February 04, 2005


Posted by Niki

George Bush's 2005 State of the Union address contained a familiar (de)coupling, one which he been known to espouse elsewhere: a threat to the Iranian regime, "the world's primary state sponsor of terror" , and a gesture of assurance to the Iranian people that "America" stands with them in their pursuit of liberty.

I will be the last person who would argue that the ruling regime in Iran—or any other place for that matter—can be conflated with the people of the country. But to radically de-link the people of Iran from their government in contexts such as the above is both disingenuous and dangerous. No matter how many photos we are shown of Iraqis under occupation stuffing ballot boxes with checks next to un-named candidates, or how often we see the stylish Karzai playing the role of the sovereign statesman, Bush's forays into Iraq and Afghanistan have reminded us of the obvious: though we may be able to tell the differences between people and states, bombs cannot.

Iranians, no matter what their political persuasions or stance towards the current regime, must adamantly reject any claims of so-called support which go hand-in-hand with calls to war.

And with this entry, my first contribution to the new anti-war co-blog, I will take my own advice and register my objection to any act of solidarity with the Iranian people which is based on violence against us

February 4, 2005 12:14 AM | TrackBack

Salaam Niki,

In persian, they say, hope that God will listen to your word ("Khoda az dahanet beshnave")! I really hope that U.S. policy makers will hear our objection.

Posted by: peyman at February 4, 2005 02:46 AM

I'm sure about this: Bush will attack on Iran and Iranians people will resistane with his! But I hate war.

Posted by: Amin Sabeti at February 4, 2005 09:58 AM

Typical Bush .. Iran is so dangerous... It will soon destroy peace... It is so evil... They have all these evil weopans and people to use them.... US wnats peace... So we will use our dangerous weopons and kill for peace??? Old saying I learned long time ago in military: Killing for peace is like screwing for virginity! Neither will achieve its stated objective.

Posted by: kaveh at February 4, 2005 06:40 PM

Iran will not be invaded. There is nothing to gain. In time, the people of Najaf will teach the way of democracy to their brothers in Iran. The Iranian constitution is remarkably close to a working democracy and can easily be amended. Had the reformists gained a majority, they could have added an ammendmant preventing the supreme council from disqualifying candidates and/or another ammendment giving the legislature greater powers in selecting supreme coucil members. At such time, the Mullahs grip on power would have been broken. The Iranian system does not need to be discarded or overhauled. The only need is to keep the Mullahs from having nuclear weapons. When the people rise against them and demand true democracy, the Mullahs will become desperate to hold on to power. We just need to make sure that they do not have nuclear weapons when this happens.

Posted by: Joe at February 6, 2005 03:04 AM