In the comments to my post on Army-of-Juan Cole’s deranged reply to Hitchens, Tino Sanandaji, an Iranian (apparently living in Chicago) drops by to shed some light on things (note that our comments “bozes” don’t have spellcheck and my comments usually have more typos than his):
I am Iranian, and I can tell you Cole is wrong.
Let’s start with simple fact, that is not directly relevant. He writes that Khomaini said the Shah government “must go”. But “az bain bayad berad” does not mean “go”, it litterarly mean something like “must cease to exist”, and the most direct translation would be “must be destroyed”.
Now to the latter part:
“bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad”
The translation is not perfect, the dear Professor is not convewing the action implyied the sentence, as I or any Iranian would read it.
I am not a translatior, but I can tell you that here is a clear note in that sentence that Israel must be made to wanish from the face of time.
Maybe this is not a theat, as it was not directed to Israel, but to his followers, but it clearly is an decleration of intent. The intent is to make Israel cease to exist.
The word map is not litterarly in there, but “wiped of the map” is a less exagerated translation that Professors Coles translation is underreporting the wording.
Now to the context. Here Cole is not a little of the mark, he is insane and ignorant.
Exactly as Hithens wrote the qute is not that “the occupation of Jerusalem must end, just as the occupation of Gaza ended”, implying that Iran want Israel to give Jerusalem to Palestine. The qute is that the “regime that is occupying Jerualem” must be destroyed.
Iranians clerics often use this way of talking, they always don’t say “Israel”, “US” or “the war”, they make some negative phrase and use it as a synonym. Khomeini could have an entire speech and never say amrika, just “the great satan” etc. They would almost always take the effort to say “the war that was emposed on us” instead of the war.
Any student like me student with no academic credentials could tell you “een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” would best be translated as “Israel”.
As hichens wrote (presumably with the help of some iranian), the sentence is not about the occupation, it is about the state. Cole is completely missrepresenting this (which seems to be his main point) in the letter. Either he is intentionally lying for a good cause (stop a war), or he is just blind because of ideology.
The Ivy league professor, earning his 200 k or whatever it is, writes “He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.”
WRONG. The currect translation would be “the regime that is [defined by] occupying the holy city of Jerusalem” must be “erased from the page of time”, or must be “destroyed, or must “be wiped off the map” (I agree that eased from the page of time is closer than whped of the map, but neither is perfect, and the underlying meaning is not in dispute, The State of Israel be destroyed).
Factually the “western journalist” Hichens is right and the western academic wrong. It is NOT just a question of context, it is a question of substituting the Presidents refrens to an entity (Israel, the state the occupyies Jerusalem) to a refrens to what Israel is doing (occupying Jerusalem, as they occupyed Gaza).
Cole writes that the Iranians have not called for a nazi-style exterimation. I would say this is true, they have not done so. Destrying Israel could be done by invading it and forcing the population to move to say Madagascar or Manhattan, it does not by itself imply extermination.
On the other hand I don’t know if people have reported the qute this way, they say Ahmadnejanian wants Israel off the map (a non perfect but acceptable translation, substituting one figurative phrase with another) and leaves the level of violance open. This is by the way exactly what Ahmadnejanian said after the press asked him, he said we don’t want to kill the jews, we want Israel gone, Europe can take them.
Lasty I really have to questions Coles knowledge about Iran in two points, one in the letter and one in the angry answer to Hitchens.
1. That the phrase is “A decades old quote Khomaini” is hardly something that would reduce the seriousness of using it. Khomeini is to the hardliners what Washington, Lincolns and all the founding fathers are to Americans combined, and than some. His quotes are as close as you can come to a ideological program for the Islamic State as anyting.
I can’t come up with a good example, from the lack of knowledge of quotes, but if Americans declared to Japan in WWII “give me liberty of give me death”, the Japanese wouls hardly say “don’t take them seriusly, they are just quoting Patrick Henry”.
2. That Ahmadinejad is not the complete ruler hardly means he has no power. If you say that you are completely ignorant of Iranian politics, which is very complex, and where there are multiple competing layers of power. Basically the President through his institutional role has control over a large part of the massive civilian Iranian state, and in this case through being a hardliner additional power, for example over the Bonyads, the “builders”, the Guard.
It is also context specific, just like America. Bush had more power in march 2003, not only because he is president, but because he used this role and though a political agenda and alliances moved the project of invading Iraq. In May 2006 Bush has more Republicans in Congress and is still the President, but has much less power.
Conlcluding that Khatami became powerless after the hardliners broke him (or after he willingly gave up, that is a question of dispute) and therefore Ahmadinejad is powerless is idiotic.
PS.
I hope this conflict can be resolved without violance, for example though sanctions specifically on the regime. If America feels that it must use violance I hope it is only arial bombardment against millitary targets and against the regime. But my hopes in this question have no bearing on what Ahmadinejad said, which Cole also should understand.
Facts are such harsh things to a gentle soul like Juan’s…
Compare and contrast Tino’s comment with Cole’s tirades, and ask yourself which of these guys more deserves a Department Chair at Yale, based on temprament if nothing else.
C’mon Yale.
I am offended that both you and your personal Farsi translator refer to Juan Cole as “unhinged”, “frothing”, “deranged” and “insane”.
This type of rhetorical characterization reveals that, ultimately, you are not really interested in arguing with him on the merits of his position, but rather at the ad hominem level.
By providing a little factual argumentation along with your character attacks, you are clearly attempting to do a lot more than simply disproving what Professor Cole has argued. You are hoping to (contribute to his) destruction and dismissal from the public square.
And even then I’m being generous by saying “a little factual argumentation”; your first post on the subject was ENTIRELY DEVOID of substance or fact; merely, you were simply advertising what you thought was an example of one of your Pro-War compadres, Hitchens, taking down an anti-war enemy, Cole.
“Hey! Everybody! Look over there! One of our enemies is getting an ass whuppin’! Yeah!”.
That’s a real solid contribution to advancing the issues at hand, isnt’ it. Not.
Well, that only will work in Neocon land, where you currently reside (a rapidly shrinking piece of real estate, btw).
Please don’t reply by telling me that Cole does it, so too can you. That is irrelevant.
Certainly your references to the “Yale faculty committee” (whatever that is) and his academic status hint of not a small amount of personal jealousy and animosity toward the man.
If you cannot match him intellectually (and you’re not even in the same state, let alone league) then I guess the brickbat needs to come out.
And to think that little old me gets the pile-on treatment here when I direct similar comments toward your superficial drivel.
Wizener #2
bq. And to think that little old me gets the pile-on treatment here when I direct similar comments toward your superficial drivel.
Whether merited or not, those sorts of pile-ons are uninteresting. Same goes with your “superficial drivel” characterization.
The issue here is whether Juan Cole is an “honest broker” when it comes to Farsi-to-English translations. The specifics are President Aminejehad’s (sp?) declamations on Israel and the Ayatollah Khomeni statements that he quotes.
I’d be interested if you would weigh in on that. Why not model the type of discourse that you’d like to see “the rest of us” offer?
Wiz, if you bothered to notice or care, it was Cole who initiated all the mud slinging when instead of addressing Hitchen’s substantatively and thoroughly, he started splashing pictures of dead people and calling Hitch a drunk and a hack. Is that the response of a professional? And if not, is it really a stretch to suggest such behavior is irrational, aka unhinged?
Whereas Dr. Cole, central to the debate, opens HIS thesis by accusing his opponent of crafting his essay drunk.
Wizener, I find your attempt at some kind of intellectual superiority somewhat dull. So too your narcisistic belief that anybody cares whether or not you are offended.
Geeze. Frankly, if Hitchins WAS drunk when he wrote that piece, then it reflects well on him: it’s still about three times as lucid, rational, and professional as any screed that Cole posts on his website.
Wizener, did you actually read Cole’s post?
Did you read the quote I copied from it?
I don;t think it’s remotely a stretch to suggest that anyone making an argument in a style like that is “unhinged”; I don’t see that as a value judgement but as a simple statement of fact and observation.
I’m certainly open to an argument about what has been said in Iran and what it means – and a fact-based, dispassionate argument about that would be interesting, and would have the ability to cast some light on an important subject.
Cole didn’t so that. I’m honestly not sure he’s capable of it any more.
And as to my profound jealousy – nope. I had a chance to choose academics as a career, and said “no”, in no small part because I encountered too many people like Cole when I was in grad school.
And if you’d make arguments in support of your beliefs, as opposed to foot-stamping assertions like the ones you just made, you’d find this to be a pretty hospitable place.
A.L.
Wizener:
Come on you’re smarter than this. Any objective review of Coles blog supports many of the claims against him. Cole is not intellectualy honest in many of his assertions, and lets his emotions color his analysis so much that it is very hard to take him seriously.
As for Coles analysis of Iran, I work with two Iranians, both of whom fought in the Iran/Iraq war, and have been lucky enough to make it to America. When I show them Coles work they laugh at how ignorant he is of Iranian culture and politics.
Mr. Sanandaji rather clearly demonstrates not Juan Cole’s supposed lack of familiarity with Farsi, but rather his own lack of familiarity with English idiom.
“Mr. Sanandaji rather clearly demonstrates not Juan Cole’s supposed lack of familiarity with Farsi, but rather his own lack of familiarity with English idiom.”
Care to elaborate? Thats a rather Coleesque ‘argument’. I would only accept that from someone of academic stature.
Bob, Tino is pretty obviously not a native speaker of English, so I cut him considerable slack on that score.
His very cogent analysis of Ahmadinejad’s place in Iranian politics and government, and his ability to relate it in a way that is accessible to American readers, shows me that his thinking is top-notch:
That shows a subtlety — and a desire for honest engagement — that appears in none of Cole’s writing during this little tete-a-tete.
Mr. Sanandaji is not being honest in his translation. He clearly has an agenda in his views and is going to any extent to mislead the public about Iran, remember Ahmad Chalaby and how he doped the American public.
Anyone with a sophmoric knowledge of the Persian language knows that it is very rich in the way one can describe any topic. The rich Persian literature – that is recently discovered in America through Rumi and Hafez – is the prefect example. If any Iranian read the translations of these masterpieces she would laugh at the huge gap between the meaning of the real poems and what’s being fed to the English speaking public. SO it’s no wonder that the translation of what Iranian leaders say is most of the time far off target.
In my estimation, Mr. Cole is closer to the Persian text in his translation than the aforementioned indiviual has indicated.
Another Iranian, in that case i’m sure we would all welcome you to diagnose the text yourself as Tino did. A spectrum of analysis would really help this matter, whereas broadbrush opinions on other peoples translations arent as helpful. Which words translate to what?
“If any Iranian read the translations of these masterpieces she would laugh at the huge gap between the meaning of the real poems and what’s being fed to the English speaking public.”
(Emphasis it has been added by me as an illustration of cultural discord, possibly.)
As another Iranian, I can tell you it is so true that the Persian language, it can be interpreted to mean anything that is so to be found convenient to the speaker. Truly.
“Remember Chalabi”
Chalabi has become to the anit-interventionist people what the boogey man is made to be to children. I think the Chalabi you can know, he is not the true Chalabi.
— Really not Mark Poling
Another Iranian #11:
Thanks for joining in. What I’m about to say may sound a bit off, coming from the pseudonymous AMac, but bear with me.
Most arguments having to do with current affairs, public policy, and the like, must stand or fall on their own. The identity of the writer neither adds to nor subtracts from them.
Comments on translations are a different matter. For example, I might proclaim
bq. Tino Sanandaji is right and ‘Another Iranian’ has it all wrong!!!
But you would be well advised to discount that remark entirely. I don’t speak or read Farsi.
Unfortunately, readers here have no way of evaluating your thoughts on Cole’s/Hitchens’/Sanandaji’s competing translations. Are you a native Farsi speaker? Do you have a track record as a blogger or essayist or academic? Do your political views color your interpretation of Aminejehad’s and Khoumeni’s statements?
Based on what you’ve written so far, there’s no way for us to get a sense of the answers to these questions.
Yes, I read all of Cole’s (and Hitchen’s) comments.
I find myself far more persuaded by Dr. Cole than Hitchens.
I think Cole could and perhaps should have been more restrained in his arguments, because as an academic he does, to some degree, represent the university he is employed by. Although the wonderful thing about academia, in stark contrast to politics, is that Cole is completely free to fully voice his own views and in a manner of his own choosing.
Even if you don’t like the message, THAT is what makes academia one of the core building stones upon which this great country is built.
But some issues ignite a passionate (my preferred characterization) response, and clearly (to Cole’s credit, in my view) the possibility of being led to war again on false pretense by Bushco has provoked just such a response.
Frankly, given what (albeit limited) knowledge I have gleaned about your own views, I would have predicted that you would agree with the substance of them, as they are far more relevant to the issue than the manner in which they were presented.
Since you’re opposition took such a superficial, dismissive and personal tone, I was left wanting for a better explanation.
My point, which you have not refuted (except for “unhinged”) is that you’ve not even attempted to provide an argument as to why you think Hitchens is “right” and Cole is “wrong”, except to resort to semantic disagreements that only partly address the notion that the words of some Iranian leaders should be interpreted to predict a credible and iminent threat to US interests.
Clearly, this cannot be the case, given the uncertain nature of their meaning.
Furthermore, coupled to what I already know about your reaction to strongly worded anti-war arguments, I don’t think you’ve provided enough evidence to rule out a personal component to your post.
This didn’t start out as who is leading us toward war, and who would lead us away. It started out with Hitchens eviscerating Cole’s interpretation of public statements by the Iranian leadership.
Cole tried to change the subject to one both he and Wizner are more comfortable with, which is “1-2-3-4, we don’t want your stinking war!” or something to that effect.
Cool, fine, we’ve got that. But getting back to the original issue a bit, the question is just how seriously should we take the posturing coming from the Iranian leadership?
Hitchens thinks we have every reason to take it damned seriously. Cole thinks Hitchens is a drunk and a sneak, and hell no we won’t fight a war for HalliBushHitlerCo.
I’d be a lot more comfortable with the arguments coming from the anti-interventionist camp if they were actual arguments.
Good grief folks, how many times do I have to say, “Don’t feed the trolls.” The audience is not stupid. You don’t have to point out that the troll is stupid. You don’t have to point out that a troll’s argument lacks substance. All you have to do is control your emotional reflex to respond to poorly structured arguments.
wizener: _”I think Cole could and perhaps should have been more restrained in his arguments”_
He didn’t make any real arguements. He may have had a couple of paragraphs where *you* can try and defend his interpretation. But, when his debate on the _translation of speach and text_ starts with calling the other side a drunk, adds pictures of bloody children, and ends with a political chant … he has lost the debate by default. Sure, even a madman can say a few things that are true. It doesn’t make him any less mad.
Also, I teach in academia. And the ability to share any view you want in any way you want is not a corner stone. The way to argue a point is with reasoned debate. If you can not control your emotions when talking about facts in translating a speach you have no place being in the debate. You defend your position with definitions that we agree upon and then logically connect the parts that form your conclusion.
This isn’t all that hard.
part 1. He said “Blah blah blah” in Persian.
part 2. I’m and using the following equivalences from Persian to English. Oh and here are some examples of them being used and why.
part 3. Hense, therefore and in conclusion He said “Blah Blah Blah” in English.
Notice that nowhere in this are pictures of bloody children. If you feel that they are needed please say home.
–
I’d be intersted in doing an email correspondence with the initial translator for this article, and also with Another Iranian.
Wiznener, I don’t have a whole lot of time for Cole’s work because he writes historical narratives. Not historical analysis, but historical narratives, and he seems to favor tragedies. He always has a bad guy, he always has a moral, he always has a victim. In his reply to Hitchens, he is using catch lines from his youth, describing a single unifed monolith of “The Far Right,” which is the “power” that he is speaking “truth” to. Again, using the workmanlike approach of John Grisham, he aways has a looming, shadowy villain. If you pull useful information from this, more power to you. He isn’t my style, and his data is questionable.
Historical analysis reads like a police report, a farming report, a stock trade or a prediction on weather patterns. Lots of source material, room for doubt, and room for change in perception and methodlogy. It generally eschews slogans “shouted” in all caps, and it will rarely come up with a villain at all, much less the same villain over and over again.
By the way, on the last thread where we talked about war with Iran, did you send those gentlemen from the University of York over? If you did, thanks, that was pretty cool. They only posted once, and I was looking forward to talking with them. It’s hard to get first hand information where I am.
Celebrim trying to interrupt my imagined blogasm again. What a buzzkill.
This is funny, though:
“All you have to do is control your emotional reflex to respond to poorly structured arguments.”
Even he can’t seem to control his “emotional reflex” to point out a “poorly-structured argument” while he admonishes other’s not to do so.
Such is the mighty mind-controlling power of the Troll.
A novel definition of “troll”, btw: He who cannot structure an argument to meet celebrim’s criteria.
Mark Poling: If Yale were a university in the western tradition, you would be correct. Unfortunately, every action Yale has taken in the last few years (remember Taliban Man) has demonstrated that it now acts as a counter-cultural anti-hegemonic fortress. Like I said yesterday. Yale is intellectually bankrupt and it should be liquidated.
Blair;
In looking back at the thread you refer to, I think that someone (other than me) just pasted in the text from “this source.”:http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/4368/2/
The “academics” themselves never made a personal appearance here.
“Yale is intellectually bankrupt and it should be liquidated.”
Farsi translation: “The residents of New Haven in USA are unthinking animals and it would be best to wipe them from the face of the Earth”.
Wizner, that was actually pretty funny.
Look, all of this boils down to this: Cole’s argument (such as it is) is circular. He is saying the Persian language is very flexible, and hence any given translation is subjective. Fine. COLE’S TRANSLATION THEN MUST BE SUBJECTIVE. That is the impass we are having. At the heart of this Cole is complaining about a subjective analysis by demanding that his own analysis replace it. Hitchens recognizes this and inserts contextual evidence that his favored translation is the correct one. Cole responds with pictures of bloody children and accusation of insobriety.
Cut everything else away and it comes down to this, does anyone really believe the Iranian regime is _not_ calling for the destruction of the Jewish state, considering all the contextual evidence of the history of the region? This is hardly radical. Has it not been the acknowledged and admitted position of the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, and most of the neighboring states for much of the last century? Arent the people in question flat out holocause deniers?
Against all this evidence, Cole says ‘no, trust me, i understand these people and they arent hateful’. Sure. Thats a great way to debate.
The thing is, and Hitchens of all people recognizes this, what we are seeing happens with every tyrant regime. People like Cole are _apologists_, and thats the only word for it. Just as with the Soviets, some alleged expert will tie himself in intellectual knots to claim what you are seeing and hearing isnt what is really happening, despite all evidence to the contrary.
To be fair to Hitchens, Commie Bastard that he is, I don’t think he’s ever been an apologist for either the Stalinist or Maoist flavors of Marxism; to the best of my knowledge he was always Trotskyite to the core. (What that has to do with the real world, who knows? I just don’t think he’s ever made excuses for the folks with their boots on other people’s necks, or the boot-wearers’ Secret Admirers.)
I have conducted whole trials in Farsi through interpreters. One of them was hilarious – a Farsi-speaking attorney (three sides in the case) objected to the interpretation halfway through the second day at which point the other counsel put down his head and cried in frustration.
And I invented a whole new evidentiary objection during this trial – “Objection – pronoun!” as shorthand for “Objection – non-responsive answer – the witness has used the indefinite personal pronoun ‘he’ to refer to at least three different people in his answer. I request that the witness be admonished to identify people only by their proper names, and that the question and answer be repeated.”
I learned during this trial that there are regional DIALECTS of Farsi which differ far more than present-day American regional dialects – the differences between Farsi dialects seem comparable to late 19th century regional dialects of English in Great Britain. It is important that Farsi trial interpreters be familiar with the particular dialect used by each given witness.
My experience indicates that Professor Cole and Tino Sanandaji might both be correct simultaneously.
The input from Farsi-speakers here is very interesting, but of course all translations must refer to context, not word-for-word literalism. Otherwise, technically correct translations can be deceptive.
Since Ahmadinejad is a rabid anti-semitic militant who is openly pursuing nuclear weapons (and not a medieval Persian poet lost in sublime contemplation) I find Tino Sanandaji’s interpretation vastly more convincing than Prof. Cole’s.
Cole has “an extensive context of his own”:http://www.meforum.org/article/789 by which he have learned to interpret what he says. Another scholar might say the same thing as a purely academic point, and we would merely disagree with him (context!) but when Cole does it he follows a long pattern of deception, which we are entitled to point out.
SO LET ME POINT IT OUT AGAIN: Cole is not making an academic word-quibble, he’s accusing “powerful political forces in Washington” of deliberately pushing a false translation as a pretext for war.
What are those “powerful political forces”? Since Ahmadinejad’s statement involves a threat against Israel, review Cole’s previous writings and you won’t have to guess. “Powerful political forces” is not a poetic conceit, it literally means Neoconservative, Zionist, Likudnik, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew.
Cole’s agenda is hatred of Israel, not defense of Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is of no use to him; in fact, brutally frank Islamic fascists are Ahmadinejad are a great embarrassment to people like Juan Cole. So he viscerally calls him a “pissant” and a “little sh-t” (as if Ahmadinejad were an unleashed weiner dog that just crapped on the professor’s lawn) and holds this up as proof of his objectivity.
He likewise distances himself from Khomeini, then pretends that this makes Hitchens’ points ridiculous.
Cole gets away with this, and will continue to get away with it at Yale, because of the self-imploding dynamic of the left which Wizener ably demonstrates above. Being totally wrapped in politicism and unable to concede any point whatsoever to their hated enemies (to whom they cannot even attribute humanity), they are continually committed to more and more radical positions by the leftists with the biggest mouths and the smallest minds, like Juan Cole. The worst minds among them make all the choices, and everyone must follow.
_”experience indicates that Professor Cole and Tino Sanandaji might both be correct simultaneously”_
Actually they are both wrong. What no one knew was that the speach wasn’t in Farsi … it was in Farse-y. The Iranians aren’t calling Jews sons of monkeys and threatening to wipe them off the map. The correct translation is …
“Scratch my balls monkey boy. Scatch THEM! Scratch them Juan or I’ll hit you so hard you’ll fly off the map!”
— Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Quick, someone get me a PhD.
OK. That was uncalled for. But, it made me laugh.
–
Getting caught up in translational minutiae seems to be a tactic of the Chomsky-Americans in academia as of late. Meanwhile, they ignore all the actions that back up their statements.
It’s not like Ahmadinejad is the first Iranian ruler to call for the destruction of Israel, I bet if we looked at the Iranian charter (if there was one) we could see that Destruction of Israel ranks right below the first Allah Akbar in the preamble.
The really amazing thing is that Cole can get away with dismissing “Christopher Hitchens”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens as as right-wing attack dog and make that essentially the entire substance of his rebuttle, and Cole’s fans simply nod their heads and scowl and growl angry dismissals at Hitchens. Hitchens is anything but a pawn of the Bush administration, as his many continuing attacks on Bush administration policy ought to indicate. How the heck does Cole get away with an argument like, “Don’t listen to Hitchens, he’s just a right-wing stooge and a drunk. Heck, he probably had his peice ghost-written by a right wing think tank.”???
I should note that this is pretty much exactly the same response Hitchen’s former friend and mentor, Noam Chomsky, made when Hitchen’s started to depart from the party line. Chomsky criticized Hitchens – indeed outright called him a racist and liar – for not believing that Clinton’s cruise missile attack on the Sudan was merely morally equivalent to the 9/11 attacks. In fact, Hitchens – more so perhaps than anyone in the world – was at the forefront of claiming that Clinton’s attack on the Sudan was a war crime. I don’t understand that either.
Cole’s sole on subject rebuttle consists of a single paragraph:
“But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.”
There are all sorts of problems with this:
a) If it is a quote by Khomeini doesn’t lessen its significance, but increases it. When a US president quotes, say Lincoln, Washington, FDR, it doesn’t make his speach resonate less, but resonate more.
b) Second, Cole provides no evidence in that paragraph for his thesis statement, “does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all”. He says some stuff and you are supposed to accept it as evidence, but on actual examination its a red herring.
c) Instead of evidence, Cole does some handwaving about the phrase being mystical and offers his translation as, “vanish from the page of time”. Now, I don’t know about you, but if this anything like an accurate translation, this would seem to bolster Hitchen’s claim that destruction is being called for, not diminish it. In fact, the meaning of “vanish from the page of time”, mystical or not, actually seems to me to be much harsher than merely destruction and indeed even much harsher than “wiping something off the map”.
Very few people would argue with the claim that the atomic bomb destroyed Hiroshima, but no one would claim that it vanished Hiroshima from the page of time. Heck, it didn’t even wipe Hiroshima off the map. When someone starts talking about a level of destruction that approaches mysticality, that’s a greater level of destruction not a lesser one. The closest I can manage in common English metaphor is to say, “Israel should be made to have never been born”.
d) If it is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem, this makes the statement more important and not less. If a US president quotes some sort of literature, it is to make his statements resonate more with the audience rather than less. By all means, let’s produce the poem and analyze the context to see if we can deduce the meaning more precisely. However, doing some handwaving about it being a quote from a poem and presenting no evidence that it in fact is disengenious.
e) Finally, Cole finishes up his little mini-essay within a paragraph with a proper Ciceronian restate ment of what he said in his thesis. But its very instructive to note that in this case its is a restatement of what Cole said, not what Hitchens said. Cole is rebuking his own strawman. It was Cole that brought up the concept of tanks in the first place. Hitchen’s argument doesn’t depend on the particular military tactic or weapon to be employed, but on whether or not violence in general was implied. How Iran proposes to accomplish the destruction of Israel, or even if they have a rational plan for doing so, is not relevant considering that what Cole is trying to argue is that Iran doesn’t propose accomplishing the destruction of Israel. Likewise, if the orginal context of the ‘medieval poem’ (that may exist only in Cole’s mind) is about causing someone to cease to exist through the power of the sword or bows or chariots or whatever, it makes little difference to the argument that the medieval poem is not “about tanks”.
Now, a better argument than what Cole came up with would be to say that Amadinejihad left intellecual room for the destruction of Israel to be accomplished by what we in English would refer to as ‘an act of God’. This is probably true, but my counter-argument to that is precisely to look at the cultural context and note that under Islam the definition of ‘an act of God’ applies to a much broader range of events than we in a Western post-Enlightenment world would normally refer to. There is nothing in the Islamic conception that prevents a war by a nation on another nation or anything else from being ‘an act of God’, or God working his will on the world. The closest we have to this in the West would be something like GWB saying that he believed that it was ‘God’s will’ that he be President. So claiming that there is some ambiguity in the comments that leave room for Israel’s destruction to be caused by some natural or inexorible historical process doesn’t actually help you as much as some would like to claim. In Amadinejihad’s theology, Iran nuking Israel out of existence is ‘an act of God’ and a ‘inexorible historical process’ with no real creditable difference between say a hurricane except that Allah has allowed people to participate in the process.
A little off topic, but has anyone seen the petty online petition that Cole has put out to support Walt/Mersheimer? He had a post up begging for support today:
Honestly, this issue affects academics mainly because its such a poorly done piece of propaganda attempting to be passed off as legitimate research.
One more thing, my cube mate backs up the original posters translation and he said that it roughly translates into
“this zionist regime should be removed from the world”
Hi,
I wrote the post above, I also posted it on Coles homepage, but he deleted it. I guess he has some justification given that I called his translation “insane”.
Two points:
Yes my English is certainly not perfect, and I am pretty sloppy. For example reading through it again it should say “in dispute”, not “on dispute”. There are many more mistakes in spelling and grammar. That does not change my translation, which I put some effort into, and double checked with a well educated Iranian speaker.
Cole has a fair argument with “bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shaved” as “must disappear from the face of time” rather than “wiped of the map”, although more precise would be “must be made to disappear from the face of time”. As I wrote there is an action implied in the sentence. He also has a reasonable point about Ahmadinejad not necessarily calling for Hitler like genocide, although this argument has been made by others.
But in the main point, which Hithens emphasized in his article, Cole simply has no move for maneuver. You can’t refer to the complexities of farsi or to context. He is wrong, plain and simple.
“rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” “bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad”
Does not mean the occupation of Jerusalem must end, it means Israel must go. Any honest iranian who reads this should agree with me, regardless of what you think about Israels occupation or about the US invasion of Iran (both of which are, understandably, very onpopular with iranianns).
Not to get repretivitve, but “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” simply is one of the synonyms for Israel, it means “the state that [is defined by] occyopying the holy city of Jerusalem”.
It does *not* means the occupation of Jerusalem, or the occupaction regime over jeruslame (whatever that means). It is not a question of the specific city of Jerusalen, just a refrens to Israel.
To use another analogy if (when) Iranians clerics say “the great satan must be destroyed” they don’t mean “america should stop being a great satan”. Great Satan is one thing that they call the US, “the regime that occupies the holy city of jerusalem” is one of the things they call Israel.
No linguistic disppute is possible in this particular part of the debate.
The rest of his reasoning regarding Israel leaving Gaza is therefore wrong and based on a missunderstanding. As I said I cannot say wether it was intentional or unintentional.
If you don’t tust me ask yourself this:
1. Someone originally translated this into English, maybe Associated Press or another news organisation, presumably several. Are all these full time translaters of farsi fools? Is Cole unique interpretation true, and everyone else is wrong?
2. Iran responded to the qritue of Ahmadinejads qute. They could easily have disputed that they said they want Israel gone, they just want the occupation regime over Jerusalem to end (certainly a legitimate demand). But no, they didn’t, they just specified that the jews could move to Europe.
I find the acusation of my hidden agenda and the comparison to Chalaby amusing, especially since “another iranian” does not specify how I am wrong. Although most Iranians don’t agree with US foreign policy, they do respect facts.
Unlike must Iranians I did support the invasion of Iraq, for humanitarian reasons, and while the rebuilding has gone worse than predicted there is no questions Iraq, even as the small hell parts of it seem to have become, is better of than the total hell under Saddam.
An invasion of Iran is not supported by the same arguments, the Iranian regime is an authoritarian dictatorship, but it is not totalitarian, and not genocidal like Iraq. There were 10-20.000 people killed right after the revolution, but there are no mass graves in Iran, no hundreds of thousands (probably over a million) killed though genocide or democide like Iraq.
(Of course those of us that follow American politics and are not paranoid know that invasion is not on the table, nor is nuclear attacks, the question is if or when to do air-strikes)
Unlike Iraq where the Kurds and most Shiates supported the invasion almost no one would support an American invasion of Iran.
But again I repeat that these personal views have no relevance for translating Ahmadinejad.
/Tino sanandaji, phd student University of Chicago
Shiites
sloppy
“Honestly, this issue affects academics mainly because its such a poorly done piece of propaganda attempting to be passed off as legitimate research.”
I agree with that statement except the characterization of it as a ‘poorly done piece’. It’s actually rather well done propaganda, and if you think otherwise you don’t really understand how to run a propaganda war.
There are two approaches to propaganda. Information and disinformation. The goal of an information war is the get people to believe the truth. Historically, the US tries to engage in information warfare. An information warfare campaign tends to fall apart if what you are trying to get people to believe is not true, because its too easy to undermine if it isn’t.
(Incidently, this is one of the many reasons why I find the claim, “Bush lied.”, so uncreditable compared to the claim, “Bush was wrong.” If Bush was prone to lying, it wouldn’t be about something which would become so obviously untrue after the war, and at the very least would have prepared to salvage his propaganda campaign by planting evidence – something that could very easily have been done by a small CIA team that believed it was protecting US interests.)
But a disinformation propaganda campaign is not interested in getting people to believe something. It’s interested in getting people to not believe something, and this is a subtle but important difference. In one case you want to create clarity, but in the other case confusion will do. Starting with the premise, “I don’t want you to believe that Israel is a legimate state.”, you can attack the problem in any number of ways. In fact, you should attack the problem in as many ways as you can because the volumn of different opinions will drown the truth and make it more difficult from anyone who wants to defend the truth to answer all the various objections. So it hardly matters if Mearsheimer and Walt have a good argument or whether many people will believe it or even whether its an easily refuted argument. What matters is that some people will believe it, some people will find it a good argument, some people will defend it, and the mere fact that this occurs will confuse people who are unsure and tend to cause other people to concede the thesis to a greater or lesser degree in order to try to reconcile all the conflicting opinions.
In this fashion, Mearsheimer and Walt have knowing or not engaged in extremely good propaganda practice. Having presented a big lie, and having done so in a way which makes the big lie seem to have at least some legitimacy, it doesn’t matter now whether ultimately no one believes them. You’ve got your foot in the door. That’s a propaganda coup.
Consider the recent case of Moussaoui. The prosecution was trying to get the jury to believe, “Moussaoui deserves to die.” Whether this is true or not is a matter of opinion, but consider what this implies for the defence. The defence doesn’t have to get the jury to believe anything in particular. All the defence has to do is to get the jury to believe something, anything, but that “Moussaoui deserves to die”. As far as the prosecution is concerned, the jury has to reach agreement on the point. But as far as the defence is concerned, agreement and concensus on a point is irrelevant so long as it undermines the prosecution’s arguement. This puts them in the role of a disinformation campaign, and the defence mounted a very professional one. They argued for every mitigating factor under the sun, he was stupid, he was lying, he really wanted to die, and so forth. As best as we can tell, the jury ended up agreeing on almost nothing. Each juror ended up with his own private narrative of events which often contridicted the other juror’s narrative. This contridiction created confusion, which lead to a lack of consensus, and this prevented the prosecution from being successful in its argument.
At a professional level, I can’t help but admire the skill of the defence. In particular, their, “Don’t throw Moussaoui in the briar patch.” argument was masterful and managed to snare at least some of the jurors. The jury really believe it was giving Moussaoui what he didn’t want, only to have him walk out the door saying, “Born and bred in the briar patch.” You have to hand it to the defence, that takes some skill.
If I wanted to run a propaganda campaign, and I had no morals at all, I’d almost always choose to run it from the disinformation side because that side is so much easier. I’d create all sorts of competing narratives, however ubsurd. The very proliferation of narratives, and the very ubsurdity of some, would create confusion and lead people to believe the plausibility of all sorts of things. I might catch a few people with ‘big lies’. I might catch a few people with ‘little lies’. I might catch a few more people by presenting a big lie and then getting them to comprimise between the opponent’s narrative and the ridiculous thing I said (moral relativism and multiculturalism are great mediums for this). I might catch a few more people with emotional appeals, and others by twisting the argument, and so on and so forth.
“There are many more mistakes in spelling and grammar.”
Don’t worry about it. I’m a fluent English speaker, and if I don’t pass my posts through a word processor and read them a few times, they come out with as many mistakes as yours. English is just a tough language. It’s probably the only language on the planet in which a ‘Spelling B’ could be a particularly serious endeavor. English has borrowed so much from so many languages and changed so much and so organicly over time, that anyone ought to be excused for a few spelling and grammar mistakes in an informal setting.
Tino,
Thank you so much for the time and effort you put into your posts. Thanks.
–
In terms of evaluating the different translations of what Ahmadinejad and Khomeini have said in Farsi, this might be of interest.
I’ve communicated with Tino Sanandaji, the person Armed Liberal references in the body of this post, and the writer of comment #34, above. He is, indeed, Iranian-born, a native Farsi speaker, and a doctoral student in Chicago. In line with #34, he told me
bq. “Anyone who can speak Farsi and has a minimum of analytical skill can see that Cole was wrong in the specifics of how he rendered his ‘occupying Jerusalem’ translation.”
Wizener, if you want to know what an argument looks like, I think Tino has just shown us all.
Now it’s doubtless possible to create an argument in the same form that come to a different conclusion – and if you’d care to do that, I think an interesting discussion might just happen.
Then again…
A.L.
As an Iranian, I confirm the translation of Tino.
It was very good and very very close to the original
To Winston and Tino, would either one of you mind dropping me an email? I’m dying to ask some questions about Iranian politics and current events.
I guess I should start by saying I am also Iranian. More importantly, I am also fluent in Farsi. For the most part, I think Sanandaji’s translations are correct, but I think Cole puts them into context. Ahmadinejad’s statement does not infer that Jews should be destroyed, or killed. The position of the Iranian government has always been that Israel, as a Jewish, or Zionist, entity must be “wiped off the map.” Thats quite different from exterminating a people and when put in context, thats exactly what Ahmadinejad meant and how Cole came to put it into context.
Sanandaji’s perception of presidential power in Iran is also incorrect. Cole is correct that the Iranian president has no decision-making power per se. The president’s power in Iran is essentially felt by its people. The more conservative the president, the more conservative ambassadors, scientists, and scholars in prime positions are. Really the power of the president is that he gets to appoint positions that don’t have much national policy making, but local policy-making. However, the president has no power over the bonyads which he mischaracterizes. Bonyads are community programs which were used to nationalize and consolidate different industries, thus creating de facto monopolicies in major industrial sectors. Currently the bonyads are headed by conservative clerics who head the Council of Guardians. From their position of power, the Council of Guardians continually prevent efforts to privatize these industries as well as any attempts to release the massive subsidies choking Iran’s economy. Ahmadinejad has no control over the bonyads.
I don’t think Sanandaji remarks are academically honest and I’m curious what his credentials in farsi are, which appropriately were left out.
Sanandaji PS remarks are also somewhat misinformed. Every major academic on Iran, like Abbas Milani, Dariush Kadivar, Omid Memarian, etc. has stated that sanctions against Iran are self-defeating and that Iran has placed all its military bases in urban areas. Bombing those facilities would result in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. None of us want to see this regime continue, but there is a stark contrast between those voices which believe in peaceful transition and those which are advocating violence. Attacking Iran will not create a democracy there, it will only reinvigorate and perpetuate the conservative and radical elements and create a new breed of fundamentalists which the Iranian population is aiming toward removing themselves.
One last point, I find it interesting that for purposes of this post Tino Sanandaji refers to himself as an Iranian, when in every other case he refers to himself as a “Kurdish-Swedish guy.”
Wow, actual content. Nema, a couple of questions and observations:
Question: How do you suppose Iran proposes to eliminate the Jewish State of Israel without eliminating a lot of Jews? I’m not hearing a lot of proposals of financial incentives to relocate the entire population to Brooklyn. (We probably wouldn’t notice much of a difference, except we’d have one hell of a local militia.)
Question: If Ahmadinejad is the hand-picked Presidential candidate of the conservative clerics, why should we presume he has little or no influence over those clerics, especially if he’s directly responsible for so many things that directly affect the populace?
Question: Are there Kurds in Iran? If so, it strikes me as entirely possible Tino is simply of Kurdish/Iranian (or Iranian/Kurdish) descent. But Tino himself can and hopefully will speak to that.
Observation: I think it’s pretty widely known that Iran has put a lot of high-value military targets in densely populated areas. I’m sure that’s one of the things the US military planners pull their (close-cropped) hair over. Need I point out that putting a civilian population at risk to protect military assets is, shall we say, stinky? Any regime that uses Saddam’s tactics as a guide is probably both objectively evil and none too bright, but we’ll see.
Observation: I really hope the Iranian theocracy crumbles under its own weight, but I’m not comfortable assuming it will do so. Therefore, I want accurate information about what the real threats are, so I can support politicians and policies that I think are appropriate. To that end, I thank both Tino and you for your perspectives.
Mark,
First let me draw your attention to an event we threw on Iran-Israel relations wherein we featured two experts on that matter which can be found here: http://www.iraniantruth.com/?p=160. You can access the streaming audio here: http://www.iraniantruth.com/Iran-Isra.wav. I think Trita’s point in the audio reflects my own understanding of Iran’s policy vis-a-vis Iran, so I’ll let you listen to the panel discussion to help understand your first question.
Your second question: I think you have to distinguish between conservatives in Iranian politics. There are more “militant” conservatives and more “business” conservatives. For the most part, the Iranian government is divided between the two. The business conservatives have economic stakes in maintaining the “bonyads” which I mentioned earlier and seek to maintain the status quo in order to maintain their economic weight. This involves preventing the outbreak of war with a foreign neighbor and avoiding sanctions. The more “militant” conservatives, which Ahmadinejad falls into I think, believe that Iran’s security needs to be bolstered by complete indepedence, thus they don’t shudder when it comes to sanctions, in fact sanctions would benefit their goals. Ahmadinejad, from accounts, was considered the least influential militant. Khatami, before him, was more outspoken and independent from all conservative branches. There have been recent indications as published by some Iranian newspapers that Khamenai is frustrated by Ahmadinejad. In fact Hoder has commented numerous times how Ahmadinejad’s comments on Israel and the US have alienated his conservative backers. They feel he’s stupid and childish and undiplomatic. Coupled with the lack of Constitutional power allocated to him, Cole is right when he says that Ahmadinejad really has no decision-making power.
To your third observation, there is a Kuridstan region in Iran and I have no doubt that Tino is Iranian-Kurdish. However, how one changes their identify for purposes of validating their comments has always interested me and I see that here. Once again, I don’t think Tino’s translations are incorrect. They are correct. Its just that the context of those translations are better illustrated by Cole.
As to your observations let me add a couple more. There is a LOT of support for Iran’s nuclear program but LITTLE support for a military program. The Iranian government has sold their position to the Iranian people that the nuclear program is for peaceful ends and to be honest the vast majority of Iranians believe it is their right to possess nuclear technology (which in fact is their right under the NPT.) I recently made an observation to that fact here: http://www.iraniantruth.com/?p=167
As to your last observation, you have to remember a couple things. If the US seeks regime change in Iran it is more likely to cause resistence and lead to greater support for the current government. Even if the US managed to change the regime, it would likely splinter Iranian society and cause civil war in that country. Every Iranian, Tino included, has objected against full-scale war. The problem is that limited attacks against Iran are likely to perpetuate the regime as well. Moreoever, the Iranian government would treat limited attacks as a full scale engagement and react accordingly. I think the best resolution is the one afforded by Levi here: http://www.cfr.org/publication/10557/
Nema Milaninia #43,
Thanks for weighing in. You are perhaps not being completely careful in your comment.
“Cole had written”:http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html
bq. The phrase [Ahmadinejad] then used as I read it is “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).”
bq. Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope– that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah’s government.
bq. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that “Israel must be wiped off the map” with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.
Tino Sanandaji wrote in #34:
bq. Cole has a fair argument with “bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shaved” as “must disappear from the face of time” rather than “wiped of the map”, although more precise would be “must be made to disappear from the face of time”. As I wrote there is an action implied in the sentence. He also has a reasonable point about Ahmadinejad not necessarily calling for Hitler like genocide…
bq. But in the main point, … Cole simply has no move for maneuver. You can’t refer to the complexities of farsi or to context. He is wrong, plain and simple.
bq. “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” “bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad” does not mean the occupation of Jerusalem must end, it means Israel must go.
You wrote (#43)
bq. 1. Ahmadinejad’s statement does not infer that Jews should be destroyed, or killed.
2. The position of the Iranian government has always been that Israel, as a Jewish, or Zionist, entity must be “wiped off the map.”
3. That’s quite different from exterminating a people and when put in context, that’s exactly what Ahmadinejad meant and how Cole came to put it into context.
So–in the sentence #2, you are agreeing with Sanandaji and disagreeing with Cole. In sentence #3, you are at first agreeing with Sanandaji and Cole (“Thats quite different from exterminating a people”). You then state an opinion that seems to be at odds with what Cole wrote (“that’s exactly what Ahmadinejad meant and how Cole came to put it into context”).
Cole’s context is not as you describe it. It is that “wiped off the map” is a mistranslation.
You wrote
bq. I don’t think Sanandaji remarks are academically honest
A serious accusation that you have not in any way substantiated. Even if Sanandaji is wrong, why is your first response to impugn his honesty? Notwithstanding your other points, I suggest you owe him an apology–or at least elevate your remark from a smear to something he can address.
You then wrote
bq. and I’m curious what his credentials in Farsi are, which appropriately were left out.
To my knowledge, the only credential Sanandaji has claimed is the same one that you have claimed: that he is a Farsi speaker. “Appropriately left out” is either a misstatement or meaningless.
You wrote
bq. Sanandaji PS remarks are also somewhat misinformed.
That postscript read:
bq. I hope this conflict can be resolved without violance, for example though sanctions specifically on the regime. If America feels that it must use violance I hope it is only arial bombardment against millitary targets and against the regime. But my hopes in this question have no bearing on what Ahmadinejad said, which Cole also should understand.
He added (#34)
bq. An invasion of Iran is not supported by the same arguments [put forth in the case of Iraq], the Iranian regime is an authoritarian dictatorship, but it is not totalitarian, and not genocidal like Iraq. There were 10-20.000 people killed right after the revolution, but there are no mass graves in Iran…
Samandaji stated that the issue of the correctness of Cole’s translation is separate from one’s view of the policy questions surrounding the Iran-US relationship. I think he is correct.
You ended with
bq. I find it interesting that for purposes of this post Tino Sanandaji refers to himself as an Iranian, when in every other case he refers to himself as a “Kurdish-Swedish guy.”
“Kurds make up about 7% of Iran’s population.”:http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html Most are fluent in Farsi. That–not misrepresentation–would be the obvious reason for Samandaji to have brought up his origins.
AMac,
The only credential I read was that he was Iranian, which in my mind isn’t a credential for knowing Farsi since there’s so many Iranians in the US who can’t read or understand Farsi, at least at the level needed to understand both content and context.
In terms of the “wiped off the map” translation, I noted that I agreed with Tino’s translation, but not with his statement. Tino stated “Destrying Israel could be done by invading it and forcing the population to move to say Madagascar or Manhattan, it does not by itself imply extermination.” I don’t think that context is correct. I don’t believe that one can imply the removal of a state implied the forced removal of its people. I think the context in which Cole was getting at, which in my mind is the policy of the Iranian government, is that just as South Africa could not remain an apartheid, Israel cannot remain a Zionist state. There is clearly a difference between calling for the changing of a state entity and the forced migration of its people. To that extent I believe that Tino was being “academically dishonest” for the assumption drawn from those statements.
About the PS remarks I stated clearly that sanctions and an aerial attack against Iran will only strengthen conservative forces and to that extent arguments supporting the bombardment of military installations must be understood to not only cause thousands of deaths but also the perpetuation of this regime.
Lastly, I hope my comments on Tino’s ethnic background are not intended to imply racism on my part. If they do, I apologize and revoke my comments. However, I do question the objectivity of persons who change their identification in order to suit the context of the discussion. Imagine if I said “I am an American” in order to garner greater support in this countries but then say “I am Iranian” in order to pass myself off as an expert on all things Iranian. While both may be factually true, the flip-flopping draws questions as to objectivity and credibility of one’s viewpoint. If one isn’t consistent about their background to the public, then they may not be consistent about their viewpoint. I’m not completely confident on that point however, and am willing to concede the argument in light of a more appropriate rationale.
I confess I haven’t had a chance, and won’t in the next few days, to listen to the conference you linked. However, I find the idea that you could separate Israel’s Jewish identity from the State withoug a lot of casualties somewhat preposterous.
Also, equating Israel with Apartheid South Africa seems strained, at best. As I understand, Palestinians who accept Israeli citizenship have the same rights and responsibilities as Jewish Israeli citizens. (Under Apartheid, of course, there were definitive classes of citezenship. So I think the comparison is at best misguided.) As I understand, most Palestinians reject Israeli citizenship, opting instead for a Palestinian identity and a dream that the State of Israel can be overthrown, either more or less violently. Please correct me if I am misinformed.
Finally, the idea that the state of Iran, owned and operated by Islamic absolutists, has any business telling Israel it should abandon its basis in Judaism is chutzpah in its finest form.
No, the internal contradictions and absurdity of these arguments make them very difficult for me to accept. For what its worth, Nema, I believe you are truly interested in seeing a reformed Iran, and I hope you’re correct that Iran can outgrow the mullahs currently pulling the strings. But I have to say, getting sucked into the Zionist conspiracy theories peddled by Cole et. al. (and by at least some of the mullahs through the supposed-mouthpiece Ahmadinejad) seems a bad place to start.
Here’s a counter-proposal: assume U.S. policy is geared exclusively to serve U.S. interests, as perceived by the people setting that policy. Assume we’re worried about a regime of dubious stability and oft-stated enmity getting nuclear weapons technology. Assume that after 9/11, we are no longer confident that we can assess threats as a simple factor of delivery mechanisms. (767s guided by suicide pilots, targeting civilian targets, shook up some people’s notions about how well we had the possibilities thought out.) Assume, in short, that we take what we’re hearing out of Iran seriously, and that we are not dancing to the tune of the Elders of Zion.
Israel is not Iran’s problem right now. Iran’s problem is Iran’s government, and its manifest inability to play nice with the West. Focus on the root of the problem, and maybe the problem will get solved without a lot of fireworks.
1. My “credentials” are simple, I am born and largely raised in Tehran, and I have always spoken farsi at home. You don’t need more credentials than that to translate a simple sentence. Clearly Coles “credentials” of being an academic at Yale did not help him much, other than giving him false authority.
Obviously I am both Kurdish and Iranian, one is an ethnicity and the other a nationality. I am not however Persian, but Iranian. This is not any stranger than someone being both Soviet and Ukrainian.
I moved to Sweden with my family, as 70.000 Iranians have, and am a Swedish citizen, and pretty assimilated. Nothing strange nor sinister about identifying myself as Swedish-Kurdish, when I blog about the Swedish economy and immigrants labour market in Sweden. I considered writing Swedish-Kurdish-Iranin-American, but it just sounds idiotic for the readers of that economic blog.
By the way next year I might move to the UK, that will make things much more clear…
(Clearly my cultural identity is somewhat mixed. A Kurd, raised in Tehran, a Swedish national, studying in the US, with an Anglo-Saxon classically liberal ethos.)
If someone is having a discussion about the US, and a person writes that they are American, will you come out and question their objectivity because you find out they are in fact not only American, but also black?
I think I know what bothers you, which is that I wrote Kurdish-Swedish and not Iranian-Swedish? If you read the blog in question it does say I am from Iran. I don’t have an extremely strong Kurdish identity (I speak much better farsi, being raised in Tehran), but nor do I have a very strong Iranian identity, and both are equality legitimate.
If I want to present myself to someone I would just say I am Swedish, because that tells them most about me. If they ask why I am not blond I tell them that’s because I am Kurdish in ethnicity. I only partially identify myself as Iranian, but that’s mainly because I am a Swedish citizen.
I write Iranian here for a very very specific reason, because the discussion is about language. As someone pointed out. I could have written here I am Iranian with Kurdish ethnicity, does that matter at all?!?
Now given the fact that I identify myself as “Sanandaji” and since Sanandaj is the largest city in Iranian Kurdistan finding out I was Kurdish must have Shocked, Shocked! Nema (Nima?). If you are Iranian you should know that I am Kurdish from my name and not need to google my name. In fairness some Iranians do have names of cities where they are not from, but it is rare. Or maybe you are an expatriate as well and don’t have detailed knowledge of Iranian geography.
I appreciate the people that respond to the arguments rather than focus about my personal background, which has little relevance here.
The only think you need to know about me is that I can speak farsi. If I was from the Micronesian Federation and had somehow learned fluent farsi that would be enough.
To the arguments:
1. You are right about your economic description. But I didn’t say the *president* controls the Bonyads, quite the contrary. I said Ahmadinejad has some authority in his role as President and some in his role as a conservative cleric with his personal network of power.
As far as I know this personal influence includes the Revolutionary Guard, Isargaran and the Abadgaran. Common sense and how much money his government has given certain Bonyads tells me he probably has supporters in certain Bonyads. He did work with one of the largest Bonyads, Bonyad-i Mostazafan, although I doubt he control that one.
The point is that Ahmadinejad does not control Boyads as president, but he may well control some as an individual. Not all Bonyads are under the control of the same people, as you know Irans power-structure is very fragmented.
Really this is not much stranger than Bush having a strong backing among southern Christian groups, but not mainly in his role as president.
The many independent sources of Islamism funding and power is one reason Iran’s foreign policy may seen inconsistent to Americans. Some elements of the security forces support and give money to Al-Quaida, some help the Afghan regime. Some support sunni insurgents in Iraq, some side with the Shiite government. Etc.
2. I wrote that Cole is right that Iran did not call for Hitler-like Genocide. But this is a strawman, neither did Hitchens. Nor is it the only issue here, Ahmadinejad did call for destroying Israel, which in itself is a big deal, without the threat of genocide. If Bush came out and said Iran must be destroyed, but the people not killed, but moved back to Europe and Central Asia I think most Iranians would object, even though this is not necessarily a call for genocide.
3.
We don’t know where all the facilities are, and many or most are certainly not in very populated areas. If nothing else for security reasons, Iran did manage to keep this secret for a very long time, which would have been impossible if it was all in civilian areas. Some may be in cities, but we know that many are deep deep down in the ground, often in unpopulated areas. The US could hit those (say in the night, where there are few civilians there). You don’t have to get all of them, just enough to slow down the process.
People will get killed, not doubt about that. But it is hardly tens of thousands of civilians, that many didn’t even die in Serbia, where the bombing was not directed toward military targets. You could do a pretty good job cleaning up with under 100 dead.
You are right that the population will rise up against the US. There is no way around that, just the cost of stopping the disaster. Regime change in Iran is very unrealistic in the next decade or so, as the situation during Khatami and the election of Ahmadinejad showed. The monopoly of violence is in the hands of the Clerics, and people care more about bread (well, more about populist rhetoric’s about bread) than political freedom.
Honestly, if the US does not destroy the bomb-producing capability, will the population topple the regime? We both know the answer.
I hope the US making it very clear they will bomb if Iran does not stop will be enough to get a peaceful solution, but without a credible threat of force it will not happen.
4. I know general sanctions are often not very effective, that is why I wrote that want specific sanctions against the regime, as I wrote.
To Iranians readers:
Look, I understand man you guys like the idea of Iran having nukes and being strong, and are appalled by the idea of military action. But think what a disaster nuclear bombs would be. What the regime wants with the bombs is probably not nuking Israel, but using them as a “shield” to expand its military actions against the west and against Irans neighbors.
The long run effect will be Saudi-arabia, Syria, Turkey and others also racing to get nukes. Can anyone guarantee me down the road there will not be 10% probability of one of these crazed clerics ending up in a conflict against Israel/US/Arabs/others and deciding martyrdem is not a bad idea? Or that elements whiten the regime give bombs to Al-Quaida?
If these leaders are so rational, why are 1 million Iranians in America and Europe? Did they hesitate before getting 0.5 million kids killed against a futile war after against Iraq after retaking all Iranian land in 1982? Do you really think they are smarter now?
10% probability that some years down the road there will be nuclear war in Iran is enough reason for me to accept American bombing the facilities. Furthermore I consider the dictators that run Iran fair game, the more you kill of them the better. It is the people I care about. They may be misguided in this question (nuclear weapons), but they safety is important, and should not be risked by crazed fanatics.
5.
He said they want Israel gone, and the only way this can be done is through force. Israel will not go away out of it’s own like Apartheid.
6.
“Its just that the context of those translations are better illustrated by Cole.”
No, in one important instance they are not. Cole specifically claimed Ahmadinejad only wants Israel to give up Jerusalem, which is an incorrect inference.
However the second part is just an inference most people can draw for themselves. Cole could have written that Ahmadinejad wants Israel gone, but does not wanted violence. No one would have paid any attention to this claim, since it is so patently absurd. That is why Cole wrote Ahmadinejad only want the occupation of Jerusalem gone, which is much more acceptable than wanting Israel gone, and can realistically be achieved through negotiations.
I think what you are saying is that you agree with my translation but disagree with my politics, whereas you disagree with Coles translation but agree with his policy recommendations on Iran. That is fine by me.
Montai Sember liberi.
/Tino
Mark,
The positions I listed above aren’t mine, they are of the Iranian government. Remember, this discussion is in hopes of understanding the context of Ahmadinejad’s speech in light of the Juan Cole-Hitchens issue. What most Palestinians want isn’t my expertise, nor do I claim it to be. Does Israel constitute an apartheid state for having laws which treat Jews and non-Jews differently is also not my point, nor do I claim it to be. Are the perspectives of the Iranian government? I have no doubt they are. The alternative question however, is whether the Iranian government intends to actually change Israel or whether this is rhetoric it employs for some greater strategic objective. That was the nature of the discussion between Dr. Trita Parsi and former Israeli General Shlomo Brom that we hosted and then placed online. For differing views on that matter, once again I refer to the experts.
I genuinely believe that Israel feels it has a security threat and I genuinely believe that Cole thinks that the Israeli belief is unfounded. Wars are generally started from misconceptions. Identifying and distinguishing between reality and rhetoric is the key to resolving international tensions and avoiding military conflict. That is precisely what we should be doing.
Now you’ve identified the root of the problem and here’s what I consider to be the solution. It seems to be that it is RIDICULOUS that there isn’t direct dialogue between the American government and the Iranian government. If we are truly thinking about American interests, then our objectives should be two-fold: 1) to prevent the need or acquisition of military nuclear technology in Iran and 2) to assist democratic forces in Iran by restraining from any direct regime change. How we balance those two objectives is to provide a Gulf security pact with all concerned states directly involved, including Iran and the US, assist private businesses in Iran to strive (democracy is grounded on socio-economic strength), and actively empower the voice of Iranian dissidents by conditioning foreign trade on the release of political prisoners in Iran and a free press. I honestly believe this is the best policy for the administration and one it would take if it wasn’t for the immense political pressures exerted by the uneducated majority. If this administration takes actions counter-productive to its security goals and its goals of democratization in Iran, it’ll be because we weren’t strong enough in education people and the administration was weak enough to succumb to illogical pressures.
Tino,
For the most part I think we’re in agreement and thank you for clearing up what I perceived to be an inconsistency about your self-identification. That being said, two fundamental problems I see with your position is this:
1) From all reports from anyone who has actually done research or reported in Iran is that Ahmadinejad has no credibility amongst the conservatives in Iran. More importantly, he has no FINANCIAL link with the Bonyads such that he could exert de facto authority by virtue of financial power. He does not run a bonyad nor has any position of power within one, so lets stop making those assumptions. Mind you, the majority of his critics are those who RUN the bonyads. The platform which he ran which was so attractive during the election was that the majority of Iran’s economy was held in the hands of very few people, specifically attacking Rafsanjani’s economic monopoly in various important sectors.
2) I think your support of a military attack by the US against Iran is quite scary. First, there is no direct evidence supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran. Iran is being referred to the IAEA for having covert nuclear technology in its possession without reporting it under guidelines set under the NPT. The IAEA has investigated the Natanz and Isfahan sites and has no found no indication of nuclearization. For one, I believe in the whole innocence until proven guilty standard. Moreover, the deaths caused by NATO raids far exceeded 100 (see the Europen Human Rights case Bankovich v. Belgium) and I guarantee it’ll be in the thousands if not tens of thousands following a military attack. The Natanz and Esfahan facilities are located in meropolitan centers (I know cause I’ve seen them).
Here’s one more thing. What do you want Iran to prove? Do you want them to stop enriching uranium which they have a right to do under the NPT? Or do you want them to be completely open about their nuclear program? The US wants Iran to stop enriching permanently regardless of how open the program is? It is creating a double standard based upon its own foreign policy preferences without giving something in return. Thats the nature of the impasse! Imagine if the US administration said “stop extracting oil or else we’ll bomb you.” While the analogy isn’t directly on point, thats the way the issue is perceived amongst the Iranians. Like I said, Iranians are for the most part for enrichment because it is their right and against militarization. The government has been able to convince moderates, reformists and alike that it is only seeking peaceful nuclear technology. In part the argument is persuasive because there has been no evidence presented by opposing foreign countries.
You stated one more thing: “Honestly, if the US does not destroy the bomb-producing capability, will the population topple the regime? We both know the answer.” I know the answer: Yes it will. Everyone knows this government cannot sustain itself. The problem is that if the US does attack it will have consolidated and perpetuated the regime in power and will have created a larger number of supporters. Imagine how dissidents who call for greater human rights, freedom, and expansion of ties with the West will be treated? They at least are tolerated right now because they represent the majority of people. But after an attack… Its enough to say that Iran’s progress to democracy would be sent back 50 years, at least.
I am just giving heads up to winds’ readers on the true nature of people like Nema Milaninia and other contributors at Iraniantruth.com
People should be aware of the fact that Iraniantruth.com is the well-known mouthpiece of the Iranian regime in the Iranian expat community and the people there are heavily biased towards the US policies and Israel and there are real anti-Israel elements writing in their propaganda outlet called iraniantruth.com
This translation is done by another friend who is also Iranian living in Calif. I hope this helps.
—
What is the precise meaning of Mahv in Persian???
Amir’s translation:
I read Juan Cole’s pathetic stupidities for as long as I could, but at some point I had to give up lest I would punch my laptop screen.
Below find four quotes from the speech Ahmadinejad gave, and Cole is trying to whitewash:
خيليها در اين نبرد سنگين بين دنياى اسلام و جبهه كفر دائماً تخم يأس و نااميدى مى پراكنند. دائماً مى خواهند توى دل اسلام را خالى كنند [و مى گويند ]نمى شود، مگر مى شود؟ مگر دنياى بدون امريكا مى شود؟ مگر دنياى بدون صهيونيسم مى شود؟ شما به خوبى مى دانيد كه اين شعار و اين هدف، هدفى دست يافتنى و حتماً شدنى است.
In this hard battle between the world of Islam and the front of the infidels, many would like to sow the seeds of disenchantment and disillusionment. They constantly want to empty the heart of Islam [and say] it is not going to happen, could it ever? Would a world without America be possible? Would a world without Zionism be possible? You know very well that this slogan and this goal is something attainable and certainly doable.
امام عزيز ما فرمودند كه اين رژيم اشغالگر قدس بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود. اين جمله بسيار حكيمانه است. مسئله فلسطين مسئله اى نيست كه ما بياييم و روى بخشى از سرزمين آن سازش كنيم. مگر جبهه اى مى تواند اجازه بدهد در قلبش نيروهاى دشمن حضور داشته باشند. اين به منزله شكست است. هركس موجوديت اين رژيم را به رسميت بشناسد در واقع پاى برگه تسليم و شكست دنياى اسلام را امضا كرده است
Our dear Imam has said that this occupying regime of Quds must be wiped from the chronicles of time. This is a very wise sentence. The problem of Palestine is not one, on parts of which we can compromise. Could a front allow the enemy’s forces to have a presence in its heart? This would mean defeat. Anyone who recognizes the existance of this regime, has in fact signed the surrender and capitulation papers of the world of Islam.
من ترديد ندارم موج جديدى كه در فلسطين عزيز به راه افتاده، موج بيدارى اى كه امروز در دنياى اسلام هست و موج معنويتى كه سرتاسر دنياى اسلام را فرا گرفته، به زودى زود اين لكه ننگ را از دامان دنياى اسلام پاك خواهد كرد و اين شدنى است؛
I have no doubt that the wave that has started in the dear Palestine, is the wave of awakening that is today in the world of Islam, and the wave of spiritualism that has covered all of the world of Islam and in a quite near future this shameful smudge will be wiped clean from the lap of the world of Islam, and this is possible.
اگر كسى تحت فشار نظام سلطه يا از روى كج فهمى و ساده لوحى يا خداى نكرده خودخواهى و دنيا پرستى قدمى به سمت شناسايى اين رژيم بردارد، بداند به آتش قهر امت اسلام خواهد سوخت و لكه ننگ ابدى را بر پيشانى خود در طول تاريخ خواهد نشاند.
If someone, through the pressure of the regime of control or from bad-understanding and simple mindedness or God forbid out of selfishness and the worship of the world takes but one step towards the recognition of this regime, he ought to know that he will burn in the fire of the wrath of the Umma of Islam and will plant the sign of shame on his forhead in the course of all of history.
I suggest the Iranians here get used to the idea that the United States will conquer and occupy Iran within no more than three years, and likely within the next 18 months.
I agree that the Bush administration has no intention of doing this, but it is going to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, and that IMO will inevitably lead to conquest and occupation.
Furthermore IMO the alternative to this is, for Iran, being subjected to a major strategic nuclear attack by the United States and Israel in the time frame four to ten years out – probably around six to eight years. Such an attack would produce more than ten million Iranian fatalities within the first two weeks.
But that won’t happen. The Bush administration will bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities and other things long before then, and IMO the time frame for that is likely September – October of this year. Things will escalate from there to invasion.
I do not for a minute believe there will be significant Iranian resistance to invasion. Iran simply lacks the ground combat capability to so. Resistance to occupation is another matter.
I do not for a minute believe that more than a small fraction – no more than 20% – of the Iranian people will even be hostile to American occupation. That 10-20%, however, will be quite hostile, and certainly has the capability of giving American occupation forces unshirted hell for a while.
But we’re going in. Complaints won’t stop it. The mullahs are going for nukes and the only way to stop them is invasion. We’ll do that after exhausting all other alternatives.
Tom, I do agree with you but the US should massively fund and help us get back our country!
This is OUR problem and shouldnt be your problem.
We need to overthrow the mullahs and replace it with a democratic regime and your worries will be gone!
Nema Milaninia and Tino Sanandaji,
Thank you both for taking the time to respond at length and with some care to the issues raised here.
I’ll address one point raised by Nema (#47). He wrote
bq. In terms of the “wiped off the map” translation, I noted that I agreed with Tino’s translation, but not with his statement. Tino stated “Destrying Israel could be done by invading it and forcing the population to move to say Madagascar or Manhattan, it does not by itself imply extermination.” I don’t think that context is correct. I don’t believe that one can imply the removal of a state implied the forced removal of its people. I think the context in which Cole was getting at, which in my mind is the policy of the Iranian government, is that just as South Africa could not remain an apartheid, Israel cannot remain a Zionist state. There is clearly a difference between calling for the changing of a state entity and the forced migration of its people. To that extent I believe that Tino was being “academically dishonest” for the assumption drawn from those statements.
It is fairly evident that you are channeling what you wish the policy of the Iranian government was (or what the fractured policies of a fractured government were). If Ahmadinejad or any others in the mullahcracy had wanted to disavow the plain meanings of their statements, they could have done so at any time.
Juan Cole has. You have. But they have not.
Any reader can prove the point for themselves in under a minute by using Google to pull up articles from “AFP,”:http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/08/051208164944.y49anqze.html “al-Jazeera,”:http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/882BF23B-0D16-4C1F-9983-3428DDB96A18.htm etc.
The audio file you linked is simply too long (60 minutes?) and unfocused for me to listen to the whole thing–there’s no annotation or transcript. It’s interesting, with a panel of a retired Israeli general and Trita Parsi, an ethnic-Persian Johns Hopkins scholar, moderated by an Iranian-American San Francisco politician. Dr. Parsi is arguing by analogy from the Iranian/Israeli relationship of the 1980s (Iran-Contra; Iran-Iraq War) to the relationship of today. Parsi wins the academic trifecta: his exposition is eloquent, innovative, and pleasantly contrarian. However, what Parsi believes and wishes for is also rather beside the point, as far as what the mullahs themselves have said on the record.
On the subject of Iran’s nuclear weapons, Nema later writes:
bq. For one, I believe in the whole innocence until proven guilty standard.
That speaks volumes.
For the record, I’m against military action against Iran, but not because I’m blind to the nature of Iran’s a-bomb program, or because I find the prospect of nuclear-armed mullahs not so displeasing after all. But that’s a subject for another post.
I probably lack the authority and knowledge to comment extensively on Iranian affairs. Any reader is best advised to give most of thier attention to Tino and Nema. (BTW, thank you both for commenting here.)
However, I would like to comment to Nema in my capacity as an American, with the qualification that my views are my own and not necessarily representative of all or even every American – any more than Nema or Tino is representative of every Iranian.
But firstly, I’d like a clarification…
“In terms of the “wiped off the map” translation, I noted that I agreed with Tino’s translation, but not with his statement. Tino stated “Destrying Israel could be done by invading it and forcing the population to move to say Madagascar or Manhattan, it does not by itself imply extermination.” I don’t think that context is correct. I don’t believe that one can imply the removal of a state implied the forced removal of its people.”
It was my impression that when asked to clarify his statements, or at least in some other context, Mr. Ahmadinejad has explained that he felt the forced removal of the people of Israel would be acceptable. In other words, whether or not destruction of the state of Israel implies destruction of its people (and its seems niave to me to think that they wouldn’t resist forcefully), the context is in Mr. Ahmadinejad’s own words exactly forced removal. “One account I have of this is from a Pakistani newspaper.”:http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C12%5C09%5Cstory_9-12-2005_pg7_50
If you believe that this story is also spun incorrectly, I’d appreciate your account of it.
From my perspective as American, it doesn’t matter much whether Ahmadinejad has real power in Iran or whether his position is largely ceremonial. What really matters is whether his position reflects accurately the beliefs and positions of those people who do hold real power. What really matters is whether what he is saying reflects and open admission of the goals of the Iranian state by one of its senior spokesperson’s. It seems clear that Ahmadinejad gained power either because he’s well liked in Iran, or else because he’s well liked by those in power in Iran. So, even if he doesn’t have any significant personal or legal power, I still have to take what he says seriously.
If those in power don’t support what he says, they should remove in from power and quickly, because I tell you truthfully that he’s a greater danger to you than you may realize.
“First, there is no direct evidence supporting the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran.”
No, or rather, if there is then it has not been made public. But, speaking as an American, this is also rather unimportant. There is significant indirect evidence for Iran wanting to acquire a bomb. First, there is the bizarre support amongst the Iranian people for the nuclear program. Second, there is the frequent veiled and sometimes overt reference by current and former members of government to the total destruction of Israel, and as an American, even more importantly to the destruction of my country. Thirdly, there is the unequivicable fact that Iran is pursuing delivery devices – ICBM’s – that only have real military value if they have nuclear payloads. Large ICBM’s are more expensive than the destruction they wrought if only a conventional warhead is used, so the rush to build long range ICBM’s is unaccountable if they aren’t also working on nuclear weapons. Fourthly, the design of reactor that the Iranian government is pursuing does not represent cutting edge power production technology. If you were working on a power plant today, you’d almost certainly not build a heavy water plant. There are far less dangerous designs for more modern reactors out there. The only reason to concentrate on heavy water plants today, is if you wanted to build a thermonuclear device. Fifthly, when Libya gave up its WMD program, Libya seemed to believe that Iran was working on the weapon as well. I don’t know what or intelligence agencies know and how accurate it is, but its not like its unlikely that Iran acquired the technology from the same source. Sixthly, Iran has strongly resisted any and all offers by the US, the EU, or Russia to alter its plans in such a way that power production is still possible but production of a nuclear weapon is not.
So, at this point, I’m convinced that Iran is pursuing a bomb. And this is the important point, as far as it matters to you, whether I’m wrong or not doesn’t matter. If the US thinks Iran is pursuing a bomb, its going to act just like as if Iran is pursuing a bomb.
“What do you want Iran to prove?”
I want them to prove that they are not a threat to myself, my wife, and my two daughters.
“Do you want them to stop enriching uranium which they have a right to do under the NPT?”
Yes, that is exactly what I want. And with all my heart, I pray you want the same thing. You may not know this, but this is the National Day of Prayer here in the United States. If I had to pray for only one thing, I would pray that the Iranian people get rid of thier current government, because the consequences if they don’t are pretty much too terrible to think of. But alot of people better start thinking about them quick.
“The US wants Iran to stop enriching permanently regardless of how open the program is? It is creating a double standard based upon its own foreign policy preferences without giving something in return.”
Yes, it is a double standard. But what do you expect? Do you expect the US to treat its friends exactly the same as its enemies? Do you expect the US to treat nations whose policies represent no threat to the US exactly like those that do? Yes, it is a double standard. But just because it is a double standard does not mean it’s not fair. Life is full of double standards. A member of your family can walk into your house unannounced and you greet that person warmly. A stranger walks into your house unannounced and you greet him in a quite different fashion. This is a double standard.
You’ve mentioned sanctions. I don’t support sanctions. Sanctions are a popular idea in America because some Americans believe giving up profits is a sign of moral virtue. The problem is, I don’t think that they work. I think that they help tyrants and hurt ordinary people. I don’t want sanctions.
Neither do I want invasion. I don’t think it would be an easy war. I think that it would result in the death of alot of Americans and even more Iranians. I don’t think Iran is Iraq, despite the fact that the names are similar in English. I don’t think that the Iranian military would have much of a chance, but I think that the Iranian government is abit more popular than the government of Saddam Hussein was – and you see how that is going with only a few people who supported him. So, no, I don’t see the point of an invasion.
I also don’t want Iran with an nuclear weapon. And under some conditions, I’d support just about any action to prevent that.
“While the analogy isn’t directly on point, thats the way the issue is perceived amongst the Iranians.”
The way the issue is perceived by many Americans is this: Iran is a country which daily organizes large rallies in which people chant, “Death to America”. Iran is a country whose President talks about “a future without America”. Iran is a country ran by brutal tyrannical madmen. Iran is a country filled with wonderful beautiful people who wake up every day and say, “I hate the brutal government, but what can I do.” Every day for the past decade at least, Americans have hoped one day that those wonderful beautiful people with which we were once friends would finally find some sense and do the hard job of getting rid of the madmen. Every day, we have been disappointed. Every day, the Iranians find a new excuse why the madmen must remain in power, and why the chants of “Death to America” must go on.
Now these same madmen seem built on acquiring a nuclear weapon. Now, Iranians could go on chanting “Death to America” until judgement day and America would sigh and get on with life. But a nation that daily chants “Death to America” and also has a nuclear bomb is an entirely different thing. Once you join the nuclear club, the rules change. Threats like, “Death to America”, have to be taken seriously then.
One day, a day not too far away, Americans are going to decide that they’ve heard “Death to America” too often, and America will say for the first time, “Death to Iran”.
America’s threats are not like Iranian threats. If America ever says, “Death to Iran”, just once, you better believe that Death will be coming. And if Iran is a nuclear power at that time, it will be death like the world has never seen before. Getting nukes changes the rules.
“I know the answer: Yes it will. Everyone knows this government cannot sustain itself.”
Americans have been hearing that for years. We’ve despaired of that ever being true. It seems to me that the beautiful, rational people in Iran – the sort that we could talk to and hopefully be friends with – are out numbered by brutish people. It seems that although they hate the government, they are afraid, or they are too comfortable with thier slavery to throw off thier chains, or if they don’t actually have any influence or power. Just when it seems that something is about to change, the government cracks down, breaks some skulls, throws some people in prison, and that’s the end of the beautiful dream. Every year, we in America do nothing about Iran because Iran can’t really do anything to us, and because we hope that one day things will get better. But the loss of power of the moderates, the apparantly rigged election, and the public face presented by Ahmadinejad its seeming like an increasingly forlorn hope that that will ever happen.
All I can say is that for your sake, it better happen soon.
We don’t want another Cold War, and we don’t trust the Mullahs. If it comes down to accepting Iran having the nuclear bomb, and killing beautiful wonderful friendly Iranian people, there is a very good chance that America will – with great regret and many tears – do the later.
I can’t believe you don’t understand just how serious this is. How do you sleep at night?
If Iran agreed to give up its nuclear ambitions – even if those nuclear ambitions turn out to be purely peaceful – it would be a show of good faith. Even if it would be willing to comprimise, and accept some plan that would allow it to build nuclear power plants but not weapons, that would be a good start. If Iran would stop the ‘Death to America’ rallies, that also would greatly ease US fears. I think you’d be really surprised what a show of good faith would do. I think America would be more than happy to extend a hand of friendship to Iran. You want direct talks? I suggest you pressure your government into giving up its nuclear ambitions. Heck, the very site of a creditable dissident movement in the streets putting real pressure on the current Iranian government would in itself probably be enough to convince most people in America that the chances of a new friendlier government are good enough that we can afford to wait a while.
But, don’t wait forever. I’m telling you the truth. One day, maybe without much warning, the US will respond to all the threats by saying the equivalent of, “Death to Iran.” You don’t want to wait that long.
Again, these opinions are my own. They don’t represent everyone’s opinion. But neither are they uncommon.
Complaint about ad hominems directed at original source of ad hominems. Demand for cogent discourse and reasoned arguments!
Point not related to actual discussion. Humorous comment mocking opposing (fact-based) argument.
Absence of actual cogent discourse and reasoned arguments.
Denial of accusation of arguing unseriously or in bad faith.
Before today, I thought Juan Cole was the most informed scholar about the ME. However, I was deeply disillusioned today.
I can’t assign any motives to his complete disregard to the totality of the context of the speech (preceding paragraph in his speech and the following paragraphs after the disputed paragraph) and the target audience it was intended for.
I can only speculate that he doesn’t want to add more fuel to the fire and I don’t blame him either. We can’t afford to have another Iraq on our hand. Even if there had to be an invasion, I don’t want this adminstration to execute this mission.
Here is my understanding of the word “Mahv”:
I’m not a linguist but I speak Persian fluently and it’s my mother’s tongue. The word “Mahv” means and connotes several things.
To ‘Mahv’ something , you need to do this act by several means or actions: (it’s an action verb)
One way to ‘mahav’ something is by destroying it.
Another way to ‘mahav’ something is to clean or in Persian (pak), erase, or wipe it.
A third way to ‘mahav’ something is to put a cover on something.
A fourth way to ‘mahav’ something is by or melting into something which accomplishes the “mahaving process”.
A fifth of mahving to Vanish or disappear.
I think by Mahav, Ahamdinejad meant the second way of Mahving which is to clean it or erase it from the pages of time. Like you would erase something with an eraser.
But I think every Iranian in the audience knew exactly what he meant. One of Khomeini’s main objective that he had set out for his vision of “Islamic Government” was to Conquer or reconquer Jeursalem. Jeursalem is the third holiest city of moslems. Iran will never nuke Israel but it can make life miserable for Israel by helping its terrorist proxies in the region.
P.S. The Iranian truth cabal are well known in the Iranian community as the cyber intelelctuals of the regime who lobby mostly naive democrats and liberals.
*Mahv sort of means fade away, disappear.
*Thanks a lot Winston for the translation.
*Ahmadinejad has plenty of credibility among some clerics, and no credibility among others. In this particular issue he his in agreement with the hardliners.
*There is no way Iranians will topple the regime, they just can’t. I see no sign towards that, and many signs against. There is at the moment no opposition towards the Mullahs.
*As I said you don’t have to bomb every facility.
* The US will not invade Iran given the political weakness of the Republican party, and the pacifism of the Democrats. Anyway they can achieve the same results by cheap bombings.
* 80-90% of Iranians will oppose a US invasion. Do not underestimate the anti-Americanism of the average Iranian person, just because they like American products they don’t like the US. I happen to think their opinions are largely based on conspiracy theories, but that does not make them less true.
* Trita Parsi is also an immigrant to Sweden; I went to business school with him in Stockholm. Great guy, and very eloquent and knowledgeable, although I don’t always agree with him politically. Small world isn’t it.
As far as what Iran has the “right” to do, the bottom line is that an unmonitored enrichment line is itself essentially a nuclear weapon. Once a sufficient quantity of U235 is accumulated, the assembly is trivial.
my pleasure!
Lets expose the real nature of the leftist apologist for the regime and expose those (iraniantruth.com) who act as proxies for the regime in North America
Bita, you are correct!
I think much of the comments I wanted to make have been said. I just wanted to add one thing to Winston and Bita. Winston and Bita, I take strongly accusations that me and my website are “mouthpieces” for the regime. They are baseless lies and slander and very, very serious accusations. It is true that one of the authors on my site supports the Iranian government. Its is equally true that one of my authors is a constitutional monarchists. It is also true that oen of my authors is a feminist human rights advocate. It is also true that one of my authors is a leftist. It is also true that one of my authors is a complete secularist. I hope you will learn that only by a true “marketplace of ideas” can dialogue take place, regardless of how much we might disagree with each other. I hope you also know that if you continue telling people that I am funded and supported by the Iranian regime or that I am their mouthpiece, that you destroy your credibility and risk liability. Those remarks are slanderous and you both know it.
Getting back to Professor Cole, the seemingly credible statements about some of his translations seriously impugn his professional integrity. This is an extremely serious matter for an academic. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving person, and I certainly hope it is true.
So go for it, guys. This issue should be pursued vigorously.
Nema and it is true that you are a member of NIAC run by Dr. Hooshang Amir-Ahmadi who thinks the Iranian regime HAS no problem at all and it is a DEMOCRATIC regime.
Every body knows you dude!
It is beyond accusations, it is a fact now that you promote the Islamic Republic’s government views on your web site.
Amen. Long live the Iranian democratic revolution, which will happen and will succeed.
And I can’t wait to see the look on Cole’s face when it does.
Winston: I’ve looked over the website in question. I find much of its views grounded in an extreme form of naivete, especially with regard to the chance of success of peaceful political demonstration, but I don’t find much of anything there Nema Milaninia that indicates that they are a ‘mouth peice for the Iranian government’. I think that it is telling that one of the few bloggers iraniantruth links to is Juan Cole, and that tells me alot about thier politics in itself, and I think that there is – much like Juan Cole – alot of willful blindness, but there is also alot of passionate criticism of the Iranian government and most endearing of all lots of support for jailed Iranian dissidents.
In addition, following links from the site got me almost immediately to this “one”:http://en.nufdi.org/, which is about as anti-government as you can be without advocating making war on your own country.
At the momment, I’m leaning towards categorizing your words as slander, but I’m willing to see abit more of your evidence before passing final judgement.
I will say that its very disappointing to find that Nema lives in the US. That answers my question as to how he can sleep at night, and explains alot about his naive hope that the mullahs can be reasoned out of power.
I find some meaning in the fact that Nema considers being characterized as aligned with the governing Mullahs as slander rather than praise.
Winston, exile is often painful, and expats are often torn between cheering for the Home Team and damning that society/government for the failings that caused them to leave in the first place. It strikes me that Nema is more sympathetic to the Iranian government than the other Iranians who have joined in today. But that doesn’t mean that he or his website is aligned with them or act as their proxy. He or it might–but you haven’t offered any evidence to distinguish that serious charge from naivete (for instance).
Thanks to all the Farsi speakers who weighed in on the Juan Cole translation controversy. I think Winds readers are now much better equipped to formulate opinions that are based on an understanding of the facts.
Yep. I didnt offer any evidence for not-familiar reader of this website
Iraniantruth.com keeps on attacking the so-called US Imperialism and praises Khomeini or Khatami but never say a word about the mistreatment of the Human beings under the rule of the very same Mullahs they cheer for/support.
They talk about isolated issues like Abu-gharib scandal but never talk about mistreatment or executions in Iranian prison.
These lead me to believe that they are with the Mullahs and against ALL freedom loving Iranians.
Ask any Iranian expat and You;ll get the same response.
These people have sympathy for the Islamic regime of Iran and hate Israel, US, Bush and cant hide their love for mullahcratic leadership.
The iraniantruth.com headguy is Nema milania who is a member of NIAC and ask Banafsheh Zand Bonazi, Michael ledeen, DoctorZIn, and other informed sources about their real nature of business.
These are not allegations, these are facts and words among Iranians.
Sounds like a bit more background and research ree: NIAC would be useful.
NIAC does not represent all Iranian Americans
NIAC is the US Mullah Lobby!
I do not know anyone who does not consider them as a front for the Islamic regime in Iran.
From
ActivistChat.com
SMCCDI beieves NIAC works for the clerics of Iran
More on NIAC’s regime affiliation
Winston,
I think its odd that you say that I never talk about human rights in Iran when my entire position has been, from the very beginning, that foreign policy should be conditioned on Iran: http://www.iraniantruth.com/?cat=7
http://www.iraniantruth.com/?cat=12
http://www.iraniantruth.com/?cat=13
My article on the torture and murder of Kazemi was published in the Toronto Star and ironically re-posted by one of your favorite site: http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6564
My radio interview with National Public Radio describing the threats posed by the new Iranian government can be found here http://www.onthemedia.org/stream/ram.py?file=otm/otm070105c.mp3 (audio); http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_070105_darkhorse.html (transcript)
I have used my own name and critically attacked the Iranian regime for human rights abuses, something that you can’t say. And yes, I am a member of NIAC.
Concerning NIAC, first of all in none of the articles you just mentioned do they a) say the Iranian government is funding this organization and b) provide any evidence to that point. Second, on sensitive political issues such as “regime change in Iran” and funding of exiled groups in the US, NIAC doesn’t take any official position. It in fact creates two seperate letters which people can choose from, see here: http://capwiz.com/niacouncil/issues/alert/?alertid=8490286&type=CU
The problem with NIAC has nothing to do with them. There are two people who have conspiracized about NIAC, the MKO/MKE because there is an active campaign to disassociate Iranians from that organization given a recent LA Times article which says they represent Iranians here in the US. The second type are those who wish external regime change in Iran because they represent the minority of Iranians and because the vast majority of people who used NIAC’s services voted against external regime change.
By the way, I’ve actually emailed back and forth with DoctorZin from regimechange.com. We’ve actually agreed that we differ in our politics. Thats quite a different thing then throwing serious allegations that I’m being funded by a foreign country listed for supporting terrorism. Once again, these are very serious allegations and I don’t plan on taking them lightly.
I honestly can’t see the Iranian people being able to pull off any form of revolution.
The mullahs have their toy army, the one chock full of Palestinians who will have no problem gunning down Iranian citizens. Even with some US backed support, I just don’t see any form of internal coup managing to get off the ground, the mullah stranglehold on the power structure is near absolute.
Nema:
You sound like a very intelligent, genuine, and articulate young man whose politics are either shaped by deeply rooted religious beliefs or extreme naivate and idealism. Your stance on the IRI is still ambigious at best ,and at times, contradictory at worst. And I think that’s where the confusion lies about your site.
Personally, I have never read any articles or comments by you that indicate to me you’re a supporter of the IRI. However, I have read articles by some of your other writers, one in particular. I’m referring to two specific posts by L.E. One was almost an ‘Ode to khomeini’ and the other was an ‘Ode to Ahmadinejad. I was absoultely dumbfunded to see those entries by an educated and a published author. I also didn’t like how this particular writer disparaged the ‘Bahai faith’ in one of his comments so nonchanatly. I think entries like the ones I mentioned put your blog in a suspicious, perhaps erroneously, bad light. However, I must admit that your site perhaps mirrors what’s going on inside Iran. And however painful and tragic, it is indeed the ‘Iranian truth’. Good luck.
Gabe: “I honestly can’t see the Iranian people being able to pull off any form of revolution.”
I think pretty much everyone @ winds’ is in basic agreement with this statement. I know the folks at strategypage hold a similar feeling. Ten years ago I had some hope for widespread populist reform in Iran. Events since that time have time and time again proven how naive such a hope was.
The mullah’s grip on power might could be broken, but only if say greater than 80% of the population not only disliked the regime, but disliked it enough to risk thier blood to overthrow it. I just don’t see that. In fact, I see the opposite. I see that most of the Iranian population approve of the Mullah’s to one extent or another and is ultimately willing to risk thier blood to defend them. Even the majority of critics of the Mullahs admit this in a round about fashion, because they are continually saying how Western military action will only strengthen the Mullah’s grip. Frankly, I find this niave. After the last elections, its hard to see how thier grip on the instruments of power could get any tighter. As I see it, what this fear really represents is the fear that they’ll see just how hopeless thier Western style civil disobediance and democratic dissent is against a government which does not care and has no moral compunctions against violent repression. What the disidents want least of all is to admit to themselves just how marginal they really are because they love thier country and they know what the consequences of that admission are. The old idealistic republicans, the pro-West Iranians, the western educated Iranians, the monarchists, the reformers of every stripe, and all the other disparate groups have clearly shown that they have no real power or support and no real ability to effect the opinions of the larger Iran. The Republicans got used by the Mullahs to help get rid of the Shah (just as earlier the Mullahs were using the communists), and now that that is accomplished the Republicans have been discarded as being of no further consequence.
I don’t think anyone @ winds’ is happy about that fact, but there it is. I’m sure I’ve probably offended some Iranian readers by saying this, and I hope the offence I’ve given is not so much that it drives them away, but that’s how I see it and that’s how everyone I know that looks at the situation sees it. If I’m completely wrong, I’d happily listen to arguments to the contrary.
Bita,
I’m not sure what you believe about me. On one hand you say “The Iranian truth cabal are well known in the Iranian community as the cyber intelelctuals of the regime who lobby mostly naive democrats and liberals.” Then after I mention how slanderous that comment is you say “Personally, I have never read any articles or comments by you that indicate to me you’re a supporter of the IRI.” I find it awkward that you say my “politics are either shaped by deeply rooted religious beliefs or extreme naivate and idealism” when you refuse to read anything I’ve posted, particularly the links I have provided.
One of our authors does support the Iranian government, just like a number of Iranians in Iran do. One of our authors, Mike, is also president of NUFDI (http://fa.nufdi.org/) and a constitutional monarchist. In fact he hosted an event with Reza Pahlavi at UC Irvine. The reason I have different people from vastly different positions posting on the same site is because “truth” can only be confronted by engaging all positions. By deconstructing and perceiving all arguments. This is quite something different from what you and Winston have alleged, which is that we are funded by the Iranian government. In fact, on the site is written explicitly: “Please note that the postings reflect the opinion of each author and are not necessarily (in fact most often never) endorsed by other authors who post on this website.”
There are two quotes which function as the philosophical cornerstone of “Iranian Truth,” both from the western philosopher John Stuart Mill whose notions on democracy and free speech inspired the framers of our Constitution:
“However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.”
“If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
Thats the last I’ll say on this topic.
Nema:
I don’t consider that comment slanderous, I was only repeating what others have said about your site in the Iranian community.
I’ve only been to your site a few times and it was a long time ago. I admit my comments were careless and soley based upon ‘rumors’ and reading a few articles by only one of your writers. And I do apologize for not taking more care in finding out about you and your writings. I will try to read those links you’ve provided when I have time. I like your “marketplace of ideas” concept and wish you success in nurturing it. I’ve concluded that Iran is a hopless case and in tweny years time when it ceases to be an exporter of oil, it will turn into another Afghanistan. Realty sucks sometimes.
Nema Milaninia has just sent me a WARNING message like his Mullahs trying to intimidate me
He writes:
Winston,
Please retract your statements. I am seriously considering filing a defamation suit against you in Canada. Your website’s domain name can be used to identify your true name and address and if your statements continue please be assured I will have no hesitation in contacting my attorney.
Thank you,
Nema Milaninia
——–
This is freedom of expression performed by Mullahs supporters in North America.
Nema, if that’s true it is most disturbing. I’m not sure that I agree with Winston’s characterization, but within the give and take of political discussion, things like that are going to be said.
I’ll note that your response here – calm, fact-based, and direct – is the best answer you could make to charges like that.
Threatening to sue is – as I’ve directly pointed out to Juan Cole “here”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/005924.php , “here”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/005931.php , and “here”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/005944.php – a bad idea.
A.L.
Armed Liberal,
Outside of the responses I’ve given, how else would you react to someone who has repeatedly created accusations of an association with a foreign state. Had this been the first time, I wouldn’t consider such action. Personally, I’m not sure how successful such action will be given that the person uses a psuedo-name. However, saying someone is an agent for a country which we might go to war with in the near future is a very serious allegation, and all of us should know that. I believe in the freedom of speech as well. But at what point does that give another a right to make serious and baseless accusations. I’m curious to hear what others have to say on this point.
“I’m curious to hear what others have to say on this point.”
We aren’t French. We aren’t Swedes. We aren’t Canadians. We are Americans. When you say, “we might go to war with”, you are identifying yourself as an American.
Hense, you ought to expected to comport yourself as an American.
Americans don’t sue other people to get them to shut up. As far as I could tell, he wasn’t hurting you in any real fashion. I gave his accusations absolutely no credence until you threatened to sue him to shut up.
The last thing we need in this country is more lawsuits, and I don’t support Canada’s or Europe’s anti-free speach defamation laws. I think you’ll find general agreement around here that laws against ‘hate speach’ are unamerican. There is a reason our communities generally avoid such things here, and equally a reason Americans don’t feel like they have to ban wearing a hajib or anything silly like that. So gird your loins, straighten your shoulders, lift your head, steel your eyes, and if he’s a liar then address him as such. But, ‘Reaching for your gun’ first doesn’t reflect well on you, especially against a so ungiant-like of an adversary.
Nema:
In torts of defamation, slander, libel, the truth is an absolute defense; so expect to be prepared to have everything you’ve written challenged in open court, then get ready to have your entire personal history available to an attorneys examination. Now ask yourself is it really worth it?
You’ve shown an ability to hold your own here, yet the silly “internet lawyer” threat exposes a severe lapse in judgment and intelligence that will quickly regulate your future comments to those of the “troll”, and thus mostly ignored.
You would be well advised to rebutt Tino’s posts here than to bother wasting your time attempting a lawsuit.
Disclaimer, I am not a Lawyer, I don’t even play one on TV, but I’ve worked at 3 major lawfirms and have never seen a sucessful slander/libel case prosecuted.
I believe it’s easier in Canada then in the US, Gabriel Chapman, but your point is probably well-taken.
I think all of you are right. From my discussions with others, this venture would be unduly costly and somewhat risky. There is no real caselaw on slanderous comments posted as comments on weblogs. In defense of myself, therefore, I can only refer to my comment made at #73: http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008563.php#c73 Thank you A.L., celebrim, Gabrial and Dave for slapping me with a bit of sensibility again. As a note, Dave is right. The standard for defamation is much lower in Canada then it is in the US: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90l12_e.htm
Nema,
This is my day job. If Winston is a California resident, any suit by you against him is wihin the scope of California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. This means that suit in an American court – federal or California state court – would likely result in it being promptly stricken with you ordered to pay his attorney fees.
This statute also means that a judgment by you in any foreign court would be unenforceable in California as void against public policy.
As a practical matter, your threat is not merely evidence that Winston’s statements about you are true, but that you are an agent of the Iranian government. You could not have made a more self-incriminating statement in this forum.
Nema,
Having just re-read the relevant parts of this thread, I think having a slander case in court could turn out to be a Tar Baby for both you and Winston.
Winston called you a mouthpiece #52, a propaganda outfit #62, said that you promote Islamic Republic government views on your site #66, that you are with the mullahs #70, and that NIAC is the US mullah lobby #72.
Serious accusations, and not in my opinion adequately backed up by the offered links.
On the other hand, a look around iraniantruth.com certainly brings up authors who are, at the least, very sympathetic to the views of the Iranian government–you’ve said as much. A fair number of the comments I read border on sycophantic.
If Canadian libel law requires Winston to prove that you or iraniantruth.org are agents of the IRI, based on the evidence so far, he may be in trouble. On the other hand, if he need only provide evidence for the more vague things he’s said, his defense is easier. If the standard is that a reasonable person might come to hold his opinions, it’s easier still.
And what would you need to show? That Winston was recklessly untruthful? That he acted with wanton disregard for the facts? This type of thing would be awfully hard to prove.
As Gabriel Chapman said, “You’ve shown an ability to hold your own here.” If it was me, I’d think long and hard before changing the venue from web-logs to courts of law.
I see that, happily, comment #87 was overtaken by events before it was posted. Preview is my friend.
Re: #82 – Celebrim, you’re absolutely right! Nema threatening Wilson is a strong-arm tactic and any Iranian is familiar with those!
Shame on you Nema.
Re: #69 – AMac, you said, “It strikes me that Nema is more sympathetic to the Iranian government than the other Iranians who have joined in today.”
At the very LEAST, Nema is that.
Now how do you feel about someone who is “sympathetic” to a regime that regularly tortures, imprisons and executes people for speaking their minds?
And if you came from a country where you knew that family members and friends had been arrested and tortured and killed for what we consider petty offenses, how would feel about a person “smpathetic” to that government?
To Iranians, being sympathetic to the regime is not much different from being a member of the regime.
Nema knows that. And so does any Iranian who has ever seen his website.
* And Nema – NIAC has a bad reputation, whether you like it or not. NO democratic/freedom loving Iranian believes NIAC, and the only people in the U.S. who do, are ignorant or are like the idiot politicians who think they should support CAIR.
Will you threaten to sue me now?
BTW Nema, – You tried to scare Winston by sending him a private email threatening to sue him. You never expected him to post it for all to see.
I think you’ve shown everyone what a swell guy you are…..N O T!
Folks, Nema has graciously stepped away form the red button. How about showing some similar measure of grace?
Before further slagging, may I ask that everyone read #85?
Marc
This is what I got Iraniantruth.com headguy Nema Milania after he has consulted with his attorney (I wonder how many people can afford having attorneys these days):
Victory is yours, its too costly to sue and the likelihood of victory in this territory is unclear. Please continue with your unsubstantiated comments.
The Iraniantruth is where a group of individuals regardless of their political or personal choices post articles and comments. I don’t know any other Iranian who has posted more about the regime’s crimes against humanity but myself and I am one of the individuals with permission to write on Iraniantruth.
As for the American Iranian Council and NIAC… neither of these two places represent all Iranians… the true nature of any (for a democratic Iran) centers and organisations show through the way they accept, agree and voice the Iranian regime in the West!!
Winston: We in the Iranian community appreciate and applaud you for being courageous to at least make Westerners think twice before they believe someone as authorative on all things Iranians. It is quite telling, ironic, and tragic when Iranians living abroad have to use pseudo-names for fear of being persecuted(or their families still living back home) and when those who are a sympathizer of a terrorist regime have no fear of using their real name. That fact alone speaks volumes to us Iranians and it should to the Westerners. It’s routinley standard for us to criticize American policies to our hearts content but our unique observational skills it seems is always conveniently pointed outward, never willing to consider the stains, skidmarks, and soil of our own land and laundry. We Iranians know the answer to this aversion. Fear! The kind of far-reacing fear that sweeps across the oceans to make us self-censor or completely avoid the issues.
http://www.iranian.com/BruceBahmani/2006/May/Fear/index.html
As all Iranian know, the regime has assassinated more than 100 dissidents across the globe. Today’s terrorist as we Iranian have recently discovered to our horror are armed with a PhD, a laptop,a few published books, and a US or Canadian citizenship. Not to mention the “manufactured fake dissidents/bloggers”, like Derakhshan and those bloggers who resorted to the same tactics as Nema to silence Dr. Judith Apter Klinghoefer at History News Network.(http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/24178.html).
True we don’t have tangible evidence or (the resources to find the evidence we need)to indict them in the court of law, but we know they have infilterated the academia, the blogsphere, and the US political system (NIAC group). Anyone who supports this regime or is somehow a sympathizer of the regime is either a pocketbook supporter or a devotee of Islam and Jihad. Period.
And it would be naive or even perilous for Westerners to think that the regiem has not since its inception and doesn’t spend millions of dollars on propaganda to influence the American politics in hopes of undermine it. I urge everyone to read Khomeini’s Book (Berenard Lewis calls it, “Khomeini’s Mein Kampe”), “The Islamic Government” and you will know what I mean. Scroll to the bottom of the page and the book is in a PDF Format.
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/rkhomeini/ayatollah_khomeini.php
On training Fundementalists in Quom:
http://www.stopfundamentalism.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=391&Itemid=71
On a side note: For those who are interested in comprehending the power structure of the Iranian regime, this is a must read:
The Power Structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran: transition from populism to clientelism, and militarization of the government” published in Third World Quarterly (December 2005). Full text PDF
http://www.iranian.com/Alamdari/2006/March/Iran/index.html
Thanks every one for the support in this issue
There’s been some useful exchanges and real effort to provide a better comprehensive understanding of the Iranian situation here and I appreciate and applaud those sincere efforts, especially Tino.
Juan Cole and his political swayings to the wind is besides the point now with Iran already announcing their North Korean NPT option. Did anyone really think they would not play this card? Clearly the Iranian mullahs are happy to play the card game to its finality and claim to the muslim world that they the true leaders of the faith, have no choice but to stand up to the West and build nuclear weapons (and mated ICBMs) to show the West they will not be intimidated. Of course mullah intimidation is entirely a different matter. Under such a guise, it is merely fulfilling the destiny of Islam.
Although I understand many are hopeful the Iranian people will be able to remove the mullahs from power, I don’t see the possibility of this happening. For that to occur, you would need a regime that sits idly by and allows people to see their voices gather and publicly speak against it without the threat of massive violence. As in Ukraine, Lebanon and elsewhere this is only possible when the downside of inflicting massive loss of life by the regime no longer fits the outcome of reaction from the international community. As in China, this is clearly not close to happening any time soon in Iran. The Iranian government has shown no reticience in killing whoever it needs to whether they be in Tehran or elsewhere globally.
As in the holocaust denial, does anyone doubt that the mushroom cloud appearing over Israel in less than ten years is outside the possible thought process of the mullahs? Would the origin of such an attack come as a shock to anyone after Iran has become a nuclear state?
Sadly, all our hopes for a peaceful solution are being removed in short order as the Iranian plan moves ahead unabated. Nothing is even remotely on the table to forestall the world’s worst fears of where this is heading.
No US action against the military sites will change the inevitable collusion that is coming between Iran and the West. At best, it can be forestalled by some years but I have little doubt that anything short of prayer for peace will change the trains heading into one another.
I say that in the belief that there are no good solutions and that any attack on the Iranian military/nuclear sites will be incomplete. In the end, I’m not sure what buys more time, attacking those sites or not. Logic suggests that attacking them will delay the inevitable, but I am not convinced of that.
The frantic cries of Death to America and Israel will be emboldened and louder not removed with the onset of the a nuclear Iran.
Well as it stands one thing is certain the Islamic Republic is a brutal regime and it must be swaped with a transparent, accountable democratic secular regime. How this is going to come about should be with the less amount of bloodshed on any side. If possible with civil disobedience then yes go ahead, if not try with sanctions if not with force. But inaction not an option.
One last thing: would I be subject to a lawsuit for saying a nickname for Tom Holsinger would be appropriate along the lines of Tom “the holster” Holsinger?
Because I think Tom just unholstered and shot someone in the arse.
I tend to agree with Tom on the agent revelation except I think a much more likely scenario is we have another person who stands namby pamby like in the face of evil and suffers from Patty Hearst like symptoms at the mere pronouncements fromt the government in Tehran.
It’s not that they are agents of Tehran, it’s that they shiver in the face of the evil mullah to the such depths, they are in the least their aiders and abetters in the West.
Lawsuit? Please, what a loser. If this psychology is duplicated in the governments of the West, we’re all goners. The mullahs might as well announce they are taking Paris in lieu of announcing that they have new ICBMs that will destroy it if it is not promptly handed over to the Muslim Caliphate.
Lame.