Iranian students clash with police during protest against Ahmadinejad

by Mirza Kuchak Khan - Communist Party of Iran (ML-M) Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:54

Another analysis of the important events at Tehran Universirty where the Dictator Ahmadinejad was confronted by miltant students.

Despite the restrictions, hundreds of students gathered chanting “Down with the dictator!”, “Free student prisoners!”, “No to torturing students!” and “We students will die rather than tolerate contempt!” Addressing the regime representatives and security forces, they chanted, “Shame on you, get out of the university!”

The regime brought in 100-150 so-called students who were mainly militia members from the universities dominated by the Revolutionary Guards. They stood in front of the Alamehe Amini hall where the speech was to be given, to form a protective layer between the hall and student protesters. Theyu chanted Islamic slogans glorifying Shia icons and proclaiming their aim of martyrdom, along with occasionally shouting “Down with England” and “Down with America” and swearing at the students, especially the women. They beat up students attempting to get into the hall. The protestors responded by chanting, “Cannon, tanks, militia, none of them can stop us now”.

The present situation and the student movement

A very serious crisis is brewing in Iran. The imperialists have threatened it with a military attack. Such a war would be, most of all, a war on the people. So the people sooner or later will have to confront two vicious enemies. This situation poses life and death questions for the people of Iran. The Iranian regime has made its decision and is not going to rely on the people. Its reactionary nature and its fundamental contradiction with the interests of the people do not allow otherwise. The regime’s crackdown has been aimed far more broadly than just students. Particularly targeted have been the women’s movement and the independent press. According to the regime, its thugs and other actions have forced half a million women to keep wearing the veil. Over the last year nearly 200 people have been executed in public to create a climate of intimidation. Although the regime labels them all “criminals”, some are known to be political prisoners such as Majid Kavousifar, age 28.

Full text:
http://www.aworldtowin.org/wordpress/?p=206

by Hacker Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:14

Your conclusions are flawed.

You state the people will have to face 2 vicious enemies if the Imperialists attack Iran. This is factually incorrect.

You are assuming that the Mullahs have no support in Iran amongst ordinary Iranians. This is also factually incorrect and based on wishful thinking.

Like it or not the Mullahs enjoy popular support within Iran. If the US attacks Iran, ordinary workers and students will rally to the Mullahs unconditionally and fight the US.

Iran is not ripe for revolution, it has not expressed overwhelmingly by any means a wish to overthrow the mullahs and instill a secular democracy.

The Communist Party in Iran is sending mixed signals here, if indeed this came from the CPI at all. For sure highlight protests and injustice, but do not draw spurious conclusions from it or lead anyone to believe that the CPI has widespread support within Iran when it blatantly has not.

It is curious that so soon after Leaders from South America have forged greater links with Iran that such incendiary reports begin flooding open host sites such as this.

One can draw their own conclusions from that glaring coincidence.

by Mirza Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:32

"You state the people will have to face 2 vicious enemies if the Imperialists attack Iran. This is factually incorrect. "

No. The Iranian Government is undemocratic and attacks the people. A government which bans unions and strikes could only be an enemy of the people.

"You are assuming that the Mullahs have no support in Iran amongst ordinary Iranians. This is also factually incorrect and based on wishful thinking."

Do you not think the CPI (ML-M) would have a better idea of whats going on in Iran than you do?

"Like it or not the Mullahs enjoy popular support within Iran. If the US attacks Iran, ordinary workers and students will rally to the Mullahs unconditionally and fight the US."

How do you know that they have popular support? There are no free elections in Iran.

"Iran is not ripe for revolution, it has not expressed overwhelmingly by any means a wish to overthrow the mullahs and instill a secular democracy. "

Your opinions are based on what?

"The Communist Party in Iran is sending mixed signals here, if indeed this came from the CPI at all. For sure highlight protests and injustice, but do not draw spurious conclusions from it or lead anyone to believe that the CPI has widespread support within Iran when it blatantly has not."

There was no claim that the CPI (ML-M) has widespread support but it does know more than you do. If you have any doubts about the article go to the site.

"It is curious that so soon after Leaders from South America have forged greater links with Iran that such incendiary reports begin flooding open host sites such as this."

Not at all curious that those who oppose both Imperialism and a tyrannical dictatorship should make their views clear.

"One can draw their own conclusions from that glaring coincidence."

What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that Iranian Socialists, Students , Workers, Women do not have the right to challenge a Theocracy?

by Hacker Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:22

Mirza or whatever your name is.

You are not a member of the CPI nor are you in Iran nor have you ever set foot in Iran. You adopting such positions to lend yourself credibility on all things Iranian is therefore off the wall, not to mention bogus and duplicitous.

These reports which all stem from you are regurgitated platitudes spun to portray the Iranian Government in the worst possible light for pure propaganda purposes to place the CPI in a position of persecution and to bolster their calls for international solidarity. This pursuit in itself is not the problem. It is the dishonesty you engage in when propagating their cause that is paticulary pathetic.

The CPI does not enjoy popular support within Iran. That is patently obvious. The people in Iran are not a down trodden subjugated ignorant people who blindly follow the mullahs through fear. They are capable of showing their anger at injustice as these protests demonstrate. They are not constantly under the boot heel and are clearly able to express themselves.

The last poll carried out in Iran show the majority of its citizenry are happy with the direction the Government is taking the country. Do not even attempt to dupe anyone with the nonsense that any poll in Iran will be flawed because it is a dictatorship. The people in Iran can and do speak for themselves. They protest and march. They can bloody well speak their mind in an anonymous capacity to a pollster.

Nowhere in the Middle East is there a democracy. Let alone a secular one. Self determination is not your idea of it should be and you are acting very cavalier with an enormous number of lives by grafting your interpretation of it upon thiers. That is hubris.

Free elections in Iran would not return a secular democracy. This is a fact, one any political analyst or social/demographical expert takes for granted. An Islamic Government would be returned without question and the status quo would prevail.

This is a reality that must be accepted when discussing Iran, otherwise much breath will be wasted, conclusions erroneous followed by dangerous assumptions and actions precipitated under their auspices.

Stating facts does not translate into support for the Iranian Government, the suppression of workers or any other deluded spun conclusion you spew in an attempt to deflect the realities on the ground in Iran.

If you can’t discuss Iran honestly then you just expose yourself as a peddler of propaganda with scant regard for anything other than your narrow political objectives.

You are no friend of the Iran people despite what you claim. You are an antagonist for a infinitesimally small minority of Iranian communists who are trying to stir up agitation and perhaps incite a revolution off the back of the current demonization process being orchestrated by the US.

Deluded, dangerous and diabolical in its eventual outcome.

by Mirza Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:37

"These reports which all stem from you are regurgitated platitudes spun to portray the Iranian Government in the worst possible light for pure propaganda purposes to place the CPI in a position of persecution and to bolster their calls for international solidarity. This pursuit in itself is not the problem. It is the dishonesty you engage in when propagating their cause that is paticulary pathetic."

The only dishonesty is on your part. You cannot accept that the Iranian Govt is anything other than dictatorship. Where do you get your information?

" The people in Iran are not a down trodden subjugated ignorant people who blindly follow the mullahs through fear."

They are not ignorant but they are oppressed by the dictatorship.

"They are capable of showing their anger at injustice as these protests demonstrate. They are not constantly under the boot heel and are clearly able to express themselves."

They do rise up but they are under the boot. Students and workers are attacked and imprisoned. You know this yet you lie to protect the Iranian Government.

"The last poll carried out in Iran show the majority of its citizenry are happy with the direction the Government is taking the country. Do not even attempt to dupe anyone with the nonsense that any poll in Iran will be flawed because it is a dictatorship. ".

Of course it was flawed. In a dictatorship uyou never know when you are dealing with an agent of the Iranian Secret Police. You never even know when you are debating with them on a website. No honest person would accept such a survey as being valid.

"Free elections in Iran would not return a secular democracy."

What do you base this on? Why do you think the Iranian people should be denied a choice?

"If you can’t discuss Iran honestly then you just expose yourself as a peddler of propaganda with scant regard for anything other than your narrow political objectives."

You are the dishonest one. You attack striking workers, you attack students. Anyone who questions the Iranian Govt is attacked by you.

"You are no friend of the Iran people despite what you claim. You are an antagonist for a infinitesimally small minority of Iranian communists who are trying to stir up agitation and perhaps incite a revolution off the back of the current demonization process being orchestrated by the US."

You are truly pathetic. The CPI (ML-M) clearly abhors the US Imperialists. The fact that you casually toss around such smears makes me wonder who your true employer is

"Deluded, dangerous and diabolical in its eventual outcome."

It sounds like an appropriate description of someone who vilifies students and workers and Communists who vie to overthrow a Theocracy.

by Watcher Thu Oct 18, 2007 09:17

This exchange is very difficult not least because in most cases the threads are opened by material that is cut and pasted following a search of the web for material that fits the bias. The core issue of who or for what motive is such material published to begin with is usually lost because the original poster is incapable of indepth decussion of the post, not being the author.
The following is offered merely to establish that there is real and genuine cause for concern with the repeat singleing out of Iran for attack.

Newt Gingrich laid out his strategy for dealing with what he perceives as the the Iranian threat:

"...come to the aid of the oppressed Iranian people the majority of who are pro-American, by starting with all-out help to the forces of independence in the country, given covertly" This to include, "such groups as student and trade union organizations, suggesting that we make every effort to supply them with the resources needed to bring about regime change while making it clear that we are going to do everything in our power to make that a reality. And, he adds, we should tell the Europeans that there is no imaginable diplomatic solution that can solve the Iranian problem."

Stephen Zunes of the Asia Times made the following observations regarding US policy to incite internal unrest in Iran in the hope that this might precipitate "regime change"

"In apparent recognition of this trend, the US Congress last year approved US$75 million in funding for a Bush administration request to support various Iranian opposition groups. However, most of these groups are led by exiles who have virtually no following within Iran or any experience with the kinds of grassroots mobilization necessary to build a popular movement that could threaten the regime's survival. By contrast, most of the credible opposition within Iran has renounced this US initiative and has asserted that it has simply made it easier for the regime to claim that all pro-democracy groups and activists are paid agents of the United States."

There is a lesson here somewhere, lets hope it is heeded.

by tomeile Thu Oct 18, 2007 13:24

Here’s an interesting link on the CIA backed 1953 coup which overthrew the Iranian Mossadegh government . U.S President Eisenhower had been advised by British intelligence agencies that the Iranian communist party was becoming too influential after Mossadegh had refused to back down to British colonialist demands to halt the nationalisation of Iran's oil fields.
"Iranians working for the CIA and posing as communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government."

http://forums.sohh.com/archive/index.php/t-499447.html

by Drew - World Peoples' Resistance Movement Fri Oct 19, 2007 16:37 wprm_ireland at yahoo dot com

It’s true what they say, to the orientalist, the orient is timeless, inarticulate and feminine in contrast to the masculine, progressive and expert west. The oriental mind is apparently fixed and within this there is the portrayal of Iran as a monolithic, enraged and threatening force, its people incapable of playing a progressive secular role unless guided by Western intellect.

The western bourgeoisie is notorious for its patronising attitudes. The reality of the oppression experienced by the Iranians is acceptable because they are different and this is the style of government they are capable of. The fact that some on this thread are unimpressed by a member of an Iranian organisation, whose members were massacred en masse after the 1979 takeover by the mullahs tells us all we need to know.

In this debate the Iranian people do not figure. They are here to have their beliefs reinterpreted by western reactionaries who use scattered facts about imperialisms role in Iran, that HOPIs members are unlikely to disagree with, to defend their immovable and dogmatic position. After all, it’s the Iranian people who will get it in the neck? Action however should be motivated by facts and not by the orientalist delusion that being an educated middle class westerner allows you the right to have the final word on the world as a whole.

by Watcher Fri Oct 19, 2007 18:26

A strange new poster has appeared presumably to evade the questions as to why Iran is being singled out for repeated attacks when we all know that there are regimes infinately worse not a stones throw away. And it is extraordinary that those how are questioning the motives that lie behind these incessant attacks on Iran, and Iran alone, are now labelled Orientalists. Well if that is the bolt hole to which they have decided to retreat and muster a defence-so be it. Let the discussion begin.

It must be stated at the outset that I do have an"oriental mind"

"The oriental mind is apparently fixed and within this there is the portrayal of Iran as a monolithic, enraged and threatening force, its people incapable of playing a progressive secular role unless guided by Western intellect."

Orientalism regards all Arabs with suspicion and deems them to be incapable of objective thinking. Sound familiar?. It is in fact the creed of the colonialist. It suggests that those that we oppress are incapable of looking after there own needs so we must impose restrictions on them for their own good. Orientalism essentially is being used to justify interference. This whole discussion is about the repeated singling out of Iran for criticism which is interference from afar and suggests that Iranians cannot find freedom, and democracy without interference from the west. I do not even presume that Iranians want democracy and am quite willing to allow them decide for themselves what they want-on their own and free from western influence.( For a brilliant explanation of Orientalism and how it is used to denigrate the Arab world, read Edward Said.)

"The western bourgeoisie is notorious for its patronising attitudes."

We agree on something.

" The reality of the oppression experienced by the Iranians is acceptable because they are different and this is the style of government they are capable of."

To whom is this attributed. Putting words in people's mouths is dispicable.

" The fact that some on this thread are unimpressed by a member of an Iranian organisation, whose members were massacred en masse after the 1979 takeover by the mullahs tells us all we need to know."

Maybe this comment exposes more than any other who exactly employs the Orientalist thinking on these matters. We may not like what materialied after the revolution but there can be no doubt that that outcome is what the vast majority of Iranians wanted at that time.The 1979 revolt in Iran was driven by popular demand. It was not a case of a top down coup but the complete opposite. The Shah's dependence on the United States, his close ties with Israel—then engaged in extended hostilities with the Muslim Arab world—and his regime's ill-considered economic policies and his westernisation programmes led to the revolt. At one demonstation alone over 1 million Iranians marched.

"In this debate the Iranian people do not figure. They are here to have their beliefs reinterpreted by western reactionaries who use scattered facts about imperialisms role in Iran, that HOPIs members are unlikely to disagree with, to defend their immovable and dogmatic position. "

This is bullshite. Those who are challanging the constant attacks on Iran are calling for an end to them and for the Iranian people to be left alone to find their own way. If left alone that they will certainly do.

"After all, it’s the Iranian people who will get it in the neck?"

Yes, but from how? I do not have bombs and bullets.

"Action however should be motivated by facts and not by the orientalist delusion that being an educated middle class westerner allows you the right to have the final word on the world as a whole."

Such blatent hypocracy. Who instigates these threads. Who is seeking to influence change within Iran from a safe and comfortable position here in the west?

by Drew - WPRM Fri Oct 19, 2007 18:44 wprm_ireland at yahoo dot com

I stand by what I said. We can talk about other countries that oppress their people if you want but not here. This is for the issue of Iran. I have quite a few comrades from Iran who, if you get talking to them about the rise of the mullahs, will tell you about how, a whole generation of revolutionaries were wiped out. You might want to talk in general terms about oppression around the world, but to them it was a real experience.

by Drew - WPRM Mon Oct 22, 2007 13:11 wprm_ireland at yahoo dot com

Watcher says:

"Maybe this comment exposes more than any other who exactly employs the Orientalist thinking on these matters. We may not like what materialied after the revolution but there can be no doubt that that outcome is what the vast majority of Iranians wanted at that time.The 1979 revolt in Iran was driven by popular demand. It was not a case of a top down coup but the complete opposite. The Shah's dependence on the United States, his close ties with Israel—then engaged in extended hostilities with the Muslim Arab world—and his regime's ill-considered economic policies and his westernisation programmes led to the revolt. At one demonstation alone over 1 million Iranians marched."

Of course the Iranians wanted revolution, that is not disputed. The point is that the Mullahs took advantage of the revolutionary process and coat-tailed their way to victory.

by Watcher Wed Oct 24, 2007 07:42

"Of course the Iranians wanted revolution, that is not disputed. The point is that the Mullahs took advantage of the revolutionary process and coat-tailed their way to victory."

No, the point is that the Iranian people took on the Shah and his vast military and police apparatus and won. If they decide that change is needed again they will do the same. It's pathetic to constantly portray the Iranian people as compliant lambs just to suit some outsiders view of what should or should not be the state of things within Iran. It is very likely that the vast majority of the Irainian people support ,at this point in time, the present set-up in their country-live with it.

by Vomit watch Wed Oct 24, 2007 09:47

"No, the point is that the Iranian people took on the Shah and his vast military and police apparatus and won. If they decide that change is needed again they will do the same. It's pathetic to constantly portray the Iranian people as compliant lambs just to suit some outsiders view of what should or should not be the state of things within Iran. It is very likely that the vast majority of the Irainian people support ,at this point in time, the present set-up in their country-live with it."

And of course this analysis doesn't take into account the number of leftists who were amongst the people of the winning group who were systematically removed by the mullahs e.g. People's Mujahedin. Your analysis is akin to praising the Russian revolution in Moscow in 1937 and saying that it was a glorious revolution.

by Watcher Wed Oct 24, 2007 09:59

What point are you making Vomit? Are you saying the present regime in Iran does not have overwhelming popular support? Perhaps like Newt Gringich, you think that the majority of Iranians are "pro-america" in need of "liberation"

by Vomit Watch Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:22

What's your point? The soviet regime in 1936 would have claimed popular support and also continued that it was the legitimate heir of the October Revolution of 1917. Where they right in this view?
Are you an advocate of socialism (I know real democracy is probably too bourgeois for you) or popular support? How do you define popular support when there isn't full emancipation?
What about you, nothing to say about the suppression of leftists who were instrumental in the original revolution and overthrow of the Shah? Just standing by the mullahs and your view of history through Stalinist tinted spectacles?

by Nobin Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:36

Well Mr Vomit. The Iranian Governemnt seems good enough for the Cuban and Venezualan Governments in that they are expressing solidarity and unbridled support against the US.
Are they too guilty of Stalinist revisionism?

But do you think that ordinary Russians think they are better off now? I would argue it is you who dons the tinted spectacles.

by pat c Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:57

V W, the PMOI certainly played a revolutionary role in 1979 and afterwards. They rose up against the Mullahs in defence of democratic rights in 1981 as did other left organisations. For years they continued a heroic struggle against the Iranian Dictatorship but ended up being used by Saddam.

But this is not 1981. In 2007 the PMOI are in cahoots with the neo-cons who hold fundraising events for them. They are no longer on the left. The PMOI do not oppose US intervention in Iran. The PMOI have approximately 10,000 fighters in Iraq. Theoretically they have been disarmed but it is widely believed that they are being held in reserve for any US invasion of Iran. Rumsfield wanted to use them for incursions into Iran as early as 2004 but the Joint Chiefs said not just yet.

The PMOI believe in change from above with the intervention of the US. This would bring death and ruination to Iran.

V W, support the Iran opposition who believe in change from below. Support the struggles of the workers and women for democratic rights.

Take a look at the HOPOI site:
http://www.hopoi.org/

Check out Middle East Forum:
http://www.iran-bulletin.org/

Look up Workers Left Unity Iran:
http://www.etehadchap.org/english/

Check out Iranian Workers Bullettin:
http://www.iranianworkersbulletin.org/

by Vomit Watch Wed Oct 24, 2007 13:02

I was talking about the suppression of other elements of the 'people' who took part in the revolution to overthrow the shah.

by Watcher Wed Oct 24, 2007 18:03

"What's your point? The soviet regime in 1936 would have claimed popular support and also continued that it was the legitimate heir of the October Revolution of 1917. Where they right in this view?"

I don't think so, by that stage the revolution was slipping into a dictatorship which was tipped over the edge by the invasion of Russia by Germany.

"Are you an advocate of socialism (I know real democracy is probably too bourgeois for you) or popular support? How do you define popular support when there isn't full emancipation?"

The fact is that the Iranian revolution was a populist/nationalist one and is compared with the French revolution on that basis. We also cannot ignore the overwhelming approval by national referendum to make Iran an Islamic Republic. We may disagree with the ideology that comes with that but the point is that that is what Iranians want and we have no right to interfere with that right.

"What about you, nothing to say about the suppression of leftists who were instrumental in the original revolution and overthrow of the Shah? Just standing by the mullahs and your view of history through Stalinist tinted spectacles?"

The "leftists" were not instrumental in the revolution as you claim. The revolution was a populist one with sweeping broadbased support. Under the Shah, all leftist groups were ruthlessly supressed by the SAVAK and their capacity to even contribute to the revoluiton was limited accordingly.
One of the last organized opponents of the new regime was the People's Mujahedin of Iran, a guerrilla group that unlike most of the opposition was still armed. In February 1980 concentrated attacks by hezbollahi supportors began on the Mujahideen and others driving them underground. People's Mujahideen retaliated with a campaign of bombing and assassination including the killing of 72 at the Islamic Republican Party headquarters in 1981. President Mohammad Ali Rajai and Prime Minister Mohammad Javad Bahonar were also assassinated that year. It must be said that during the bedding in of the new regime, anyone who was deemed to be a waiverer tended to disappear by one means or another.

But all of this is academic to the central point and that is that the Iranian people overwhelmingly support the regime at this point and that is their right to do so.

by Vomit Watch Thu Oct 25, 2007 00:13

"But all of this is academic to the central point and that is that the Iranian people overwhelmingly support the regime at this point and that is their right to do so"

And your proof of this overwhelming support is what exactly?

by haggard Thu Oct 25, 2007 09:17

Is that the best you can do Vomit?

You clearly have an infantile understanding of the Middle East and Islam if you think that secular communism is their preferred choice. You are even more deluded if you think Iranians want westerners to interfere with their country.

You're in need of serious professional help if you think Iran is ripe for revolution and regime change which really is the crux of your argument. You truely wish to believe that Iranians are itching to overthrow their government and instill a secular communist government. Otherwise your arguments would fall down at the first hurdle and you would really have nothing to say on the matter. (Or is democracy too bourgeois for you?)

Like it or not, the government of Iran was put their by populist revolution. Nobody, not even the United States (not yet, at any rate) has even hinted that there would be popular support among the Iranian population at large for revolution, internal or external. That is why they have ordered Congress to fund anti-mullah groups within Iran and to began a unilateral propoganda campaign against Iran both to create as much agitation as possible within the country and to give the impression to the world at large that Iran is boiling over and the Iranian government is clutching to power through brutal means.

It would appear you have fallen for it.

by Watcher Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:08

In a recent poll when asked about the overall path their country is taking, 71% think Iran is 'headed in the right direction' -- 18 points higher than in 2005 -- while 12% disagree with this assessment" (InterMedia, "New Survey Finds Polarizing, Hardening of Iranian Attitudes over Nuclear Program," 23 May 2006. See, also, Meir Javedanfar, "At Home, Ahmadinejad Admired," Baltimore Sun 25 June 2006.)
Aside from polls, participation in elections and the outcomes, the present regime has forged popularity based on policies that it implements. These are the opposite of what applied in former years with a deliberate and proactive redistribution of wealth ongoing now.

Aside from the west’s desire to exploit Iran’s oil, the present regime is causing frantic convulsions within the US neo-con rulers because of economic policy that seeks to distribute resources more fairly by such as, basic wage increases, lower interests for the poor, investment in education, subsidies for newly weds, and redistribution that favours rural areas. One of the latest initiatives is to spend $4 billion on national schools. Regimes that want to oppress the people do not educate them. Banks have been ordered to lower interest rates by several percentage points. Expenditure in the most deprived areas of the country has been increased by as much as 180% in the past year.
Ahmadinejad is vehemently opposed to privatisation and has ordered all Ministers to stop all privatisation programmes. Obviously, this has not gone down well with the globalisation merchants that crawl around the Whitehouse.

Iranians want to live in freedom and democracy and support the need to replace the corrupt pro-Washington regimes -- especially in Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states, as well as in Israel, the cornerstones of American hegemony. They want their region governed along democratic lines that promote equality and the well-being of all the people and most definately not by neo-liberal capitalism.

Of interest to readers here, the position of women is important as an indicator of what direction Iran is taking. There is much ignorance and misinformation on this issue and the US in particular spins the line that the position of women in Iran is the same as that of such allies of Washington as Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. This is untrue and the fact is the position of women in Iran has not been static as is the case in those other countries mentioned which come under the influence of the US.
In Iran, the average marriage age for women has increased from 18 years of age before the Revolution to 21 (William O. Beeman, "The New Islamic Woman Flourishes in Iran"), and the fertility rate has dramatically declined to the benefit of women, having dropped from around 5 to just under 3 between 1989 and 1996, Iran's total fertility rate has now dropped to 2. Iran, an Islamic country, has followed a unique and rapid path to replacement-level fertility.
As for education, women now comprise 60% of all university students in Iran (Golnaz Esfandiari, "Iran: Number Of Female University Students Rising Dramatically")
On sexual matters, another area where movement is a sign of the nature of policies being pursued, Iran has implemented a very progressive AIDS policy. Clean syringes and methadone treatment are issued to heroin addicts. Health workers pass out condoms to prostitutes. This year the government will devote an estimated $30 million to the program. Dr Hamid Setayesh of the UN AIDS office states, "Iran now has one of the best prison programs for HIV in not just the region, but in the world."

We need to stop preaching to the people of Iran and extend to them the right to run their affairs as they see fit and most appropriate for their circumstances. Outside interference has blighted the region in recent history and it is time it stopped.

by War Watch Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:56

But polls carried out under a dictatorial government can not be trusted. They certainly would be regarded as factual by ethical statistician or social scientist. Such a "poll" would not give a true picture of peoles opinions.

Iran is a country in which the polity is based around Political Islam but even this Political Islam has a special character. All opposition political parties are banned, all candidates for Parliament and the Presidency have to be approved by the Council of Islamic Experts. If they dont like you, then you don't get to stand. Many Reformist candidates were prevented from standing in the last elections. Supreme power resides with the Council of Islamic Experts and Ayetollah Khameni. They can over rule any law passed by Parliament and often do so.

Only a rogue or an innocent would suggest that Iran is any sort of a democracy or that the Islamist rulers have any proven mass support. They may have so but it has never been shown in a free and democratic election. The moderate Irananian Islamic Clergy say that the last Presidential election was rigged.

Building support for the Iranian nation against Washingtons Imperial plans will be difficult if not impossible if we try to ignore the fact that it is rulled by unacountable dictators. Just think: you are proposing a motion about Iran at you Student Union or Trade Union; are you going to argue that students and workers in Iran are not entitled to democratic rights? You would be thrown out of the meeting and the Anti War cause would be discredited. I really wonder if some of those who post here have ever engaged in real solidarity work among the mass organisations or the public.

by War Watch Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:08

They should be amended in good time!

"They certainly would be regarded as factual by ethical statistician or social scientist. Such a "poll" would not give a true picture of peoles opinions. "

This should read:

They certainly would not be regarded as factual by any ethical statistician or social scientist. Such a "poll" would not give a true picture of peoles opinions.

by Watcher Thu Oct 25, 2007 18:45

"But polls carried out under a dictatorial government can not be trusted. They certainly would not be regarded as factual by ethical statistician or social scientist. Such a "poll" would not give a true picture of peoles opinions."

Meir Javedanfar is an Iranian born and Iranian and British educated Middle East Analyst based in Tel Aviv. He is an expert on the region and he chooses not to live in Iran. The poll referred to is accepted by Javedanfar as a true reflection of what Iranians are thinking at present. There is much of Javedanfar's writings posted on the web to be accessed by any one interested. His opinion on this matter I find compelling. If you have a contrary opinion by someone of equal standing that refutes the poll, I will be glad to read that opinion.

"Iran is a country in which the polity is based around Political Islam but even this Political Islam has a special character. All opposition political parties are banned, all candidates for Parliament and the Presidency have to be approved by the Council of Islamic Experts. If they dont like you, then you don't get to stand. Many Reformist candidates were prevented from standing in the last elections. Supreme power resides with the Council of Islamic Experts and Ayetollah Khameni. They can over rule any law passed by Parliament and often do so."

The system of governance in Iran at present appears complex but it represents what the Iranian people want. 70% voted for the present constitution. In addition to this, willing paticipation in the political system by way of voter turn-out is also around 70% , a good indicator that the system is acceptable to the people. It is of no relevence what you or I think of their system. It is their system and their business.

"Only a rogue or an innocent would suggest that Iran is any sort of a democracy or that the Islamist rulers have any proven mass support. They may have so but it has never been shown in a free and democratic election. The moderate Irananian Islamic Clergy say that the last Presidential election was rigged."

All elections, any where in the world, with outcomes that Washington don't like are usually labelled as "rigged".(The truth is that the first election of Bush most probable was rigged, remember Florida, yet nobody seems to be concerned with that) Are you saying that the constitutional referendum which gave life to the present system in Iran was rigged? That is hardly credible and I have never read any analysis supporting such a claim. Regarding "mass support" for the "Islamist rulers", the constitution voted for by an overwhelming majority, was for a Islamic Republic. Iranians want their religion to be part of the governance of the State. It is their will, not imposed as you would have us believe. BTW, it seems odd that in a country where you claim a poll could have no relevence because of fear of speaking out against the authorities, you now tell us that "moderate clergy" are so speaking out and saying that the last Presidential election was "rigged". You can't have it both ways.

"Building support for the Iranian nation against Washingtons Imperial plans will be difficult if not impossible if we try to ignore the fact that it is rulled by unacountable dictators."

Not true. Regardless of what way the Iranians run their affairs, "Washingtons imperial plans" can be condemned simply because they are imperialist plans.While Irans election process is complex, there is accountability. It is insulting to the Iranian nation to make claims that they are "ruled by unaccountable dictators". Once again, the constitution which provides for the system of governance was freely accepted by the Iranian people

"I really wonder if some of those who post here have ever engaged in real solidarity work among the mass organisations or the public"

No need to wonder, but I have no intention of getting into a scar comparsion competition with you or anyone else. My purpose here is simply to broaden the discussion and to give the view that the constant attacks on Iran may be counter-productive and/or plain wrong. The consquences for the people of Iran should the US launch an invasion will be nothing short of catastrophic. Accordingly, comment ought to be at least based on a modicum of fair and reasoned analysis of the position as it is and not as those with malign intent towards Iran would have us believe it is.

by War Watch Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:11

"Meir Javedanfar is an Iranian born and Iranian and British educated Middle East Analyst based in Tel Aviv. He is an expert on the region and he chooses not to live in Iran. "

But you are the very person who have attacked other Iranian analysts because they are not based in Iran. Inconsistent there. And he lives in Tel Aviv! What a fine fellow.

"The poll referred to is accepted by Javedanfar as a true reflection of what Iranians are thinking at present. "

You have no way of knowing this to be correct. The poll was carried out in a country where people are in constant fear of the Secret Police.

" If you have a contrary opinion by someone of equal standing that refutes the poll, I will be glad to read that opinion."

Iran is a dictatorship, no poll carried out there could be regarded as being reliable. This pollis just as credible as one carried out in Burma.

"The system of governance in Iran at present appears complex but it represents what the Iranian people want. 70% voted for the present constitution. "

It is now obvious that you are support of the current Conservative Islamic Iranian Regime. The Constitution was voted on under undemocratic conditions. Oponents were not allowed to freely campaign against it.

Many of the Reformist Islamic were prevented from standing in the last election. This isnt just Political Islam it is rather a case of a conservative section of the Islamic establishment attempting to prevent any change. You could compare to the old guard in the Soviet Communist Party, in Iran their Islamic equivalents have triumphed and suppressed the reformers.

" It is of no relevence what you or I think of their system. It is their system and their business."

That is absolute nonsense. If you take that attitude then no one in the West would ever support any group in the Developing World which was struggling against tyranny. But you are taking sides. You are supporting the existing Iranian Government against its internal opposition.

" Are you saying that the constitutional referendum which gave life to the present system in Iran was rigged? "

Yes. The vote was not carried out under free conditions.

."BTW, it seems odd that in a country where you claim a poll could have no relevence because of fear of speaking out against the authorities, you now tell us that "moderate clergy" are so speaking out and saying that the last Presidential election was "rigged"."

Its a bit more difficult for the Conservattives to repress the Moderate Clergy but they are doing even that now. In the first round of the 2005 Presidential election Ahmadinejad got 19.48% but in the second round this jumped to 61.69%.

After the first round, Mehdi Karroubi a reformist candidate who came third in the first round but was the first when partial results were first published, has alleged that a network of mosques, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Basij militia had been illegally used to generate and mobilize support for Ahmadinejad. Karroubi has explicitly alleged that Mojtaba Khamenei, a son of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, was involved.

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani who led in the 1st round also pointed to organized and unjust interventions by "guiding" the votes, and supported Karroubi's complaint

"It is insulting to the Iranian nation to make claims that they are "ruled by unaccountable dictators"."

No it is not. It is a question of telling the truth. Something which seems to be alien to you. Again you are taking sides. Many Iranian opposition groups describe the Iranian Government as a Dictatorship yet you choose to defend it.

" Accordingly, comment ought to be at least based on a modicum of fair and reasoned analysis of the position as it is and not as those with malign intent towards Iran would have us believe it is."

Indeed, but your uncritical support for the Iranian Government against any Internal Opposition is hardly fair or reasoned.

by Garry Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:35

You are once again missing the point Pat.

Convoluted whataboutery does not take away from the fact that you have no evidence to support the notion that the overwhelming majority of Iranians either feel oppressed or would support a second revolution to instill a secular communist government.

10,000 100,000 or even a million demonstrators in Iran do not constitute anything approaching a majority. Considering this, it is evident that nothing like those numbers protest regularly against the government under banners to have it overthrown.

Leaving that to one side it is your constant falsification and transparent attempts at sophism that leaves those who are objective on Iran most exasperated. You claim anyone who disagrees with you or tries to purport balance is supporting the Iranian Government. Such default thinking is difficult to engage but it does highlight your inability to see the bigger picture or indeed indifference to it.

Iranians do not want western style democracy. Who the hell are we to impose or to call for its imposition on them?

Are Iranians barbarians? Do you find it unpalatable they would want this type of government and all it entails? Where is your evidence to suggest that they want a Western style government?

Are these friends of yours? http://www.imperialforces.org/intro3838.htm

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:30

Could we have a meaningful comment in this thread re: the sanctions against Iran announced by the Bush Admin yesterday - and supported immediatelly by Britain and France...;..
(1) What is their precise significance - are they a prelude to armed intervention or a temporary palliative by the US State Department attempting to stem the viciousness of the Pentagon and Cheney?
(2) How does it effect and how will it impact on the Iranian regime itself?
(3) The large internal opposition in Iran - will they support (and benefit from) the sanctions or will they feel constrained in having to even indirectly support the hardliners?

And pls pls lets concentrate on the political significance of the sanctions and leave the personalised vitriol aside for a while.

by War Watch Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:39

I think those sanctions deserve a story of their own. Which of us will get there first? I agree vitriol should be avoided. But when someone fully supports the existing Iranian Regime and claims its legitimate then its reasonable to suggest that such a person is indeed a supporter of the Iranian Regime!

But till we get a new story going: I oppose these sanctions, it is ordinary Iranian people who suffer from them. Dont forget the 500,000 Iraqi children who died due to sanctions.

by Watcher Fri Oct 26, 2007 13:56

It is remarkable what masquerades as discussion however the subject matter is of such importance that it would be irresponsible to allow misinformation to go unchallenged and again the purpose of my post is to encourage those that read these attacks on Iran to take the view that there is another view. I would recommend anyone interested to get The Last Great Revolution by Robin Wright. Wright has spent years in Iran and her work, while it is far from uncritical of aspects of life there, is nonetheless objective and truthful and endeavours to give the reader an insight into what is the position without any axe to grind either way. As someone commented, “we at least owe it to ourselves to get to know the truth before we start carpet bombing the place”

The notion that Iran is a dictatorship run by mullahs is far from the reality as is the claim that Iran is building a military-industrial complex manufacturing WMDs. Iran is an Islamic Republic by the will of the people. To claim that a referendum that had a 70% turn out and an overwhelming for vote was “rigged” is nonsense. Nobody can make that claim and explain why the huge participation and continuing participation in the political system. The referendum, like all subsequent Iranian elections, was free and was carried out with a universal franchise, and it must be stressed, that included women.

The system includes a parliament and a president who are elected by universal suffrage. Several seats in the parliament are reserved for religious minorities, including the Jewish, Christian, and Zoroastrian communities. While this system is not perfect democracy, but in all truth what system anywhere truly is, it is nevertheless incorrect to call it a dictatorship. In fact, the Iranian government is probably the most representative and democratic government in the Middle East.

Other people approaching this subject have compared the Iranian position with western structures so as to arrive at a fair assessment and they find that the Iranian system stands up well to such scrutiny.
For example, there are 10+ different parties/groups represented in the Iran parliament while of the 540 members of the US Senate all but 2 are attached to either one of the two main parties. Looked at in the context of it’s region, Iran isemerges as a utopia of freedom and democracy by comparison.
Mubarak, who is as close to being a dictator as makes no difference, is financed by billions of dollars of American foreign aid. Other friends of the west like the King of Morocco and the Emir of Kuwait are nearly absolute monarchs and Islam Karimov, of Uzbekistan is difficult to label so far off the scale is the form of government he resides over. Yet these regimes are free from criticism and attack because they do the bidding of the West. Iran refuses to do so and that and that alone is what sets it apart for attack.

The facts are that in Iran, women may vote and hold political office, the president of Iran is a reformer who is intensely disliked by the conservative Islamist establishment, religious minorities have guaranteed representation in the Iranian parliament, Judaism is far more tolerated there than in all other Muslim nations and there are Christian members in the Iranian parliament. Many regard the position as it exists in Iran at present as a vital and significant evolutionary step towards full democracy. Many observers are very impressed with the way that Islam itself has had to bend under pressure from the Iranian people. They have demonstrated that they will not accept without question dictates or dogma that impinge on their freedom and liberty.

If the US/West attack Iran, they will be attacking a sovereign nation based on a blatant disregard for international law. While the Islamic Republic is not perfect, it is one of the few governments in the region which is representative of its people and of more importance, has the capacity to evolve into a full democratic system. To do to Iran what the West has done to Iraq will put back democracy in the Middle East for decades if not for the foreseeable future. An outcome that will not upset the neo-con money grabbers that are egging Bush on salivating at the prospect of getting their hands on the resources of the area..

by War Watch Fri Oct 26, 2007 14:57

"The facts are that in Iran, women may vote and hold political office, "

True but a reactionary dress code is enforced on women. This is not accepted by women as part of Iranian Culture. According to Iranian government figures, 500,000 women have been arrested so far this year for infringing the Islamic Dress Code. A lot of women dont like it.

"the president of Iran is a reformer "

That is so ridiclious that it can only be a joke.

" Many observers are very impressed with the way that Islam itself has had to bend under pressure from the Iranian people."

This time its a sick joke. Under Islamic Sharia Law, women are stoned to death for adultery. Gaymen are also hanged or stoned to death. Lesbians are flogged for the first and second offence and executed at the third.

"If the US/West attack Iran, they will be attacking a sovereign nation based on a blatant disregard for international law."

Agreed. All aggression and sanctions against Iran must be opposed. But you are not going to build support for an Anti War Campaign by pretending that Iran is a democracy.

by Watcher Fri Oct 26, 2007 20:00

"The facts are that in Iran, women may vote and hold political office, "
Reply,,

"True but a reactionary dress code is enforced on women."

A dress code is enforced on all citizens and not just women. This is legal under the constitution and for the umpteen time, that constitution was ratified by the overwhelming majority of the people.There are many codes and regulations within our system that are just as irritating and can be regarded as intrusive. Try walking down Grafton Street in you nip and see what happens.

" This is not accepted by women as part of Iranian Culture."

The code has been a source of irritation for many Iranians almost from the out set and accordingly enforcement has been patchy. It's intention is not to oppress for oppresion sake.Critics within Iran say the code can result in hidden outrage and leave all of society more vulnerable.Within Iran there is a lively debate on the issue. Tehran based psychiatrist Mahdis Kamkar argues that "Denying the young generation full social freedom of expression causes a general nervousness that makes sensitive youngsters more rebellious. The lack of a place for them to vent their fury could result in underground behaviour that increases the vulnerability to destructive agents like drugs" In contrast, conservative officials applaud the dress code as important to protect the security of society while other more moderate voices have publicly questioned its implementation. Judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmud Hashemi-Shahrudi was among the most prominent figures to oppose strong enforcement of the code. He warned police of what he saw as a likely "countereffect" of harsh approaches. Hashemi-Shahrudi added that "taking people to the police station will do us nothing but harm."
What all this essentially points to is a healthy questioning of the code and there is no doubt that in time Iranians will reach a consensus on the issue. Ahmadinejad is well known to be opposed to strick enforcement of the code and has promised moves to lessen the compulsion element.

"According to Iranian government figures, 500,000 women have been arrested so far this year for infringing the Islamic Dress Code. A lot of women dont like it."

Incorrect. For the record the official figures are 527,000 people have been warned, 20,000 have been arrested and then released. These figures also indicate another aspect of Iranian life. The Iranian people are prepared to defy the authorities when they are not content. The portrayal of Iran as a black hole of tyranny is shown to be an outlandish exaggeration of the propagandist by these small ongoing acts of defiance.

"the president of Iran is a reformer "
reply,
"That is so ridiclious that it can only be a joke."

That is not an answer. I have outlined in detail some of his reforms, they are a matter of record.

" Many observers are very impressed with the way that Islam itself has had to bend under pressure from the Iranian people."
Reply
"This time its a sick joke. Under Islamic Sharia Law, women are stoned to death for adultery. Gaymen are also hanged or stoned to death. Lesbians are flogged for the first and second offence and executed at the third."

It is simply ludicrious to suggest that this is frequent behaviour in Iran regardless of what is or is not Sharia Law. It is part of the demonisation that is being spewed out by the CIA and quite frankly you ought to be ashamed of yourself for perpetuating it here. The fact is that Iran today is stable and cohesive and that would simply not be the case if such tyranny were the order fo the day. In circumstances where 500,000 warnings for people not adhereing to a dress code are issued, it is nonsense to suggest that brutal behaviour would be casually allowed.Please note: Iranians are not savages and stop implying that they are. It is deeply offensive to continue with this type of vilification against the people of Iran.

"If the US/West attack Iran, they will be attacking a sovereign nation based on a blatant disregard for international law."
Reply,
"Agreed. All aggression and sanctions against Iran must be opposed. But you are not going to build support for an Anti War Campaign by pretending that Iran is a democracy."

I am not trying to build an anti-war campaign. Nobody has a right to invade Iran or anywhere else on the simple basis that to do so would be wrong. Iranians are entitled to govern themselves as they see fit and as I have stated before, if left to their own devices they will create a system of governance that suits them and not just because it might suit you or someone else. Any honest study of the current position would conclude that Iran is well on the road to a society based on social justice for all and equality of opportunity.Get off their backs and if you want to spend time digging through the refuse bins of societies to find fault, spend a bit of time studying want goes on in the US backyard. You will find plenty there to keep you occupied for some considerable time. And when you've finished, take a look under the mat in your own place. Interesting things are there aplenty too.

by iosaf Fri Oct 26, 2007 22:58

Very interesting point by made by watcher. It is one worthy of much further & wider consideration amongst the lefty Che t-shirt brigade tonight & this weekend coming up to Hallowe'en & its jocular fancy dress opportunities. All Iranians live with a dress code. Though we don't notice that because it's been a long time since Andy Warhol's kitschy inclusion of Chairman Mao suits in the visual comment scope of either cultural mandarins (such as myself) or people who can afford to shop in Galway (like yourselves). Know your place & rags.
Iran is by no means the only state where dress codes are enforced, nor if anyone is prepared to offer a critique of garments & their prohibition is it the worse. Let's pretend you want to squeeze a critique of garments & their prohibition into a comment or dare I predict an article. You might go for the well worn threadbare clichés of Che Guevera iconography or schoolkids in Hijabs. You may opt for visible underwear prohibitions of several US states & most posh schools of continental Europe. You could brazen it out at airports with your outragous dirk dagger clipped provocatively to your stagnight kilt. But I don't you think any one of you would out dazzle the phosphorent slurry lake I'm sure I'm well able to write about dress codes in the capital of the Islamist world (Saudi Arabia) or that fucking shite nightclub that turned away by beautiful wife for wearing plastic wellies on fetish freakie night. Fashion is so fluffy. Now all the high heeled boots have little loops attached, whither you led thence have they followed say I to her. But I'm sure you¡re not interested or swayed in your global political or cultural or social outlooks, understandings or analysis by such frothy revelations of underground cutting edge trend setting as my life so gloriously is.

You were having a serious discussion about contemporary Iran & its sanctioning by the suit & tie brigade of Washington..............absolutely fabulous.......no doubt......what's going to be in next year ? let's think about our dress codes.

by tomeile Sat Oct 27, 2007 17:27 tomeile at hotmail dot co dot uk

I've just sent off a letter of congratulations to the British Stop the War Coalition on their wise decision not to allow the hopoids to affiliate. It's a source of great embarrassment to me that Irish leftists should be involved with the demonisation of Iran -a country whose people have never been slow to support the anti-imperialist cause in Ireland .Below is the text of my email
Just to congratulate STWC on its decision not to allow HOPI to affiliate.Hopi supporters have been using Indymedia Ireland for the last few months in an extremely crude campaign to demonise Iran . Anybody supporting Iran's right to resistance -even its right to exist -is castigated as a "friend of the mullahs". Unfortuanately the Irish Anti War Movement is far too polite towards HOPI. They should tell them to get lost.
As far as I can see,the name HOPI has been deliberately chosen so as to preempt the formation of a Hands Off Iran group in the run up to an imperialist attack.It is also an attempt at dividing anti-war leftists from Muslims - a continuation of the Danish anti Muslim cartoon provocation of last year. If it wasn't for the fact that I have known some of the activists involved with Hopi for years I would have said it was all an invention of the CIA from start to finish.
all the best now.....tom

by Barry - 32 csm Sun Oct 28, 2007 01:35

Iran was one of the very few countries which sent an official diplomatic delegation to attend the funeral of Bobby Sands ( sweden was the other if I remember correctly) . The street on Teheran in which the British embassy is located is named afer the hungerstrikers too .
The Iranian nation has every right to exist and to defend its sovereignty . It is definitely under threat of attack and occupation in the name of democracy , human rights and necessary regime change . Frankly I regard the recent Indymedia crusade against Iran by HOPI as extremely suspicious in light of this clear and present danger . Ill not be touching that group with a bargepole .

Id also like to express my deep and enduring thanks as an Irish citizen in occupied Ireland towards the Iranian government and people for their respectful gesture towards Bobby Sands and his comrades which I know was deeply appreciated by many Irish citizens and still fondly remembered . Let us hope their country remains free from foreign aggression and domination .

by wageslave Sun Oct 28, 2007 01:43

HOPOI are very quick to name drop chomsky et al when challenged. I'm sure if chomsky read the biased stream of HOPOI anti Iran postings on indymedia in the last few months he would withdraw his tacit support for the group. That would shut them up

Anyone out there care to let him know?

by leftwingmonk Sun Oct 28, 2007 01:52

...to our 32CSM friend, naming a street after an Irish martyr 25 years ago is more important that the (often bloody) repression of trade unionists, women, youth, the arab minority etc etc by a brutal theocracy? Interesting set of priorities. What next, full support for the political program of the Taliban? They are fighting the Brits afterall, so we can't criticise them, eh?

Of course HOPOI does not support Imperialist blackops or the bombardment/invasion of Iran - but defending the people and defending the theocracy are two different things entirely. Just as the left gave no support to Hussein while opposing the invasion of Iraq, we will give no support to the clerics while opposing similar action against Iran.

by wageslave Sun Oct 28, 2007 02:04

No because they are always anti Iran.
funny that, given they claim to be EQUALLY against imperialism.
I would expect a 50/50 mix of anti imperialist / anti iranian government articles and headlines from them.
And there is no shortage of underhand imperialist behaviour to write about.

I smell a rat

by Watcher Sun Oct 28, 2007 08:51

"to our 32CSM friend, naming a street after an Irish martyr 25 years ago is more important that the (often bloody) repression of trade unionists, women, youth, the arab minority etc etc by a brutal theocracy? "

At the time, naming the street after Sands, was a very significant show of solidarity with the Irish people. The usual accussations levelled against the Iranian govrnment, which have been fully addressed above and elsewhere, could just as easily be levelled at every other country. The point here is of course that HOPI only and repeatedly attack Iran using the exact same tools as the "blackops" merchants that are currently running the "Blacken Iran " campaign to soften world opinion in preparation for an attack and invasion. The stuff above most probabaly came straight from a print press in the Pentegon basement.

" What next, full support for the political program of the Taliban? They are fighting the Brits afterall, so we can't criticise them, eh?"

Once again the HOPI suggestion that the US/Britian is in Afghanistan on some kind of noble crusade against the black demons that tryannise the people. Bullshit. They are there to profit for themselves and as with Iraq, they will leave the place in chaos before they go and more than likely will appoint a despotic regime in place to maintain control at a distance on their behalf.

"Of course HOPOI does not support Imperialist blackops or the bombardment/invasion of Iran"

Where are your regular posts attacking the US/ Britian with the same vehemence and using the same crude tactics? Regarding not supporting Saddam, I will leave you with a quote from Alan Maass on the calls from Bush for the show trial of Saddam after the invasion of Iraq, which underlines the hypocracy of those that HOPI are now cheerleading for,

"The Bush administration claims that it wants to see Saddam Hussein put on trial for his many crimes. But what about his co-conspirators? Will those who helped Saddam rise to power, supplied his weapons and supported his dictatorial rule be punished?
That’s not likely--since any honest accounting of Saddam’s history would count some of the current Bush administration officials baying for his blood as co-conspirators. The truth is that Saddam Hussein committed most of his crimes as an ally of the U.S. government. He only became the "new Hitler" when he stepped out of line--threatening Washington’s control over the flow of Middle East oil."

Repeat-Middle East oil

by tomeile Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:26

"Id also like to express my deep and enduring thanks as an Irish citizen in occupied Ireland towards the Iranian government and people for their respectful gesture towards Bobby Sands and his comrades which I know was deeply appreciated by many Irish citizens and still fondly remembered . "

by MichaelY - iawm Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:18

As part of a multi-billion-dollar request for more military spending earlier this week, the Pentagon asked for $88m to develop the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a huge bunker-busting bomb, for its Stealth bombers. The Bush administration said the bomb was needed "in response to an urgent operational need for theatre commanders".
Democratic members of Congress questioned whether the weapon was intended for use against Iran, where nuclear facilities are largely hidden underground.
Jim Moran, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives' defence spending committee, said: "My assumption is that it is Iran, because you wouldn't use them in Iraq, and I don't know where you would use them in Afghanistan. It doesn't have any weapons facilities underground that we know of."

Did they say 'urgent operational need'?
Did the Pentagon really say 'theatre commanders'?
And am I right to summise that the people who will pay with their lives and health for this criminal penetrator won't be the clerics and the mullahs, or the President of Iran himself, but the ordinary working people of Iran?
The 30 - 40,000 high 'necessary collateral damage' mentioned by the new economic guru of RTE McWilliams?

Let us prepare for immediate action in the streets if these threats look like materialising. Lets push the irish government to take a position on this barbaric unilateralism. And as a message noted above, lets hit the streets the same way we did in 2003 - without that signifying direct or indirect support for Saddam and his cabal.

by tomeile Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:21 tomeile at hotmail dot co dot uk

Today’s irish Independent reports that Norman Podhoretz , a senior foreign policy adviser to Rudy Giuliani, has urged that Iran be bombed using cruise missiles and "bunker busters''. Gulliani is said to be supportive ,and so is George Bush.

see http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/top-gi....html

by Barry - 32 csm Sun Oct 28, 2007 20:03

I dont give or express full support to the politcal programme of Iran , I do however fully regard them as entitled to defend their nation from foreign imperialism . I also regard them as a freind of this country and its people , not a staunch ally by any stretch of the imagination but one thats made an effort to acknowledge our persecution by foreigners and the dignity of our resistance towards that .
Your assertion that i support Irans internal political programme by virtue of the fact I dont support this dodgily named and dodgily timed political outfit is deliberately dishonest . Therefore thats just more dodginess to add to the equation .
As regards the Taliban I admire their skill with an rpg and little else .

by Maoist 1 Sun Oct 28, 2007 22:18 maoiststruggle1 at yahoo dot com

I think we all need to have a pretty intensive discussion about the strategy of the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), which is what we have been discussing here. In 2006, its US sister party published an extract from a political report by the leadership of the Iranian party. This report by the Iranian Party argued that the main enemy of the people of Iran was the Islamic regime, not the US-despite the fact they were anticipating US attack and even invasion. (See http://rwor.org/a/061/iranmaoist-en.html).

Extracts from the report are:

'With the intensification of the contradictions between the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), the possibility of a military attack on Iran has become the main question in Iran and the world political scene.'

and

'Whether or not the US carries out its threats, or how (air attacks, partial or complete military occupation, massing its armed forces on Iran’s borders) will depend on different factors...'

and

'It is clear that the people’s struggle should be focused against the main enemy, the IRI. As long as the IRI is in power, there cannot be any talk of aiming the struggle against the US and the regime equally.'

I know the Iranian regime is very repressive but should this party really be talking as if US occupation is preferable to the Iranian regime? The US occupation has reduced Iraq to chaos and rubble, with over a million dying due to the invasion. Somalia is in chaos following US bombing and the US sponsored Ethiopian invasion which drove out the first stable government in the country for over 15 years. Lebanon was attacked by Israel with US bombs, flown in via a UK airport. The US bombs the Afghan people at will.

Which side are we on? Are we with the oppressed peoples of the world or with the US? Let's unite to urge the Iranian party to reconsider its position on this matter.

by Drew - WPRM Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:29 wprm_ireland at yahoo dot com

I don't think it is really about taking sides in this. Both the IRI and US imperialism are the enemies of the Iranian people. It is necessary to prevent an imperialist war being waged by the US and also not falling into supporting the reactionary regime as a champion of anti-imperialism.

History has taught us that there is a great danger within anti-imperialist struggles of proletarian forces being destroyed by reactionary elements within the national liberation movement when the former have been found to be militarily weal. Examples of this can be seen not just in Iran, but also in such countries as Indonesia and China.

by pat c Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:50

Look FC what exactly is your point? Why do you have a problem about students protests being highlighted, whats wrong with supporting strikers in a country where trade unions are illegal? A story was posted recently about the attempted murder of an Iranian trade unionist and it was immediately trolled. Whats going on? Are you forgetting that Iran is a dictatorship which has a capitalist economy? There are stories by HOPI and myself which I think would please even you, esp the titles ;) But a lot of the stories deal with both US Imperialism and Oppression in Iran. Any posted by me or other hOPI members make clear their opposition to any US aggression towards Iran I'll put links at the end of the article.

In the meantime why not contact me at [email protected]
I wish Barry would also contact me to discuss the issue.

I see this situation as no different from the British/Argentine war over the Malvinas. You oppose any imperialist adventures but you dont have any illusions in the junta which runs the country, nor should you sow any. You continue to support anti-imperialist opponents of the regime. Slogans might include one from 1982 which appeared on the front page of Socialist Action (a cop threatened to arrest a friend of mine for treason when he was selling the paper!):
Sink The Fleet!

Iran

Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84072

Anti-imperialism and Tehran
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83568

U.S. Imperialism, Islamic Fundamentalism … and the Need for Another Way
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83856

Against imperialist war, for Iran workers
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81286

Heres some on Iraq:

No To the Federalism of Occupation
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84771

Now the U.S. military is assassinating Iraqi peace workers
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83897

US & Iraqi Troops Occupy Iraq National Library & Archives
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83829

IFC Statement on storming the headquarters of IFC in Baghdad by the US forces
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83180

Palestine:

Palestinian cameraman shot by the Israelis: "It never happened..."
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83636

Israel Kidnaps Two Brothers
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76854

by Galileo Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:06

Your attempt at purism is irrelevant. Iranians do not want revolution and most certainly have expressed no desire for Communism. Until you except that your position is slanted and cannot be considered objectively.

You describe the IRI as an enemy of the Iranian People. The CPI qualified that further by stating it was the greater enemy of the 2 when including the US. That is nonsense and has no basis in actual fact.

Iran is a stable country. It has the government it wants that was put their by its people. Debating Maoism, communism or indeed socialism in that context is irrelevant and somewhat idiotic given that the only ones paying attention are intrusive western leftists and a tiny minority of expatriated Iranians with a huge chip on their shoulder.

Anti War organisations are now waking up to this reality and are refusing to affiliate with organisations such as HOPI. The idea of a battle of two fronts was dreamt up by armchair activists and failed revolutionaries to give their involvement with such organisations a shot of credibility.

If Iran is attacked, its population will rally to the mullahs, all the micro anti-government organisations will evaporate and the theocracy will have been given its greatest endorsement since the revolution.

Thats just the way it is, thats what the Iranians want and they shouldn't have to listen to the warblings of a few malcontent leftists on an Irish website or endure demonisation within the wider international community.

by pat c Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:19

"Iran is a stable country. It has the government it wants that was put their by its people."

Not correct. Iran is a Dictatorship. No opposition paties are allowed. All candidates have to be approved by the Council of Islamioc Guardians.

"Anti War organisations are now waking up to this reality and are refusing to affiliate with organisations such as HOPI."

Eh, no. STWC, dominated by the SWP refused to allow HOPI to affiliate.

"The idea of a battle of two fronts was dreamt up by armchair activists and failed revolutionaries to give their involvement with such organisations a shot of credibility."

You are very quick to abuse Iranian Socialists who have dedicated their lives to a Democratic Iran. Its a pity you have no time to criticise the Iranian Regime which bans Trade Unions.

"If Iran is attacked, its population will rally to the mullahs, all the micro anti-government organisations will evaporate and the theocracy will have been given its greatest endorsement since the revolution."

You obviously have a vast knowledge of Iran. I am sure you are in daily contact with Iranians.

"Thats just the way it is, thats what the Iranians want "

So why are there strikes and student protests going on? But how do you know thats the way it is when there are no free elections in Iran?

"and they shouldn't have to listen to the warblings of a few malcontent leftists on an Irish website or endure demonisation within the wider international community."

You of course represent tens of thousands of people. The Iranian People arenot being demonised: the truth is being told about the Iranian Dictatorship.

by Galileo Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:26

Pat you can resort to all the falsification you want. The Iranian people do not support you, your postion or that of HOPI in the numbers required to authorise that group or you to speak on their behalf.

Like I said it will take an attack on Iran to prove you wrong.

by Galileo Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:30

Just on a point of fact Pat, you are demonising the Iranian people by your incessant claims that they are incapable of running their own affairs or that the governemnt they have is not to their liking.

If you are not even aware of the postion you have put yourself in how can anyone take whatt you have to say seriously.

by pat c Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:44

I post articles by Iranian Socialists and Trade Unionists. I do not claim to represent the Iranian People. But I am certain that you do not. You are ignoring the reality that trade unionists are being tortured, imprisoned and shot down in the Streets by the Iranian Dictatorship.

Do you understand the meaning of solidarity? These Iranian trade unions are asking for support. They dont consider solidarity to be demonisation.

I am in contact with Iranian Socialists and Trade Unionists. Its quite obvious you arent.

If there is any demonistion here it is being carried out by you. You are demonising the workers, the women, the students and all of those who struggle against the Iranian Dictatorship.

by Watcher Tue Oct 30, 2007 13:34

We could go around in circles for the next decade with Pat and his Iranian fixation and get nowhere. The facts are that Iran is a stable country whose government has overwhelming popular support. These figures from the UN are interesting and demonstarte that great progress is being made on matters that really count and that would contribute to the future progress of any country

Total Literacy rate 2005, 85,2%... ..........Planned 2010, 89%... ...2015, 92%
Female rate ..........2005, 82.6% .............Planned 2010, 88% ......2015, 92%
Male rate ................2005, 88% ................Planned 2010, 90.5%.. 2015, 92.5%

The Saudi Arabia rates are Total 78%
Female .............................................70%
Male ..................................................85%
No projected figures available.

Iran is progressing and as has been said before, Dictators tend not to educate the people.

by Galileo Tue Oct 30, 2007 13:35

Not exactly personal info. is it Pat?

HOPI and you are appealing to western values and ideals and by proxy are portraying Iranians as backward savages in their wish to pursue their own form of Government.

I have said my piece and thats that. The crux is that I will not lend my voice to any individual or organisation who wishes to impose values or ideals on a country whose population clearly does not want them. That is reality whether you or I like it or not.

I am not alone in that regard.

by pat c Tue Oct 30, 2007 13:41

Statistics dont lie, but liars use statistics. Watcher illustrates that adage quite well.

Watcher seems to have a fixation with Iran, he has to defend the current Iranian Regime no matter what.

Never mind, the facts remain that Iran is a Brutal Dictatorship.

All opposition parties are banned.

All candidates for parliament and the presidency must be approved by the Islamic Council of Guardians.

Trade Unions are banned.

Workers are flogged and imprisoned for going on strike.

Trade Union activists are shot down in the streets by the Iranian Secret Police.

Women are stoned to death for adultery.

Children are executed.

Executions take place in public.

What a progressive society Iran is! I can't understand why anyone would oppose the present regime!

by pat c Tue Oct 30, 2007 13:47

"HOPI and you are appealing to western values and ideals and by proxy are portraying Iranians as backward savages in their wish to pursue their own form of Government."

We do no such things. We support Iranian Socialists and trade unionists in their struggles against a dictatorship. You might not think workers should have the right to join a union but we do. You might not care if an Iranian trade union leader is shot down in the stretts but we do.

Be very careful of using the word savage. People might think it reflects your contempt for the Iranian masses. If anyone is portraying the Iranians as backward it is you. You suggest that the Iranians are happy with a dictatorship and either are unfit for or do not want democracy.

by Galileo Tue Oct 30, 2007 13:59

Iranians are happy with their Government because they put it there through a populist revolution.

You choose to ignore that rather sticky point because it invalidates your agenda toward Iran. All your posturing to emotive hyperbole wont make that fact go away.

Seeing as you apply western democracy across the board we will use your standards to examine the situation. Iranians don't want western style democracy. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest they do. Those protesting in terms of a percentage of the population amount to less that 0.01%. Thats your base (). Accept it.

Like I said. Iranians have the Government they want. You have no right to call for a regime change on that basis alone.

by pat c Tue Oct 30, 2007 14:04

"Iranians are happy with their Government because they put it there through a populist revolution. "

That revolution took place in 1979 and was hijacked by Conservative Clerics.

"You choose to ignore that rather sticky point because it invalidates your agenda toward Iran. All your posturing to emotive hyperbole wont make that fact go away."

Actually all of your hyperbole wont change the fact that all opposition parties are banned. How can you say what Iranians want?

"Seeing as you apply western democracy across the board we will use your standards to examine the situation. Iranians don't want western style democracy. There is no evidence whatsoever to "suggest they do."

We will never know what kind of system of government the Iranians want as long as all opposition parties are banned and all candidates have to be approved by the Council of Islamic Guardians.

" Those protesting in terms of a percentage of the population amount to less that 0.01%. Thats your base (). Accept it. "

You have no way of knowing that.

"Like I said. Iranians have the Government they want. You have no right to call for a regime change on that basis alone. "

i repeat, due to Iran being a dictatorship your point is invalid. I am in contact with Iranian Socialist groups who want a Regime Change.

by pat c Tue Oct 30, 2007 14:11

As promised a couple more Iran stories:

For principled solidarity with Iran
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84852

More Warnings Of A US War On Iran
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84850

by Galileo Tue Oct 30, 2007 14:14

Those Iranian Socialists Groups are a tiny tiny proportion of the Iranian Population.

You have never been in Iran. I have. You have no intimate knowledge of what happens in Iran. I have.

The fact of the matter here is that you cannot accept that Iranians have the government they want. It is a stable country. Whether Iran is a dictatorship or not does not change that fact, they have already proven they can oust a government they don't want and would do it again if need be. The fact is they are happy with the government the way it is.

Otherwise they would overthrow it , Like they did in 79. Accept it.

by pat c Tue Oct 30, 2007 14:25

"Those Iranian Socialists Groups are a tiny tiny proportion of the Iranian Population."

I didnt claim they were mass parties but you have no way of knowing how big they are or what their influence is.

"You have never been in Iran. I have. You have no intimate knowledge of what happens in Iran. I have."

You are an anonymous poster. You could claim anything. I dont believe you were ever in Iran. All you have done here is parrot support for the Iranian Dictatorship.

"The fact of the matter here is that you cannot accept that Iranians have the government they want. It is a stable country."

So thats why all the strikes are happening. Thats why the students are protesting. Thats why the religious police had to warn 500,000 women who were "improperly dressed"!

"Whether Iran is a dictatorship or not does not change that fact, they have already proven they can oust a government they don't want and would do it again if need be. The fact is they are happy with the government the way it is."

Change doesnt happen just because people want it to. At the moment all of the bodies of armed men are under the control of the Iranian Dictatorship. The army hasnt lost faith with the regime yet. But then the Army is hardly a democratic institution.

You really are something else Defending a dictatorship because you say the people want a dictatorship! Amazing!

"Otherwise they would overthrow it , Like they did in 79. Accept it. "

This isnt 1979, the balance of forces are different. So if they want a change of govt they have to have a revolution and thousands have to die?

But anyway you seem to reject the idea that the Iranian People are entitled to a vote.

by Galileo Tue Oct 30, 2007 14:29

" Those protesting in terms of a percentage of the population amount to less that 0.01%. Thats your base (). Accept it. "

You have no way of knowing that. "

The population of Iran is over 70 million 1% = 7million, 0.1% = 700,000, 0.01% = 70,000

No one on any forum or through any media organ has claimed or reported 70,000 Iranians have taken to the streets calling for the overthrowing of the Iranian government.

The student protests (which called for the Governments overthrow)numbered in the Hundreds.
The Union Protests (which did not call for the Governments overthrow) numbered 10,000

The CIA are losing their touch when it comes to causing internal strife and orchestrating internal agitation.

Even combined that is well below 70,000.

So you see Pat, I do indeed have a way of knowing it.

by pat c Tue Oct 30, 2007 14:35

Do you really believe that the CIA are behind the strikes and student unrest? Where is your evidence.

Your use of statistics are meaningless. In a dictatorship those who are openly prepared to protest on the streets (and risk their liberty anf lifes) are the tip of the iceberg.

What you are doing here is supporting the repression of trade unionists and students. You are supporting the murder of trade unionists. Your nonsense about the CIA would fool no honest intelligent person.

This is going in circles.

You support the Iranian Dictatorship.

I support those who are striving for Internal Regime Change.

by Galileo Tue Oct 30, 2007 14:53

You are claiming all sorts of things Pat. You are applying default thinking to claim a higher moral ground.
Those you represent do not have any support within Iran, that is the only fact I am stating. And it is a fact. They therefore have no right to determine what sort of government the Iranian people should have and neither do you.

If Iranians want democracy they are entitled to it. If they want a Communist Republic they are entitled to it. If they want a Theocracy they are entitled to it.

I do not support any form of government. i support the Iranians right to have whatever form of government they wish free from recrimination from anyone in the west.

All evidence points to the Iranian people being overwhelmingly in favour with their government as is. On that count they should be left to their own devices and thats that.

All the derivations of what you think is my position that you have forwarded on my behalf are whats really meaningless in that context despite your best efforts at pigeonholing.

What Iranians want is not for me to agree or disagree with and that applies to you too.

by pat c Tue Oct 30, 2007 15:01

Heres some info on monthly hits on dissident Iranian Socialist sites. The info was forwarded from Leftist Trainspotters who translated it from http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/

This doesnt cover all left groups.

Parti Toudeh [ex-CP was pro-USSR, ]: a)
http://www.tudehpartyiran.org/
Traffic rank: 756 157, of which Iran 35,674;

b)http://www.rahetudeh.com
/Traffic rank: 252 580, of which Iran
12 974

WCPI: http://www.wpiran.org Traffic rank: 901 562, of which Iran 77 832
(has a federation of refugies, www.hambastegi.org, which has a trafic
of 35 405 in Iran)

Parti communiste-ouvrier hekmatiste
d'Iran:http://www.hekmatist.comTraffic rank: 579 313, of which Iran
35 409

WUP (Worker Communism Unity Party of Iran):
http://www.for-abetterworld.com
Traffic rank: 711 390, of which Iran 54 843
(the mirror site www.wupiran.com n'a padoesn't have geographical info but the site of it's SG Ali Javadi has atrafic of 18 414 in Iran)

TOTAL of 3 ("hekmatistes") sites is 2 192 265, of which Iran 168 084.

Revolutionary Workers organization of Iran(Rahe Kargar) :
http://www.rahekargar.net
Traffic rank: 219 016 of which Iran 14,557

Iranian Revolutionary Socialist League, IRSL:
http://www.pishtaaz.com/kargar/Traffic rank: 2,775,19647, No
geographical data(their online magazine also www.iwsn.org non plus).

Workers Left Unity: http://www.etehadchap.org/
Traffic rank: 1 055 632, of which Iran 99 014

Parti communiste d'Iran (Komalah) [kurdes ex-maoïstes]:
a) http://www.komalah.orgTraffic rank: 733 937, of which Iran 66 270,
mainly Canada;
b) http://www.cpiran.org/Traffic rank: 276 273, of
which Iran 37 035 TOTAL 2 sites:1 010 210, of which Iran 103 305

by pat c Tue Oct 30, 2007 15:07

" do not support any form of government. i support the Iranians right to have whatever form of government they wish free from recrimination from anyone in the west."

But you support the present dictatorship and claim that the Iranian people support it!

"All evidence points to the Iranian people being overwhelmingly in favour with their government as is. On that count they should be left to their own devices and thats that."

But there is no evidence for your assertions. All opposition parties are banned. The mullahs decide on the candidates. How do you know that the Iranian people back the present dictatorship?

"All the derivations of what you think is my position that you have forwarded on my behalf are whats really meaningless in that context despite your best efforts at pigeonholing."

Actually no. You have consistently claimed that the Iranian people support the present government. You claim that strikers and students are CIA agents. Therfore it is reasonable to describe you as a supporter of the present Regime.

"What Iranians want is not for me to agree or disagree with and that applies to you too."

But you have done just that in your un substantiated assertions that dissidents are CIA agents. You have put yourself on the side of the Iranian Dictatorship.

I choose the side of Iranian Anti Imperialist Opposition.

by Galileo Tue Oct 30, 2007 17:18

Don't tell me what I do and do not support. Your narrow world view cannot be transposed unto Iran to create a good versus evil juxtaposition.

You are clumsily lumping all those who call you out into a rhetorical construct which is what those with a limited understanding (or a spoon-fed one) tend to do to avoid tricky dilemmas. You see it with the Shinners all the time.

The dilemma here is of course your complete lack of support by the Iranian people while you have the audacity to presume what is good for them. It is exactly why you smear anyone who disagrees with you as being unreconstructed supporters of the mullahs. Limited in its effectiveness as it is particularly easy to see through as many posters have pointed out to you.

I see you also took my quip regarding the CIA and falsified it to suggest I claimed all protest within Iran is instigated by them. This is the dishonesty that singles you out in particular as a spin merchant and a scurrilous one at that.

But WRT to the CIA, it is well known they are operating in Iran and have received funding from congress to stir up internal strife and project it as civil unrest. To deny that is not happening in any capacity within Iran is delusional.

All those who attack Iran at this time are open to suspicion. That is prudent.

You Pat are allowing your personal lifestyle choice and your hatred of Islam and the mullahs to inform your thinking on this. I believe you are hiding behind HOPI to further your own personal agenda. Your use of pseudonyms across threads is now a joke and making a mockery of a very real threat to world peace.

You are not objective. You dancing around the fact that the current Government in Iran has the peoples support will not change that fact. You have not even begun to prove otherwise, but stumble on haphazardly stringing together your own personal view of what you think Iranians are or are not doing and to what end.

Iran is a stable country. Its government has the backing of the majority of its people. Nobody outside of extreme VI groups deny this. Not even the US state department.

Deal with it.

by Watcher Tue Oct 30, 2007 17:44

"Statistics dont lie, but liars use statistics. Watcher illustrates that adage quite well.
Watcher seems to have a fixation with Iran, he has to defend the current Iranian Regime no matter what.
Never mind, the facts remain that Iran is a Brutal Dictatorship.
All opposition parties are banned.
All candidates for parliament and the presidency must be approved by the Islamic Council of Guardians.
Trade Unions are banned.
Workers are flogged and imprisoned for going on strike.
Trade Union activists are shot down in the streets by the Iranian Secret Police.
Women are stoned to death for adultery.
Children are executed.
Executions take place in public"

Whenever Pat is confronted with facts the result is usually the above hysterical unslaught. No attempt to engage with the very important point being made, that education will ,in time, deliver the people of Iran into a place where they want to be. Education is vital to assist people to participate and determine where their futiure and their childrens future is best served. Shouting and screaming or calling for unrealistic immediate change will only achieve nothing. Which begs the question-Does Pat C really want change to evolve at all?

The fact is that the revolution delivered a staggering increase in the literacy rate. Literacy allows people to read the views from far and near and reduces the capacity of government to mislead. The dramatic increase in literacy did not happen by accident. Almost the first act after the revolution was the issuing of a decree establishing the Literacy Movement Organisation. The illiteracy rate stood at 52% immediately after the revolution and this has been reduced to 24% at the last verified audit taken in 2002.The LMO established over 2,000 community learning centers across the country, employed 55,000 instructors, distributed hundreds of books and manuals, and provided literacy classes to a million people, women as well as men.

In the area of health, the progress has been equally spectacular. Infant mortality rates have been slashed and to assist women Iran now has a very effective family planning programme. This is contributing to allowing women to participate to an ever increasing extent in the day to day affairs of the country. And another wee fact that will further upset Pat, since the revolution, Iran has made significant moves up the Human Development Index from 0.569 in the early 80's to 0.732 in 2002 and it is expected that Iran will have made further large gains since 2002.

On the issue of Pat's repeated claims that Iran is "Dictatorship", the facts refure this. Nobody is claiming the the structures are pristine models of democracy however, Iran has elected governmental bodies at the national, provincial and local levels for which all males and females from the age of 15 yrs of age up may vote. While it is acknowledged that these bodies are subordinate, in the overall scheme of things they have more power than equivalent organs under the Shah's regime. Regarding representaion of minorities, seats are allocated for the Christian , Jewish and Zoroastrian communities in rough proportion with their population.

Another fact that is rarely if ever mentioned is the fact that after the revolution, the new Iranian government had formal meetings with represenatives of the indigenous Jewish community after which a decree was issued that all Jews were under the protection of the administration. A similiar decree was issued for the protection of Iran's Christian community.

Progress is progress and we should be supporting that which is responsible for the dramatic changes and particularly those in the area of education. Education has the capacity to change things very substantially and stability allied to the political will to deliver facilites is vital for eduactional standards to improve. What is happening on the ground is indisputable progress far beyond the expectations of those who were originally critical of the revolution and that must be acknowledged rather than cheerleading US aggression which has the capacity to destroy that progress and movement and all to get control of the oil in the area. Who in their right mind would advocate aggression against Iran having witnessed the outcome of that same aggression on Iraq. People genuinely concerned for the region should stop attacking Iran and concentrate on focusing on US policy and it's disasterous consequences.

by pat c Tue Oct 30, 2007 18:09

"Whenever Pat is confronted with facts the result is usually the above hysterical unslaught. "

But you supplied a list of figures that was irrelevant to the debate. How is it hysterical to point out FACTS about Iran? Everything I posted is true.

"No attempt to engage with the very important point being made, that education "

But this is not about Education. Its about the fact that Iran is a dictatorship. You refuse to engage with that fact. You attrempt to divert the debate.

"Shouting and screaming or calling for unrealistic immediate change will only achieve nothing. "

Tell that to the Iranian opposition. They dont think asking for democracy is unrealistic. You think democracy is unrealistic, hmm i think that tells us a lot about you.

"Which begs the question-Does Pat C really want change to evolve at all? "

I do thats why I support Iranian socialists. You quite clearly support the Iranian Regime in every post. You want no change.

"The fact is that the revolution delivered a staggering increase in the literacy rate."

But what about unions being banned? What about all Opposition Parties being banned? Your figures are not relevant to this debate which is about democracy.

"On the issue of Pat's repeated claims that Iran is "Dictatorship", the facts refure this. "

They do not.

The facts are:

1. All opposition parties are banned.

2. All candidates for the parliament or presidency have to be approved by the Islamic Council of Guardians before they can stand for election.

In the eyes of any rational honest person that would make Iran a dictatorship.

"What is happening on the ground is indisputable progress far beyond the expectations of those who were originally critical of the revolution "

Tell that to the strikers who are flogged and imprisoned. Tell it to union activists who are shot by the Iranian Secret Police. Tell it to women who are stoned to death for adultery.

"People genuinely concerned for the region should stop attacking Iran and concentrate on focusing on US policy and it's disasterous consequences.
"

People genuinely concerned for the region should oppose US Imperialisms aggression in the region. They should also support the workers, women, students and socialists who are struggling against the Iranian Dictatorship.

by pat c Tue Oct 30, 2007 18:28

"Don't tell me what I do and do not support. Your narrow world view cannot be transposed unto Iran to create a good versus evil juxtaposition."

If you are going to engage ion debate then you will inevitably end up being told a few unpalatable truths.

"You are clumsily lumping all those who call you out into a rhetorical construct which is what those with a limited understanding (or a spoon-fed one) tend to do to avoid tricky dilemmas. You see it with the Shinners all the time."

You appear to be the one with limited understanding. You are incapable of seeing any fault with Iran.

"The dilemma here is of course your complete lack of support by the Iranian people while you have the audacity to presume what is good for them. "

Again you make unsubstantiated assertions. Iran is a dictatorship. You have no way of knowing how many people support the current regime.

"It is exactly why you smear anyone who disagrees with you as being unreconstructed supporters of the mullahs"

But you are a supporter of the Mullahs.

1. You claim the vast majority of Iranians support a dictatorship and that they dont want democtatic elections.

2. You describe striking workers and students as CIA agents.

Going on the above its reasonable to suggest that you are a supporter of the current Iranian Regime.

"Limited in its effectiveness as it is particularly easy to see through as many posters have pointed out to you."

Actually very few if any of those who attack HOPI use their real names. Hard to know who it is. They dont have the guts to put their names to the attacks. Its obvious from the posting styles that they keep changing the names.

"I see you also took my quip regarding the CIA and falsified it to suggest I claimed all protest within Iran is instigated by them. This is the dishonesty that singles you out in particular as a spin merchant and a scurrilous one at that."

You quit spinning its clear just a few comments back what you posted. You suugested the CIA was behind the unrest. You are the one who is tossing falsehoods around.

"But WRT to the CIA, it is well known they are operating in Iran and have received funding from congress to stir up internal strife and project it as civil unrest. To deny that is not happening in any capacity within Iran is delusional. "

I never denied this. But it is scandalous for you to suuggest that striking workers and students are tools of the CIA. If you have any evidence produce it. Otherwise you should have the decency to withdraw the smear.

"All those who attack Iran at this time are open to suspicion. That is prudent."

So any striking worker is a possible CIA Agent. You really are a piece of work.

"You Pat are allowing your personal lifestyle choice "

I'll take that as homophobia. Only homophobes suggest sexual oriierntation is a lifestyle choice.

"and your hatred of Islam and the mullahs"

I dont hate Islam anymore than I hate Catholicism and Bishops. Funny you never hear of Catholicophobia.

"I believe you are hiding behind HOPI to further your own personal agenda. "

You are so silly. I am involved in HOPI to support the Iranian anti imperialist socialists.

"Your use of pseudonyms across threads is now a joke and making a mockery of a very real threat to world peace."

You who dont even have the guts to use your name are chiding me about pseudonyms? You truly are a laugh!

You dont even have the courage of your own convictions.

"Iran is a stable country. Its government has the backing of the majority of its people. Nobody outside of extreme VI groups deny this. Not even the US state department."

You truly live in a strange world. A dictatorship which bans all opposition parties has the backing of the majority of its people? I still dont understand how you work this out. Do you cast dice?

by Watcher Tue Oct 30, 2007 19:43

"But what about unions being banned? What about all Opposition Parties being banned? Your figures are not relevant to this debate which is about democracy."

The problem is that in order to defend your irrational attacks on Iran, you use a too narrow definition of what constitutes a democracy. There is no such place on earth that would conform to your requirements.
The essential definition of a democratic society is one where public policy reflects public interests. Essentially, nothing else matters.
I have laid out sufficient examples to demonstrate that the Iranian regime has as much right, using that test, to call itself a democracy than has any other country on earth. Pick one and we can compare.

BTW, is there any difference between banning trade unions and not permitting trade union, where they exist, to represent workers?

by Galileo Tue Oct 30, 2007 19:45

Your fluff is just getting irritating.

Your use of counterpoints which appear to plucked from thin air belie an air of mischief in that I really think you are just taking the piss.

Upon any inspection it is clear Pat is actually saying nothing just regurgitation Anti Iranian propoganda and trying to transplant his views onto every one else. It is in keeping with his wish to impose the ideals and values of a minute Iranian outfit unto the vast majority of Iranians who want nothing to with him.

Keep it up Pat. You will get dizzy soon and fall over such is the verocity of your spin.
I'll let you have the last word Pat. It appears that that is all you are interested in.

by Drew - WPRM Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:07 wprm_ireland at yahoo dot com

Galileo said:

"Your attempt at purism is irrelevant. Iranians do not want revolution and most certainly have expressed no desire for Communism. Until you except that your position is slanted and cannot be considered objectively.

You describe the IRI as an enemy of the Iranian People. The CPI qualified that further by stating it was the greater enemy of the 2 when including the US. That is nonsense and has no basis in actual fact.

Iran is a stable country. It has the government it wants that was put their by its people. Debating Maoism, communism or indeed socialism in that context is irrelevant and somewhat idiotic given that the only ones paying attention are intrusive western leftists and a tiny minority of expatriated Iranians with a huge chip on their shoulder."

And of course none of this is true. The CPI (MLM) are the ideological descendants of the Sarbedaran and no-one that knows what they are talking about would call them a "tiny minority". I'm guessing Gallileo hasn't heard of the Amol Uprising. After the Mullahs consolidated their hold on government there was a rout of all progressive forces. One Iranian comrade told me recently that a whole generation of Iranian revolutionaries were wiped out at this time. It kind of justifies a "chip on the shoulder".

Unlike Gallileo however, I won't attempt to speak for the Iranian masses, but there are clear indications of popular discontent on the ground. Also, you can't close the argument down by claiming to have visited the country. It would be fair to say that I am "well travelled", but I recognise that gleaning information from the people in countries that you visit can be very difficult. You can be just as wrong in Iran as you are in Ireland if your agenda is not in solidarity with the Iranian people.

by Galileo Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:46

Indeed, now it seems a sweeping statement is enough to discount facts.

This latest from Drew. “And of course none of this is true”

So, Drew is now claiming that Iranians want revolution. Not only that a communist armed uprising in the tradition of Maoism. No velvet revolution here, armed insurrection is the order of the day and to hell with the majority wants.

He also denies the CPI never stated that the IRI is a greater enemy to the people of Iran than the US.
Not to mention demonising Iran as Fascist an Nazis with gems such as this.
“It was like the Hitler regime who started with the communists and social democrats and eventually came for everybody else-including its own elected president Bani Sadr. A theocratic fascist regime was consolidated in Iran. At the heart of this fascist theocracy lies the slavery of women. “

He denies Iran is a stable country and that the Iranian Government was put there by populist revolution.

He then claims he doesn’t speak for the Iranian Masses yet it is quite evident that is exactly what he is trying to do

He then proceeds with a history lesson on the AMOL uprising which failed for the simple reason that it did not have the support of the people. The Uprising in itself is all the proof that is needed of just how little support Communists have in Iran.

Its leader where then summarily executed for treason, which is exactly what would have happened in any another sovereign nation on earth.

Like I said the Iranian people have no wish to see a communist dictatorship overthrow a theocracy.

Nobody other than the Workers Weekly are saying Iran is rife for revolution or that it is not a stable country. Those of us in the real world know it is a very stable country and this is exactly why a war against Iran will be so devastating. It is completely different to Iraq in that regard.

You cannot accept simple facts on such a complex issue.

Reform must and will come from within and all this demonization only serves to hinder it. But it is the people of Iran who will decide what those reforms will be who they will be realized and by what means they will be implemented.

by Drew - WPRM Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:45 wprm_ireland at yahoo dot com

I didn't say most of what you are claiming here and I'm not going to waste any time refuting your falsehoods. I didn't deny that the CPI (MLM) said anything. These aren't sweeping statements, I just believe that anyone reading this thread can go back through what has been said and decide for themselves.

by Galileo Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:58

Drew look to your post of Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:07

You quoted my post thus.
"Your attempt at purism is irrelevant. Iranians do not want revolution and most certainly have expressed no desire for Communism. Until you except that your position is slanted and cannot be considered objectively.

You describe the IRI as an enemy of the Iranian People. The CPI qualified that further by stating it was the greater enemy of the 2 when including the US. That is nonsense and has no basis in actual fact.

Iran is a stable country. It has the government it wants that was put their by its people. Debating Maoism, communism or indeed socialism in that context is irrelevant and somewhat idiotic given that the only ones paying attention are intrusive western leftists and a tiny minority of expatriated Iranians with a huge chip on their shoulder."

And replied saying “And of course none of this is true.”

Which means you believe Iranians DO want revolution.
You believe the CPI DIDN’t say what I posted
You believe Iran is NOT a stable country.

You are either incapable of understanding English or a down right liar. Its there, clear as day for all to see.

by Drew - WPRM Wed Oct 31, 2007 13:08 wprm_ireland at yahoo dot com

Well thats me off back to work. Gallilio you are one of the most charmless characters I have come across on any of these threads. You should learn some basic manners.