I'm glad to see they've allowed Akbar Ganji out. And even more glad that he's not helping the "regime change" activists.
Although his invitation to Yale, where many of Shahriar Ahy's bunch are gathering, including Mohsen sazegara, could be a bit dangerous, especially if he doesn't know enough about them.
Someone should translate Connie Bruck's piece in the New Yorker a few months ago on Iranian Exile and U.S. regime change team and give it to him to read.
I finally left Toronto after about a month and am now at a small hotel, called Freeland, in Amsterdam which unbelievably provides free access to the internet.
I really had a good time in Toronto this time, mostly because I spent the last two weeks in my favorite neighbourhood around Queen St. West, near my favorite cafes and restaurants. (Vienna Bakery is my most most favorite.)
The reason I'm in Europe again, obviously, is a conference. This time it's called Expression under Repression which is about freedom of speech on the net and is organized by the progressive Dutch NGO, Hivos.
I'm going to speak at a panel on Wednesday at 15:45 on internet censorship in Iran. Jeff Jeff Ooi from Malaysia and Taurai Maduna from Zimbawa will be on the same panel as well. (Full program in Dutch)
The whole event will also be streamed live on its official website, if you're interested.
I'd also suggest you to check out stop.censoring.us, a blog I've created and kept with the help of some volunteers to watch internet censorship in Iran. I wish I had time to raise some funds for it so we could do a better job in documenting and reporting on Net censorship in Iran.
Khamanei sounds quite rational these days. Simply because the incompetent Bush administration has given him enough ammunition.
With Guantanamo and Abu Ghuraib, Bush has no moral authority to press other countries for their human rights record. And this has made our job so difficult (as an independent activists for an independent, open and accountable democracy in Iran) to oppose to what Khamenei is doing himself.
But one part of Khamanei's speeches, I can't really buy: "We do not need a nuclear bomb. We do not have any objectives or aspirations for which we will need to use a nuclear bomb. We consider using nuclear weapons to be against Islamic rules," he said.
Unlike Khamanei, I think it's the nuclear arms that Iran needs to produce, not nuclear energy. Taking so much risk (sanctions, isolation, military attacks, etc.) to produce nuclear energy just doesn't make any sense, when we have so many alternative and cheaper sources of energy.
But what alternative do we have to protect Iran's sovergnty and independence against big powers? (U.S. now, but soon to be China)
And what protects us against a radical nation with a violent and simplistic reading of Islam which has never liked Iranians or Shias in general?
That country is Pakistan and they already have nuclear bombs -- plus a radical, poor, uneducated and frustrated population with a puppet leader without whom no one knows who would be in control of the nukes.
I guess Iran would've have achieved more world support for its nuclear weapons program, had they been straight and honest about it. Because any government in Iran would have felt the same need for the weapons, simply because the Americans' main problem with Iran is not democracy, human rights, terrorism, etc. They just can't tolerate an independent state in the middle-east, be it under Pahlavi, Khamanei or anyone else.
Long ago, like many other observers, I had predicted and even suggested that a conservative government with Khamanei's approval and trust can easily do things Reformists could hardly dream of.
Now, after Khamanei publicly approved the direct talks with the U.S. in a really historical gesture, and the silly letter Ahmadinejad wrote to Bush, Ms. Rice has announced that U.S. wants to talk to Iranians.
I'm extremely happy that Rice has brought back realism to the White House. I congratulate her and Mr. Bush for finally realizing that the foreign policy advice they were getting from Mr. Cheney office has only resulted in failure and incompetence.
When I read in the Newsweek a while ago, when Cheney almost killed his hunting mate by accident, that Bush doesn't see Cheney every week for lunch any more, I kind of guessed this would to a whole new foreign policy, especially when it came to Iran.
Neither can I hide my happiness about the fact that the establishment in Iran is increasingly becoming realistic and rational.