Monday, February 15, 2010

Iran at a Crossroads

February 8, 2010
By Ahmad Aleagha
In the current era, the political and economic systems of all countries around the globe, maybe more so of Iran, are in the buffer zones. These transitions in and out of different political and economic systems are happening faster now than ever in human history. This is due to availability of information, and the speed of its transmission to every country in the world. Also, more importantly, there are precedents of different political and economic systems which have been experienced somewhere in the world, i.e. dictatorship or democracy, capitalism or socialism, parliamentary or kingdomship, communism or oligarchy, etc.
Similar to democracy, advancement in political and economic systems is a process within a country. Unfortunately, these advancements can be reversed, opposite to the classical education, as an example.  Russia circumvented this process, jumping up three steps, going from feudalism or tsarist autocracy to communism. Russia is now back, going through capitalism and democracy. China has mixed capitalism, democracy, and communism. The Scandinavian countries are going through this process better than most other countries (social democratic systems).
From the early 1900's, while the rest of the world was trying different systems by hitting each other on the head (World War I and World War II), and hitting the heads of their own people (revolutions), the United States progressed. The United States experienced democracy, industrialism, capitalism, and even socialism. Now, it is back to an oligarchy, way back to the Pharaoh-type oligarchy. The U.S. was the best candidate for socialism, starting in the early 1900’s, and probably would have been ready to advance to communism by now.
There are many socialistic-type programs in the United States’ social texture: social security, unemployment benefits, unionized workers, food stamps, welfare, Medicare, etc.  . These advancements were easy and fast, especially after World War II. This caused Americans not to progress politically, similar to their ancestors in Europe. These na├»ve, innocent people were taken for a ride by a few people for their own benefits. The oligarchs were in the Democratic party up until the Reagan era, and since then, has been taken advantage of the Republican party.
The U.S. oligarchy has been responsible for the destruction of humanity in the past 60-70 years. They have participated in over 150 wars, directly or indirectly, killing millions, according to one of my intellectual friends, Ardeshir Ommani.   
Members of the U.S. oligarchy call themselves neo-conservatives, or “neo-cons” nowadays. A “neo-con” is defined as a person who is super-rich, with an ego as big as the world, and mostly (but not all) Jewish. Zionism is one of their tools. Joe Biden, a non-Jew vice-president, said, “You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist”. This oligarchy phenomenon goes back to the Pharaoh’s time. The Pharaoh’s oligarchy built those gigantic pyramids for their minute (by comparison) coffins.   Moses freed those oppressed in Pharaoh’s time, similar to Jesus freeing people from the Roman Empire.
Iran, being an ancient civilization, has seen it all.  If it was not due to the powerful British Empire and the U.S. oligarchy, Iran would have had an advanced social and democratic system. This is probably true with most countries in the world, as we see how these evil forces control the world, including the Americans themselves, for the worse. Right now, Iran is a melting pot of all the possible economic and political systems. Religion in an adhesive force to keep Iranians united against the U.S. oligarch, similar to other countries in the Middle East. Is it a coincidence that the U.S. oligarchy is misusing 80 million evangelists as a driving force?
Iranians need to stay united against the dark force, and be patient in going through the economic and political process step by step.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

"I am a strong proponent of law, order and justice."

The link below was sent to me by a friend and an active member of the Green Movement. I had written:  "What attracted my attention was the threat made by Dr. Habibollah Payman, if their offer with regards to prisoners is not accepted. My point is how can any authority decide to release prisoners if they have violated the laws of the land, burning the public and private properties, and causing the deaths of other human beings? Eradatmand, Ardeshir Ommani 

The following posting by a member of the AIFC is a response to the above email and statement with regard to release of "political" prisoners in Iran, per this link:
Dr. Habibollah Payman: Iran's Political Structure

"Dear Ardeshir Ommani,         February 07, 2010

Thank you so much for your email regarding the Dr. Payman’s interview.

Per this interview, and my previous understandings, the Green Party’s main issue is free election within the Islamic Republic constitution, which, “has not been implemented”. Dr. Payman’s point in this matter refers to, not only in the last election, but in any other previous elections.

We need to remember that Dr. Payman is NOT a member of the Green Party. He is a political activist from the “Muslim Movement Activist”.  He calls for peaceful demonstrations by the Green Party during the 22nd of Bahman ceremony. I, from the AIFC, push further than what he suggests; I think there should be no demonstrations by the Green Party at all in that day. One never can anticipate what kind of mess mobs can create among the masses of people.

With regard to the political prisoners in Iran, there has to be innocent, non-rioters, and also extremists (who strongly believe in their cause, like a lot of people, especially youngsters), among those prisoners.  I am a strong proponent of law, order, and justice. I also am a believer in that saying, “It’s better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to convict one innocent person”.

There is something called justice, but also there is something called diplomacy, thoughtfulness, and /or politics, that need to be considered in this situation. With all that said, I think it is a good politics that the government of Iran politicized two or three extreme riot cases. Bring about strong evidence against them and charge them with the destruction of properties. Having political prisoners in general, especially in today’s Iranian political atmosphere, is the least desirable policy.

No opposing political party is responsible for rioters. I am sure they were delighted of the demonstrations. We need to remember that the people of Iran had been quiet for at least 8 eight years.

At the end, I think or at least I hope that almost all the eleven million voters, Green or otherwise, are not as much against Ahmadinijad, if any, as they are for more freedom in Iran. The timing of those demands is my question. On that, I trust the wisdom of those eleven million voters, like Dr. Habibollah Payman, in this matter. "

Submitted by: Ahmad Aleagha

Monday, February 1, 2010

Obama's "Dialogue/Negotiation" Iran Strategy Falters

When Obama entered the White House, many Americans who voted for him had high expectations and great hopes that he would be able to carry out significant changes in the arena of foreign policy. All eyes were on Obama to part from the aggressive, disastrous war policies of Bush and Cheney and abandon the hostile rhetoric and the belligerent mentality of “We’re the Superpower” who runs the world. American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC) supported Obama in his bid for the White House because of his promise to “negotiate” and carry out “dialogue with Iran”. Up to this point, however, President Obama is failing miserably to carry out any substantial changes in the disastrous war-prone foreign policy direction, and most recently his administration has been ratcheting up the calls for sanctions and war against Iran, which once again is being cast in the American media as the country presenting a “nuclear threat” to the U.S. Why?

One of the first warning signs that the campaign rhetoric would not meet the reality was when Obama appointed many of the so-called “experienced” faces from the Father Bush era and the Clinton Administration who were well-known for their close association with the pro-Israeli Zionist lobby – AIPAC, and their ties to the U.S. military machine. While the patriotic and peace-loving Americans diligently worked during the presidential campaign to expose the danger of the war profiteers, only initially did Obama put distance between some of the most rabid neocons and anti-Iran ideologues in the U.S., whose anti-terrorist hysteria had been successfully unleashed during the previous eight years to fuel the drive for war against Iraq and Afghanistan. Using the excuse of “continuity” and “experience” his appointments of Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State as well as Rahm Emmanual, and Pentagon Secretary Robert Gates and for a time Dennis Ross, all characters with an admittedly hostile attitude toward not only Iran, but also toward the beleaguered people of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, forewarned of a lack of genuine commitment for peace in the Middle East. Whenever he had the chance to appoint more balanced political forces, he pushed them aside in favor of the servants of the pro-Israeli state. Furthermore, Obama’s lack of willingness to confront the pro-Zionist and pro-war section of the American political elite and giving legitimacy and voice to the conservative elements that work relentlessly in Washington to feed the grotesque U.S. military budget at the expense of all other social and economic programs may be the fatal error that will engineer the weapons-laden U.S. freight train right into another collision.

Those Iranians and Americans who think that Obama has not been able to normalize relations with Iran because of Iran’s unwillingness to do so, and those who put the blame on the toughness of Ahamdinejad are completely wrong and overlooking the real economic forces at play. History shows that the U.S. does not need excuses to wage war, or militarily attack others, evidenced by the undeniable involvement in more than 200 military adventures and attacks abroad in the brief history of the United States of America.

By Eleanor Ommani, Co-founder of American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC)