War, U.S., and IRI (I Condemn IRI Provocation of War with the U.S.)
Iranians Will Not Join IRI in Any US
War With IRI, although Will Not Support the U.S.
Invasion Either. IRI lobbyists under the disguise of
opposing monarchy or mojAhdeine khalgh try to push support of IRI in any
possible US-Iran War, and their main goal is to get Iranians to say that we will
join IRI in any such war. This way they want to get the U.S. to improve
relations with IRI thinking that IRI is having people's support. At the
same time, among the opposition, the lobbyists justify their position by
presenting it as a plan to save Iran from a war, whereas their goal is to save
IRI. If they really cared for Iran, they should have supported the
alternatives to IRI regardless of their shortcomings.
Iranians will *not* join IRI in any US War with IRI, although we do not support the US invasion either. Actually those intellectuals living in Iran have already expressed their strong feelings against IRI for such hypothetical situations. Please see the following article:
Some people accuse the Iranian futurists that if we believe in globalization, we should also be supporting invasion of Iran and not care for its independence. This is a total lie. We do believe in globalization, and this is why we oppose the lack of freedom in Iran, which hampers Iran's full participation in the global economy, and politics, but this does not mean we desire this dilemma be solved by an external force. In all civilized countries, using police force to handle any internal problem is the last option, so even using a UN-supported policing of Iranian internal situation is not our desire, and Iranians have worked for 24 years to change the regime in Iran by ourselves, rather than by external forces, but this does not mean that we want external forces to support the regime either, which IRI lobbyists advocate. In fact, it is the opposite that we desire, and that means we want the U.S. and Europe and other countries not to support IRI, and we want to have any removal of sanctions on IRI only based on human rights conditions in Iran.
Let me give an example for those who consider supporting globalization as a reason not to care for independence. The nationalists who cared for the full integrity of Iran, did *not* all support the suppression of Azeris and Kurds in 1945 by Shah's army, and many supported the aspirations for self-rule in those states, and I have always supported federalism for Iran. I condemned Shah's massacres of Kurds and Azeris, and I still say that Iran needs a federal system, but unfortunately most of the Iranian progressive movement is not there. So supporting independence of Iran in a global picture is even a subset of a case of federalism, and anybody who accuses the ones who believe in globalization, as not caring for independence, is simply ignorant of the economic and political reality of globalization, which does not contradict the need for local focus, and in fact demands it, and this is why not only independence for Iran, but even taking the next step and calling for a federal state in Iran, is what is needed as the complementary part of globalization:
Now as far as a war. If IRI stays in power and their provocations end up in a war between US and IRI, I will not support IRI or the U.S.. What will I support? I will support an alternative to IRI and I have already said what alternative needs to get formed and the need to forming the CC (Constitution Conference) as soon as possible to form this alternative:
What happens if the CC does not get formed and we have no alternative formed when a US-IRI war breaks out? Well then we will be in the same situation that we were when IRI provoked a war with Iraq and for 8 years we suffered. Did we support IRI or Iraq. No, I supported independence and democracy and I did not want to support either of those two evils.
I do not want to spend all my time discussing hypothetical situation of US-Iran war, in the absence of an Iranian alternative, I prefer to spend my energy on building the alternative. But as I said in the case of IRI-Iraq war, we had 8 years to decide how to deal with that situation from day to day, week to week, month to month, when it happened in the absence of an alternative, and my only guiding light in such a situation is the defense of independence and freedom of Iran.
The IRI lobbyists are afraid that an alternative to IRI gets formed. They do not want IRI to go in such a situation, because they are afraid those they do not like may take power. This is why they conclude from the possibility of a US-IRI war, to increase their lobbyist efforts to get US support for IRI, or they try to advise IRI to be nice for a while, and the result is that IRI will stay, and this is what they desire. My view is that this is a total mistake.
If IRI lobbyists really cared for Iran and Iranians all these years, instead of this strategy, that since hostage-taking has only helped IRI, they would take a different approach and support alternatives to IRI, rather than being fatalist and think our choices are to support IRI or the U.S. No even if the war breaks out, our guiding light should be supporting independence and freedom of Iran and not defending either side of the war.
As I noted, IRI lobbyists' real issue, which they do not come forward and truthfully say, is that they do not want IRI to go, because they do not want the forces which they do not like, to take power, and they do not have enough courage and knowledge and experience, to try to become an alternative, and they live mostly in the West, and not in Iran under IRI, but they spend all their energy supporting IRI. And as usual they are under the flag of fighting foreign aggression, the same flag IRI lobbyists have been using for over a decade, and their papers consistently push, and unfortunately our progressive forces are falling for it, and think these papers accidentally push such positions, rather than seeing that they do not want IRI to go, when they do it with the facade of fighting monarchy or MKO or the invaders:
Frankly the only time in the last 20 years that I have seen such activity by IRI lobbyists for saving IRI, was when I opposed *unconditional* removal of sanctions and asked for human rights conditions for removal of sanctions, and the same IRI lobbyists attacked me viciously calling me MKO one day and nokare AmrikA or Zionist or Shahi the next day, when their real fear was that IRI may go, by losing the support of the West.
These people want to keep Iran a backward third world country, while they themselves live in the West enjoying the freedom of the West, or else if independence means keeping IRI, why don't they themselves go and live in Iran of IRI. Iranian people look at countries like Singapore as their model, and not countries like Syria, Egypt, or Communist Countries. They want to participate in global economy and prosper. What is amazing is that some of the people who even had said in the past that IRI is like Hitler's fascism, come and say in case of US-IRI war, they will join IRI. The democratic Germans did not support Hitler, when Nazis were attacked by coalition. BTW, I do not take my analogy far and I repeat that Iranian people will *not* support US invasion either and want to solve Iran's change by ourselves. I will not join the US to fight IRI, but at the same time will not join IRI to fight the US either.
I have already said that Constitution
Conference needs to get formed to have an Iranian alternative for such a
situation. Time is running out and we cannot write from wishful thinking. Yes, I
wish there was the possibility for current republicans to form an alternative
without a pseudo-republican unity, which means nothing but including IRI, and
which *only* means helping IRI to pass through this crisis, to continue to
suppress us afterwards. This is the same mistake democratic forces made in
supporting IRI during the hostage-crisis, and at the time some of them made
death threats to me, for opposing hostage-taking and calling it a savage act.
I see IRI lobbyists always seeing Zionism and the US and forgetting that all we have suffered from in the last 24 years has come from the Arab side and Islamists and IRI. Those leftists and nationalists, who similar to the leftist of the West, only know anti-Americanism, should remember how Hitler's Nazism was supported by intellectuals of New York, and then later how the Western intellectuals supported Soviet Union all those years. Anti-Americanism is a fad for the left wingers in the West, which does not really do any harm in the West, but for Iran and Iranians, it means supporting a backward regime, which most leftists and nationalists helped during the hostage-crisis.
I have been called Zionist, IRI agent, US agent, MKO, monarchist, and what you name it, because I am challenging the views these progressive forces have held for over 50 years, and cannot see how Iran's development has been blocked by such platforms. They cannot see the reality that in the last 24 years, our freedom and progress has not been blocked by any colonialist or imperialist invasion, but has been blocked by the Islamists, who want want to turn back history.
like to see that our democratic opposition such as JM, Leftists, and other
progressive forces to come forward and form the CC gathering (Constitution
Conference) to write a future Constitution. This is what I have tried to help
happening for a few decades. The issue is that I think most of these forces are
below monarchists in many of their plans for the future of Iran. As I noted many
times about the role of Shi'a clergy in their platforms and the state economy in
their platform and their anti-federalism and their complete misunderstanding of
the global economy.
Do I think monarchists have better plans for Iran? Not really. In some respects, I find for example the words of Dariush Homayoun, when he says that our plan should be to get out of being a third world country, to be more advanced than Mossadeghism, which wants to still repeat the theories to keep us in the third world albeit a democratic one. My ideal is not an Egypt , Syria, Turkey, or India. I prefer the so-called dependent states like Singapore. This sentence caused a huge commotion in one discussion board, but I frankly think that is the way to go.
South Korea is now more successful than Egypt, so please see that the time of
Nasserism and Baathism is long gone. These are old obsolete
programs that cannot respond to the global
economy and the world situation today and
it is a regret that many old leftists
have exchanged Marxism now with Mossadeghist
populism that at best will make another Egypt out of Iran
I see the platforms of JM, monarchists. leftists, and others have good points but I think none of them is the way for Iran's future. Moreover, I think most of what one sees in the platform of monarchists do not necessarily require monarchy to achieve.
My hope for the CC conference is that all get convinced for a secular republic and come out of this conference with a constitution for a secular republic, but with a progressive content opposing state economy, opposing the presence of Shi'a clergy in all three branches of government, and advocating a federal state for Iran, and planning for progressive new technologies, etc. that I have written about many times.
As far as calling the CC, I have put my proposal that Prince Reza Pahlavi should call it, but if anybody thinks anybody else or any other group or party can make the call to make it successful, please publish your views.
Some people ask me whether Prince Reza Pahlavi has promised any concessions to the U.S. or other countries for coming to power. Frankly I would not know if there was any such promises. But I can say it for sure that any relations with foreign powers, depends on one's strength as a force, as to what one can demand. I do not know what the CC will decide, and if it will even introduce a leader or a group or not. I think CC first has to settle on constitution(s), then it can define a leadership to propose it to the people of Iran.
As far as RP and the US, what I had noted is that I am happy that he is in contact with US officials, congress, and press and is not alienating himself from the US, like the way Ahmad Shah alienated himself from the UK. But having dialogue, does not mean concessions or promises. If anybody, including RP, has made any promises to anybody, not only that would be out of place, but those who accept such promises are senseless. Because nobody is elected yet and no constitution has even been approved.
And let me emphasize in no uncertain
terms, that Iranian people will not approve any promises made to any foreign power, if had
been made, not only from Prince Reza Pahlavi, but from anybody else, who allow
themselves to make deals on behalf of Iranian democratic movement.
Finally if the process for CC does not start and we keep bickering, decisions will be made outside of what the progressive forces of Iran can impact.
Hoping for a Futurist, Federal, Democratic, and Secular Republic in Iran,
Sam Ghandchi, Publisher/Editor
April 3, 2003
P.S. April 10, 2003- More about War
Congratulations to everyone for the fall of Saddam's despotic regime.
In response to those who like to call this situation as U.S. neocolonialism, this is what I would say. If Iraqi regime was a democratically-elected government, and only because of opposing the U.S., it had been invaded, then all people would rise to defend it. The same way, *if* the above scenario happened for Iran, all Iranians would rise in support of our government. In fact, if any country, where its government has popular support is invaded, the people of that country will rise against the invaders, defending their government in no uncertain terms. But that was not the case of Hitler's Germany at the end, or Saddam's Iraq now, when they were invaded, and these regimes were unpopular at the time of invasion. Of course the harder case is when a fascist government is popular, like Hitler was in the beginning, and whether a policy like Chamberlain's appeasement is right, or a preemptive strike is justified. But I do not know of any such case in the world today, where a strong fascist state to be in power and to be popular at the same time. For example, I do not think North Korean government has any popularity left. Again I would suggest reading the following interview of Popper, and carefully read where he explains about both Yugoslavia and Iraq:
As far as oil and Iraq War, the case is not as simple as some authors want us to believe. I have written my views before:
It is interesting that inside Iran, the most popular article
about war is the following article and not articles by leftists and
If the leftists and nationalists had written more to Saddam and pressured him to stop provocations of war and dictatorship, as much as they wrote to Bush, maybe a war would not have happened in Iraq. The understanding of leftists and nationalists, of the world situation, is obsolete, and they are not helping people with their way of approaching the world. And they better put more pressure on IRI to clean up its acts in torturing and killing Iranian people rather than always writing to Bush to ignore IRI activities abroad like murder of dissidents, and supporting terrorist groups, and hostage-taking, as well as the IRI repression of people inside Iran. And they better condemn IRI provocations of war, which is putting Iran and Iranians at risk. IRI did the same when they provoked a war with Iraq and the Iranian people paid for it. True that Iraq started the war, but Khomeini was the one provoking a war by exporting Islamic Revolution, and calling on Shiites in Iraq to make an Islamic revolution.
As far as the Western leftists and the situation in the Middle East, just take a look at the following site. All these years, they never said a word about oppression in Iran or Iraq but from the moment Iraqi government was opposed by Western democracies, they have been just posting tons of anti-war news, which shows their misunderstanding of the Middle East:
All these years, they never posted anything about oppression in Iran, students movement, etc, but the moment they saw a US comment against IRI, they posted news about Iranians having a civil life, showing short overcoats and light scarves, etc. as proof, as if the people in Iran are happy with the so-called reforms. The reality is what the following writer has written from inside Iran, and not what these Western leftists want us to believe:
The following interviews are interesting in this regard:
As far as the situation in Iran, I think the following interview says it pretty well, except that I would change the wording of the interviewee and say that Iranian people do not want "just-a-regime-change" and want a mind change to democracy as well:
Finally the guiding light for Iranian progressive forces is *independence* and *freedom* of Iran, and we condemn the provocations of war by IRI, and we will not join IRI, although we do not support a military invasion of Iran either, and we want the IRI to become more and more irrelevant internationally, as it has become irrelevant inside Iran. We want the U.S. support of Iranian opposition, but not military invasion.
And therefore we want a regime change by Iranian people ourselves, and any support by the West is fine, but we do not want Iran's invasion by any other country, and if any such thing happens because of IRI provocation, we will *not* support IRI or the invaders, but we will *support* Iran's FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE, and this will be our guiding light in making decisions in such a bad situation, and our guiding light will not be joining IRI or the U.S. IRI lackeys want IRI to provoke a war, and want us to say that we will join IRI, to use Iranian people as canon powder, but if they provoke such a war, they will be the first to go this time: