Editor: Myself

Reproducing American Propaganda in Rooz's Cartoons

If you wonder why the Islamic Repbulic is suspicious about a possible American-Dutch partnership to fund Iranian opposition and reproduce the American propaganda, I would ask you to just take a look at these cartoons, published in Rooz, one of the Dutch-funded media projects on Iran.

The two editorial cartoons (One, Two) have been published at the same time that the U.S. has started its big campaign to accuse Iran of meddling in Iraq's affairs and helping the sectarian violence.

"Iran's footsteps in Iraq"

"Meddling?"

Mind you that the 15 million Euros funding was proposed by Farah Karimi, a Dutch-Iranian former MP and a former member of MEK (MKO), and is now being distributed among media projects in Persian ino rder to promote to promote Human Rights and Democracy in Iran.

Disclaimer: Until a few months ago, I was the website of Rooz. But due to some financial problems I don't work with them anymore. But I never had any editorial role in what they did. However, while I had the job I was bound to an oral agreement as to not publicly critise the content of Rooz.

Recent Articles in The Guardian

These are my recent articles published in The Guardian. You can leave
your comments at the end of each articles:

Stop bullying Iran
The Islamic Republic is worth defending. Even at its worst, it is way
better than anything the US or anyone else can bring to Iran.

Fight for your sites
Technology can beat internet censorship, but in some countries - such
as Iran - lawyers may be a better option.

I would go back and defend Iran, if Bush attacked

The BBC has revealed plans by the US Center of Command in Florida to heavily attack the military infrastructure in Iran. This is pretty serious, especially if you know Frank Gardner:

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

I've written before and I repeat it here. If the U.S. attacked Iran, despite all my problems with the Islamic Republic, I'd go back and fight these bastards.

The worst of Khamanei is hunderd times better than the best of Bush.

Hoder on Uvda, A Popular Show on Israeli TV

Watch me on Uvda, an Israeli TV show that did a short piece on my visit. And leave your comments here too. Oh, to buy an I love Tehran t-shirt, go to its official website.

To know more abuot my visit to Israel, please check out these articles:

• Iran-Israel Interface (January 2007) Jeruslaem Post.

• King of the Iranian bloggers (January 2007) Haaretz

• Web relations: Iranian blogs his way to Israel (January 2006) Jerusalem Post

Lily Mazahery and Iran Freedom Concert are Backed by Neo-cons

If you have also received an email from someone called Lily Mazahrey, asking your help, please be aware that she chairs the steering committee of the "Iran Freedom Concert," another Pentagon-backed organisation that is basically used to produce anti-Iranian propaganda and also organise Chalabi-style 'grassroots' groups. (I have written about Iran Freedom Concert before in this blog.)

She was also a speaker at the anti-Khamai crowd when he was in Boston last September, orginised by the same Iran Freedom Concert. This is quote from her speech:

Today, under the rule of a religious fundamentalist regime, the children of Cyrus the Great are confined to a prison of 70 million, where intolerance, violence, corruption, and oppression reign supreme. And Mohammad Khatemi, the man who has been invited to speak at this historic institution today, is very much a part of the reign of terror to which the Iranian people have been subjected for the past 27 years.

And you know what these crowds usually consist of: a mix of Neo-cons, Monarchists and MKO supporters. Khatami and reform is the only thing that can bring all these groups together.

So please give it a second thought if you want to help these people.

Tags: iran, regime change

Iran Is a Democracy, Abrahamian Says

I found this from an old news story, where Ervand Abrahamian, a progressive Iranian-American scholar, says that Islamic Republic is in fact a democracy:

Ervand Abrahamian, a U.S. citizen born in Iran, is professor of Middle East history at the City University of New York and was a participant in the Asia Society's panel discussion.

Abrahamian highlighted the democratic traditions of the Iranian constitution adopted after the 1979 revolution. Despite its obvious religious supremacy, he says, the constitution includes a mixture of references to individual rights and divine rights. But its democratic character is obvious, he says, as evidenced through the right of the general electorate to elect the parliament, the president and the local councils.

In the last 10 years, there has been an ongoing tug of war, Abrahamian says, pitting liberals who stress the democratic features of the constitution, against conservatives and fundamentalists who emphasize the theocratic features in the same constitution.

"This tug of war has produced a fundamental change in Iran -- I would say change as fundamental as the 1979 revolution. The change, basically, is in the whole discourse and the political culture. If you take key terms in the political language in the previous decades, the key terms in the language were terms such as 'revolution,' 'imperialism,' 'martyrdom,' 'crusade,' 'the dispossessed,' 'intoxication with the West.' The key terms now, especially in the last 10 years, are words such as 'democracy,' 'pluralism,' 'freedom,' 'equality,' 'liberty,' 'modernity,' 'civil society,' 'human rights,' 'dialog,' 'political participation' and the brand new term meaning 'citizenship,' " Abrahamian said.

Among the main changes promoted by liberals, Abrahamian says, are the condition that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei should supervise rather than directly control the state; that the Guardians Council (the Supreme Court) should give written justification for vetoing legislation and should not interfere in elections; and that the courts should abide by the laws and the constitution itself.

What is new, Abrahamian says, is that these arguments now are being developed by people with religious affiliations, many of them tenured in teaching at theological schools:

"What they have to say -- even though it doesn't sound new -- has much more impact because we can say, it is legitimized within the religious culture of the society. Therefore, I would say, it's more like a cultural revolution, rather than being imposed or brought in for new ideas from outside," Abrahamian said.

Tags: Iran, democracy

Meanwhile... The U.S Readies for a Nuclear Iran

The New York Sun reports that National Intelligence Council, the intelligence community's consensus-building body, has commissioned a study on the prospect of a nuclear Iran. This is good news.

But even better, is a quote a from a Liberal hawk, Kenneth Pollack, himself a supporter of Us invasion of Iraq before this mess starts:

A former CIA Iran and Iraq analyst, Kenneth Pollack, said yesterday that whether America could tolerate a nuclear Iran would depend on the current leadership of the regime. "I think at the end of the day, we could live with a nuclear Iran under the Khamenei leadership. From the death of Khomeini up to now, the Iranians have been nasty, murderous, and all those things, but they have not been reckless or irrational."

The World: We Needs More Power Point Presentations to Believe the Americans

So the U.S. has started to show evidence that the reason their plans for creating a democracy in Iraq is not working is not their own plans and policies, but it is Iran to blame.

I just wonder if they have also included some PowerPoint and low-quality audio clips too in which Mohammad, a top Iranian government official, speaks to someone saying "Listen Haji, you should work more on your advanced bombs. This one only killed 10 Americans. Did you hear me? I want you to improve the quality of your anti-American explosives."

It's very strange that the BBC has not created a Have Your Say for this story.

'Modern' Life in Iran?

Have you noticed that after Ahmadinejad's win, all of a sudden Iran has become the country of praying old women in chador for the media?

A few years before it was all about how young the population is and how this has affected the whole country in its values, behaviour and mood.

So it's definitely sad to see even a rather progressive publication such as Newsweek is falling into the same trap. Just take a look at its recent black and white photo album labeled 'Modern Life in Iran' and discover how the Newsweek sees Iran and how much it tries to break the sterotypical image of this complex country.

I wonder how the Traditional life in Iran would look like.

Javad Zarif: Bush is Creating Another Al-Qaida for The Future

Jacad Zarif, who is unfortunately leaving his post very soon, has been one of the best and most effective Iranian diplomats. He has raised some very valid questions in his recent op-ed in the New York Times:

But who can forget that Saddam Hussein used the very same scare tactic, invoking the “Iranian threat” to extort money, loyalty and military hardware from the region and the world, only to turn them later against his suppliers? Who cannot remember that to contain the supposed “Shiite Crescent” after the 1979 Iranian revolution, the extremism of the fundamentalist Salafi movement was nourished by the West — only to transform later into Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Why should the same policy in the same region produce any different result now?

Read the whole article below:

How Not to Inflame Iraq

By JAVAD ZARIF
Published: February 8, 2007

BEFORE the United States invaded Iraq on false pretexts nearly four years ago, the overwhelming view of analysts and diplomats was that war would plunge the region and the world into greater turmoil and instability. Echoing the views of my colleagues from the region and beyond, I told the Security Council on Feb. 18, 2003, that while the ramifications of the war could go beyond anyone’s calculations, “one outcome is almost certain: extremism stands to benefit enormously from an uncalculated adventure in Iraq.”

This assessment came not from any sympathy for the former Iraqi dictator or his regime. Certainly Iran — which had suffered the carnage of an eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s, and on which Saddam Hussein unleashed chemical weapons — had no affinity for him. Rather, it was based on a sober recognition of the realities of the region and the inescapable dynamics of occupation.

Now the United States administration is — unfortunately — reaping the expected bitter fruits of its ill-conceived adventurism, taking the region and the world with it to the brink of further hostility. But rather than face these unpleasant facts, the United States administration is trying to sell an escalated version of the same failed policy. It does this by trying to make Iran its scapegoat and fabricating evidence of Iranian activities in Iraq.

The United States administration also appears to be trying to forge a regional coalition to counter Iranian influence. But even if it succeeds in doing so, such a coalition will prove practically futile, dangerous to the region as a whole and internally destabilizing for Iraq. By promoting such a policy, the United States is fanning the flames of sectarianism just when they most need to be quelled.

Coalitions of convenience like the one the United States government now contemplates were a hallmark of American policy in the region in the 1980s and 1990s, and their effect then was to contribute to the creation of monsters like Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Short memories may be responsible for this ill-advised return to old habits.

But who can forget that Saddam Hussein used the very same scare tactic, invoking the “Iranian threat” to extort money, loyalty and military hardware from the region and the world, only to turn them later against his suppliers? Who cannot remember that to contain the supposed “Shiite Crescent” after the 1979 Iranian revolution, the extremism of the fundamentalist Salafi movement was nourished by the West — only to transform later into Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Why should the same policy in the same region produce any different result now?

There are already indications that extremists are exploiting the most emotional sectarian and ethnic divides in the region in an effort to sell possible collaboration with old and new occupiers of Arab lands to a restive, frustrated and resentful populace. Such a shortsighted campaign of hatred will compound regional problems, and it will have global implications, from the subcontinent to Europe and the United States, long after the current crisis in Iraq ends.

We need to remember that sectarian division and hatred in Iraq and the wider region was most recently instigated by none other than the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The shameful legacy of Mr. Zarqawi and his collaborators should have been buried with him. To that end, all of us in the region need to set aside shortsighted schemes and engage with the government of Iraq in a common effort to contain sectarian violence.

The Persian Gulf region is in dire need of a truly inclusive arrangement for security and cooperation. Only through such regional cooperation, with the necessary international support, can we contain the current crisis and prevent future ones. I wrote in these pages almost four years ago that the removal of Saddam Hussein provided a unique opportunity to finally realize the long sought objective of regional confidence-building and cooperation, as well as to reverse the dangerous trend of confrontation, exclusion and rivalry.

We have lost many valuable opportunities to effect this arrangement, with hundreds of thousands of innocent lives shattered in the interim. The forthcoming meeting of Iraq’s neighbors, to be held in Baghdad next month, will be a good place to begin this difficult but necessary journey toward regional security.

The American administration can also contribute to ending the current nightmare — and preventing future ones — by recognizing that occupation and the threat or use of force are not merely impermissible under international law, but indeed imprudent in purely political calculations of national interest. As authoritative studies have repeatedly shown, no initiators of war in recent history have achieved the intended results; in fact, in almost all cases, those resorting to force have ultimately undermined their own security and stature.

When 140,000 American troops could not bring stability to Iraq, and in fact achieved exactly the opposite, an additional 20,000 soldiers with a dangerous new mandate can only be expected to worsen tension and increase the possibility of unintended escalation. Only a reversal of the logic of force and occupation can dry up the hotbeds of insurgency.

Similarly, forging imaginary new threats, as the United States administration is now doing with Iran, may provide some temporary domestic cover for the failure of the administration’s Iraq policy, but it can hardly resolve problems that — as widely suggested — require prudence, dialogue and a genuine search for solutions.

We all need to learn from past mistakes and not stubbornly insist on repeating them against all advice — including the advice George Bush gave as a presidential candidate in 2000: “If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us; if we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us.”

Javad Zarif is the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations.

Hamid Dabashi Reads the Cover of 'Reading Lolita in Tehran'

Hamid Dabashi, the bravest and the most outspoken Iranian intellectual against the American hegemony in the Middle East, wrote a long, detailed and influential critique of Azar Nafisi's anti-Iranian propaganda-literature, Reading Lolita in Tehran, a few months ago.

But for me, the essence of his amazing essay lies where he discusses the cover of the book. To me, the cover symbolises what the neoconservative marketing machine behind this book has used the book to produce another piece of anti-Iranian material by an Iranian.

If you don't have time to read the entire essay, just read these two paragraphs.

The original picture from which this cover is excised is lifted off a news report during the parliamentary election of February 2000 in Iran. In the original picture, the two young women are in fact reading the leading reformist newspaper Mosharekat. Azar Nafisi and her publisher may have thought that the world is not looking, and that they can distort the history of a people any way they wish. But the original picture from which this cover steals its idea speaks to the fact of this falsehood.

The cover of Reading Lolita in Tehran is an iconic burglary from the press, distorted and staged in a frame for an entirely different purpose than when it was taken. In its distorted form and framing, the picture is cropped so we no longer see the newspaper that the two young female students are holding in their hands, thus creating the illusion that they are "Reading Lolita"--with the scarves of the two teenagers doing the task of "in Tehran." In the original picture the two young students are obviously on a college campus, reading a newspaper that is reporting the latest results of a major parliamentary election in their country. Cropping the newspaper, their classmates behind them, and a perfectly visible photograph of President Khatami--the iconic representation of the reformist movement--out of the picture and suggesting that the two young women are reading "Lolita" strips them of their moral intelligence and their participation in the democratic aspirations of their homeland, ushering them into a colonial harem.