[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[by Jalal Bahar]

NOTE: Important parts are highlighted in RED!

Keep Out of Iran So Long as The Mullahs Reign
May 24, 2004
The News Journal
Jalil Bahar

There is an expectation that if Sen. John Kerry is elected president, relations between the United States and Iran would be restored. Sen. Joseph Biden, senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, is considered to favor rapprochement.

It is ill-advised. Here are a few reasons why such a policy would be wrong for the United States.

U.S. policy must be based on long-term results. In the long run, Iran will become a democracy. Iranians have good memories. Any rapprochement today will be seen by virtually all Iranians as positive recognition for a brutal and oppressive regime, and reaffirm widely held views that the U.S. government has maintained secret relations with Iran for a long time. When Iranians gain their freedoms, future representative governments will not be pro-American.

Do not be fooled. There is no democracy or goodness within Iran's current theocratic regime. Hundreds of newspapers have been closed down. There are thousands of political prisoners, serious human rights violations and democratic abuses. The mullahs have no real popular support. The United States cannot be a party to oppression. Now is the wrong time to kiss and make up, especially after Iran's sham elections.

It is not an argument to say we're falling behind the Europeans on this. This argument has never held weight in relations with North Korea or Cuba. Britain is widely hated in the Middle East and is seen as the principal architects of all the misery in the region, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and puppet sheikdoms in the Persian Gulf. Today, after failure, the British are trying to leverage the United States' vast resources to achieve their own strategic goals.

Consider, for example, 8,200 British troops in Iraq vs. 120,000 American troops -- with the British sitting on about half of Iraq's oil reserves in the south near Basra. The British have pushed the United States to the fore in the Middle East. America is now hated at center stage, not them.

U.S. history and principles are substantially different than Britain's. It stands for liberty and democracy. Do not be fooled. A British push to engage Iran with the United States will serve British interests, not ours. I believe that standing on the side of liberty will in the long run bring larger dividends to America.

The Democratic Party must also differentiate itself from the Republican party, which contrary to President Bush's rhetoric has been quietly reinforcing other regional oppressors for access to oil. Note the re-established dictatorship of Azerbaijan, whose leader was anointed an honorary Texan by Bush; former Communist cronies and presidents for life in Uzbekistan or Tadzhikistan; continued support for the Saudi royals and virtually every other Arab dictatorship.

The Democratic Party must by its actions and rhetoric support real democracy. The Republican strategy of supporting oppressors is a short-term tactic, and plays into all the wrong images of Americans abroad.

Above all, it's simply bad business for our companies to invest in those regions, especially in long pay-back projects like pipelines or oil field projects, signing contracts with governments that have no legitimacy. In this day and age, no force is large enough to arrest liberty anywhere indefinitely. These regimes will fall and oil companies will end up empty-handed. We're better off fixing the political environment first, then investing. And their populations will help us.

Such change will not come by getting close to regimes or pushing for slow evolutionary change. The Iranian regime has been playing good cop/bad cop with the West for more than 26 years. Reality was revealed with the recent sham election, secret nuclear programs, human rights abuses and general oppression.

I believe it is in everyone's interests to bring about immediate change. It can be done by supporting a global embargo of Iranian oil, and freezing all Iranian assets overseas. Such an embargo would give Iranians the confidence to topple Iran's government without engaging American troops.

There is a need to increase oil imports to the United States and substantial growth in demand for oil in the Far East. Central Asia's vast, untapped hydrocarbon reserves will play a significant role in the world's energy supply for decades to come. Demand for oil will begin to outstrip supply within a few years.

Iran sits squarely in the middle of that region. Even if a large pipeline is placed through Afghanistan, or if the Caspian Sea is exploited from its northern shores, or Iraqi oil comes on full force , there will be serious shortcomings on bringing oil to market. The scenario is even bleaker without Iran on natural gas, where elaborate regional trades might be needed into a combined pipeline system. Basically, every play in the region supports Iran's transformation.

With Iran transformed, the region will become an engine driving global economic growth, especially as new refineries, oil rigs and chemical plants are ordered. Prosperity would then yield new hospitals, roadways, airports -- you name it.

The United States must maintain and expand its global presence through decency, fair play, respect and compassion for the people of these nations. With Iran especially, the United States has a debt of decency. Consider President Dwight Eisenhower's CIA-backed coup to eliminate democracy in Iran in 1952; Jimmy Carter's role in deposing the shah and promotion of Islamic militants in 1979; and Ronald Reagan's backroom deals with the militants that delayed the release of hostages to win the 1980 presidential election. Arms sales to both sides extending the Iran-Iraq war, resulting in one million dead and injured.

Iran's mullahs have grown very rich and remain symbols of success for other Islamic militants. The United States cannot support, assist or recognize Iran's theocracy in this age of terrorism by Islamic militants.

Jalil Bahar, a real estate investor in Sussex County, lives in Chester, Md. He retired from the Iranian Foreign Service in 1980 after more than 20 years of service under both the shah and post-revolution government.

[stefania]

I agree.. However, Britain is not the main architect of the Middle East's problems..

Britain has contributed to create them, but the main responsible are the local dictators !
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)

[stefania]

[Notes to : Jalil Bahar]

Dear Jalil Bahar,

Great Article, and we appreciate all who shine a light on this fascist theocratic regime's tyranny and terrorism.

but have you ever considered this:

1. Do you think Mr. Kerry and all his friends and campaign supporters don't alraedy know the truth? That would be foolish of us to think they don't know what's going on. I bet they even know it in more details than you and I.

2. Have you ever thought why Carter did what he did at 79? Why did he buy into British / EU plots for toppling the main US ally in Middle East?

How foolish was that? was that not more foolish than what Mr. Kerry is promissing today? Indeed it was.
Do you think Carter didn't know that the Shah of Iran has no intension of crossing his most beloved ally the United States? What was Mr. Carter thinkig?

When in their last visit the Shah and his family went to Washington to talk to Mr. Carter, democrats' administration allowed the leftists and islamists demo to run wild and enjoyed the specticle!

Mr. Carter and the likes of him, are a lighter version of fascist madmen with no respect for the principles that America is founded upon.
They only think of thier own fame and fortune and not that of the nation.

If ayatollahs offer Mr. Kerry a bribe today, and infact if Europeans offer to pay 50% of the 100% they recieved for Oil deals in the past 25 years, and deposite it into democrats accounts, is there any doubt in your mind that they would accept it without a second thought?

Politicians don't work for people, where have you heard or seen that before?

It's true that politicians need people's vote, and do whatever propaganda to get it, but ultimately they are motivated by power and profits, and not the long term interest of their nation.

Far be it for Mr. Kerry to leave billions of dollars offered by Europeans, just to uphold American Values. In his mind 4-8 years of blindly following European plots can't possibly hurt the United States of America that much!

We saw how disasterous Mr. Carter's approval of EU foreign policies turned out to be for US, and how profitable for Europeans and their oldest allies Leftist & Islamists!

All Europarl needs today is just one more stupid power thirsty puppet in Oval Office, and be sure this time they will push US off the cliff for ever, and the climb up will be more difficult and deadly than the war on terrorism.

[YaSuck]

[stefania]

I was being ironic, Yasucks...

Has not Jebhe Melli supported the Islamic Rev ?

So, the "democracy" of Mossadegh's party has been restored in 1979..
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)

[Liberty Now !]

mosadegh o saltane is not as clean as some would like to think.

I'm sure stephania was kidding.
dear stephania do you understand farsi at all? it's amazing how much you know about Iran. thought it's time to learn some farsi, in case we will all go back for a trip together

thanks for all your great posts sis.
_________________
Paayande Iran

[stefania]

[shenakht1]

Dear Sir/Madam,
Thanks for putting the article at your website.Please correct the name of author which is JALIL BAHAR and Not Jalal Bahar..Jalal should be JALIL.
Yours truly
shenakht1

[Kepha]

Well, I hear all this noise about how bad it will be for the USA if it does this or that, and it is clear that the coup removing Mossadegh has not been forgotten. Well, it seems to me that the best choice for the USA would be to let the Iranians work out their future themselves. If the mullahs stay in power for the next few decades, we'll just have to live with it. If we wake up tomorrow to see Qom being burned to the ground and Iranians openly renaming themselves Yohannan and Bulus while mullahs kill themselves with despair, we'll just have to live with that, too. We learned in 1979 that Iran wants to go its own way, and we need to respect that.

In the Middle East, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. I say let the region stew in its own juices, and save our money and the lives of our young people rather than sacrifice them for Sykes' and Picot's lines in the sand.

By the way, one of the happiest days in my life was when I met a Mujahedin-e-khalq rep on the Washington Mall. I told him he had his f_ing nerve to solicit American sympathy when his party was the first bunch inside the Embassy back in 1979, and he could go fight the bloody mullahs himself. I also said that the INS officer who approved his getting asylum in the USA should've been fired.

Don't get me wrong: if the Iranians get a multiparty free republic or constitutional monarchy set up, I'm their biggest well-wisher, and might even pay Iran a visit and spend some tourist dollars. But, I'm no enthusiast for getting involved in other people's affairs.

[Amin]

You post is wrong.. I'm sorry to say -

In the Middle East we're damned if we do, damned if we don't - That's complete bullshit..

No time to reply to your hilarious concepts right now - let someone else hit back, but I definitely think you are incorrect in your statements and I must now go and laugh for the rest of the day..

-Amin