© the eyeranian

Quote of the Day

Billy Crystal said the first time he hosted the Oscars 13 years ago, things were different: "Bush was president, the economy was tanking and we'd just finished a war with Iraq."

He then alluded to President Bush's Vietnam-era service: "The academy and the Oscars have been very gracious to me. They let me come and go the past few years. It's kind of like being in the Texas National Guard."

Beam Me There Too, Please!

I'm convinced there IS a parallel universe out there. This is the one where the ones who have blood that is a darker shade of burgundy, compared to our weak measly red version. Such is the case with former queen, Farah Pahlavi it seems. As I had warned you earlier about her book coming out soon, now she is suddenly participating in interviews and I assume will be more and more visible over the next few weeks.

She obviously lives in a parallel universe and if I was in her shoes, I'd invest some of the $200,000 advance she received for the book (something she considers to be not a large amount) in hiring a PR consultant to filter some of her answers. In this interview for example, she shows how out of touch with reality she is:

"At my office in the palace in Tehran I had 60 people helping me. Here I have two people. I have a lady who cooks for me and cleans up and also a driver. It is difficult for me. Sometimes I have asked friends for money."

Poor little thing! Finds life so difficult because she only now has ONE chauffer and ONE cook. Breaks your heart, I'm sure! Check out this answer about why "Persians" view America differently than Arabs do:

"For the majority of Iranians, there has never been anti-American or anti-Western sentiment, because we have never been a colony of Europe. The Iranian people understand that progress and modernity come from the West. And now we have an Iranian actress nominated for the Oscars for her role in House of Sand and Fog."

And how does the Oscar fit into that analysis? Does she believe no actor from former colonized countries has ever been nominated for one? or perhaps this nomination somehow separates us from those low-lives we love to hate?

There are parts of the interview that makes me wonder if she was under influence of some medication while answering. For example the half-hearted admission of her husband really being a CIA installed puppet or at least not challenging the suggestion, or this bit that just puzzles me:

"Q - How do you feel about the American invasion of Iraq?

A - When Iran was stable, we had good relations with the rest of the world, and after the Iranian Revolution happened, look what happened in that area -- the Iran-Iraq war, the Taliban, the gulf war and now the war in Iraq."

And that relates to the price of tea in China how??? Oh I forgot, it DOES indeed, but in that parallel universe.

Interview link via "Ediotor:Myself"

Thank You UFCW

This morning, I see it is going to be a beautiful sunny day and decide to go down to my local supermarket to picket with the striking workers there (it was my "free" day, you see?). During the past 4½-months of their dispute, I had done this a few other times, but never at this store. Now with an offer on the table and the possibility of it coming to an end, I thought it would be a great opportunity to go offer a few kind words and to basically thank them for their effort.

Well, guess what? After yesterday's vote, no picketers were anywhere in sight! I guess they knew themselves that the majority had accepted the new contract and the strike was more or less over.

So, in lieu of being able to say it in person, I want to use this opportunity and thank all the workers from my local store, UFCW members from all over Southern California, plus their union activists and officials for a hard fought battle on behalf of all of us. Although the final deal did not give them everything they were asking for, it still addresses most of their major issues and the fact that they were able to hold-out for as long as they did, will make a great impact in possible other labor disputes of the future.

Congratulations Shohreh!

For overcoming years of prejudice and stereo-typing, while perfecting your craft in little theatres and gatherings around the globe to finally reach the top of your trade and be recognized amongst its brightest stars. Although you may have not been selected to take a little gold statue home with you tonight, you are still an inspiration to many of us.

Go Take a Flyin' Leap

Did He Hire Johnny Cochran?

Hey (I just like saying that today), what went wrong here? If the prosecutors can't find "the smoking gun" in the case of Slobodan Milosevic, is there any hope of ever convicting other butchers around the globe? I'll admit to not having paid much attention to 2 years of testimonies in his trial, so those of you with some better insight, please help me out here. To me, this guy was downright proud of his "ethnic cleansing" and there can't be any shortage of victims, witnesses and evidence all over former Yugoslavia. Being head of the state, I'm sure any pleas of "just following orders" wasn't going to help him either. But if he is acquitted of the genicide charge, the most serious of charges he is facing, will Saddams and Khameneis of the world will also be safe from one day having to counter such charges? That would be disturbing, to say the least.

Demis Roussos & More

It's time for one of those nostalgia trips à la eyeranian. Those not fitting in my narrow age and culture group, forgive me!

This time, we are discussing Demis Roussos. Egyptian born Greek singing star who was a one-time band member in Aphrodite's Child with Vangelis Papathanassiou (yes, THAT Vangelis), was also a popular star in Iran of the mid 70's. One of his most popular songs, Say you love me was covered by more than one Iranian singers but perhaps became even better known a few years later when Indian movie Sholay featured the same song, this time with unrelated Hindi lyrics. Here is Mehbooba, the Sholay version.

Speaking of Sholay, not many realize the most popular tune out of the movie O jab tak hai jaan was also "inspired" by yet another song, this time closer at home with Googoosh's popular hit Jomeh.

Next time in our nostalgia trip, we may talk about Trinity series of movies and even Lando Buzzanca.

New Campaign '04 Volunteer?

Iranian state broadcasting has reported today about Usama's capture "a long time ago." The report and claim that Rumsfeld's recent visit to Afghanistan was directly related to it have been denied by both U.S. and Pakistan. Considering the assertion that the entire affair is in preparation of an election time diversion to guarantee 4 more years control of the White House by Neo Cons, that's not surprising.

I would normally ignore this, however it is hard to forget how the same source reported on the arrest of Saddam way ahead of all other news agencies. Besides, with the U.S. abandoning everything in Afghanistan outside of Kabul to tribal chiefs and occasional criminal war lord, some of them with strong Iranian connections, it's not hard to imagine news of this magnitude being leaked to such a source.

Hey, with an administration so deeply immersed in various lies and fabrications, why should anyone be surprised about them saving some large deceptions for the election season?

NIAC & You!

Whenever any mention of The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) comes up in the Iranian community here, it seems to evoke really strong opinions and comments. I don't know enough details to take sides here, but the intense reactions are proof they are obviously doing something. Be it the wrong thing or right, the only people who get no criticism or praise are the ones who don't do a thing at all. Knowing a few of their volunteers, I can also comfortably say that they obviously are filling a gap that is out there. Just looking at some of their activists with their pictures and brief description is enough to tell you how these are not the individuals you see regularly involved in other organizations.

When I played a small role in connecting the council to Mercy Corpse as a better alternative in helping with Bam earthquake relief effort, I got a front row view of the back and forth arguments going on about the organization. On one hand some friends wanted to know how I had "dared" to help such a corrupt entity, while others expressed their delight in my co-operation and encouraging me to get even further involved.

I wanted to bring this up for a couple of reasons; first is to let all of those who read this blog regularly and have an opinion in one way or other to share it with the rest of us here. Please tell us all what you think of NIAC and don't be modest either. Now don't tell me they are the Iranian government's agents (for example), unless you have some evidence or solid reasoning to back it up. Also, don't make just general nice comments, give us some examples.

The other reason for this post is to point to this, a questionnaire addressed to and answered by 3 of the 4 remaining Democratic party candidates for president. I actually wrote organization's president to ask if they were going to do this, to find out they were one step ahead of me and had it already posted on their site on the same day. I think I would have been a bit harder on the candidates had I put together the questions, but nonetheless it is very informative and interesting to see where they stand on certain issues. What do you think?

Click or Eat His Shorts!!!

After the little "misunderstanding" with Google, it looks like the ads are working fine and I haven't had any problems with them. Of course this post didn't help at all and I never saw a single ad from anything related to South African resorts, but I guess we're stuck with seeing mostly "Iranian" related links.

A big huge thank you is also due to all of you who patronize the advertisers on your visits here, both getting exposed to new sites you'd regularly not seen and helping with the cost of buying more bandwidth to accommodate the next flood of visitors we may get here.

How is the war on terror going?

Here's my fictitious interview with this country's top 3 men in charge of intelligence as over 2.5 years has passed since the president declared war on terrorism as the nation's top priority and billions has since been spent in this war to eradicate a group of religious fanatics who took it upon themselves to take away thousands of innocent lives and assault our common conscience:

(Text and quotes borrowed from various reports of Tuesdays hearing at Senate Intelligence Committee, out of context and incomplete, but actual quotes)

Q - We set our sights originally on Usama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, how is that war going?

A - CIA Director George Tenet: "The steady growth of Osama bin Laden's anti-U.S. sentiment through the wider Sunni extremist movement, and the broad dissemination of al-Qaida's destructive expertise, ensure that a serious threat will remain for the foreseeable future, with or without al-Qaida in the picture,"

Q - Are you saying that Al-Qaeda has in fact weakened or is even wiped out?

A - "Al-Qaida has spread its radical agenda to other groups that now pose the leading threat to the United States"..."dozens of smaller Islamic extremist organizations with ties to al-Qaida have emerged"

Q - But after 2.5 years, I'm sure we have been able to cause considerable damage to their infrastructure, making it impossible for them to pose any serious threat. right?

A - "al-Qaeda networks are still capable of "Catastrophic Attacks" on US targets" and it "still is capable of carrying out assaults on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001."

Q - But I am certain we have been able to stop them from operating in this country, correct?

A - FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III: "al-Qaida has retained a "cadre of supporters" within the United States to develop plots and carry out instructions."

Q - The President has claimed that U.S. invasion of Iraq will cut down on terrorism and promote democracy in the region. How are we doing with Iraq?

A - Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency: "Iraq has the potential to serve as a training ground for the next generation of terrorists where novice recruits develop their skills, junior operatives hone their organizational and planning capabilities, and relations mature between individuals and groups."

Q - These are those pesky Shiites we have always had a problem with?

A - Jacoby: "Iraq is the latest jihad for Sunni extremists," Tenet: "Jihadists hope for a Taliban-like enclave in Iraq's Sunni heartland that could be a jihadist safe haven."

Q - You think our large military presence there helps in controlling these groups then?

A - "The threat, goes beyond these groups to individual jihadists, or holy warriors, who see the presence of 120,000 U.S. troops in Iraq as a golden opportunity."

Q - But are we winning the hearts of the people in the region, particularly our Muslim allies?

A - Jacoby: "Favorable ratings (for the United States) in Morocco declined from 77 percent in 2000 to 27 percent in spring of last year, and in Jordan from 25 percent in 2002 to only 1 percent in May 2003... Support in the Muslim world for the U.S.-led war on terrorism and for the United States itself has plunged even in countries considered friendly, fueling radical Islam and opposition to pro-U.S. regimes."

End of Conflict

Coke, Porn & Prostitution

I have decided to pass along a random selection of the funniest messages I get once in a while, without the identity of writers being revealed. Maybe a monthly feature or fairly regular piece. That is unless I get something so good, it can't wait. Well, as a start let's enjoy this one from today:

I am not against freedom of speech but reading your funny web site it seemed that you are very confused individual, on one had you are against Saddam on other you are with Americans, on one had you are trying to safeguard Iranians from ayotollahs and on other you are sending them nude pics ( in the name of art?), infact you are a bit fucked up (excuse my language) individual who wants us to imitate Westreners and leave our own moral aside. Let me tell you a story as I am living in [DELETED] I used to have some Monrachist friends, though I myself is a revolutionary as they say if you are over twenty and you are not revolutionary then something is wrong with your heart, and if you are above forty and you are a revolutionary then there is something wrong with your head. Being in my twenty and an immitator of Ayotollahs I had a friend though she was iranian but she was born in Englad was pretty, may be I had some ideas for her in my heart, but I didn't know that she was in coke or prostitution. Unfortunately I found that when I saw her photo in a daily with heading "A pros's body was found mutilated in a bin near a pub in West London, I was definetly in a state of flabbrgast , then I offered Namaze WAHSHAT for her poor soul.

Now I comtemplated what went wrong with her upbringing?

I found some answers,firstly we shouldn't imitate bad Westren virtues, though we can learn modern science from them but coke and Muslims don't go hand in hand I mean ideally.

Another worse gift from West is porn and prostitution , we can get rid of them by praying five times a day and that is proven. Now I live happily with my newly Muslim girl friend and she loves my Muslim culture and my love for her and honesty. I wonder if she would have been with me if I imitated Westren nonsenses, I am sure not. As naturally it would have been bizarre to have all flowers in one shape, humans too shouldn't try to have one colour as it is against the nature. I hope you will study Koran and Islamic teachings for you I will suggest the following link, [DELETED]

I will pray for you.

Compel to hear from you.

Salam

With regards,

[DELETED]

Cartoon

A New Low

Every imprudent politician or even political system inscribes its own end at some point. It usually happens at critical turns, where tough decisions need to be made and the true nature of an idea or movement is exposed. Take Ayatollah Khomeini's promising new Islamic Republic for example. The end of that system was laid down at some of these very turns. Be it the military incursion into Kurdistan, the day first vigilante mobs forced mandatory Islamic hijab on women or when certain candidates were taken off ballots at his first try at a "democratic" election, the system was doomed on that very point. And although each of these moves were temporary set-backs for Iranians, I believe they were all instrumental in what will be a giant leap forward for us all after the eventual demise of current tyranny.

Now, DC's Neo Cons have also committed to their own eventual demise and obligated themselves to ideological oblivion. In my opinion, not building the largest deficit in U.S.'s history, not taking the country into war for no justifiable reason, not being subordinates of a foreign government or even the harm done to the environment sealed their historical place as much as the announcement to back a move in amending the constitution to ban union of same-sex couples has.

In deciding for the first time ever to use the constitution to not guarantee more rights to people but to limit them, this administration has now shown its true ideological motives, way beyond all their other disastrous strategies. Failing miserably on all fronts from economy to foreign policy, the administration that took office with the promise of bringing people together became the ultimate divider and decided to segregate people based on their sexual orientation and religious beliefs. This will indeed be historically seen as the day Neo Cons vanished ideologically, even if it turns out to win them an election or extend their miserable life by a few more years. It's their beginning of the end and that end will not be far.

Falling in Love

Bravely I said, "Mash Qasem, this is all very well . . . but how can someone know he's fallen in love?"

"Well, m'dear . . . why should I lie? From what I've seen it's like this, when you're in love with someone . . . when you don't see her you think your heart's frozen over . . . when you see her such a burnin' starts in your heart you think someone's lit a baker's oven in there. You want everythin' in the world, all the wealth in the world, for her, you think you've become the most generous man on earth . . . to cut a long story short, the only thing that's goin' to satisfy you's an engagement party ... but there's this, too, if, God forbid, they give this girl to some other husband, then oh my Lord . . . There was a man in our town who was in love, and one evenin' there was an engagement party for the girl and another man; in the mornin' that neighbor of mine walked off into the desert, and now twenty years have gone by and still no one knows what happened . . . it's as if he'd turned to smoke and gone up to the heavens."

From Iraj Pezeshkzad's timeless masterpiece "My Uncle Napoleon" as translated by Dick Davis.

A Private Note!

Psst! I think we're alone now! Hi! a big juicy hello to all friends, especially the "regulars" here. It looks like as if most of our drop-in visitors have exhausted their 30 second attention spans and are gone now. Sort of like; back to our regular programming... I really don't know how many thousands of new visitors we had here as I deliberately don't check. All I know is that ONE source that featured this blog claims they referred over 8,000 visitors here in one day. Not that it matters much either. But maybe 50 of those join our petite list of regulars, the ones I consider our VIP's. To those potential 50; welcome aboard!

I don't know what the experience was like for all of you. Perhaps one of our VIP's summed it up best when wrote me to say "it feels like you go back to your normal coffee shop where you always hang out, and find the place packed with people you've never met". I hope it wasn't as uncomfortable as that, but it's good to meet new people anyways. I wanted to take the time to make a few points here, hoping to answer some of the concerns and questions expressed to me in person or by email over the last few days;

- the eyeranian will not change. Whether we have 17,000 visitors or 7, this is my weblog about the stuff I want to write about. I will not change that to cater to anyone. I have no desire to ever run for office, don't make money off of this, am not seduced by popularity or fame and didn't come to my convictions overnight so I can change them now to please someone else. Maybe this all isn't such a good thing, but that's how it is.

- I'm really sorry if I meet you in person and come across as dorky and even mortified. I'm really not that comfortable with your extreme compassion and consideration. I write the words you see here in complete isolation and consider them very close to my heart. When I see people who are so passionate about reading them and even quote me word by word something I wrote 2 months ago, I'm embarrassed by all the attention. So, forgive me humbly as I love you all and appreciate everything, but haven't figured out how to react to it yet.

- I have never dated anyone through this weblog. That's all I'll say on that.

- All the notes, pictures, article, poems and other items you send me is really nice. Unfortunately, this is not a public website or E-zine, etc. and as a personal weblog, I can't turn it into a place to publish your stuff. The idea of putting together an on-line magazine isn't dead yet and although we have had a few hurdles and I am currently preoccupied with a couple of other projects, I promise to get that off the ground one day and then I can accommodate all the wonderful work you send me. Please forgive me.

- I'm still struggling with answering some of the emails. So, please be patient.

Love you all. Pedram

Blog-o-rama!

And finally my current favorite from the occupied Iraq; "River" maintains the blog Baghdad Burning with some very interesting observations. It's good to know not all Iraqi bloggers, assisted by their friends in the west, come from that certain alcove in Iraqi society who believe being invaded by a foreign army is the best thing since last time another foreign government staged a coup in their country.

Keep on blogging friends!

Head For Rent!

Upon seeing the image above, I realized the enormous marketing potential of my own bald head and would like to announce that mine is now officially open for bidding by any candidates for the November 2004 elections. The incumbent can pay with Halliburton shares to make the transaction easier. The space is also open to large multi-national corporations and their friends after this November and at a reduced rate. Sealed bids must arrive at my email address before March 1st, 2004. he winner will be notified by a big public display of affection at a news conference.

Hotel California

Link via ZaneIrani

Ralph, Don't Run!

I met Ralph Nader in 1997. I may be wrong, but I think he was invited to give a lunch hour speech as part of an ongoing series of lectures Howard Hampton of the NDP had organized to initiate debate amongst his party activists and strategists. What I do remember for certain is his interest in learning more about actual functioning within and campaign strategy of Canada's "third party" in anticipation of his own run in 2000. Of course, none of the people who were chosen to spend some time with him afterwards and pass along some vital experiences, including myself, had any idea that he'd be running for Presidency back then.

I found him to be just a great guy, very passionate about his convictions, a bit arrogant (expected with his experience), very smart and knowledgeable. It was great to see him run in 2000 and attempt to actually build that third party, although this at the end may have indeed cost all of us more than a few lives, billions in a humongous deficit, sacrifice of many vital rights and more. For the record though, I don't blame Nader alone for Gore's eventual stepping aside, I also blame the Democrats and Gore, but that's another story for another time.

Yesterday Ralph Nader announced he'll be running again, this time as an independent. As someone who likes Nader, is firmly entrenched in the Coke/Pepsi outlook and believes the ailing U.S. democracy badly needs the infusion of third, fourth and fifth points of view to rejuvenate and revive it from a sloppy slide down to oblivion, I would like to still say that I believe NADER IS WRONG!

I hope for the sake of everyone involved (and that may mean the entire human race), he'll get in to get his message out, raise the issues that will not be raised otherwise, bring people in who may otherwise stay out, and then step aside to allow people of globe's only superpower to demonstrate whether they are ready to and capable of leading again in this century or are just irrational, gullible, dim-wits that can be bamboozled by the Neo Con spin machine headquartered in Likud offices.

UPDATE - Howard Dean is right and I agree with this 100%.

What does a number mean?

I find it amusing in reading Iranian blogs, web sites and email lists to see how obsessed some otherwise intellectual people are with the game of percentages being played in Iran. Particularly what percentage of eligible voters participated in last Friday's erroneous elections. There were no international observers, so the actual number you'd accept as fact depends on your point of view. They range from 10 to 15 percent offered by some opposition groups, to Interior Ministry's "official" 50.57% and the regime loyalists who talk of "massive turnouts".

Why it matters little is many folds; firstly and as stated, there's no way to know the actual number. Even if you accept any of the above figures, how do you account for the large expected fraudulent numbers never released? Putting those aside also, how would one figure in all the voters who participate not because they endorse the sham, but because they have to. This includes members of armed forces (including drafted soldiers), all government employees, those working with various official and semi-official "foundations" who own much of Iran's major industries, students attending state subsidized universities, many of the people receiving pensions or other government financial assistance (such as war veterans, etc.) and finally residents of small towns and villages where almost all their daily affairs are closely administered by the local mosque or mullah and would not dare causing any souring of that relationship.

In short, even if 80% take part in the next fake election, it won't prove anything. It will not be a sign of approval for the regime or the process in any way or shape. What is clear, is that the majority of Iranians do not approve of this regime. If they did, there would be no reason for the establishment to deny the demand of its various inside and outside opposition to hold a binding and monitored referendum and either silence all the critics once and for all, or accept their policies of the past 25 ears have been a major disaster and accept the consequences. Only if that vote is internationally supervised and accepted binding by all sides will we be able and justified to argue about what the numbers actually mean or how it'll effect the future of Iran.

Here's something I translated for Iran Filter last week. Originally posted on Persian weblog of Z8UN, it may reflect on what goes on in the minds of some Iranians as the election approached and an example of worries that will bring many to the ballot boxes, in this case in fear of a lost pension check:

"Yesterday at the public swimming pool, two middle-aged ladies were chatting by the shallow end... I had also gone to that area... Near where the filtered water is returned to the pool... People like to stand around there... It feels a bit like a Jacuzzi... The older woman who was also a bit heavier was saying; "I'll be forced to vote on Friday... because I'm a retiree... I'm worried that if my ID card doesn't show the election stamp, they may stop my retirement pension... And my daughter is also a university student and it my affect her too..." The other woman who was wearing way too much make-up replied somewhat irritably; "What is all this talk? I'm on a pension too but the section on my card for election stamps, is cleaner than a Mullah's rear-end" ...

The way she talked, did not suit her grace... and although the past two or three years on the Internet my eyes and ears have been opened to so much, I still have not had the privilege of a pilgrimage to any Mullah's rear-end to judge it's cleanliness.

She then said that she has a son who is an MD, another son that is an engineer and her daughter has studied law and neither one has ever voted without having suffered from it. Then the heavier lady said; "Yes, but then if they want to leave the country or become somebody here, you'll understand!" The other woman replied "In fact, they traveled abroad too and one is an assistant professor in university and attends seminars all over the world regularly...They make up these stories to get us to vote"

I didn't stay longer to see if the chubby lady was finally convinced or not... I could see some doubt on her face... Had I stayed longer, they would have known I was eavesdropping. But this time, even the religious studies teachers have instructed their kids to ask their parents to not vote! This time, people are not as scared... Particularly after the Bam earthquake, the little respect some had for these guys (regime) is gone."

On Simon Ordoubadi

For those of you in Los Angeles or visiting over this week, here's one item you do not want to miss. Very talented and extremely pleasant artist Houman Mortazavi is having an exhibition of his project involving fictitious Iranian personality Simon Ordoubadi. Titled "Project Misplaced", you will get an opportunity to see many of the ads "Simon" placed in various Persian print media of LA during 2003 in an attempt to climb up the social ladder, gain fame and become a celebrity of sort in what may mirror some of the experiences of a portion of larger immigrant community around the world. It is humorous, dark and sad at the same time and attending his opening reception, I found myself laughing at times and shaking my head a minute later. Here's a sample, but please go and see them all, if you can.

On a different note, it was great seeing Jahanshah Javid in person after being cyber friends for so many years.

UPDATES:

Jacki Lyden's piece about "Simon" from Iranian.com

Another chance to see Houman's work in San Jose this Friday.

Monday Morning Motivationals

Source

Only If...

Men & Women

Okay, I haven't been in a permanent, committed and serious relationship (read one that you wake up together and close your eyes at night in a similar fashion) for a few years, so I have forgotten some of the delicacies of the finer differences between men and women. Now with my parents staying here and my father being so limited in movement and things he can do, I get to do more than a few things with mom and I'm beginning to remember bits. Here's one from this morning;

Unlike many persons of my gender, I don't despise shopping. But for some people of the other gender, there's this euphoric experience related to shopping I just don't understand. It doesn't need to be large, important things (like shoes) either. It could be trivial everyday stuff, like grocery shopping or picking up a few things at the corner store.

My mom sees a few items she wants at a nearby drug-store advertised on sale in their weekly flyer, deodorant, liquid soap, napkins, etc. I promise taking her there and did it yesterday. Now in my head the plan is to get in and out as quickly as possible, locating the necessary items, trying to check out several aisles at once to gather as much of the stuff we come to get within the shortest possible time and out we can leave in record time. My mother on the other hand, walks into the store and she is suddenly at home!. I can tell immediately her posture changes, she's alive with excitement and is looking forward to really ENJOYING this trip. Naturally, she is in no hurry and would even prefer to elongate the excursion for as long as possible.

By the time I have every single item she had marked on her flyer packed in the little basket I'm carrying, she has only made a turn at the end of aisle one and is longingly looking at the rows of shampoo and conditioner awaiting her around the corner at the second aisle. Recognizing the severity of this problem and how this could all end up making my head explode in frustration, I tell her to spend as much time as she wants, pay for the stuff and retreat to my car to wait for her.

Luckily, my Leonard Cohen CD is on and I enjoy waiting another 20 minutes or so floating on his voice. Ahhh, life is good again.

Cartoon

Get Up & Get Rid

One of the problems I have with this blog is the way people email me so much. Don't get me wrong, I love hearing back from readers and try to answer all of them, but at times I wonder why don't more people just leave some of what they have to say in "comments" section, instead of sending it to me. I am referring to stuff that is essentially not private at all here. Talking to other bloggers, I know they receive only a fraction of number of comments they get in private emails. Mine often seems the other way around. Maybe it's a design thing, maybe not. Anyhow, I'm flooded with over 400 messages and if yours is not answered yet, I apologize.

[400, includes anything from "go back to where you came from" (only after you do, sir!), to "love your style of writing" (I suppose lacking a style is a style on it's own), "you reminded me of a neighbor" (your neighbor was an overweight, bald eyeranian too?), "would you write me an article by yesterday" (have your people contact my people) and "you should hookup with my friend" (as long as she likes overweight, bald eyeranians)...]

But one thing I have noticed by just browsing through the messages, is the way so many people have this "why don't you guys just rise up and get rid of the Iranian regime" attitude. You have also seen it in comments, I'm sure. I don't blame the writers for their rather crude solution. After all, they have probably all only lived in societies where if you don't like your government, you just go vote for a different one next time. If your candidate isn't on the ballot, you write-in another one and if enough people do that, the un-candidate may even be elected. Rarely, a protest may also be needed to force someone to resign their post. Although a petition may be just as effective.

So, for those people to begin to understand why we just don't get up and pick a new system and (thankfully) haven't experienced living under a tyrannical, vicious dictatorship, I have taken it upon myself to simplify the matter a bit. To do it, I chose the Hollywood version, as I know with our ever shrinking attention spans and imagery of forged make-belief stories, it is perhaps the only effective way to do this. Now sit back and "watch" the my Hollywood blockbuster titled; "Why we don't just get up and get rid of our tyrants this afternoon":

SCENE ONE - Day One - Head office of a major bank has been taken over by a band of 10 heavily-armed bandits called el tiranos. There are about 50 hostages including employees and customers locked up inside, as el tiranos are involved in a stand off with the outside world. Many of the hostages, particularly the clients show sympathy with the bandits, largely due to years of mistreatment by the bank officials, extremely high service charges and being forced in to loans and mortgages with double digit interest rates. It looks like a long term showdown, but bank's cafeteria and vending machines are well stocked for many days to come.

SCENE TWO - Day Two - el tiranos start mistreating some of the captives. A woman is sexually assaulted by one and a teller has his nose broken under beating by several members of the gang. Access to food is also restricted and daily rations are announced for the hostages only. The old bank doorman is executed for supporting the enterprise with vigor. Rumors float about a S.W.A.T. operation being planned from outside to end the situation, but nothing happens. The little sympathy some had for el tiranos is quickly evaporating.

SCENE THREE - Day Three - There's heavy shooting between el tiranos and the gang that occupies the bank across the street. While only one bandit is severely injured, 3 hostages are killed in the cross-fire. The outside world supplies the bandits across the street with every imaginable weapons, although much of it is being used against hostages they are holding there. 4 of those hostages are also killed. The battle ends with no clear winners.

SCENE FOUR - Day Four - Hostages attempt a sit-in strike to protest to the worsening conditions inside the bank. The middle-age woman leading the protest is hung from the bank's main chandelier for others to learn a lesson. The protest is quickly broken.

SCENE FIVE - Day Five - A few of the hostages get together and plan for a forceful take-over. They gain the support of over 20 other hostages and the stage is set for a show down. They attack at midnight by killing a lieutenant from el tiranos with the gun they took away from the el tirano injured two days earlier. They then confiscate the dead man's machine gun and a heavy shoot-out starts. Hostages are hopeful the outside world may back their movement, but that proves to be nothing more than a fantasy. In fact, they learn later that a group from the S.W.A.T. team outside was busy supplying the el tiranos with ammunition to finance their own other illegal activities. At the end, their uprising is defeated by the stronger enemy and el tiranos decide to punish the hostages by brutally executing the four original planners, while randomly choosing 5 other ones to be whipped on the bank counters.

SCENE SIX - Day Six - 2 new hostages are chosen to receive public whipping today and the el tirano leader announces that everyday 2 random hostage will be given the same treatment.

SCENE SEVEN - Day Nine - Three of the hostages escape by using the air conditioning ducks in the bathroom. Of the three escapees, one is assassinated two days later by friends of the el tiranos on the outside for trying to bring attention to the plight of remaining hostages, one denies ever being a hostage or even if there are any hostages actually inside the bank and the last one gets a job at a similar bank, buys a house, adopts a dog and is never heard from again. Daily punishment of two random hostages still continues daily.

SCENE EIGHT - Day Eleven - The el tirano injured on day three, dies today. The rest of el tiranos are so upset they execute one more hostage and whip 10 of the hostages today. S.W.A.T. team rescue rumors are hot again, many hostages believe all the noise generated today may cause the outsiders to look for a way to help. Nobody even tries. Two of the hostages now co-operate fully with the el tiranos, occasionally taking over the whipping duties.

SCENE NINE - Day Fourteen - el tiranos announce their plans to be a gentler more humane version of el tiranos in the future. Cafeteria serves a slice of cake for dessert today causing an overall improvement in the hostage's morale. el tiranos promise to even hold elections to govern the daily life of the hostages, but candidates must be approved by the el tirano leader himself. One of the trader hostages is executed for his role in brutal whipping of other hostages.

SCENE TEN - Day Seventeen - One of the el tiranos is caught stashing away some of the bank's gold for his own personal use. He receives a sentence of 20 lashes but then implicates two of the hostages as main culprits behind the effort. Both accused hostages are executed by a firing squad in bank lobby. The original accused el tirano is promoted to captain.

SCENE ELEVEN - Day Nineteen - The first elections are held. Aside from the el tirano leader, the only two other candidates allowed to run are his two captains. The leader wins in a landslide, collecting 6 votes.

SCENE TWELVE - Day Twenty - Following the earlier promises of better conditions and yesterday's elections, the hostages stage a peaceful march through the bank lobby to re-instate their ration of daily cake. Three vigilante el tiranos attack the demonstration (while others condemn it), injuring several of the hostages severely, while arresting several others and sentencing them to solitary confinement in employee's former cubicles. A reporter catches the brutal attack from outside while filming through an unobstructed window. Upon seeing the footage, the outside world shakes its head in disbelief and says "we have you in our thoughts, poor hostages".

SCENE THIRTEEN - Day Twenty Two - Cake is back after lunch but no more television. Apparently some hostages were caught watching a program broadcasting from outside by the S.W.A.T. team. In the program, they were heard threatening the el tiranos and told hostages if el tiranos aren't careful, they might, perhaps, maybe come in for a rescue operation.

SCENE FOURTEEN - Day Twenty Four - Two of the hostages disappeared last night. Nobody has heard from them at all but it is unlikely they may have escaped. The garbage sent out today carried a particularly appalling odor. Most hostages aren't really concerned as they are busy watching their re-instated television sets.

SCENE FIFTEEN - Day Twenty Five - el tirano leader sentences one hostage to death for thinking of escaping while giving another one a sentence of 100 lashes. Rest of the el tiranos celebrate the execution by shooting at the ceiling. The atmosphere of absolute terror is back again but one of the hostages has managed to build a small radio receiver, using parts salvaged from various office electronic equipment. As a few of the remaining hostages who still care gather around the tiny radio, a voice directed at them from outside is heard. The sound isn't clear, but as they listen carefully, they hear this; "why don't you hostages organize together and hold a non-violent protest to get rid of the el tiranos? as long as you don't throw the el tiranos out, the outside world considers you part of the global bandits network. I will personally pray for you. sorry I can't talk for long, I have a dinner reservation I could miss. God bless!". The hostages look at one another, unsure as how to react. They come to with loud screams of the el tirano leader. Two new hostage must report immediately for random flogging.

While the two volunteers head towards the front counter for their punishment, the remaining 28 or so drained, exhausted, fatigued hostages look around at the lingering 8 robust, well-fed, rested and exceptionally armed el tiranos still guarding them in the building. Some start to wonder when will their TV privilege comes back to allow them an escape from this daily misery.

One more reporter finds an open whole to take a few snapshots of the hostages for the world outside before going on his morning coffee break.

Fade To Black - The End.

Equal = Equal

I may just vomit next time I hear the term "sanctity of marriage". Especially when head of a government that prides itself in separation of church and state uses it . Looking up the word "sanctity" I could not find any meaning that was not religious in nature; holiness, sacred even godliness. When did the government get into the game of practicing religious matters (if that is what marriage is) anyways?

Marriage is state's recognition of a human relationship, the unity of people who choose to share their lives, their belongings, their futures. That is it. Those who also see a religious aspect to this union should be free to practice that also, aside from their right to have the accord recognized by the government. Now what the two people involved choose to do in their sexual lives or who they are attracted to has nothing to do with any of that. Why should it? when all the parties involved are adults.

I applaud the Mayor of San Francisco for having the brass balls to push the issue into the nationwide spotlight, forcing people to take sides and hopefully allow the courts to do the right thing and truly separate religion from government and meddling in yet another part of our private lives, despite our beliefs or life practices.

Separation of these two is a great concept, not only in Iran but USA or even the "promised land' (promised by whom?).

[Was that the sound of a whole bunch of our new visitors clicking to delete the eyeranian off their list of favorites/bookmarks just now?]

It's "Election" Day in Iran

More than one source describe how empty Tehran streets are compared to normal, on this day the regime has advertised as the day the nation will come out to vote for their appointed parliament. The pictures above confirm that. One foreign reporter has also reported that an informal protest has been planned for the hour when the voting stations are officially closed. People will come out only then and honk their car's horns to demonstrate their disapproval of the entire process.

Over the last two days, there has been many reports of truckloads of fake Iranian ID booklets being intercepted by various local police around the country, suggesting an attempt to inflate the number of total votes and issuing multiple ballots to trusted friends. The revolutionary guard is also on full alert, to defuse any possible protest effort.

The charade of elections this regime orchestrates occasionally has reached a particular low-point this time and their frustration has never been more evident.

Hoder is going to stay up all night to monitor and edit Iran Filter. Check it out for the latest news as well as translation of Persian blogs. I'll update if there are new developments in the morning.

UPDATE - There were no major incidents. The voter turn-out has been light with estimates ranging from 15 to 30 percent of eligible voters participating. With no foreign independent observers, there is no way to say for certain. Almost every journalist has reported on the large presence of armed forces at most cities, perhaps expecting some disturbance. Polls closed as much as 2 hours later than originally planned, supposedly to maximize the number of votes and also maybe to nullify plans of holding demonstrations afterwards. There was also various reports of cheating, in one case having the culprits caught transporting voters by bus to various polling stations to vote again and again. The radio station funded by U.S. government, Radio Farda (or Tomorrow) seems to have the largest team and most comprehensive coverage of election reports in Persian. One of the best sources of news is still Iran Filter with various volunteers translating what the bloggers are writing as their own first-hand observations.

My take; Who Cares? Illegal and illegitimate selection of one band of friends over another band to keep the world and your nation pre-occupied with whether its best to select hard-line conservative religious radicals over fundamentalist Islamic extremists does not interest me at all.

CLARIFICATION - I don't care which side "wins" or how they gesture towards one another. I DO however care very deeply about how Iranians have now seen first hand that there are no "reformers" within the limited choices available in Iran and have showed it by boycotting the supposed "election" all together.

UPDATE II - With the last of somewhat more liberal press shut down for the election, Iranians are using the Internet more and more to get their news. Gooya, perhaps the most widely portal and news site in Farsi reported over 80,000 visitors yesterday. People are also using new tools like camera phones to send pictures of empty polling stations, this one is a local mosque in Tehran. Ayatollah Jannati, head of the Guardian Council led the Friday prayers in Tehran and resorted to even threatening people into voting. He proclaimed that whoever even whispers of not voting is a traitor to the country and Islamic regime. He went on with the other usual regime mantras like Rushdie fatwa being irrevocable and the concept of "religious democracy" that has made elections in Iran more successful than any other nation on earth. blah, blah, blah...

On a rather complimentary note; Yas-e-No newspaper (with red BANNED across its page) had what is perhaps the most clever cover to never be published. I'll try to translate and explain it, hoping it is communicated properly; the big headline reads "Freedom Game With No Spectators". The accompanying picture is of empty stands at the previous day's soccer game between Iran and Qatar, where Iran was penalized by the Asian soccer federation for a previous incident and no spectators were allowed in. The game was held in Tehran's Azadi (Freedom) stadium, thus the "Freedom Game" reference in the headline. With an election looming within 24 hours that not many were allowed to participate to run in and not many actually cared to take part in, the cover was just a very witty way of using something with double meanings to stress a point otherwise not possible.

Hundreds of years of dealing with one dictator or another, nobody is better in using every little opening to express a dissenting point of view than Iranians.

I'll Smile More Often, Okay?

It is great to see Iranian bloggers get a bit of the much deserved publicity they have been denied for a long time. The blog phenomena has been very different for Iranians and that's what is now being recognized. Partially due to the restrictions imposed by their government and in part as a result of the ingenious ways Iranians have managed to use their blogs to express their opinions and make connections, the experience has been unparalleled both in magnitude and effectiveness, compared to anything similar around the globe.

Hossein Derakhshan recently pulled together a list of some media coverage bloggers have received and today's Associated Press story is just the latest.

The great thing about being featured by a wire service like AP is how many small and large media outlets will eventually pick up the story and you get a much wider exposure. Here is a partial list of some of the newspapers and web sites who have already picked up and published the story, so far:

CNN, CNN International, Seattle Post Intelligencer, USA Today, San Jose Mercury News, LA Times, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, San Diego Union Tribune, Hartford Courant, Baltimore Sun, The Porterville Recorder, WJLA, KATV, Hampton Daily, AZ Central.com, Orlando Sentinel, Allentown Morning Call, Raleigh News, MLive.com, Contra Costa Times, WTOP Radio Network, Kansas City Star, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, The Ledger, Newsday.com, San Francisco Chronicle, SiliconValley.com, Biloxi Sun Herald, Bradenton Herald, North County Times, Rapid City Journal, Boston.com, Fort Worth Star Telegram, Wichita Eagle, Springfield News Sun, The Forum, Akron Beacon Journal, Ocala Star-Banner, Times Daily

Welcome to all of you who have found this weblog following a link on any of the above media and I hope you spend some time checking out all the links, archives and previous stories, then come back often!

UPDATE - More outlets continue to cover this article: The Toronto Star, Canoe.ca (Sun Papers), The Globe & Mail, Information Week, Canada East, CJAD 800 AM, Biz Report, NewsDay, KFMB, Fort Wayne News Sentinel, Plus many more...

The Full Monty

Yet Another Lie!

Here's the story: The police station in Fallujah is attacked by Guerillas opposing the invasion of Iraq and many are killed and/or injured.

Here's the lie: "Documents found on the four dead attackers indicated that two were Lebanese and that one was Iranian, the Americans said."

Here's the tiny retraction on the lie: "U.S. officials confirm that recent attacks on an Iraqi police station and a civil defense compound in Fallujah were carried out by Iraqi gunmen -- not foreign operatives".

Chalabi's Iranian Connection

Is Ahmad Chalabi a stooge of the Iranian government who was so successful in planting all the fake information about Saddam's WMD arsenal in trying to establish a Shiite controlled regime in Iraq? This article raises some interesting questions:

"The United States is struggling over the question of how U.S. intelligence was so deeply mistaken about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. One of the points that is consistently brought up is that much of the intelligence flowed through the Iraqi National Council, an opposition group led by Ahmad Chalabi. It is now well known that Chalabi's sources were not ideal. What is less well known is the close, long-term relationship that Chalabi, a favorite of Washington's, had with Iran. Chalabi, an Iraqi Shiite, was and remains in constant contact with Tehran. We have assumed he was a channel between Washington and Tehran. Given the erroneous intelligence he gave the United States, his relationship with Iran requires careful examination."

Analysis

The United States is in the process of reviewing the intelligence that led it to conclude that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and which formed the public justification for war. A great deal of the discussion has concerned the sources of this intelligence. Some have pointed out that the main channel for intelligence on the subject involved sources developed through the Iraqi National Congress, a group opposed to Saddam Hussein, whose leader was Ahmad Chalabi -- also a key official in the U.S.-organized Iraqi Governing Council.

Chalabi, like any anti-Hussein leader, clearly would have had a vested interest in providing the United States with information that would lead it to invade Iraq and open the door for a new regime -- particularly a regime in which Shia would play a leading role. It ought not to have been a surprise that intelligence coming from the INC and Chalabi would tend to entice the United States to war. U.S. intelligence might have been more cautious with the INC, but if that is all there is to this story, then it is fairly straightforward.

However, there would appear to us to be something more here. In particular, there is a complexity that is usually omitted: namely, the relationship between Chalabi and leading figures in Iran. Prior to the war, Chalabi, an Iraqi Shiite who lived in the West for decades, made several trips to Tehran to confer with Iranian officials on a number of issues. He has continued to travel to Iran since the end of the war. Not to put too fine a point on it, Chalabi has had and continues to have excellent relations with Iran, as well as with leading Shia in Iraq.

As our readers will recall, we have argued since early fall that the guerrilla war in Iraq could be managed only if the Iraqi Shia were prepared to collaborate with the United States. We made two additional points: first, that the strings of the Iraqi Shia trail back to Iran, and any deal with the Shia would have to include a deal with Iran; and second, that any deal ultimately would hinge on a Shiite-dominated government in Iraq and the inclusion of Iraq in an Iranian sphere of influence. It has always been our view that the unanticipated rise of the guerrilla movement in Iraq forced this alliance upon the United States.

If we step back now, a different potential explanation emerges. First, Chalabi was extremely close to the Iranians prior to the war. Second, he provided much of Washington's prewar intelligence on Iraq. Third, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. Fourth, the Iranians, along with the Iraqi Shia, are the main beneficiaries of the U.S. invasion. In that case, who Chalabi was and whose interests he actually was serving become the central questions.

Chalabi had a long, public and logical relationship with the Iranians. The Iranians were enemies of Saddam Hussein; so was Chalabi. It made perfect sense that they would collaborate. Let's begin with the failure of Petra Bank, which Chalabi opened in Amman, Jordan, in 1978 and which collapsed in 1989, when the Jordanian government seized it for bank fraud. That story is well known. Somewhat less known is an alternative explanation for the Petra Bank collapse. Sources in Jordan and Israel long have argued that the bank collapsed because Chalabi was collaborating with the Iranians in financing the Iranian war effort and trying to undermine Iraq's war financing. When the Iran-Iraq war ended in defeat for Tehran, Iraq placed enormous pressure on Jordan to shut down the bank, which was managing the flow of money through Chalabi-controlled banks in Lebanon. It is interesting to note that Chalabi escaped from Jordan in a car driven by Jordanian Crown Prince Hassan -- hardly the kind of treatment your average wanted criminal would receive -- and that King Hussein met with Chalabi several times for years after the bank collapsed and the Iraqi Shiite leader was convicted on fraud charges and sentenced to prison, although he served no time.

The claim that Chalabi was working for the Iranians in the Petra Bank scandal is plausible, but hardly provable. What is certain is that Chalabi spent a great deal of time in Iran before and after Sept. 11, and before and after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. For example, in March 2001, Chalabi traveled to Tehran to meet with senior leaders. He set up an office for the INC in the capital that was to be paid for with U.S. aid -- and that required a special waiver from Washington because of U.S. sanctions. At a press briefing on March 19, 2001, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher was specifically asked whether Chalabi's trip to Iran bothered the United States. Boucher did not answer the question, but it is clear that Washington knew about Chalabi's contacts with Iran and was not bothered by them.

Chalabi's relationship with Iran proved useful to the United States in the run-up to the war. For example, Chalabi arranged for a U.S.-financed transmitter to be installed on Iranian territory, broadcasting into Iraq. In August 2002, Chalabi met with senior Iranian officials in Tehran, then flew to Washington for separate consultations. According to the INC, Chalabi spoke to U.S. officials in Washington from Tehran while he was meeting not only with Iranian officials, but also with Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the country's main Shiite opposition group. Again in December 2002, as the war heated up, Chalabi flew to Tehran and, according to IRNA (quoting Radio Free Iraq, which was based in Prague and run by the United States) said, "The secretary of Iraq's National Congress, Ahmad Chalabi, is mediating between Iran and America." During that meeting, Chalabi was quoted as saying, "Our alliance with Iran is not temporary." Again in January 2003, before a planned meeting of Iraqi opposition leaders in London, Chalabi visited Tehran to meet with al-Hakim.

As the invasion of Iraq moved to its conclusion, U.S. aircraft flew Chalabi from northern Iraq to the city of An Nasiriyah on April 6. It was a symbolic gesture, intended to demonstrate that the INC was part of the fighting coalition. The problem was that Chalabi had trouble rounding up enough troops. The troops he used were drawn from the Badr Brigade, an Iranian-backed Shiite militia. Most recently, after attacks in Al Fallujah on Feb. 14, claims circulated that the attack was carried out by speakers of Farsi, and that they were members of the still-functional Badr Brigade. This might not be true, but the fact is that the Badr Brigade continues to operate, constituting an important and shadowy Shiite militia, and Chalabi was close enough to them in April 2003 that they fleshed out his fighting force.

The relationship with Iran continued after the end of the conventional war. On the evening of Dec. 1, 2003, Chalabi met with the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rohani. At that meeting, Rohani laid out the argument for Iraqi national elections that Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani had begun pressing the previous summer. Chalabi responded, "The role of the Islamic Republic of Iran in supporting and guiding the opposition in their struggles against Saddam's regime in the past, and its assistance toward the establishment of security and stability in Iraq at present, are regarded highly by the people of Iraq." In a later interview with the Iranian Student News Agency, Chalabi said, "Our cooperation with Iran is very good. One can argue that Iran has cooperated with us more than any other neighbor."

Many people in the Bush administration championed Chalabi -- people well beyond the neoconservatives in the Defense Department normally cited as his bedrock of support. One of his strongest backers had been Vice President Dick Cheney. U.S. intelligence became increasingly aware of the relationship between Chalabi and the Iranians -- and discovered that he had equally good relations with hard-liners and moderates. U.S. intelligence also was tracking his relationship to the Badr Brigade. According to Newsweek and other press reports, Cheney became extremely uneasy about Chalabi's relationships, particularly after the CIA briefed him on Chalabi's relations in Iran. There was a sense that those relationships might be more substantial than mere opportunism and mediation.

During the meetings in December with Rohani, Chalabi said Iraq was ready to import Iranian oil, pipelines, construction material, food and pharmaceuticals. Rumors in both countries indicate that this trade is already under way outside normal channels, which, of course, have not yet been established. Which companies will be used to manage these transactions is not clear to us.

That Chalabi had close relations with Iran is not in itself startling. He is a Shiite who was deeply opposed to Saddam Hussein; he took friends where he could get them. It is somewhat more surprising that his extensive dealings with Iran were not regarded as a hindrance to a U.S. relationship with him prior to the war. He was in rather deep with the Iranians. After the war ended and the guerrilla campaign began, Chalabi was clearly useful in negotiating Iraqi Shiite cooperation with Tehran. The postwar relationship was visible and reasonable.

Here is where the problem begins. Most reports say U.S. intelligence on Iraqi WMD came through the INC, which means that it came from Chalabi. Chalabi simply might have been trying to get the Americans to invade Iraq, feeding them whatever it took to get them there. The problem with that theory, from our point of view, is that the administration intended to invade Iraq, regardless. Choosing WMD was a persuasive, public justification -- and a good one, given the proof Washington had at hand. Or more precisely, it was a good justification based on the proof that Chalabi provided.

U.S. intelligence about Iraq was terrible. It was wrong about WMD; it underestimated the extent to which the Shia in the south had been organized by Iranian intelligence prior to the war; it was wrong about how the war would end -- predicting unrest, but not predicting a systematic guerrilla war. An enormous amount of this intelligence -- and certainly critical parts of it -- came to the United States by way of the INC or by channels the INC or its members were involved in cultivating. All of it was wrong.

It was not only wrong, it created an irresistible process. The WMD issue has delegitimized the war in the eyes of a substantial number of Americans. The failure to understand the dynamic of the Shiite community led to miscalculations about the nature of postwar Iraqi politics. The miscalculation about the guerrilla war created a U.S. dependence upon the Shia that is still unfolding. It is al-Sistani, in consultation with U.N. negotiators, who is setting the terms of the transfer of power. The U.S. position in Iraq is securely on Shiite terms, and that means it is on Iranian terms.

This is not an argument against the invasion from a strategic point of view, nor an argument that it was a failure. In the real world, things are rarely so clear-cut. But it does raise a vital question: Who exactly is Ahmad Chalabi? He has been caricatured as an American stooge and used as a tool by the Defense Department. As we consider the intelligence failures in Iraq, Chalabi's role in those failures and his relationship with senior Iranian officials of all factions, a question needs to be raised: Who was whose stooge?

The review of U.S. intelligence on Iraq will have to study many things. Many of those things will have nothing to do with Chalabi. But some of the most important things will pivot around intelligence directly or indirectly provided by Chalabi and his network of sources inside and outside Iraq. Given the events that have transpired, it is not unreasonable to expect the intelligence review to undertake an intense analysis of Chalabi's role, beginning with this question: What exactly was Chalabi's relationship with Iran from the 1980s onward?

Bye Bye Dean!

Howard Dean decides to give up the dream, for now. Over the next couple of days many of the sites and weblogs will be busy joining those in the more main-stream media in dissecting what went wrong with such a promising movement, so I wanted to contribute ONE more reason, based on my own experience.

Early in December, a group of Iranian bloggers and activists got together to perhaps join the Dean campaign. Some felt his more liberal stance on certain social and political issues will also mean a more progressive position on Iran, immigrant Iranians and issues relating to Middle-East in general. Many contacted me after May Moallemian's Guest Column here and the following month got more excited with Ramin Ahmadi's article in The Iranian.

What they didn't know was everything that had transpired between the two pieces. Here's a brief overview; As usual, I was "volunteered" to be the contact person with the Dean campaign. The very first experience was a bit unsettling as the volunteers manning his campaign phone-banks acted as if they have never heard about Iran or Iranians. I was transferred to a voice-mail but a couple of days later of not hearing back and my original suspicion that I had not been directed to the right person made me try again.

This time I asked who manages their outreach efforts for immigrant communities and was given a long list of people, from which I chose the person identified with "Muslim Communities" outreach. Another voice-mail followed and then several days of not hearing back. The process repeated several more times and it became obvious I was not going to get a return call from this person. Next time, I told them that I will hold until he's available. 20 minutes later, I'm talking to him finally. I explained who we were and what we had thought of doing. I basically then inquired if the campaign has ever issued a policy statement regarding Iran, as some of Dean's public statements on the issue were confusing at best. Here's a sampling:

Iran is a more complex problem because the problem support as clearly verifiable as it is in North Korea. Also, we have less-fewer levers much the key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union and it may require us to buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from them developing nuclear weapons. That is also a country that must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons much the key to all this is foresight. Let’s act now so we don’t have to have a confrontation which may result in force, which would be very disastrous in the case of North Korea and might be disastrous in the case of Iran."

- Howard Dean on Hardball, December 1st, 2003

And earlier (3-2-'03) on CBS' Face The Nation:

PRIEST: Would you say the same for Iran, whose nuclear capability is very sophisticated, much more sophisticated than Iraq?

DEAN: Yes, we have to be very, very careful of Iran. One of my criticisms with this president is that because we have no oil policy of any kind here, other than drilling the national parks, he is beholden to the Saudis and the Iranians.

The Saudis and the Iranians and the Syrians are funding most of the terror in the Middle East, and this president has not been willing to confront that, partly because we have no oil policy.

Absolutely, Iran is a very serious danger.

PRIEST: So, again, you could consider preemptive strikes against the Iranian nuclear program?

DEAN: Look, you never rule in or out anything. But when America is threatened imminently with a -- by a foreign power, then we have a right to defend ourselves.

I do not believe that is the case in Iraq. And I do believe that al Qaeda and North Korea are imminent threats and we have to deal with that.

My point was that this is the anti-war candidate. Various NeoCons have already called on making Iran their next target. What is Howard Dean's position on Iran? I expressed that almost word-by-word asking for a response. What I got was this "you mean our position on Iranian-Americans" (almost word-by-word again). "No, that's not what I'm asking, the community is concerned with all candidate's position about their homeland as well as where you stand on the community here" was my reply. Several exchanges later, I get this "I'll dig up something about the Iranian-American community".

I see the attempt is futile, but press on and get the promise of a solid statement "within the next few days". By now Iowa is getting close and we all think something needs to be done soon. But I'll make the long story short and stop at telling you that several more messages and one long conversation later, I never hear back from the campaign again.

The purpose of this post was to demonstrate one of the Dean campaigns shortcomings. Howard Dean built a campaign based on the mounting voices of dissent out there on various topics from the war to economic issues, health care, etc. Yet at the end, it was unable to be everything to everyone who had hoped to support an alternative candidate. At the end of the day, he wasn't alternative enough for the progressives and didn't have enough backbone to stand for what is right but not unpopular and champion the issues that is still considered taboo topics.

Howard Dean proved many points and succeeded on a variety of topics, but at the end he also demonstrated one significant hypothesis again that at the end of the day, some doors are only open to people within a very narrow line of thinking and a candidate of even remotely progressive or freethinking position, is never allowed to stand so prominently on podiums of power.

I'm still not fully convinced Dean was/is that person and the system showed once again we'd not be allowed to find out.

Don't Waste Your Vote!

It seems that suddenly every so-called “reformist” in Iran is up in arms about elections becoming based on appointments and basically a “selection” now that they have been excluded from participating. I’ve got news for you friends; this is the way it has been for 25 years.

First prominent example of excluding candidates based on their opinion and political stand happened very early in the revolution days. When most of the nationalist, socialist, communist and generally left-leaning organizations backed the candidacy of MKO’s presidential candidate Massoud Rajavi to become the first president of Iran (I know, a scary synopsis on its own right), it took an edict from Ayatollah Khomeini himself to exclude him from the ballots. His reasoning was Rajavi’s non-approval vote on the newly drafted constitution.

This process of eliminating candidates based on their beliefs is then the tradition of Great Leader himself and has been practiced time and time again in every election held since. You don’t sincerely believe Iranians would vote even for a “reformer” like Khatami if they were free to choose from a wide selection of candidates who represent their society more effectively, do you? They just have been forced between either completely avoiding the shows referred to as “elections” or participate and choose between the lesser of the evils allowed to be on the ballot. This explains Khatami.

But now, the process of separating “us” from “them” has gone one step further and has included banning some of the most loyal and foot-soldiers of the “us” team. Thus the attempt to make a big hoopla about all of it.

To show what a non-issue this all is, let’s try to imagine this; even if you managed to elect a parliament full of very progressive socialists tomorrow and chose a communist president tomorrow, will it make an iota of difference in the way this country is run? Will they be able to initiate or implement one single piece of legislature that could be considered significant or valuable? Not a chance.

So, I’ll be staying away from this election, like every other “selection” held by this regime this far. The change will not come through the ballot boxes in Iran, as the issue is not with the people who may or may not get elected. The challenge is how to put the larger dilemma on the table without providing an opportunity for the fanatics on both sides to start the expected bloodshed.

Love You All!

I turn my mobile phone on this morning, after spending the weekend in the seclusion of visiting some relatives in a city nearby, to find a bunch of messages, including 4 "missed calls" from one dear friend. Before I get a chance to call her back, yet another friend calls. Very worried and maybe a bit agitated. It turns out, while I was taking a break from my daily routine (including blogging), he was worrying and this morning not seeing the usual MMM, he was convinced I had been dragged away by very bad people to places I would not be heard from in a while.

After calming him as well as the other friend and a couple of others with distressing messages and emails, I started to realize what bond and sense of unity you build through these screens and varying connection speeds. The intensity and sense of the whole thing is so real, as was the case today, it can actually hurt other people.

So, I want to both apologize for breaking away from the routine of daily posts with no warning or notification and also thank you all who may have missed me, even if for just one tiny second. You people are great and I can't begin to tell you what this all means to get so much love from people you barely know as well as others you have a deeper relationship with. My apologies and thanks again and keep on being so wonderful.

Monday EVENING Motivationals

Source

AWOL, AWOL, Apparently AWOL!

For the second time this week, the White House released a stack of documents today to prove W's perfect record while serving in the National Guard and guess what is still missing? Anything pertaining to the months during 1972 when he is suspected to have "disappeared" in Alabama to help in the campaign of a family friend.

I never paid attention to this as to me being a good military man or a bad one is neither an asset or a liability. However, as it relates to someone's credibility, particularly someone claiming a much higher morale standard, this is yet another disgrace and a black eye for an administration that has had very little but embarrassments and transgressions.

Final note from Jay Leno's monologue last night: "I was watching TV last night. I saw an interesting documentary on the Ninja, the Japanese soldier. According to legend the Ninjas were warriors who could make themselves invisible whenever there was a war. Kind of like Bush and the National Guard."

Tehraminator

What An Anus

Don Imus is a popular radio personality. His "Imus in the Morning" show is syndicated from coat-to-coast, and Time magazine has called him "one of the 25 most influential people in America".

On his February 10 show, he responded to the news of an Iranian Airliner crash that killed 43 passengers by saying "who cares?". When another commentator pointed to his tasteless and deplorable remark, he again repeats "who cares?" twice and explains that is "How I felt". He then takes it one step further, stating "Too bad it wasn't loaded with Saudi Arabians."

The story is completely ignored by the mainstream media. I suppose it is okay to be insensitive if victims of a tragedy are sand nigger camel-jockeys, even better if they are also towel heads.

The National Iranian American Council has organized a campaign to demand a public apology from Imus and company. I've added my name to it, you may wish to do it too.

UPDATE - I wrote this post earlier and just found out through NIAC that Imus actually apologized on air today. He said; “Probably not something to kid around about… What I said wasn’t good…So I’m Sorry. I apologize to the Iranian people who were offended. I really didn’t mean that. I was fooling around, I was probably stupid. I’m sorry if I made you feel bad… I seldom apologize to anybody about anything. But I am sorry if I made these people feel upset.” Good for him and thanks to all those who wrote him in protest.

Creative Wonderings

Here's an old question I still can't formulate a reasonable answer to:

If God created the Sun on the 4th day, how long were the 1st, 2nd and 3rd days each? Still 24 hours? How was it calculated then? Why would it be measured by standards of an unfinished earth anyways?

Just wonderin'...

O'Reily Apologizes

Bill O'Reily is a lot of things I loathe, but he is also one thing I can like now: he is a man of his word and knows when to drop the charade. When I first heard of this, I could not believe it and then looked for all possible qualifiers. But he seems genuine. Read what he has to say here:

The anchor of his own show on Fox News said he was sorry he gave the U.S. government the benefit of the doubt that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's weapons program poised an imminent threat, the main reason cited for going to war. "I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this," O'Reilly said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera?" asked O'Reilly, who had promised rival ABC last year he would publicly apologize if weapons were not found. O'Reilly said he was "much more skeptical about the Bush administration now" since former weapons inspector David Kay said he did not think Saddam had any weapons of mass destruction.

He then tried unsuccessfully to blame some of it on Bill Clinton who appointed CIA Director George Tenet, but the cat was already out and no amount of Clinton-bashing can change that. He came clean and said he was wrong, I admire that.

As I wrote a while back: "Now if you supported the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq and can't publicly admit to your mistaken assessment, it's okay. At least somewhere in a secluded and solitary corner, where no one can hear or see or sense, please find a moment of candor with your soul and admit that you were had. Admit that you fell for the BS, although your heart was probably in the right place. You need to do it to move on, to forgive yourself for a blunder, a fable, a corrupted vision. It will do your character, essence and psyche a lot of good. Trust me, it will."

Then later admitted to not being perfect myself and hoped again for all those who fell victim to these series of lies to make a quick U-Turn and seek salvation in the truth.

When a big mouth-piece of Neo-Cons chooses to do it, maybe it's time for you too. Yes you!

Blogger Troubles

I promise this is my last post about ETech 2004. There's something unsettling about walking into a room filled with a couple of hundred bloggers. I don't mean just the few peculiar characters you run in to, but the whole socializing experience is somewhat odd. Isn't that what the blogs were developed to avoid anyways? I start a blog, you start a blog, I occasionally link to something interesting you say, you add me to your blogroll and that's the extent of our socializing. Now you walk up to the person you have "known" for a while, you shake hands and you are expected to interact as "normal" human beings. Scary!

This was my first experience of this kind and I'm not sure if I'm ready yet for another one. It was odd enough running into a regular reader at the airport or have someone quote your blog in a public gathering or try to explain how your blog persona may not be as accurate as a reader believes, transferring a bunch of on-line friendships to actual live relationships I'm not completely ready for.

Dick Cheney's Troubles

Dick's got some explaining to do. First, there's the reports of his office' involvement in releasing the identity of a CIA agent, then there are all the questions surrounding his former company Halliburton, from their business dealings in Iran and new allegations of overcharging the taxpayers. A prominent Republican I'm friendly with strongly believes Cheney will be taking a less prominent roll, behind-the-scenes after the next election (of course, the Republican has no doubt about the administration surviving the election) and is even convinced the VP job has already been promised to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Political game is never boring, is it?

Not Good!

This was not a surprise, but looking at it right there in black and white is unsettling nonetheless. Injustice of any kind should disturb all of us, regardless of where it's committed or who the victims are. We could not possibly expect to be believed as people who subscribe to a higher sets of standards and ideals, if we are seen violating some very basic rights of others. Introductory paragraph below is daunting enough, but I recommend reading the entire report;

Election 2004

So it's a 3-way race plus Sharpton and Kucinich still in there (thankfully) to have their messages heard. As for the three front-runners, Dean seems most vulnerable and before the big date on March 2nd, we may be down to just two. I'm not sure if I'd prefer a Kerry-Edwards ticket over Edwards-Kerry one, but I'm jumping too far ahead and don't think either candidate is ready to give-up the bigger office yet.

I have some comments about Dean that I will leave for a more appropriate time. As for Kerry, I recently met one of his campaign volunteers who seemingly had some pull and asked if the Senator would release a statement on Iran. He asked me what do I think the statement should say, to which I replied what any of the men running and the future candidate should hopefully say:

- Respect the right of self-determination for Iran and Iranians.

- Condemn any possible military action against the people who are doing a great job fighting tyranny by themselves.

- Acknowledge big mistakes were made on both sides in the past and choose to move on towards a better relationship.

That's what I believe most Iranians also want and quite honestly don't think it's too much to ask for. Now we can wait for the oppressors in Iran to take the first step and make similar pledges or be the bigger, more powerful and free side of this argument and lead instead of react. Will anybody in DC listen?

More Election Related Stuff:

A friend that works with one of the larger Iranian-American organizations called to ask for my participation in their current campaign. I asked for details and first thing out of his mouth is "to get more Iranians of every political stripe to vote this November".

A noble and honorable goal no doubt, but as I thought that, all I could remember was this thing I was invited to a few months ago. I was to address the board of directors of a local Iranian-American professional organization and ask for their backing on a project. I'll leave the organization's name out, as I'm sure their membership consists of people from various backgrounds and beliefs that may not agree with their board.

I had to sit through the actual board meeting and talk at the end. Having served on numerous boards myself in the pa