Wednesday, 31 December 2008

Latest News from Iran

Diplomacy
· Ahmadinejad urges the "nations of the world" to "run to the rescue of the people of Gaza."
o Former president Mohammad Khatami's first vice president Mohammad-Reza 'Aref says "the recent events in Gaza are a stain of disgrace on Western civilization in the 21st century."
o Grand Ayatollah Montazeri condemns Israeli bombardment of Gaza, authorizes his followers to pay a third of their religious taxes as aid to the people of Gaza.
o Rafsanjani says Gaza is in need of military, political and diplomatic aid.
· Anti-Israel demonstrations in Tehran after the Friday prayers.
o Fars News Agency reports demonstrations in front of the Turkish and German embassies scheduled for Saturday.
o Arak Friday prayer leader Ayatollah Ahmad Mohseni Gorkani says the "kings of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are to blame for the bloodshed in Gaza."
o Unknown perpetrators attack the Saudi embassy in Tehran with Molotov cocktails.
o The Student Basij threatens to "throw out" the Jordanian ambassador to Iran if "Jordan fails to condemn Israel's attacks in Gaza in the next 84 hours."
§ Student Basij demonstrates in front of the Embassy of Jordan in Tehran.
o Mir-Ahmadi, representative of the Office of the Supreme Leader at universities, speaking to an assembly of "martyrdom seekers [suicide terrorism volunteers]" says the Supreme Leader's use of the words Koffar-e Harbi [combatant infidels] and Monafeqan-e Ommat [Hypocrites of the community of believers] is very important, and that the students should demonstrate, but that they should refrain from entering the premises of the embassies.
o 4,000 members of the Labeik Ya Khamenei [Answering the call of Khamenei] suicide unit demonstrate in front of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
· Agah-Sazi's analyst writes that the Student Basij's attack on the residence of the British ambassador in Tehran is a direct consequence of Revolutionary Guards chief Ja'fari's speech in which he said that the IRGC should assist the students to make conditions ripe for another "November 4, 1979," a reference to the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
o In an official statement, the Revolutionary Guards denies any involvement in the Student Basij's takeover of the Qolhak Garden residence of the British ambassador to Tehran and claim there is no connection between earlier remarks of the chief of the Guards on "preparing the grounds for recreation of the background for the November 4, 1979 event,” a reference to takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
o Members of the Student Basij leave Qolhak Garden, part of the British diplomatic mission.
o Nowrouz analyst wonders if the Student Basij members managed to enter the Qolhak Garden, the residence of the British ambassador in Tehran, because of coordination with the Law Enforcement Forces or because of the inherent weakness of the Law Enforcement Forces.
o Asr-e Iran defends Iran's ownership of the Qolhak Garden and stresses that the Iranian authorities should retain every inch of Iranian territory be it the Abu Musa, the Greater or Lesser Tonb islands, or the Garden of Qolhak, but stresses that the correct way of retaining ownership of the garden is not through violence.
§ Asr-e Iran also asks why the Student Basij raised the Palestinian flag inside the premises of the garden since the Garden of Qolhak belongs to Iran, not to Britain or Palestine.
o Members of the Student Basij who broke into the garden of the British ambassador's residence in Qolhak and raised the Palestinian flag attack "internal enemies" in a public statement: "The British are delusional and those who have their hands in the hands of the British and smile at Jack Straw and other English criminals… will never be allowed to strengthen their position in this country."
§ The Student Basij demanded transfer of the garden to Iranian authorities and closure of the Egyptian diplomatic interest section in Tehran.
o Spokesman of the Foundation for Preservation of Works and Values of the Sacred Defense says the attack against the garden of the residence of the British ambassador was meant as a message to the British government. Should they fail to evacuate the Garden of Qolhak, the revolutionary spirit of the Iranian people would "take the garden out of their claws."
· Former Ansar-e Hezbollah leader and current filmmaker Masoud Deh-Namaki, speaking to students staging a sit-in at Mehrabad airport, incites: "[I know] that if the Supreme Leader asks you to walk on mine fields you will do so...When the Supreme Leader says that who ever dies in this path is a martyr, there is no need to ask for religious permission and fatwas from others...Don't wait for visa or passport. Just go and fight the Zionists and deny them a good night's sleep."
o Sadeq Shahbazi, secretary of the Justice Seeking Student Movement, spoke to the students at Mehrabad about differences between "American Islam" and "Revolutionary Islam" and declared that as soon as the authorities provide the students with permits, they would leave Iran to fight "the war fighting infidels in the occupied land."
o Tehran parliamentarian Ali-Reza Zakani, speaking to Iranian students staging a sit-in at Mehrabad Airport: "We did not export the revolution with missiles...Support to the people of Gaza and clashing with the Zionist regime should take place by awaking different classes of the people in the entire world, like the Egyptians who are rising and revolting today."
o "Hezbollahi" forces stage sit in at Mashhad Airport and demand to be transported to Gaza to fight Israel.
o United Front of Bloggers call for registration of martyrdom seekers [suicide terrorists] willing to attack Israel.
o Suicide terrorist units stage rally in front of Tehran University.
§ (E) 20,000 students register as suicide terrorists.
o (E) Iranian doctors ready to go to Gaza.
o (E) Iranian Jewish leader urges help and support for Gaza.
· Iranian researcher Majid Tafreshi, in cooperation with Tabnak News Agency, publishes classified reports of British ambassador Parsons prior to the revolution in Iran.
· Parliamentary Speaker Ali Larijani says countries of the region will lose their independence if Israel realizes its regional ambitions, but adds Iran will oppose it.
· Hojjat al-Eslam Hassan Rowhani, the Supreme Leader's representative in the Supreme National Security Council, contradicts Ahmadinejad and says Iran does not benefit from U.N. Security Council Resolutions against Iran.
· Parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani travels to Syria on Monday.
· (E) Iraqi Prime Minister Maleki due in Tehran on Saturday.
· (E) Iraq ready to expel Mujahedin al-Khalq terrorists.

Military and Security
· Eraghi, the chief of the Mohammad Rasoulollah Revolutionary Guards unit of Greater Tehran says "when the circumstances are ripe, members of the Basij will liberate every inch of Palestine."
· The Islamic Republic Army establishes a research center.
· Hezbollah general secretary Nasrallah says Hezbollah will react in case of any Israeli ground offensive in Gaza.
· Ansar-e Hezbollah vigilante organization demands closure of the Hormuz Strait until Egypt opens its borders to Gaza.

Media
· Kargozaran banned after publishing an anti-Hamas communiqué from the Office of Consolidation of Solidarity student organization.
o Kargozaran editor Mehran Karami tries to convince the authorities that his newspaper remains anti-Zionist.
Politics
· Sa'id Ghasemi-Nezhad, a member of Office of Consolidation of Unity, attacks former president Khatami: "In our view, the presence of Khatami - in the way he was before - does not benefit himself, the nation nor the reform movement...There is no need for Mr. Khatami leading the reforms since this responsibility exceeds his abilities, knowledge and courage...It is often said that Mr. Khatami speaks well, but does few good deeds. Mr. Karrubi on the other hand does not speak so well, but his deeds are more numerous than Mr. Khatami. Nowadays, we even don't hear Mr. Khatami speak well...Mr. Karrubi is in my opinion a more suitable candidate than Mr. Khatami...he promises less, but acts more."
o An "informed source" close to former president Khatami says he will not run for president.
o Former Khatami vice president Abtahi says Khatami has not decided not to run for president.
· National Trust Party general secretary and presidential candidate Mehdi Karrubi: "The late Imam [Khomeini] always stressed the republican element of the Islamic Republic and the popular vote...Those who do not believe in popular vote and claim there is no need for voting are ignoring the statements of the Imam."
· Moetalefeh faction's Ghaffouri-Fard says former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi will run for president.
· Former Basij Chief Revolutionary Guards commander Ali-Reza Afshar appointed social affairs, cultural and city council affairs deputy at Interior Ministry.
· Professor Hamid Mowlana praises Ahmadinejad’s "statesmanship."
· Ahmadinejad in Sistan va Baluchistan province: "The spirit of the people of Sistan va Balouchestan is the spirit of martyrdom."
· Reformist theoretician Tajzadeh commenting on rumors that the Supreme Leader is unwilling to allow Khatami to run, says Khamenei will not oppose anyone's candidacy. Reformist Participation Front says it will not participate in elections if the result is engineered.
· Chief Inspectorate head Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi accuses the Khatami government of having made unauthorized withdrawals from the foreign exchange reserve.

Religion, Culture and Society
· Iranian authorities bury remains of unknown soldiers from Iran/Iraq war at Tehran University campus in order to "make the right spiritual atmosphere at the university."
· Shi'a News reports suppression of Shi'a in Kuwait, and says the Saudi Qatif province is encircled by the security forces.
· Bahraini Shi'a preacher Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qasem attacks new legislation which he says violates civil rights.
· Ayatollah Safi Golpayegani says the plight of the Shi'a in Pakistani city of Parachinar is worse than that of the Palestinians of Gaza.
· (E) Isfahan merchants now selling Chinese trinkets to tourists.

Human Rights and Labor
· 150 members of the Basij attack the home of Iranian Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi.
· Tea Factory workers write an open letter to Ahmadinejad threatening to strike if the government ignores the problems of the tea sector in Iran.
· 100 workers at Hegmataneh Petrochemical Plant in Hamadan demonstrate for back wages.

Economy
· Parliament votes 127-85 for the first draft of the economic reform plan.
· Meat price rises 25 percent.
· Central Bank reports 19.3 percent of the people of Iran live below the poverty line.

Trade
· Turkmenistan authorities impose their price upon Iran: Natural gas exported to Iran will be $350 per cubic meter.
Photos of the Day
· Student Basij attacks the residence of the British ambassador to Iran. More.
· Martyrdom seekers demonstrate in front of the Jordanian Embassy.
· American University Professor-turned Ahmadinejad advisor Hamid Mowlana stepping on Stars and Stripes.

Monday, 29 December 2008

Move to the euro haunts Ahmadi-Nejad : By Najmeh Borzogmehr

Published: December 29 2008
In 2007, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran’s colourful president, called the US dollar a “torn piece of paper” and in November last year his government changed the country’s base foreign currency to the euro in an effort to try and avoid US sanctions imposed as a result of the country’s nuclear programme. At the time, Mr Ahmadi-Nejad and his colleague Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela, even tried to persuade the other members of Opec to shift their reference prices for oil to the European currency, arguing that the greenback was fatally weakened.

A year on, however, and the Iranian government has had to live with a revival in the dollar’s fortunes and it is the rial that is in the doldrums. The rial has lost about 10 per cent against the dollar during the past month, even rising above the important 10,000 to the dollar mark for the first time in its history. It has since strengthened slightly back to 9,820. This has landed Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s government on the wrong side of public opinion, which views the rial’s value against the dollar as a central indicator of its economic strength. Although the rial has changed little if measured against a basket of currencies, including the euro and the pound, “people are only concerned about the dollar rate”, says one economist. In the aftermath of the Islamic revolution the rial collapsed, and the regime adopted a series of exchange rate policies in 1980s and 1990s by fixing at about half a dozen different rates against the dollar. But in 2001, a reformist government led by Mohammad Khatami officially adopted a policy of a managed float.
Yet successive Iranian governments, even before Mr Ahmadi-Nejad took office in August 2005, have followed an unstated policy of ensuring that the dollar traded at less than 10,000 rials.
Whenever the rate has looked close to crossing that mark, the central bank has injected dollars to bring it down again. But this time the authorities are choosing not to pump in dollars because the country’s oil revenues, the main source of income, are plummeting. Iran tries to receive its oil income in euros to avoid oversight by the US authorities, which could block the Islamic regime’s money over the controversial nuclear programme and alleged funding of terrorism.
Experts estimate that about two-thirds of the country’s $80bn foreign currency reserves are now held in euros, and government opponents have complained of a loss of about $5bn due to the European currency’s recent decline against the dollar. Mr Ahmadi-Nejad argues that the benefits of increasing euro share in the reserves still exceed recent losses. “We have had both economic and political gains by shifting from the dollar to the euro because the dollar was hugely weakened but this [the current strength of the dollar] will last for a short period of time,” Mr Ahmadi-Nejad said earlier this month, while vowing to run the country for a further three years even if oil prices fall to zero. However, the drastic fall in oil prices will still put the government budget under great pressure next year, and may leave it no choice but to devalue the rial. Analysts say that they do not expect this to happen before the presidential election in June.
In downtown Tehran, the main centre of currency trading, traders say that the stronger dollar is a natural reaction to world markets. They are, however, worried about the possibility of heavy-handed government interference – such as closure of their shops, which happened about 13 years ago – should the dollar strengthen further. “The government might accuse some traders of dollar smuggling, close their shops and urge people to buy hard currencies only from banks,” one trader says.

Saturday, 27 December 2008

HRH PRINCE REZA KORUSH PAHLAVI'S MESSAGE REGARDING THE CLOSURE OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICES IN TEHRAN

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us Image Hosted by ImageShack.us






هم میهنان عزیزم
رژیم بیدادگر اسلامی در تهران با خشم بسیار از ناتوانی در برابر خیزش مردم آزادیخواه به خاموش کردن فریاد آنها می پـردازد و دفتــر «دفاع از حقـوق بشر» در تهـران را می بندد و بس کـودکانه می پندارد که همۀ کاستی ها و کمبودها را با بستن یک دفتر کوچک به پایان رسانیده است
روشن نیست که این ایران ستیزانِ نابِخرد بی فرهنگ از کجا آمده اند ولی پس از سی سال زندگی در ایران باید بدانند که بستن یک دفتر در تهران برابر است با گشودن دهان میلیون ها ایرانی دادخواه که شمار روزافزون آنها به زودی ریشۀ ستم را از ایران بَرخواهد کَند
خیزش دادخواهانۀ مردم ایران ریشه در جاودانگی خون سیاوش دارد که روزی در جایی بر زمین فرو میچکد و در فردای آن روز از هزاران جای دیگر می جوشد و می بالد و سر برمی آورد
آیا از فرهنگ کهن این سرزمین نیاموخته اند که سرنوشت بیدادگران زندانی شدن در دماوند تاریخ است.
و هنوز شکوه دماوند و زبونی ضحاک به روشنی در اندیشه فرهنگ ساز ایرانی ماندگار و آشکار است
آیا پس از گذشت سده ها نافرمانی و بیزاری از اندیشۀ بیگانگان ایران ستیز کسی به آنها نگفته است که «مردم ایران» هیچگاه «اُمت» نمی شوند و باز هم ندیده اند که از جاودانگی واژۀ «ایران» پیداست که خاموش کردن این خروش هفت هزار ساله از توان تاریخ بیرون بوده است
امروز من نیز در جایگاه یک ایرانی میهن پرست سرنوشت بیدادگران را به دست دادخواهان ایران می سپارم و در این دادخواهی همراه و همرزم شما خواهم بود
خداوند نگهدار ایران باد
رضا پهلوی

8 Rahnemoud dar peyaam emrouz Kourosh Reza Pahlavi

LISTEN HERE : http://iranmehr.1iran.org/Sound/LbRezaPahlavi081226Rahnemoud.wma

FROM : iranmehr@1iran.org

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

LISTEN HERE : Part 01 - http://iranmehr.1iran.org/Sound/RfSayaas081228a.wma
Part 02 - http://iranmehr.1iran.org/Sound/RfSayaas081228b.wma-





گزارش سال ٢٠٠٨ دیده بان اجتماعی

شاخص برابرحقوقی جنسیتی در کشورھای جھان
حمید حمیدی دسامبر 2008
پیشکش بھ نسرین ستوده بھ پاس زحماتش در محو نابرابری جنسیتی
برابر حقوقی جنسیتی دارای ابعاد مختلفی است کھ بھ دلیل کمبود شاخص ھای دقیق ناظر بر آن، سنجش آن را با دشواری مواجھ می سازد. برای درک بیشتر بی عدالتی ھای جنسیتی و نیز نظارت ب ر تحولات این پدیده، دیدبان اجتماعی، گزارش برابر حقوقی جنسیتی در سال 2008 را منتشر نموده است. این گزارش براساس اطلاعات موجود، وضعیت کشورھا را بر اساس شاخص ھای انتخاب شده ی مرتبط با برابر حقوقی جنسیتی در سھ حوزه، تحصیلات، مشارکت در اقتصاد و مشارکت سیاسی،مشخص نموده و بھ مقایسھ آنھا با یکدیگر می پردازد. دیده بان اجتماعی در تھیھ گزارش مربوط بھ سال 2008 ،اطلاعات مربوط بھ 157 کشوررا در سھ حوزه اشاره شده،طبقھ بندی و برھمین اساس بھ بررسی وضعیت برابر حقوقی جنسیتی در 133 کشور،در مقایسھ با پنج سال گذشتھ پرداختھ است. بالاترین نرخ دراین گزارش ( 100 %) است کھ این نرخ مبین محو شکاف و نابرابری جنسیتی می باشد .جی .ای .آی در این گزارش میزان شکاف بین زن و مرد را جدا از مسائل رفاه آنان مشخص نموده است. برای مثال، کشوری کھ در آن دختران و پسران بھ طور مساوی قادر بھ ادامھ ی تحصیلات عالیھ دانشگاھی می باشند، از این دیدگاه در رتبھ ی 100 جای می گیرد و ھمچنان کشوری کھ در آن دختران و پسران ھر دو بھ طور مساوی از ادامھ تحصیل بالاتر از مقطع دبستان بی یھره اند نیز در رتبھ 100 جای می گیرد.این نوع رتبھ بندی بھ معنای عدم اصلاح پذیری کیفیت تحصیلات نیست بلکھ رفاٌ بدین معناست کھ دختر و پسر ھر دو بھ طور مساوی از کیفیتی یکسان بی بھره اند . در این فھرست تحصیلات تنھا مولفھ ایی است کھ بسیاری از کشورھا در آن بھ واقع بھ یک سطح تساوی رسیده اند و ھنگامی کھ این تساوی بھ دست می آید، ھیچ گونھ پیشترفت بعدی، دیگر ممکن نیست. جدا از این واقعیت کھ بسیاری از کشورھا، نھ تنھا پیشترفتی نمی کنند بلکھ مولفھ تحصیلات شاخص برابری جنسیتی، نشان می دھد کھ بسیاری از آنھا حتی در حال نزول می باشند. در دو مولفھ دیگر کھ مربوط بھ مشارکت زنان در زندگی اقتصادی و سیاسی است، ھیچ کشور ی برابری و تعادل کاملی را نشان نمی دھد. نمودار شکاف جنسیتی در کشورھای جھان مولفھ برابری جنسیتی اثبات می کند کھ اختلاف درآمد بین کشورھا دلیل و توجیھ قابل قبولی برا ی نابرابری حقوقی بین زن و مرد نمی باشد.برای تبین این مطلب باید افزود کھ، بسیاری از کشورھا ی فقیر بھ رده بالایی از تساوی حقوق دست یافتند کھ این موضوع حتی زمانی ھم کھ این برابری بھ معنای تقسیم عادلانھ ی فقر باشد، پیشترفت و موفقیتی مثبت در راستای رسیدن بھ اھداف شاخص برابری جنسیتی می باشد. در حقیقت، اغلب عکس این قضیھ صادق است: بسیاری از کشورھایی کھ میانگین ارقام قابل قبولی در شاخص ھای اجتماعی داشتند، اغلب در پشت میانگین بالای اختلاف بین زن و مرد پنھان م ی شوند. رفع تبعیض ھای جنسیتی می تواند توسط سیاستھای فعال بھ انجام رسد و نیازمند این نیست کھ کشورھا سطح درآمدھایشان را برای موفقیت و پیشترفت در این زمینھ گسترش دھند. سوئد، فلاند و نروژ ھمچنان در بالاترین رده ھای سال 2008 جی. ای. آی قرار دارند. اگر چھ این سھ کشور ھر سھ حوزه ای را کھ گزارش بر مبنای آنھا تنظیم گردیده است را مورد پوشش قرار نداده اند ولی در ھمھ ی آنھا، عملکرد قابل قبولی ارائھ داده اند. آلمان در رده ی چھارم و روندا-یکی از فقیرترین کشورھای جھان- در رده ی پنجم این فھرست جا ی می گیرد. در تمام این موارد اختلافات جنسیتی بھ سبب سیاستھای فعال و موثر از جملھ سھمیھ ی جنسیت ی برای مشارکتھای سیاسی در ھیاتھای انتخاباتی و ائتلافھای طرفداران تساوی حقوق زن و مرد در بازار کار ،کمتر شده است.
جی.ای.آی) )(Gender Equity Index) GEI
( سازمان دیده بان اجتماعی- گزارش سال 2008 )*http://www.socialwatch.org
آدرس اصلی در سایت دیده بان اجتماعی:

بنا به گزارشهای منتشرشده، روز جمعه، ۶ دی ماه ۱۳۸۷، مردی در گورستان بهشت رضا در شهر مشهد سنگسار شده است . بر اساس این گزارش، دو مرد که به سنگسار محکوم شده بودند، هم زمان در خاک قرار گرفته و سنگسار شدند. اما یکی‌ از این دو نفر، به نام محمود، موفق شد که خود را از گودال بیرون بکشد و آزاد سازد. وی به این ترتیب از مرگ با سنگسار رهایی یافت . اما مرد دیگر، که نام او هنوز فاش نشده است، با سنگسار به قتل رسید .اتهام این دو نفر هنوز معلوم نیست و آن­ها در شعبه ۵ دادگاه کیفری استان خراسان به سنگسار محکوم شده بودند. این حکم در حالی‌ اجرا شده است که جمهوری اسلامی اجرای حکم سنگسار را در مقابل مراجعه بین المللی انکار می‌کند . همچنین، مراقبت‌های ویژه امنیتی برای جلوگیری از پخش اخبار مربوط به سنگسار وجود دارد. از این رو، این خبر در نشریات داخل کشور هنوز بازتاب نیافته است

گزارشی از سنگسار اخیر شهر مشهد

جمعه ، 13 دی 1387 ، 13:56
در طی روزهای اخیر اخبار متفاوتی از اجرای احکام سنگسار در شهر مشهد منتشر گردیده است که بعضاً در تعداد ، ماهیت و اتهام افراد سنگسار شده ایجاد شبهه نموده است . بر این اساس جهت تنویر افکار عمومی لازم به توضیح دیدیم ، در تاریخ 6 دی ماه سال جاری در شهر مشهد دو زندانی متهم به زنا با حکم دادسرای عمومی شهر مشهد در گورستان اصلی این شهر به نام بهشت رضا سنگسار گردیدند.یکی از متهمان پس از آغاز اجرای حکم سنگسار با تقلای بسیار و در حالی که به شدت مجروح بود موفق شد از گودال خارج شود و طبق احکام شرعی سنگسار وی متوقف گردید اما متهمی دیگر به دلیل آسیبهای وارده ناشی از اصابت سنگ جان خود را از دست داد.مراسم پرتاب سنگ در حدود 40 دقیقه به طول انجامیده بود.قربانی این مجازات غیر انسانی فردی به نام هوشنگ خداداده ، 36 ساله می باشد که متهم به زنا گشته بود ، وی که اهل تهران می باشد در حدود هشت سال قبل به جرم قاچاق مواد مخدر محکوم به اقامت اجباری سه ساله در تربت حیدریه واقع در استان خراسان گردیده بود . نامبرده در سال 1384 به اتهام زنا بازداشت و حکم رجم (سنگسار) وی پس از سه سال تحمل زندان به اجرا درآمد . برخلاف آنچه یکی از روزنامه های داخلی مدعی گردیده بود وی پیرو مذهب بهاییت نبوده است و متهم زن این پرونده به نام م.خ نیز با حکمی مشابه هم اکنون در بند نسوان زندان وکیل آباد مشهد در انتظار اجرای حکم سنگسار خود
گفتگو با پروین اردلان و فیلم پیام خا نم ستوده در ایتا لیا
در لینک زیر میتوانید گفتگو با دکتر سلطانی را در ارتباط با کانون و حق تشکل ملاحظه کنید

Friday, 26 December 2008

Christmas message from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is 'sick' - By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent

Channel 4's Christmas message from the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been criticised by the Government,

Channel 4's Christmas message from the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been criticised by the Government, branded a "national embarrassment" by Israel and led to an outcry by human rights campaigners. -

In his "alternative Christmas message", President Ahmadinejad criticised world leaders for their lack of spirituality and said that Christ would oppose "warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over" if he were alive today. Mr Ahmadinejad was the first secular president to be elected in Iran for 24 years but his aggressive rhetoric and desire to build a nuclear arsenal has caused worries across the Middle East. In March last year Iran captured 15 Royal Navy sailors on duty in the Gulf and paraded them on television before releasing them, 13 days later, as an “Easter gift” to the British people. Channel 4's decision to give the Iranian president a platform has been criticised on the grounds of his country's poor human rights record, his denial of the Holocaust and his desire to see Israel "wiped off the map". The speech was broadcast at 7.15pm rather than clashing with the Queen's speech on the other terrestrial channels. The president used the message to call Christ, who is considered a Muslim prophet, a "standard-bearer of Justice". Speaking in Farsi with English subtitles, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "The crises in society, the family, morality, politics, security and the economy which have made life hard for humanity and continue to put great pressure on all nations have come about because the prophets have been forgotten, the almighty has been forgotten and some leaders are estranged from god." He finished by praying for the New Year to be "a year of happiness, prosperity, peace and brotherhood for humanity". But the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had made "a series of appalling anti-Semitic statements" during his time in office. A spokesman added: "The British media are rightly free to make their own editorial choices, but this invitation will cause offence and bemusement not just at home but amongst friendly countries abroad." The Israeli Embassy branded the Christmas message a "sick and twisted irony" and Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor said: "In Iran, converts to Christianity face the death penalty. It is perverse that this despot is allowed to speculate on the views of Jesus, while his government leads Christ's followers to the gallows." He said Channel 4's decision to broadcast the message was a "scandal and a national embarrassment" and in "its search for ratings and shock factor, Channel 4 has lost its ethical way". Rabbi Aaron Goldstein, of Liberal Judaism, said: "The Queen's speech is so benign that it is worthwhile having something thought-provoking. "But doing a sort of lucky dip to pick out a controversial character, then allowing him to make a lovey-dovey speech, that this character is being allowed to dress himself up as a kind of Father Christmas, that is problematic." However, Channel 4 received support from Ben Summerskill, director of gay rights group Stonewall who said that the speech was "an important way of reminding him that there are some countries where free speech is not repressed". Channel 4 head of news and current affairs Dorothy Byrne defended the decision to broadcast the message. She said: "As the leader of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East, President Ahmadinejad's views are enormously influential. "As we approach a critical time in international relations, we are offering our viewers an insight into an alternative world view. "Channel 4 has devoted more airtime to examining Iran than any other broadcaster and this message continues a long tradition of offering a different perspective on the world around us." The broadcaster courted controversy with its alternative message since it was introduced in 1993. In 2006 a veiled British Muslim woman used the message to attack Jack Straw for his criticism of the niqab [face veil] earlier the same year.

See the full video here : http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1184614595/bctid5777729001

Wednesday, 24 December 2008

TEHRAN GREETS CHRISTMAS WITH MORE EXECUTIONS!

December 25, 2008 IRVAJ Shaheen Fatemi
TEHRAN GREETS CHRISTMAS WITH MORE EXECUTIONS!
Today, while many in the world celebrate the message of ‘peace on earth, good will to men’, the blood-thirsty tyrants in Tehran have marked the day with their own trade-mark: death and intolerance. The year is not over yet but with 317 executions the regime has broken its own record for recent years and holds the dubious and shameful second place, after China, as the world champion government of murder. Once again women and children constitute a good part of this year’s list of victims. For how long is the civilized world and its decent people are going to remain silent in face of such atrocities? This government should be driven out of all international organizations and any other legitimate gathering of democratic governments. Let this out-law regime Keep Company with Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea and similar despicable dictatorships. To remain indifferent in face of all these barbarous acts will not be judged lightly by history. No nation and no government in the world can claim tomorrow that they were not aware of the fact that an entire nation has been taken hostage by this unlawful government which is responsible for such heinous acts in Iran.

اعدامهای دسته جمعی قتل عام در ابعاد کوچک
جعفر پویه
رژیم ددمنش و آدمکش جمهوری اسلامی روز گذشته 9 نفر را در زندان مخوف اوین به دار آویخت. این درحالی است که در هفته گذشته نیز 5 نفر را در شهر قم به دار آویخته است.
سیستم قضایی رژیم آدمکش ولایت فقیه که بر اساس قوانین عهد بادیه نشینی دادگاه های خود را تشکیل می دهد، در عمل آدمکشی و قتل متهمان را با دست آویز قرار دادن احکام مذهبی قصاص توجیه می کند. قتل آگاهانه و جانشین کردن انتقام به جای اجرای عدالت و کینه کشی و واگذار کردن زندگی و مرگ یک انسان به عهده اولیای دم، کاری است که سیستم قضایی رژیم اسلامی انجام می دهد. با این کار آنها بار اخلاقی و اجتماعی این گونه آدمکشیها را به گردن کسانی می گذارند که در پرونده از آنان با عنوان "اولیای دم" نام برده می شود. اگر اینگونه قضاوت و دادخواهی مجاز باشد، چه نیازی به دم و دستگاه عریض و طویل قضاییه است؟
چنین رویه ای که ارتکاب به قتل آگاهانه و عمدی با حمایت و پشتیبانی دستگاه پلیسی رژیم توسط شخص دیگری انجام می گیرد، می تواند در هر مکان و یا جای دیگری بدون وجود این همه دم و دستگاه عریض و طویل هم اجرا شود.
رژیم جمهوری اسلامی با حاکم کردن قوانین مذهبی بر دادگاه های عمومی و تبدیل دادخواهی و اجرای عدالت به کینه کشی و انتقام جویی در پناه دستگاه قضایی خویش، در عمل به یکی از جنایتکار ترین سیستمهای قضایی جهان تبدیل شده است.
قتل و آدم کشی رویه پایوران رژیم جمهوری اسلامی است. اگر چه بخشش یا مرگ محکوم را به عهده اولیای دم می گذارد اما بدیهی است که در انتها این سیستم جنایتکار آنهاست که اجازه آدمکشی را صادر می کند. در هفته گذشته بنا به گفته مصطفا برزگر گنجی، دادستان عمومی و انقلاب قم دو نفر از اعدام شدگان به اتهام مواد مخدر، دو نفر به اتهام تجاوز و یک نفر به دلیل ادعای امامت به چوبه دار سپرده شده است. در سیستم قضایی‌ای که متهمان دستگیر شده در زمان بازجویی تحت فشارهای شدید و غیر انسانی قرار می گیرند و از حضور وکیل آنها جلوگیری می شود و در نهایت وکیل تنها در روز محکمه و به طور صوری در دادگاه حضور دارد، چگونه می توان ادعاهای دم و دستگاه آدمکشی را در مورد افراد محاکمه شده باور کرد؟ در ثانی این چگونه دادگاهی است که کسی را تنها به جرم ادعای امام بودن به چوبه دار می سپارد و از کرده خود نیز شرم نمی کند؟
اعدامهای جمعی رژیم جمهوری اسلامی حکم قتل عام در اندازه کوچک را دارد. این رژیم به طور پیوسته محکومین دادگاه های غیر انسانی خود را به صورت دستجمعی به چوبه دار می سپارد. این قتلهای جمعی باید از سوی همه مجامع بین المللی و وجدانهای آزاد و انسانهای ترقیخواه محکوم گردد. یابد جلو دستگاه آدمکشی رژیم ولایت فقیه را گرفت. این رژیم با نصیحت و درخواست دست از رویه غیر انسانی خود برنمی دارد. برچیدن بساط این رژیم آدمکش و ضد انسان تنها راه جلوگیری از اعدامهای دستجمعی و قتل و کشتار محکومین بیدادگاه های غیر انسانی ولایت فقیه است.

Opium Trade by the mullah / Talebans

More than one-third of Afghan opium smuggled to Iran.
State-run Afghan Bakhtar News Agency reports on a documentary about smuggling of narcotics from Afghanistan to Iran and then to Iraq and Europe broadcast by Aljazeera News Network: 2,500 tons out of 8,200 tons of drugs produced in Afghanistan are trafficked to Iran and then smuggled to Iraq and Europe. 500 tons are consumed domestically in Iran and a similar quantity is seized by the Iranian police. The rest is smuggled to Iraq via Amana border region. 1,000 tons are then trafficked to Europe through Iraq’s northwestern borders. Afghanistan produced 8,200 tons of opium in 2007 – making 93% of world’s opium production. According to the U.N., the Taliban benefited about $100 million from the illicit drugs trade in 2007, and the figure has reached $300 million this year.
Afghan paper analyzes bilateral relations between Iran and Afghanistan.
The author criticizes Afghan officials for depending on foreign countries’ support to boost their political power, rather than to ensure Afghanistan’s national interest. He criticizes Vice President Karim Khalili for lavishly thanking the Iranian government’s role in bringing stability in Afghanistan and rendering hospitality to Afghan refugees at a time when Tehran is accused of helping Afghan opposition groups and has stepped up forced repatriation of Afghan refugees recently. “There are reports that the Taliban are provided with Iranian-made weapons in a mysterious way. A Taliban commander has boasted about using Iranian weapons against the Afghan government and coalition forces, especially Iranian anti-tank mines dubbed as ‘dragon’.
The article also quotes Afghan parliament’s second deputy chairman, who is part of the delegation visiting Iran, as saying: “We consider Iran a second home. We believe that if neighboring countries, particularly Iran, play an active role in Afghanistan’s reconstruction, we will not need the presence of foreigners in our land.”
Iran’s expulsion of Afghan refugees may trigger humanitarian crisis.
Shah Mohammad Maheq, the head of Afghan returnees in Herat Province, has warned of an imminent humanitarian crisis unless Iran halts forced repatriation of Afghan refugees in winter time. Maheq says Iran has recently stepped up eviction of Afghan refugees. This year, some 130,000 Afghans have been expelled from Iran to Herat through Islam Qala port. The returnees have no access to food and shelter. Maheq called on Kabul to put pressure on the Iranian embassy to slow down the expulsion of Afghan refugees and also asked the humanitarian aid agencies to help the homeless returnees. Iranian President Ahmadinejad had earlier said that Afghan refugees in Iran would face a six-month term in prison and forced repatriation if they failed to return voluntarily. Some two million Afghans live in Iran.

WHY THE MULLAHS ARE GIVING 11 MILLION BARRELS OF CHEAP OIL TO PAKISTAN ON THE NEVER - NEVER ?

Iran to give 30,000 barrels oil/day on deferred payment
By Ijaz KakakhelISLAMABAD: Pakistan and Iran have entered an arrangement under which Iran would provide 30,000 barrel crude oil per day to Pakistan on 90-day deferred payment, a well-placed source in the Ministry of Petroleum confided to Daily Times here on Tuesday. At present, Iran is providing Pakistan 10,000 barrel crude oil per day on 30-day deferred payment to help Pakistan meet its energy needs. The facility would be available to Pakistan at a time when the country’s foreign exchange reserves are under severe pressure. Pakistan Refinery Limited (PRL) is the only refinery, which would refine the Iranian crude oil. “With the passage of time when import of Iranian crude oil is increased, the refining capacity of the PRL and other companies would need enhancement,” source maintained. Adviser to the Prime Minister on Petroleum and Natural Resources, Dr Asim Hussain on Tuesday said Pakistan was vigorously pursuing Iran – Pakistan – India (IPI) gas pipeline project to meet the growing energy demands. The advisor expressed these views during a meeting with Iranian Ambassador in Pakistan Mashallah Shakari. The two sides expressed satisfaction with the progress in IPI gas pipeline project and maintained that its early implementation would also serve to strengthen and expand the economic and trade relations among the regional countries. Pakistan’s delegation, led by Dr Asim Hussain, would visit Tehran on 29 December 2008 to sort out the issue of price revision in the signing of GSPA of the IPI project. It merits mentioning here that President Asif Ali Zardari also instructed the Ministry of Petroleum to speed up work on the IPI gas pipeline project. Talking to the Iranian Ambassador, the advisor said that IPI is an important component of Pakistan’s long-term energy plan and the government is therefore fully committed to complete the project as early as possible. The adviser said Pakistan and Iran have a long history of friendship and enjoy excellent brotherly relations in diversified fields, which were growing and s strengthening with the passage of time. Asim said that oil and gas co-operation between the two countries would further open up new vistas for their mutual advantage. He invited Iranian investors to avail the investment opportunities in Pakistan’s oil and gas sector.

To Pay off the blackmaillers !

Iran urges Pakistan to speed up release of kidnapped diplomat - Tehran, Dec 24, IRNA
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki expressed hope on Tuesday that Pakistan would take immediate action to help release Iranian diplomat abducted in that country last November. Mottaki made the remarks in a meeting with advisor to the Pakistan prime minister on finance affairs, Shaukat Tarin, who arrived in Tehran on Monday to attend the 3rd ministerial meeting of the Economic Cooperation Organization. ECO member states include Afghanistan, Azerbaijan Republic, Iran, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. The commercial attache of Iranian Consulate in Peshawar, Heshmatollah Attarzadeh Niaki, was abducted by unknown gunmen and taken to an unclear place on November 13 while he was on his way to work with his driver.
The Iranian minister stressed the need for promotion of Tehran-Islamabad ties in all fields, particularly trade activities. Mottaki said that the ECO was a good example of successful regional convergence. The minister added that Tehran and Islamabad should make necessary moves to hold the next ECO summit. The Pakistani official said, for his part, that there were many potentials for expansion of Tehran-Islamabad economic relations. He added that Pakistan could link the ECO to the South Asian Association Of Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

Sunday, 21 December 2008

Iran shuts office of human rights group : By Thomas Erdbrink

Nobel laureate's center accused of propaganda

Shirin Ebadi (center), a Nobel Peace laureate, left the Center for Defenders of Human Rights that she heads in Tehran. Shirin Ebadi (center), a Nobel Peace laureate, left the Center for Defenders of Human Rights that she heads in Tehran. (Vahid Salemi/ Associated Press)

TEHRAN - Iranian authorities yesterday closed the office of the country's main human rights organization, led by Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi. Dozens of plainclothes detectives along with local police officers entered the Center for Defenders of Human Rights in Tehran and shut it down hours before a ceremony was to take place commemorating the 60th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights.

According to members of the organization, which has been active since 2000, the police had been informed beforehand of the meeting, at which political activists were scheduled to speak."The general human rights activities of this nongovernmental organization are the reason for this illegal reaction," the center's leadership said in a statement. Center officials speculated that the closure was in part a response to a United Nations resolution issued last Thursday that expressed "deep concern" about the human rights situation in Iran.Iran has been protesting for months against the resolution, which was first put forward by Canada. In October, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon issued a special human rights report that called upon Iran to address concerns such as "amputations and corporal punishment. "Ebadi's organization assisted the UN in compiling the report. "Many international organizations quote our reports, including the report by the secretary general, which resulted in a resolution against the government of the Islamic republic of Iran," the center's statement said.An interior ministry commission, which gives permits for political organizations, said the center was carrying out illegal activities such as publishing statements, writing letters to international organizations, and holding press conferences, the semiofficial press agency Mehr News reported.The commission, according to the agency, accused Ebadi's center of distributing propaganda against the state. The report also cited repeated warnings delivered to the center, and said the building had been sealed on the orders of Tehran's top prosecutor.In a telephone interview, Ebadi called the closure "illegal" and "unacceptable." Ebadi vowed to reopen the center, saying that "the police actions are against the law."Ebadi acknowledged that the Center for Defenders of Human Rights did not have a permit to operate, but said that legalization of the organization had been blocked by the authorities.Since its founding, the organization has taken on 5,000 pro bono cases defending politically active women, journalists, and students, said Nargess Mohammadi, a spokesperson for the center.Yesterday, guests were still arriving for the ceremony when Ebadi and her colleagues were escorted out of the building by police officers.They had refused to leave their offices for more than an hour."This was supposed to be one of the few happy events for activists in Iran," said Asieh Amini, a journalist who focuses on human rights issues.

Protesters target home of Iran Nobel laureate
Thu Jan 1, TEHRAN (AFP) –

Dozens of protesters demonstrated outside the home of Iranian Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi on Thursday, chanting slogans accusing her of supporting US and Israeli "crimes," she told AFP.Around "150 demonstrators gathered outside my building and chanted slogans opposed to me," Ebadi said.They chanted "America and Israel commit crimes, Ebadi supports them," said the lawyer and human rights activist.The protesters dispersed 30 minutes later as police deployed but before leaving they scribbled graffiti on the facade of the building and tore down the sign of her office which is housed in the same building, she said.Ebadi described the incident as an "attack" but said "it has nothing to do with what is happening in Gaza because we published two days ago a statement condemning what is going on and supporting the Palestinians."Tehran has been gripped by almost daily protests since Israel launched last week a deadly onslaught against the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip in retaliation from rocket fire from the Palestinian enclave.Last week Iranian police raided the private office of Ebadi, who won the Nobel peace prize in 2003.On December 21 they raided and shut down the office of her Human Rights Defenders Centre, signalling a toughening crackdown on rights groups in the Islamic republic.Iranian authorities said the rights group office was shut down because the centre did not have an interior ministry permit to operate.

نامه سرگشاده دکتر ملکی به شیرین عبادی


از سایت ایران لیبرال
نامه سرگشاده دکتر ملکی به شیرین عبادی:
چرا برای دفاع از حقوق خود و دیگران مقاومت صلح جویانه نمیکنید‎

http://www.iranpressnews.com/source/052275.htm

Why Ahmadinejad Fears Khatami : Friday 19 December 2008By Amir Taheri

The Islamic Republic in Iran is facing "a sinister international conspiracy" designed to "replace religious rule with secularism." The plot was allegedly hatched by a "secret society of Freemasons" known as the Bilderberg Group whose members include many of the Western world's richest and most powerful businessmen and politicians.The alleged conspiracy was finalized at a secret meeting of the group in June 1999 in Caesar Park Hotel in the Portuguese resort of Penha Longa. Inside Iran, the executors of the "plot" included the so-called Reform Movement symbolized by former President Mohammed Khatami who attended the meeting along with his then assistant on environmental affairs Mrs. Massoumeh Ebtekar.The so-called Bilderberg "lodge" is often described by conspiracy theorists as "the secret government of the world".According to the report published by IRNA, the "plot" included building up Abdul-Karim Sorush, a self-styled philosopher and erstwhile Khatami protégé, as "the Martin Luther of Islam" with a message of separating religion from politics. They also tried to "transform Khatami into an Islamic [version of Mikhail] Gorbachev."Wow! A tall story from the rumor-mills in the marshlands of the Internet? Not at all. The claim comes in a lengthy report published by the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), the official organ of the Khomeinist regime in Tehran.The claim is worth noting for two reasons. The first is that it is presented by the official organ of the state. Claims that the former president had a part in foreign plots against the regime have been made by radical Khomeinist groups and websites since 2005 when Khatami's eight-year presidency ended. However, this is the first time that such a claim is given prominence by mainstream organs of the regime. The accusation was first published by the mass-circulation daily newspaper Kayhan whose Editor-in-Chief is appointed by the "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei. The paper, which has promised "more sensational revelations", has often been used for character-assassination campaigns against critics of the regime, and makes no secret of its dislike for Khatami and his supposedly "reformist" supporters. Putting the claims on IRNA, however, marks a new step in the campaign against Khatami.The second reason why the episode is worth noting is that it indicates a dramatic intensification of the power struggle in Tehran. The radical revolutionary groups led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are beginning to fear a possible Khatami candidacy in next June's presidential elections.However, before we deal with the political implications of the campaign let us first deal with its substance.Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as the Bilderberg Group or Masonic lodge. What we have is an annual private meeting of influential individuals, mostly from Europe and the United States, designed to generate free discussions on a range of issues without a pre-set agenda and according to the so-called Chatam House rules under which there are no reports of the proceedings and none of the participants could be quoted by name.The first meeting was held at Hotel de Bilderberg near Arnhem in Holland in 1954 at the invitation of Prince Bernhard, the husband of the then Queen Juliana. The number of guests was fixed at 130 and initially only limited to politicians, academics and business people from member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Later, the meeting extended its reach and started inviting personalities from all over the world, according to which countries happened to be in the news. The invitations were designed to include two representatives from each country, one liberal and one conservative.Over the past half a century, almost anybody who was somebody in international business or politics has made at least one appearance at the group's annual meetings. Thus, if this were a gathering of conspirators we would have to assume that virtually the whole of the global leadership elite consists of Masonic plotters. Last June, for example, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both attended the Bilderberg meeting along with more than 60 other political figures from across the globe.From the late 1960s until 1977, a number of Iranian politicians, academics and business people attended one or more of the group’s gatherings - always with the understanding that they were there as private individuals. However, no Iranians were invited after the Khomeinist seizure of power in 1979. That such invitations were resumed in 1999 indicated the hopes raised by Khatami that the Islamic Republic could close its revolutionary phase and return to the mainstream as a normal nation-state.The IRNA campaign against Khatami shows that those hopes were premature. Even if one assumes that Khatami was sincere in his desire to normalize the Islamic Republic, the election of President Ahmadinejad showed that a majority of Khomeinists who provide the regime's support-base reject such change.Nevertheless, the question has not gone away. Many within the Khomeinist establishment realize that a majority of Iranians are tired of Khomeinism and desire normalization. The next presidential election, to be held in June, is likely to be fought on that issue. And Khatami is coming under pressure from inside and outside Iran to stand for election again, challenging Ahmadinejad's radicalism with a message of reform and moderation.The IRNA report shows that the radical factions fear a Khatami candidacy and are trying to terrorize him into not becoming a candidate. As always, the Khomeinists shun serious arguments. They prefer accusing their critics of atheism, secularism or, as in this case, collaboration with foreign conspiracies.The tactic may work against Khatami who has never been much of a fighter. But even if Khatami does not enter the presidential race, the main question will remain: how should Iran come out of the impasse created by a bankrupt ideology?

Friday, 19 December 2008

Ahmadi- nejad and his reletives in IRI's government

توجه شما را جلب می‌کنم به مبارزه جناب احمدی نژاد با فامیل بازی در دولت نهم: MAIN.JPGMAIN.JPGMAIN.JPG

مهندس زریبافان (دبیر هیات دولت)

داوود مددی

رییس سازمان تامین اجتماعی

باجناق زریبافان

سید محسن نبوی

عضو هیات مدیره شركت سرمایه گذاری خارجی

داماد زریبافان

علیرضا مددی

مدیركل وزارتی وزارت تعاون

برادرزاده باجناق زریبافان

ناظمی اردكانی

وزیر تعاون

شوهر عمه داماد زریبافان

دانش جعفری

وزیر اقتصاد

پسر عمه پدر داماد زریبافان

هاشمی ثمره (مشاور عالی ، رییس ستاد انتخابات کشور و همه کاره رییس جمهور)

مهندس مهدی هاشمی ثمره

مدیر كل وزارتی وزیر نیرو

برادر هاشمی ثمره

خانم قند فروش

مشاور خانواده وزیر كشور

زن برادر هاشمی ثمره

عبدالحمید هاشمی ثمره

معاون وزیر صنایع

برادر هاشمی ثمره

محمود احمدی نژاد (رییس جمهور)

داوود احمدی نژاد

رییس بازرسی ریاست جمهوری

برادر احمدی نژاد

حسین شبیری

رییس صندوق مهر رضا

شوهر خواهر احمدی نژاد

پروین احمدی نژاد

معاون مركز امور زنان ریاست جمهوری

خواهر احمدی نژاد

علی اکبر محرابیان

وزیر صنایع

خواهرزاده احمدی نژاد

Tehran possesses nuclear bomb plans

Posted 19/12/2008 @ 16:39:13 GMT
Tehran possesses nuclear bomb plans
The Socialist Party lawmaker, Jean-Louis Bianco, told the French daily Le Figaro he was "certain" Iran's nuclear goals were military. "Tehran possesses nuclear bomb plans, which were without a doubt obtained thanks to Pakistani channels," he said. The report showed Iran has "a bomb miniaturization program," he said.

Obama to create Iran outreach post : by Eli Lake

THE WASHINGTON TIMES - EXCLUSIVE:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

The incoming Obama administration plans to create a new position to coordinate outreach to Iran and is considering a number of senior career diplomats, State Department officials and Iran specialists say. President-elect Barack Obama promised during his campaign to seek dialogue with Iran without preconditions in an effort to persuade Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment program, but also has pledged to toughen sanctions.
Comment - Print - Listen - Share

A State Department official said the idea of naming a senior Iranian outreach coordinator was broached in the first transition meetings with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama's choice for secretary of state, and her transition team earlier this month. "The idea is that the position should build on the existing diplomatic framework," the official said. He asked not to be named because a nominee has not been announced. A spokeswoman for Mrs. Clinton declined to comment for this article. Brooke Anderson, a spokeswoman for the transition, also would not comment. However, several Iran specialists said such a position was in the works. "There is every indication that they are seriously considering going this way," said Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a group that has warned of the dangers of Iranian proliferation. Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, an organization that supports U.S.-Iran dialogue, said that a special envoy position for Iran is planned. The current administration has refused to negotiate with Iran unless Tehran first suspends its uranium enrichment program. However, in July, ndersecretary of State William Burns attended a meeting in Geneva with an Iranian nuclear negotiator along with senior diplomats from the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - Britain, France, China and Russia - plus Germany. The "P-5 plus 1" has sent envoys to Tehran and drafted three U.N. Security Council resolutions that have sanctioned organizations and individuals affiliated with the Iranian nuclear program. However, Iran has refused to suspend its program. Indeed, two days after the Geneva talks, the head of Iran´s Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Ali Jafari, announced the testing of an anti-ship missile he said could close the Straits of Hormuz, the chokepoint for 40 percent of the world's oil supplies . Critics of engagement doubt that Tehran will agree to give up its nuclear ambitions in return for economic and diplomatic concessions. "We've lost the [nuclear] race with Iran," said John R. Bolton, a former undersecretary of state and U.N. ambassador. Others say the United States has not tried hard enough. Suzanne Maloney, an Iran specialist at the Brookings Institution and former member of the State Department's policy planning staff under the Bush administration, said creating a senior coordinator position was important in part because Iran policy is now subject to an unwieldy interagency process. "There is a huge interagency component to this," she said, noting that the Treasury Department has been responsible for numerous banking and other financial sanctions against Iran. She also said that a senior coordinator position "communicates a seriousness on Iran, irrespective of what position you take." Coordinator positions traditionally are given to mid-level career diplomats, but in this case the job will likely to go a senior figure, the State Department official said. In addition to the nuclear issue, the coordinator will reach out to Iran regarding its activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said. A shortlist of candidates includes Dennis Ross, the former special envoy for Arab-Israeli negotiations under the Clinton and first Bush administrations, and the current U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker. Mr. Crocker testified before Congress that Iran has supported Iraqi militants who have killed U.S. soldiers. However, from the fall of 2001 until late 2002, he took part in talks in Europe with senior Iranian diplomats over the aftermath of the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and the buildup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He has also met twice with Iran's ambassador to Iraq. Other names mentioned by U.S. officials and Iran specialists include Robert Galluci, President Clinton's point man for negotiating a 1994 nuclear agreement with North Korea. Also said to be on the list is Mr. Burns. James Dobbins, a former Bush administration envoy who worked with the Iranians to prepare Afghanistan's first post-Taliban government, has also been mentioned. However, Mr. Dobbins said Thursday that he had not been approached by the Obama transition team. He said a good first step would be to authorize U.S. diplomats around the world to talk to their Iranian counterparts on a routine basis. Mr. Clawson said there are two models for dealing with the intricate diplomatic challenges presented by Iran. One is to leave the coordination of policy to the assistant secretary of state for the region. This approach has been used for North Korea. "This worked well with North Korea because the main countries concerned are under the same regional group as the problem country," Mr. Clawson said. "For Iran the main countries who need to be brought on board are scattered across the globe. ... And so some kind of a coordinator or special envoy makes sense." Much about Mr. Obama's Iran policy remains unclear as does Iran's likely reaction to an offer of talks. On Dec. 7 on NBC´s "Meet the Press," Mr. Obama said he would offer both carrots and sticks to Iran, pointing out that Iran, a leading exporter of oil, still has trouble providing its population with refined petroleum. The next day a spokesman for Iran´s ministry of foreign affairs, Hassan Qashqavi, said such a carrot-and-stick approach "is unacceptable and [has] failed."

Thursday, 18 December 2008

Former US admiral: Don't fear Iran

Adm. (ret.) William Fallon Adm. (ret.) William Fallon

Israel is one of the strongest countries in the Middle East and needs to stop giving in to a "fear factor" with regard to the prospect of a nuclear Iran, Adm. (ret.) William Fallon, the former commander of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Tel Aviv, Fallon told the Post that he could not understand why Iran would even contemplate using nuclear weapons against Israel unless the country wanted to be destroyed. "Do they wish to go away?" he asked, insinuating that a nuclear attack on Israel would elicit a devastating response. "They are not nearly as strong as their rhetoric indicates," Fallon said of Iran. "They are not particularly strong militarily outside their own internal entity, and they have huge economic issues and political instability. Their nuclear capability might give them something to feel consolation in." Fallon abruptly stepped down from the command of CENTCOM in March after Esquire magazine portrayed him as being opposed to President George W. Bush's Iran policy, describing him as a lone voice against military action aimed at halting the Iranian nuclear program. Today, he is a fellow at the MIT Center for International Studies. Israel, Fallon said, needed to come up with a strategic plan with regard to Iran and other threats. The military was just one tool among many that countries had at their disposal when dealing with a challenge, he said. "The first order is to get our house in order, for sure in the US, and it seems here as well," he said. "This has to do with tasking. If the readiness is good, then you can be tasked. Therefore, you need to have your house in order and then you can take on other challenges." He said the war Israel fought against Hizbullah in 2006 was an example of operating without a plan. "Where was the plan in Lebanon?" he asked. "I didn't see one." He also dismissed Iran's calls to destroy Israel as nothing more than rhetoric. "The Iranians say there is no place for the US in the Gulf and we are here. We are not leaving and Israel is not going away. This is rhetoric and this goes on all the time," he said.

US links office tower to Iran: December 18 2008

By Andrew Ward and Daniel Dombey in Washington

The US government on Wednesday launched steps to seize a 36-storey New York office tower allegedly part-owned by the Iranian government in violation of sanctions against Tehran. US authorities said the building, located on Manhattan’s prestigious Fifth Avenue, was partly controlled by an Iranian government bank through a front company based in the UK’s Channel Islands.
The State Department said Iran’s interest in the building breached US financial sanctions against Tehran aimed at thwarting the regime’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. The US justice department filed a civil complaint seeking the forfeiture of a 40 per cent stake in the building owned by Assa Corporation, an alleged front company for Iran’s Bank Melli. The US and European Union have both imposed sanctions against Bank Melli over the past year, while the United Nations has called for countries to exercise “scrutiny” over its activities. In a statement justifying the seizure on Wednesday, the state department said the bank provided “financial services, including opening letters of credit and maintaining accounts, for Iranian front companies and entities engaged in proliferation activities”. The move signals one of the most visible steps to date in US efforts to ratchet up pressure on Iran, particularly in the financial sector,amid an impasse in international talks over fresh measures against Tehran. Iran has pressed ahead with its nuclear programme despite a series of United Nations resolution, while leading experts have warned it is coming closer to nuclear weapon capability. Iran maintains its nuclear programme is purely peaceful. President-elect Barack Obama has said he intends to develop both “carrots” and “sticks” to persuade Tehran to rein in its nuclear programme, in remarks highlighting the likelihood that his administration will continue the sanctions effort. The state department said the building, located at 650 Fifth Avenue, was co-owned by Assa Corporation and Alavi Foundation of New York, a non-profit Iranian charitable organisation.
The tower was constructed about 30 years ago by the Pahlavi Foundation, a nonprofit group set up by the late Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi , according to the US justice department. The Shah, a US ally,was overthrown as the Iranian leader in 1979. The organisation changed names to Bonyad Mostazafan after the 1979 revolution and then changed names again to the Alavi Foundation.
EDITOR’S CHOICE : IAEA Full report: nuclear programme - Jan-17 - Iran: nuclear timeline - Jan-17

Tuesday, 16 December 2008

The Return of Realpolitik in Arabia

Bush's 'diplomacy of freedom' gives way to Obama's caution and reticence. The M
iddle East may test our fatigue.
[Commentary]

The hubris and self-confidence needed for expeditions into foreign lands have been devastated by the economic meltdown in our midst. Of the good manners and pliability of foreign regimes, we can be less certain. Nature abhors a vacuum, and challengers are sure to step forth. To its surprise, the new administration could yet discover that our adversaries do not wish to see our withdrawal from their midst. The Iranians thrive on the American presence in the Persian Gulf and feed off it. They are the quintessential oppositional force. They are not good at generating policies of their own. Their work consists of subversive attacks on Pax Americana in the region. The call by President Bush's critics for a dialogue with Iran will be exposed for the pathetic fraud it has been all along. The American drama swirling around the rise of Mr. Obama is of no interest to the theocrats in Tehran. For them, it is business as usual in the Persian Gulf.
We have witnessed the gains and the heartbreak of American activism and ambition on foreign shores. Around the corner lurk the risks of caution and reticence, of enemies who could see through, and test, our fatigue. The world is under no obligation to accommodate us.

Read This Article here : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122939127053709259.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

An answer to the article - Reza Pahlavi puzzle

جوابی نقد گونه بر "معمای رضا پهلوی"
احمد پناهنده
http://www.iranpressnews.com/source/051122.htm

apanahan@t-online.de a_panahan@yahoo.de

Iran 2008 share losses modest, oil key to 2009 : By Fredrik Dahl

TEHRAN, Dec 15 (Reuters) - Shares on the Tehran Stock Exchange look set to end 2008 with modest losses relative to many world markets after an oil price tumble swallowed earlier gains, but a recovery in crude is key to 2009 performance. Election and the nuclear stand-off with the West will also influence sentiment towards the Islamic Republic's 356 listed companies next year. Share prices in the world's fourth-largest crude producer, which is under U.S. and U.N. sanctions over its disputed nuclear plans, rose around 30 percent in the first six months of 2008, sheltered from the international credit crisis. But as oil dived $100 from a July peak of $147 per barrel, Iranian stocks turned sharply lower, losing all the year's gains. The all-share index traded at 8,907 on Monday, down around 9 percent from early January, and the monthly volume of trade was just $54 million in November, half its level earlier in the year. 'All of the industries of Iran are dependent on oil revenue and petrodollars,' economic commentator Saeed Laylaz said. He also cited uncertainty ahead of the election and worries about the nuclear row among factors weakening the market. Despite rallying earlier this year as crude surged, Iranian shares remained below their 2004 peak of 13,540. says the government directly or indirectly owns about 35 percent of the market, and foreign investors about 2 percent. 'During the past three months we have had the current financial crisis in the world, a sharp drop in oil prices and arguments between parliament and the government,' economics Professor Ebrahim Hosseini-Nasab said in explanation for the market reversal. He was referring to disagreement between lawmakers and the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is expected to stand for re-election in June, over plans to overhaul Iran's extensive subsidies for energy and other things. LONG-TERM VALUE? Ahmadinejad's critics and potential presidential rivals say his policies have squandered Iran's oil windfall gains and that another four years of profligate spending would be damaging. Iranian government officials say the country has been less affected than others by the financial crisis sweeping the world. In September, when shares were still showing gains of 20 percent, the head of the stock exchange said privatisations and increased company profits had helped to push up the market. But one stock market official acknowledged on Monday that it was not immune from events outside the country, and that 'part of the crisis came into our market a little bit later'. As many Western banks have already quit Iran because of sanctions, their Iranian counterparts have had fewer international credit lines to be hurt by a global crunch. But economists say Iranian banks have been harmed as a lending drive to small businesses turned sour, foreign export credits have dried up and as the oil price plunge drained the pool of petrodollars. Still, the official said market capitalisation was little changed from its January level of $50 billion, while indexes elsewhere in the world had plunged 30-40 percent or more. But Laylaz said Iran's stocks had fared as badly as other markets when adjusted for inflation of nearly 30 percent. He said its future direction would depend on the oil price and politics, but also suggested it offered long-term value. 'It will be profitable, but not in the short term,' he said when asked whether he would recommend buying Iranian shares.

AP Interview: Rice says sanctions affecting Iran

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the sting of international sanctions is forcing at least some Iranian leaders to second-guess the regime's rebuff of world demands that it roll back its disputed nuclear program. "The Iranians are paying real costs for their behavior," Rice told The Associated Press in a wide-ranging interview Monday on the Iraq war, piracy off Somalia's coast, Mideast peace prospects and more. "It hasn't yet convinced them that they have to change their course, but there are plenty of voices being heard inside that government that are talking about the costs and about whether or not they've made a mistake in getting themselves so deeply isolated." Rice did not name names, and Iran's diffuse power structure can make it hard for outsiders, especially the United States, to know whose opinion matters in setting policy. The United States helped lead a drive at the United Nations to sanction Iran for an extensive nuclear development program that many nations suspect could lead to an atomic weapon. The sanctions were never as strong as the U.S. wanted, and they have had no visible effect on Iranian policy. Rice insisted, however, that U.N. and other penalties are forcing hard financial choices on a nation already under economic stress. Rice spoke shortly before flying to New York to attend two days of talks at the U.N. on a range of topics, possibly including Iran, which insists that its nuclear program is strictly for peaceful energy use. Without predicting that Iran would heed international calls to stop its nuclear activities, Rice said there is reason to believe the accumulating costs created by economic sanctions will make a difference at some point. "Sooner or later they are going to have to deal with the fact - particularly with declining oil prices - that those costs are going to become pretty acute," she said. The Bush administration's top diplomat, in a farewell interview with AP reporters and editors at the State Department, strongly defended the U.S. intervention in Iraq as worth the cost in lives, money and heartache. Trying to put the unsettling image of an Iraqi television reporter hurling his shoes at a visiting President Bush in the best possible light, Rice said it demonstrates how far the former dictatorship has come. The shoe incident Sunday in Baghdad "is a kind of sign of the freedom that people feel in Iraq," Rice said. The Iraqi man yelled at Bush that the shoes - a gesture of profound disdain in Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world - were a goodbye present to a dog. Bush brushed it off, and Rice called it insignificant in comparison with the development of a pluralistic democratic government in a country once devastated by Saddam Hussein's brutal rule.
TO SAVE SPACE ON THIS PAGE - ONLY FIVE RECENT POST ARE SHOWN .

PLEASE SEE MORE ARTICLES / POSTS BY FOLLOWING " Older Posts "

MY OLD SCHOOL MATE (Y a r - E - D a b e s t a n i)


My old schoolmate
your memory stays with me
Teacher's stick here to whip us
You are the grief in my sigh
The suffocation in my throat
Our names still on the blackboard
Lashes of injustice, their marks on our souls
The wasteland of our culture covered in wild weed
Yet, good or bad, our people love their land
These curtains we must rip
This pain we must cure
Who else will heal us after all?

Translation By Somi Abedinzadeh

Iranian Students Protest - 7Th Dec 2008
Video Editor and mixed by : Bahramerad




شعارهای تظاهرکنندگان در اطراف دانشگاه تهران:
ايرانى مى ميرد ذلت نمی پذيرد / مجتبى بميرى رهبرى را نبينى /
شهيد نداديم كه مذاكره كنيم / هاشمی هاشمی سكوت كنى خائنى /
زندانى سياسى آزاد بايد گردد / مرگ بر ديكتاتور /
ما همه يک صدائيم ما همه يک ندائيم /
برادر شهيدم خونتو پس مى گيرم /
دولت كودتا استعفا استعفا / ما اهل كوفه نيستيم پول بگيريم بايستيم /
رهبر ما قاتله ولايتش باطله







Late Shah's speech on OPEC in 1973 that led to his downfall.

It was not a revolution in 1979. It was a hostile take over by the british and Islamic arab terrorists bent on destroying Iran and taking control of the oil fields. In 1973 the Shah intended to free Iran from unfair oil contracts that was supposed to end in 1979. That did not happen. Except, the brits and Jimmy Carter gave Iran a terrorist mullah called Khomeini & his ideology who not only killed Iranians but indirectly was responsible in murdering many Westerners.
The Islamofascist snakes they have supported since 1979 will eventually bite them real good.


News From IRI - Farsi/English

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic downlo
 
 
 ad of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic downlo
 ad of this picture from the Internet.
Iran News Round Up - A selection of the latest news stories and editorials published in Iranian news ou
 tlets
March 24, 2010 Author: Ali Alfoneh Editors: Michael Rubin and Ahmad Majidyar
* (E) - Article in English Previous editions of the Iran News Round-up are accessible at IranTracker.org.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented auto
 
 
 matic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented auto
 matic download of this picture from the Internet.
Summary

Iran frees Rafsanjani’s grandson on bail; Ahmadinejad’s aide says Obama pursuing “dark policies of Bush”; Brazilian president calls for peaceful resolution of Iran’s nuclear issue; Israeli military chief says hopes for internal unrest in Iran lost; Iran accused of aiding Taliban

Politics
  • Gholam-Hossein Elham, former Justice Minister, releases an old interview with Khorasan on his website:
    • "I believe that this phenomenon [unrest] is not a post-election phenomenon. The issue is rooted in a movement which is pursuing the substance of the regime..."
    • "In reality, formation of the Kargozaran-e Sazandegi [Servants of Construction] came from within the government and is one intellectual current's attempt at remaining in power is the key goal of this movement. If we look at their past, the Kargozaran desired to restrict restriction of power...The next step...was the Second of Khordad [Khatami's reform] movement..."
    • "During the reform era, they did not believe in the structure of the Islamic Republic..."
  • Hassan Lahouti, Rafsanjani's grandson, is bailed out of prison.
Diplomacy
  • Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi, senior presidential adviser:
    • "Obama not only did not manage to realize his slogan [of change], but has pursued the dark policies of Bush all over the world ever more energetically..."
    • "The Bush presidency is one of the darkest eras of the United States and the greatest hatred emerged internationally towards the United States..."
    • "Today we see that the United States rather than moving its military forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan has increased their number which has led to mass murder of the people and increased impoverishment in these countries. Obama had said that he wanted to oppose violation of human rights and wanted to close Guantanamo and secret prisons in Europe. Did this happen? Of course not..."
    • "There has also not been any correction of the dark policy of Bush towards Iran's nuclear program or [the United State's] opposition towards the Iranian nation..."
    • "We do not want anything from the United States. The Iranian nation demands its rights to be recognized and respected..."
    • "The Islamic Republic has not become isolated, rather, it is expanding [its foreign relations] ever more and is finding new friends...If they have claims, they must show it in their actions so the Iranian nation gradually trusts them..."
  • President of Turkmenistan will visit Iran.
  • [E] Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Luiz Amorim reiterated that Iran's problem for supplying nuclear fuel for its research reactor in Tehran still can be solved by fuel swap in a third country.
Trade
  • Iran and Turkey expand economic relations.
Military and Security
Iran in the Afghan Media
  • Afghanistan’s First Vice President Mohammad Qasim Fahim has asked Iranian ambassador to Kabul Fida Hossien Maleki to urge his government to transfer Afghan citizens jailed in Iran. An Afghan parliamentary delegation visiting Iran recently reported that 3,000 Afghans were facing execution in Iranian jails, but Maleki stressed the report was inaccurate.
  • [E] U.S. officials say Iran is aiding the Taliban. (Current news stories on Pajhwok are only available to subscribers, but will be accessible the next day.)
Photo of the Day
The Iran News Round Up was sent to you by the offices of Michael Rubin and Ali Alfoneh at the American Enterprise Institute. If you would like to subscribe, or would prefer not to receive this e-mail publication, please e-mail Ahmad Majidyar.

The State of MKO Members at Camp Ashraf'

Statement of Prince Reza Pahlavi concerning' The State of MKO Members at Camp Ashraf' - July 29, 2009
My dear compatriots, It appears that certain Iraqi authorities, with the support of the Islamic Republic, have carried out an operation against Camp Ashraf and a confrontation between armed Iraqi forces and the camp’s residents has left several Iranians dead and many more injured. At this time, we must remind the Iraqi authorities that no person may be denied his or her human rights because of his or her political or religious beliefs. More specifically, no refugee may be returned to his or her nation of origin if such return will place him or her at risk of being tortured or treated unjustly, illegally, or inhumanely, or if such return will place his or her fate in the hands of a court that is unacceptable under international legal standards. My compatriots, In light of the Islamic Republic’s 30-year record of violating and trampling upon the principles of human rights, and especially in light of the regime’s barbaric and brutal behavior towards the innocent people of Iran during recent events, it is reasonable to suspect that the fate of any MKO members turned over to the Islamic Republic will not be any different than the fate of other opponents of the regime. In light of these realities and current circumstances, I hope and expect that the Government of Iraq will not permit the members of the MKO presently in Ashraf to be forcibly returned to the Islamic Republic. Reza Pahlavi Report: Iran transferring military equipment to Syria via Venezuela -yediotaharonot Sunday, December 21, 2008 دوشنبه، 4 خرداد ماه 1388 برابر با 2009 Monday 25 May
افشای راز سفر ۴۲ سال پیش شاه به آلمان
آینده نیوز: چهل و دو سال پس از آخرین سفر شاه سابق ایران به آلمان و کشته شدن یک دانشجوی آلمانی در جریان تظاهرات سنگین علیه او ، اکنون پرده از یک راز مهم برداشته و معلوم شده پلیسی که دانشجوی معترض آلمانی را بقتل رسانده جاسوس آلمان شرقی سابق بوده است. حادثه دوم ژوئن 1967 از آن زمان تا کنون بخشی از تاریخ آلمان را تشکیل می دهد و آغاز گر جنبش های چپ 1968 بوده است. اشپیگل آنلاین به نقل از اداره ویژه حفظ و نگهداری پرونده ها و اسناد سازمان جاسوسی آلمان شرقی سابق گزارش داده که مامور پلیسی که مسبب کشته شدن این دانشجوی آلمانی در هنگام تظاهرات علیه دیدارشاه ایران از آلمان غربی آن زمان بود ، در واقع جاسوس آلمان شرقی بوده است. روز دوم ژوئن 1967 در تاریخ آلمان بعد از جنگ نقش ویژه ای بازی می کند و هر سال در این روز ، وسایل ارتباط جمعی آلمان و برخی کشورهای اروپائی بویژه فرانسه بطور مشروح به اهمیت آن در شورش های دانشجویی و اجتماعی و جنبش های چپ 1968می پردازند. اما جالب آن است که نقش تاریخی این روز ، با ایران ارتباط دارد . دیدار خانواده سلطنتی ایراندراواخر ماه می و اوایل ماه ژوئن 1967 شاه و ملکه سابق ایران (فرح پهلوی) به دعوت رسمی رئیس جمهوری وقت آلمان سرگرم بازدید از این کشور بودند ولی با وجود تلاش ها و پیش بینی های دولت آلمان و برنامه های مهمی که برای این بازدید تدارک دیده شده بود ، موج عظیمی از اعتراض ها و تظاهرات بی سابقه در تاریخ بعد از جنگ آلمان علیه سفر وی در سراسر این کشور به راه افتاد . در جریان این اعتراض ها ، بویژه محل هائی که برای بازدید شاه ایران در نظر گرفته شده بود تقریبا در تمام موارد ، پیش از ورود وی از طرف تظاهرکنندگان اشغال و محاصره شده و با وجود تلاش پلیس ، برخی دیدارهای شاه سابق ایران تقریبا غیر قابل انجام و یا دست کم مختل شد. این اعتراض ها و تظاهرات که عموما به وسیله اتحاد سوسیالیستی دانشجویان آلمان و با شرکت فعال کنفدراسیون جهانی دانشجویان ایرانی تدارک دیده می شد، هر روز اوج بیشتری می گرفت و در بیشتر موارد نیز به خشونت گرائیده و به زد و خورد میان پلیس و تظاهرکنندگان تبدیل می شد. در روز دوم ژوئن 1967 شاه سرگرم بازدید از برلین غربی بود اما دامنه تظاهرات علیه او هر آن گسترده تر می شد و نیروهای پلیس قادر به کنترل اوضاع نبودند. با این حال شاه با اصرار و نشان دادن سرسختی و خونسردی سعی داشت همه برنامه های خود را اجرا کند . در برلین هنگام ورود زوج سلطنتی ایران به تئاتر، سنگین ترین تظاهرات علیه شاه جریان داشت به طوری که برخلاف معمول، پلیس ناگزیر به تیراندازی شد و در این تیر اندازی یکی از دانشجویان آلمانی بنام " بنو اونه زورگ" هدف گلوله قرار گرفت و کشته شد. کارل هینس کوراس، مامور پلیس برلین غربی که دانشجوی 26 ساله آلمانی به ضرب گلوله او کشته شد بعدها مورد محاکمه قرار گرفت و سر انجام به علت نبودن دلایل کافی تبرئه شد . رمزگشایی از ماجرا پس از فرو پاشی دیوار برلین و اتحاد مجدد آلمان اداره ویژه ای برای نگهداری و حفظ پرونده های سازمان جاسوسی آلمان شرقی تشکیل شد. این اداره هر از گاه پرده از روی برخی اسرار و عملیات جاسوسی که در رویدادهای مختلف نقش داشته اند بر می دارد و این بار در آستانه نزدیک شدن سالروز دوم ژوئن ، سرانجام معلوم شد چه دست هائی احتمالا در ایجاد این حادثه تاریخی دست داشتند . بنا بر اسناد منتشر شده توسط اداره ویژه حفظ و نگهداری پرونده ها و اسناد سازمان جاسوسی آلمان شرقی، اکنون معلوم شده که کارل هینس کوراس مامور پلیس آلمان غربی در آن زمان ، از جمله جاسوسان اشتازی، سازمان جاسوسی آلمان شرقی و عضو حزب کمونیست آن کشور بوده است. با افشای این راز به شایعاتی مبنی بر اینکه ممکن است حتی ماموران ایرانی همراه شاه در ماجرای قتل دانشجوی آلمانی دست داشته اند هم پایان داده شد. با این حال، دوم ژوئن و کشته شدن یک دانشجوی مخالف و معترض شاه ایران، بنا بر همه تحقیقات و شواهد، سرآغاز جنبش ها و شورش های بزرگ دانشجوئی 1968 و جنبش های موسوم به "خارج از پارلمان" و سر انجام تشکیل گروههای تروریستی نظیر " بادر ماینهوف" شد که نظام های آزاد اروپا را به ستوه آوردند.

LATEST NEWS IN ENGLISH

Chávez terms "mafia boss" the Israeli Foreign Minister eluniversal.com - English Version 18:42

IRAQ: Shi’a Unity Deal Explodes U.S. Proxy War Myth Inter Press Service News Agency 18:41

Report: U.S. estimates Iran unable to produce nuke before 2013 Ha'aretz 18:20

Iran aims at 5th place of FIVB Junior World Championship after defeating US Payvand - Iran News 16:54

U.S. Treasury rejects freezing Iran visitors' bank accounts Payvand - Iran News 16:54

Witnesses Say US Group Hiked Far From Tourist Areas Institute for War and Peace Reporting - Iraq Report 16:34

Obama's Israel Albatross CounterPunch 15:54

U.S. strike on Iran "feasible": retired general Alarabiya.net - Middle East 15:36

US strike on Iran 'feasible and credible': retired general Yahoo! US - Middle East 15:22

A Statement On My Friends, Three U.S. Hikers Reportedly Detained at Iran/Iraq Border AlterNet.org - News 13:15

Hikers lost in stasis of US-Iran relations Asia Times - Middle East 10:58

RIL scraps oil exports to Iran Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections - East & SE Asia 08:42

Iran-Pakistan gas line big set back for the US Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections - North America 08:35

Further sanctions on Iranian oil industry could spur record gas prices in US Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections - North America 08:35

Iran won't bow to US plots: Press Gulf Today 07:50

US hikers detained in Iran made 'simple' mistake Arabianbusiness.com - Culture & Society 07:45

Cantor: US too focused on settlements Jerusalem Post 06:32

Oil traders may profit from US sanctions against Iran The Peninsula - Business 06:12

Intelligence Report Suggests Slower Timeline for Iranian Nuclear Capability: U.S. Analysts Also Discount Strength Of... Washington Post - World 05:21

There Is a Military Option on Iran The Wall Street Journal - Opinion 02:51

Hikers crossed into Iran by mistake, friend says CNN - World 02:51

Has Obama turned his back on dissidents? The Week - News & Opinion 01:37

US hikers in Iran made 'simple' mistake SBS 00:30

Why the Iranian alliance will fail Ha'aretz - Print Edition 23:45 6-Aug-09

Detained Americans Didn't Know They Were in Iran CBS.com - Top Stories 21:58 6-Aug-09

Clinton: Iran 'afraid of truth' CNN - Law 21:45 6-Aug-09

Statement of Shon Meckfessel on Missing U.S. Hikers Pacific News Service 21:07 6-Aug-09

NKorea, Iran use similar script to get their way Pioneer Press, Minnesota - Nation 21:04 6-Aug-09

Clinton: Iran 'is afraid of its own people' CNN 20:41 6-Aug-09

DHL settles U.S. case over Iran, Sudan shipments MarketWatch - Market 18:03 6-Aug-09

David Makovsky on Iran, Obama, and Settlements The Atlantic - Voices (Blogs) 17:35 6-Aug-09

Twitter delayed upgrade to help Iran protestors v3.co.uk 16:59 6-Aug-09

Nuclear Iran looms as hardliners prevail Trade Arabia - International 16:08 6-Aug-09

Iran is the problem, not Israeli settlements: US lawmaker Yahoo! US - Middle East 16:03 6-Aug-09

U.S. Calls For Scholar's Release Voice of America - Editorials 15:52 6-Aug-09

US has rethink on Ahmadinejad's poll The Australian - World 15:19 6-Aug-09

US delegation of Republicans 'troubled' by US policy on Israel Jerusalem Post - National 15:13 6-Aug-09

US Congressman: Iran is Threat, Not Israeli Settlements Voice of America - Politics 14:38 6-Aug-09

Fuel curbs to hurt Iran, boon for traders... Gulf Industry Magazine Online 14:33 6-Aug-09

U.S. fuel sanctions to hurt Iran, a boon for traders Reuters - ReutersEdge 14:10 6-Aug-09

Iranians in Bay Area call on U.S. leaders to help camp in Iraq InsideBayArea.com, California - Beyond the Bay 14:04 6-Aug-09

U.S. committed to prevent Iran from having nukes: Republican congressmen Xinhua Online - World 14:03 6-Aug-09

Iran is the problem, not Israeli settlements: US Khaleej Times - Middle East 13:54 6-Aug-09

Iran holds 3 Americans for illegal border crossing Casa Grande Dispatch, Arizona - World News 13:49 6-Aug-09

Congressman wants US attention on Iran, not Israel Middle East Online 13:44 6-Aug-09

Siding With The Generals ZNet 13:27 6-Aug-09

Rep. Cantor: Obama Israel Policy Sends Bad Signal NewsMax 12:54 6-Aug-09

GOP Whip Cantor: Obama Must Focus on Iran, not ‘Settlements’ Arutz Sheva - News 12:48 6-Aug-09

Iran press blasts US Himalayan Times - World 12:11 6-Aug-09

Iran is the problem, not settlements: US lawmaker Yahoo! US - Middle East 11:47 6-Aug-09

U.S. Republicans in Israel: We are `troubled` by Obama policy Ha'aretz 11:03 6-Aug-09

US State Dept asked Twitter to postpone work during Iranian election Telegraph.co.uk - News 10:42 6-Aug-09

The Propaganda Value of a Detained Journalist Pacific News Service 10:38 6-Aug-09

Republican delegation in Israel criticizes Obama's policy on Israel settlements Sun Sentinel, Florida - News 10:24 6-Aug-09

Republicans 'troubled' by US policy on Israel Associated Press - Middle East 10:18 6-Aug-09

Siding With The Generals - The Independent On Honduras MediaLens.org - Media Alerts 10:11 6-Aug-09

Twitter delayed upgrade during poll Yahoo! 09:23 6-Aug-09

American hikers held in Iran Canada.com 08:25 6-Aug-09

Iran won’t bow to US plots: hardline press Khaleej Times - Middle East 08:12 6-Aug-09

Hardline press insists Iran won't bow to US plots The Sydney Morning Herald - General 08:09 6-Aug-09

LATEST NEWS IN FARSI / PERSIAN

As an authority against authoritarianism, liberalism is undergoing a renaissance in Iran, and reflecting back to the West its radical roots.This article has been written before the recent events in Iran but since it contains many of the essential facts regarding the current state of thought in Iran, we have decided to re-publish it for viewers of Iran va Jahan.

By Danny Postel

>Read the Article


Posted 11/8/2009 @ 13:55:57 GMT Iran prisoners were savagely raped after protests Mehdi Karroubi, Iranian reformist presidential candidate and former parliament speaker who has led protests to overturn the result of the June 12 vote, said that both women and young boys had been victims of assault. His allegations, made in a letter to the former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, follow a number of individual claims made by Iranian blogs and foreign media. more

From The News Arcive

SECULARISM: News and Articles in Farsi
مهدویت و دموکراسی -- تحلیلی بر اساس اندیشه سروش میثم بادامچی

از نظر تاریخی، مهدویت همیشه یکی از باورهای ریشه‌ای و مهم شیعیان بوده است. با این حال از زمان آغاز دور اول ریاست جمهوری محمود احمدی‌نژاد و استمرار آن در پی کودتای انتخاباتی اخیر، نقش این نظریه در سیاست داخلی و خارجی جمهوری اسلامی به وضوح مضاعف شده است.. نظریهء ولایت مطلقه فقیه که با دموکراسی سازگار و قابل جمع نیست فرزند مهدویت سیاسی است. مهدویت سیاسی توجیه‌گر امتیازات ویژه فقها برای حکومت در نظریه ولایت فقیه است... مهدویت سیاسی بر اساس نظریه ولایت مطلقه فقیه‌، ولی فقیه را نائب امام زمان فرض می‌کند و همان اختیاراتی را به ولی فقیه در قدرت و «تصرف در نفوس و اعراض و اموال مسلمین» می‌‌دهد که امام غائب داراست... عبدالکریم سروش از معدود متفکرانی است که در سال‌های گذشته به واکاوی نسبت میان مهدویت و سیاست و ارائهء تصویری نو از مهدویت پرداخته است...


دوشنبه، 4 خرداد ماه 1388 برابر با 2009 Monday 25 May افشای راز سفر ۴۲ سال پیش شاه به آلمان آینده نیوز: چهل و دو سال پس از آخرین سفر شاه سابق ایران به آلمان و کشته شدن یک دانشجوی آلمانی در جریان تظاهرات سنگین علیه او ، اکنون پرده از یک راز مهم برداشته و معلوم شده پلیسی که دانشجوی معترض آلمانی را بقتل رسانده جاسوس آلمان شرقی سابق بوده است. حادثه دوم ژوئن 1967 از آن زمان تا کنون بخشی از تاریخ آلمان را تشکیل می دهد و آغاز گر جنبش های چپ 1968 بوده است. اشپیگل آنلاین به نقل از اداره ویژه حفظ و نگهداری پرونده ها و اسناد سازمان جاسوسی آلمان شرقی سابق گزارش داده که مامور پلیسی که مسبب کشته شدن این دانشجوی آلمانی در هنگام تظاهرات علیه دیدارشاه ایران از آلمان غربی آن زمان بود ، در واقع جاسوس آلمان شرقی بوده است. روز دوم ژوئن 1967 در تاریخ آلمان بعد از جنگ نقش ویژه ای بازی می کند و هر سال در این روز ، وسایل ارتباط جمعی آلمان و برخی کشورهای اروپائی بویژه فرانسه بطور مشروح به اهمیت آن در شورش های دانشجویی و اجتماعی و جنبش های چپ 1968می پردازند. اما جالب آن است که نقش تاریخی این روز ، با ایران ارتباط دارد . دیدار خانواده سلطنتی ایران دراواخر ماه می و اوایل ماه ژوئن 1967 شاه و ملکه سابق ایران (فرح پهلوی) به دعوت رسمی رئیس جمهوری وقت آلمان سرگرم بازدید از این کشور بودند ولی با وجود تلاش ها و پیش بینی های دولت آلمان و برنامه های مهمی که برای این بازدید تدارک دیده شده بود ، موج عظیمی از اعتراض ها و تظاهرات بی سابقه در تاریخ بعد از جنگ آلمان علیه سفر وی در سراسر این کشور به راه افتاد . در جریان این اعتراض ها ، بویژه محل هائی که برای بازدید شاه ایران در نظر گرفته شده بود تقریبا در تمام موارد ، پیش از ورود وی از طرف تظاهرکنندگان اشغال و محاصره شده و با وجود تلاش پلیس ، برخی دیدارهای شاه سابق ایران تقریبا غیر قابل انجام و یا دست کم مختل شد. این اعتراض ها و تظاهرات که عموما به وسیله اتحاد سوسیالیستی دانشجویان آلمان و با شرکت فعال کنفدراسیون جهانی دانشجویان ایرانی تدارک دیده می شد، هر روز اوج بیشتری می گرفت و در بیشتر موارد نیز به خشونت گرائیده و به زد و خورد میان پلیس و تظاهرکنندگان تبدیل می شد. در روز دوم ژوئن 1967 شاه سرگرم بازدید از برلین غربی بود اما دامنه تظاهرات علیه او هر آن گسترده تر می شد و نیروهای پلیس قادر به کنترل اوضاع نبودند. با این حال شاه با اصرار و نشان دادن سرسختی و خونسردی سعی داشت همه برنامه های خود را اجرا کند . در برلین هنگام ورود زوج سلطنتی ایران به تئاتر، سنگین ترین تظاهرات علیه شاه جریان داشت به طوری که برخلاف معمول، پلیس ناگزیر به تیراندازی شد و در این تیر اندازی یکی از دانشجویان آلمانی بنام " بنو اونه زورگ" هدف گلوله قرار گرفت و کشته شد. کارل هینس کوراس، مامور پلیس برلین غربی که دانشجوی 26 ساله آلمانی به ضرب گلوله او کشته شد بعدها مورد محاکمه قرار گرفت و سر انجام به علت نبودن دلایل کافی تبرئه شد . رمزگشایی از ماجرا پس از فرو پاشی دیوار برلین و اتحاد مجدد آلمان اداره ویژه ای برای نگهداری و حفظ پرونده های سازمان جاسوسی آلمان شرقی تشکیل شد. این اداره هر از گاه پرده از روی برخی اسرار و عملیات جاسوسی که در رویدادهای مختلف نقش داشته اند بر می دارد و این بار در آستانه نزدیک شدن سالروز دوم ژوئن ، سرانجام معلوم شد چه دست هائی احتمالا در ایجاد این حادثه تاریخی دست داشتند . بنا بر اسناد منتشر شده توسط اداره ویژه حفظ و نگهداری پرونده ها و اسناد سازمان جاسوسی آلمان شرقی، اکنون معلوم شده که کارل هینس کوراس مامور پلیس آلمان غربی در آن زمان ، از جمله جاسوسان اشتازی، سازمان جاسوسی آلمان شرقی و عضو حزب کمونیست آن کشور بوده است. با افشای این راز به شایعاتی مبنی بر اینکه ممکن است حتی ماموران ایرانی همراه شاه در ماجرای قتل دانشجوی آلمانی دست داشته اند هم پایان داده شد. با این حال، دوم ژوئن و کشته شدن یک دانشجوی مخالف و معترض شاه ایران، بنا بر همه تحقیقات و شواهد، سرآغاز جنبش ها و شورش های بزرگ دانشجوئی 1968 و جنبش های موسوم به "خارج از پارلمان" و سر انجام تشکیل گروههای تروریستی نظیر " بادر ماینهوف" شد که نظام های آزاد اروپا را به ستوه آوردند.

SECULARISM: News and Articles in Farsi

Carter Administraton's Dilemma: Iran's Theocracy


By Slater Bakhtavar - Persian JournalJun 1, 2009,

"I did not know it then � perhaps I did not want to know � but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted � What was I to make of the Administration�s sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country." -Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, The Shah of Iran
These were the words uttered by the distraught Shah of Iran when, grieving, he reflected on his downfall just before his demise in exile. The tormented former �King of Kings� ardently nurtured a deep-rooted conviction that the Carter Administration, in cooperation with the British Secret Intelligence, ordered and ensured his fall.
During World War II, England and the Soviet Union jointly invaded Iran, dividing the nation into two zones of occupation as the English and Russians had previously done in 1907. In the North, the Soviets secured a viable supply route and in the south the British placed their oil interests under their direct protection. Reza Shah, father of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and the Nation of Iran were humiliated by the subjugation of Iran�s domestic and foreign affairs to their conduct by foreign powers. King Reza Shah, who had implemented numerous progressive social and economic reforms, was ousted by British and Soviet forces and replaced by Mohammad Reza Shah, his twenty-year-old, inexperienced son. The British and Soviets, wielding little sympathy for the mass populace, occupied Iran.
In the North, the Soviets promptly and forcefully revived Iran�s Communist Party with the objective of undermining the royal regime and installing a centralized Communist government. With Soviet assistance, the Tudeh party constituted itself as a pro-Soviet Communist party with its central management in Soviet Union. Meanwhile in the South, the British set monarchists against religious fundamentalists, fundamentalists against nationalists, nationalists against monarchists, faction against faction, and tribe against tribe with a �divide and conquer� agenda. Accordingly, Iran sank into social disorder, political disarray and economic hardship. Under foreign domination by both the Communists and the British, the Iranian people welcomed an increasing role of the United States. By 1946, the Iranian government crushed the pro-Soviet Tudeh party that had been infiltrating the nation and threatening to divide Iran.
Increasingly, Iran became dependent on the United States as a counterinfluence to the Soviets and British. As early as December 1954 the Shah noted

�the potentialities of friendly and close relations between the people of Iran and the United States are immense. There is a deep and fundamental identity of national interests which overshadows everything else. We both believe that the individual is the central figure in society, and that freedom is the supreme blessing. . . Iran has a great deal in common, in convictions with the Western world regarding freedom and democracy.�

He branded his regime�s politics as �positive nationalism�.
In January 1963, the Shah announced democratic reforms as part of a six-point program called the White Revolution, a program of reforms to divide landholdings such as those owned by religious foundations, grant women the right to vote and equality in marriage, and allow religious minorities a greater share in governmental offices. Ruhollah Ayatollah Khomeini led a movement among radical fundamentalists to oppose equal rights for women and minorities and the reform policies of the Shah. On January 22, 1963, Khomeini dictated a vigorously worded declaration denouncing the Westernization of Iran and economic reforms and human rights as anti-Islamic.However, the Shah did not per se attempt to �Westernize Iran�. Iran was since its inception a Monarchy. Instead the Shah sought a pro-Western policy to counter the Communist Soviet Union. Iran�s socio-economic and foreign policy objectives were closely tied to the capitalist world, in direct conflict with the communist ideology of Soviet Union and fundamentalism of surrounding nations.
In contrast, the Iranian fundamentalists sought to eradicate pre-600 A.D. Iranian culture and history and supersede it with an exclusive focus on post-600 A.D. This is in line with Khomeini�s decrees, such as one issued on March 21, 1963 in which he declared that Persian New Year (�Norooz�) celebrations be cancelled and that references to pre-Islamic Iran be eliminated. In 1964 Khomeini was arrested and exiled to Turkey. On September 5, 1965 he left Turkey for Najaf, Iraq, where he spent 13 years as an exile out of touch with the Iranian people and culture. On October 3, 1978 he left Iraq for Kuwait, but was refused entry at the border. After a period of hesitation in which Algeria, Lebanon and Syria were considered as possible destinations, Ayatollah Khomeini embarked for Paris. Once arrived in Paris, Khomeini took up residence in the suburb of Neauphle-le-Chateau in a house that had been rented for him by Iranian exiles in France. Subsequently, journalists from across the world visited the cleric, and the image and the words of Ayatollah Khomeini soon became a daily feature in Iran and across the world. The BBC and other agencies broadcast nightly interviews with Khomeini beamed into Iran, which incited the people against the Shah.
In November 1978 then President Carter nominated George Ball as a member of the Trilateral Commission. The commission acted under the direct control of the National Security Council�s Zbigniew Brzezinski, an ardent opponent of the Shah of Iran. This commission cultivated a clandestine Iran task force. While serving on this commissio,n George Ball championed cessation of United States support for the Shah and clandestine support for Rubhullah Ayatollah Khomeini who, albeit in exile, led a proletariat Islamic opposition. Pursuant to this agenda George Ball sought to garner the support of Robert Bowie, who was at that time the Deputy Director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency.
Meanwhile, Iran and British Petroleum commenced negotiations in Tehran, Iran concerning the renewal of a twenty-five-year-old extraction agreement. These talks collapsed because the British demanded exclusive rights in Iran�s future oil output and refused to guarantee purchase of the commodity. The disintegration of the these negotiations was domestically branded as a step towards nationalization of Iran�s oil for the first time since 1953. Subsequently, the Shah turned to prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere. The Shah had increased Iran�s control over its oil resources, implemented progressive economic and social initiatives, undertook speedy process of capitalist reforms that focused on industrialization, increased Iran�s military capabilities and sought to build a strong, prosperous and independent Iran; however, his goals and policies became the bases for his eventual downfall.
In mid-January 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini returned and the monarchy collapsed on February 11, 1979. Subsequently, Iranians, many of whom believed in Ayatollah Khomeini�s promises of freedom and democracy, voted by a national referendum to become an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979. They also approved a new constitution, and Khomeini became Supreme Leader of Iran. But Khomeini did not fulfill his pre-revolution promises to the people of Iran. Instead, he started to marginalize and crush the opposition groups and those who opposed the clerical rules. He ordered establishment of many institutions to consolidate power and safeguard the cleric leadership. During his early years in power he launched the Cultural Revolution in order to Islamize the whole country. Many people lost employment, and books were revised or burnt according to the new Islamic values. A newly established Islamic judicial system sentenced many Iranians to death and long-term imprisonment, as they were in opposition to those radical changes. The current regime continues many of the policies of the regime of the now-deceased Ayatollah Khomeini, including revising and eradicating Iranian history, culture and identity.
Perhaps the revolution and subsequent consequences would have never occurred if the Carter Administration had not taken the helm. No doubt, neither President Richard M. Nixon or President Ronald Reagan would have paved the way for the arrival of the current theocracy. Criticizing the Carter Administration�s handling of the crises in Iran, President Reagan said �I did criticize the President because of his undermining of our stalwart ally, the Shah, I do not believe that he was that far out of line with his people.� Former United States President Richard Nixon was the sole United States representative to attend the Shah�s funeral in Egypt,
To the present, many Iranians believe that the Carter Administration and the British intervened in 1979 and paved the path for the Shah�s demise. Sympathetic remarks about the revolution by high-level Democratic American officials, such as Bill Clinton, who dubbed Iran a �democracy�, and several former members of the Carter Administration, indicate the pretentious attitude of these officials. These officials should be reminded that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, erroneously labeled by foreign journalists as the �Leader of Iran�, exerts minimal control in Iran. Rather, pursuant to the Iranian Constitution virtually absolute power is in the unelected �Supreme Leader� Ayatollah Khamenei.
Iran is an absolute theocracy and lacks the basic foundations of even a limited form of democracy. Perhaps, if the Carter Administration had not undermined the Shah of Iran, the regime itself would have implemented the proper foundations for a modern democratic republic or constitutional monarchy. Modern Iran could have been an �island of stability� in the Middle East. Without the Carter Administration�s misguided foreign policy initiatives, Iran, similar to Japan, Denmark, Spain or England, could today be a close U.S. ally with a hereditary monarch and a democratically elected President or Prime Minister.
Author Bio: Slater Bakhtavar is president and founder of Republican Youth of America, a frequent commentator and respected analyst on foreign policy issues, an attorney with a post-doctoral degree in International law, General Counsel of a national corporation and Attorney at Bakhtavar & Associates, PLLC.

WOMEN EMANCIPATION IN IRAN - 17 OF DAY -

آيا می شود نسبت به 17 دی بی تفاوت بود؟ شکوه ميرزادگی در مورد هفده دی و بزرگداشت آن، سال هاست که بين مردمان ما اختلاف نظر وجود دارد. اين اختلاف نظرها تقريباً، از پس جنگ دوم جهانی و رفتن رضاشاه از ايران تا کنون وجود داشته است. البته، در دوران محمد رضا شاه، هميشه هفده دی از سوی دولت به عنوان روز زن در ايران به رسميت شناخته می شد اما، چه در زمان محمد رضاشاه و چه پس از آن، واکنش تقريبا همه ی آن ها که با حکومت سلطنت مخالف بوده اند واکنشی منفی بوده است؛به صورت های مختلف. گروهی گفته اند که رضا شاه «کشف حجاب» را به زور و جبر بر زن ها ايران تحميل کرده است، گروهی آن را به دليل اين که هديه ای از جانب حکومت سلطنتی بود مردود شناخته اند و گروهی نيز به راحتی آن را نديده گرفته و هيچ حرف و سخنی درباره آن به ميان نياورده اند. در اين ميان، و ظاهرا به صورتی بديهی، طرفداران سلطنت هم، چه در زمان محمد رضا شاه و چه پس از آن، روز هفدهم دی را صرفا روزی دانسته اند که تعلق به سلطنت طلبان دارد ـ درست همانگونه که بسياری روز هشتم مارس، روز جهانی زن، را متعلق به چپ ها می دانند و به همين دليل هم هست که برخی آن را رد می کنند و يا آن را نديده می گيرند. من تا به حال کسی را نديده ام که بدون چسباندن روز 17 دی به طرفداران سلطنت ، لااقل محتوای اين روز را متعلق به زن ها، به طور اعم، و زن ها ايرانی به طور اخص، بدانند. و اصولا نديده ام که کسانی ارزش های احتمالی اين روز را، بدون توجه به مسايل سياسی، بررسی و تحليل کنند. در راستای کوششی از اين دست، هم در ارتباط با اين روز و هم در ربط با مساله زن، لازم می دانم ابتدا درباره ی وضعيت زن ايرانی، قبل از به سلطنت رسيدن رضاشاه و قبل از اقدامات او توضيح مختصری بدهم. تاريخ ما، تاريخ ايرانزمين، همچون تاريخ ملل ديگر، سرشار از اعتراض ها، حرکت ها و گاهی جنبش هايي است که زن ها برای رهايي خويش از چنبره ی بی عدالتی جوامع مردسالار داشته اند. از اين نظر، بين وضعيت آن ها و وضعيت بردگان شباهتی آشکار وجود دارد. و اين حرکت ها گاه وسيع و موثر بوده اند و گاه اندک و بی اثر. تاريخ ايران باستان سرشار از نشانه های حضور فعال زن ها در زندگی اجتماعی است. اين نکته را تاريخ نويسان در دوران ما به تدريج کشف می کنند (به خصوص پس از خواندن لوحه های هخامنشی نگهداری شده در دانشگاه شيکاگو که شرح وضعيت زندگی رومره و زندگی اجتماعی در آن ها وجود دارد)، و نگاه دوباره ای به شاهنامه (به عنوان نمايشی از وضعيت ايران باستان)، اثرات وجودی اين زن ها را در دوران های مختلف ايران قبل از اسلام را در مقابل ديد ما می نشاند. پس از آمدن اسلام به ايران نيز، عليرغم حضور بی امان مهاجمان مردسالار، و وارد آمد فشار قوانين آن ها بر گرده ی زن ها، باز می بينيم که مثلا زنی همچون «مهستی» در تاريخ ادبيات ما پيدا می شود که، علاوه بر داشتن حضوری فعال در صحنه های اجتماعی، با زبان شعر نيز به توضيح وضعيت بد زنان عصر خودش می پردازد، اقتدار شوهران را بر زنان رد می کند، حق انتخاب همسر را برای زنان نيز به رسميت می شناسد، ازدواج دختران جوان با مردان پير را با طنزی برنده به انتقاد می گيرد و، تا مرحله ی طرد شدن از شهر و ديار خود، پيش می رود و حرفش را ـ حداقل در ارتباط با خودش ـ به کرسی می نشاند. و يا زنی چون «نجمه منجمه» مقابل شخصيتی چون نظامی می ايستد و با دانش و منطق خويش او را وادار به دوستی و تحسين خود می کند. و صدها زن ديگری که نامشان در لابلای گرد و غبار تاريخ گم شده بود و تنها اکنون رفته رفته چهره شان روشن می شود. نزديکترهاشان به ما زن هايي هستند چون طاهره قره العين، که آنقدر قدرت نشان می دهد که در قوانين مذهبی دست می برد و، به عنوان شخصيتی مذهبی، چادر از سر برمی دارد و حجاب را که ـ رکنی اساسی در مذهب مسلمانان است ـ از مذهب حذف می کند. يا زن های ديگری چون تاج السلطان، بی بی خانم استرآبادی، جهانگير، صديقه دولت آبادی، صفيه يزدی، ماهرخ گوهرشناس و... ده ها زنی که زمانه ی خود را به مبارزه خوانده اند تا بتوانند به اندکی آزادی و برابری با مردها برسند. نزديک ترها به ما نيز بسيارانند که مرتب ازشان حرف و سخن هست. اما همه ی اين زن ها، چون ديگر زن های مبارز جهان، خيلی دير و خيلی سخت به عملی شدن خواسته های خود نزديک شده اند. اين راه مشکل بوده است و در اين مسير ديده شده که هر سرزمينی که توانسته زودتر مذهب را از سياست و حکومت جدا کند زودتر به تحقق اين خواسته ها نزديک شده است. و آن هايي که، چون ما، تا همين اوايل قرن بيستم، مذهب در همه ی شئونات زندگی شان دخالت داشت، بسيار ديرتر به سواد دور دست آرزوهاشان رسيده اند. شکل گرفتن جنبش مشروطه برای زن ايرانی جولانگاهی را بهمراه آورد تا او بتواند خواسته های حق طلبانه خود را صريح تر مطرح کند. در خواست های انقلاب مشروطيت خواست آزادی زنان نيز گنجانده شده بود؛ گاه به روشنی و وضوح (مثل قوانين ناظر بر حقوق عموم آحاد ملت ـ حق انتخاب مساوی و عمومی، آزادی بيان و تظاهرات، آزادی حقوق فردی ـ که می شد از درون همين قوانين حقوق زنان را نيز استخراج کرد)، و گاه در لفافه و در زبانی روشنفکرانه. ما تفريبا در اشعار و مقالات اکثر روشنفکران اين دوره مطالبی را درباره آزادی زن می يابيم. آنان نشانه های اين آزادی را در سوادآموزی و برداشتن چادر از سر زن می ديدند. در اين سال ها، يعنی در سال های آغاز و اوج جنبش مشروطيت، اين زن ها بودند که در جنبش تحريم واردات کالاهای خارجی فعالانه شرکت کردند؛ هم آنان بودند که با پوشيدن منسوجات داخلی و پوشاندن بچه هايشان با آن پيشبرد اين حرکت را ميسر ساختند؛ زن ها بودند که با جمع آوری پول، فروش جواهرات و اثاثه ی خانه که متعلق به خودشان بود، تاسيس اولين بانک ملی ايران را امکان پذير کردند؛ زن ها بودند که اتحاديه های زيرزمينی و مخفی درست کردند و برای آگاه ساختن مردمان از حقوق زنان اقدام به انتشار جزوه ها و مقالات کردند؛ و همين زن ها بودند که از نمايندگان مجلس خواستند که وقتی قادر نيستند خدمتی به مردم سرزمين شان بکنند کنار بروند تا زنها بيايند و اين کار را انجام دهند. اما زن هايي که انتظار داشتند با پيروزی انقلاب مشروطيت بتوانند فرصت ها و حقوقی مساوی با مردها به دست آورند با رفتاری خصمانه روبرو شدند. قانون انتخابات مصوب 1906 با نفوذ مردان مذهبی صراحتا زنان را از فعاليت های سياسی منع کرد و، در مقابل اعتراض گروهی از زنان که به مجلس مراجعه کرده بودند، گفته شد که زن ها تنها کارشان امور خانگی و پرورش بچه و خدمت به شوهر و حفظ آبرو و ناموس خانواده است. توجه کنيد که همه ی اين مبارزات در سال های دهه اول قرن بيستم اتفاق افتاده است و رضا شاه در سال 1925 به سلطنت رسيد. يعنی مبارزه وسيع زنان (با توجه به محدود بودن آن در طول تاريخ پس از اسلام) پيش از به قدرت رسيدن رضاشاه شروع شده بود، و سالی چند می شد که اين مبارزه جهت و خواستی روشن پيدا نموده و خواسته هايي چون حق رای، حق طلاق، حق درس خواند در دانشگاه و حق کار کردن همسان با مردان را مطرح کرده بود. اما تا تحقق اين آرزوها راهی دراز در پيش می نمود. به دستور رضا شاه، در سال 1931 دولت وقت قانون حق طلاق، ممنوع کردن ازدواج کودکان نه ساله (که به عقيده ی من به همان اندازه آزادی لباس و امکان رفتن به دانشگاه برای زن ايرانی ارزشمند بوده است) و، همراه با آن، بالا بردن سن ازدواج برای دختران (به 15 سالگی) و کودکان پسر (از 12 سالگی به 18 سالگی) را به مجلس فرستاده و به تصويب رساند. در سال 1936 قانون کشف حجاب و مجاز شدن حضور زنان در دانشگاه ها و موسسات و ادارات نيز به تصويب رسيد. به اين سان، رضاشاه، با دخالت م ستقيم خويش، در واقع مهمترين خواسته های برحق و طبيعی زن ها را، که نتوانسته بودند، به دليل دخالت مستقيم روحانيون وقت، آن ها را از اولين مجلس های پس از پيروزی انقلاب مشروطيت بگيرند، به رسميت قانونی نشاند. در واقع آزادی زن ها يکی از جبرهای تاريخ است که نمی شود برای هميشه جلوی آن ايستاد. و رضاشاه اين جبر را درک کرد. حالا بگوييم که «اين درک را انگليس ها به او تفهميم کردند»، بگوييم که «آن را عده ای از اطرافيان روشنفکرش به گردنش گذاشتند»، بگوييم که «اين کارش از لج ملايان بود»، هر چه بگويند و بگوييم در اين نکته شک ندارم که هيچ يک از اين سخنان چيزی از ارزش او در ارتباط با اين اقدام تاريخی کم نمی کند. بياييد بين او و آيت الله خمينی و آيت الله ها و حجت الاسلام های کنونی مقايسه ای کنيم. بياد آوريم که در اواخر قرن بيستم ـ يعنی، قرنی که يکی از مهمترين دستاوردهای فرهنگی و اجتماعی اش تساوی حقوق زن ها است ـ چگونه آيت الله ها مقابل اين جبر تاريخی ايستادند و در اوايل قرن بيست و يکم نيز همچنان ايستاده اند و چگونه از درک ساده ترين مسايل انسانی عاجزند و چگونه دستاوردهای زن ها سرزمين مان را به تاراج می برند. آنگاه بياييد به قضاوت بنشينيم. من، مثل هر انسان عدالت طلب و آزادی خواه، طبعا رضاشاه را، برکنار از همه ی سازندگی های او، به عنوان يک ديکتاتور می شناسم، حتی روش های تحميلی او را برای برداشتن چادر از سر زن ها عملی ديکتاتوری می دانم، و تحقق نيافتن بسياری از خواسته های انقلاب مشروطيت، مثل آزادی بيان و انتخابات و احزاب را، نتيجه ی مستقيم رفتارهای نادرست او می دانم، اما، با اين همه، نمی توانم که به، عنوان يک فمنيست، اقدامات او را در ارتباط با آزادی زن با ارزش ندانم. به اعتقاد من، هر حرکتی که به آزادی انسان از بندهايي که سنت ها به دست و پای او بسته بيانجامد حرکتی قابل تعمق و توجه و ارج گذاری است. به عقيده من سال های 1931 تا 1936 (که تجلی گاه آن همين روز هفدهم دی است) سال های بزرگ و سرنوشت سازی برای زن ها ايرانی به طور اخص، و زن های جهان به طور اعم، است. در اين سال ها همان قوانينی به نفع زنان ايران تغيير کرد که در بسياری از کشورهای ديگر جهان هنوز ـ در اوايل قرن بيست و يکم ـ تغييری در آن ها مشاهده نشده است؛ مثلا بگيريم قوانين مربوط به سن ازدواج را. در همين کشور آيت الله ها کودکان نه ساله را قانونا مورد تجاوز قرار می دهند و اسمش را ازدواج می گذارند. هنوز در برخی از کشورها زن ها حق طلاق ندارند و هنوز در برخی از کشورها زن ها نمی توانند بدون پوششی اسلامی از خانه خارج شوند و يا کاری معادل مردها داشته باشند. و يا حتی پشت فرمان اتومبيل بنشينند. به اين ترتيب، به گمان من، روز هفده دی روزی است که در آن زن های ايرانی توانستند، پس از سال ها تلاش، بالاخره به برخی از خواسته های خود برسند ـ خواسته هايي که به اعتقاد من بسيار مهم و با ارزش هستند. هفده دی روزی است که در آن زن ها توانستند حکومتی قادر و قدرتمند را قانع کنند که خواسته های آن ها را قانونی و رسمی کند. و در نتيجه هر جشنی که برای اين روز گرفته شود جشنی است که مربوط به زن و حقوق زن ايرانی است.

www.shokoohmirzadegi.com: ---برگرفته از سايت نويسنده

How to rescue 'Federalism' from The 'Seperatists'

فدرالیسم را از زندان تجزیز طلبان نجات دهیم

با نگاهی به مقاله "همرائی" آقای داریوش همایون و

کمی اندیشیدن، بیشتر فکردن و منطق را جایگزین هیجان نمودن

هدف مشخص من را دراین نوشتارمی توانید بمانند همیشه نگرانیم برای آینده ایران بدانید و به آقای داریوش همایون هم برای اینکه نگران نباشند در این نوشته تعهد کتبی می دهم که نه جزء "کمونیست های سربلند کرده" هستم، نه از "حزب الهی های از هر رنگ" و نه از "سلطنت طلب های رنگارنگ" و یا...،

ایشان در قسمتی از مقاله "همرائی" و از قول یکی از اندیشه مندان انگلیسی نوشته اند که "هدف دموکراسی باید ایجاد بیشترین خوشبختی برای بیشترین مردمان (!!!) باشد".

از فحوای کلام چنین بر می آید که بطور قطع این بیشترین مردمان از دید نویسنده – داریوش همایون – همگی در زمان رضا شاه و محمد رضاشاه و در نهایت آرامش و بدون کوچکترین خواست و نیازی در یک جامعه آزاد و دموکراتیک در تهران زندگی می کرده اند و همه هم پادشاه طلب و سلطنت طلب بوده اند و امروز هم تمامی ایرانیان با همان طرز تفکر که مجبورند داشته باشند در انتظار نشسته اند که حزب مشروطه (یعنی داریوش همایون) و یا داریوش همایون (یعنی حزب مشروطه) چه نسخه ای صادر می کند تا دستورالعمل مبارزه برای بازگرداندن گذشته ای باشند که بدون هیچگونه تردیدی بوجود آورنده بستر اهانت بار امروز ماست.

اگر کسی در دوران پنجاه – شصت سال پیش از تکنولوژی امروز گرفتار است و از اعلامیه جهانی حقوق بشر تنها آنچه را می بیند که خود می خواهد و توان نگاه کردن به واقعیت های اعلامیه حقوق بشر حتی شصت سال پس از پیدایش آنرا نیز ندارد گناه جامعه هفتاد و چند میلیونی امروز ایران نیست که تمامی تلاشش را برای بدست آوردن آزادی و رهائی از وجود اهانت بار حکومت جمهوری اسلامی و هر نوع حکومت اربابی و استبدادی و دیکتاتوری و با تمام مشکلاتش دنبال می کند.

در زمره نخستین پایه گذران و امضاء کنندگان اعلامیه جهانی حقوق بشر کشورهائی چون ایالات متحده امریکا، آلمان، هند، سویس و...، بوده اند که همگی از روز نخست پذیرای اداره کشور از طریق " فدرالیسم " شدند، اگر حتی کمی هم شده بفکر بنشینیم، بی تردید باید باین نتیجه مشخص برسیم که مقامات و متفکران هیچکدام از این کشورها نه تنها قصد و نیت شان "فروپاشی" و "بجان هم انداختن مردمان کشورشان" نبوده است که با یک آینده نگری، تلاش داشته اند که با هدف برابری و آزادی برای مردمشان چارچوب و تمامیت ارضی خود را پا برجا نگاهدارند.

امروز و به دنبال تفکرات بلند و ارزشمند آنروز آنها شاهد آن هستیم که یکی از پابرجاترین دموکراسی ها در هند وجود دارد، یکی از آزاد ترین کشورهای جهان سویس است، آلمان در زمره پیشرفته ترین کشورهای جهان قرار دارد و ایالات متحده امریکا با تمام معایبش بر جهان حکومت می کند و یادآوری این مهم نه بدان معناست که ما هم امروز کپی برداری کنیم و همان کار را انجام دهیم، ولی بطور قطع در برگیرنده این مفهوم می باشد که تعین تکلیف نکنیم و اجازه دهیم در یک فضای آزاد مردم بتوانند برای امروز و فردایشان تصمیم بگیرندو ما تنها نقش یک مشورت دهنده را بعهده بگیریم، اگر از ما مشورتی طلب شود.

نکته بسیار مهمی که حافظه تاریخی مان اجازه نمی دهد بدان بپردازیم و یادآور خودمان شویم اینست که در نوشتن اعلامیه جهانی حقوق بشر در شصت سال پیش نماینده کشور ایران نیز حضور داشته است و ایران نیز یکی از کشورهائی بوده است که مورد مشورت قرار گرفته بود، اگر همانروز هم اصل "انجمن های ایالتی – ولایتی"در قانون اساسی مشروطیت و در اصل قاموس آن قانون مورد احترام برای مسئولان و حکومت کنندگان کشور می بود باز هم امروز ما اینچنین دچار آشفتگی و سرگردانی نبودیم که هر روز بدلیل یک سلسله تحریکات و بی فکری ها اینهمه نگران تجزیه ایران مان باشیم.

چشمان ما نه تنها توانائی دیدن چنین واقعیت هائی را ندارد که همچنان در توهمات خود غرق گشته ایم و فراموش می کنیم که پیش زمینه های این بحث های جدائی طلبی که به ذعم من تنها افراد و گروههای کوچک و منحصر بفرد و تک نفره ای را در بر می گیرد که به یمن وجود جمهوری اسلامی و فرصت هائی که این حکومت ایجاد کرده است از سوئی وحمایت قدرت های غربی که همیشه با تفکر تجزیه ایران پیش رفته اند از سوئی دیگر است در میان مردم ایران کوچکترین پایگاه و جایگاهی ندارد.

ولی فراموش نکنیم که تمامی اینها ریشه و پایه ای در گذشته ای مملو از استبداد و دیکتاتوری دارد که امروز سر بر افراشته است.

به خودمان بیآئیم، واقعیت اینست که بطور قطع و یقین معنی و مفهوم "همرائی" برایمان شناخته شده نیست، چرا که همچنان مفهوم "همرائی" برایمان تجدید دوران گذشته و ندیده انگاشتن خواست ها و نیازهای واقعی دیروز و امروز مردم ایران است.

اگر همان روزها که امروز افسوسش برای بسیاری وجود دارد کمی از خودمحوری ها وحاکمیت قدرت و زورکمتر می شد و بر عقل و درایت افزوده می گشت و آینده نگری جایگزین آن می گردید بی تردید امروز گرفتار همین چند ده نفری هم که جدائی طلب و بیگانه پرست هستند نمی شدیم.

و این در حالیست که من همچنان اعتقادم بر اینست که اگر با "انصاف سیاسی – اجتماعی" به مسائل نگاه کنیم، در مهمترین برخورد باید باین مهم بیاندیشیم که رضاشاه ایران را از زندگی قبیله ای به دنیای مدرن وارد کرد و محمد رضا شاه با تمام ضعف هایش آرزوئی جز سربلندی ایران نداشت.

لازم به توضیح می دانم که این مسئله همچنان کوچکترین ارتباطی باین ندارد که من از هر نوع حکومت دیکتاتوری متنفرم که می تواند نامش صاحب و ارباب باشد و یا شاه دیکتاتور و رئیس جمهور مادام العمر و یا ولی فقیه که اهانت بارترینش است و اگر بطور پیوسته از تمامی افراد و گروه ها دعوت می کنم که بفکر بنشینند نه به معنای طرفداری از این و یا آن تفکر، بلکه صرفا بدین معناست که افراد با هر نوع عقیده ای که دارند برای از میان برداشتن این بی هویتی و حقارت دست بدست هم دهند و در فردای آزاد ایران به تلاش برای متقاعد کردن دیگران بپردازند.

جای تاسف فراوان است که ما همچنان با گذر از تجربه ها، نیآموخته ایم که به معانی و مفاهیم واژه ها در ابعاد گسترده تری نگاه کنیم و کمی هم شده بیاندیشیم که ممکن است برداشت من از واژه "همرائی" تنها همانی که من فکر می کنم نباشد و این واژه جز معنی "همراه شدن با من" که روح و ضمیر گوینده را بدنبال دارد مورد استفاده قرار نگیرد و مفاهیم دیگری را نیز به ذهن متبادر کند.

ما هنوز هم نمی خواهیم بپذیریم که پایه ها و چارچوب واقعی "همرائی" را خواست ها و نیازهای همگانی تشکیل می دهد و همچنان درب بر آن پایه نمی گرد د که آنچه را من فکر می کنم همان باید انجام شود.

اگر خواست و دیدگاه تمامی مردم ایران در آنروز "سومکا" و در امروز "حزب مشروطه" و یا "داریوش همایون" بود که نمی بایست اینهمه نگرانی برای یکپارچگی ایران وجود داشته باشد.

ما اگر امروز خیلی می خواهیم ناسیونالیست و ایران پرست معرفی شویم بهتر است بجای ایستادن پشت سر منفور ترین حکومت دنیای امروز و در قرن بیست و یکم، موقعیت امروز ایران را بهتر بشناسیم و بجای شعارهای دهان پر کن و بدون محتوا راه های موجود برای باقی ماندن و یکپارچه ماندن ایران را بکمک همدیگر جستجو کنیم.

اینکه مرتب شعارهای بی اعتبار شده "کمونیست های سربلند کرده"، "حزب الهی های از هر رنگ"، سلطنت طلب های رنگارنگ و یا...، را مطرح و تمامی دیدگاه ها را جز خود چه خوب و چه بد "لجن پراکنی" لقب دهیم هیچ قدمی بیشتر از امروز حکومت جمهوری اسلامی بر نداشته ایم، چرا که آنها هم دقیقا همین شعار ها را جز "حزب الهی" مرتبا تکرار می کنند که با همین شیوه هم بیشترین و بزرگترین بی اعتباری را برای خود کسب کرده اند.

یادمان باشد علی رغم فاسد ترین حکومتی که امروز بر ایران وجود دارد "توتالیتاریسم" تنها مختص امروز و در سی سال گذشته نبوده است، توتالیتاریسم در فرهنگ و در حکومت های تاریخ ایران نهادینه شده است و تنها راه نجات از آن و رسیدن به یک حاکمیت مردمی دوری کردن از اعلامیه و دستور صادر کردن است که آنهم به فکر و اندیشه نیاز دارد و انسان های کار آزموده و اندیشمند را طلب می کند که به مفهوم واقعی دموکراسی بیاندیشند و ایرانیان را در هر گوشه ای از این مملکت که هستند و در سرزمین مادریشان برابر و یکسان نگاه کند و دموکراسی را برای همه آنان بخواهند.

برای من بطور قطع حاکمیت غیرمتمرکز و یا هر حکومتی که مردم تصمیم گیر آن باشند می خواهد نامش فدرال باشد و یا هر اسم دیگری در قالب ایرا ن یکپارچه مهمترین هدف وخواستگاهم است.

فدرالیسم هم تنها این نیست که ما شعار آنرا بدهیم و تنها به وجود آن در چند کشور اشاره کنیم بلکه باید بتوانیم طرحی را ارائه کنیم که با ویژه گی های فرهنگی – اجتماعی - اقتصادی و سیاسی برای جامعه ما بوجود آمده باشد و با فرهنگ و خصوصیات ایران و ایرانی و برای ایران تدوین شده باشد و بتواند برای تمامی ما ایرانیان چه در زابل و ایرانشهر، چه در گرمی و آذر شهر، چه در تربت جام و چه در میناب و چاه بهار و در نهایت تهران بتواند برابری و یکسانی در قالب تمامیت ارضی و با حفظ چهار گوشه ایران بوجود بیاورد و قادر باشد خواست ها و نیازهای تمامی ایرانیان را در بستر ایران فراهم آورد.

این همان ایده آلی خواهد بود که برایم وجود دارد و برایش بیشترین تلاش را خواهم کرد خواستگاهی که امیدوارم بتواند سربلندی ایرانیان را به ارمغان آورد و آرزوهای نزدیک به یکصد پنجاه سال آشفتگی و پراکندگی را یکبار و برای همیشه از میان بر دارد.

التماس می کنم، بیآئیم و کمی هم که شده از شعار دوری و به شعور نزدیک تر شویم و به خودمان بر گردیم که چگونه می توان "حکومت تهران" را به "حکومت ایران" تبدیل کنیم و چگونه می توانیم مفاهیم "غیر متمرکز" و "فدرالیسم" و یا هر نوع واژه دیگری را در این زمینه برای مردممان و در قالب "ایران" به ثمر برسانیم و بارور کنیم و به جستجوی راه های رسیدن به آنها بپردازیم، یکی از بزرگترین مسئولیت های ما اینست که "فدرالیسم" را از زندان تجزیه طلبان نجات دهیم و آنرا با معانی و مفاهیم مدرن در چارچوب ایران پیاده کنیم. وحشت نداشته باشیم، نه کردهای ما می خواهند به عراق و ترکیه و سوریه بپیوندند، نه بلوچ های ما قصد ملحق شدن به افغانستان و پاکستان را دارند و نه لرها و ترکمن ها و خوزستانی های ایران می خواهند ایران را تجزیه کنند - آنها در طول هزاره ها ایرانی بودن خود را باثبات رسانده اند و بهای سنگین تری پرداخته اند؛ کمی فکر کنیم!

تنها کسانی بطور مرتب بر طبل گذشته می کوبند که فکر و حرف و سخنی برای امروز و فردای ایران ندارند، به خودمان بیآئیم آیا همین بی فکری ها و شعارهای تو خالی و بی محتوا نبوده است که ما را به امروزمان و با حکومت جمهوری اسلامی به این بی هویتی و حقارت رسانده است ؟

برای ساختن آینده ایران تنها به فکر و اندیشه و شجاعت ابراز کردنش و دوری از هیجان و تحریک مردم نیاز است.

تصور می کنید کمی به خود آمدن و اندیشیدن بد باشد؟

حسین لاجوردی

پاریس – 24 آذر 1387

14 دسامبر 2008

Historical Documents

Manufactured Coup of 1979 Against the Late Shah of Iran Excerpts from the "A Century of War": "In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States.Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines.Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere.In its lead editorial that September, Iran's Kayhan International stated: In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum] consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran … Looking to the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle all operations by itself.London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the Shah's regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3 million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day.This imposed dramatic revenue pressures on Iran, which provided the context in which religious discontent against the Shah could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and U.S. intelligence.In addition, strikes among oil workers at this critical juncture crippled Iranian oil production. As Iran's domestic economic troubles grew, American 'security' advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah.At the same time, the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of 'human rights' under the Shah. British Petroleum reportedly began to organize capital flight out of Iran, through its strong influence in Iran's financial and banking community.The British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC 'correspondents' sent into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the Shah.The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah's government an equal chance to reply. Repeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result. Anglo-American intelligence was committed to toppling the Shah. The Shah fled in January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive theocratic state to replace the Shah's government.Reflecting on his downfall months later, shortly before his death, the Shah noted from exile, I did not know it then perhaps I did not want to know but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.[1][1]With the fall of the Shah and the coming to power of the fanatical Khomeini adherents in Iran, chaos was unleashed. By May 1979, the new Khomeini regime had singled out the country's nuclear power development plans and announced cancellation of the entire program for French and German nuclear reactor construction. Iran's oil exports to the world were suddenly cut off, some 3 million barrels per day. Curiously, Saudi Arabian production in the critical days of January 1979 was also cut by some 2 million barrels per day. To add to the pressures on world oil supply, British Petroleum declared force majeure and cancelled major contracts for oil supply. Prices on the Rotterdam spot market, heavily influenced by BP and Royal Cutch Shell as the largest oil traders, soared in early 1979 as a result.The second oil shock of the 1970s was fully under way. Indications are that the actual planners of the Iranian Khomeini coup in London and within the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment decided to keep President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives. The ensuing energy crisis in the United States was a major factor in bringing about Carter's defeat a year later.There was never a real shortage in the world supply of petroleum. Existing Saudi and Kuwaiti production capacities could at any time have met the 5-6 million barrels per day temporary shortfall, as a U.S. congressional investigation by the General Accounting Office months later confirmed. Unusually low reserve stocks of oil held by the Seven Sisters oil multinationals contributed to creating a devastating world oil price shock, with prices for crude oil soaring from a level of some $14 per barrel in 1978 towards the astronomical heights of $40 per barrel for some grades of crude on the spot market. Long gasoline lines across America contributed to a general sense of panic, and Carter energy secretary and former CIA director, James R. Schlesinger, did not help calm matters when he told Congress and the media in February 1979 that the Iranian oil shortfall was 'prospectively more serious' than the 1973 Arab oil embargo.[2][2]The Carter administration's Trilateral Commission foreign policy further ensured that any European effort from Germany and France to develop more cooperative trade, economic and diplomatic relations with their Soviet neighbor, under the umbrella of détente and various Soviet-west European energy agreements, was also thrown into disarray. Carter's security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, implemented their 'Arc of Crisis' policy, spreading the instability of the Iranian revolution throughout the perimeter around the Soviet Union.In 1978, the Iranian Ettelaat published an article accusing Khomeini of being a British agent. The clerics organized violent demonstrations in response, which led to the flight of the Shah months later. See U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies, Iran. The Coming of the Revolution. December 1987.The role of BBC Persian broadcasts in the ousting of the Shah is detailed in Hossein Shahidi. 'BBC Persian Service 60 years on.' The Iranian. September 24, 2001.The BBC was so much identified with Khomeini that it won the name 'Ayatollah BBC.' [2][2] Comptroller General of the United States. 'Iranian Oil Cutoff: Reduced Petroleum Supplies and Inadequate U.S. Government Response.' Report to Congress by General Accounting Office. 1979. Complicity of France in Manufacturing the Iranian Revolution and Jimmy Carter's betrayal of the Iranian People Aryamehr posted a very good article from The Brussels Journal about the French's involvement in creating the Iranian coup d'etat in 1979. His post also links to a previous post of his about Jimmy Carter's involvement in the sickening affair. I've posted some excerpts below fyi, but the whole thing (not very long) is definitely worth a read when you have a minute....The inaction and general incompetence displayed by former US President Jimmy Carter, today an apologist for the Islamic Jihad against Israel, certainly contributed, but we mustn’t forget former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing.The irony is that while the Ayatollah Khomeini could establish an Islamic state directed from the suburbs of Paris, the French 30 years later have hundreds of Islamic mini-states on French soil. Khomeini and his cronies used this window of opportunity at a critical stage of the uprising against the Shah to consolidate their power and establish their lead over the direction of which the Revolution was headingAs Ambassador Freddy Eytan says:President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing had invited the Shah of Iran as his first official foreign guest, in view of France’s interest in Iranian oil. In 1978, Giscard and his Interior Minister Michel Poniatowski foresaw the collapse of the Shah’s government, which would damage France’s commercial interests.The proposal was then raised to bring the Ayatollah Khomeini to Algeria. Before, he had been chased from one place to the other. The DST, the French secret service, opposed his entry but Giscard overruled them and granted Khomeini political asylum in France. He stayed in Neauphle le Chateau near Paris. From there, he distributed cassettes to Iran inciting against democracy, peace in the Middle East, the Jews and Israelis. He also called for jihad, a violent holy war. The PLO distributed Khomeini’s cassettes to Iran. When the American embassy in Teheran was attacked in November 1979, PLO members were among the perpetrators. Yasser Arafat was the first official guest in Teheran. He received a popular welcome as a great hero for supporting the Islamic revolution.Today, we know that Khomeini’s concepts of the Islamic Republic have led to a major expansion of militant Islam. Both Hizbollah and Al Qaeda have their origins in the revolutionary ideas developed in Khomeini’s Iran. The violent speeches in the Iranian mosques and international Islamist terror would not have developed without Khomeini’s stay in France and the publicity he received there. Without Giscard’s hospitality, Khomeini would not have been able to take power in Iran and develop an infrastructure for international propaganda and terrorism.See my earlier post on Carter's involvement in the coup of 1979 which brought the demonic mullahs and the father of militant Islam, Khomeini to power. Here are some excerpts:"The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere.In its lead editorial that September, Iran's Kayhan International stated: In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum] consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran … Looking to the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle all operations by itself. London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the Shah's regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3 million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day...

A Speech by HRH Reza Cyrus Pahlavi II

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us


Democracy and Human Rights In Iran: What role for the West? A Speech by Reza Pahlavi II - House of Commons 18th November 2008

Ladies and Gentlemen, It is a great pleasure for me to be with you this afternoon, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Henry Jackson Society in London as well as Gisela Stuart MP for helping to organize this meeting. Let me start by saying that in my talk with you today, I wish to go beyond the designated issue of democracy and human rights in my country, and any role which the West might have in promoting them. This is because, democracy and human rights in Iran is today intricately tied with a number of other key issues such as nuclear proliferation, regional stability and finally, international peace and security. To be more specific, I wish to say that the threat that is posed to international security by the Islamic Republic of Iran, is precisely because of the fact that Iran is today governed by a brutal dictatorship, where the will of the majority is ignored and anyone who in any way challenges the decisions of the state are severely dealt with. It thus follows that the establishment of a democratic system of government in Iran that respects the human rights of its citizens will undoubtedly pave the way for removing Iran as a major source of international anxiety. The implications of such a transition are quite obvious for both the people of Iran as well as the wider international community. For the people of Iran, the establishment of a democratic government would mean that their country would cease being an international pariah. Moreover, it would mean that country’s vast resources would be mobilized for securing the future of the country by helping to cure its ailing economy instead of driving the nation to the brinks of an unwanted military confrontation with the international community over something ridiculous like uranium enrichment. Indeed a democratic government in Iran would invest in the people of Iran instead of investing in forces of instability and terror with whom they have bonded for promoting a militant anti-Western, and in particular, anti American agenda. In my view, it thus follows that the West does have a role in seeing how this scenario develops. It can either stand aside or remain impervious to the plight of millions of my compatriots by trying to compromise with their oppressors or adopt a different, more ethical role of siding with them and helping them to attain their fundamental rights and basic freedoms. Here, I wish to add that, in my view, there is no question that the prospect for change in the aftermath of the election victory of President Elect Barrack Obama, has already aroused a new atmosphere of great expectations on the part of people everywhere, including my homeland, who see his success as a new and promising catalyst for the construction of a new world order that is based on peace, freedom, justice and opportunity. Given his personal background, people – irrespective of their nationality or geographical circumstance – are hopeful that the new US president will be much more sensitive to the kind of problems and impediments which have held them back and compromised their honor and dignity at the same time. The pertinent question, therefore, is whether such expectations are realistic or not? Another words, will it be business as usual where economic interest often trump human rights considerations or will we step into a new and different era with all its incumbent challenges? Focusing on my country, it is fair to say that up until the last several weeks when world attention has been fixed on the ongoing international financial crisis, that Iran and Iran related issues – in one way or another – had consistently received a disproportionate share of attention in the world media. Iran’s obstinate disregard of numerous UN Security Council resolutions and various international warnings concerning its nuclear policy and ambitions has created a situation whereby the country has become increasingly isolated while creeping slowly to the edges of an unwanted military conflict. It is also true to say that while certain parties in the West have periodically responded to Iranian disregard for international pressures such as those demanded by the Security Council and others that were more diplomatically conveyed in the ‘5+1’ meetings, by insisting that “all options are on the table”, there is a general sense that warnings of this nature are more indicative of rising frustration rather than clear intent. It is clear that so far, the ‘5+1’ policy in halting Iran’s uranium enrichment program has failed to achieve its objectives, since neither the promise of inducements nor the threat of punishments have been sufficient to convince the Islamic leaders to change direction. It is in finding itself in such a situation, when its repackaged incentive offer has been effectively turned down, and in circumstances when the ‘5+1’ have been unable to be more robust in imposing stricter sanctions against the clerical regime, that the debate regarding ‘cooperation or confrontation’ with Iran is once again being revived. Now, when we speak of ‘cooperation or confrontation’, there is no question that everyone would prefer ‘cooperation’ to ‘confrontation’. The most obvious factor is whether it is possible to arrive at an acceptable ‘modus vivendi’ with Iran or not? Here, it is essential once again, to take note that in the case of Iran’s nuclear file, the West has been engaged in negotiations with Iran for over 5 years, where the Europeans in particular have gone to extreme lengths in order to arrive at some form of a compromise. Their failure is due to the fact that their offers of incentive have been insufficient to commit the Iranians to observing their ‘red-lines’. Thus, in very simple terms, unless the US and the EU are willing to re-draw the very ‘red-lines’ that they have marked of their own accord, then prospects for cooperation would appear to be very dim. No doubt if the ‘5+1’ were willing to live with a nuclear Iran, it would inevitably lead to a major proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, making the region a greater powder keg than it already is, then I am sure that the current crises could be resolved ‘cooperatively’. A recent study produced by the Institute for Security Studies of the European Union makes specific recommendations to this effect. But this is not a formula that I would recommend. Here, I wish to be very candid with you: I believe that while one must strive for making every effort to make cooperation work, one cannot avoid confrontation by behaving expediently or by compromising one’s own principles. I believe that the majority of honored guests here this afternoon are well familiar with the history of the 1930s when the will to cooperate in an attempt to avoid conflict, blinded responsible politicians and eventually forced them into a much more costly confrontation which they had tried so hard to avoid in the first place! So what can be done or should be done? Will cooperation be the way forward or is there no choice other than confrontation? Today, the diplomatic ‘buzz word’ seems to be ‘engagement’. The obvious inference from this is that the US, in particular, should no longer insist on any preconditions and be ready to open direct talks with Iran. Here, it must be reiterated that perhaps for more than two decades we had a reverse situation, where the US was willing to come to the table but it was the Islamic regime that had the preconditions. It is interesting to point out that while Iran has been clamoring for some time for direct talks with the US, and as signs have appeared that moves towards that end are now being seriously contemplated by the new Obama administration, another spanner was recently thrown into this mind-boggling equation by one of Ahmadinejad’s close advisers in Teheran who said that Iran will only talk with “the US when it has left the Middle East and ended its support for the Zionist regime”! Most proponents of this line of thinking – perhaps wishfully, nourish the prospect that once direct negotiation starts than all contentious issues that have led to an estrangement of relations between Iran and the US, which have also indirectly affected Iran-EU relations, may in time become resolved. In this context, quite apart from issues of primary concern to a majority of Iranians who aspire to live in a society that is free and humane with all its incumbent paraphernalia, the Iranian regime would be expected to modify its behavior on such issues as its nuclear aspirations, active engagement in international terrorism and finally, its menacing and destabilizing activities in places like Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf region. But, is this a realistic expectation, given the nature of the Islamic Republic and the fact that for the past 30 years, militant anti-Americanism across the board has been the very foundation of its foreign policy? I certainly hope that the next US administration would give proper consideration to such realities. Most importantly, I feel that everyone in the West and in particular the US, would have a much clearer picture of issues, if they made a serious attempt at seeing matters from the prism of the Islamic leadership in Iran and not just their own wishes and priorities. I accept that this is not an easy challenge, but it is crucial and until such time that an effort has been made in this direction, there is no reason to hope that future policy decisions will be any better than those made in the past 30 years. Having said all that let me make it clear that I am strongly opposed to any form of military action against my country. But for diplomacy to succeed, the aims as well as the obstacles to any intended objective needs to be carefully assessed and above all understood. Moreover, it is imprudent and self defeating if the West was to constantly find itself in a position of having to re-draw its own red lines. Here, it is also essential that the ideological divide that separates the Iranian regime from the Iranian people as well as the wider world be also taken into account. I would like to elaborate this point by suggesting that a consequence of the Islamic regime’s estrangement with its own people who are without doubt its ‘Achilles’ Heel’ in the course of the last three decades, has been the main impetus behind what I call its policy of ‘entrenchment’ in the Middle East region and beyond. In other words, as the regime gradually lost its popularity and legitimacy at home, it felt the need to hold some cards outside Iran for the obvious reason of fending off external pressures that might threaten its very existence. Now let me say a few words about matters inside Iran. Despite its seemingly confident and secure outlook, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) is in fact more vulnerable and damage prone than ever before in its 29 years of existence. The effects of the UN Security Council sanctions have already affected the country’s economy by having a significant impact on the private sector, while the imposition of gasoline rationing as well as the recently introduced VAT charges, have resulted in huge public protests that have led to unexpected strikes and violence. In previous years, the IRI has successfully been able to ‘ride through’ a number of serious crises, a factor that is a mark to their resilience as well as the support base on which their order was initially constructed. Nonetheless, the number of difficult circumstances which the regime has confronted in previous years have taken their toll. Moreover, the mass exodus of its most skilled and experienced entrepreneurs, managers, bureaucrats and educated elites have contributed greatly to a major mismanagement crisis across the board, resulting in a tremendous fall in the per capita income of all Iranians. Today, the clerical regime’s support base is at best no more than 10-15% of our population. In times of emergency, such as election times and the like, using the resources of our country, they are able to mobilize another similar figure. What this means is that in the course of the last three decades, the regime has alienated the rest of the population and is thus fearful of any circumstance that might lead to the mobilization of those it can no longer persuade. Also, while Iran is perhaps the cradle of modern day ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’, it is an accepted fact that despite its general rhetoric, none of the regime’s sanctimonious pronouncements have any bearing on the conduct of every day life amongst the Iranian people. Indeed, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that, although a theocracy in name, Iran is today governed like most other secular dictatorships that the world has known, since people only obey the likes of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, not because of their special relationship with the almighty, but simply out of fear or economic need. This development is a natural consequence of successive years of failure by the regime to improve economic conditions, and to relax social and civil society demands in a milieu where 70% of the population is below the age of 30 and well versed with the desires and aspirations of their contemporaries in other parts of the world and in particular, the West. In the sphere of foreign policy, because of its intransigence over its nuclear file, the IRI has never been under such international pressure since its very inception. In the past 12 months, a total of four UN Security Council Resolutions have warned and subsequently punished Iran for its continued defiance of the international will. Moreover, it is thought unlikely that Islamic Republic will ever accept any compromise involving a complete halt to its uranium enrichment program. Iran’s current stand off with the international community is also exacerbated by other factors such as Iran’s continued reliance on resort to Terrorism – both direct and indirect – for the advancement of its foreign policy objectives which have further increased tensions with the US and its various allies in places like Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan. In summary, for more than a year now, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been in the midst of two extraordinary and dangerous crises. First, the amount of international pressure on Iran because of its uncompromising stance over its nuclear agenda, and second, the country’s domestic crisis fueled mainly as a consequence of its faltering economy, have both been unprecedented. As we speak, the pressures from these quarters have not declined, and there are no immediate signs that this crisis will be coming to an end any time soon. How this crisis comes to an end is, nevertheless, a matter of supreme importance not just to the Islamic leadership in that it can mean survival or the beginning of the end for them, but for the West, given that it now has the opportunity for tilting the balance in favor of forces of democracy, progress and human rights. Seen from the stand point of the West,I should like to point out that in the course of the past 30 years, there have been a series of confusing signals which have simply complicated matters. Focusing in particular on the US, there is little wonder that rhetoric and posturing should have eclipsed meaningful policy based on reality. As a result, there have been great many vacillations over the years that have ranged from accommodation and cooperation to regime change. Perhaps what lies at the heart of this problem – something which I believe to be a especially central issue for the new US administration – is the need to come up with a clear and robust policy that is capable of dealing effectively with Iran. From the perspective of the EU and next US administration, while any talk of regime change – something that in any case is only the business of the Iranian people – may be set aside, securing Iranian compliance or cooperation over a whole host of critical issues highlighted by the current nuclear impasse will remain a clear priority. Indeed, dealing with some of these critical problems is widely expected to be the first major foreign policy challenges of the new Obama administration. Finally, I would like to leave you with this thought: In the last 30 years, since the advent of the Islamic regime in Iran, we have seen a sizable expansion in the number of highly destructive conflicts that have raged in the Middle East spanning from Afghanistan to the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean. As we speak, there are some unfinished conflicts that still continue to threaten the peace and stability of the region as well as the prospects of all future generations living in the Middle East. What has happened in the last 30 years is history. But looking to the future it is important to note that the Islamic regime, and the regional friends and allies it has been able to cultivate, have a vision of life and society that is in stark contrast with the majority of other regional governments and their allies which includes the EU and the US. To move forward positively, it is crucial for the West not to once again indulge itself in tactics that have been tried and tested before, and seen to fail. Therefore, bearing in mind all that has been said, and given the fact that we are living in an increasingly interdependent environment, it should be apparent that Without a creative new policy supported by robust diplomatic efforts that encompasses a role for the overwhelming majority of Iranians who do not share the visions and values of their current rulers, nothing will change. A policy of misplaced cooperation will be tantamount to capitulation, except for the fact that the ultimate cost of confrontation will most likely increase with time. The only meaningful policy would be to engage the Iranian people and invite them to be part of a new and imaginative policy which will guarantee Iran’s territorial integrity, freedom of choice and democratic expression plus a respect for individual human rights.

Al-Watan Daily: Interview With HRH Prince Reza Cyrus Pahlavi ll Of Iran

Al-Watan Daily (Kuwait) - Ahmad Zakaria - Tuesday, November 27th, 2007




Q1- What is your evaluation of the current Iranian policy in general?

A1- One has to look at the fundamental nature of the clerical regime in order to understand its true and ultimate intentions. Since its advent in 1979, the regime’s leaders – starting with Khomeini himself – set out to export their radical ideology to the region and beyond. The primary mission (raison d’être) of the regime is to convert other regimes to its own mold with the goal of establish a modern-day Islamic Shi’ite Caliphate. It is so stated and defined in its Constitution as well as that of the Pasdaran’s (Revolutionary Guards). To accomplish this, the regime has to a) maintain repression domestically; and b) create diversions internationally (region) to shift attention away from its own shortcomings.

Q2- Do you aim at regaining the throne of Iran?

A2- To me it is the content and not the form of Iran’s future government that matters most. My current political mission and role is the leading of a vigorous campaign against the clerical regime with the sole goal of forcing its demise, replacing it with a modern, secular, democratic parliamentary system. This mission will end, in its current form, the day my compatriots go to the polls and freely choose for themselves their desired form of representative government. Beyond that point, my fate will be decided by the Iranian people whom I stand ready to serve in whatever capacity they deem me fit.

Q3- How do you evaluate the recurring executions carried out in Iran?

A3- The regime maintains its suffocating grip over the citizens by using brute force and repression of dissent. Gruesome acts of public executions are barbaric methods and chilling reminders of the fate of dissenters in Iran. Through fear and humiliation, the regime commands submission. Public stoning of women and the execution of underage youth are revolting reminders of the regime’s callous disregard for human life, dignity and civility.

Q4- What is your vision of the relations of Arab countries with Iran?

A4- First and foremost, a democratic government which would inherently be answerable, accountable and responsible to its citizens would be compelled to create and maintain an atmosphere of warm and sincere relationship with its immediate neighbors. Coveted for our energy reserves, our region has been subject to the tugs of rivalries and manipulations between East and West, or North and South, as during the Cold War. Today we have a variation of the same conflicts manifesting themselves in different forms including the danger of militancy and proliferations of an arms race.We must address our futures collectively by rebuilding our alliances, strengthening our cultural bonds, resolving old conflicts, and investing within the region. Time heals all wounds as strong roots breed new life. Our history and destinies are inseparable deeply rooted and a common bond of tradition. I am hopeful in my generation and have seen among my good friends in the region the real possibilities that await our horizon.

Q5- How do you find the Iranian threat to the gulf countries regarding using the sleeping cells to carry out violent actions?

A5- This is the unfortunate nature of the militant regime ruling my homeland. Its commitment to the export of its ideology takes many forms; the most troubling of which is the free use of terrorism and support of militancy as a tool of foreign policy. To reach its grand vision of Shi’aa hegemony, it will not hesitate to use any method necessary to convert its neighbors, even at the expense of destabilizing them.Q6- Where do you classify Reza Pahlavi in the Iranian opposition list?A6- Simply that my role is inclusively unique, in that I play a pivotal role in unifying all factions on common grounds and against one common enemy.

Q7- Do you expect an American attack against Iran?

A7- I have vociferously rejected and expressed my opposition to any kind of military action against my homeland! There is a much better way – far less costly and more legitimate – to put an end to the principal source of militancy in our region: Supporting the people of Iran, as the most natural ally to the free world in their quest to rid themselves of the clerical regime. A combination of domestic pressure coupled with a cohesive international economic and diplomatic pressure will enable the people of Iran, an “army in place,” to rid themselves of the regime. It however very much concerns me that due to the mounting domestic problems the regime is faced with, it may in fact invite and seek such a confrontation.

Q8- What is your stance regarding the Iranian nuclear activities?

A8- It is quite telling that the very same countries which used to compete with each other to sell nuclear energy technology to Iran prior to Islamic Republic are today joining force to impose sanctions on the clerical regime in an attempt to prevent it from possessing it! This issue is about transparency, trust and accountability.The clerical regime’s three decade long track record, its totalitarian nature, its domestic repression, its support for terrorism, its regional adventurism and lack of transparency on the very subject has rightly caused the international community to suspect the regime’s intent.The regime plays on the nationalistic argument of Iran’s sovereign right to the technology. They need to be reminded that Iran had that right before they came to power. As a matter a fact, it is their behavior which is the cause for Iran today to be denied the privilege. For a regime that has violated just about any international charter and regulations, they cannot invoke the NPT only when it suits their purpose, and violate it by the same token when it does not.But let us understand the ultimate logic behind the regime’s quest for the bomb. Be it via manufacturing or acquisition, the clerical regime views the bomb as its key to survival. Why? Because it will serve as a counterweight to the inferiority of its conventional military capabilities against the West. Under a nuclear umbrella, the regime would be able to continue its support of terrorism, undermine the region, holding it hostage with the ultimate goal to institutionalize itself.The question is can the world afford that moment? I do not think so.

Q9- What is your view of Arab ethnicities in Iran?

A9- Iran is a country of 70 million people. It has been for centuries a mosaic of different ethnic groups, cultures and religions. The richness of Iran’s civilization stems from the many cultures and ethnicities we have. Out identity is an actual collection and infusion of multiple unique identities that have lived together through the ages.From my point of view, whether Kurdish, Arab, Balouch or Azari, whether Shia, Sunni, Christian or Jewish, every Iranian citizen has to feel and be equal under the law, with full protection and practical sense of common ownership and belonging to the nation. The only way to guarantee this is through the rule of law and practice of a democratic, secular Constitution based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is what I subscribe to, and have pledged to attain for my homeland.

Q10- Do you dream of being shah of Iran? If it happens, how will you deal with the gulf countries, especially Kuwait?

A10- I dream of helping liberate my homeland from this transient medieval system of clerical rule. It is the Iranian people whose dream and decision will determine the final form of our future constitution and government. Having said that, and in view of my homelands culture and history, I am confident that a modern constitutional monarchy, similar to that of Japan, Spain, UK and Sweden, will be perfectly capable in institutionalizing democracy and help usher in modernity, progress and development.As to Iran’s regional policy, it will, of course, be set by our future government and shall be reflective of the will of the Iranian people who aspire to a strong bond and friendly relations with all our neighbors. Personally however I am fully certain that a different era awaits our region, one which will be based on friendship, security and prosperity for our peoples. Relationships are based on individual decisions and actions. My generation will not loose a day or an opportunity to reach out to our neighbors. We have little time to waist and it can only be spent on building friendship and trust, and not by breeding conflict.As for Kuwait we are particularly proud of the strong bond and friendship that exits between our two people with so many of our families having built strong foundations of common heritage through extended multi-generational linkage.

Q11- What is your vision to the Iranian dispute with the Emirates over the three islands?

A11- Again, we have much more in common with our Emirate brothers than needs to be built upon. The era of conflict and confrontation will be replaced with one of trust, friendship and regional prosperity.

Q12- Do you think that Iran interferes negatively in the Iraqi issue?

A12- Clearly there is plenty of circumstantial as well as concrete evidence pointing to this fact. The reason for this is two folds: a) the clerical regime could not have sat aside idly and watch its neighbor set the precedence of stability, modernity and a secular democratic state; b) the ability to sustain chaos gives the Islamic republic to set the stage for an opportunity to replicate itself in a land which is home to Najaf and Karbala, shiism’s two holiest cities.

Massage for the Cyrus / Koroush / Human Rights's Day

327_rp2002.jpg

پیام شاهزاده رضا پهلوی بمناسبت روز کورش بزرگ، اعلام منشور حقوق بشر

همراه و همصدا با هم میهنان عزیزم، سال روز صـدور نخستین منشور آزادی انسان ها را بزرگ می دارم.

امیدوارم که یادآوری و بزرگداشت این رویداد تاریخی افتخار همۀ فرزندان ایران را به هویت تاریخی و درخشانشان دو چندان سازد و همبستگی آنان در راه نیل به آزادی و نیک بختی را جانی تازه بخشد. بیست و پنج قرن پیش، در دورانی که واژه های آزادی و حق بر مردم جهان ناشناخته بود، کورش بزرگ، پادشاه دادگر ایران، از آزادی و حیثیت انسان سخن گفت. او همگان را فراخواند که به یکی از آزادی های بنیادی بشری، که همانا آزادی پرستش و انتخاب مذهب باشد، احترام گذارند و با پیـروان هیچ کیشی به دشمنی برنخیزند و برعکس با آنان با احترام و مدارا رفتار کنند. چنین توشه های ارزنده و میراث های گران قدر فرهنگی است که شالوده های هویت ملی و ایرانی مردم شریف و صلح جوی ایران را مایه و ملاطی جاودانه بخشیده.

امروز با بزرگداشت و تکیۀ هرچه بیشتر بر چنین میراث هـا و ارزش هایی است که می توان پیکــار بــا دشمنـان حقوق و آزادی های مردم ایران را نیرویی بی کران بخشید. با الهام گرفتن از همۀ بزرگان و آزادی خواهان نامدار تاریخ ایران واز قهرمانان مترقی انقلاب مشروطه است که می توان سرانجام غاصبان حقوق مردم ایران و دشمنان آزادی و پیشرفت و نیک بختی آنان را به عقب راند و بار دیگر نام ایران را به فهرست جوامع آزاد و آباد جهان افزود.

یقین دارم که چنین خواهد شد.

خداوند نگهدار ایران باد
رضا پهلوی

audio پیام شاهزاده رضا پهلوی بمناسبت روز کورش بزرگ

پیام رضا پهلوی بمناسبت سالروز جهانی حقوق بشر

دوشنبه 19 آذر 1386

هم میهنان عزیزم،امروز در سالروز جهانی حقوق بشر و در آستانـۀ شصتمین سالگــرد صدور اعلامیۀ جهانی حقوق بشر و بهنگامی که سازمـان ملل متحد آمادۀ برپــایی برنامۀ یک سالـه برای بزرگداشت این منشور تاریخی است، تمام مواد این اعلامیه در سرزمین ما زیرپا نهاده میشود.

مضحک است، در حالـی که میـراث اخلاقی و فرهنگی ملت ما، یکــی از مهمتریــن عوامل الهام بخش حقوق بشر بشمار میرود، شهروندان ایرانی، از بیشتر آزادی های اولیه محروم هستند

.امروز سازمان عفــو بین الملل و دیگر سازمان های ناظــر، ایــران را تقریبا در ردۀ بالای لیست کشورهای ناقض حقوق بشر قرار میدهند.

طی ۲۸ سال گذشته، هیچ بخشی از جامعــۀ ایران، از ستم ها مصون نبــوده است.

زنان، جوانان، کارگــران، روزنامه نــگاران، روحانیــان مستقل، کشاورزان، دانشگاهیان، اقلیــت های مذهبی و قومی، همه به نوعی، هدف خشونت های آشکار قرار گرفته اند.

رهبران جمهوری اسلامی، نهایت تلاش خود را برای خدشه دار کردن تصویر شکوهمند کشور ما انجام داده اند و مردمان ما را به عنوان مُبلغان تروریسم، افــراد متعصب و ناسازگار و سرشار از تنفرمعرفی کرده اند.

آنان برای حفظ و بقای قدرت سیاسی نامشروع خود، حقوق فردی شهروندان ایرانی را، در مسلخ ایدئولوژی واپسگرا قربانی کرده اند.

برای من کاملا روشن است که ملت ما به زودی خود را از کابــوس کنونی رها ساختــه و میراث راستین خویش را بعنوان دژ محکم حقوق بشر و نگاهبانان آزادی و کرامت بازپس خواهد گرفت.

من با پشتیبــانی کامل از فعالیت های سازمان ملل در پیشبــرد حقوق بشــر از هم میهنانم و نیز از جامعۀ جهانی می خواهم که یک صدا و باتفاق، با تمامی شیوه های نقض حقوق انسانی شهروندان ایرانی که توسط دیکتاتوری ملایان اِعمال میشود، مخالفت ورزند

.خداوند نگهدار ایران باد

رضا پهلوی


HRH Reza pahlavi's message on the occasion of 'STUDENT DAY' in IRAN


پيام شاھزاده رضا پھلوی
درپشتيبانی ازاعتراضات دانشجويان در روزھای اخير
٢١ آذرماه١٣٨٧

هم میهنان عزیزم،

باردیگر فریاد آزادیخواهی و حق طلبی جوانان آزاده و آگاه ایرانی از سنگر فرهنگ ساز دانشگاه
برخاست و بانگ رسای آن خواب سنگین سرکوبگرانِ «مردم ستیز و ایران خوار» را آشفته ساخت.
آنچه در دانشگاه ها گذشت، جنبش فرزندانِ «انقلابی» بود که جز خفقان، فقر و ظلم ارمغانی دیگر برای آنها نداشت.
فریاد دانشجویان پیامی بود که از درون سینۀ مردم محروم جامعه برخاست و در سنگری قوی بنام دانشگاه نیرو گرفت و در این میان سرود آزادی و آگاهی دوباره خوانده شد و آوای آن از کوی و برزن دانشگاه به دامان شهر و روستای ایران روان گردید.
ایران خاستگاه آزادی است و آزادی «این ارمغان ایران به جهانیان» که با خوی ایرانی پیوندی دیرینه دارد، گمگشته ای است که از آن فرهنگ ما است و ناگزیر به همت شما جوانان دوباره به زادگاه خود بازخواهد گشت.
دانشجویان عزیز،صدای حق طلبانۀ شما در سراسر جهان طنین انداز شده و نموداری از اراده و عزم راسخ نسلی است که تشنۀ آزادی است.
اطمینان داشته باشید که مردم ایران در این راه با شما همگام خواهند بود و راه را برای استقرار یک حکومت دموکراتیک، سکولار و ملی هموار خواهند ساخت.
با درود فراوان به همۀ رهروان راه رهایی، من هم بنام یک ایرانی آزادیخواه در همه جا و به ویژه در سنگر دانشگاه با شما جوانان ایرانی که با اندیشه های نوین خود خون جوانی را در فرهنگ کهنسال ایران زمین می دمید، همراه و هم پیمان هستم.
خداوند نگهدار ایران باد
رضا پهلوی







تجمع دانشجویان به مناسبت روز دانشجو
گزارش کوتاه تجمع دانشجویی 16 آذر در تهران
مجموعه فعالان حقوق بشر در ایران
صدها نفر از دانشجویان دانشگاه تهران از ساعت 11 صبح امروز روبروی دانشکده ی فنی تجمع کرده وبه سنت هر ساله برای حمایت و ورود دانشجویانی که بیرون دانشگاه حضور داشتند و نیروهای امنیتی و انتظامی مانع ورود آنان به دانشگاه شده بودند ساعت 12 با حرکت به سمت درب 16 آذر اقدام به شکستن قفل های این درب نموده و باعث ورود آنان به داخل دانشگاه شدند. سپس با هماهنگی دفتر تحکیم وحدت روبروی دانشکده فنی تریبون آزاد دانشجویی برپا شد و دانشجویان با سر دادن شعارهایی نسبت به سیاست های دولت بویژه طرح بومی گزینی دانشجویان ، سهمیه بندی جنسیتی ، سیاستهای اقتصادی ، فضای بسته دانشگاهها و سخنان تهدید آمیز وزیر علوم اعتراض کردند.جمعیت تجمع کنندگان علیرغم حضور پرشمار نیروهای امنیتی و انتظامی ، بالغ بر چهارهزار تن تخمین زده میشد.در این مراسم تعدادی از فعالان دانشجویی منجمله مهدی عربشاهی دبیر تحکیم وحدت ، شاهین زینعلی نماینده ائتلاف دانشجویان ملی آزادی خواه و خانم مهدیه گلرو نماینده کمیته ی دفاع از حق تحصیل سخنرانی کردند. این مراسم ساعت 14 با حرکت دانشجویان به سمت درب اصلی دانشگاه به پایان رسید .
SEE THESE VIDEOS :
December 09 , 2008


Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

The spokesman for the the students said that demonstrators protested the policies of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, the supreme leadership in Iran that does not accept criticism, the clampdowns on the political activities of university students, and the banning of [student] publications. The student added that the gathering continued despite the heavy presence of security agents.

WHO IS MOJTABA KHAMENEI?

رئیس گشتاپوی اسلامی کیست؟
مجتبي خامنه اي (پسر علی خامنه ای) كيست؟
او را میتوان تئوریسین اصلی کودتای 23 خردااد نامید.همچنین او داماد غلامعلی حداد عادل رییس سابق مجلس شورای اسلامی است.او که روابط نزدیکی با سران سپاه داردقصد دارد با کمک ایشان خود را خلیفه ایران کند و جمهوری اسلامی را به حکومت اسلامی تبدیل کند.به همین دلیل قصد دارد با کودتای 23 خرداد و حذف اصلاح طلبان و شخص هاشمی رفسنجانی و با تحت فشار قرار دادن مجلس خبرگان رهبری بر دستگاه خلافت بشیند و حکومت اسلامی تشکیل دهد. او شخصی بسیار تندرو و دارای انیشه های افراطی همچون طالبان است. او از شاگردان مصبباح یزدی بوده است. ردپای او در بسیاری از پروژه های نفت دیده می شود. خبرهای مربوط به بیت رهبری گویای این نکته است که رهبری نظام تمام امیدش براي رهبری آینده را به پسرش مجتبی بسته است. مجتبی که چهل ساله است مافیای ایثارگران و انصار را اداره می کند. مجتبی مجتهد است و در منابع اجتهادی و فقاهتی قم نفوذ عجیبی پیدا کرده و از طرفی هم با حاج آقا خرازی قم که رهبر معنوی و تشکیلاتی بسیاری از جریانهای انصار است روابط گسترده دارد. بسیاری معتقدند که او به عنوان همزه وصل بیت و حزب الله عمل می کند و رد پایش در بسیاری از پروژه های حزب الله دیده می شود. گفته می شود که رهبری نظام به او امید فراوان بسته است که تا ده سال دیگر که او پنجاه ساله می شود و موقعیت فقهی بالائی پیدا می کند جانشینی جوان و مقتدر برای خامنه ای باشد. به زودی اطلاعات بیشتری در مورد مجتبی و روابطش با حزب الله تهران و قم در پشت پرده منعکس می شود.

10 Cent Mullah... Khamenie the Soltan of Tehran

ولايت مطلقه فقيه،رهبر يا مجری فرامين شورای رهبری نيروهای نظامی و امنيتی؟

از خرداد ۱۳۶۸ تا خرداد۱۳۸۸

چهار شنبه ۱۳ خرداد ۱۳۸۸ - ۰۳ ژوين ۲۰۰۹
حمید حمیدی
hamid-hamidi.jpg
پانزده خرداد،برگی از تاريخ ايران است، كه به باور من تلاش گرديده به حرکت پانزده خرداد سال ۱۳۴۲ جنبه برجسته تری داده شود و اعلام رهبری آقای خامنه ای در پانزده خرداد ۱۳۶۸ در حاشيه بايگانی شود. در اين نوشتار سعی خواهم نمود، ماجرای به رهبری رسيدن آقای خامنه ای را به طور روشن و با به دست دادن دلائل و مدارك در اختيار افكار عمومی جامعه قرار دهم،تا گامی کوچک برای اطلاع رسانی به هم ميهنانم،و خصوصأ جوانان ايرانی که بدليل سانسور و اخبار يکسويه از حقايق بسياری اطلاع ندارند،برداشته باشم.لازم است در آغاز،چند نكته رادرارتباط با اتفافاتی كه در ۲۰ سال پيش رخ داده است،به اختصار توضيح دهم:

An answer to the article - Reza Pahlavi puzzle

جوابی نقد گونه بر "معمای رضا پهلوی" احمد پناهنده

نوشته ای از آقای نوری علا خواندم که سراسر ضد و نقیص و درخواست های غیر منصفانه از " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی" را همراه داشت.علاوه بر این آقای نوری علا حرف ها و آرزو های خودشان را در دهان " شاهزاده " می گذاشتند و از زبان ایشان حرف می زدند، که به نظرم توهینی از نوع محترمانه به شخص " شاهزاده " است.هر چند خود بر نوشته ی دیگران نقد و جوابی نمی نویسم و سعی می کنم آنچه را که باور دارم، بر دیگران بنمایانم و قضاوت را به عهده ی خوانندگان بگذارم. اما اینبار این مطلب به قدری نا منصفانه بود که لازم دیدم در حد توان و سواد خود منظور آقای نوری علا را از لابلای نوشته شان بیرون بکشم و تقدیم خوانندگان کنم.باشد که این بحث ها کمکی برای روشن کردن نقاط تاریک ذهن بکند.اول از همه از آغاز نوشته شان شروع می کنم که نویسنده ی مقاله ی " معمای رضا پهلوی " در مورد نامیده شدن " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " توسط بسیاری از مردم ایران، بوی امتیاز خواهی و تفاخر می شنوند که خاطرشان را رنجیده می کند و معتقد هستند که:" من، اولاً، اعتقاد دارم که از همه گونه اصطلاح مختوم به «زاده» ـ مثل «آقا زاده»، «آيت الله زاده»، «امام زاده» و «شاهزاده» ـ بوی نوعی تفاخر و امتيازخواهی بی دليل به مشام می رسد، بی آنکه هيچکدام آن القاب معمولاً نادرست و قلابی باشند؛ اگر چنين نبود، القابی همچون «زحمتکش زاده» و «کارگر زاده» و «فقير زاده» نيز در جامعه بوسعت بکار می رفتند."به نظر می رسد که مشکل و یا رنجیدگی ِ ایشان مربوط به " آیت الله زاده، آقا زاده، امامزاده و ..." نیست بلکه همه ی این القاب را ردیف کرده است که نام و لقب ِ " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " را در اذهان مردم بی رنگ کند.و گرنه معلم ِ طبیعی ِ ما ( در بخش جانور شناسی )، در لنگرود که شُهرتشان " آقا زاده " بود، گناهی ندارد که چنین نامی را یدک می کشد. بلکه در شناسنامه شان نوشته شده بود، " آقا زاده ".همین طور، تقی زاده، کریم زاده، حسن زاده، ملا زاده، ارباب زاده، دهقان زاده و هزاران زاده های دیگر که در ایران فراوانند.و این بنده خداها چه تفاخری دارند، نشان بدهند و یا چه امتیازی از من تو و ما و شما می خواهند؟پس نتیجه می گیریم که همه ی این صغری و کبری کردنها، برای کم رنگ کردن و بی ارج کردن ِ نام و لقب ِ " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " است که مردم از صمیم ِ قلب و رضای ِ درونشان به ایشان می گویند " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی ".بدون اینکه " شاهزاده " مردم را مجبور کرده باشند که به ایشان بگویند " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی ".درستی این ادعا هم امضای خودشان زیر پیامهایشان است که فقط " رضا پهلوی " امضاء می کنند و یا دفترشان است که می نویسند، " دفتر رضا پهلوی ".بنا براین ملاحظه می کنیم که هیچ تفاخری و یا امتیازی در کار نیست بلکه مردم در اغلبشان دوست دارند ایشان را " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " بنامند، از جمله خودم.شما هم می توانید مثل خودشان، ایشان را " رضا پهلوی " بنامید و دیگران هم هر چه دلشان می خواهد. اما نمی توانید و نمی توانیم برای مردم و ایشان تعیین تکلیف کنید و کنیم، مردم ایشان را " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " نخوانند و یا شاهزاده از مردم بخواهد که ایشان را " شاهزاده " صدا نزنند.زیرا ایشان چه خودشان بخواهند و چه دیگران، شاهزاده هستند.زیرا پدرشان محمد رضا شاه، پادشاه ایرانزمین بود.زیرا پدر بزرگشان، رضا شاه بزرگ بنیان گذار ِ ایران نوین و پادشاه ایرانزمین بود.به همین دلیل هم ایشان شاهزاده هستند.به همین دلیل که همه شاهزاده نیستند.به همین دلیل تاریخ، ایشان را شاهزاده می داند و هم اکنون ایشان را ولیعهد سابق گزارش می کند.زیرا هویت ایشان از خانواده ای سرشته شده است که 57 سال در ایران پادشاهی کردند.زیرا اکثریت ِ مردمی که نام ایشان به گوششان آشنا شده است، با نام ولیعهد و پسر شاه بوده است.زیرا اغلب مردمی که در سال 1339 در ایران، در قید حیات بودند و هم اکنون حیات دارند، در زاد روشان در خیابانها، پارک ها، خانه ها و میادین به شادمانی پرداختند و جشن گرفتند.زیرا نهم آبانماه هرسال برای اکثر مردم ایران روز بزرگ و پاسداشت ِ ادامه ی پادشاهی از 2500 و اندی سال به این سو است.و این همه در شخص " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " متبلور است و هیچ کس در ایران این موقعیت نصیبش نشده است.حال چگونه است که ما این ثبت و ضبط تاریخی و حافظه ی تاریخی را پاک کنیم که مبادا چنین تصور شود که لقب " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " تفاخر و امتیاز می آورد.ایشان در دنبال پاراگراف بالا می افزایند " . . . می خواهم توضيح دهم که ما مردم ايشان را در چه صورت ها و منظرهائی می بينيم، چه لباس هائی به تن اش می کنيم، و توقع داريم او چگونه رفتار کند. "معلوم نیست چه کسی و یا کسانی ایشان را نماینده گی داده است تا از جانب مردم سخن بگوید؟ایشان می توانستند فقط از جانب خودشان با " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " سخن بگویند نه اینکه در پشت مردم و به نمایندگی از آنها خودشان را عرضه کنند.اگر شما می گویید مردم چنین می خواهند، ما هم می توانیم بگوییم مردم چنین نمی خواهند و دلیلش در بالا آمده است.و اگر از جانب مردم و " جمهوریخواهان " وکالت دارید، لازم بود این وکالت نامه را به انتهای مقاله ی شما سنجاق می کردید، تا من ِ نوعی دچار این کج فهمی نمی شدم.ایشان در ادامه ی نوشته شان بطور کلی دو طیف از نیروهایی که خواهان نظام پادشاهی در آینده هستند، با هم مقایسه می کنند و نتیجه می گیرند که:"اما، در هر حال، نکتۀ مهم در هر دوی اين «نگاه ها» آن است که هيچکدام از سلطنت طلبان و پادشاهی خواهان نمی توانند «پروژه» ی خود را بدون آقای رضا پهلوی اجرا کنند." مگر قرار بود غیر از این بشود؟ایشان تا آن بلوای ِ شوم بهمن سال 57 که که بسیاری از ماها در آن شرکت داشتیم و همین رژیم فعلی را بر دوشمان سوار کردیم تا میراث فرهنگی و تمدنی ما را ویران کند و از کشته ها پشته بسازد، ولیعهد رسمی ایران از نظر قانون اساسی بوده است.پس از آن هرچند جمهوری اسلامی حاکم شد اما هنوز مشروعیت ِ نظام پادشاهی از نظر مردم در یک محیط عادلانه و دموکراتیک منسوخ نشده است.مگر اینکه بپذیریم رفراندم 12 فروردین ماه سال 58 درست بوده و آن را قبول داریم.اگر چنین است، پس این بحث ها، امروز بی مورد است.زیرا در آن رفراندم کذایی " مردم " به جمهوری اسلامی آری گفتند، بدون اینکه انتخاب دیگری داشته باشند.زیرا یک محیط دموکراتیک که نیروها بتوانند روشنگری کنند، وجود نداشت و بوجود نیامده بود.زیرا هنوز قانون اساسی تصویب نشده بود تا مردم بیشتر به ماهیت این رژیم پی ببرند.از طرف دیگر آن رفراندم ِ کذایی که امثال ِ من به آن رأی ندادند و یا به شکلی که برگزار شد، از نظر ما فاقد مشروعیت است.و جمهوری اسلامی و همه ی نیروها و کسانی را که به این جماعت ِ حاکم یاری دادند، چون راهزنانی ارزیابی می کنم که به کشورم تاختند و حاکمیت مردم را غصب کردند. و اگر پادشاه ایران به قول شما صدای انقلاب را شنیده بود و کشور را ترک گفته بودند، بیشتر به خاطر جلو گیری از خونریزی مردم بود که انقلابیون چپ و راست برای دریدن جان انسانها دندان تیز کرده بودند.از این جهت ترجیح دادند برای آرام کردن فضای خون آلود ِ آن روزهای ِ شوم، موقتن کشور را ترک کنند، بدون اینکه نظام پادشاهی را ملغا کنند.اگر هم به نخست وزیری آقای بختیار رضایت دادند، به این خاطر بود که برای حفظ ایران حاضر شدند، از خط قرمز خودشان عبور کنند تا ایران برجا و بر پا بماند.اما آقای بختیار از این موقیعت ِ ممتاز استفاده ی نادرست کرد که دودش علاوه بر چشم مردم ایران در چشم خودش هم رفت و عاقبت بدست جلادان جمهوری اسلامی کشته شد.در حالی که در آن روزهای بلوای شوم، مسئله ی مردم و ایران در تمامیتش، مصدق نبود که ایشان آن را در بالای سرشان، قاب کردند.و نشان داد که " ذات ِ بد نیکو نگردد، آنکه بنیادش بد است "در حالی که ایشان قسم خورده بودند به نظام مشروطه وفا دار بمانند و در نظام مشروطه ی پادشاهی، شخص شاه بالاترین مقام است.و جا داشت ایشان عکس پادشاه ایران را بالای سرشان نصب می کردند، نه مصدق که زمانی، مقام نخست وزیری داشت، مثل همه ی نخست وزیرهای ِ دیگر.زیرا مشروعیتش را از شخص پادشاه و قانون اساسی گرفته بودند.از طرف دیگر بزرگترین بی لیاقتی ِ ایشان در آن روزهای ِ شوم بلوا، انحلال سازمان امنیت کشور بود که راه را برای مذهبیون و انقلابیون چپ باز کرد تا کشور را هر چه بیشتر نا امن تر کنند و عاقبت خودش برای حفظ جانش فرار را بر قرار ترجیح دهد.در حالی که در آن دوران شوم، وجود یک سازمان امنیت قوی از نان شب واجب تر بود.این عمل او را اگر نگوییم خیانت به کشور و مردم ایران، اسمش بی لیاقتی و بی کفایتی است.بگذریم که ایشان با آزاد کردن مطبوعات در همه رنگش، به جو آشوب بیشتر دامن زد تا رهبر سازمانی شان در کمال ِ بی پرنسیبی و بی آبرویی به پابوس ِ خمینی به زیر درخت ِ سیب برود و با ایشان بیعت کنند.امروز دنباله روران همان مجیز گوی خمینی در قافله ی " مصدقی " حاضر هستند که همین جمهوری اسلامی با همه ی جنایتش در قدرت باشد و بماند اما حاضر نباشند برای به زیر کشیدن جمهوری اسلامی، در کنار مشروطه خواهان پادشاهی قرار بگیرند.بنا براین اگر این دو طیف ِ خواهان ِ نظام پادشاهی، روی " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " تکیه می کنند، حق دارند.زیرا ایشان از هر سو که بنگریم نماینده ی خاص و تنهای این نظام هستند.بگذریم که قیاس این دو طیف هر چند در شکل نظام مشترک هستند، اما از نظر دیدگاهها با هم تفاوت اندازه نگرفتنی دارند، درست نیست.زیرا یکی معتقد است بدون رفراندم، شکل نظام به همان فرمی باشد که در گذشته بوده است و بیشترین جایگاه را به شخص شاه و نظام می دهند و آن دیگری به رفراندم معتقد است و شکل نظام آینده را در یک محیط دموکراتیک به عهده ی مردم می گذارند.آقای نوری علا در ادامه ی مطلبشان از آقای همایون ایراد می گیرند که چرا گفته است، " شاهزاده ".پس نتیجه می گیرند:" بدينسان، حزب مشروطه ايران به اين لحاظ آقای رضا پهلوی «شهريار ايران» می خواند که، احتمالاً، با جاانداختن اين اصلاح بجای «پادشاه» و «شاهنشاه»، بر نوع خاص پادشاهی مشروطه و «شاهی که بالاترين جا را ندارد» تأکيد کند؛ و نيز معتقد است که خود آقای رضا پهلوی هم خويشتن را در اين کسوت می بيند."اولن این حق ایشان هست، هر طور که خودشان می فهمند و علاقه دارند، " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " را مورد خطاب قرار دهند که دلیلش در بالای همین نوشته آمده است.دوّمن تا آنجا که من می دانم و در اسناد رسمی حزب، بویژه در بند سوم ِ برنامه ی سیاسی در منشورشان آمده است، حزب معتقد است:" ما پادشاهی مشروطه را بهترين و مناسب ترين رژيم و شکل حکومت برای ايران می‌دانيم و از هيچ گونه تلاش قانونی و دمکراتيک برای برقراری نظام پادشاهی مشروطه به پادشاهی رضاشاه دوم پهلوی فروگزار نخواهيم کرد." بنا براین سخن گزافی نگفته اند، بلکه در عین شفافیت آن را بر زبان آورده اند.از طرف دیگر این حق هر فرد و یا گروه و حزب است که نظام دلخواه خودشان را تبلیغ کنند تا مردم بتوانند با آگاهی بیشتر در یک رفراندم، نوع نظامشان را انتخاب کنند.این به این معنی نیست که امروز آن را بیش از هر موضوعی برجسته کنند و نزدیکی نیروها را با این خواسته بسنجند بلکه هدف اولیه به وجود آوردن آن ظرفی است که نیروهای مخالف جمهوری اسلامی در آن گرد هم آیند و به کمک هم جمهوری اسلامی را خلع قدرت کنند و سپس در یک شرایط دموکراتیک پس از تشکیل مجلس مؤسسان و تدوین قانون اساسی، نوع نظام و قوانین تدوین شده را به رفراندم بگذاراند.آقای نوری علا اضافه می کنند:" در واقع، آنها فکر می کنند که بدون وجود کسی که وارث و مدعی تاج پدرانش باشد، مطرح کردن اینکه با سقوط حکومت اسلامی بیائیم شکل حکومت را به رفراندم بگذاریم و ببینیم که مردم شاه می خواهند یا رئیس جمهور، سخنی بی معنا خواهد بود. واقعیت نیز آن است که اگر تا همین امروز بحث پادشاهی ( چه استبدادی و چه مشروطه ) بعنوان یک آلترناتیو مطرح بوده است دلیل را باید در وجود شخص آقای رضا پهلوی دید که، سی سال پیش، پس از فوت پدر و در پی اصرار درباریان و وابستگان به محمد رضا شاه، بی آنکه بداند دقیقأ چه وظایفی را بر عهده می گیرد، ادعای پادشاهی کرد و برای احراز مسئولیت های خود در این سمت به قرآن قسم یاد کرد."اینکه بخواهیم با چنین صراحتی در این مورد قضاوت کنیم، که اگر بر فرض محال، " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " نمی بود، طرفدران نظام پادشاهی بعد از سقوط جمهوری اسلامی، از حق خودشان می گذشتند، بی معنا است.زیرا خانواده ی پهلوی به لحاظ قانونی این حق را داشتند که از بین خودشان، یکنفر را برای احراز چنین مقامی معرفی کنند.و اگر هم در این بین کسی واجد شرایط نمی بود و یا پیدا نمی شد، این حق برای ملکه ی ایران محفوط می ماند که خود در رأس نظام پادشاهی این ستت دیرپا و غرور آفرین را ادامه دهد.بنا براین چنین فکر و یا اندیشه ای که خاندان پهلوی را فقط در " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " خلاصه می کنند، عبث است.زیرا ارزش و مشروعیت در این خاندان، در تمامیتش نهفته است که میراث داران پادشاهان بزرگی چون کورش، داریوش، انوشیروان، خسرو پرویز، و . . . هستند.و خوشا به حال مردم ایران که این خاندان، امروز چنین حلقه ی ِ زرین ِ زنجیر ِ دراز ِ پادشاهی ِ ایرانزمین را در دامن خود پرورده است تا بزرگی، سالاری و سروری را به ایران و ایرانیان برگرداند.باید از آقای نوری علا پرسید که شما از کجا می دانید " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " هنگام احراز مسئولیت خود، نمی دانست چه وظایفی را بر عهده می گیرند؟اولن باید گفت این احراز مسئولیت نه سی سال پیش بلکه حداقل 28 سال پیش بوده است و ایشان در این زمان 20 ساله شده بودند.طبق قانون اساسی مشروطیت ایشان این حق را داشتند که برای احراز مسئولیت آینده قسم بخورند.فراموش نکنیم که پدر ایشان در سن 22 سالگی در آن آشوب و تجاوز بیگانگان به ایران، برای احراز مسئولیت، قسم یاد کرد.بنا براین پیشاپیش این انگ را به ایشان بچسبانیم که در هنگام احراز مسئولیت، نمی دانستند چه وظایفی بر عهده می گیرند، دور از انصاف است.از طرف دیگر چنین ادعایی، معنی اش این می شود که خود را عالم دهر بدانیم و برای دیگران ارزش دانستن قائل نشویم و این یکی از مرض های مزمنی است که بسیاری از ایرانیان در این عرصه دارند. خود گویی و خود خندی، عجب مرد هنرمندیاین چه حرفی است که محتوی ِ درون ِ ذهن خودتان را به " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " نسبت می دهید که:" شايد اگر مرگ پادشاه سابق ايران ده سال بعدتر اتفاق می افتاد، خود آقای رضا پهلوی براحتی و صراحت می گفت که «آقايان و خانم ها! پروندۀ پادشاهی در ايران بسته شده و من هم نمی خواهم وقتم را تلف آن کنم که اين نوع حکومت را به ايران برگردانم». اما چنين نشد و نام «شهريار ايران» بر ايشان ماند."مطمئن باشید اگر مرگ پادشاه سابق ایران ده سال بعدتر اتفاق می افتاد، امروز نشانی از جمهوری اسلامی نمی بود.و یا همه ی شماها دوباره در کنار این رژیم برای پادشاه سنگ پرتاب می کردید.پرونده ی پادشاهی مگر پرونده ی راهزنان و متجاوزان ِ تازیان و ترک و تاتار و سکندر و تیمور لنگ است که بسته شود و یا " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " بخواهد آن را ببندد؟پرونده پادشاهی هویت و غرور کشور ایران، در درازای تاریخ کهن، تا امروز است و در خون همه ی ما عجین شده است.نمونه می خواهید؟با اینکه رضا خان سردار سپه در در دوره ی پایانی قاجاریه، به سمت جمهوریت گرایش پیدا کرد، اما ملت، فرهنگ و تاریخ این گرایش را در او به تجدید نظر کشانید و ایشان پادشاه ِ سر فراز ایران نوین شدند.می خواهم بگویم که این سنت پایدار و غرور آفرین که ریشه ی بیش از 2500 ساله در خاک ایرانزمین فرو برده، به این ساده گی که دلخواه ِ شما است، پرونده اش بسته نمی شود.نمونه ی دیگر استقرار همین جمهوری اسلامی است که به کمک شما و ما بر ایران حاکم شد.آنزمان همه ی شما دم گرفته بودید و رقصان قهقهه سر داده بودید، که دیو رفت و فرشته بر آمد و نظام پادشاهی به " زباله دان تاریخ " سپرده شده است.چه شد امروز خواب و آرام از شما سلب گردیده که نکند پادشاهی دوباره به ایران برگردد؟ملاحظه می کنید این دفتر و یا پرونده به این ساده گی که شما ها خیال می کنید، بسته نمی شود.از طرف دیگر، چرا در دهان ِ " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " حرف می گذارید و از جانب ایشان حرف دلتان را از زبان ایشان بیان می کنید؟آیا فکر نمی کنید به ایشان توهین می کنید؟ایشان فردی بالغ، با دیده گاه ژرف جهانی، زبان دارند و حی و حاضر در قید حیات هستند و می توانند خودشان آنچه را که عقیده دارند، بیان کنند.و مطمئن هستم این وکالت را به شما نداده اند که به جای ایشان سخن بگویید. شتر در خواب بیند پنبه دانه"اما بنظر من، و با توجه به سخنان اخير ايشان که به آن خواهم پرداخت، آنچه می توان از مجموع حرف ها و عمل کردهای ايشان دريافت آن است که آقای رضا پهلوی، از لحاظ وظيفۀ تاريخی و اجتماعی خاصی که بر عهده خود گذاشته، خود را بيشتر نوعی «گشايشگر» می بيند که می تواند (همچون محمد ظاهر شاه افغانستان) راه را برای تبديل محترمانهء حکومت اسلامی به يک جمهوری واقعی و دموکراتيک هموار سازد و خود با احترام تمام چنان کنار برود که در خاطرۀ مردم ايران چهره ای استوره ای و فراموش نشدنی پيدا کند و بگذارد ديگرانی که شايسته اند کشور را بگردانند."اینکه " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی"، نقش خود را در این دوران ِ بیمار و اپوزیسیون ِ اخته ی بیکار، گشایشگر می بیند، با شما موافقم.چون ایشان سی سال منتظر ماندند تا این نیروهای به اصطلاح مخالف جمهوری اسلامی برای برون رفت از معضلی که امروز مردم ایران با آن دست به گریبانند، حرکتی را سازماندهی کنند.اما با کمال تأسف باید گفت که هر وقت امامزاده ی جمکران بتواند این قدرت را داشته باشد که شفا دهد، از این نیروها خیری خواهد برخاست.اما تا آنجا که این قلم در این نیروها مشاهده می کند در شرایط تعیین کننده، همگی ِ این به اصطلاح جمهوری خواهان، خواهان بقای همین جمهوری اسلامی می شوند، وقتی که پای پادشاهی خواهی به میان می آید.دوست دارید نام ونشانشان را بگویم؟همین " ملیون " مورد علاقه ی شما امروز هم به جای مبارزه با جمهوری اسلامی در داخل، تخته نرد بازی می کنند ولی وقتیکه پای نظام پادشاهی به میان می آید، کربلای 28 مرداد و 16 آذر را راه می اندازند و بر سر و سینه مشت می زنند و با قمه فرقشان را چاک می دهند.بارها در نوشته های مختلف فریاد زدم که جمهوری اسلامی در تضاد بین ایران و اسلام، ایران را فدا می کند.امروز هم اضافه می کنم که " ملیون " در همه رنگش در تضاد بین نظام پادشاهی و جمهوری اسلامی، نظام پادشاهی را فدا می کنند، مگر اینکه خلافش را در عمل ثابت کنند.نیروهای دیگر به اصطلاح جمهوری خواه یا مذهبی هستند، یا یک پسوند نا چسب ملی را یدک می کشند و یا از کمونیستهای در همه رنگش هستند که همگی آنها چه از نوع مذهبی، یا مذهبی با روبان ملی و یا نوع کمونیستی، به نتها چیزی که معتقد نیستند، همین جمهوری و دموکراسی و حقوق بشر است.و چقدر غیر منصفانه است که بیایم از " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " این انتظار را داشته باشیم که از عقاید و نوع نظامی که به آن باور دارد، دست بکشد و نقش ِ ظاهر شاه در افغانستان را بازی کند و محترمانه راه را برای جمهوری خواهی بازی کند.اولن مقایسه ی ِ " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " با ظاهر شاه از آن قیاس های مع الفارق است.زیرا " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " وارث تاج و تخت ِ بیش از دو هزار پانصد سال پادشاهی در ایران است. در حالی که افغانستان تا دوران ناصر الدین شاه، یکی از استانهای ایران بوده است.دوّمن وقتی شما حتا نمی پذیرید که مردم و دوستدارانشان، ایشان را شاهزاده صدا بزنند، چه اتتظاری دارید که ایشان در نقش یک پادشاه، زمینه را برای سینه زنان عاشورایی ِ" ملیون " و نمازگزاران ِ جانب ِ مدینه النبی و کرملین آماده کنند، تا به مراد خودشان همان جمهوری اسلامی یا جمهوری کره شمالی یا کوبا برسند.اگر می پذیرید ایشان چون ظاهر شاه در نقش پادشاه ایفای نقش بکند، پس آن روضه ی اولیه که لقب " شاهزاده " امتیاز و تفاخر می آورد، چیست؟چرا می خواستید ایشان را از همه ی مسئولیت ها و مقامی که تاریخ و قلوب ایران به ایشان بخشیده است، عریان کنید؟چرا انتظار دارید ایشان از همه ی آنچه که فکر می کند و به آنها عقیده دارد، را به کنار بگذارد و زیر بیرق شما سینه بزند؟انصاف هم خوب چیزی است. کدام یک از " جمهوریخواهان " به اندازه ی یک جو انصافی که در " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی" متبلور است، در وجودشان می جوشد؟کدام یک از " جمهوریخواهان " حاضر شدند چون " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " این شهامت را داشته باشند و بگویند اگر در یک رفراندم ِ دموکرتیک، مردم به نظام پادشاهی رأی داند، به هشتاد درصد از خواسته هایشان رسیدند؟ آقای نوری علا می نویسند:" ايشان مدت هاست که ديگر اشاره ای به مسئلۀ سلطنت نمی کند( نمی کنند ) و در مقابل آنانی که ايشان را «اعليحضرت همايونی»، «شاهنشاه ايران»، «وارث تاج و تخت کيان» و «شهريار» می خوانند تنها لبخندی زده و سکوت پيش می گيرد ( می گیرند ) و بيشتر دوست دارد ( دارند ) دربارۀ امکانات پيدا شدن يک «رهبری دسته جمعی و متمرکز» برای اپوزيسيون سخن بگويد( بگویند ) که در تشکيل آن خود نقش هماهنگ کننده ای بی طرف و آمادۀ پذيرش رأی نهائی مردم را داشته باشد( باشند )."آری قسمت اول این پاراگراف درست است زیرا شاهزاده رضا پهلوی برای جلوگیری از هر گونه تفرقه بین نیروها، شکل نظام را به آینده ای پس از جمهوری اسلامی محول کرده اند تا این بهانه را از دستشان بگیرند و آنها را در زیر چتر ِ رهبری ِ یک اپوزیسیون کار آمد که هدف اولیه ی آن به زیر کشیدن جمهوری اسلامی است، گرد هم آورند.زیرا یکی از بهانه های گروه ها همیشه این بوده است که این مسئله را ایدئولوژیک می کردند.به این معنی نزدیکی و دوری از سایرین را بر پذیرش بی چون و چرای ِ جمهوری که خود یکی از شکلهای دیگر نظام حکومتی است، می کردند.مثل اساسنامه و برنامه ی اتحاد جمهوری خواهان که در آن روی نیروهایی انگشت می گذارند که فقط شکل جمهوری را از پیش بپذیرند.در واقع پیش شرط ِ ورود در این اتحاد، پذیرش ِ بی چون و چرای ِ شکل جمهوری در آینده است.به عبارت دیگر مرغشان فقط یک پا دارد.در حالی که بخش ِ بسیار بزرگتری از مردم ایران خواهان شکل دیگری از نظام هستند که آن مشروطه ی پادشاهی است.اما از آنجا که این جریان و جریاناتی در همین طیف همگی در مکتب خانه ی ایدئولوژی ِ تک صدایی ِ توتالیتر درس خواندند، گوششان عادت نکرده است که صدای دیگری را هم بشنوند و چشمشان آنقدر باز نشده است که خودشان را فراتر از برکه ی جمهوری خواهی ببینند.به همین دلیل مثل آن خروسی که موقع آواز خواندن چشم و گوشش را می بندد تا فقط صدای خودش را بشنود، این جماعت هم، چنین نابینا و یا کم بینا هستند و گوششان برای شنیدن صدای دیگر بسته است." میلیون " موسوم به مصدقی سالهاست که زمان برایشان از حرکت باز ایستاده است و آنها هنوز در کربلای 28 مرداد و 16 آذر، در باتلاق پریشانی صورتشان را گِل می مالند، سینه را با مشت و زنجیر را بر پشت سیاه می کنند و در عاشورای 28 مرداد فرقشان را با قمه جِر می دهند.گویی زمان حرکت نکرده است و گویی ایشان برای بوسیدن دست و پای ِ ارتجاعمرد ِ زمان از هم سبقت نگرفته بودند.گویی در ایران ِ جان ِ همه ی جانان، جمهوری اسلامی که به کمک ایشان به قدرت رسید، حاکم نیست.این جماعت هم، با این نگاه ِ غرض آلود و ذهنی انباشته از کینه، اتحاد را فقط در شکل جمهوری می بینند.هر چند افرادی پیدا می شوند که در این طیف ها چنین نمی اندیشند و با نگاه بازتری به مسائل نگاه می کنند اما بحث روی این افراد نیست بلکه روی هسته ی تفکر کلی این جریانات است.طبیعی است در مقابل این زورگویی ها و زیاده خواهی های ِ طیف ِ " جمهوریخواهان " آن طیف بی شماران ِ پادشاهی خواهی ساکت ننشینند و برای نجات ایران در تمامیتش از دست جهل باوران و بیگانه پرستان، مردم را با فرهنگ غنی و پر از افتخارات پادشاهی و عملکرد ِ مصیبت بار و تباهی کننده ی ایران و ایرانی ِ همین مدعیان ِ جمهوریخواهی و اشتباه ِ مادران و پدرانشان را که این جرثومه های تباهی ِ ایرانزمین را بر کشور ما حاکم کردند، آگاه کنند.ولی این رودررویی با یکدیگر آن هم روی شکل ِ نظام آینده در اکنونی که جمهوری اسلامی حاکم است، کمکی برای برون رفت از معضل اجتماعی نمی کرد بلکه بیشتر بر آن می افزود زیرا به جای اینکه مخالفت ها و انرژیها همه علیه ی جمهوری اسلامی نشانه رود که عامل اصلی فتنه است، در خودمان و بر خودمان تقسیم می شد.هرچند طیف ِ جمهوریخواهی به عمد می خواهند به این مشکلی را که مربوط به بعد از جمهوری اسلامی است، در امروز دامن بزنند و زمینه ی سقوط جمهوری اسلامی را به عقب بیاندازند.اینجا بود که " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " برای سمت دادن مخالفت ها و تمام انرژی ها به سوی جمهوری اسلامی و گرفتن بهانه از نیروها، تصمیم می گیرند که از شکل نظام چه پادشاهی و یا جمهوری صحبت نکنند و به آن دامن نزنند و این اختلاف در شکل نظام را، در بین نیروها به آینده ی بعد از جمهوری اسلامی محول کنند که مردم در یک محیط دموکراتیک، در شرایط مساوی و آزاد، نوع نظام دلخواه خودشان را انتخاب کنند.اما چنین حرکتی از شاهزاده رضا پهلوی ما را نباید ساده لوحانه به این نتیجه برساند و دلمان را به این خوش کند، پس شاهزاده رضا پهلوی دنبال جمهوری است و یا به گفته آقای نوری علا، ایشان می خواهند نقش ظاهر شاه را بازی کنند و راه را برای یک جمهوری ای که سینه زنان مصدقی و زنجیر زنان مذهبی- مصدقی و قمه زنان خلقی ِ دیکتاتوری پرولتاریا می پسندند، باز و آماده کنند. همچنین نا گفته پیدا است که همه ی ما چه در طیف ِ جمهوریخواه و چه در طیف مشروطه ی پادشاهی، قربانی همین جمهوری اسلامی هستیم.بنا بر این واجب و ضروری است که همه ی ما با هر عقیده ای که داریم، برای ایران، مردم ایران و سر بلندی ایران از خواسته های تنگ ِ گروهی کوتاه بیایم و در یک امر مشترک که همانا به زیر کشیدن جمهوری اسلامی از قدرت است، متحد شویم.چنین است که شکل حکومت برای " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " و طیف مشروطه خواهان در درجه ی دوم اهمیت است.زیرا مشکل اول جمهوری اسلامی است.اما اینکه این نتیجه را بگیریم که " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " در مقابل کسانی که ایشان را " شهریار " یا " وارث تاج و تخت ِ کیان " می خوانند، لبخندی می زنند و سکوت می کنند، پس ایشان خودشان را " شهریار " و یا " وارث تاج و تخت " نمی دانند، بسیار بی معنا است.زیرا ایشان طبق قانون اساسی مشروطه ی پادشاهی، هر چند که امروز در ایران ِ تحت اشغال ِ جمهوری اسلامی، سندیت ندارد، " شهریار ایران " و یا " وارث تاج و تخت " است که هنوز در طیف بسیار بزرگی مشروعیت دارد.زیرا از نظر تاریخ و فرهنگ با شکوه ایران مشرعیت دارد.زیرا آن مردمی که در آن نمایش باسمه ای رفرندام سال 58 که فقط باید به جمهوری اسلامی آری می گفتند، امروز حاضرند سر به تن جمهوری اسلامی نباشد.پس نظام پادشاهی هنوز هم مشروعیت دارد.زیرا یکی از گزینه های مطرح در جامعه ی ایران ِ بعد از جمهوری اسلامی است.زیرا از اقبال وسیع مردم ایران که رگ و پی و پوست و گوشت آنها با این فرهنگ و این تاریخ گره خورده است، برخوردار است. زیرا اکثریت بسیاری از مردم ایران خواهان نظام پادشاهی هستند.و اگر " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " به گفته ی شما در مقابل این افراد سکوت می کنند و لبخند می زنند، بیشتر به این خاطر است که نمی خواهند چنین مسائلی را امروز برجسته کنند.و اینکه شاهزاده رضا پهلوی به قول شما بیشتر دوست دارند:"دربارۀ امکانات پيدا شدن يک «رهبری دسته جمعی و متمرکز» برای اپوزيسيون سخن بگويد( بگویند ) که در تشکيل آن خود نقش هماهنگ کننده ای بی طرف و آمادۀ پذيرش رأی نهائی مردم را داشته باشد ( باشند )." با شما موافقم.زیرا خودشان در کمال شفافیت و با صراحتی بی همتا در گفتگو با سردبیر هفته نامه ی کیهان ( چاپ لندن ) بیان کرده اند که:" من در تمام اين سال ها تلاشم اين بوده است که زمينۀ اين توافق را حتی الامکان فراهم بکنم تا مدعيان رهبری از هر جريان فکری، مشروطه خواه، جمهوريخواه، چپ، راست، ميانه، ملی... دور هم جمع شوند؛ که نتيجۀ چندانی به دست نيامد. در اين فاصله، اين خلاء رهبری، نبود يک چهره ای که معرف اين جريان باشد، بيشتر و بيشتر احساس می شود و مورد مطالبۀ گروه هاست [و] بيشتر و بيشتر انگشت ها را به سوی من نشانه رفته. خيلی ها آمده اند و به زبان های مختلف اين خواسته را مطرح کرده اند ـ شخصيتی که اسمش و سرمايۀ سياسی اش چنين ظرفيتی دارد. من حتی به همه می گويم که اگر امروز کسی مناسب تر از من پيدا می کنيد که اين نقش را بهتر از من ايفا می کند معرفی کنيد که در آن صورت من اولين کسی هستم که دنبال او خواهم رفت. و الا من در صحنه هستم و... امروز به شکل فعال دنبال تشکيل يک مرکزيت رهبری هستم."ولی نتیجه ای که دوست دارید از سخنان شاهزاده رضا پهلوی بگیرید، موافق نیستم.زیرا شما چون از شاهزاده در این گفتگو نمی شنوید که از پادشاهی سخن بگویند، نتیجه می گیرید پس ایشان دیگر به پادشاهی نمی اندیشند بلکه دنبال رهبری اپوزیسیون و " ایجاد یک مرکزیت رهبری " هستند و چون چنین می اندیشند، پس نمی توانند در جایگاه یک مدعی پادشاهی چنین سخن بگویند و چون دیگر مدعی پادشاهی حتی در آینده نیستند، پس می توانند " نخ گردبندی " بنام تشکیلات رهبری اپوزیسیون باشند، البته به شرطی که راه را برای " جمهوری " دلخواه شما فراهم کنند.از شما سئوال می کنم که چرا یک مدعی پادشاهی نمی تواند " نخ گردن بند " ِ یک تشکیلات رهبری اپوزیسیون باشد یا رهبری ِ اپوزیسیون را به عهده بگیرد؟یا بر عکس چرا باید این " نخ گردن بند " ِ تشکیلات ِ رهبری، حتمن یک شخصیت ِ جمهوری خواه باشد؟اگر چنین باشد که فکر کنیم شما می اندیشید، نباید نتیجه گرفت که شما به قول رشتی ها، خیلی " من مرا قربان " تشریف دارید؟آیا چنین فکر یا اندیشه و یا عقیده ای تحمیل اجباری و زور عقاید خود به دیگران نیست؟آیا چنین اندیشه ای بوی انحصار طلبی نمی دهد؟به نظرم چرا؟زیرا کسی و یا کسانی که چنین می اندیشند برای اندیشه ی دیگران و توانایی و پویایی و خلاقیت و صلاحیت دیگران ارزشی قایل نیستند.زیرا خودشان را بی هیچ دلیلی محور زمان فرض می کنند که تمامی پدیده ها باید حول آن محور بچرخد. چون جمهوریخواه هستند.و چون جمهوریخواه هستند پس حقانیت دارند و چون حقانیت دارند، پس همیشه حق دارند و دیگران در هیچ شرایطی حق ندارند.فکر نکنید دارم زیاده روی می کنم، نه اصلن چنین نیست. زیرا گفته های بالا عین تفکری است که در ذهنشان جریان دارد.می گویید نه چنین نیست؟می گویم آقای نوری علا خودشان در نوشته شان قلمی کرده اند که:". . . آقای رضا پهلوی، از لحاظ وظيفۀ تاريخی و اجتماعی خاصی که بر عهده خود گذاشته، خود را بيشتر نوعی «گشايشگر» می بيند که می تواند (همچون محمد ظاهر شاه افغانستان) راه را برای تبديل محترمانهء حکومت اسلامی به يک جمهوری واقعی و دموکراتيک هموار سازد و خود با احترام تمام چنان کنار برود که در خاطرۀ مردم ايران چهره ای استوره ای و فراموش نشدنی پيدا کند و بگذارد ديگرانی که شايسته اند کشور را بگردانند."بنابراین معنی اش این می شود که شاهزاده رضا پهلوی اگر می خواهند رهبری اپوزیسیون را به عهده بگیرند، باید برای همیشه بر نوع نظام پادشاهی که یکی از شکلهای نظام آینده ی کشور است و از بخت پیروزی بسیار زیاد برخوردار است، دست بکشند و در زیر چتر عقیده تی شان که همانا جمهوری است، سینه بزنند.چون قرار نیست مدعیان نظام پادشاهی در نقش رهبری ظاهر شوند بلکه این لباس رهبری، فقط برای قامت ِ بی قواره ی جمهوریخواهان دوخته شده است.در ادامه ی این بحث باز هم روی این موضوع صحبت خواهیم کرد.ایشان در ادامه ی نوشته شان پس از برشمردن یک سری ویژه گیها و صفات نیکو و همچنین " سرمایه سیاسی " یا " سرمایه ملی " از شاهزاده رضا پهلوی که به حق در ایشان برجسته و منحصر به فرد است، نتیجه می گیرند که:" اما، اين تصوير، با همۀ هيجان انگيزی، چند نقطۀ ضعف ابطال گر دارد . . . اين نقاط ضعف هم به خود ايشان و هم به طرفداران شان مربوط شده و فضائی را بوجود می آورد که در آن «غير سلطنت طلب ها» آچمز و خلع سلاح شده و رغبت شان به اشتراک در اين طرح از بين می برد."وقتی آدمی مثل من، جملات بالا را می خواند پیشاپیش فکر می کند پادشاهی خواهان به عمد برای اینکه اتحادی صورت نگیرد، سر راه اتحاد سنگ انباشته می کنند و یا فضایی ایجاد می کنند که جمهوریخواهان آچمز شوند.به عبارت دیگر چنین فهم می شود که جمهوری خواهان، خیلی دلشان می خواهد با پادشاهی خواهان اتحاد کنند. اما فضایی که پادشاهی خواهان ایجاد می کنند، جمهوریخواهان را دیگر رغبتی نمی ماند که با پادشاهی خواهان به اتحاد برسند.در همین پاراگراف آقای نوری علا پیش از اینکه " نقاط ضعف " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی و پادشاهی خواهان را نشان بدهد، پیشاپیش نتیجه را می گیرد و حکم صادر می کند و بعد برای جوری مطلب و رونق ِ نتیجه اش " ضعف های " این طیف را از نگاه خودشان شمارش می کند.حال ببینیم که آقای نوری علا " نقاط ضعف " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی و طیف پادشاهی خواهی را چطور می بیند." نخستين پيچشی که پديدۀ آقای رضا پهلوی را معمائی می کند آن است . . . در مورد پياده شدن از اسب شاهزادگی و شهرياری و نزول کردن به سطح آدميانی عادی که صرفاً بخاطر جنم شخصی خويش مورد احترام مردم اند و سخن شان شنونده دارد، لااقل هنوز، رفتار قاطعی پيشه نکرده اند."باید از آقای نوری علا پرسید که چگونه شاهزاده می تواند از این " اسب شاهزادگی " و " شهریاری " نزول کند؟در حالی که ایشان هم شاهزاده است، هم طبق قانون اساسی مشروطه، شهریار ایران است و هم از نظر تاریخی و فرهنگ ِ پادشاهی ِ ایران، ایشان وارث ِ تاج و تخت هستند. و راستی منظور و این درخواست به غایت غیر منصفانه و حتی نانجیبانه ی آقای نوری علا چیست؟آیا ایشان با بیان چنین خواسته ای نمی خواهند از همان آغاز زیراب تاریخ ِ کهنسال ِ پادشاهی را که شاهزاده رضا پهلوی امروز نماد و ادامه ی آن هستند، بزند؟همان کاری که سی سال است که تمام ِ انقلابیون، از چپ و راست گرفته تا جمهوری اسلامی و همین " ملیون " مصدقی که آقای نوری علا هم در این قافله بسر می برند، انجام می دهند و نتوانستند با همه ی نیرویشان و همه ی بی عدالتی هایی که نسبت به خاندان پهلوی روا داشتند و می دارند، کوچکترین صدمه ای بر آن وارد کنند.بلکه هر بار ارزش این خاندان و مشروعیتش بویژه شاهزاده رضا پهلوی بیشتر از روز پیش، چه در سراسر ایران و چه در سراسر جهان، فزون تر می شود و شده است.حال چگونه است که بیایم نامنصفانه از شاهزاده بخواهیم که از همه ی این ارزش ها و تسخیر ِ قلوب بیشماران و سرمایه ی سیاسی و ملی و بین المللی و تاریخی ِ خودشان، خاندانشان و تاریخ ِ دراز و پایدار ِ پادشاهی، دست بکشند تا شاید ایشان را در ظرف اتحادشان بپذیرند؟تازه آقای نوری علا از این هم فراتر می رود و برای شاهزاده رضا پهلوی تعیین ِ تکلیف می کند، که:" جز اينکه، برای اجرا کردن برنامه های خود، به همۀ کسانی که با ايشان کار می کنند، يا از ايشان برای شرکت در مجالس شان دعوت بعمل می آورند، و نيز کسانی که با ايشان مصاحبه می کنند، گوشزد کرده و مصرانه از آنها بخواهند که لقب «شاهزاده» و «شهريار» را هنگام معرفی ايشان بکار نبرند."می پرسم آخر چرا؟وقتی ایشان همه ی این صفات و القاب را دارا هستند و پدرشان و پدربزگشان پادشاه ایران بوده اند، پس بنابراین شاهزاده هستند، چرا از هوا خواهان خود و از مصاحبه کنندگان بخواهند که ایشان را شاهزاده معرفی نکنند؟از طرف دیگر طبق قانون اساسی مشروطه ی پادشاهی که مورد قبول بسیاری از بسیاران ِ مردم ایران است، ایشان شهریار ایران هستند.همچنین ایشان در مجامع بین المللی به عنوان پرنسس معرفی می شوند.بنا براین چه اصراری است که همه ی این شناخته شدگی و اعتبار تاریخی و ملی و بین المللی و یا سرمایه ی سیاسی و ملی را به کنار بگذارند که تا شاید دل ِ جمهوریخواهان نرم شود و ایشان را در حلقه ی خود بپذیرند؟ای کاش آقای نوری علا قدری اندیشه می کردند و درون پریشانشان را اینگونه عیان نمی کردند.مگر شما در چند جمله بالاتر قلمی نکردید که:" براستی آيا، در کل جريانات اپوزيسيون حکومت اسلامی در خارج کشور، کدام «چهره» يا «شخصيت» را می شناسيد که بتواند بهتر و بيشتر از آقای رضا پهلوی معرف آرزوهای ملت ستمديده و بلاکشيدۀ ايران باشد، همواره از دموکراسی، حقوق بشر، سکولاريسم، بی اهميت بودن نوع حکومت، سخن گفته باشد، و بيشترين مردم جهان او را بعنوان يک ايرانی متمدن و امروزی و بدور از وحشی گری های بنيادگرايان اسلامی بشناسند، و در داخل ايران نيز از بالاترين حد شناسائی برخوردار باشد؟ آيا ـ بدور از ملاحظاتی که با آنها خواهم رسيد ـ برای ما ايرانيان يک چنين مجموعه ای يک «سرمايۀ ملی» نيست؟ آيا اين شانس ما مردم نيست که يک نفر از ميان ما می تواند در انظار بين المللی معرف بهترين های تاريخ و فرهنگ ما باشد؟ . . . و آيا چنين کسی بهترين گزينه برای سخنگوی ما بودن نيست؟"اگر به نوشته ی خودتان اعتقاد دارید، پس چرا می خواهید پیشاپیش این سرمایه ی عظیم ِ ملی و بین المللی و شناخته شده گی ِ این " چهره" و "شخصیت" را بی ارزش کنید و ایشان را به سطح خودتان پایین بکشید؟مگر شما خودتان را که در این عرصه قلم می زنید، به سطح یک عابر پیاده پایین می کشید که نه به دار است و نه به بار؟این چه توقع ِ نادرستی است که از شاهزاده رضا پهلوی که امروز به تنها امید بیشمارانی از ایرانیان تبدیل شده است، بخواهیم که با دست خود تیشه را بردارند و بر امید مردم و تاریخ و ریشه ها ی پادشاهی ِ دراز و پایدار ِ ایرانزمین بزنند؟از شما می پرسم که آیا همه ی آن صفات و ویژه گی هایی که در بالا برای شاهزاده رضا پهلوی برشمردید، دلالت بر شایستگی ایشان نمی کند که امروز با این سرمایه ی عظیم ملی و بین المللی در کاهکل رهبری جنبش ِ به زمین زدن ِ جمهوری اسلامی قرار گیرند؟دیگر چه شایستگی باید نشان دهند تا ملاک انتخاب رهبری شان در ظرف " شایسته سالاری " شما مورد بررسی قرار گیرد؟آیا برهنه و یا عریان شدن از همه ی این سرمایه ها، شایستگی ها، شناخته شده گی ها و اعتبار بین المللی و ملی و مردمی و تاریخی، اسمش " شایسته سالاری " است؟چرا نباید با هر شخصیت و یا چهره با همه ی آنچه که دارد اهم از سر مایه ی ملی، تاریخی، بین المللی به گفتگو نشست؟گناهشان چیست که تاریخ و جامعه ی ایران این ثروت ِ عظیم ِ اعتماد را به ایشان بخشیده تا به نمایندگی از تمام مردم و تمامیت ایران، دزدان و راهزنانی که بر تخت دارا تکیه داده اند، بزیر بکشند و سالاری و سروری و بزرگی را به ایرانزمین برگردانند؟آقای نوری علا بعد از این مقدمه چینی ها و بالا و پایین رفتن ها و درخواست ِ غیر منصفانه ی ِ برهنگی از شخصیت ِ شاهزاده رضا پهلوی با ادبیاتی که بوی تهدید می دهد، شاهزاده را می ترساند که:"آ قای رضا پهلوی، در لباس وارث تاج و تخت پدران خود، هرگز نمی تواند «نخ گردن بند» تشکيلات رهبری اپوزيسيون باشد."معنی اش این است که شاهزاده باید از هر اعتقادی که دارند و از هر راه حلی که بنظرشان برای آینده ی ایران، کارآیی بیشتر دارد، کنار بگذارند تا بتوانند شاید " نخ گردن بند " تشکیلات رهبری اپوزیسیون را به عهده بگیرند.یعنی پیشاپیش باید شاهزاده تیغ را بردارند و بر سر و صورت خودشان بکشند و یا با تیشه بر ریشه ی تاریخ کهنسال پادشاهی بزنند.معنی اش این است که هیچ پادشاهی خواهی نمی تواند با جمهوری خواهی به اتحاد برسد مگر اینکه از اسب پادشاهی پیاده شود و در رکاب جمهوری خواهی شمشیر بزند.می پرسم چرا باید چنین دگم به مسائل نگاه کنیم و دروازه ی خردمان را بر خود ببندیم و از رنگارنگین های اعتقادی در جامعه دوری گزینیم؟می گویم خوشا بر جمهوری اسلامی که چنین مخالفینی دارد.اصلن چرا این پیش شرط را فقط از شاهزاده طلب می کنید؟چرا از " ملیون " مصدقی که بوسه بر پای ارتجاعمرد ِ زمان زدند و همین جمهوری اسلامی را بر گُرده ی مردم سوار کردند تا ملت ایران و ایران را نابود کنند، چنین پیش شرطی نمی خواهید تا از کربلای 28 مرداد بیرون بیایند وبگویند دیگر وارث راه مصدق نیستند و از موضع ِ جمهوری خواهی از جمهوری اسلامی دفاع نکنند؟چرا از نیروهای کمونیستی در همه رنگش نمی خواهید که ایده های " سوسیالیستی " را کنار بگذارند و از جمهوری اسلامی و جمهوری دفاع نکنند؟چرا فقط باید این پیش شرط برای طیف پادشاهی گذاشته شود؟خوب اگر چنین می خواهید که اصلن امکان ندارد و طبق هیچ معیار و اخلاقی نمی شود از دیگران چنین خواست، بدون اینکه خودشان کمترین بهایی برای آن بپردازند، پرسیدنی است که چرا خودشان تا کنون نتوانستند کوچکترین حرکتی که به نفع مردم باشد، انجام دهند و هر روز بیشتر از روز پیش در همین جمهوری اسلامی مستحیل می شوند؟نمونه می خواهید؟می گویم تروریستهای دیروزی و اصلاح طلبان امروزی که مبارزه می کنند، جمهوری اسلامی در قدرت بماند تا مبادا پادشاهی دوباره به ایران برگردد.می گویم همین " ملیون " که تمامی حرکتشان در جهت بقای جمهوری اسلامی است تا علیه آن.البته محدود افرادی از این طیف ها هستند که برای بزرگی ایران و رهایی آن مبارزه می کنند و برایشان فرقی نمی کند در آینده چه نظامی قدرت را در دست می گیرد بلکه محتوی آن نظام برایشان مهم است که این نگاه شامل آنها نمی شود.تازه با همه ی این پیش شرط ها و درخواست های غیر منصفانه و بدور از منطق و اخلاق و عرف، هنوز چشم اندازی بر خواسته های غیرمنصفانه ی آقای نوری علا دیده نمی شود.اینجا است که خواسته ی درونی خودشان را با ادبیات خاص خودشان بر کاغذ قلمی می کنند و می گویند چرا باید در رفراندم برای تعیین نظام، توافق پادشاهی به نفع ایشان تمام شود؟" فرض کنيم که همۀ اپوزيسيون حاضر شوند بر اين امر صحه بگذارند که «تعيين رژيم آيندۀ ايران با مردم است و يکی از انواع حکومت هم می تواند پادشاهی باشد»، حال بايد پرسيد که چرا اين توافق به نفع پادشاهی ايشان بايد تمام شود؟ اين حرف در صورتی می تواند در نزد همگان پذيرفتنی باشد که، همۀ شرکت کنندگان در تشکيلات ائتلافی و از جمله خود ايشان بپذيرند که، پس از انحلال حکومت اسلامی و انجام رفراندوم، هيچ کس برای شاه شدن بر ديگران اولويتی ندارد و تعيين اينکه چه کسی بايد شاه شود هم لازم است از طريق روندهای دموکراتيک انجام گيرد؛ عده ای خود را نامزد کنند و از آن ميان يکی برگزيده شود."این هم شد استدلال؟آقای عزیز! اگر شماها طی این چند سال بر سرو وصورت ِ یکدیگر چنگ انداختید و هر کدامتان مدعی ی رهبری بودید و هستید و کوچکترین انعطافی را نمی پذیرید، مشکل شماها است و ربطی به طیف پادشاهی خواهی ندارد.شما می توانید از طریق" دموکراتیک" بین خودتان بعد از جمهوری اسلامی عده ای را برای ریاست جمهوری نامزد و به مردم معرفی کنید ولی حق ندارید برای طیف دیگر که اساسن مورد قبول شما نیست، تعیین تکلیف کنید.مطمئن باشید که در طیف پادشاهی خواهان، علی رغم اختلافات در بین آنها، همگی روی شاهزاده رضا پهلوی اتفاق نظر دارند و اگر در فردای ِ جمهوری اسلامی گزینه ی پادشاهی بوسیله ی مردم انتخاب شود، شاهزاده رضا پهلوی، پادشاه ایران می شوند.ولی اگر شما می خواهید خودتان را در آن رفراندم ی بعد از جمهوری اسلامی در مقابل طیف پادشاهی خواهی نامزد کنید تا شاه ایران بشوید، فکر می کنم این حق شما است.اما بد نیست بدانید که در آن روز باید در مقابل مردم زانوی ادب بر خاک بمالید و از همه ی این تئوری هایی که امروز می دهید و از تمامی عملکردهای خودتان علیه پادشاهی، عذر خواهی کنید.نه شما بلکه همه ی آنهائیکه امروز مثل شما فکر می کنند و بعد فردا بخواهند ادعای ِ شاه شدن هم داشته باشند.و دلیل اینکه من و امثال من امروز بر بازگشت پادشاهی، آنهم پادشاهی ِ خاندان ِ پهلوی تأکید می کنیم، این است که اولن پادشاهی را برای بافت و ساختار اجتماعی از نظر تاریخی و فرهنگی مناسب تر می بینیم.بویژه اینکه پادشاه ِ مشروطه در رأس حاکمیت ِ ایران به عنوان سمبل ِ یگانگی و آشتی بین اقوام مختلف و آحاد مردم و نماد یکپارچگی سرزمین ایران است.دومن باید به صراحت بگویم که از زمان تازش تازیان به خاک اهورایی ِ ایرانزمین تا زمان به قدرت رسیدن دودمان پهلوی، هیچ خاندانی در درازی تاریخ به اندازه ی نیمی از خدمات خاندان پهلوی، به ایران خدمت نکرده است.و اگر هم در این زمانه ی عسرت و درد هنوز نامی از ایران، آنهم به نیکی باقی است، آن را مدیون بزرگ مردانی چون رضاشاه و سپس محمد رضا شاه می دانیم، هر چند این دوپادشاه، در کنار خدمات بی همتا، اشتباهاتی هم داشتند.حال با این توضیح و تفسیر کشّاف اجازه بدهید که در پایان این نوشته منظور ایشان را با سئوالاتی بیرون بکشیم.اول از همه باید از آقای نوری علا پرسید که آیا شما طیف دیگری غیر از جمهورخواهان را در شرایط ایران به رسمیت می شناسید؟یا قبول دارید طیفی بنام پادشاهی خواهان در این حضور دارند؟قبول دارید مشکل اصلی همه ی ما مخالفین و مردم ستمدیده با هر عقیده و مرامی که داریم، جمهوری اسلامی است؟فرض را بر این می گذاریم که جواب آقای نوری علا به ستوالات بالا مثبت است.حال سئوال بعدی این می شود که برای حل ِ این مشکل ِ اصلی چه کار باید بکنیم؟آیا به تنهایی و با اتکا به نیروی خودی می توانیم این مشکل را از سر راه برداریم؟اگر نه، می پذیرید که باید اتحاد و یا ائتلافی صورت گیرد؟اگر می پذیرید، آیا این ائتلاف را فقط در طیف جمهوری خواهان دنبال می کنید یا نه در یک ائتلاف وسیع تر و فراگیر تر از همه ی طیف ها؟اگر فقط در طیف جمهوریخواهان جستجو می کنید، فکر می کنم این بحث ما بیهوده باشد و مقاله ی شما هم بهتر بود نوشته نمی شد و خودتان را در گیر موضوعی که اصلن به آن اعتقاد ندارید، نمی کردید.اما من فرض را بر این می گذارم که شما می خواهید ائتلاف وسیع و وفراگیری در زیر چتر یک رهبری صورت گیرد. آنوقت هر نیرویی با عقیده و مرام خود بدون اینکه برنامه ی حزبی، گروهی و سازمانی خودش را کنار و یا زیر پا بگذارد، بر سر نقاط مشترک که بزرگترین آنها به زیر کشیدن جمهوری اسلامی است با هم ائتلاف می کنند.در این ائتلاف و یا اتحاد ما حق نداریم از دیگران بخواهیم از عقاید خود دست بردارند و یا از شخصیتی بخواهیم که از اعتبار ملی و بین المللی و شناخته شدگی اش دست بشوید و خود را به سطح ما پایین بکشد تا یک اتحاد صورت گیرد.خیر، چنین درخواستی هم از محالات است و هم غیر اخلاقی و انسانی است.پس اگر قبول می کنیم که هر کس می تواند با عقاید خود تحت یک امر مشترک کنار هم قرار گیرند، دیگر جایی برای برهنه کردن شخصیت هایی چون شاهزاده رضا پهلوی نمی ماند.می دانم آقای نوری علا در مقابل این استتدلال می گویند چرا باید " شاهزاده رضا پهلوی " خودش را وارث تاج و تخت و یا شهریار بداند و از اعتبار پدر و پدر بزرگشان استفاده کنند، در حالی که بهتر است ایشان فقط از خلاقیت خود و منهای آن سرمایه ی تاریخی و ملی استفاده کنند؟در جواب می گویم ایشان و ما چه بخواهیم و چه نخواهیم این خلاقیت ها و این سرمایه ها همراه با ایشان است و خواهد بود و دست ما و ایشان نیست که این سرمایه ها را به نفع جمهوری اسلامی به حراج بگذاریم و یا هدر دهیم.تازه اگر هم شاهزاده رضا پهلوی بیایند و در رادیو و تلویزیون با صدای بلند بگویند که دیگر شاهزاده نیستند و این سرمایه ی ملی، تاریخی و بین المللی را می خواهند به دور بریزند، هیچ تعهدی در مقابل تاریخ و مردم نمی آورد.زیرا به گفته ی خودتان:" اما بيائيد فرض کنيم که اين سخنان از ايشان باشد که «من، فعلاً، تا انحلال حکومت اسلامی و انجام رفراندوم تعيين رژيم، يک فعال سياسی خواهم بود و به ايجاد تشکيلات رهبری کمک خواهم کرد و پس از روشن شدن نظر مردم هم، اگر رأی آنها بر آن قرار گرفت که پادشاهی به ايران برگردد، من بلافاصله همۀ کارهای سياسی خود را کنار خواهم گذاشت و شير بی يال و دم و اشکمی خواهم شد که، بعنوان شاه غير مسئوول مشروطه، فقط هويتی نمادين خواهد داشت». آيا چنين وعده و تعهدی می تواند مشکلی را حل کند؟"پس نتیجه می گیریم که منظور درونی شما این است که شاهزاده را بتدا از همه ی احترامات، سرمایه ها، مقبولیت ها، صلاحیت ها و شناخته شده گی ها عریان کنید و ایشان را بی هویت نمایید و سپس خیلی راحت ایشان را از گردونه ی تاریخ به دست خویش خارج کنید.زیرا شما به خوبی می دانید که ایشان در هر فرمی بچرخد، مورد قبول شما واقع نمی شود.زیرا نمی توانید عنوان شاهزادگی را که تاریخ و مردم ایران به ایشان داده اند، از ایشان بگیرید. حتی اگر خودشان هم بخواهند.زیرا اعتبار خانواده ی پهلوی در ایشان را نمی توان زائل کرد و همیشه در ایشان متبلور خواهد بود.زیرا در هر جمعی که قرار بگیرند، به چشم شاهزاده و اعتبار خانواده ی پهلوی و باضافه صلاحیت ها و خلاقیت های خودشان به ایشان نگاه کرده می شود.پس بیایید منصفانه بگویید که نمی خواهید با پادشاهی خواهان به ائتلاف برسید مثل اتحاد جمهوریخواهان که در اساسنامه شان آورده اند.پس لطفن این ایرادات غیر منطقی و استدلال ِ لال را کنار بگذارید و بگویید که ما هستیم پادشاهی به ایران بر نگردد.و حاضریم آنجا که باید بین جمهوری اسلامی و نظام پادشاهی تصمیم بگیریم، ما جانب جمهوری اسلامی را می گیریم.و اینکه از دکتر مصدق نقل قول کردید که:" «اگر سردار سپه، در مقام نخست وزير و رئيس قوۀ مجريه، آدم لايقی است و مملکت را دارد خوب اداره می کند، چه مرضی است که او را شاه مشروطه کنيم و طبق قانون اساسی مشروطه به او اجازه ندهيم در کارهای مملکت دخالت کند؟»"باید بگویم که مصدق چون خودش از طایفه ی قجر بود، نمی خواست سلسله ی پادشاهی در قاجاریه به پایان برسد و دوست داشت قاجاریه کماکان در سلطنت باقی بماند و بی کفایتی ها ادامه پیدا کند.به همین منظور هیچوقت به پادشاهی دودمان پهلوی التفات نشان نداد و مخالفتش را پنهان نکرد.و نشان داد وقتی شرایط برایش آماده است، در پرچیدن پادشاهی خاندان پهلوی درنگ نمی کند.دلیل می خواهید؟می گویم کودتا علیه ی محمد رضا شاه در 25 مرداد سال 32، مبنی بر نپذیرفتن دست خط پادشاه و عزلش از نخست وزیری.در حالی که طبق قانون اساسی مشروطه پادشاه این حق را داشت در غیاب و یا بسته بودن مجلس، نخست وزیر را عزل کند ، اما مصدق از عزلش تمرّد کرد و سر باز زد.و این درحالی بود که آقای مصدق هنگام احراز مسئولیت نخست وزیری به آن قسم خورده بود و حتی روی صفحه ای از قرآن نوشته بود که نسبت به قوانین مشروطه وفادار می ماند اما در عمل وفادار نماند.می گویم چرا در مقابل توده ایها و نیروهای افراطی خودشان در روزهای 26 و 27 مرداد که مجسمه های پادشاهان پهلوی را به زیر می کشیدند و مرگ بر شاه می گفتند، حرکتی نکرد و سکوت اختیار کرد؟می گویم چرا وقتی که وزیر خارجه اش چاک ِ دهانش را باز کرده بود و به خانواده ی پهلوی و پادشاه توهین می کرد و ناسزا می گفت، او را مورد ملامت قرار نداد؟می گویم . . .این را نوشتم تا مردم بدانند که اگر کودتایی بوده، کودتای مصدق علیه محمد رضا شاه بوده است نه بر عکس.زیرا هیچ شاهی علیه ی نخست وزیرش کودتا نمی کند، چون از نظر سلسله مراتب نخست وزیر در زیر مجموعه ی پادشاه است. بنابراین دلیلی ندارد که پادشاه یک کشور بخواهد بر علیه ی یک دون پایه کودتا کند.اما برعکسش می تواند اتفاق بیافتد. زیرا فرد دون پایه می خواهد جای فرمانده، ریئس و یا شاهش را بگیرد و این عمل بارها تکرار شده است. اما در آن دوران مورد اشاره ی شما که یک دوران ِ نابسامان و هرج و مرج حاکم بود، جزء مصدق اکثر رجال ایرانپرست بر شاه شدن سردار سپه رأی دادند و تاریخ هم ثابت کرد که این تصمیم آزادیخواهان درست بوده است.از طرف دیگر مقایسه ی دوران سردار سپه با شاهزاده رضا پهلوی در امروز اساسن درست نیست.زیرا سردار سپه در آن دوران، هم وزیر جنگ بودند و هم نخست وزیر. یعنی در قدرت بودند.ولی شاهزاده رضا پهلوی با اینکه از نظر قانون اساسی مشروطیت پادشاه ایران هستند، اما بطور و اقعی در ایران هیچ سمتی ندارند. یعنی جایگاه ایشان بوسیله ی راهزنان ضد ایران و ایرانی اشغال شده است.بنا براین حق ایشان است که با کمک ایرانیان این حقشان را بگیرند.به همین خاطر است که در این شرایط که خلاء رهبری به شدت حس می شود و جمهوریخواهان در همه رنگش غیر از تک نمودها با جمهوری اسلامی به جای مبارزه، لاس می زنند، ایشان آستین ها را بالا زده اند تا این خلاء را پر کنند و مبارزات مردم ستمدیده ی ایران را به ثمر برسانند.و بر ما است که از این حرکت غرور آفرین حمایت کنیم، نه اینکه سنگ جلوی پایشان بگذاریم.

apanahan@t-online.de a_panahan@yahoo.de

Iran’s major oil customers, energy partners

Following are some details about Iran’s principal energy partners and joint projects:
ASIA: *
JAPAN - Biggest single buyer of Iran’s crude. Imported 519,518 barrels per day (bpd) in Q1 2009. Iran was Japan’s third-largest supplier. -- INVESTMENT -- Japan’s INPEX holdings saw its 75 percent stake in Iran’s huge Azadegan oilfield cut to 10 percent in 2006 when talks fell through on a development plan. *
CHINA - Second-largest buyer of Iran’s oil. Imported 484,093 bpd in Q1 2009. Iran is China’s second-largest crude supplier. -- China’s state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong, which started buying oil from Iran more than a decade ago and was among the first buyer to heed Tehran’s call to pay in euro instead of U.S. dollars, has extended its agreement with National Iranian Oil Co (NIOC) to import 240,000 bpd of crude for 2009. -- Top refiner Sinopec Corp. has agreed to import 150,000-160,000 bpd of Iranian crude this year, unchanged from 2008. -- INVESTMENT -- China’s National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) signed a $4.7 billion contract with a Chinese state firm on Wednesday to develop a phase of South Pars, replacing France’s Total. -- CNPC is in talks with Iran for $3.6 billion deal to buy LNG from Phase 14 of South Pars project. CNPC is also in talks to explore and develop energy reserves in Iran’s Caspian. -- Chinese oil firm China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) signed a deal with the NIOC on Jan. 14, 2009 to develop the north Azadegan oilfield. The deal is worth $2 billion in its first phase. Under the first phase lasting 48 months, the capacity would reach 75,000 barrels per day (bpd). The tenure of the project is 12 years. -- China’s Sinopec Group finalised a $2 billion pact to develop Iran’s huge Yadavaran field in December 2007. -- The China National Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC) is in talks to finalise a $16 billion dealt to develop the North Pars gas field and build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant. *
INDIA - India imported 426,360 bpd of Iran’s oil in the fiscal year 2008/09, or 9.5 percent more crude versus a year earlier. Iran was India’s second-largest supplier. India supplies much of Iran’s imported oil gasoline and diesel. -- INVESTMENT -- India’s ONGC, IOC and Oil India Ltd are in talks to invest $3 billion to develop gas reserves at the Farsi block. ONGC and the Hinduja group are negotiating for a role in Azadegan oilfield development and to buy gas from South Pars. ONGC is also in talks to develop Caspian oil and gas reserves. -- India had been part of the $7 billion so-called “peace pipeline” project, but stayed away from talks in September saying it wanted to agree transit costs through Pakistan on a bilateral basis first. *
MALAYSIA - Malaysia’s SKS group signed a gas deal worth $14 billion with NIOC in December 2008. The deal involves a project to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG) and the development of two gas fields, Golshan and Ferdows. Exports of crude and 120,000 barrels of gas condensates are also part of the agreement. *
INDONESIA - State oil firm Pertamina said in March a refinery joint venture project with Iran may be delayed until 2016 from 2010. In 2006, Pertamina’s unit PT Elnusa signed a preliminary deal with National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company to build a 300,000-barrels-per-day oil refinery in Indonesia, which was expected to be completed in 2010. *
PAKISTAN - Iranian news agencies reported last month that Iran and Pakistan had signed a framework agreement to export Iranian natural gas to Pakistan. *
SOUTH KOREA - Imported up to 244,989 bpd of Iran’s oil in the first quarter 2009. Iran was South Korea’s fourth-largest supplier. *
TAIWAN - Imported 82,411 bpd of Iran’s oil in the first quarter of 2009. Iran was Taiwan’s third-largest supplier. * RUSSIA - Russia is building Iran’s first nuclear power plant and supplying the fuel it will use. -- INVESTMENT -- Russia state controlled energy giant Gazprom GAXP.MM agreed in February to take on new projects in Iran, including a bigger role in South Pars and drilling for oil. Gazprom has invested about $4 billion in Iran since 2007 and was involved in an earlier phase at South Pars.
EUROPE: *
AUSTRIA - Austria’s biggest energy company OMV is leading a consortium planning to build the Nabucco pipeline to carry gas from Turkey to Austria through Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary by 2013. Europe wants the pipeline to diversify supplies and ease dependence on Russia but without Iran, it will be difficult to fill the $8 billion pipeline.
FRANCE - Oil giant Total was replaced by China’s CNOC of the South Pars field but the project has been overshadowed by haggling over contract terms and international political tension. *
ITALY - Italy’s oil and gas group Eni is leading the $1 billion second phase development of the Darkhovin oilfield development to take output to 160,000 bpd from 50,000 bpd. Italian power utility Edison and NIOC signed a $107 million exploration contract in January 2008 to help develop the Dayyer offshore block in the Persian Gulf. *
GERMANY - In 2006, Germany’s ABB Lummus signed a $512 million contract with NIOC and a consortium of Iranian companies to develop the Bandar Abbas refinery. The group intends to raise gasoline production to 13 million litres per day from 4.8 million litres currently. *
POLAND - Polish gas monopoly PGNiG has signed a preliminary deal with Iran’s Offshore Oil Company to cooperate on managing already-discovered gas reserves. * SPAIN - Repsol had planned to participate with Shell in developing South Pars and building an LNG plant, but Shell pulled out last year. Iran had given a May 20 deadline for Shell and Repsol to clarify their involvement in the project. * SWITZERLAND - Swiss energy group EGL signed a 25-year gas purchase deal worth over $13 billion with Iran last year. * TURKEY - Turkey signed a preliminary deal in November 2008 for gas to be exported to Europe through Turkey and for Turkey to produce gas in the South Pars field. The investment would amount to $3.5 billion. *
UNITED KINGDOM - Oil major Royal Dutch Shell has pulled out of Phase 13 of the giant South Pars gas field last year but said it may yet join later stages of the field’s development. (Source: Reuters)

Prince Reza Pahlavi : An Iranian Prince of Persia

REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc...By Darius KADIVAR During his European Book Tour ("L'Heure Du Choix"), Iran's former Crown Prince warns the US and Israel against any military option towards his country regardless of the outcome of Iran's Presidential elections (*) Intro & Translation by Darius KADIVAR Intro By Darius KADIVAR: As the upcoming presidential elections in Iran raise questions to all political observers and participants on the options left for Iran in terms of domestic and foreign policy in order to improve its international image and gain internal support in prolonging its existence as a ruling Theocracy, it may be of interest to take a look at what the former Crown Prince of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, has to say in this regard. Indeed regardless of whether one is a supporter or not of the Monarchy or if one shares or not his political vision for Iran's future, one cannot deny the fact that the Iranian Prince continues to play a significant role as an outspoken opposition leader to the clerical regime in Tehran. In addition the, former Crown Prince has remained in the public eye, ever since his birth to popular enthusiasm on the 31st of October 1960 in a public hospital in the Southern part of Iran's capital, Tehran. A symbolic gesture at a time when the Royal couple wished to see their first child be born amongst their less privileged subjects and modest inhabitants of the Royal capital rather than in a private clinic in the northern part of the city.For people of my generation at least, it is nearly hard to believe that time has past so fast. This familiar face, has more or less consciously belonged to our collective memory for more than 5 decades now. Indeed the little boy whose photo illustrated our Persian School Textbooks during our childhood and teenage years and whose followers affectionately call the "Young Shah" (ever since he took oath in exile as "Roi de Jure" in Cairo three decades ago shortly after his father's death: See Videos Part I , Part II) is a man who has reached the mature age of 49 (actually one year older than the newly elected American President Barack Hussein Obama). Happily married to a beautiful wife who has given him three beautiful daughters, the former Crown Prince of our ancient land could have easily led an anonymous yet very comfortable life away from the troubles and headaches of a political destiny which was thrust upon him by birth and not by choice. Instead he has decided, in a bid for Democracy and Human Rights, the difficult task of trying to rally his compatriots towards a common goal: Regime Change through Civil Disobedience. Something for which he has been campaigning for more than three decades but which the European Press seems to echo more adamantly in recent months due to the former Crown Prince's marathon tour to promote his new book written with the help of French journalist Michel Taubmann titled in French "L'Iran: L'Heure Du Choix" aka Iran:The Hour of Choice. The familiar face to my generation may appear an enigmatic figure back home. The fall of the Pahlavi dynasty by the fundamentalist revolution that ousted his father from the Peacock Throne put an end to 25 centuries of the Royal Institution in Iran, once known as Persia. Many younger compatriots discovered his very existence only after seeing him on American and International Medias shortly following the aftermath of Sept 11th or through the publication of his first book: Winds of Change: The Future of Democracy in Iran in which he developed and defended his political vision. Yet he has been present in the Political Arena for more then 30 years now. The latter book which was the fruit of nearly 20 years of reflection on his role and responsibilities as a political figure in exile had the credit of outlining his political agenda in full transparency: That of seeing his people come to the Polls of an Internationally supervised and democratically organized Referendum in order to choose the Democratic and Secular System of government of their choice. However to some degree this first book failed to entirely satisfy the readers curiosity in terms of more personal and legitimate questions in regard not only to his own life, beliefs and upbringing but also in regard to his genuine feelings about his father's reign and responsibilities in his own downfall. The task of being one's personal judge or inquisitor is not an easy one for anybody and not even an autobiography can truly allow an objective look at oneself nor allow the necessary distance to allow unbiased judgments or draw accurate conclusions about one's persona. It is all the more difficult to be held accountable for one's own father's mistakes or even crimes (if any) when one has had no personal direct responsibility in their outcome other than being related to the incriminated person who has or may have committed them. Mohamed Reza Pahlavi was a Shah (King) to many whom some considered as a visionary and patriot, others as a ruthless tyrant; but to Reza Pahlavi he was first and foremost a Father and loving husband to his mother the Shahbanou. Although a Larger than Life Father Figure to many, Mohamed Reza Shah's work and occupation left little time for intimacy and therefore far reaching influence on his son's intellectual upbringing. This seems to have been an asset to Reza Pahlavi's independent education which to a great degree helped him develop his own personality, mindset and interests as well as cultivate his relationship with his own people thanks to not only numerous official trips as a youth in his country but also unofficial encounters with his people that allowed him to understand the soul of a nation. The Revolution in itself was probably another of the greatest lessons in his life as well as in that of many people of his generation, in that nothing is entirely eternal nor should be taken for granted. That even the Throne of the Strongest Kingdom in the Middle East which he were to inherit on his majority could fall apart like a sand castle and in the most unpredictable way. A much more personal insight into Reza Pahlavi's psychology, life and thoughts was therefore necessary in order to understand not only the man but also what motivates him in pursuing a struggle whose outcome remains uncertain. This is what makes the former Crown Prince's new Book an interesting read on many levels. It is to Reza Pahlavi's credit to have accepted to boldly and honestly respond to the most difficult and controversial questions regarding not only his father's authoritative reign but also the philosophical ideas, constitutional shortcomings, moral dilemmas as well as the political behavior that sustained his father and grandfather in power. The task of freely and coherently asking the tough but necessary questions to a Man who aspires to leading his compatriots towards a better future and in a competitive and often ruthless political arena in a way that would be both intellectually challenging and without compromise befell on an independent journalist Michel Taubmann. Someone whose political views were not only diametrically opposed to those of the Iranian Prince's father, but who could also be emotionally detached (due to his non Iranian roots) from any sentimental approach to the way the Prince may be perceived by his compatriots whether in his favor or against him. Thus Taubmann was in a position to push the Prince into facing some of the most darkest and painful corners of his memory both as heir to a dying king but also as an Iranian citizen whose eventual future role in his country's future will inevitably be confronted to very high expectations as well as demands of a people deprived from some of the most basic rights to which many of his exiled compatriots living in truly democratic countries have benefited from and experienced in the past 30 years … Given this reality, what are Reza Pahlavi's real chances in achieving his claim of overthrowing the Islamic Republic and of serving as he say's as a "Catalyst" for Regime Change (without any foreign military intervention which he clearly opposes) knowing the controversial historical and political legacy of his own father's reign ? Only time and future events in our country can truly answer this question. What is certain however is that regardless of the political evolutions or transformations that will shape our country in the coming decades the poor record of the Islamic Revolution in delivering much of its widely acclaimed promises in terms of social justice, economic prosperity for all, and more importantly democracy and human rights, have failed dramatically in nearly every area. Whether or not one agrees with this observation, a generation later, one cannot deny that Iranians are entitled to draw an unbiased assessment on the "pros" and "cons of the Islamic Revolution of 1979 which overthrew the Monarchy in Iran. An assessment that beyond political convictions will nevertheless lead to comparisons between the current political establishment (that is a Theocratic Republic which is barely three decades old) and the Royal institution that preceded it. One which had endured under different dynasties for more than 25 centuries and which greatly shaped our nation's political and cultural identity for better and for worse. This dichotomy between the Monarchy and the Republic (in Iran's case this so called Republic seems to more resemble some kind of Absolute Turbaned Dynasty rather than the Secular Republic to which most modern day democracies refer to) in our national psyche is not unique to Iranians. All nations living under a given political system of government be them Secular Republics (democratic or dictatorial) or Monarchies (absolute or constitutional) have had at some point to look back on the major historical events that have shaped them in order to draw conclusions in favor of maintaining or not their current system of government. Particularly if they have failed to live up to those high democratic standards and expectations of fair justice. However when the system of government in question was established on grounds of delivering democracy in the true sense of the word but fails to do so after one or several generations, one can question its legitimacy however popular at its inception. The Transition towards democracy has not always been easy. In the case of France, the Republic as we see it today was achieved after nearly 300 years of an evolutionary process ever since the French Revolution of 1789. In Great Britain, democracy was achieved following an entirely different path than in France by maintaining the Royal Institution but by enforcing the Parliament's role after major political upheavals no difference than in France where the King was beheaded and a Theocratic Republic ruled the country under Cromwell for several decades before seeing the restoration on the Throne of the former Monarch's son. One can therefore see that the transition from a dictatorial (or totalitarian rule) towards that of a genuine democracy has not followed a similar path in all countries that could serve as an undisputable blueprint in achieving this transition. Nations Are Different and Behave differently given their own political experience and the people's relationship to power. In some cases it has alas been through bloodsheds, in others fortunately more peacefully, earning them the name of "Velvet Revolutions". Having lived under both systems that is equally a Monarchy or a Republic but given that in both cases the democratic practice in itself was alas short lived, Iranians will naturally have to come to terms with their own history, contradictions as well as the realities of their political evolution in the years to come. That is inevitable in order to reach what they at large aspire to and regardless of their ideological preferences and that is a democratic system of government of their choice. An Iranian Solidarnosc: Simply a Utopia ? … A peaceful Transition Towards Democracy in Iran would require a cooperation between ALL Iranians be them known or unknown. Prominent members of Iran's Civil Society or in the Diaspora regardless of professional or social backgrounds, or political preferences could each contribute in their own right in a constructive dialogue to further unity towards a common cause for country.Iran's political landscape both inside and outside is divided on how to reach this goal. They do not necessarily have the same approach nor offer the same solutions to this problem. In this context Reza Pahlavi is not the only person to suggest an alternative to the current clerical regime. In the current political juncture he is not leading a particularly homogenous opposition neither which could represent a serious challenge to the regime in Iran. Strength and Weakness' of the Opposition: However what at first glance may appear as a disadvantage, is probably Reza Pahlavi's greatest asset: his ability to stand above all political sensitivities and parties so to speak.Paradoxically I believe that this capacity is dictated less by his political astuteness than by the fact that he has inherited a historical and political legacy which puts him in a unique position in contrast to all other so-called political leaders or aspiring leaders today. See Videos: Reza Pahlavi gathers 14000 exiled Supporters at the L.A Sports Arena in the Mid 1990's. Such Popular gatherings have been rare since. www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxUoADRv5TI www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubF88ASmC8E&feature=related Given this fact, the Iranian opposition remains still very much divided between different political sensitivities even if the Gap between the different Secular Democrats be them Constitutionalists and Republican (Jomhurykhah) seems to reduce and that they largely share common grounds in terms of democratic ideals despite differences in shape and form of their ideal government of choice.And Yet it still appears difficult to dissociate Reza Pahlavi from his Royal heritage. Some Republicans claim that he should give up his Royal titles and run as President in a Democratic Republic, others his first loyal and oldest supporters naturally will never concede on this Royal prerogative. Yet the prospect of a Referendum under international supervision is what maintains them together in a common bond of solidarity in their support for the Former Crown Prince and would be (or not) future King.That said, regardless of a history's nation one can observe that what often draws critics against the Monarchy as an "Institution" is its "absolute" and "elitist" nature. It would be legitimate to question why a nation may decide to put its future In the hands of one man or women rather than in that of an elected leader so to speak ? This would seem logical were we indeed faced with such a dilemma for instance if a coronation were to take place today or as in the past under an Absolute Monarchy where the King would Crown Himself ( as Reza Pahlavi's father did during his reign). However what makes this question irrelevant today are two major reason's: 1) At this stage the former Crown Prince is Neither Running for King Nor For President. 2) Were the people call for a Restoration, he clearly states that he would accept it only as Constitutional King like in Spain or Great Britain where the King or Queen Reigns but Does Not Rule. Rather than claiming any political responsibility or particular leadership he has been simply suggesting to serve as a "Catalyst" for Regime Change towards a democratic government of the people's choice were this to take place at some stage in the political landscape of our homeland.Naturally one is free to believe or not in his sincerity particularly if one is a staunch Republican ( Jomhury Khah) and opposes the very notion of seeing a former Crown Prince take such a leading political role particularly if they deem that his father was a despot (a common yet understandable obsession amongst us Iranians I'm afraid, is to think, that "despotism", is genetically inherited. If this is quite recurrent in Shakespeare's plays a closer look at British History ( Elizabeth 1st daughter of King Henry VIII, Charles 1st son of Charles 1st) in particular and European History (King Juan Carlos of Spain descendent of the deposed Bourbon French Kings, as well as nearly all West European Constitutional monarchs who descend from absolute monarchs) in general seems to suggest the opposite, so why should Iran's Royal legacies be an exception to the rule (if "rule" there is) ?). Yet if historians generally agree that the former Shah's reign became dictatorial after the events of 1953 they are more divided as to reasons which led to him choosing an absolute rule over a ceremonial role (which he did have for at least 12 years before the Coup) as in all European constitutional monarchies today. Indeed there are those who criticize Reza Pahlavi's father for conducting a "Coup" against an elected Prime Minister who was Mossadegh ( Read All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer) claiming that we were actually living in a democratic society so to speak, others who consider it as rather a "Counter coup" by a "named" Prime Minister (who overestimated his constitutional rights) against his rightful King (The Life and Times of the Shah by Gholam Reza Afkhami, The Unknown Life of the Shah by Amir Taheri).Which historical interpretation is True? I leave that judgment to the readers who can draw their own conclusions based on their own knowledge and convictions or by reading some of the books I recommend in the authors notes below which present both opposite views each in their own right.However the fact remains that historians continue to debate about the Pahlavi era and do take interest in the past in order to understand our current political and intellectual challenges in finding solutions to the ills that continue to inflict our country. Why for instance was a Popular Revolution that was aimed at establishing a Just and fair society and put an end to despotism and Human Rights abuses turned its back on these genuine and noble aspirations by establishing a far more repressive regime than its predecessor in which not only acquired social rights for men and women were set back to at least 50 to 60 years and where the Brutal Imperial Secret Police, the SAVAK was Replaced by the SAVAMA/VEVAK ( better known as Vezarat-e Ettela'at va Amniat-e Keshvar) ? Also it seems that to this day when it comes to denouncing or justifying the current regime in Iran, the former Pahlavi dynasty's legacy (for good or bad) as well as the utility or not of the Monarchy as an institution, continue to be debated in nearly all political conversations today and in all circles (including by the current candidates with their supporters), proving if needed that the least one can do in order to shape an opinion or definitive judgment about these issues, is to take an interest in the ideas presented by the former Crown Prince be it by intellectual curiosity. This could also help confront/compare his ideas/propositions to those made by members of Iran's civil society who may either share his views (without necessarily being monarchists for that matter) and who could find common ground on certain issues of concern to all. Particularly in regard to the best ways of achieving democracy in Iran without resorting to violence but rather through civil disobedience.Such debates over the betrayal or not of the revolutionaries ( particularly those who were secularists) by the clerics or the High jacking of the Revolution itself by radical fundamentalists suggests that one cannot simply dismiss interest in the Pahlavi era and its downfall nor discourage debate over the eventual restoration of the Monarchy (however in its Constitutional Form) as an Institution given the terrible record of the revolution and the successive governments that have led our country since. Thus debate over the eventual political role which Reza Pahlavi could play today and maybe in Iran tomorrow should not be reduced to oblivion only because of our individual personal resentments towards the Monarchy as an Institution nor our collective prejudice towards the former Royal Family. So it seems to me that the possibility of a Royal Restoration ( which is not the present priority nor has the former Crown Prince been calling for at this stage of our collective struggle for democracy) in its Constitutional Form as Opposed to an Absolute Form cannot be seen merely as an unrealistic or an undesirable option for that matter … History has followed different paths in France ( Revolution) and Great Britain ( Restoration) to reach the same goal nevertheless: Parliamentary Democracy Nevertheless and surprisingly to the disappointment of many die hard monarchists it should be noticed that rather than calling for a Royal Restoration (which in itself is not such an unusual concept in an Old Continent like Europe (Spain and Belgium precisely took this road during the 20th century, Great Britain went even further than Iran ever did by beheaded its absolute king Charles 1st , establishing a Religious Theocracy under Cromwell, yet restored the monarchy once again but this time under Parliamentary Rule) at this stage of his campaign it seems that the former Crown Prince is actually calling for the coming to age of an "Iranian Solidarnosc" so to speak. One that like in Poland would see the emergence of a civil resistance movement against the dictatorial rule and which could grow independently outside the current political establishment and thus give birth to its own legitimate representatives in Iran and who could then voice the genuine demands of the people while in turn be supported by the international community. This is where the Iranian Diaspora could play an active role in informing the medias and influence international public opinion in rallying the cause of Iranians back home. This was precisely the strategy that was used by Lech Walesa and the Polish Solidarnosc movement against the communist dictatorship of General Jaruzelski back in the 1980's. The Unknown Unionist's struggle reached the ears of the international community partly thanks to his connection with an international figure like the then Polish Pope John Paul II who in turn was able to put his own public persona to the service of echoing the movements demands to the outside world. As such John Paul II's role was seen as a "Catalyst" rather than a leader for change. Could Reza Pahlavi (whose mother Shahbanou Farah Pahlavi still remains an extremely popular figure amongst Iranians in general and a fairly appreciate public personality worldwide) play a similar "Catalyst" role for Iranians at large but as a "secular" public persona who like the Pope during ¨Poland's Darkest hours was able to situate himself above the Political turmoils and internal divisions of Solidarnosc, in order to draw international support for their struggle against their country's dictatorship? If so, then who in turn could be the Lech Walesa's of Iran ? Or similarly the Nelson Mandela of Iran to whom he could bring his support in a near future ? These are legitimate questions for which I do not claim to have an answer but they do deserve to be addressed at some point in the future by all parties or individuals concerned if the prospect of an Iranian Solidarnosc becomes a reality. Something which in my opinion is not just an option left to us but an absolute necessity to clarify if we wish to create an efficient civil rights movement based on a minimum of synergy and coherence. After a short summary and Press review of Reza Pahlavi's latest book and before you read my English translation of his latest interview in the JDD:Journal Du Dimanche, I chose to display below some of the speeches, interviews presented by other prominent members of the Iranian Intellegentsia particularly in the Diaspora which appear to me as significant and thought provoking and which also seem to share similar arguments as those developed by the former Crown Prince of Iran in "L'Iran: L'Heure Du Choix" aka Iran: The Hour of Choice.Whatever the outcome in the upcoming elections in Iran, or the future of Iran on the short or long term these different views deserve attention, all the more that the ever thriving Iranian intelligentsia, both inside and outside Iran, belong to all walks of life and age and are each in their own right striving today to help achieve democracy in Iran by calling for more unity and mutual understanding between all and often beyond their own political differences or preferences. All the more that 30 years represents a generation in a nation's lifetime and that in itself, justifies an open-minded attitude on behalf of all those who care for their country's future and tolerant enough to hear what each one has got to say based on their own experiences … May Wisdom and Mutual understanding pave the way towards what we all cherish most a Free and Democratic Iran. I would like to conclude with the words of the late Dr. Shahpour Bakhtiar: "IRAN HARGUEZ NAKHAHAD MORD" aka "IRAN SHALL NEVER DIE" And may I Add In the language of the Following French Lumières Philosophers who inspired democrats worldwide by shaping the only truly functional World Democracies today : Montesquieu author of the Les Lettres Persanes aka Persian Letters, Rousseau the Secular Republican or Voltaire the Constitutional Monarchist (and author of Zadig): VIVE L'IRAN ETERNEL ! Avec L'ESPOIR NAISSANT DE VOIR ENFIN DANS NOTRE PAYS L'AVENEMENT De LA DEMOCRATIE ET LES DROITS DE L'HOMME ! Darius KADIVAR, Paris FRANCE Review/Summary: Tina Ebrahimi: The Persian Diaspora website Iranian.com's european columnist Tina Ebrahimi from Netherlands summarizes the book as follows: Summary: "On February 5th, Prince Reza Pahlavi, son of the late Shah of Iran, presented his new book of interviews taken by the French journalist Michel Taubmann. The title 'Iran: The Deciding Hour' describes the political position of Iran at the crossroads. In order to solve the Iranian crisis, Reza Pahlavi appeals to the international community and especially to Europe. Between the option of the never ending negotiations and a military attack he prescribes a third option, namely the support of the Iranian democratic movement and a dialogue with the Iranian people.The son of the late Shah exposes his vision of a different Iran which is democratic, secular and integrated in the international community. This includes a project to accomplish a society capable of answering to the aspirations of the Iranian people, the foundation of a democratic parliamentary regime in which the constitution is founded on the universal principles of human rights, the establishment of a nation guaranteeing the liberty of all, a national reconciliation like the model of South Africa, and finally the separation of state and religion. Prince Reza Pahlavi proposes a democratic process that will lead to a new constitution with which the Iranian people can choose their form of new regime by referendum (parliamentary monarchy or a parliamentary republic). In order to solve the Iranian crisis, Prince Reza Pahlavi launches an appeal to the international community and especially to Europe.Between the option of the never ending negotiations of which only the Islamic Republic profits and a military option, that will only have dramatic consequences for the region and the world, there is a third option, less costly and more legitimate: the support of the Iranian democratic forces and not a dialogue with the mullah regime, but with the Iranian people." The Struggle for Democracy in the Eyes of prominent members of Iranian Diaspora:Video: Abbas Milani's (author of The Persian Sphinx and of an upcoming book on the Late Shah) talk will be "Nuke, Kooks and Democracy in Iran: a discussion of Iran's current political situation, and the prospects of democracy, and a resolution of the country's nuclear program." (From 2008) Video : This is a Very Interesting speach by Dr. Abbas Milani followed by Q&A with the audience on Modernity in Iran and the challenges of the Iranian Intelligenstia in the 20th century. This speach was made in 2005 following the publication of Milani's book Lost Wisdom: Rethinking Modernity in Iran.: Watch Conference Here Video: Middle East expert's Abbas Milani and USA Today reporter Barbara Slavin argue on why U.S. "surgical strikes" are not a practical option for dealing with Iran's alleged nuclear program. (From 2008). Video: Charlie Rose - Azar Nafisi, Vali Nasr, Hooman Majd, Ben Sherwood Video: Azar Nafisi comments on why "Crisis is Good" and the Importance of the "Poetic Vision of a Nation" which could also be applied to Iran and its elections. This is part of a speech centered on her new book "Things I've Been Silent About". The author of Reading Lolita in Tehran (referring to President Obama's election) Video: Former Shah of Iran's Minister of Education and Chair of Pahlavi University and Prominent Zoroastrian Dr. Farhang Mehr asks a constitutional question from President Khatami back in the , when will Islamic Republic stop discriminating against religious minorities like Zoroastrians? Boston University ( circa 1998) Video: Zubin Mehta Wold Famous Parsi Composer speaks on Indian TV about his meeting with the Shah of Iran ( see: pictory: Conductor Zubin Mehta greeted by Shah and Shahbanou of Iran (1967) ) in the mid 1970's (More Here) The Struggle for Democracy in the Eyes of prominent Iran's Civil Society: Video: Akbar Ganji speaks at Google Conference on "The Road to Democracy" in Iran and Translator Dr. Abbas Milani (From 2008) Amir-Entezam's Proposal for Peace and Human Rights Video: Part of the interview with Iranian reformist MP, Dr. PirMoazen boldly spoke on banned TV VOA Persian ( deemed by the IRI as Anti Regime and Pro Regime Change but watched via Satellite paraboles in Iran) about the parliamentary (Majles) elections of 2008. Vidoes (Part I, Part II): Ayatollah Montazeri (who was ousted by Khamenei and the Guardian Council as successor to Ayatollah Khomeiny as Velayateh Fagih) speaks on the massacres of 1988. Video: Mansour Osanloo Bus Union Organizer, testifies about his torture by the regime agents, when they cut his tongue and neck to instill fear in others and his supporters. Interview by Claude ASKOLOVITCH Translation by Darius KADIVAR ( French Weekly JDD: Journal Du Dimanche) Reza Pahlavi, the Son of the Last Shah of Iran, warns Israel and the Western Powers of any temptation of launching a war against Iran. The Former Crown Prince hopes for a national upheaval by his compatriots against the mullahs. Opposite the Clerical Regime, he calls upon the democratic ideals and values of the West in the name of similar values that he believes have shaped his own ancient land once Known as Persia. As the campaign for Presidential elections in Iran begin, the "King without a Crown" speaks to The Journal Du Dimanche (JDD). WILL REZA PAHLAVI BE IRAN'S JUAN CARLOS ? In his Latest Book: "L'Heure Du Choix" aka "An Hour of Choice" published in French, Reza Pahlavi developed his vision for a Democratic Iran, where the Ultimate Choice on the future form of the democratic system of government would be submitted to a national referendum. Either a Secular Republic or a Constitutional Monarchy similar to that of Spain or Belgium. JDD: What do you expect from these elections ? Reza Pahlavi (RP): Nothing. There is nothing to be expected from these elections which are a farce. To even try and debate about the chances of this or that candidate in a bid to differentiate them from Ahmadinejad is a trap that the mullahs wish everyone to fall for. My country is run by a Mafia, and these elections are simply a show aimed at distracting the international community or any other reason that can prolong their survival through false promises. These elections are Not democratic and cannot be taken seriously by any genuine and well informed democrat. My people already live outside the current system. They either are in exile, like me outside their homeland, others, the great majority, are in exile within their own country and have no other choice but to survive under the current totalitarian conditions imposed on them. JDD: Yes but they are voting nevertheless ? RP: Many are forced to vote. Its by Fear that the regime hold on to Power. Many are arrested, people are tortured or physically and psychologically intimidated, and even many clerics are threatened (Notes: Ayatollah Boroudjerdi, Ayatollah Montazeri) or persecuted. Anyone who expresses anything against the regime is threatened. The Presidential candidates are filtered (Notes: Of over 400 submitted candidates only 4 were approved by the guardian council to run for the elections, Facebook blocked then reopened under pressure). They are simply puppets of a system which they want to prolong its survival. If you don't understand this then you will totally miss the point. The clerical regime has long lost the Iranian people's heart. Its populist rant or religious slogans, its extremist behaviour or its military adventurism are no more used merely towards our people. On the contrary it is trying to target it towards the Muslim communities worldwide and the so-called "Arab streets'. A Regime that has lost credibility with its own people is now brandishing the sword of Muslim vengeance amongst Syrians or Palestinians instead. JDD: But in the meantime, don't you think we would see a difference if a more moderate leader would emerge from these elections rather than a radical minded and anti Western candidate who wants the Atom Bomb … RP: What difference would that make ? You wanted to believe Khatami but did he deliver ? Lets be serious what serious reforms did he undertake after 8 years of Power ? Who followed in Khatami's footsteps ? Ahamdinejad ! This is a logic that the regime has always followed in order to perpetuate itself to this day. Compromise with them and you will not only end up in a war but ultimately help the regime's survival. JDD: Does that mean we should remain tough with your country ? RP: You need to be tough with the regime Not the People. You should first and foremost give voice to the Iranian people and the civil rights movements that are struggling on a daily basis, so as to give them hope and courage that they are being heard and have your support. In short as a nation "We Want to be Freed, Not Killed !" JDD: In your opinion Obama is not firm enough ? RP: President Obama was entirely correct to send a Persian New Year Message to the Iranian People but I regret that he included the Leaders of the Islamic Republic. It proves that in his view he cannot distinguish the People and the Regime. That is regretful. For instance he was not forced to hail the regime's "humanism" when Iranian American Journalist Roxana Saberi was finally liberated. I am not saying that you should not dialogue with regime – diplomacy has its priorities- BUT you need to also open the door to a dialogue with the democratic forces that oppose the current regime …. The West should not renounce on its founding principles by giving some kind of legitimacy or respectability to this evil entity called the "Islamic Republic". A Totalitarian regime does not consider itself as such; yet it cannot remain so forever and that is why we should encourage its downfall. JDD: Do you support a military intervention against Iran ? RP: NEVER ! Again I repeat our goal is to be freed not killed ! If Iran were attacked it would only strengthen the regime. Needless to say that You would immediately lose both my support as well as that of my people. When Iran was invaded by Iraq, I was in Exile. I publicly offered to fight for Iran as a pilot to defend my country. JDD: What if Israel Bombed Iran, would you fight against Netanyahu ? (**) RP: Let me clearly say this to Mr. Netanyahu and the People of Israel: "You know perfectly what Iran represented to the Jewish People. It was the Founder of the Persian Empire, Cyrus the Great, who freed the Jewish people after the conquest of Babylon and allowed your ancestors to reconstruct their tomb. (Notes: He is Awake: Close Up on Cyrus KAR, Story of Esther and Xerxes ). DON'T BE STUBBORN LADIES: If Indeed Democracy is a Common Cause, then Nothing should stop meetings between "Jomhury Khahs" (aka Republicans be them Reformists or supporters of a Secular Republic) and "Constitutional Monarchists" be them for informal discussions and even debate their differences in an open-minded and pragmatic approach towards a common goal : A peaceful transition. During World War II, when the Nazi's took over Europe, Iran accepted to shelter Jewish families who fled German Occupied Poland ( See The Children of Tehran, Abdol Hossein Sardari Iranian Diplomat who became known as the Iranian Schindler). During WWII we were the Only country in the region to behave like this (The tragedy that became known as The Holocaust was not yet known in all its horror until the liberation of the Concentration Camps in 1945). Video: Tribute to Cyrus the Great at UCLA: fundraising event for completion of Cyrus the Great a documentary by Cyrus KAR with participants Abbas Milani, Nazanin Afshin Jam and prominent members of the Iranian Diaspora And Now the very people we saved and were friends with throughout our history wish to Bomb Us ? This is outrageous ! JDD: Yes but If Israel or even the West were threatened by Iran … RP: Look, I understand all these worries. But I am asking you to look at things realistically and from a political perspective. Go to the depth of the question here: This Regime MUST Go ! Stop presenting my people and our religion and culture as evil. Iran is Not this regime. Shi'ism is Not this Regime. Even Islam is Not this Regime ! Iran is enslaved by a Totalitarian State. This totalitarian system is persecuting my people and threatening humanity at large. It must be overthrown. A democratic Iran will be a threat to no one. J.D.D: How can we get there ? RP: Though Trust ! By trusting the Iranian people at large. Bridging the Gap with His People. We will overthrow the regime through a revolution. This change will be the least violent possible and will emerge through civil disobedience. The sacrifice will be ours, all we are asking you is your moral support to achieve this. This regime is less stable than what you think. The economy is bad. The social and political oppression will sooner or later trigger a popular upheaval. At some point even the Revolutionary Guards (The Pasdaran) will have to let go. The regime will then fall just as in most East European Countries after the Cold War. Reza Pahlavi a "Catalyst" for Change ? Only Time, his own determination and Stamina as well as ultimately the People's Choice can answer this question ! … Authors Notes: (*) Link to Original Article in French (JDD: Journal Du Dimanche) (**) Although In France it is more accurately Semi presidential-parliamentary system which has underwent and continues to undego revisions and reforms: today they live under the 5th Constitution, that gives more power to the President than the previous constitutional drafts) Official Website of Reza Pahlavi: www.rezapahlavi.org Books By Reza Pahlavi: L'Iran L'Heure Du Choix aka Iran:The Time to Choose, (Latest Book in French soon to be translated into English) is available on amazon.fr A Review of the Above by Tina Ebrahimi (Iranian.com) French Iranian Novelist reviews Reza Pahlavi's New Book for Le Monde (Chahrdott Djavann) (Audio/Video) Reza Pahlavi New Book (A TIME OF CHOICE) Q&A With French Media Winds Of Change: The Future of Democracy in Iran is available on amazon.com (and French Translation: Pour L'Iran available on amazon.fr) Books About Reza Pahlavi: Reza Pahlavi By Christian Malar and Alain Rodier is available on amazon.fr Other Recommended Readings: Bon Anniversaire Votre Majesté!: Shahbanou Farah Celebrates 70th Birthday with Family By Darius KADIVAR La Princesse Noor d'Iran: Un Coeur à Prendre ! by Darius KADIVAR A Gift To All Persians! By Darius KADIVAR YASMINE'S MISSION FOR IRAN'S CHILDREN By Darius KADIVAR When Giants Meet: The Queen of Persian Pop greets the Shahbanou of Iran in NY Live Concert by Darius KADIVAR Remembering Princess Leila Pahlavi by Darius KADIVAR A QUEEN'S LOYALTY by Darius KADIVAR Iran/Persia and the Jewish People (**): Iranian Diaspora Intelligentsia Unite Against Islamic Republic's Holocaust Revisionism by Darius KADIVAR Esther's Children: A Portrait of Iranian Jews by Houman SARSHAR (amazon.com) He is Awake: Close Up on Cyrus KAR by Darius KADIVAR Xerxes: A Screenplay by Ren A. Hakim by Darius KADIVAR Documents on Iranians Saving Jews During WWII (Iranian.com) Human Rights:The Struggle Continues!: Nazanin Afshin Jam's Stop Child Executions Campaign in Iran and Beyond By Darius KADIVAR Prisoners Of Conscience Akbar Ganji A Hero Similar To Yves Montand Portrayal In Costa Gavras' Film « The Confession » by Darius KADIVAR PERSEPOLIS ART AUCTION SUPPORTS INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE OF HUMAN RIGHTS by Darius KADIVAR BINOCHE FEMME DANGEREUSE! By Darius KADIVAR IRANIAN FACING CENSORSHIP by Darius KADIVAR WHY AM I STILL BEING KEPT HERE? By Darius KADIVAR HOSTAGE TO TEHRAN By Darius KADIVAR FEREYDOUN FARROKHZAD REMEMBERED By Darius KADIVAR BREAKING THE WAVES: Iranian Women of the Diaspora Seduce French Media By Darius KADIVAR BOF? IRANIAN OFFICIALS IGNORE SHAHRAM NAZERI'S FRENCH HONOR By Darius KADIVAR Iran, Jews and the Holocaust The beneficent legacy of Persia remembered by Abbas Milani (San Francisco Gate) Books On Pahlavi Era (Royal Autobiographies): Answer to History by Mohamed Reza PAHLAVI, The Shah of Iran An Enduring Love: My Life with the Shah: A Memoir by Empress Farah Pahlavi Palace of Solitude by Princess Soraya Esfandiary Bakhtiary Faces in a Mirror: Memoirs from Exile by Princess Ashraf Pahlavi, The Shah's Twin Sister Mon père, mon frère, les Shahs d'Iran : Entretiens avec Son Altesse Impériale le prince Gholam-Reza Pahlavi by Prince Gholam-Reza Pahlavi ( The Shah's Brother) with Iman Ansari and Patrick Germain Books On Pahlavi Era (Biographies/AutoBiographies/Diaspora/ General History): The Shah and I: The Confidential Diary of Iran's Royal Court, 1968-77 by Asadollah Alam and Alinaghi Alikhani The Memoirs of Ardeshir Zahedi: From Childhood to the End of My Father's Premiership (Farsi Edition) by Ardeshir Zahedi The Life and Times of the Shah by Gholam Reza Afkhami ( For a comparative study I would recommend you also read below Stephen Kinzer's book) All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer (For a comparative study I would recommend you also Read above Gholam Reza Afkhami's book) The Unknown Life of the Shah by Amir Taheri (1991) Nest of Spies: America's Journey to Disaster in Iran by Amir Taheri Mossadegh And the Future of Iran by Houshang Keshavarz and Hamid Akbari L'Iran Deux Reves Brises by Houshang Nahavandi, In French (1981) Carnets secrets : Chute et mort du Shah (Broché) by Houshang Nahavandi, In French (2003) The Shah's Last Ride by William Shawcross Eminent Persians: The Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran, 1941-1979 (2 Volume Set) By Abbas Milani A Mirror Garden par Monir Shahroudy Farmanfarmaian et Zara Houshmand Esther's Children: A Portrait of Iranian Jews by Houman SARSHAR (amazon.com) The Persian Sphinx: Amir Abbas Hoveyda and the Riddle of the Iranian Revolution by Abbas Milani Iran and the Rise of the Reza Shah: From Qajar Collapse to Pahlavi Power by Cyrus Ghani State and Society in Iran: The Eclipse of the Qajars and the Emergence of the Pahlavis (Library of Modern Middle East Studies S.) by Homa Katouzian Blood & Oil: A Prince's Memoir of Iran, from the Shah to the Ayatollah by Manucher Farmanfarmaian and Roxane Farmanfarmaian Books By or About Iranian victims of Revolutionary Terror:Nocturne iranien : Mémoires d'exil du colonel Bidgoli Rad, de l'armée de l'air impériale iranienne By Claudine Monin-Krijan ( a Touching autobiography written in French with the help of a French journalist by a former officer of the Imperial Iranian Airforce but was also a Veteran of the Iran-Iraq War and his adventurous departure from Iran in a bid for Freedom for himself and his family) Even After All This Time: A Story of Love, Revolution, and Leaving Iran by Afschineh Latifi (Highly Recommended Read by a daughter of an executed Colonel in the Shah's Army by the Revolutionary court) SAVAK (Shah Of Iran's Secret Services) Replaced By VEVAK, The Notorious Islamic Republic's Secret Services (sometimes referred to as SAVAMA and in Persian Vezarat-e Ettela'at va Amniat-e Keshvar): Vevak, au service des ayatollahs : Histoire des services secrets iraniens by Yves Bonnet ( former head of France's secret Services from:1982 - 1985) Books By Opposition Leaders: Ma fidélité By Shahpour Bakhtiar (In French published in 1982) Defying the Iranian Revolution: From a Minister to the Shah to a Leader of Resistance by Manouchehr Ganji Books By Civil Society Activists, Journalist, historians: Tales of Two Cities: A Persian Memoir by Abbas Milani The Road to Democracy in Iran (Boston Review Books) by Akbar Ganji, Joshua Cohen, and Abbas Milani Iran Awakening: One Woman's Journey to Reclaim Her Life and Country by Shirin Ebadi and Azadeh Moaveni Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books by Azar Nafisi Things I've Been Silent About: Memories by Azar Nafisi

Iran holding center mountain fortress

The Geopolitics of Iran: Holding the Center of a Mountain Fortress

July 14, 2008 1007 GMT

monikor

Editor’s Note: This is the third in a series of monographs on the geopolitics of countries that are currently critical in world affairs. Click here for a printable PDF of the monograph in its entirety.

To understand Iran, you must begin by understanding how large it is. Iran is the 17th largest country in world. It measures 1,684,000 square kilometers. That means that its territory is larger than the combined territories of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Portugal — Western Europe. Iran is the 16th most populous country in the world, with about 70 million people. Its population is larger than the populations of either France or the United Kingdom. Under the current circumstances, it might be useful to benchmark Iran against Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraq is 433,000 square kilometers, with about 25 million people, so Iran is roughly four times as large and three times as populous. Afghanistan is about 652,000 square kilometers, with a population of about 30 million. One way to look at it is that Iran is 68 percent larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, with 40 percent more population.More important are its topographical barriers. Iran is defined, above all, by its mountains, which form its frontiers, enfold its cities and describe its historical heartland. To understand Iran, you must understand not only how large it is but also how mountainous it is.

MAP - Iran - Terrain

Iran’s most important mountains are the Zagros. They are a southern extension of the Caucasus, running about 900 miles from the northwestern border of Iran, which adjoins Turkey and Armenia, southeast toward Bandar Abbas on the Strait of Hormuz. The first 150 miles of Iran’s western border is shared with Turkey. It is intensely mountainous on both sides. South of Turkey, the mountains on the western side of the border begin to diminish until they disappear altogether on the Iraqi side. From this point onward, south of the Kurdish regions, the land on the Iraqi side is increasingly flat, part of the Tigris-Euphrates basin. The Iranian side of the border is mountainous, beginning just a few miles east of the border. Iran has a mountainous border with Turkey, but mountains face a flat plain along the Iraq border. This is the historical frontier between Persia — the name of Iran until the early 20th century — and Mesopotamia (“land between two rivers”), as southern Iraq is called. The one region of the western border that does not adhere to this model is in the extreme south, in the swamps where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers join to form the Shatt al-Arab waterway. There the Zagros swing southeast, and the southern border between Iran and Iraq zigzags south to the Shatt al-Arab, which flows south 125 miles through flat terrain to the Persian Gulf. To the east is the Iranian province of Khuzestan, populated by ethnic Arabs, not Persians. Given the swampy nature of the ground, it can be easily defended and gives Iran a buffer against any force from the west seeking to move along the coastal plain of Iran on the Persian Gulf. Running east along the Caspian Sea are the Elburz Mountains, which serve as a mountain bridge between the Caucasus-Zagros range and Afghan mountains that eventually culminate in the Hindu Kush. The Elburz run along the southern coast of the Caspian to the Afghan border, buffering the Karakum Desert in Turkmenistan. Mountains of lesser elevations then swing down along the Afghan and Pakistani borders, almost to the Arabian Sea. Iran has about 800 miles of coastline, roughly half along the eastern shore of the Persian Gulf, the rest along the Gulf of Oman. Its most important port, Bandar Abbas, is located on the Strait of Hormuz. There are no equivalent ports along the Gulf of Oman, and the Strait of Hormuz is extremely vulnerable to interdiction. Therefore, Iran is not a major maritime or naval power. It is and always has been a land power. The center of Iran consists of two desert plateaus that are virtually uninhabited and uninhabitable. These are the Dasht-e Kavir, which stretches from Qom in the northwest nearly to the Afghan border, and the Dasht-e Lut, which extends south to Balochistan. The Dasht-e Kavir consists of a layer of salt covering thick mud, and it is easy to break through the salt layer and drown in the mud. It is one of the most miserable places on earth.

MAP - Iran - Population Density

Iran’s population is concentrated in its mountains, not in its lowlands, as with other countries. That’s because its lowlands, with the exception of the southwest and the southeast (regions populated by non-Persians), are uninhabitable. Iran is a nation of 70 million mountain dwellers. Even its biggest city, Tehran, is in the foothills of towering mountains. Its population is in a belt stretching through the Zagros and Elbroz mountains on a line running from the eastern shore of the Caspian to the Strait of Hormuz. There is a secondary concentration of people to the northeast, centered on Mashhad. The rest of the country is lightly inhabited and almost impassable because of the salt-mud flats.

land bridge

If you look carefully at a map of Iran, you can see that the western part of the country — the Zagros Mountains — is actually a land bridge for southern Asia. It is the only path between the Persian Gulf in the south and the Caspian Sea in the north. Iran is the route connecting the Indian subcontinent to the Mediterranean Sea. But because of its size and geography, Iran is not a country that can be easily traversed, much less conquered. The location of Iran’s oil fields is critical here, since oil remains its most important and most strategic export. Oil is to be found in three locations: The southwest is the major region, with lesser deposits along the Iraqi border in the north and one near Qom. The southwestern oil fields are an extension of the geological formation that created the oil fields in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq. Hence, the region east of the Shatt al-Arab is of critical importance to Iran. Iran has the third largest oil reserves in the world and is the world’s fourth largest producer. Therefore, one would expect it to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. It isn’t.

petroleum

Iran has the 28th largest economy in the world but ranks only 71st in per capita gross domestic product (as expressed in purchasing power). It ranks with countries like Belarus or Panama. Part of the reason is inefficiencies in the Iranian oil industry, the result of government policies. But there is a deeper geographic problem. Iran has a huge population mostly located in rugged mountains. Mountainous regions are rarely prosperous. The cost of transportation makes the development of industry difficult. Sparsely populated mountain regions are generally poor. Heavily populated mountain regions, when they exist, are much poorer. Iran’s geography and large population make substantial improvements in its economic life difficult. Unlike underpopulated and less geographically challenged countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Iran cannot enjoy any shift in the underlying weakness of its economy brought on by higher oil prices and more production. The absence of inhabitable plains means that any industrial plant must develop in regions where the cost of infrastructure tends to undermine the benefits. Oil keeps Iran from sinking even deeper, but it alone cannot catapult Iran out of its condition.

The Broad Outline

Iran is a fortress. Surrounded on three sides by mountains and on the fourth by the ocean, with a wasteland at its center, Iran is extremely difficult to conquer. This was achieved once by the Mongols, who entered the country from the northeast. The Ottomans penetrated the Zagros Mountains and went northeast as far as the Caspian but made no attempt to move into the Persian heartland. Iran is a mountainous country looking for inhabitable plains. There are none to the north, only more mountains and desert, or to the east, where Afghanistan’s infrastructure is no more inviting. To the south there is only ocean. What plains there are in the region lie to the west, in modern-day Iraq and historical Mesopotamia and Babylon. If Iran could dominate these plains, and combine them with its own population, they would be the foundation of Iranian power.

empire

Indeed, these plains were the foundation of the Persian Empire. The Persians originated in the Zagros Mountains as a warrior people. They built an empire by conquering the plains in the Tigris and Euphrates basin. They did this slowly, over an extended period at a time when there were no demarcated borders and they faced little resistance to the west. While it was difficult for a lowland people to attack through mountains, it was easier for a mountain-based people to descend to the plains. This combination of population and fertile plains allowed the Persians to expand. Iran’s attacking north or northwest into the Caucasus is impossible in force. The Russians, Turks and Iranians all ground to a halt along the current line in the 19th century; the country is so rugged that movement could be measured in yards rather than miles. Iran could attack northeast into Turkmenistan, but the land there is flat and brutal desert. The Iranians could move east into Afghanistan, but this would involve more mountain fighting for land of equally questionable value. Attacking west, into the Tigris and Euphrates river basin, and then moving to the Mediterranean, would seem doable. This was the path the Persians took when they created their empire and pushed all the way to Greece and Egypt. In terms of expansion, the problem for Iran is its mountains. They are as effective a container as they are a defensive bulwark. Supporting an attacking force requires logistics, and pushing supplies through the Zagros in any great numbers is impossible. Unless the Persians can occupy and exploit Iraq, further expansion is impossible. In order to exploit Iraq, Iran needs a high degree of active cooperation from Iraqis. Otherwise, rather than converting Iraq’s wealth into political and military power, the Iranians would succeed only in being bogged down in pacifying the Iraqis. In order to move west, Iran would require the active cooperation of conquered nations. Any offensive will break down because of the challenges posed by the mountains in moving supplies. This is why the Persians created the type of empire they did. They allowed conquered nations a great deal of autonomy, respected their culture and made certain that these nations benefited from the Persian imperial system. Once they left the Zagros, the Persians could not afford to pacify an empire. They needed the wealth at minimal cost. And this has been the limit on Persian/Iranian power ever since. Recreating a relationship with the inhabitants of the Tigris and Euphrates basin — today’s Iraq — is enormously difficult. Indeed, throughout most of history, the domination of the plains by Iran has been impossible. Other imperial powers — Alexandrian Greece, Rome, the Byzantines, Ottomans, British and Americans — have either seized the plains themselves or used them as a neutral buffer against the Persians.

ethno

Underlying the external problems of Iran is a severe internal problem. Mountains allow nations to protect themselves. Completely eradicating a culture is difficult. Therefore, most mountain regions of the world contain large numbers of national and ethnic groups that retain their own characteristics. This is commonplace in all mountainous regions. These groups resist absorption and annihilation. Although a Muslim state with a population that is 55 to 60 percent ethnically Persian, Iran is divided into a large number of ethnic groups. It is also divided between the vastly dominant Shia and the minority Sunnis, who are clustered in three areas of the country — the northeast, the northwest and the southeast. Any foreign power interested in Iran will use these ethnoreligious groups to create allies in Iran to undermine the power of the central government. Thus, any Persian or Iranian government has as its first and primary strategic interest maintaining the internal integrity of the country against separatist groups. It is inevitable, therefore, for Iran to have a highly centralized government with an extremely strong security apparatus. For many countries, holding together its ethnic groups is important. For Iran it is essential because it has no room to retreat from its current lines and instability could undermine its entire security structure. Therefore, the Iranian central government will always face the problem of internal cohesion and will use its army and security forces for that purpose before any other.

Geopolitical Imperatives

For most countries, the first geographical imperative is to maintain internal cohesion. For Iran, it is to maintain secure borders, then secure the country internally. Without secure borders, Iran would be vulnerable to foreign powers that would continually try to manipulate its internal dynamics, destabilize its ruling regime and then exploit the resulting openings. Iran must first define the container and then control what it contains. Therefore, Iran’s geopolitical imperatives:

1. Control the Zagros and Elburz mountains. These constitute the Iranian heartland and the buffers against attacks from the west and north.

2. Control the mountains to the east of the Dasht-e Kavir and Dasht-e Lut, from Mashhad to Zahedan to the Makran coast, protecting Iran’s eastern frontiers with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Maintain a line as deep and as far north and west as possible in the Caucasus to limit Turkish and Russian threats. These are the secondary lines.

3. Secure a line on the Shatt al-Arab in order to protect the western coast of Iran on the Persian Gulf.

4. Control the divergent ethnic and religious elements in this box.

5. Protect the frontiers against potential threats, particularly major powers from outside the region.

Iran has achieved four of the five basic goals. It has created secure frontiers and is in control of the population inside the country. The greatest threat against Iran is the one it has faced since Alexander the Great — that posed by major powers outside the region. Historically, before deep-water navigation, Iran was the direct path to India for any Western power. In modern times, the Zagros remain the eastern anchor of Turkish power. Northern Iran blocks Russian expansion. And, of course, Iranian oil reserves make Iran attractive to contemporary great powers. There are two traditional paths into Iran. The northeastern region is vulnerable to Central Asian powers while the western approach is the most-often used (or attempted). A direct assault through the Zagros Mountains is not feasible, as Saddam Hussein discovered in 1980. However, manipulating the ethnic groups inside Iran is possible. The British, for example, based in Iraq, were able to manipulate internal political divisions in Iran, as did the Soviets, to the point that Iran virtually lost its national sovereignty during World War II. The greatest threat to Iran in recent centuries has been a foreign power dominating Iraq —Ottoman or British — and extending its power eastward not through main force but through subversion and political manipulation. The view of the contemporary Iranian government toward the United States is that, during the 1950s, it assumed Britain’s role of using its position in Iraq to manipulate Iranian politics and elevate the shah to power. The 1980-1988 war between Iran and Iraq was a terrific collision of two states, causing several million casualties on both sides. It also demonstrated two realities. The first is that a determined, well-funded, no-holds-barred assault from Mesopotamia against the Zagros Mountains will fail (albeit at an atrocious cost to the defender). The second is that, in the nation-state era, with fixed borders and standing armies, the logistical challenges posed by the Zagros make a major attack from Iran into Iraq equally impossible. There is a stalemate on that front. Nevertheless, from the Iranian point of view, the primary danger of Iraq is not direct attack but subversion. It is not only Iraq that worries them. Historically, Iranians also have been concerned about Russian manipulation and manipulation by the British and Russians through Afghanistan.

The Current Situation

For the Iranians, the current situation has posed a dangerous scenario similar to what they faced from the British early in the 20th century. The United States has occupied, or at least placed substantial forces, to the east and the west of Iran, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is not concerned about these troops invading Iran. That is not a military possibility. Iran’s concern is that the United States will use these positions as platforms to foment ethnic dissent in Iran.Indeed, the United States has tried to do this in several regions. In the southeast, in Balochistan, the Americans have supported separatist movements. It has also done this among the Arabs of Khuzestan, at the northern end of the Persian Gulf. And it has tried to manipulate the Kurds in northwestern Iran. (There is some evidence to suggest that the United States has used Azerbaijan as a launchpad to foment dissent among the Iranian Azeris in the northwestern part of the country.)

The Iranian counter to all this has several dimensions:

1. Maintain an extremely powerful and repressive security capability to counter these moves. In particular, focus on deflecting any intrusions in the Khuzestan region, which is not only the most physically vulnerable part of Iran but also where much of Iran’s oil reserves are located. This explains clashes such as the seizure of British sailors and constant reports of U.S. special operations teams in the region.

2. Manipulate ethnic and religious tensions in Iraq and Afghanistan to undermine the American positions there and divert American attention to defensive rather than offensive goals.

3. Maintain a military force capable of protecting the surrounding mountains so that major American forces cannot penetrate.

4. Move to create a nuclear force, very publicly, in order to deter attack in the long run and to give Iran a bargaining chip for negotiations in the short term.

The heart of Iranian strategy is as it has always been, to use the mountains as a fortress. So long as it is anchored in those mountains, it cannot be invaded. Alexander succeeded and the Ottomans had limited success (little more than breaching the Zagros), but even the Romans and British did not go so far as to try to use main force in the region. Invading and occupying Iran is not an option. For Iran, its ultimate problem is internal tensions. But even these are under control, primarily because of Iran’s security system. Ever since the founding of the Persian Empire, the one thing that Iranians have been superb at is creating systems that both benefit other ethnic groups and punish them if they stray. That same mindset functions in Iran today in the powerful Ministry of Intelligence and Security and the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). (The Iranian military is configured mainly as an infantry force, with the regular army and IRGC ground forces together totaling about 450,000 troops, larger than all other service branches combined.)-Iran is, therefore, a self-contained entity. It is relatively poor, but it has superbly defensible borders and a disciplined central government with an excellent intelligence and internal security apparatus. Iran uses these same strengths to destabilize the American position (or that of any extraregional power) around it. Indeed, Iran is sufficiently secure that the positions of surrounding countries are more precarious than that of Iran. Iran is superb at low-cost, low-risk power projection using its covert capabilities. It is even better at blocking those of others. So long as the mountains are in Iranian hands, and the internal situation is controlled, Iran is a stable state, but one able to pose only a limited external threat. The creation of an Iranian nuclear program serves two functions. First, if successful, it further deters external threats. Second, simply having the program enhances Iranian power. Since the consequences of a strike against these facilities are uncertain and raise the possibility of Iranian attempts at interdiction of oil from the Persian Gulf, the strategic risk to the attacker’s economy discourages attack. The diplomatic route of trading the program for regional safety and power becomes more attractive than an attack against a potential threat in a country with a potent potential counter.Iran is secure from conceivable invasion. It enhances this security by using two tactics. First, it creates uncertainty as to whether it has an offensive nuclear capability. Second, it projects a carefully honed image of ideological extremism that makes it appear unpredictable. It makes itself appear threatening and unstable. Paradoxically, this increases the caution used in dealing with it because the main option, an air attack, has historically been ineffective without a follow-on ground attack. If just nuclear facilities are attacked and the attack fails, Iranian reaction is unpredictable and potentially disproportionate. Iranian posturing enhances the uncertainty. The threat of an air attack is deterred by Iran’s threat of an attack against sea-lanes. Such attacks would not be effective, but even a low-probability disruption of the world’s oil supply is a risk not worth taking. As always, the Persians face a major power prowling at the edges of their mountains. The mountains will protect them from main force but not from the threat of destabilization. Therefore, the Persians bind their nation together through a combination of political accommodation and repression. The major power will eventually leave. Persia will remain so long as its mountains stand.