AN INTERVIEW WITH KAM ZARRABI

May 15, 2010

My name is Steven Disparti. I am not an Iranian and have never been to Iran. Nevertheless, as a student of Middle Eastern history and current events, I have been closely monitoring the geopolitical developments in that region. Most of my close friends and associates happen to be Iranian, Turkish and Palestinian Americans, including Kam Zarrabi, with whom I have had many conversations during our early morning walks.

The last two or three articles by Mr. Kam Zarrabi, especially his last one, "MY FAREWELL", prompted me to ask him for an in-depth interview, mostly to expose his personal views as well as his reasons to stop writing. The following is the accounts of my conversation with Mr. Zarrabi, which I thought his readers may find of interest, whether they agree or disagree with him.

I was very surprised about your decision to quit writing for payvand and CASMII web sites. Reading through the "Echo" Blog under your farewell article in payvand, the great majority of readers were supportive of your writings. What has prompted you to stop at this time?

Two things. One was that I honestly felt there was nothing left worth saying that I had not already touched on before. The other was my long awaited plans to get on with my other passions. I have several unfinished manuscripts that need my attention; I am not getting any younger, you know!

What is your opinion of the "Echo" Bloggers; Have you been reading that stuff?

You actually brought my attention to the Echo section recently.

First of all, people who do not dare put their real name or contact address on these blogs do not deserve any attention. It is like hiding in the bushes at night and throwing rocks at the passersby.

Secondly, most of these jokers sound like immature, rather illiterate idle youth who have nothing better to do than toy around with their laptops with impunity.

Third and most importantly, I don't believe a reputable web site such as payvand should become a free forum for these parasites, whose childish comments and foul language do not add anything of substance to the articles they so cavalierly comment on. The least that a web site could do would be to filter out the obscene and profane, as well as the irrelevant stuff.

Let me be frank with you. Many of your readers have accused you of being an apologist for the Islamic Republic. In fact, not a single one among my own Iranian friends and colleagues, some of whom you have already met, and all of them educated, successful business people, fully accept your views about the Iranian situation. The only people that do see things somewhat your way are non-Iranians whom I meet at various political forums.

Typically, if you are not 100% critical of the Islamic Republic regime, you are regarded by some as an apologist. Similarly, if you level any criticism of Israeli policies, you are branded by many as an anti-Semite. Go figure!

I would have been surprised if your friends did agree with my views. Most former Iranians who have established themselves in the West, including myself, would not fit comfortably within the framework of the Islamic Republic of Iran under the current theocratic regime.

Having been educated in the United States and lived here two-thirds of my life, with five children and five grandchildren born and raised here, the kind of Iran that could appeal to my personal tastes and habits would look more like the United States, England or Germany than the Iran where now more than seventy million mostly younger Iranians live.

Wouldn't you like to see Iran transform into the kind of modern democracy, like the United States or Germany, so that you could someday repatriate yourself there?

I do not feel I have the right to determine the Iranian nation's future course; that is entirely up to the Iranian people to decide. I am not one of those vultures waiting on the roadside for their share of the road-kill, or hoping to return to the former homeland to grab whatever I can salvage and get the hell out.

I would love to return to Iran someday if the circumstances allow. But I cannot justify suggesting reforms in Iran’s political or social domains that are aimed at creating changes that would satisfy my own personal interests. Unfortunately, most foreign based former Iranians are not immune to this very natural temptation.

Do you consider yourself a religious man at all?

No, I am not a religious person and I never was.

So, are you an atheist?

That all depends on how you define atheism. Not being religious is not the same as being an atheist as it is generally defined. We have renowned scientists and philosophers who are clearly anti religion, who consider religion, any organized religion, as a harmful or even dangerous construct. But any student of sociology or cultural anthropology knows that there is not, and there has never been, a human culture, big or small, that did not have some form of "supernatural" or superstitious belief system or, in more modern terms, a sense of spirituality or mythological construct. My own book, Necessary Illusion, deals with this topic.

Blaming religion, as these so-called atheists do, for historical clashes between cultures is like blaming the science of metallurgy for the creation of all the weapons of warfare, from the ancient bronze axes to modern tanks and battleships.

Many wars, both ancient and modern, have been fought over religious beliefs. Doesn’t that contradict your views?  

Actually, most if not all wars have been waged over “control”, over territorial and material gains. Religion has only served as a rallying tool, as have nationalism, ethnicity and other vehicles of group identity, to unite nations in their defensive or expansionistic pursuits.

In my opinion, religion can be and has been used as a tool for good as well as for evil pursuits, and so has the steel industry or nuclear technology for that matter.

Would you express your opinion as to how the Islamic Revolution has worked out for the Iranian people; has it served the interests of that great nation or has it been a disaster, as so many of your fellow Iranian Americans here, as well as many inside Iran today believe?

Let me go back a few decades. I had mixed feelings about the social and political trends in the pre-revolution Iran. My American education and career background had served me quite well, not only in the private sector, but had also "qualified" me for a prestigious position within Iran's former Administration. As far as my personal career and business successes, I could not have been happier. However, as a lifelong student of philosophy, history and cultural anthropology, I was always bothered by what I could see.

During my teen years in Iran, I spent all my free time, even being forced to skip high school every now and then, accompanying my father, a freelance prospector, exploring for mineral deposits in rural areas of Iran. Two decades later, I was back in Iran visiting and inspecting mining sites in the farthest reaches of the country as the Director General of Mines for the Ministry of Economy. My involvements in the private sector also entailed exploration and mining operations in the far corners of our great homeland and in close contact with ordinary people in small towns and villages. In short, I spent most of that decade of work in Iran away from the big city as it was growing into an ever larger termite mound.

What I was seeing confirmed my suspicion that His Majesty’s "White Revolution", of which I had myself become a part, was not founded in solid grounds.

Somehow the annual international arts festival held in the plains of Shiraz did not seem congruous with the cultural tastes or expectations of the Shirazi villagers and towns' folks. And something seemed awfully out of place in the tiny town of Torbat for a gendarme to be hand watering flowers and sweeping the grounds around a cement and stone monument honoring the little Prince at a square named Shahbanoo!  

I knew the status quo was not sustainable for long; it had to end.

I hope you understand my point.

I do understand. How are things different these days?

When it comes to ritualistic idol worshipping, not much has changed. Today His Majesty is wearing a turban. The title of Aryamehr has changed to Supreme Leader and Khodaygan has become Velayat Faghih; certainly not very "Islamic" in my humble view!

The only difference is that, unlike in the past, now the Torbati or Shirazi villager does actually know who these folks are and does identify culturally with the new objects of veneration; and that is a very big difference, my friend.

I take it you do not approve of that, either. Or, do you?

Personally, I cannot reconcile pompous splendor with true Shi'a Islam. I don’t claim to be a Moslem, but Islam, as I have always understood it, is not a variation on the theme of Catholic aristocracy, headed by an infallible bigger than life Pope, surrounded by cardinals and bishops wearing gilded garbs and miters that make them appear twice as big as ordinary human beings. The Prophet Mohammad never claimed to be other than a mortal man; he proclaimed 'Ana Basharon methlekum' and warned against the worship of anything of earthly substance, including himself.

I do not see true piety exhibited by darkened depressions on the foreheads of those sycophants, showing off how hard and how often they pressed their foreheads on the prayer stamp. Our poet, Sa'adi, said 'True piety is none other than serving your fellow man.'

My most memorable encounter with a true, unpretentious Shi'a scholar/cleric was on a personal visit with the late Ayatollah Montazeri at his residence in Qum in early 1979, at the height of his popularity as the second man to Ayatollah Khomeini.  

Why do you think he was shunned by the ruling elite after Khomeini's death?

Ayatollah Montazeri, in my opinion, had all the qualifications of a Grand Ayatollah, a highly educated philosopher/theologian, a humble man and a true spiritual leader and source of emulation. What he did not have were the attributes of a tough, even ruthless, warrior who would not shy away from exercising dictatorial leadership in the post revolution Iran. He was a true spiritual icon, not an emperor-in-waiting. The problem was, the post-revolution Islamic Republic needed an emperor to survive.

Do you believe that a religious dictatorship was the best alternative for Iran after the Revolution?

When you talk about alternatives, you have to consider your options at hand; you do not have the luxury of choosing from a broad array of options. For a cancer patient facing death, chemotherapy and radiation are perhaps the best options at hand. Does that mean that the effects of this treatment are pleasant or that the patient enjoys the treatment?

Were Iran an isolated island surrounded by vast, calm oceans, it could tread its own course of development, immune to global pressures. But a nation under siege has very limited options.

I don't believe any socially unifying dynamic other than the banner of Shi'a Islam could have succeeded in toppling the monarchy in Iran. We saw what happened in the early Fifties when our secular intelligentsia attempted to depose the monarchy and bring about democratic reforms under the leadership of the very popular Prime Minister Mosaddegh. What that movement, of which I was proudly a part, lacked was the support of the disenfranchised masses, the so-called proletariat, the same masses that provided the Islamic Revolution with its greatest momentum.

As I have said before, the credit for the quick success of the Islamic Revolution should go to those unsophisticated pedestrians who were not "enlightened" enough to accept that they were not supposed to succeed!

However, there is no denying the fact that any religiously based government, even a civil, constitutional regime established within a religious framework, is by nature authoritarian. Therefore, expecting a liberal or open democracy in the true sense of the word is not plausible in such a system.

When do you think the Islamic Republic of Iran might drop the word "Islamic", and transform into a modern democracy?

Certainly not in any foreseeable future. Had the hostage crisis, followed by Iraq's invasion of Iran, not taken place, a transformation to a relatively, and I emphasize relatively, more liberal, secular democracy would have been inevitable within a dozen years. That's my opinion, anyway.

The June 2009 presidential elections have been called a sham by the Western media and most Iran observers. The aftershocks of the massive anti regime demonstrations and the heavy handed response by the security forces continue to reverberate through the Western media. What do you think of the opposition movement and its leadership or its hope for future reforms in the Islamic Republic?

To begin, I have not come across any evidence that the elections were indeed fraudulent, and neither have our Iranian American scholars who so assuredly call the elections a sham since they did not like the results. That is also a universal phenomenon: If things didn't go my way, there must have been something wrong with the process; so what else is new?

Regarding the opposition movement, I have to say that; a/It is not offering much of an alternative as far as the style of government it envisions; it would remain some form of theocratic administration, albeit perhaps somewhat less strict. b/There is no unified direction or a list of demands that all parties to the opposition movement would agree on; and c/This movement lacks, as did our pro Mosaddegh uprising six decades earlier, the support of the masses.

So, you believe the Green Movement is dead; is that it?

The concept of dissent is neither a modern phenomenon nor a recent discovery. Most if not all dissent or opposition movements are rooted in the unrequited expectations of upwardly mobile populations who have become increasingly impatient with the system's failure to accommodate what they have been promised and come to perceive as their entitlements. Practically all post revolutionary blowbacks stem from this phenomenon.

However, upwardly mobile populations, the bourgeoisie breaking through the upper crust, do not constitute the "grassroots" populations. This is very important to understand.

When they talk about the Green Movement being a "grassroots" movement, they are referring to the manicured and well-watered lawns in wealthy urban centers of population; those are the wrong kind of "grasses", and those grasses do not have deep or firm roots and too many pansies grow among them!

Social revolutions or movements that topple powerful and well-established regimes must have true grassroots support of those masses who do not complain about the violations of their human rights or jump up and down in front of foreign television cameras, waving banners written in English, when the going gets rough or their noses get bloodied!

Those urbanite "fancy pants" who regard the Baseejis as some demonic alien creatures from the dark side of the moon must realize that they are referring to that naturally tough turf away from their rose gardens, which does not need much watering or tender care, and which covers better than 80% of the country. They represent the bulk of the Iranian nation today.

I'd like to change the subject to the more critical current events. What is your assessment of Iran's nuclear programs?

Categorically speaking, the following is what I believe:

1-Iran has the right to peaceful nuclear technology under the NPT and, as a matter of principle, Iran is not about to compromise any of its rights.

2-Iranian scientists, I am convinced, do already have the capability to master the technology of nuclear weapons production. They can manufacture an atomic device if they are asked to do so, perhaps in two or three years.

3-As long as Israel maintains its officially declared policy of ambiguity regarding its stockpile of nuclear arsenal, Iran should also keep everyone guessing as to whether or not it is attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

4-Finally, this whole issue is nothing more than a political ploy to keep Iran under pressure. Ironically, the purpose is not to keep Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capabilities but, in a Machiavellian sense, it is to ultimately prod Iran to at least appear as though it might have already succeeded in that effort!

Could you elaborate on that?

In short, the portrayal of Iran as an unpredictable danger seems to serve the purpose of international Zionism and its captive supporters much better than would either a peaceful or a destroyed Iran.

What do you mean by captive supporters; who are those captive supporters?

I mean the Unites States Congress, the American media, the entertainment industry, the financial powerhouses, the so-called neoconservatives, and even some of our radical evangelical churches. Some owe their position and financial security to the Zionist money and support, some are intimidated by them, and some, like the last group I mentioned, have unwittingly become tools of Zionist manipulation because of their religious beliefs in some bizarre Biblical prophesies.

Are you maintaining that the portrayal of Iran, as you put it, as a real threat to Israel is the objective even if it this threat is nonexistent? 

That is exactly what I mean.

Even Zionist champions, such as Joseph Lieberman, must know that Iran with or without a nuclear arsenal poses no threat of aggression toward Israel or anyone else. But an Iran suspected of attempting to make the bomb offers the Zionist regime even a greater advantage.

Iran knows attacking Israel provides no benefits for Iran and is potentially a suicidal act; Israel knows that the Islamic Republic would never launch such an attack, and so does the United States. So, all parties to this charade know that the fear of a nuclear proliferation or attack by Iran is purely fictitious.

The only legitimate fear of a nuclear catastrophe and potential threat by terrorist groups gaining access to such weapons emanates from Pakistan, not Iran. But the already nuclear armed Pakistan must be regarded as an ally these days to accommodate our political objectives in that region.

One potential escape route for Iran as the bogyman in this macabre drama would be if Pakistan were to replace Iran, not only as a threat to international security, but also as a real nuclear threat to Israel by not being able to safeguard its nuclear arsenal from falling into the hands of their radical elements.

Then, by extension, perhaps Iran actually having the bomb or at least pretending to have it, would be what Israel wants.

Absolutely; you hit the nail right on the head.

Having the bomb or the suspicions of it would play right into the hands of fear mongers, rallied by the Zionist lobby, AIPAC, the US media from Fox and Wall Street Journal to CNN and CNBC and New York Times, to rise in support of our dedicated congressional slaves to make ever stronger commitments to Israel.

The so-called peace process and Palestinian statehood will be shoved into the back burner, illegal Jewish settlements will gradually become legal, and the fate of Jerusalem as the exclusive seat of the Zionist regime will be sealed. Economic and military aid to Israel will be increased and, before long, any criticism of Israel’s criminal behavior will be officially labeled as a hate crime, as is the case already with any questioning of the Holocaust narratives in Europe, punishable by prison terms!

I know, I am perhaps being carried away a bit here. But every day we see the ritualistic dance of Israel-worshipping by our elected officials, our military leaders, our Secretary of State, and sadly even by the President and the Vice President. Some are indebted to the Zionist power and money, and some are afraid to death to say or do something that might upset those power brokers.

In one phrase, America has been held hostage and there is no relief in sight, my friend.

Doesn't the perpetuation of this drama also help the Islamic Republic's leadership to maintain its power and control? You had written before that this game helps the Iranian ultraconservatives justify their positions.

Yes. It is quite ironic that a softer, gentler and more "compliant" Iran would be much more conducive to an Israeli staged attack on Iranian targets. That, or an attack on the US military forces in the Persian Gulf, such as a missile or torpedo from an Israeli launch pad but bearing fake Iranian colors.

Israel must and will see to it that the level of instability and threat in the region remains high. As I have said, Israel would much prefer to ratchet up the threat levels to just below the flashpoint. Only an accident or an act by some rogue element from either side might trigger actual hostilities.

So, Iran continuing to suffer under economic pressures and threats of regime change or even invasion, not only serves Israel's objectives, it further legitimizes the position of the Iranian hardliners and postpones any attempt by the moderates or reformists to bring about any positive changes.

What amazes me is that our Iran analysts and experts have never acknowledged the premise that I have highlighted in practically all my writings: The United States cannot adopt any kind of a rapprochement policy toward Iran at this time. This is actually to avoid a military confrontation with Iran, a disastrous event for all concerned. As long as Iran remains a believable threat to Israel's security, the American administration would have no problem accommodating the Jewish state all its demands by selling the idea to the American taxpayers. A non-threatening Iran would disarm the Israeli propaganda machine of their most effective tool of extortion and blackmail. What this means is that trying to come up with solutions to the rift between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, as ultimately desirable as it is, will not prove productive at this time, at least not until Israel's appetite is fully satiated.

Let me speak as Devil's Advocate here: You have remained a relentless critic of Israel and also of Jewish influence here in the United States. You appear to be quite obsessed, some would say paranoid, about the Jewish influence.

I know. My own wife has even pointed to this "obsession", as you call it. I responded to her criticism that, as a blue-eyed blond, born of an Eastern European Jewish mother, she would be able to move to Israel and have the state demolish a Palestinian home to make room for her new residence! She didn't think that would have been fair.

As professors Murray and Herrnstein presented in their book, Bell Curve, Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, the Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jews in America enjoy the highest IQ and have had the biggest "success" rate among all ethnic groups in this country. There are more Jewish Nobel Prize laureates, scientists, musicians, economists and experts in almost every field than any other group. Whatever one chooses to attribute this phenomenon to, these conclusions are really not debatable.  

But there is a big difference between Jewish heritage and culture on the one hand, and Zionism, meaning politicized Jewish zeal, on the other.

The tremendous successes of the Jews of Europe and America have absolutely nothing to do with the creation or the policies of the Zionist state of Israel.

My objections to the blind support for Israel by America's influential Jews, and certainly not all of them, should not be interpreted as my inveterate hatred of the Jews. No, I did not marry my wife unaware of her ethnic background!

In my opinion, the state of Israel was ill conceived, perhaps the biggest mistake of the Twentieth Century. I have often likened it to an organ transplant that did not match the recipient's body and required continuous and increasing anti-rejection interventions to sustain it; a process that is now killing the host and ultimately the transplant, as well.

Israel is the only state whose official policies make it the real terrorist state of our times. And ironically, America's blind and unequivocal support for practically whatever Israel does to continue its agendas, makes us a supporter of international terrorism! Thanks to the Zionist propaganda, I don't believe most Americans are ready to acknowledge this fact  

Any predictions as to what we might expect to see in the future?

I have to say that the destinies of Iran and Israel are closely intertwined. The United States is the ultimate power broker in this geopolitical theater. America does not need and cannot afford another war in the region. To avoid such an eventuality, the United States must cater to the demands of its so-called friend, Israel.

In other words, Israel must be assured that its advantaged or favored position vis-a-vis its great benefactor, the United States, will remain unchanged or even improved, regardless of what it does or what expires elsewhere. This blackmail has been working quite well all along.

But as long as there remain Palestinians who continue to make their demands, or Hezbollah in Lebanon, or a defiant Syria, the stranglehold against Iran will not relent.

In short, the road to an Iranian recovery passes through Tel Aviv!

I, therefore, conclude that any potential change will have to sprout within the Israeli political system itself, perhaps initiated by the Israeli intelligentsia who see radical Zionism as an invitation and the surest path to further insecurity and an ultimate structural collapse of the state.

The only other possible route to salvation for Iran would, as I said before, be if Pakistan somehow replaces Iran as the regional bogyman and an existential threat to Israel. I have a feeling we are gradually headed that way.

One last question: What is your opinion about the recent decision by some European countries to penalize and punish Moslem women who appear in public with their faces covered?

I believe it was the French President Sarkozy who remarked something to the effect that face covering symbolized oppression and humiliation of women and that this practice had no place and would not be tolerated in a modern society like France.

Well, Sarkozy is right. This practice, which by the way is not an "Islamic" but a cultural/ethnic practice, could be a serious problem, especially when one cannot identify the individual inside that head-to-toe garb. But labeling it as oppression or humiliation of women is rather hypocritical of Mr. Sarkozy. Obviously, Mr. Sarkozy does not regard blatant adultery as objectionable, or public nudity, open prostitution and commercial exploitation of women in his society as degrading or humiliating to women.

It would be interesting to ask the average American parent whom they would prefer their son to marry; a liberated harlequin from the streets of Paris, or a veiled girl from the alleys of Marrakesh!

The more serious question, however, remains unanswered. We know that the North African Moslem immigrant populations in the European countries are increasing. If the United States has problems with its legal and illegal Hispanic immigrant populations, Europe's problems will be many times more critical.

So, what is the solution: Gas chambers; concentration camps; ethnic cleansing?

I don't think such policies would work anymore.

Let's wait and see how this ridiculous new Arizona law works out to rout the unwanted Mexicans and regulate the flow of Brown folks across the border.

MY FAREWELL

April 8, 2010

PART I

FRUSTRATIONS

For seven years I have devoted my Home Page specifically to addressing the political entanglements between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, under the umbrella title of Iran in the Crosshairs and at the Crossroads.

I have tried to keep my focus on the analytical aspects of this mutually counterproductive confrontation as objectively and dispassionately as I could. This was not always easy for me or for most of us immigrant citizens in America with emotional embers of the culture we left behind still warm in our hearts.

In my opinion personal affiliations, interests or sympathies should not be allowed to overwhelm reason and logic or to distort the sense of balance and honesty. In appraising the sociopolitical situation in Iran, I never allowed what suited me personally to influence my judgment. Neither was I ever perturbed by the insinuating and sometimes insulting reactions to my articles by certain readers who either lacked sufficient literacy to understand the text, or the attention span to read through them before passing judgment on my views.

In contrast, honest criticism by people of substance and good will is not only welcome; it is an essential contributing factor in any intelligent discourse. Sometimes such constructive criticisms lead to a better understanding and adjustments in one's perspectives, and on other times, divergent opinions are reconciled by respectfully agreeing to disagree.

Here, we should differentiate between expected disagreements on matters of personal taste or preference, and disagreements regarding factual data, analyses and forecasts. In the latter case, both sides cannot be correct; either one or both parties would have to be wrong. Regardless, expressions of opinions and analyses should not be deliberately aimed at influencing the system itself, which would inevitably imply a degree of prejudicial intent.

Prejudicial intents, hidden agendas, personal angles and ulterior motives are all too often at work, disguised as unbiased, factual expressions and accounts, whether literary or political. The prevailing bitter propaganda atmosphere or negative imagery that has existed regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran in the West has produced a bumper crop of self-exiled Iranian lecturers, writers, cartoonists, playwrights and satirists, who have gained celebrity and position by catering to public sentiments.

Books of fiction promoted as factual accounts, memoirs or autobiographies have become best-sellers and have gained their respective authors much undeserved acclaim, academic status and fortune. Clueless kids in their young teens when they left Iran, are now posing as expert analysts of Iranian heritage and pre and post 1979 culture and social milieu, and they do quite well as long as they adhere to their politically fashionable scenarios. These memoirs and books do sell well, and cartoon sketches become cinematic features that fit admirably within the gullible American mainstream and European bourgeoisie. The allure of the limelight attracts too many of our scholars and academics, as moths drawn to light or flies to nectar, forsaking honesty and integrity to become media darlings.

To put it bluntly, I've grown sick and tired of these opportunists and pretenders who have jumped on the bandwagon of self-righteous mudslinging with impunity and abandon. They have prostituted themselves by selling out to the likes of the neoconservative Zionist promotional agency, Benador Associates, or are found sitting at sidewalk cafes on the streets of Paris, leisurely smoking their Gitane cigarettes and gloating in their make-believe intellectual prowess, while trying desperately to look 'Oh, so cool!'

They now champion the principles of democracy, freedom and human rights as if they are among an exceptional few who have just discovered these concepts, or as though folks who disagree with their motives and tactics of promoting such ideals are somehow unaware of, or opposed to, these universal human values. These jokers, slanderers and hypocrites couldn’t care less about the nation they have forsaken; it is all about them and how, in their delusional self-image, they shine as the “enlightened” lot in their adopted cultures.

And what do they exactly know about democracy, freedom and human rights? Could their brains be tasked by questions as to what brand of democracy, or freedom to do exactly what and under what constraints, or the rights of which group of humans, do they actually have in mind? No; to them these concepts are used as token sound bites that get them from one sidewalk to another as they panhandle for recognition and acceptance.

Of course, sycophantic behavior does have its place in the struggle for survival in an environment of hostility and bigotry. Right after the Oklahoma City bombing event in 1995, I saw a mature Iranian lady whom I knew, waving a small American flag in her hand and grinning from ear to ear in a pitiful gesture of submission, hoping not to be spat upon by the passersby. She had just heard, as had I, Oliver North on radio declaring that, in his professional opinion, this incident had all the earmarks of Iranian terrorism. She, as so many other former Iranians, was no longer an Iranian, but a Persian!

I actually have no problem watching humans behave as humans, struggling to advance their lot as best they can. Whatever promotes one's best interests, be it wealth, fame or social standing, is fair in our dog-eat-dog culture, as long as one can get away with it. It makes me wonder how many of our staunch "anti-sanctions" Iranian American scholars would refuse, as a matter of principle, to join the Nuke-Iran Fox TV network if they were offered very lucrative contracts. Of course, those who would take up such an offer would make sure they promote the nuking of Iran in such a way that only the bad guys would burn in the ensuing furnace!

The problem I have is with the same people pontificating on what they believe is good for the Iranian nation half a world away.

We are all to some extent guilty of self-projecting when passing judgment on other peoples or domains. What would work for us somehow appears just the way things ought to be. We are consciously, or more often subliminally, offering advice hoping to create changes that would cater to our own tastes and serve our own interests. There is nothing at all unusual about this "human" behavior.

However, as I have said many times, offering unsolicited advice by folks who've got nothing to lose if proven wrong is not only frivolous, it could cause great harm.

Most people agree that "democracy", for example, is a "good" form of government. Problems begin when we try to define the concept of democracy, and continue when the adjective, good, comes into play.

What do we mean by democracy? Do we mean a form of government of the people, by the people, and for the people, chosen through universal suffrage? How universal should that suffrage be? Should it be through voluntary participation of the voting public or should such participation be mandatory, and if so, how should the enforcement be implemented? It might interest our younger readers to know that, during the Pahlavi regime, right after His Majesty ordered the creation of a second pro-regime political party - a meaningless exercise just for show, of course - people in official positions, such as myself at the time, were required to participate in mock elections, with a stamp in their passports as evidence of having voted, without which they couldn't leave the country! At least that was what we were told.

Now to the concept of "good". Is a democratic government of the people chosen by a vastly ignorant voting population that is deeply indoctrinated by powerful corporations and special interest groups to serve their own interests a "good" form of government? Aren't we talking here about our United States of America?!

In a recent opinion poll, it was shown that a majority of Americans would approve of a military attack on Iran if diplomacy fails to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program. Now ask yourselves; what percentage of the people who responded know what is actually going on in that land? But they all have opinions, and in a democracy with all the freedoms they enjoy, the common folk truly believe that what they are exposed to by the mass media must be true!

Do we prescribe this type of democracy for a country such as Iran, where its own version of limitations and indoctrinations prevail? Or is there some idealized version of "democracy" that has a universally applicable character regardless of ethnic, cultural or religious variances?

What about the concept of freedom? How wide a margin do we like to apply to freedom? What latitude of freedoms do we like to see at work in Iran? Should it be patterned after the American, Icelandic, Japanese or Indian style of freedom? For those who do not know, in Iceland, for example, adultery is an accepted practice! Would anyone prescribe that for the British or the Iranian nation?

Should there be any laws at all limiting individual freedoms, or should the proverbial Golden Rule govern all human societies: Treating others as you'd want others to treat you? Has there ever been, and will there ever be, such an idyllic society on earth where the Golden Rule would apply?

All I am implying here is that cheap, shallow rhetoric we see flashing all over our media, and superficial sentiments wrapped in hot and juicy banners parading in the streets, are not only disingenuous, they actually work against the very cause they are supposedly championing. Just as is the case with "punishing" sanctions aimed at Iran by the United States administration, this kind of charade by the self-aggrandizing exhibitionists hinder and tarnish the efforts by the honest proponents of reform in the Iranian homeland, those who are actually paying the price for expressing their dissatisfaction with the status quo.

This kind of pretentious exhibitionism is as harmful and disingenuous as the phony show of sympathy for the Iranian dissident Greens displayed by the likes of the Master Weasel, Joe Lieberman, and other unscrupulous slaves of the Zionist Lobby in the US Congress, who actually suggest that a "good" Iran is a dead Iran!

PART II

ANALYSIS & OPINION

Now that I have flushed all my frustrations out of my system, I would like to encapsulate the essence of the past seven years of writing about the "Iran Problem". I have elaborated extensively about this subject before; therefore, I will not bother with supporting material or references and simply state my personal beliefs as briefly as possible.

In essence, I believe the chief common denominator that applies to all, and I mean all, the policies adopted by the United States in the Middle East is Israel.

Israel as a sovereign state has, like any other sovereign state, its own interests and agendas, legitimate or not, depending on which side one happens to be. As such, the Israeli regime has been, and will continue to be, pursuing policies that it believes to be in the interest of its nation, no matter at what cost to other nations, or whether within or in violation of the international law, as long as it can avoid retribution.

Israel has thus far been able to get away with more violations of the international law and the charter of the United Nations than any other member state, and gotten away with it, thanks to the unquestioned support by the United Sates.

Two factors have allowed the Israeli regimes to maintain the status of an untouchable Sacred Cow in spite of broad global condemnations: One, the unconditional financial, diplomatic and military support of the United States. Two, Israeli's own formidable military power that has made it superior to the combined forces of all the Arab and Islamic states of the region.

Israel is not about to allow any change in its favored status.

My analysis of the ongoing United States/Iran entanglements, and predictions regarding where this trend might lead, is as follows:

1-There is no question that the "cold war" between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States has been detrimental to the best interests of both Iran and the United States. There is no need to elaborate further on that or try to prove that it has clearly been the case.

2-Again, there is no question that the "threats" supposedly posed by the Islamic Republic against Israel, the United States and the West are fictional narratives created to serve as pretexts for continuing the pressure on the Iranian regime. The question should be, Why?

3-The nuclear "threat", supposedly the main concern of the United States and Israel, is also the most farfetched allegation against Iran's nuclear projects. I personally believe that Iran is, and if not, should be, attempting to gain the technological capacity to produce nuclear weapons if and when it becomes necessary as a deterrent or a potential retaliatory measure against nuclear-armed aggressors. It is, therefore, ludicrous to argue that Iran, even if armed with a nuclear device or two, would pose a "threat" or would initiate an attack on anyone. So, why all the hype?

4-Continuous economic and diplomatic pressures against Iran, and threats of regime change and foreign based anti regime incitements have served two purposes: a-strengthening the position of the hardliners within the Iranian regime, making sure that the center will hold and, b-creating an environment where the allegations against the Islamic Republic as a real and present danger to the regional and global security could appear better legitimized.

5-Throughout all this, effort has been made, thus far quite successfully, to avoid reaching a dangerous flashpoint that would actually spark some kind of military confrontation. In Persian, the expression is 'shol- kon - seft- kon', best translated as 'on again - off again', or pushing on hard and relenting just before all hell breaks loose! Again, Why the charade?

6-Finally, and most significantly, I would not call the American administration incompetent for not finding a solution to this enigma; and I would not put the blame on the leadership of the Islamic Republic for its defiant and unyielding stance. Neither administration is guilty of incompetence, but both are incapacitated. There is a significant difference between the two adjectives: incompetent and incapacitated.

In view of the foregoing, my emphasis has been and remains on this last point.

With the best of intentions, commentators and analysts, Americans, Iranian Americans or Iranians, have been attempting to point out the unjust, deceptive and downright malicious accusations and allegations against the Iranian regime by the American and some Western administrations. We see on a daily basis articles posted on various internet sites that highlight not only the futility, but even the danger of imposing harsher economic and diplomatic sanctions against Iran.

I maintain that there are two fundamental things wrong with these honest and brave efforts. First is assuming that those who actually formulate and implement America’s foreign policies in the Middle East are unaware of the facts and need to pay closer attention to such sage advice by people in the know. Second is thinking that the mere handful of readers of such pages who have the intellectual capacity and are interested enough to appreciate and digest these points could gather enough momentum to steer the policy makers in the right direction.

Now, let’s first locate the dots before we try to connect them.

Dot: Iran has been effectively and convincingly (to the American public) been portrayed as the greatest threat to Israel and, by extension, to the American interests in the region.

Dot: Accordingly, Iran must be pressured and contained by any means possible and prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Dot: As long as this portrayal remains actively viable in the public mind, America’s vital friend and ally, Israel, must be supported by the United States, economically, militarily and diplomatically at any expense to the American taxpayers and in spite of the damage to America's global reputation.

Dot: Under these circumstances, and the prevailing public perception that Iran and its surrogates, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas, pose an “existential” threat to the Israeli nation, pressuring Israel to compromise its position and enter into negotiations with the Palestinians, to stop the expansion of its settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and to relent in its "defensive" war against Gaza would be too much to ask.

Dot: A nation under imminent threat of annihilation, as the prevailing mythology portrays, may just have to take matters in its own hands and use its own military might to strike at its enemies preemptively.

Dot: Even though the American public would not blame Israel to rise in its own self-defense, we certainly do not like that to happen, since such a perfectly justifiable act by Israel would have dire consequences for the United States and indeed the industrialized world.

Dot: It follows, therefore, that to avoid such an undesirable eventuality, Israel deserves to be amply compensated for risking its own very survival to accommodate its friend and benefactor's wishes, which leads to the only viable conclusion.

Connecting the dots: Iran must remain under severe containment in suspended animation, but kept alive as a perceived threat to Israel. At the same time, any effort by the Iranian regime or the opposition movement within Iran to implement positive social reforms and to engage in a rapprochement with the United States must be torpedoed in order to maintain the pariah status of the Islamic Republic.

This scenario is much like the life cycle of a type of hornet. This hornet stings a tarantula, which remains alive but paralyzed, to provide the hornet's eggs with nutrients as they mature!

Over this panoramic background, what could the American administration or the Chief Executive do to break out of the bondage of Israeli interests and manipulations? The cards are stacked against Mr. Obama. He and his advisors are not incompetent, they are incapacitated and rendered impotent, left with little choice but to pay the ransom to the thugs in Tel Aviv, or else!

Or else what?

On the surface , the fear is that should Mr. Obama find the courage or become crazy enough to expose this blackmail and put Israel on notice, the extortionist would open the floodgates of hell and drag the United States into an extended, expensive and catastrophic military engagement against Iran. A missile or torpedo showing Iranian colors launched against American naval vessels in the Persian Gulf, or an air attack on Iran's nuclear installations, would do the job.

In truth, this fear is simply for public consumption. The real tragedy is that no politician or official in the executive or the legislative branches of the American government, from the Chief Executive down to the lowest levels of the Congress, can afford to alienate the Zionist centers of power and influence in our country. This is indeed a tragedy for the American people, when the leaders of the nation are more concerned about their personal tenure, job security, fame and fortune than about the welfare of their constituents.

In my opinion, Mr. Obama has finally thrown in the towel accepting the bitter fact that the game plan is out of his hand and, to survive politically, and who knows perhaps even physically, he must not violate the script. His latest tirade against Iran (and North Korea) in his remarks regarding America's new nuclear policies, whereby the United States would not consider deploying nuclear weapons against anyone but the two mentioned states, upset the Iranian President, Ahmadinejad.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's response was harsh and straight to the point. The English translation of his response was softened up in the press; but the original Persian version (Fars News Agency, Farsi version) had all the sarcasm, angst and venom expected of him. Here I translate a segment of his remarks into colloquial English to retain the intended impact:

Mr. Obama; you have just arrived on the political scene. Wait just a little, buddy, and let your sweat dry so you can get a better feel for the weather. And, be more careful. Don't read every piece of paper they give you to read and don't just repeat every word you are instructed to utter. Those who were bigger and stronger than you couldn't do diddly....; what makes you think you can? Watch out; if you follow the same path as your predecessor, Bush, you will get the same jaw-smashing response from other nations as did Bush.

In spite of such brash remarks from both sides, sanity dictates that the United States and Iran remain on the same page and understand the consequences of any wrong move on this high-wire act. As the threats of military attack and crippling sanctions against the Islamic Republic escalate, inching close to the flashpoint only to recede to a safer level, the Iranian regime plays its part by doing everything it can to retain the image of the Devil incarnate.

The latest statement by Iran's Defense Minister is a warning to Israel that any attack on Iran would mean total annihilation of the state of Israel. Another high military official warns, should the United States attack Iran, not a single American troop will return home alive.

The hope is that this balancing act is not interrupted prematurely. Meanwhile, American administration's goal is to feint the part of an honest peace broker between Israel and the Palestinians so that Israel could carry out its agenda of marginalizing the Palestinian populations out of contention. As usual, the blame will be safely put on the Palestinians, and on the Islamic Republic of Iran for supporting their stubborn stance.

In this tragic charade, America has little choice but to follow the script. Again, America's management is not really incompetent, it is simply incapacitated through blackmail and extortion by the little parasite and its tentacles that have penetrated the fabric of the American life.

PART III

WHERE ARE WE HEADED?

Expecting a change in the tactics and policies of the United States toward the Middle East and Iran is like expecting Hell to freeze over. Neither Obama nor his replacement, whichever Party he or she might be from, can challenge or change the power and command structure that has metastasized throughout the American sociopolitical system.

Any change will have to come from the source of the problem, not through magic or divine intervention, but in two possible ways. One is an Israeli staged attack on an American military target in the Persian Gulf, which could be blamed on Iran, or a direct attack on some Iranian target by the Israelis, which would trigger an all out war involving the United States, Israel, Iran and some other surrogate states.

Not only would the outcome be catastrophic for Israel, the costs to the United States would be more than the American public could bear, resulting in a radical shift in America's foreign policies, particularly with regard to Israel.

The other is a longer term transformation that could come about as a result of Israel's own internal strife. The anti Zionist politicians and intellectuals are increasingly vocal and gathering momentum. Many see the only viable solution to the ages-long instability, militarism and global condemnation, in the creation of one state, where all the residents of the state live in a democratic system with equal rights of citizenship regardless of their numbers, religion, ethnicity or color, and where the prosperity of one group of people does not accompany the deprivation and demise of others.

While the world is waiting for such turns of events, the Iranian regime will have to maintain its defiant posture. Iran will continue to be an Islamic Republic, whether under the current religious guidance or restructured into a more moderate and socially tolerant theocratic system.

Iran's military, in my opinion, should and will gain increasing power and authority as the true backbone of the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

In Turkey, the military has been playing the same role, but as a secular force that has been responsible for acting as a buffer against the religious traditionalists from gaining the upper hand in the nation's policies, as well as in preventing the huge Kurdish populations from gaining too much autonomy and fragmenting the nation.

In the Islamic Republic, in contrast, the military will be enjoying the support of the masses by appearing loyal to the central authority of the spiritual Supreme Leader; a symbiosis, which will benefit both the theocratic center and the pragmatic military establishment.

To the reform minded anti-traditionalists this may not be a pleasant thought. But any other probability is either too remote to warrant serious consideration, or would result in open ended chaos and ultimate fragmentation of the nation.

Finally, a nation of now over seventy million people who has suffered and endured the wrath of the world's mightiest powers for thirty years is not palpitating and hoping to be rescued by us strangers basking in comfort in foreign lands. To them, we must appear as vultures lined up on the roadside telephone wires waiting for their share of the road kill.

You don't like the way things are half a world away in a land you have ably abandoned? Fine, stay wherever the hell you are! But if you choose to return to your former homeland, please take with you a little honest humility and a grain of gratitude for being welcomed in.

GOING AGAINST THE GRAIN

CALLING A SPADE, A SPADE

March 12, 2010

Before I begin, a word to the unwary: As usual, this article is going to be long and, yes, boring for those readers who prefer to be entertained rather than informed.

Another reminder: As I have repeatedly pointed out, my focus has primarily been on the analysis or the diagnostics of the situation; i.e., what led to what, where, why and by whom, and in what direction things might lead if such or such were to take place.

Sorting through the prevailing hodgepodge of misinformation and disinformation regarding Iran, in order to untangle the web of confusion, has been a fulltime task for me. I study, analyze and, based on the progression of events as I see them, I make certain predictions. Thus far, my analyses and predictions have not missed the mark by much. This fact alone encourages me to carry on with my work.

Those readers who have criticized me for not offering any solutions to the problems must appreciate that, if I had a therapeutic formula or a magic potion to solve Iran’s problems, I would be crazy not to offer it and be the next recipient of the Nobel Prize and, to be facetious, a candidate for the future presidency of a free and prosperous democratic Iran!

Unfortunately, the problems facing Iran are numerous, intertwined and complex. We cannot lump all these problems together into a single issue for which a proverbial Silver or now "Green" Bullet would do the job.

To those readers of my articles who so passionately disagree with my views - and I do realize that my opinions are prone to raise controversy, I offer the following:

Passion and prejudice are natural elements of human culture and behavior. It is also quite natural to regard other people's opinions or actions as biased and prejudicial if one disagrees with such actions or opinions. After all, if opinions with which one disagrees are not viewed as prejudicial and skewed, one would be compelled to accept them as valid, thus discrediting one's own position! That should be simple enough to understand.

One thing we often disregard is the location of the filter of bias or prejudice in human interactions. Is that filter or blinder in the mind of the person who is expressing certain opinions, or is it in front of the eyes or ears of the observer or listener? In other words, are my opinions truly tainted in biased colors, or are those who do not like my opinions looking at me through their own colored glasses?

What I am trying to make clear is that it is not enough for the writer or orator of opinions to adhere to the principles of objectivity as one would in carrying out a scientific study. It is equally important for the reader or listener to evaluate and judge that material as dispassionately and objectively as possible.

I fully understand why many readers of my articles and many among those who attend my lectures regard some of my opinions as prejudicial or, even worse, bigoted. To some, I am an unapologetic anti-Semite because I dare to criticize the policies of the Israeli regime. If anti-Semitism refers to a hatred of the Jewish people for simply being, well, Jewish, nothing I have ever said or written would make me an anti-Semitic bigot. If on the other hand any statement critical of the policies of Zionist hardliners here or in Israel is considered anti-Semitic, then yes, I am proud to be one.

To others, I am an apologist for the Islamic regime in Iran because I believe that even a theocratic dictatorship is preferable at this time to the chaos and division that would surely disintegrate Iran were the system to collapse under external pressures. Again, if I do not support every negative portrayal of the Islamic Republic, whether true or false, that does not make me a "paid agent of the Islamic Republic" as some emotionally troubled folks have called me. Correcting, for instance, the deliberate misquotations or misinterpretations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statements by the local media here does not mean that I am either a fan of the Islamic regime or that I particularly like Mr. Ahmadinejad.

Some believe my views are anti-American, even though I have chosen to live in the United States as a citizen of this country. What they forget is that a significant percentage of the American people are equally unhappy and critical of our government's foreign policies, yet holding such opinions does not make us anti-American, any more than is the opposition or the Green movement in Iran anti-Iranian.

At one of my lectures a few years ago, a couple, originally Hungarian immigrants from 1956, objected to my criticism of George W. Bush and the neoconservative cabal, the driving force behind his policies. The irate lady interrupted me to voice her objections. "How dare you criticize my President [accent hers]" she shouted; continuing, "Why are many of the names of his advisors you mentioned Jewish names; you anti-Semitic bigot!?"

In view of all the foregoing, many friends and colleagues advise me to mellow down my tone and, due to the fact that my opinions are prone to misinterpretation particularly by folks with limited attention span, they suggest that I should restructure my writing style in order to simplify and clarify my personal position before entering into the body text.

Well folks, my writing or lecturing style is not going to change. Those who do not like my stuff or lack the patience or the attention span to read through my writings before passing judgment, do not have to torture themselves; they can "multitask" in more entertaining directions.

I receive e-mails or see blogs by people with pseudonyms picked out of the "Shah-Naameh", such as Rustam Zaal, Arash Kamaangir, Kaaveh Ahangar or Saam Narimaan, invariably championing the ancient glory of "Iran Veej" while denigrating the Islamic culture and influence as pollutants that have corrupted our pure Aryan heritage and must be eradicated.

Doubtless we are here dealing with young adults under a distorted sense of nationalism and with desperate need for historical, cultural and linguistic education. Some try so hard to write in what they wrongly assume to be clean, unadulterated "Persian", avoiding words they believe to be of Arabic origin. Illiteracy is, of course, excusable here, as is their naive "baastaan-garaii" or appeal toward a mythic past. However, their reasons for their hatred of the Islamic governance in Iran are childishly naive and not based on measured and mature analyses and evaluations of the issues.

Yes, I also agree that Islamic or any other system of theocracy or authoritarianism is a historical anachronism that could at best serve as a temporary or transitory phase during a major systemic sociopolitical sea change. I am basing this belief on the fact that any significant societal change requires some convincingly unifying force to overwhelm the obstacles and plough through resistance to change. Within cultures where religion plays a dominant role, it is that banner around which people rally, crossing over divergent ethnicities, colors and other social barriers.

In the case of Iran, my belief has been that the nation's spiritual centers of gravity would have retreated to their traditional seminaries in Qum and Mashhad, once the transition from dictatorial monarchy to some form of a federalist republic, albeit under Islamic tenets, was consolidated. That would have set Iran as a role model for other autocratic or dictatorial client regimes in the region to emulate.

This alone could be regarded as the primary reason why this natural evolution of post revolutionary Iran would not have been viewed favorably by the wealthy Islamic kings and Emirs, or by the global powerhouses whose oil and other strategic concerns in that region could have been jeopardized if self determination and democratic governance were to proliferate.

The more sophisticated intellectual groups and academics among us continue to harp on human rights abuses in Iran and the need for democratic reforms in their former country.

The latest web article addressing this issue is titled "A Blueprint for Ending Human Rights Abuses in Iran", by Sam Sho'amanesh and Trita Parsi.

I have a couple of comments regarding this exercise in futility:

1-Even in this rather amateurish semi-legalese dissertation, there is no place for inflammatory adjectives and adverbs, as well as unsubstantiated, emotionally charged allegations. This paper was riddled with that stuff.

2-The points that were made regarding various internationally agreed statutes and covenants dealing with human rights issues were all correct. However, the authors failed to mention that there is not a single signatory to these international agreements that could be proven to abide by these rules. We could include the United States among the gross violators of said human rights statutes. So, are our scholars holding Iran to a higher standard of conduct that the rest of the world?

3-In making their cavalier suggestions for correcting the human rights violations in Iran, have our scholars taken into account the ramifications and immediate consequences of implementing these corrective measures? For example, how would certain "freedoms" that all human beings are entitled to mesh with certain other issues of grave concern in special circumstances, issues such as national security, internal stability or public safety? How are such issues addressed and handled in more progressive societies such as the United States, Great Britain or Israel, which might be applied in Iran's case?

What I am trying to point out is that we cannot selectively champion one specific cause and deal with it in isolation, separate from other factors that affect or are affected by our cause célèbre.

Again, I am in total agreement that the human rights issue remains of great concern for all of us outside and inside Iran. I would like to include other vital concerns such as the runaway inflation, joblessness, economic sanctions and national security issues. In my estimate, some of these concerns are far more critical than focusing on how many journalists are arrested or how the dress code for the Iranian women is enforced in Tehran.

I can see their line of reasoning: The idea must be that once the issue of human rights is resolved, its domino effect would sweep through the system and, one by one, other societal ills of the Islamic Republic will be alleviated.

I can just picture the scenario in my mind: Opposition groups will unite under one banner, perhaps green, students and faculty freely assemble and join ranks with the Tehrani elite and the released dissident activists to peacefully sound off their demands for reform. The military and security forces refrain from interfering in any way, and some actually join the demonstrators.

The Supreme Leader, noting the public displeasure with the Islamic regime, forces Mr. Ahmadinejad out of office and calls for new elections, this time allowing those citizens who are fluent in at least one major foreign language to cast three votes per head. The votes of people who have travelled abroad would count as five, and those who have degrees from European or American universities can vote ten times.

Consequently, the religious hierarchy collapses in a big heap, and a new secular constitution replaces the current one - no velayat faghih this time.

The United States and Iran reopen full diplomatic relations and, soon after, a flood of rich and famous entrepreneurs begin to pour into the new Iran, among them most of the educated and successful former Iranians who have spent that last decades in self exile.

And, Dr. Trita Parsi becomes the first Ambassador of the new Republic of Iran to the United States!

I also noted another article by Mr. Trita Parsi, The Iranian Riddle, where the author elaborates on the US administration's wrong approach in addressing Iran issues. He rightly points out the futility of sanctions and open threats of regime change or preemptive strike against Iran, and he correctly sees such measures as counterproductive.

Once again, let us go back to my previous article, SINCERE ADVICE BASED ON PRECARIOUS ASSUMPTIONS: A Potentially Perilous Mixture.

A "precarious assumption" has been made again by Dr. Parsi, who has chosen to assume that the Obama administration is truly after an honest rapprochement with Iran, but that the methods employed have not been effective in overcoming the Iranian administration's confusing evasive tactics.

As I understood it, Dr. Parsi is of the opinion that we here are the good guys with the best of intentions, attempting, albeit clumsily, to relieve the tensions between the two countries and to help the Iranian people realize their dreams of democracy and prosperity.

He should know better than to think that, in the minds of the American administration, the welfare of the Iranian people outranks the strategic interests of the United States in the Middle East.

Of course, we could argue that the best interests of the Iranian nation do not necessarily contradict the strategic interests of the United States, in which case promoting measures that would allow Iran to follow a productive path toward achieving its legitimate national objectives would not interfere with America's designs for this vital region of the world.

In a perfect world, that is the way it should be; but reality speaks otherwise.

Were the Islamic Republic of Iran a Middle Eastern Grenada or Haiti, a show of military or economic force would suffice to convince that defiant regime as to who's in charge. But that is certainly not the case - both sides have to show willingness to compromise and soften up some of their demands and expectations.

Finally, I was again very impressed by Flynt and Hillary Leverett's latest reportage after their return from their February trip to Tehran.

Perhaps the most telling aspect of their article was the fact that the Tehrani elites and university students are much more aware of American political machinations than are America's own students or elites. Their assessment that Senator Obama was one man, and President Obama quite another, is shared by most serious observers who feel equally disappointed that, in spite of his desires and intentions, he seems powerless to implement policies that he knows to be in the nation's best interests.

But, before rushing to judgment about Mr. Obama's failure to live up to expectations in matters of foreign policy in the Middle East, let me get on my proverbial soap box one more time and summarize what I have been harping on in practically every article I have posted in recent memory.

When it comes to the Middle East, the Israeli regimes have historically had a stranglehold on America's policy making. With the decades-long successful manipulation of the hearts and minds of the American public, Israel's agendas and policies have gained moral and ethical equivalency with American principles, to a point that most Americans view any harsh criticism of the Jewish state as not only anti-Semitism, but even as un-American!

It should not come as a surprise that, in the recent debate among candidates for California's seat at the US Senate, the main argument revolved around which candidate had a stronger pro-Israel record!

It all stems from the weight of the American public opinion, the most powerful force that drives America's political machine.

Israel has been able to capitalize on this public sentiment whenever its specific agenda clearly countered the policy or the interests of the United States. Israel has blatantly violated its legal and moral obligations to America with total impunity, time and time again, in cases ranging from substantial loan guarantees to Israel that were contingent on Israel's secession of settlement expansion in the occupied lands, to the condition set by American law that American military arsenal given to foreign states should not be used against the civilians.

Each time it has been the American side that has had to back off and yield to Israel. The latest event, Israel's decision to build an additional 1600 houses in East Jerusalem, announced during Vice President Biden's visit to encourage peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians, is a perfect example. The initial response at a news conference by the White House spokesman was that this decision by Israel "was not particularly helpful"! Only later it was announced that both the White House and the Vice President had "condemned" that decision by the Israelis, with emphasis that the "timing" for the decision was unfortunate!

In his later statement in Tel Aviv, Mr. Biden exhibited the depth of his servitude to those who he knows control his political destiny.

So, what is the world's sole superpower afraid of?

The answer:

With the public opinion in the United States, fanned by the media, so supportive of Israel, the Israeli regime can get away with anything it chooses to do, all in the name of "defending their lives", a catch phrase that has been in use since Biblical times.

This is putting the US administration in a delicate quandary.

Israel has succeeded in portraying the Islamic Republic of Iran as a clear and present danger, an "existential threat", no less. The Israeli leaders know, as do the policy makers here in the United States, that Iran is neither an existential threat to Israel, nor capable of being one even if it wanted to be.

It is, therefore, quite obvious that the repeated threats of preemptive strikes against Iran by the Israelis, and America's attempts to convince the Israelis to refrain from such an act in order to allow harsher sanctions to do the job, are all staged to convince the American public that, although the Israelis have the right to "defend their lives" by any means possible, they will be doing America a favor by refraining from actions that might jeopardize America's interests in the region.

So, what could America do in return for such grand gestures of self-sacrifice by this true friend and ally? To put it more correctly, what would the American people expect the Administration to do for Israel; certainly not putting more pressure on Israel to sacrifice even more by abandoning its "natural" settlement expansions or bowing to the Palestinian demands for a peace settlement! Oh no, not while this wonderful symbol of Western values and civilization is under imminent existential threat by the evil bogyman, Iran.

Now under these circumstances, what is President Obama to do; most certainly not mending fences with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The role Iran is playing in this historical drama is too important to interrupt.

Maybe our Iranian American scholars can now better appreciate that it is not a lack of knowledge of Iranian politics or expertise in diplomacy on the part of the American administration that has kept an opening or rapprochement to take place between the United States and Iran. The State Department and the White House officials do not really need our illustrious scholars' advice on how to deal with Iran or whether sanctions are to be implemented or not; they all know what we know, and perhaps quite a bit more.

The tragedy is that the American administrations have remained captive to Israeli extortion for a long time. And as long as the Zionist propaganda engine stays running, Holocaust Memorials keep sprouting up here and there, new Museums of "Tolerance" are erected, and the Diary of Anne Frank remains required reading for the American public school children year in and year out, and the blackmail of America will continue uninterrupted.

In the American democracy, public opinion remains the most powerful force influencing not only the internal policies at home, but America's foreign affairs. What formulates and controls America's public opinion, controls America's political structure and global policies.

And tragically, Fox Network today claims more audiences in America than all the other media networks combined.

Finally, what should or could the Iranian regime do to bring this perpetual spiraling tension to containable levels? This is what our capable scholars and creative thinkers in the Iranian American community should concentrate on.

Perhaps an open panel discussion by some of our more opinion-laden sociologists and political experts would be helpful, provided that the participants do not abuse this forum to outshine each other in the limelight by championing feel-good, no-brainers such as democratic reforms, human rights or freedom of the press.

SINCERE ADVICE BASED ON PRECARIOUS ASSUMPTIONS:

A Potentially Perilous Mixture

February 18, 2010

Kam Zarrabi

Even though I am finding myself increasingly at odds with the Iranian American scholars and pundits regarding the analysis or the interpretation of the current sociopolitical developments in Iran, I am no less appreciative of the honesty and sincerity with which they have been voicing their opinions. In one sense we are all in agreement; we all want to see a democratic, prosperous Iran, governed by the will of the Iranian citizens and for the best interests of the Iranian people.

[A word of caution here: When we refer to the “Iranian people”, we should not be focusing just on the very vocal urbanite, educated or “enlightened” elite in Iran’s metropolitan centers, who are actually the counterparts of our Iranian American or European Iranian academics and socialites living abroad. Remember, Iran has a population of over 75,000,000, of whom about 45,000,000 actually vote!]

We also all agree that the current state of affairs is far from acceptable, approaching the point that for many Iranians the situation has become intolerable. Social injustices, restrictions and persecutions prevail, inflation, joblessness and economic pressures are reaching dangerous levels, and corruption is visibly rampant.

[Another word of caution here: Even graver social injustices, repressions and restrictions exist elsewhere in the same region and in the world. Although unacceptable or reprehensible as it is, Iran’s case is actually far better than is the case among our so-called friends and allies in the Middle East.]

We all see that, and it is hoped that we all want to see positive changes that would translate into a better life for the average Iranian living in Iran.

It is only in finding a workable pathway out of the current mess that we might disagree, to a point of leveling regrettable insults and accusations at each other to degrade and defame those with whom we disagree. And we are all guilty of this unproductive behavior to some degree; not out of malice, but because of our passion or conviction of our beliefs.

It is worth repeating again that criticism that is not followed by workable remedies or alternatives is more than just frivolous, it could prove downright catastrophic. Also, advice or guidance coming from people who have nothing to lose should they be proven wrong, reminds one of the old cliché of sitting on the sidelines and coaching the wrestler in the rink (birun-e gowd neshasteh o miqe lengesh kon).

However, what is happening in Iran and, more precisely, to Iran, is not a sporting event to bet on or to assume the role of an armchair quarterback. It is not like the Super Bowl where the losing team, the Indianapolis Colts, walks away having earned mega millions for the effort, looking forward to the next season to earn even more millions.

Now, about those assumptions:

One wrong assumption is that Iran or any other major state of strategic importance, can behave as some isolated, distant island, merrily plotting its own course freely and independently. Any major development even in the internal affairs of the nation will have ramifications within the larger regional, even global, context.

Another potentially dangerous assumption is that the sick patient suffering from a malignancy that is ravaging its system would necessarily survive and recover from radical surgery to extract the infected organs. Even in cases where organ transplants might work, care must be taken to make sure the new organ and the body are able to tolerate each other and survive the ordeal.

But perhaps the most dangerous assumption is thinking that the global powerhouses and special interests that have the capability of making or breaking any development on the world stage truly prefer to see the Islamic Republic of Iran abandon its defiant posture and transform into a democratic regime in peaceful harmony with the regional states in the Middle East, including Israel.

However, evidence indicates that a belligerent, defiant Iran, portrayed as a regional, even a global, threat is serving too many purposes that benefit major global interests, far more than a friendlier, compliant Iran would.

Dr. Trita Parsi of NIAC, in collaboration with Alireza Nader, wrote an aricle posted on foreignpolicy.com, How Washington Can Really Help the Greens in Tehran, suggesting some "simple" ways the United States could help the opposition's cause in the current developments in Iran.

Professor Hamid Dabashi maintains that the American Administration and media pundits here are basically clueless about the goings on in the Iranian sociopolitical sphere. He attacks people like Flynt and Hillary Leverett for even daring to express opinions about the subject. I am sure Dr. Dabashi would disagree equally strongly with Stephen Walt about the latter's perspectives, as well.

So, the Administration of Mr. Obama, we are to believe, is clueless and short-sighted in not understanding Iran and the Iranians, or in how to deal with the Iranian "problem", even though a few "simple" steps could really help! Perhaps the Administration should be alerted to the fact that there are some very well informed and capable Iranian American academics willing and ready to help President Obama chart the course toward a workable rapprochement with Iran!!

Mr. Mousavi's “five suggestions for reconciliation” also outlines some straightforward and seemingly easy steps that would bring the current rift within Iran to an end. Wow, how much simpler could the solution get?

Some 29 Iranian American scholars and business people have also prepared a declaration in support of the Green Movement, making some very positive statements. They also say some very nice things. Do they honestly believe this declaration might have some effect on the American government’s approach toward Iran? Or, is it intended as a gesture of encouragement for the Greens to continue the struggle with the assurance that, should they fall, the signatories would be there to provide them with a soft landing?

On the other hand we could even site groups such as the Mojahedin Khalgh as desiring a regime change in Iran for what they believe are very valid reasons, reasons of their own, of course.

Iran’s former prince has also voiced his support for the Green Movement: That is truly encouraging!

Does anyone among our Iranian American academics believe that the opposition leaders, Mousavi, Karrubi, Khatami, would welcome Price Reza’s warm support? What are Reza’s motives? His support for the regime-change in Iran, as well as the support expressed by the MEK, is very similar to American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) welcoming and encouraging Pastor John Hagee, the founder and National Chairman of the Christian-Zionist organization, Christians United for Israel , at their annual mega event in Washington, D.C. last year. Hagee is an advocate of the Biblical End-Time or Armageddon scenario, whereby the Jews, after overcoming all their enemies, will convert to Christianity, and those who don’t shall surely perish! But since this overzealous maniac is supportive of Israel’s current agendas, the Israeli lobby is quite appreciative of all the support it can get from Hagee’s powerful evangelical following in the United States.

Of course there is some logic here, a classic case of syllogistic logic: The enemy of my enemy is my friend!

But not so fast, my friends. Some of these syllogistically acquired “friends” have venomous ulterior motives of their own; some carry a vendetta and want to settle old scores, some are after their personal gains, some are worried about their “bottom line” if they do not jump on the bandwagon, and some seem more interested in “looking good” among their peers as progressive liberals and advocates of human rights or, more specifically by some of them, women’s rights, a very popular cause célèbre. We know that looking good is much better than being chastised and isolated!

Regardless of the above, there is hardly anyone who doesn't agree that the situation in Iran is in dire need of improvement, even though all those groups and individuals are not in agreement as to what changes need to take place or toward what end.

What is missing in all this can be divided into two categories:

One: how could the proposed changes or reforms be implemented, by whom, in what order and during what period of time?

Two: what are the potential ramifications or peripheral effects of such changes on the internal and external affairs of the nation?

Before entering into this discussion, I would like to draw readers’ attention to the following web links:

http://www.juancole.com/2010/02/more-nuclear-scaremongering-about-iran.html

http://www.raceforiran.com/just-which-country-is-%E2%80%9Cplaying-for-time%E2%80%9D-in-nuclear-diplomacy-with-iran

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/02/11/new-york-times-spins-ahmadinejad-speech-as-claim-about-nuke-capability/

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/08/who_wants_to_bomb_iran?page=full

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-11/irans-unhappy-anniversary/

http://www.payvand.com/news/10/feb/1116.html

http://www.payvand.com/news/10/feb/1115.html

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9385

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9398

Contrary to the prevailing views expressed by Iran observers and analysts, I have long concluded that the rift between the United States and Iran, although counter to both countries’ best interests, is not the unintended consequence of chaotic mismanagement on the part of the Iranian regime, and callus incompetence of the United States administrations, as some of our scholars believe.

The effort by our scholars and pundits on both sides has been to find and suggest ways of clearing the atmosphere of mistrust and misunderstanding that has obscured the path to a mutually beneficial rapprochement between the two nations. And quite naturally, looking at the situation from this side of the world, the onus has always been on the underdog in this equation to bow under pressure and be more accommodating for its own survival’s sake.

However, the events of the past decade indicate otherwise:

The original fire and turbulence in Iran’s revolutionary mood began to show signs of moderation during Mr. Rafsanjani’s presidency, and reached a state of relative equilibrium by the time Mohammad Khatami was elected President in 1997. Khatami, a reform minded moderate, was elected by a majority of 70% of the voters, reflecting the general attitude of the Iranian public. His proposal that the year 2001 be designated as the year for dialogue among civilizations was officially adopted by the United Nations. Hopes were then high that a rapprochement between the United States and Iran was underway.

Just a few months after that, George W. Bush, in his State of the Union address, referred to Iran as a member of the international Axis of Evil and supporter of international terrorism. This was shortly after Iran had helped the United States in defeating the Taliban and in drafting Afghanistan’s first Constitution, securing Hamid Karzai’s government!

Few now doubt that our invasion of Iraq was actually part of a longer term plan for “ securing the realm ” by Israel’s Zionist friends in the American administration. The Zionist mole that had inserted the phrase “Axis of Evil” in the President’s speech was the Jewish Canadian, David Frum, who has reaped the rewards of his service to the “cause” by being admitted to various influential think tanks and appearances in network broadcasts.

It soon became abundantly clear that no rapprochement was to be initiated or even welcomed by the American administration, no matter what policies or reforms the Iranians were to adopt.

Mohammad Khatami, disappointed and under criticism by his Iranian rivals for presenting an ill-fated conciliatory image for Iran, an unnecessary, embarrassing, compromise in the minds of the ultra conservatives, was succeeded by the firebrand, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in 2005. And all the experts were wondering what the hell happened!

In fact, it wouldn’t have mattered how conciliatory Khatami’s approach had been or how much progress toward reforms or liberalization he might have made; Iran was to remain the designated enemy under relentless threats of sanctions, regime change and even preemptive attack by the United States.

Some observers and analysts even thought that the entrepreneur businessman/cleric, the pragmatic former President Rafsanjani, running against Ahmadinejad in 1995, would be the perfect candidate to engage in some serious horse trading and bring the two countries closer to a meaningful engagement.

I have to admit I also thought so at the time; but in hindsight, I can see that I was wrong to think that Rafsanjani’s “realpolitik” pragmatism and horse trading skills could have mended the fences between the two countries.

As it has been demonstrated time and time again, in every instance that a glimmer of hope appeared in the horizon of US/Iran relations, something happened to torpedo the prospects for improving those relations.

A perfect example has been the controversial history of Iran’s nuclear program.

There is neither space, nor need really, to reiterate in any detail here how this one issue was made the ultimate scapegoat against the Iranian regime in the international arena. The volume of reports by the officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations (IAEA), independent analysts and observers and nuclear weapons and proliferation experts is indeed staggering.

The other two principle accusations against the Islamic Republic of Iran are its support for what the United States and Israel regard as terrorist organizations and the now increasingly looming allegations of human rights violations.

As the concerns over the nuclear issue soften on occasion, as is currently the case with Iran offering to purchase or exchange for 20% enriched uranium for the creation of medical isotopes, the issue of human rights takes the center stage.

We saw the pitifully sophomoric political chicanery put on display by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman and two more drafters of the new sanctions bill against Iran the other day. Senator McCain, true to the tenets of political gamesmanship, lied about Mr. Ahmadinejad’s recent statements regarding the plans to obtain enriched uranium for medical research purposes. He clearly knew better, but he chose to lie to the American public.

Senator Lieberman, always ready to add the icing on the cake, jumped in to make sure the American people would be aware of Iran’s human rights violations, as well as its support for the international terrorists.

The concern of these philanthropic congressmen about the people of Iran suffering under the brutal dictatorship of the oppressive fundamentalist Islamic tyranny would have brought tears to my eyes were they not so diabolically dishonest. What moron would buy into that bull.....?

The McCains, the Liebermans and the like, indeed all our foreign policy decision makers, must know the truth behind the charade, and yet they continue to play the game as actors following a pre-scripted and well-choreographed plot.

It would take an idiot not to realize that the current policy adopted by the United States administration toward the Iranian regime is exactly the right recipe to prolong the agitated state of affairs in Iran and to push back any chance for meaningful reforms indefinitely.

Is this because they do not know what they are doing or that they need sage advice and guidance from our brilliant Iranian American scholars and academics? If that were the case, perhaps some of the signatories to the various declarations by the Iranian American scholars mentioned above should offer their services to the State Department! Who knows; maybe some of these hopefuls might be recruited by the White House! Are there really some among them who are thinking along those lines?

But if that is not the case, if the aim is not in fact to promote reforms in Iran to create a more stable, prosperous and peaceful society? What then, my overanxious friends?

What are we to conclude when we hear our hawkish congressmen use the pretext of Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions to pass resolutions for new sanctions, at the same time that the White House press secretary Robert Gibbs claims Iran is not even capable of enriching uranium to the 20% level needed for medical purposes?

The Israelis have been barking for several years now that Iran is within just a few months of developing its nuclear bomb; and each year the deadlines are moved back to justify new warnings!

Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has made several trips to Israel to talk to the Israeli military bigwigs, on the surface to discuss Iran's nuclear threats and how to stop those imminent threats. But each time his effort has been to give assurances to the Israelis that an Iranian attack on Israel is not in the books, therefore any preemptive assault on Iran would have grave undesirable consequences.

So, what are we to believe: Is Iran developing nuclear weapons to launch attacks on Israel and on American forces and bases in the region? There is not a shred of evidence of that being the case.

To clear this hodgepodge of chaos and confusion, we should rise above the street level to see the broader picture. Let us see who benefits from the portrayal of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a real threat to regional and global peace and security.

Without doubt, the biggest beneficiary is the state of Israel. The Israeli regime, particularly the Likud and other hardliners, insist on remaining the region's unchallenged sole superpower. When Iraq's Saddam Hussein began to beef up his arsenal and had his eyes on potential nuclear weapons, the Israelis first bombed and destroyed his nuclear power plant and, years later, took advantage of the American administration's post 9/11 war on terror campaign to target that country. With the able assistance and guidance of their dedicated Zionist insiders, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, etc., and the cooperation of the controlled media, plus Israel's own proven capability of forging or doctoring up deceptive material, we were drawn to the catastrophic war in Iraq under false pretences. Now the same tactics are at play against Iran.

Iran, however, is too big an adversary for such cavalier adventurisms, and the American public is a little more concerned and skeptical about buying into the kind of deceptive tactics that were used about the nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Nevertheless, the perception of an Iranian threat is not only risk free, it serves the purpose quite well. Israel has been able to dodge every effort by the international community and even the United States to moderate or compromise any of its claims and show willingness to reach a peace accord with the Palestinians. Israel is not ready or willing to give up a square inch of the occupied territories, discontinue building additional Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and stop its illegal expansions into East Jerusalem.

As long as Israel can sell Iran's image as an existential threat, who could blame them for that? Thanks to the threatening image of Iran, not only is Israel excused for its paranoid behavior, it has been granted additional billions of dollars worth of the latest military aid to boost its "defensive" capabilities. Even Germany has donated several nuclear submarines to boost Israel's naval forces in the region. And more is definitely under way.

To keep Israel from doing "something stupid" like launching a preemptive strike against Iran, an act already sanctioned by the likes of Dick Cheney and other "bomb Iran" advocates, the American administration can easily convince the Congress to approve more financial, diplomatic and military assistance to protect this little ally and friend or, more correctly put, the big extortionist. That would cost the American taxpayers a lot less than would the consequences of such a stupid action by Israel.

Now let us look for other beneficiaries of Iran's negative portrayals.

No doubt, the Israel issue is the main contributor to Iran's mounting problems in the ongoing propaganda battlefield. But equally important is America's dilemma in extricating itself from the quagmires in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. This will happen, but not as quickly as some anti-war activists anticipate, or as painlessly as they hope. We are dug in for as long as it takes to find a face-saving way to get out without leaving behind a still smoldering powder keg that could be ignited once the wind shifts direction.

The American naval forces in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean will have to remain on guard, and the multitude of bases established throughout the region will be there for the duration.

As is clearly the case with America's so-called missile defense shield projects, Iran is being used as the scapegoat to put the real target, Russia, on notice. On the other front, the Arab states of the Gulf are directed to purchase tens of billions of dollars worth of "defensive" arms from the United States to prevent an Iranian attack upon their oil rich territories. This alone is a fantastic source of revenue for the world's biggest arms exporter. In addition, playing the role of the protector of their sovereignty against the perceived Iranian threat, the United States can exercise full control over these wealthy Arab oil states.

Whichever way we choose to look at it, an unpredictable, unstable and threatening Iran in pursuit of the ultimate weapon, plays an indispensible role in this regional drama.

As long as all cast members follow the script, the play will go on smoothly; but there is a chance that they might not. All it takes is one rogue element to tip the entire apple cart.

The scenario calls for the Iranian regime to remain under international pressure and threats of regime change so that its hardliners could further legitimize tightening their grip and imposing more restrictions against voices of dissent or liberalization and reform, all in the name of national security.

The main guarantor of the nation's security is, of course, Iran's military might, which consists of the regular armed forces, the Revolutionary Guards and the voluntary militia or the Basiji elements.

Since the nation's territorial integrity and security rests on its defensive capabilities, the military, under the command of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamene'i, has been allowed to gain an inordinate amount of prominence, to a point that many regard Iran's military establishment as a country within a country. Iran's military-industrial-financial complex has becomes the country's dominant economic force, to the point that it might someday challenge the constitutional authority of Iran's Supreme Leader. Should that happen, a rogue element within the military command might just throw the script away and take matters into his own hands.

The same could also happen within the Israeli command structure; there are rogue elements and loose cannons there, too.

Thus far, the play is performed like a well-oiled machine. The Israelis keep raising sounds of alarm about Iran's nuclear weapons and missile technology advancements, and threaten preemptive strikes against Iran no later than a certain date, which is always pushed a "safe" distance back in order to keep the charade going.

The United States and some European allies, meanwhile, impose various economic sanctions against Iran, knowing full well that their effects would be far from crippling. Targeted sanctions against the elements of the regime or the military would be equally ineffective. In fact it is a joke to think that sanctions could be devised is such a way that only the "bad" guys would be affected and the people would be spared any suffering. This is as ridiculous an idea as has been the case with foreign aid programs for poor, developing countries, where the moneys assigned to various targeted projects end up in the pockets of the same folks whose allegiance we intend to buy! Just look at Egypt and the two-billion dollars a year it receives from the United States.

The tragedy is, while this macabre charade continues, those who suffer are the Iranian people, the Palestinians, and the innocent populations who perish or are made homeless as the unintended casualties of our so-called war on terror.

Iranians deserve better economic and social conditions, the Palestinians must someday realize their dreams of an independent statehood, and the devastation and wholesale massacre of innocent civilians must stop and meaningful reparations must begin soon.

Finally, I would like to know how the show of support and solidarity with the opposition movement in Iran is going to resolve this dilemma. Obviously, this show of support by the American or the British, French or German administrations is exactly what the opposition in Iran does not need.

I would be very interested, indeed anxious, to see what our Iranian American community of thinkers and academics have to offer beside some "feel good" gestures of sympathy, that might have a chance as workable remedies to Iran's ills. I am hoping that the caveat, workable, has gained a more meaningful status in view of this article.

Once again, criticism that is not followed by workable remedies or alternatives is more than just frivolous, it could prove downright catastrophic. Also, advice or guidance coming from people who have nothing to lose should they be proven wrong, reminds one of the old cliché of sitting on the sidelines and coaching the wrestler in the rink (birun-e gowd neshasteh o miqe lengesh kon).

IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

I HOPE MYTHOLOGY DOES NOT

JANUARY 23, 2010

Myths and legends that have withstood the test of time did not sprout out of barren grounds overnight. Some have roots in mankind's fears and hopes, some in misinterpreted observations and some are created out of longing to fulfill unrequited desires.

Some legends, such as the Sasquatch, Loch Ness Monster, or alien abductions can be quite entertaining while harmless or benign. Others, such as the exploits of the gods of the Greek pantheon or the adventures of the Iranian hero, Rustam, or the master archer, Arash, who demarcated ancient Iran's eastern boundaries by shooting his arrow hundreds of miles in the direction of the rising sun, are folkloric tales that have been woven into a people's cultural fabric to embellish and enrich its heritage.

These are still harmless and entertaining stories for the most part. It would stop being entertaining if, for example, the Iranians today would claim Central Asian countries as far eastward as Western China, where Arash's arrow had hit the ground, as belonging to Iran, or when the Zionist founders of Israel use the Biblical narratives to claim Palestine as their heavenly ordained realm, an endowment by their God.

Some legends or folkloric tales have lost any connection to their origins, and are marked and celebrated with no regard to the stories or histories that generated those myths. Among these we can name the Passover. What this religious holiday celebrates is a nation's escape, through Divine intervention, from certain annihilation by an evil power. God's "Chosen People" were not to be messed with; the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition constantly reminds us of that.

But by reading the Biblical accounts, a somewhat different picture emerges. Needless to say, there is no historicity to this legend in the first place. Exodus, at least in the way described in the Bible, never happened, the Sea of Reeds never parted and there is even quite a bit of doubt that the Israelites were ever kept in bondage for generations to build the pyramids of Egypt.

Historical inconsistencies aside, let us see what the legend or story as depicted in the Bible, or as retold through Hollywood movies, tells us.

To summarize, God (Yahweh) becomes angered by the Egyptian pharaoh's refusal to free His people. After several unsuccessful attempts to convince the pharaoh, Ramses, to obey God's commands, the enraged Ramses decides to have the firstborn sons of Israel killed as punishment for their defiance. God reveals to Moses that He will turn the table around and have all the firstborn sons of Egypt, including Ramses' own son, killed that night, and directs Moses to have the Israelites pack their bags and leave that night. And, naturally, the Chosen People do escape to safety, against all odds.

The story is beautiful and self redeeming in itself, until one begins to bore a little deeper.

First of all, why was the all-powerful and all-knowing God unable to convince a mere mortal, the Egyptian pharaoh, to abide by His command? Well, let's just say that we do not understand the ways of the Divine. Maybe He was testing whether mankind would be worthy of being granted free will, or some such concocted excuse. But how do we rationalize the merciless killing of all the firstborn sons of a nation for absolutely no fault of their own? Is such a barbaric act, massacring innocent people, young and old, to teach a disobedient pharaoh a lesson, anything to celebrate? Just think for a second about the implications of this legend.

Thank God - or Yahweh - nobody remembers the whole story while celebrating the Passover these days!

A very similar myth was created centuries later, which continues to be celebrated to this day. This is the upcoming Festival of Purim.

The story unfolds as Emperor Ahasuerus of Persia throws a party for all the vassals and kinglets of his vast empire at his palace in Shushan. Having heard about the talented and beautiful Queen, Vashti, his guests ask the Emperor to invite the Queen to dance for them. The Queen refuses and the leader of the mightiest empire on earth is embarrassed.

Some among the guests suggest that Ahasuerus should demote Vashti and, instead, choose another queen. Ahasuerus orders the fairest of all women from each region of his empire to be brought to the capital so that, after proper training and preparation, one would be chosen by him as the new queen of Persia.

Now, a Jewish man by the name of Mordakhai, who belonged to one of the tribes of Jews brought to Iran by a former emperor, Cyrus, after their liberation from Babylonian captivity, had a niece by the name of Esther. Mordakhai had earned the Emperor's attention by exposing a plot by two courtiers who had plotted to assassinate him, but had never been amply rewarded for that service.

Mordakhai manages to shuffle Esther into the group of fair maidens who were to be trained as candidates. Needless to say, being the most beautiful and the most talented of the lot, Emperor Ahasuerus chooses Esther as the Queen.

The main plot begins when a general by the name of Haman gains the Emperor's favor and is honored at the palace. Upon departing, Haman notices that one man, Mordakhai, has not bowed to him as was customary when his entourage came out of the palace gates. That really angers Haman, especially when he is told that Jews do not bow to anybody other than their own Lord. Now, an enraged genocidal anti-Semitic maniac, Haman decides to exterminate all the Jews from the face of the Persian Empire!

Haman manages to convince Ahasuerus to allow him, using the royal seal, to send orders to kill all the Jews in the Empire on a certain day chosen by lots, hence the name Purim meaning lots.

Mordakhai finds out about this plot and begs Esther to intercede with her husband on behalf of the Jewish people as best she can.

Haman is shrewdly conned by Esther to attend a banquet supposedly to honor him. After she tells the Emperor of Haman's evil plot, she reveals her own identity as a Jew, as well as her relation to Mordakhai. The king is upset beyond words and leaves the chamber.

In a truly cinematic plot, as Haman prostrates himself to Esther asking for forgiveness and begging for his life, she tricks him into a compromising position just as the Emperor walks back into the room! She then accuses Haman of attempting to molest the Queen of Persia. The Emperor orders the execution of Haman and his sons, and gives Haman's wealth all to Mordakhai as a belated reward for his services.

Esther then appeals to her husband to nullify Haman's plot to exterminate the Jews and, instead, to turn the table around and have the military help the Jews, in a preemptive strike, defend their lives and kill all those who were prepared to harm them on that same prescribed day.

New orders are dispatched throughout the empire and, on the day of reckoning, the Jews, with the help of the royal troops, begin the killing.

At the end of the day, Ahasuerus asks Esther if she had accomplished her objectives to her satisfaction. She was not quite satisfied as yet. She asks the Emperor for one more day of carnage, and is granted her wish. At the end of the second day, Esther reports that they have killed some 75,000 of their detractors, and that she is now satisfied.

As her final wish, she asks the Emperor to designate that day as an annual day of celebration throughout the empire; and thus was born the Festival of Purim, the Megillah, which happens to fall just before the Spring equinox each year. The Spring equinox also happens to mark the traditional New Year Day among the Indo-Aryans (Iranians) in that part of the world, going back to prehistoric times.

Of course, it matters not that "Ahasuerus" could have referred to Xerxes (Khashayarsha), Artaxerxes (Artakhshatra or Ardeshir - and there were more than a couple of them), Howakhshatra of Media, or even some Semitic monarch by the name of George, pronounced Jerjes in Arabic, which sounds very much like the Greek Xerxes (pronounced Kherkhes in Greek). And it is really not relevant that Esther could be Astarte, Ishtar, or Hadassah; or that Mordakhai is really an adulteration of Marduk, as is Murdock. The name Haman was probably adopted from the older Babylonian name for the devil, Uman or Houman. And, the entire story seems to be an adaptation of very similar festivities practiced in ancient Babylon and the neighboring Elam, honoring god and goddess Marduk and Ishtar for defeating the demon, Uman!

In short, there is absolutely no historical validation for the legend of Esther, even though there is a monument in the city of Hamadan in northwestern Iran that is supposedly marking the graves of Mordakhai and his niece, Esther.

In the story thus created, the emperor Ahasuerus, supposedly the ruler of the greatest empire of the times, is depicted as a buffoon who is easily swayed by his party guests, his vizier or general, or by his young wife. He seems to be clueless as to what is going on in his empire.

Haman, the evil general, casts lots to choose a date for the extermination of all the Jewish populations of the Persian empire, simply because one man, Mordakhai, exhibited his Jewish pride by not bowing as Haman strode by.

Esther, of course, was not only the most beautiful and talented in all the realm, she was also a brave sole to risk her own life to save her people by rushing to the presence of the Emperor without prior permission, an act supposedly punishable by death.

And, finally, the story clearly reflects the anguish of an oppressed people under Roman occupation, aspiring to regenerate the lost pride and grandeur of a dampened tradition, not the least in the minds of their young ones for whom myths and legends impart a more profound influence.

Now let us spring forward two millennia and revisit the legend of Esther and examine its parallels with today's politics in the same region.

The evil Haman of the Biblical tale became a genocidal anti-Semite because one Jewish man would not bow at his presence. Because of that, Haman decides to wipe all the Jewish people off the face of the Persian Empire. This maniac had at least a reason, however trivial, for his hatred of a people.

What about today's Iranian President Ahmadinejad who, as we have been told over and over again, is attempting to wipe the state of Israel off the face of the map? He doesn't even have any reason other than a profound hatred of the Jews for doing so, and would supposedly attempt this genocide even at the cost of having his own nation devastated in the process.

Once again, it matters not that there is absolutely no evidence that the man ever made such a declaration, despite the fact that, just like the myth about the tombs of Esther and Mordakhai in Hamadan, the American media has been saturated with fabulous reinterpretations of what he had actually said!

Regardless, in order to stop this mad man from carrying out his evil mission, some Estheresque maneuvering is necessary to justify a preemptive strike.

Esther staged a theatrical scenario and falsely accused Haman of attempting to molest her when the Emperor walked into the room, resulting in Haman's execution. Similarly, Ahmadinejad's utterances have been deliberately distorted to make him sound like a Holocaust-denying nut-case in pursuit of nuclear weapons to destroy the state of Israel.

Esther had the support of the forces of the mighty Persian Empire to help her people "defend their lives". Today, the support and involvement of the mighty global powerhouse, the United States of America, would serve that purpose.

Esther had an easier time convincing her benefactor to unleash his might to assist the innocent Jews to defend their lives by killing 75,000 of their Iranian detractors. She was a pretty woman and the mighty emperor of Persia was obviously a mere fool! However, Israel and its influential lobby in Washington, even with the help and cooperation of the American mass media, spearheaded by Rupert Murdock's (Mordakhai!) Fox network, have had to work hard to portray Iran as the world's most active supporter of international terrorism, bent on the destruction of Israel.

It's been said that history repeats itself. I hope mythology does not.