Sam Ghandchiسام قندچي Why NYT and WP in John Bolton's Article Never Mention Iranian Activists inside Iran Who Call for Regime Change
Sam Ghandchi

چرا نیویورک تایمز و واشنگتن پست در مقاله جان بولتون هیچگاه از فعالین ایرانی داخل کشور که خواستار تغییر رژیم هستند حرفی نمیزنند


Postscript May 2, 2018: Mr. Jason Rezaian has published an article in Persian in Washington Post of today. The link is below. He does not say whether he himself agrees with Regime Change or wants Iran's regime to stay in power. The demand for regime change by Iranian people has nothing to do with some foreign governments also wanting regime change in Iran. Showing the demand for regime change as something desired by foreign states or as equivalent of war mongering, is not a proper presentation of the topic.




I have discussed the calls for regime change within the Iranian opposition long before the Dec 28, 2017 uprising in Iran (1), but regardless of my assessment of Iranian opposition inside and abroad, in the recent months, many Iranian activists who are openly active in Iran's Civil Rights Movement, using their real name although living inside Iran, have called for convening a constitutional assembly in Iran (2), which basically means regime change. I am wondering why New York Times and Washington Post never mention such calls that are abundant in Iran's opposition press in Persian. Basically the difference between the situation of Iran's Civil Rights Movement and the Civil Rights Movement of U.S.A. is related to Iran's constitution itself that includes stoning, killing of morted, and Qessas, i.e. the law of an eye for an eye, and thus needs to be totally overhauled before basic civil rights demands can even be addressed. Today I read an article in Washington Post which was focused on the appointment of John Bolton to the position of National Security Advisor for the United States (3). Why does the article about John Bolton, discuss the position of regime change as if it is a call that has nothing to do with the reality of Iran's Civil Rights Movement and presents the call for regime change to be something imposed by others from abroad rather than an actual demand inside Iran. NYT and WP are doing a disservice to American people by misrepresenting the reality of Iran's uprising of the last three months, a movement which is basically calling for an end to the Islamic State in Iran (4). The demand for an end to Islamism in Iran, and for regime change, has been clearly pronounced for months in the slogans of the recent uprising on the streets of Iran and the call for convening a constitutional assembly has been made by many Iranian activists inside Iran. NYT, WP and journalists like myself have a duty to American readers to communicate the facts, regardless of what position we personally adhere to, and actually it is best to let the readers know about our own position as well. I have nothing against the author of the WP article and respect Mr. Jason Rezaian who even has endured prison term in Iran. What I am writing here is something as a matter of principle for us the journalists. In other words, whether we support Iranian secular democrats, Islamic reformists or other shades of Iran's political spectrum, we need to present all sides of reality to our audience and not report the news one-sidedly.



Hoping for a democratic and secular futurist republic in Iran,

Sam Ghandchi
Iranscope Futurist Site

March 25, 2018




1. Regime Change
تغییر رژیم


2. سید هاشم خواستار: رفراندوم نه، مجلس مؤسسان آری


3. WP:Jason Rezaian: John Bolton wants regime change in Iran, and so does the cult that paid him


جان بولتون و فرقه ای که به وی پول پرداخت کرده هر دو خواستار تغییر نظام در ایران هستند




4. Worldwide Support for Iran's Historic Anti-Islamist Uprising is Necessary
نیاز به حمایت جهانی از خیزش تاریخی ضد اسلامگرایی در ایران

خیزش 96
















Featured Topics

متون برگزیده سام قندچی



For a Secular Democratic & Futurist Republican Party in Iran