Monday
Nov022009
Iran: A Response to an American Who Asks, "What if the Green Movement Isn't 'Ours'?
Monday, November 2, 2009 at 10:58
LATEST Iran: A Response to “What If the Green Movement Isn’t Ours?” (The Sequel)
Iran Nuclear Talks: Tehran’s Middle Way?
Latest from Iran (2 November): The World Takes Notice?
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
I want to be careful here. I don't want to be too emotive, and I don't want to be seen as taking a cheap shot at a US journalist. However, I have just read an opinion piece which is one of the most unsettling I have encountered since 12 June.
In today's Washington Post, Jackson Diehl frets about "Iran's Unlovable Opposition". This is his opening:
What has disturbed Diehl to the point where he rejects the Green Wave? Apparently it is a single encounter "with one of the leading representatives outside of Iran of the 'green revolution', who seemed determined to convince would-be Western supporters that they were wasting their time".
That representative is Ataollah Mohajerani, a Minister of Culture in the Khatami Government and an ally of Mehdi Karroubi. In mid-October, Mohajerani was a speaker at the annual confernence of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where --- in Diehl's words --- "the mostly pro-Israel crowd was primed to cheer what they expected would be a harsh condemnation of Ahmadinejad and his bellicose rhetoric, and a promise of change by the green coalition".
Unfortunately, Mohajerani didn't deliver what many in his audience wanted. He condemned the US for its involvement in the 1953 coup in Iran. He said "the green movement has no expectations whatsoever" on Western support for its cause. Most importantly, he refused to concede that Iran should not have a nuclear programme, pointing instead at Israel's undeclared atomic weapons, and "asked whether Israel had a right to exist, he refused to respond".
The point here is not to defend Mohajerani on these hot-button issues. Instead, it is to ponder how this one speech can be re-framed as a make-or-break movement for Iran's opposition when it comes to American support.
I knew at the time, from discussions with colleagues and contacts, that many in Washington were disturbed by what they saw as the former Minister's brusque and undiplomatic approach. But I couldn't see how Mohajerani was a spokesman for the "Green movement". I especially did not see him as an envoy asking for the endorsement of WINEP, given that the agenda of that organisation can often be seen as Israel-first and that some of its leading members have endorsed regime change, rather than reform, in Tehran.
And Diehl's article doesn't change that perception. It is based on two and only two people. There's Mohajerani. Then there's Mehdi Khalaji of WINEP, who dismisses the speech's importance, "The true leaders of this movement are students, women and human rights activists, and political activists who have no desire to work in a theocratic regime or in a government within the framework of the existing constitution." That's an argument Diehl immediately dismisses:
I'm not sure how Diehl knows that, since he has not spoken to Karroubi or Mousavi or Mohammad Khatami or Alireza Beheshti or Ayatollah Dastgheib or Mohammad Ghoochani or anyone involved inside Iran. I'm not sure how Diehl knows that because there is no evidence that he has read any of the political positions of the post-12 June movement apart from "statements last week by green-movement leaders attacking the uranium swap plan".
But I don't think Diehl wants to spend all his time dealing with complexities such as Iran's judicial system and the abuses of detainees or the concept of clerical leadership under velayat-e-faqih or accountability for Iran's economic policies or even rights to free expression and assembly.
Because even though Diehl positions himself as a staunch advocate of "democracy", often criticising the US Government for putting other political and economic interests ahead of the promotion of freedom, in this case his priority has nothing to do with the concerns of the Green Movement. Instead he is fixed on 1) Iran's position towards Israel and 2) Iran's nuclear programme. All else for him is window-dressing.
I don't think Diehl is as well-connected with the US Government as his fellow columnists David Ignatius or Jim Hoagland and he is not as influential as a Thomas Friedman. Yet he is still writing for one of the weather-vanes of the American political mood.
And doing so, he brings out all my fears about those who feign concern for what happens inside Iran but who seem --- forgive me here, but I must be honest --- to have an apparent lack of knowledge, understanding, or even appreciation about and for Iranians. I worry that these writers of opinion, who are not "neo-conservative" activists but self-styled "liberals", reduce all that has happened before and after 12 June into a little box that fits political agendas far removed from Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz, and Mashaad.
I worry that, for these defenders of freedom, Green is only a distracting colour.
Iran Nuclear Talks: Tehran’s Middle Way?
Latest from Iran (2 November): The World Takes Notice?
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
I want to be careful here. I don't want to be too emotive, and I don't want to be seen as taking a cheap shot at a US journalist. However, I have just read an opinion piece which is one of the most unsettling I have encountered since 12 June.In today's Washington Post, Jackson Diehl frets about "Iran's Unlovable Opposition". This is his opening:
Iran has been controlled since June by a hard-line clique of extremist clerics and leaders of the Revolutionary Guard who believe they are destined to make their country a nuclear power that dominates the Middle East. It follows that their opposition -- a mass movement that has been marching to slogans such as "death to the dictator" and "no to Lebanon, no to Gaza" -- is bound to be a more plausible partner for the rapproachement that the Obama administration is seeking.
Or maybe not. The enduring nature of Iran is to frustrate outsiders who work by the usual rules of political logic or who seek unambiguous commitments.
What has disturbed Diehl to the point where he rejects the Green Wave? Apparently it is a single encounter "with one of the leading representatives outside of Iran of the 'green revolution', who seemed determined to convince would-be Western supporters that they were wasting their time".
That representative is Ataollah Mohajerani, a Minister of Culture in the Khatami Government and an ally of Mehdi Karroubi. In mid-October, Mohajerani was a speaker at the annual confernence of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where --- in Diehl's words --- "the mostly pro-Israel crowd was primed to cheer what they expected would be a harsh condemnation of Ahmadinejad and his bellicose rhetoric, and a promise of change by the green coalition".
Unfortunately, Mohajerani didn't deliver what many in his audience wanted. He condemned the US for its involvement in the 1953 coup in Iran. He said "the green movement has no expectations whatsoever" on Western support for its cause. Most importantly, he refused to concede that Iran should not have a nuclear programme, pointing instead at Israel's undeclared atomic weapons, and "asked whether Israel had a right to exist, he refused to respond".
The point here is not to defend Mohajerani on these hot-button issues. Instead, it is to ponder how this one speech can be re-framed as a make-or-break movement for Iran's opposition when it comes to American support.
I knew at the time, from discussions with colleagues and contacts, that many in Washington were disturbed by what they saw as the former Minister's brusque and undiplomatic approach. But I couldn't see how Mohajerani was a spokesman for the "Green movement". I especially did not see him as an envoy asking for the endorsement of WINEP, given that the agenda of that organisation can often be seen as Israel-first and that some of its leading members have endorsed regime change, rather than reform, in Tehran.
And Diehl's article doesn't change that perception. It is based on two and only two people. There's Mohajerani. Then there's Mehdi Khalaji of WINEP, who dismisses the speech's importance, "The true leaders of this movement are students, women and human rights activists, and political activists who have no desire to work in a theocratic regime or in a government within the framework of the existing constitution." That's an argument Diehl immediately dismisses:
The fact remains that, were Karroubi and fellow opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi somehow to supplant Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the main changes in Iranian policy might be of style.
I'm not sure how Diehl knows that, since he has not spoken to Karroubi or Mousavi or Mohammad Khatami or Alireza Beheshti or Ayatollah Dastgheib or Mohammad Ghoochani or anyone involved inside Iran. I'm not sure how Diehl knows that because there is no evidence that he has read any of the political positions of the post-12 June movement apart from "statements last week by green-movement leaders attacking the uranium swap plan".
But I don't think Diehl wants to spend all his time dealing with complexities such as Iran's judicial system and the abuses of detainees or the concept of clerical leadership under velayat-e-faqih or accountability for Iran's economic policies or even rights to free expression and assembly.
Because even though Diehl positions himself as a staunch advocate of "democracy", often criticising the US Government for putting other political and economic interests ahead of the promotion of freedom, in this case his priority has nothing to do with the concerns of the Green Movement. Instead he is fixed on 1) Iran's position towards Israel and 2) Iran's nuclear programme. All else for him is window-dressing.
I don't think Diehl is as well-connected with the US Government as his fellow columnists David Ignatius or Jim Hoagland and he is not as influential as a Thomas Friedman. Yet he is still writing for one of the weather-vanes of the American political mood.
And doing so, he brings out all my fears about those who feign concern for what happens inside Iran but who seem --- forgive me here, but I must be honest --- to have an apparent lack of knowledge, understanding, or even appreciation about and for Iranians. I worry that these writers of opinion, who are not "neo-conservative" activists but self-styled "liberals", reduce all that has happened before and after 12 June into a little box that fits political agendas far removed from Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz, and Mashaad.
I worry that, for these defenders of freedom, Green is only a distracting colour.
Reader Comments (31)
Agreed.
THANK YOU! I was seriously tempted to start blogging after reading Diehl's infuriating, over simplistic opinion about the political situation in Iran. Why are so many supposedly intelligent, educated people struggling to come to terms with the fact that Iran is a complex tangle of issues? The almost obsessive compulsion shared by the majority of 'Western' pundits, politicians and opinionated commentators to leap from one broken conclusion to the next is dizzying.
I am sick of reading 'What Iran is REALLY About' articles. And of 'How to TALK to Iran' articles. They just don't get it. OK, fine, then stay the hell out of it. These people aren't helping, they just end up exposing their own miserable failings and inadequacies.
EANews is an air tank in a smog of polluted rhetoric. Keep up the great work guys!
Scott,
You should include this in your application for the Post's 'America's Next Great Pundit' competition ;)
Good stuff.
Change and revolution is a messy thing. It often requires a consensus of sinners, of rogues, of ignorant people of good intentions, often requires fools and drunkards be brought to sobriety by the gravity of circumstances, their feeble conscience awakened by a tsunami splash in the face, but these waves of change engage precious few saints who seem to hide until the right moment when the common tides of evil inertia become irrelevant.
If one reads ALL of the "A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America in General Congress Assembled July 4, 1776", reads past the famous phrases that are often quoted, it is a very awkward document and includes references to "the merciless Indian savages". And the revolution did not end slavery. But the revolution was necessary and worth doing. Motives were mixed. The levels of moral enlightenment among the people were varied. Some who made it possible were idealists, some were not. Few were saints, few were true patriots, but democracy evolved among believers and non-believers. It would seem that the lessons of history can sometimes speed up the process in modern times. There is the possibility for serendipitous enlightenment and well as for catastrophe if a mob of congenial rogues can laugh together at the meeting of strange bedfellows in the conspiracy of justice.
"What if it isn't 'ours'"? Well, to extrapolate to the absurd, what would an ethnocentric American style revolution look like as Jackson Diehl's lovable opposition should be? By analogy a declaration:
Whereas, the present Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in his evil endeavors has a history of repeated injuries and usurpations against the people, the people are absolved from allegiance to this tyrant and to his Guardian Council.
The people of Iran in consanguinity with Mohammed are the voice of justice protected by Divine Providence.
When it is shown that a leader is possessed by Demons of unreason and treachery, it is the duty of the people to rebel and declare their rights under Allah.
In evidence of his evil, we list the crimes of his regime, and declare our independence from his tyranny.
In every stage of his oppression, we have petitioned, in the most humble terms, but to no avail.
He has excited domestic insurrections by our militia children, merciless Basiji savages whose only rule of warfare is the destruction of all ages and sexes by any means most terrible.
He has called together legislative bodies at secret locations for the sole purpose of oppressing the people with ominous and obscure laws that fatigue them into compliance.
He has dissolved meetings repeatedly for opposing in good conscience his invasions on the human rights of the people.
He has obstructed the administration of justice by refusing his assent to laws for establishing an independent judiciary.
He has erected a multitude of offensive agents, and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people and seize their property.
He has affected to render the Revolutionary Guards independent of, and superior to, the civil power, and powers reserved for the people.
He has sent militias and armed vigilantes into our homes to destroy property and murder our people, but yet the Ayatollah protects the militias and vigilantes from punishment, he, himself, complicit in their vile crimes and murders.
He is, at this time, transporting large militias, secret police, and other unidentified agents to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun, with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
Furthermore:
Whereas, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by Allah with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Whereas, crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, his Guardian Council, and compliant clerics, we the people by the authority of Allah, do declare the following:
Henceforth, any clergy following the dictates, directly or indirectly, of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, whether by complicity with evil elements of the Basiji, Revolutionary Guards, or Army, or by silence, and who shall not follow the path of peace, laying down their arms, in command or in weaponry, shall be subject to exile or execution by the Nascent Sea of Green forming by God's will, witnessed by the world in Revelation.
Peace be with you. God is Great.
Scott, With much respect, you're being overly cautious and gentle here -- though I can appreciate why.
First, there's much reason to be quite dubious of all the outside players who loudly yell that "they speak for Iran" -- or that they "really know what the greens want because they tell them privately." Like Chalabis, such figures seem to get attention according to the comportment of their declarations of "what the greens want" with the agendas of their external audiences and patrons.
Second, when was the last time Khaliji of WINEP was "right" about any of his pronouncements re. Iran? Somebody should examine carefully his major "predictions" and see what he's gotten right... (going back to his claims that the last elections for the Majles-e Kobragan (AofExperts) would be meaningless; that the recent Presidential election would be of no consequence; and his flat silly claims that the "Mullahs" in Iran were largely "unified" in their endorsement of the rigging of the results..... predictions all for which the evidence suggests quite the opposite)
Ah, at WINEP, (like several other inside-the-beltway think-tanks), you don't get hired according to your demonstrated prescience. No, what matters is fidelity to whatever the agenda at the time is of the Israeli lobby (e.g., AIPAC, not J-Street). I was astonished that Mohajerani had even agreed to speak at WINEP, as his standing back in Iran will be even further diminished as a result. Wouldn't be the first time that a prominent Iranian dissident became associated with WINEP and the cause paid a price.... ask Sarzegara.
By the way, serious question: do you or any of your readers actually have the full text of the Mohajerani address at WINEP? Last I checked, it wasn't on the WINEP web site -- big surprise -- not! (Of course, the Israeli press the next day all quoted from it extensively -- as they trashed it.)
The Green Movement is not, and shouldn't be, "ours". It belongs to the Iranian people alone, otherwise America = Ahmadi Nejad ("AN"). Seriously, Diehl needs to step back and read "The Ugly American", by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer, a best seller back in the 1950's that's still in print. Diehl is as warped in his view as the PPP's on the Left who support AN because he talks bad to the "Great Satan", in the same manner as those type people supported Milosevic.
Thank you for writing this Scott.
The naivete and carelessness of most American media and observers of the Iran situation boggles my mind. In particular "conservatives" in the US who seemed to care so much about regime change in Iran when W was president now seem oblivious and easily manipulated by regime propaganda. I suspect it has something to do with the simplistic axis of evil narrative of Iran that they paint. More likely their interest in the country was disingenuous to begin with.
I am dissappointed to see some liberal commentators making the same naive mistakes, for example Christiane Amanpour putting Mohammad Marandi on as an "expert" on Iran when he has already been outed as a hardline Khamenei lackey and propagandist. Also, the characterization of the Nov. 4 protests as celebrating the taking of American hostages is devastatingly stupid. Why does it seem like NO American reporters are doing their homework on this issue that was supposedly so important during the "war on terror"?
An update along the same lines: I just saw a BBC article referring to Mousavi as "losing presidential hopeful", and a few days ago I saw Karroubi described as "failed Presidential candidate". Has Iranian State TV bought every western news outlet or are they just shamefully easy to manipulate? I think you know the answer.
Picard,
I'll see if I can track down the Mohajerani text. In the meantime, I appreciate the added context you've brought in with this comment.
S.
EA commentary (insightful) on that article is one reason reading here is so satisfying. It presents another view that reflects what many already think they know -- affirmations from a knowledgeable and straightforward source are always a bonus. Thank you.
Thank you so much for such a wsll-reasoned rebuttal of an over-simplistic article. I agree 100% with all that you say. I hope that you have sent it to the Washington Post requesting publication?
Tricia Neda
do you remember when all the media were talking about Iran saying :" Iran will be bombing ", "Israel is ready to attack".... they need to creat an emotionnal surroundings to sell their "articles"; and all these articles are always in the same way and speak about the same things !! like in "the young and the restless", the famous television serial, which has lasted for very long time, all the women (actresses) are pregnat in the same time, get married in the same time , are unfaithful to their husband ... in the same time, !!!( sorry for the comparison but it's so caricatured !!) so we just need to be successful on wednesday , so that all the medias speak about that... in the same time !!
I thing there is a lack in the communication's system of the green movement , let me explain : do you remember , how I was surprised , (one month ago), after hearing the meaning of 13 aban ( 4 nov) ? as an iranian who has never lived in Iran, I was shocked to see it's a day to celebrate the takeover of US ambassy; green mouvement had one month to explain , thanks to its communication's system, all over the world, that it's a pretext for iranian people to go out and demonstrate against the governement or regime ! because they are obliged to use the "allowed" days ( days special demonstrations) to show the anger of people, otherwise it will be "FATAL";
This misleading advertising about this day and hiding the thruth aim of the greens come from"AN and colleagues"
Thank you so much for writing this, you've totally nailed all the things that infuriated me as I was reading the article! It doesn't even hang together internally--one minute an expert says the speaker doesn't speak for the Greens, next minute the author's saying so therefore even if the Greens win nothing will change. Huh?
I think some commentators, like this one, approach the subject of Iran with a racist mentality that people in the Middle East "aren't suited for" democracy. They just naturally like to be ruled by fascist dictators, it's their culture, so nobody should expect or try to help foster true democracy in Iran.
I hold this truth as self-evident: everybody wants to be free, and it doesn't matter where they live.
Do you know I think I preferred it when the Western media ignored the Green Movement.
I just hope they read this Scott, I mean the SoG has enough to contend with, without the stupid Western media as well. (One must ask do Western Media and Govts have agendas to keep the coup gvt in place - does it fill their purpose in some way?)
Scott
In my emotions, I have forgotten to say : you are the "BEST"
Scott, thanks VERY MUCH for writing this challenging response to this unfortunate, badly sourced editorial in the Post.
I wont cover what you already covered more eloquently above, but would merely like to add a few random comments with my takes:
1) I get the feeling that the Post itself and the editorial board would take strong issue with this piece. I believe it was probably put in the paper to present something of an opposing viewpoint. By and large, the Post coverage of Iran has been pretty decent, aside from the obvious fact that the domestic situation in Iran is undercovered. (Whether a lack of demand from Americans, the papers themselves, or the restrictions on coverage by the Iranian authorities should be blamed can be debated elsewhere.) However, in terms of prioritization, percentage of coverage relating to internal events, and their facts, the Post makes fewer mistakes than most of the other major US and UK dailies. The Post has also put pictures and articles regarding the Green demonstrations on their front page on days when few other Western papers did so (exp, see http://www.twitpic.com/j1ew5 )
2) It stands to reason that a democratic government, or even one “more” democratic than the current one (under Mousavi/Karroubi) would be in the best interests of the West. First of all, the Iranian people as a whole are not nearly as anti-Western as their current government is. A government that better represents them would be likely to be less reflexively anti-western. Secondly, such a government would have more legitimacy than the current one, and would be in a better position to actually make (and stick to) deals and compromises with the West.
3) The statements by Mousavi, Karroubi, or their representatives that appears to take a “hard line” should be taken in context. Right now, the reformers have reason to play up their nationalistic credentials, as the Iranian regime is attempting to portray them as “tools of the West.” and arrest them. . In contract, Ahmadinejad actually has some valid reasons, particularly given his legitimacy issues, for appearing more “moderate” and dealing with the west. This hardly means that Mousavi, Karroubi, or any of their followers would be as, or more, incorrigible than Ahmadinejad. Remember, in 2008 Obama actually chose a foreign policy issue that had popularity in the U.S. (Afghanistan), to try to outflank McCain on McCain’s right and demonstrate “toughness”.
4) Even if #2 and #3 above were not true, there would be reason for Westerners who believe in democracy and human rights to support the Green movement, simply based on the fact that we believe that all human beings deserve these unalienable rights. Not every country that has a democratically elected government is going to be reflexively pro-Western. However, we should still care that these people have a right to freedom, and have a right to be fairly represented by their own elected governments, rather than to have their views and rights repressed.
5) The thing that disturbs me most about this article, is it is another one that lends truth to the concept that Americans are self absorbed, that we really don’t care what goes on inside other countries, and that we have a total lack of appreciation for other cultures. Unfortunately, the stereotype can be true to a point. For example, I bet that a lower percentage of Americans follow international news, or speak a second language, vs. the population of any European country. But, there are thousands and thousands of Americans that do care about the Iranian internal situation, and are lending time and support to the cause. It is unfortunate that so much of the “we don’t care about anything but our national self-interest” message is getting out to the Iranian Greens via the mainstream U.S. media, vs so little of the “our hearts and souls are with you” message (which is what so many millions of us actually feel.) :(
Oh, and I don't think I'll be writing these "books" all the time in the EA comments sections; its just a brief excitable pre-13 Aban phase I'm going through ;-)
Well it seems some pundits are not getting it still. The Green is an Iranian movement, it is grass roots and does not take "orders" from anyone. In fact the so called "leaders" Karrubi and Mousavi are really only part of this massive movement. We are seeing the birth of a new entity one with the potential to transform not just Iran but the Muslim world and certainly have a very positive impact on teh ME and help bring peace by rejecting violence and Isalmic hate mongers and Islamic fascists. We all know this in Iran, it is as simple as that. The pundits need to observe the reality in Iran. Mohajerani is one of the old guard, he does not represent the movement. For one thing he is too preoccupied with the defunct anti Jewish sentiments. We in Iran do not have any ill feelings against the Jewish people nor the Jewish state. In fact we know of a remarkable symbiosis in our history and we like it. We do not adhere to an of the outdated ideologies of Hezbollah and Hamas. We are a free thinking and peace loving nation, for the most part that is. The elements in Iran that are still clinging on to old slogans are way behind what the movement is all about. Western pundits have to see this. It is simple, we want freedom, due process, justice, and all the other things ou have had in the West for some time. We know that the road ahead is tough and that many of us will die and will be tortured and raped, but we also know that the end is clear, We know it and we strive for it. Simple. This is not to be taken as the naive idealism of youth, it is not. We ave had to become clever and even cagey because of the Islamic regime's draconian and brutal ways. We have grown up fast and we are sincere in what we want and in how to get it. We do seek your moral support in the West for sure. Please don't have your elected representatives come and shake the hands of those with blood on their hands. We will thank ou in the future for it and will acknowledge your moral position taken now.
Hossein, I am marveled at how dedicated and brave you are - but also how articulate you are! This is especially wonderful considering that English is probably your second or third language. I am involved in the international Green social media networks, so if you have any recommendations or requests for how we can support you at any time, I will be honored to pass them along.
Scott, I read your words eagerly every day and am amazed at your perception in all things political; but then you would, if you can understand Iran anywhere else is easy! I fell in love with the beautiful people of Iran since June 12th by finding Iran translator, Pedestrian, Teheran Bureau and Enduring America- oh, and twitter. How the West can't see the passive courage, the ideals and humour, the poetry and intellectual capability of the sea of green -are blind! Please, please reply to that untruthful, biased article, thank you! Jill
hossein, I never in the least trusted mousavi and karrubi (I don't like their "statements" and all this "within the framework of the islamic revolution..") but I knew June 12th would happen and I was not surprised but very enthusiastic when it did; I believe there are many clever and cagey hosseins fighting for dignity and freedom, and making use of the so-called leaders if there's no other way.
I am also happy to hear it so clearly stated that you don't share hamas or hezbollah's ideology and don't hate israël.
I'm not involved in politics but my heart is with you.
Kevin Scott
What you could do for all iranian people inside and outside of the country, is to put the truth , what you see , in your articles ; everyday you could consult EA and " our" Scott, to keep yourself up to date on the latest news from Iran; you have to look and more important, to see what happens in our country; in france we say, when young peoples rumble the end of the regime is imminent !
Thank you for desiring to help my people
Hossein
Please say to Kevin Scott, what you want and how you want to be backed and good luck for wednesday
Dear All,
A quick personal note before signing off and waking up on the day before 13 Aban. Many thanks to all of you for your kind words --- I was very nervous about converting my initial anger at the Washington Post piece into the right tone of support in the piece for those who are bravely pursuing their hopes in Iran. It is an honour to carry your reassurance into another day.
S.
Kevin, hossein Scott and others I find your comments (and article) quite inspiring, I'm quite a bit less pessimist :-) Ange paris, maybe we could meet oneday ?
Thank You , its really sad when commentators lose perspective on the importance of events happening in Iran rite now. I'm so sick of the "if Green leaders were in power, it would make no difference" commentary. It may not make any different to their confined sense of whats important. What really matters is that the green movement (and here i means the students, activists, and political prisoners) is making a difference everyday in order to build a better future for their country. FREEDOM MATTERS in the analysis
Hukook al- Insan
http://tqa81.wordpress.com/