Between Khamenei and Bush

It's the ultimate hypocrisy of the West to punish Iran for a crime Iran has not commited.

When no one has found the tiniest evidence of Iran breaking the non-proliferation treaty that it has signed, what international law justifies the UN security council's sanctions on Iran?

Since when the international law has been able to measure intentions of countries, if they say Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons? And how come the same UN Security council allows India, Pakistan to continue their attempts to produce and expand nuclear weaponry? (Although I repeat that I believe Iran has to produce weapons as deterrent after making peace with Israel.)

I believe Negri and Hardt are right to suggest that the new Empire, the United States, applies its dominance through supposedly neutral International organizations.

The more the clash between the West and Iran escalates, the more convinced I become that soon I have to take one side in this nasty conflict. Between Bush and Khamanei, I definitely take Khamanei's side.

Islamic Republic and Khamenei's worst is way better than anything that the United States or the European Union can bring to Iran.

And I'm saying this as a well-traveled Atheist who enjoys his best days of life in the wonderful capitals of Europe and who dreams of a secular Iran, run by a totally open democracy, with total peace with its neighbors including Israel. Not as a fanatic, religious support of Khamenei or Ahmadinejad or even Khatami.

My strong support for the reformists in Iran is more a matter of pragmatism, than an ideological one. I can't even tolerate having dinner with most of these people who still believe in God and heaven and hell -- and obviously never have tasted the joy of drinking May, or wine as it's known in Persian literature.

If the US waged a war against Iran, I'd absolutely go back and defend Iran. I can't let myself to sit down for a moment and watch they make a Baghdad out of Tehran.

Fortunately, I'm not alone.