Reading your article really made me sad. Last years elections, like every other in Iran was a scam to help the "Islamic Republic" stay in power. I DID NOT VOTE IN THE LAST ELECTION, I WILL NEVER PARTICIPATE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT DEMOCRATIC. A vote from me legitimizes and recognizes this government. The last thing I would ever allow myself to do is vote; a vote which would be misleading to myself, iranians and the rest of the world. REFORM IS AN ILUSSION! Stop discrediting the democratic movement in iran. Your work has done nothing but support Iran of the Islamic Republic, instead of us the people. Perhaps you've been away for so long that you think because of our geography we deserve less, I don't get you !
- By: donya dokht on February 1, 2006

To old.times: Well, fist we should narrow down our from Iranians, to Iranian bloggers or weblog readers. I think I can use Hoder's readers' comments as pole. Are are they made up?!! Second, as you said Hoder can represent his very own ideas. That's what I suggested too. He should not try to pretend he is Iranians' representative. Finally, the government had no reason to kill me, or arrest me or what ever. But I know many Iranians (among them bloggers)were convicted for writing much less than he did. I'm not comparing Hoder with myself. The comparison is between Hoder and other bloggers. Those who are in Iran, or those who travel to Iran.
- By: maryam on January 29, 2006

Yesterday the following article by Hossein Derekhshan, Democracy's Double Standard appeared in the Op-Ed section of the NY Times. Derekhshan essentially wants to lay part of the blame for the election of Ahmadinejad on George Bush, and interesting notion to say the least, and one more attuned, it seems to me, to trying to divert blame for the Ahmadinejad election from where it should be squarely laid, on the shoulders of Iranian reformists. It's funny in a way, as Derekhshan's piece reminds me of other things I've read where Iranian writers blame the U.S. for many of their historical ails, blowing U.S. involvement out of proportion and conveniently ignoring Iranian complicity in their own problems. For as much as I'd love to blame Ahmadinejad's election on Bush, Derekhshan overlooks a truism which, if memory serves me well, was famously expressed here in the U.S. by the former leader of the House of Representatives, congressman Tip O'Neil, to wit: "All politics is local". Did Bush have some sort of influence on the Iranian election? Who knows, really? Maybe, I'll even generously concede possibly a few percentage points worth, though I mean really, Iranians, in Iran no less, being told what to do by any American president, but much less THIS American president - right, that's realistic. Indirectly Derekhshan hits the problem right on the head with the following observation in his article: " ... the philosophy-loving moderate, Mohammad Khatami, was replaced as president by a radical militant, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — a former military commander who presides over one of the most extreme governments post-revolutionary Iran has yet had." It does seem that the philosophy-loving moderate was a bit too much in the clouds for most of his 8 years in power, whereas the radical militant, et al., a man whose survival depended on knowing his constituency and what was going on in the street, was telling the people more of what they wanted to hear. I think the Iranian reformists need to look more closely at how poorly they provided for their constituents, how out of touch they were with those people they were counting to get votes from, and how little they had managed to do in the time they were in power, which was 8 years and therefore no small stretch of time (a lifetime in politics), leaving many average Iranians without a job, healthcare, or much hope into the future in a country where petro-dollars flow, flow and flow, but no one quite seems to know where they go, go, go ... Ahmadinejad ran as a man of the people, and given his past track record and his history of being "clean" in a society and political system where corruption is rampant, this made him very appealing to many, especially when he made a point of appealing very directly to a voting populace of the majority of the disaffected in Iranian society. In the final choice the Iranian people rejected the moderate candidate supported by the reformists because the reformist out-going president Khatami, while possibly a good philosopher president, was a failed president for the people. This left the Iranian people to chose between Ahmadinejad and an old Iranian favorite, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a man cloaked in corruption, duplicity, self-serving machinations of every flavor, and a long list of failed peoples' hopes, and we're supposed to be surprised that a radical militant who promised people jobs and food on the table won? Better yet, we're to blame George Bush for this? The Palestinian elections were, as near as I can tell, fully democratic and the people had had it with the Fatah Party, rightfully so. It was the voice of the people talking, in as democratic a fashion as I can think of. The Bush administration cannot have a complaint with the process, merely, and to a large degree rightfully so, with the result. Now it's a matter of whether or not the Palestinians can actually make this work for themselves, with a transformation of Hamas that befits a recognition of the meaning of politics and minimizing the harm to the Palestinian people, as the EU and the U.S. both threaten to cut off aid while Hamas vows to stick to its oft and clearly stated goal of eliminating Israel. In Iran democracy is more at the leisure of the supreme leader and the governing council, and in any true sense of the word "democratic" the process is only as democratic as the cronies at the top feel they need to make it to minimally keep the people happy, and no one doubts that they very definitely control the strings. To look askance at "democracy" in Iran is legitimate enough, and of course in doing so any meaning may be extracted from that, to include thinking that a boycott is what's being suggested. The Bush administration didn't endorse a boycott in Iran, it questioned, legitimately, a process that claims to be a democratic one but isn't. The Iranian people had their own reasons to not vote, ones they may regret now and hopefully will correct for in the coming three years, but George Bush had little to do with planting those reasons there. So yes, it must feel nice to blame Bush, and God knows there's a lot to blame the man for, but the current government in Iran is not something I'd tie to him. We'll see how the Iranian people really feel in three years, which unfortunately is another lifetime, but maybe then the old guard in the upper reaches of the government will get a message from the Iranian people that they'll find hard to ignore, and we can be just as sure that whoever's the president here in the U.S. then will have as little to do with the choices made by a people who know full well how to make their own choices, for their own good reasons.
- By: James on January 29, 2006

it was nothing but simple BS written by you again. 1- Bush never told any one to boycotte the riggid elections in Iran ( I wish he would though) 2- It is not Pres. Bush's fault that our country is broken. 3- you are a joke 4- NY Times is a joke too
- By: Winston on January 29, 2006

Mr. Derakhshan, The conclusion I draw is that the US shouldn't have a general-principle of support or opposition for elections. In Iran's case (if you're right) participation even in flawed elections would have been good. In Palestine..full participation didn't achieve such a good result. So maybe the problem is not a double standard as such, but the _wrong_ double standard: instead of discouraging Iranians from voting and encouraging Palestinians, maybe it should have been the other way around. The big difference, of course, is that I don't think too many Palestinians would have listened to the US had it told them to stay home and not vote. In the end, they made a choice that will be bad for Israel, of course, but even worse for themselves. (Not only because of how Israel will retaliate if Hamas attacks, but also because life under Hamas theocrats will be a nightmare in itself.)
- By: z on January 29, 2006

To Maryam: How do you figure out most of Iranians criticize Hoder's openion. let us see your poll. He is as legitimate as any other Iranian to be a social activist or citizen journalist and even represnt his very own ideas. If the fact that Islamic Republic didn't kill him makes him guilty, you are as guilty as him.
- By: old.times on January 29, 2006

I'm sure those Iranians who boycotted the presidential election, would'nt have changed their minds if George Bush had encouraged them to vote. You can criticize Bush for his double standard, but cannot suggest that he should encourage us to vote. It wouldn't work any ways. Reading your posts about your recent trip, I thought to myself, why Hoder thinks he is a representative of Iranians? To what group do you actually belong? Calling your self a citizen blogger doesn't make you a real world citizen or a typical Iranian, or an Iranian journalist. Remember, Iranians usually criticize your point of views and writings and don't trust you. How you went to Iran, last year, after writing everything against the government, and nothing happened to you, because of your suspecious relations you have in Iran. Tell your story as a tourist. Don't try to look important. Stay a realist journalist.
- By: Maryam on January 28, 2006

Hi Mr Derakhshan, Congrats on your article in NY times,I think thats a big step of becoming a more serious journalist in future rather than limiting your thoughts to your blog only ,however I almost disagree with all of your political views,I wrote about your trip to Israel in myblog and even praised it.I cant wait to read more reports from Israel. Cheers
- By: sina on January 28, 2006

Hi there, found your weblog after reading the NY Times article. I'm a journalist with a major US daily in the Pacific Northwest. While your article rings true in every aspect, you perhaps do not realize one important issue: the reason the US acts the way it does vis a vis Iran, is that the US government simply does not accept its Iranian counterpart in any shape or form. It does not matter if Khatami is your President or Ahmadinejad - the US has always had, and will always have a fundamental existential problem with people who rule from Tehran and who seek independence (more or less) from US policies and national interests. This is at the root of the double standards you refer to. Whether it's because of the hostage crisis, or political/military confrontations with Iran since 1978/79, or the fact that Iran simply has gone its own way and doesn't listen to us, the United States wishes to see the regime in Tehran vanish tomorrow. Unfortunately this has been the attitude in DC circles for more than two decades, and there are no signs of any reality check that will ameliorate this viewpoint. Good luck and best wishes.
- By: Erik on January 28, 2006

more taboo breakers? Though not controversial, as many Iranians visit and live in Israel, this is certainly a great pubicity move and regardless of that what you are doing is important for those living in Iran. I suggest you visit the Shoal (holocaust) museums while you are there. I had the opportunity, while in Berlin a couple of weeks ago, to visit a concentration camp in Oranienburg, which is just outside of Berlin, and it changed my life because it offers a deep understanding of what fascism is capable of and it does not take long to understand that there is a formula to all forms of fascism. BTW did you know about the Polish children of Iran? Thousands of Polish Jew's, sought and were given refuge inside of the country during the holocaust; I am sure that this is not in the school text books of the Iran of the Islamic Republic. Look it up...it's interesting. Take care and take pictures!
- By: b namus on January 28, 2006

Do you really think if the US government has encouraged the Iranian people to participate in a ragged election, the result would be different? Have you forgotten Ahmadi Nejad popped up from nowhere, and nobody expected him to win?
- By: Qmars on January 28, 2006

I did a double-take when I was looking at the op-ed page of the Times this morning and saw your name. Congratulations on getting published!
- By: Andy Carvin on January 28, 2006