUIDE TO THE ART OF KNEE-JERK REACTIONISM THROUGH ANTI-AMERICANISM AND/OR ANTI-SEMITISM. And REZA, is there a brain inside that burka?
- By: Mark Stephen on February 4, 2005

In response to the quote from Thomas Friedman, I have to say I don't see the elections in iraq as a sign of democracy. Iraq is not even on the path to democracy. Iraq is a country under occupation. The day the last American soldier leaves Iraq, is when iraq can finally start the process of democratization. Despite all the problems with the islamic regime, Iran is still the most democratic country in the middle east. If Bush is really concerned about democracry, he should start by changing the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
- By: saba on February 4, 2005

Saudi Arabia after Sep 11 declared the head of algaede group including Bin Laden are no longer citizen of that country, while the Islamic Republic sheltered the members of algaed who escaped to Iran after the attack of America to Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic funds Hamas and Hizbullah, the groups whose leaders are businessmen, in other words they make money from Philistine , among the reformist there are people like Mohtashemi who were the founders of Hezbullah, these terrorist group only cause hate and revenge among philistine children by brain washing them to be suicide bombers. You said why Bush did not support the reformist party in Iran, how come the former hostage takers of American embassy be reformists, who not only they do not apologise to people about their past but also they are proud of what have done (I do not mention the heads of intelligence ministry and security guards what have done in prisons in the 1st years of the Islamic revolution specially to girls). The Iranian elections are just a show, people like Khatami just tricked the young including me to vote for them to tell the world our regime is the most popular democratic country in the world(exactly Khatami’s speech in his journey to Malaysia) meanwhile they could make time to process the nuclear programme. The reformat party received the answer from Iranian people in the second round of council (Shora-Shar) elections while there was not any filters from Security Council, which means people do not trust them anymore. You said the Islamic republic is the most democratic country in the Middle East, how can it be possible in a democratic country the young are being whipped while tighten on trees in public parks. It could be much better we get angry about our poor sisters who are smuggled to neighbours of Iran for slave trading rather than the speech of President Bush. In the end why Iranian mother had to lost their sons for the war between Sadam and Khomeini , who was saying the path of Jerusalem(Ghods) is via Karbal, while Mr Khatami and his reformist had all the broadcasting news to brain wash minors( children below 18 year ) to go on mines, that war insured both Sadam and Islamic regime to stay for a long time as like as Khatami’ s election guaranteed another 8 years for the Islamic republic.
- By: ali on February 3, 2005

Here's Thomas Friedman on Iran's great democracy: When any Iranian reform candidate who wants to run can be vetoed by unelected ayatollahs, and any Iranian newspaper can be shut by the same theocrats, that is not democracy. You can call that whatever you want, but not democracy. They don't allow bikinis at nudist colonies and they don't serve steak at vegetarian restaurants, and theocrats don't veto candidates in real democracies. The Iraqi Shiites just gave every Iranian Shiite next door a demonstration of what real "Islamic" democracy is: it's when Muslims vote for anyone they want. I just want to be around for Iran's next election, when the ayatollahs try to veto reform candidates and Iranian Shiites ask, Why can't we vote for anyone, like Iraqi Shiites did? Oh, boy, that's going to be pay-per-view. So what do you guys think of that!
- By: Jonathan Dworkin on February 3, 2005

Kudos! Nice piece hoder. I didn't watch the show but I heard he was booed. I don't remember any American president in recent history who was booed in the congress. That's a good sign. It shows the democrats are getting their backbone back. As for Iran, same old, same old. But it should put our worries to rest, since after the fiasco in Iraq, they seem to be changing their plans. Now they talk of "diplomacy", whatever that means. In his first term he gutted the world; in his second term he's going to gut his own country. But that's okay. People normally get the leaders they deserve.
- By: جهانگير on February 3, 2005

Hoder, I think you are still mistaken about something. What I am just about to mention is maybe not directly related to the topic of this text, but I want to mention it anyway. It's true that Israel has a democratic system, but you have to consider it's just for the Jewish population, while there are plenty of Palestinians live there with no civil rights (not even a passport). I think we cannot say that they have the most democratic that easily; while you have countries like Turkey in Middle east where the Kurds have much more rights than Palestinians in Israel, and they have a democratic system. Maybe you can rethink this for your future writtings. However, this just reflects my personal opinion.
- By: Reza on February 3, 2005

I did not watch the speech because,frankly, I am tired of the lies HE has told the world.I get sick to my stomack listening to what HE has to say no matter what the subject!! and last night's speech was no different.My dear Iran IS NOT a terroist state or supporter of terrorists by any stretch of imagination.To understand the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters takes some knowledge which,apparantly,some people don't have.LONG LIVE IRAN!
- By: hossein salafi on February 3, 2005

You said "not even a single Iranian has been involved in any act of terrorism after 9/11?". Did you mean that they were involved in acts of terrorism before 9/11? I know that the list of executions of political activists is long and growing, but I don’t remember reading any news connecting any Iranian to ie. bombing US embassy. Do you remember anything? Whatever the Iranian government has done was against its own people. (Of course they financially support the Palestinian, but I don’t believe that what they are doing is act of terrorism. Terrorism is not “people killing Israeli soldiers/people”, it is a war. Terrorism is “Israeli soldiers killing ordinary people”.)
- By: AmirHossein on February 3, 2005

What a beautifull comment ,Hossein you are real democrat but You can not sell to Iranian opposition who are not Democrat like Rajavi?! how Bush/Cheny support him!? ans why many Senators and congress men women are suppoerting him!? this was answer to why Bush put iran in top list of Terror!? it is funny,when Pahlavi left over is second choice of Bush/cheny !!!yes Hossein it is hard to see Democracy come from Rajavi mouth or Bush/Cheny mouth God bless You hossein
- By: Karim on February 3, 2005

Mr. Bush: "Eleven years ago, Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country -- and we are honored that she is with us tonight." Hoder: "Cheap and cheasy." Pretty expensive cheese. Do you really count the loss of a father as cheap?
- By: Henry IX on February 3, 2005

"Iran has still the most democratic political system in the middle east" To write that requires such a level of stupidity and/or ignorance that is suprising for someone who has enough brain cells to read and write. As long as the election is not free and the candidates are screened, there is no democracy. You cannot be a little bit democratic.
- By: ali on February 3, 2005

I can't believe what you are saying here. What reforms are you talking about? You are living in Canada and taking about reforms in Iran? What reforms! Why did you flee your country? If you believe that reforms are possible more than what has been accomplished in the first term of president Khatami, why didn't you stay back in Iran and make a change! Common man, don't write something that’s not true. Also, he never said Iranian people are the primary sponsors of terrorism. At least I expect you not to change his words. He said primary state, which means the government. One more point that I want to mention is that believe it or not, Iraqis will have their free society not tomorrow but in years ahead, and I like to see what you have to say about it in future.
- By: peyman on February 3, 2005

You are really a bitter bitter man. I wish you alot of luck and hope your still alive by the time Iran is free. If Iranians are like you let's hope they never let them out of their cage. Your pathetic.
- By: Xan on February 3, 2005

I didn't watch the "show". But I can see what you mean by "Iraqi woman". I am sure this was another piece of sope Opra (sp?) that has always worked in the US. I hope not this time though. It is time for the Americans to show maturity and not let their emotions be used to forward the agendas of bunch of crooks. It is time for the Americans to scream, enough is enough. Don't treat us like bunch of stupid idiots. Don't fool us again.
- By: Faramin on February 2, 2005

Who is "the monarch"?, how do you know he is corrupt?, and how do you know Bush has given him money? Hassan Khan, what is the color of the sky in your world?
- By: Amir on February 2, 2005

Hi Hoder, that was a hollywood alike happy end. I don't like that at all, too.
- By: Markus on February 2, 2005