I think diplomacy willf fail, because Europe, Russia, and China will not do anything to stop it.

Ahmadinejad may say that he is not anti-Jews, but I think that its 1938 all over again and he is a potential Hitler. Hitler was dismissed a raving lunatic too.

Susan, you use the word "Hitler" to loosely. The difference between Hitler and Iranian president is that Hitler attacked others and killed them, but Ahmadinejad has never attacked and killed anyone. As matter of facts, Iran and Iranians are going to be attacked and killed by Western countries and you call Iranian president Hitler. This is how Zionists view things, backward. This shows you ignorance about world and its affairs.

As an Iranian American, living in the US for the past thirty years, I believe that the biggest obstcle in the way of negotiations between the two adversaries is the pro-Israeli lobbies backed by the backward, facsit minded evengelical movement in the US. So long as Israel can succeed in portraying Iran as an anti-semite country, they will continue to receive money & arms from us.
This despicable tactic has undoubtedly damaged our image & interests in the Middle East & the world. It is indeed sad to see how our govenment can compromise the interests of the US under the pressure of lobby groups, on behalf of a foreign nation. This may explain why our congress only enjoys less that 25% of the popular support. Term limits, campaign finance reforms, & limiting the influence of various lobby groups are essential pieces of legislations we must be debating about on the floors of the House & the Senate if we want our democracy to continue & flourish.

Hilter was the open face of capitalism and even some jewish companies have supported him in his campain. He was after subjugating other nations and exploiting their natural resources. He was waging wars on several front to achieve this. Susan guess who is doing the same now? is it Bush or Ahmedinejad, I let you decide it for your brain power. Bush is a facist oil grabbing cowboy while Ahmedinejad is just talk. They both religious and use the nuclear issue to fool people, apat from this it not for us to decide who can use peacefull nuclear research.

I think its foolish that more attempts aren't being made by the US administration to not directly commit to talks with Iran. What does the US government lose by not having talks with Iran? Absolutely nothing. At the height of the Cold War and particularly during the Cuban Missle Crisis, the US engaged in direct talks with the Soviet Union with the understanding that misinterpretations, miscommunications and non-straightfowardness would result to greater chaos. We have a similar situation here. We are more likely to lead to conflict without direct dialogue then with it. In fact, the lack of direct negotiations will give Iran every justification to conceal its nuclear program, whether peaceful or not.

The US has 3 options in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions:

1. Pursue regime change through its support of dissident groups.

2. Strategic strikes either by the US or by Israel.

3. Dialogue.

The first option is not very viable. One, because the Islamic government is very situated and has been setting up strong and stable institutions for 27 years. Furthermore, the ideology of the state is still holding strong and enjoys much support. The question of whether it enjoys majority support is unknown. What's more, any US support for dissidents or dissident groups may backfire, as it could discredit them as agents of foreign powers. Lastly, the population is not as prone to revolutionary activity as it was in 1979. This new generation is more consumed with consumerism than revolution.

What I realized when I was in Iran last spring is that most westerners and reporters visiting Iran, only stay in north Tehran, a location much more western and disgruntled, but at the same time, unrepresentative of Iran's 70 million citizens. Most travelers do not visit other places, especially south Tehran, Ahmadinejad's power base, which is much more conservative and ideologically inclined to the Islamic system.

The second option of strategic strikes of Iran's nuclear sites may delay Iran's nuclear plans, but will not end it. Furthermore, it will not only harden the regime but will also allow it to get the populace to close ranks behind it. Iranians have a tendancy, as do many countries, to unite in the face of an aggressor. But such strikes have ramifications beyond Iran. As an Islamic government, such strikes by the US or Israel, would further polarize the world as many Muslims would perceive it as an attack on Islam. Islamic radicalism is on the rise, but such an attack on Iran, would push that climb.

In my opinion, the third option is the only real option, but this too is ripe with obstacles. Many regime figures saw what happened to Iraq and took lesson from it. Iraq was invaded under the false pretense of having weapons of mass destructions, which of course, has now been deemed false. The Iranian government, however, was paying attention. In it's conflict with the US, nuclear weapons can prevent such an Iraqi-style invasion and I think the US government knows this, which is why they don't know believe Iran's ambitions are limited to only nuclear energy.

no dialogue with a rogue regime who oppresses its own people, funds terror and builds WMDs.

US must help iranians set themselves free of the mullahs

Winston could be speaking about the United States under Bush.

My earlier longer post on this dialgue
did not appear. I'm wondering if only
pro-dialgue comments appear.

US is sending the wrong message, at the wrong time to the Iranian regime and Iranian people. The message Bush is sending is: "US is scared of Iran and US cannot do a damn thing." This makes Iranian regime bolder and Iranian
people's struggle weaker. Sometimes silence is better than talking ...

The Islamic Republic was able to pursue its nuclear programme for years without the international community knowing anything about it, and for the past 7 or so years that this programme has come to the international attention they have been stalling talks which have lead to nothing but the further completion of this programme.
As we all know the terrorists in power in Iran have an elaborate terrorist network around the world which poses a great threat to the freedom-loving world. Imagine if a nuclear bomb was passed on to Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad or any other Islamic terrorist organization?
The solution to the nuclear programme regarding Iran is simple: support the Iranian people in their struggle to free their country from the yoke of these terrorists. It's shameful that the western media has not given the horrific human rights situation in Iran under the Mullah's the attention it deserves. Iranians are suffering under this hated regime. There is no need for war. The only footsoldiers that should be used are the Iranian people who are more than capable to put an end to this hated regime.

With all due respect, Ahmadinejad's opinion of Israel is irrelevant. Noone is asking Iran (nor Israel for that matter) to be nice to each other. Further, Iran has open elections. We may not like the result, but they have been certified by international observers. We practiced 'regime change' in 1953 in Iran, and we got the Shah for a while, and then the current regime. The only rational choice is dialogue. Revolutionaries stop being revolutionaries after they are accepted.

Dear Readers,

Thank you for engaging this thread.

For some reason, if your preview your comment before submitting, it will not go through the system, so please submit directly. We're looking into this problem.

Bush administration and US media are showing weakness towards Iranian regime. They are confused. Just compare the treatment of arresting and detaining Iranian scholars and professors trying to visit Sharif university gathering in US last month and the treatment that Khatami and Ahmadinejad are getting in US?

I am really puzzled. US is treating the ordinary Iranian professors and acdemics as terrorists should be treated and humilates them and does not allow them to enter US and in contrast US does not even fingerprint the Ahmadinegad delegates
who are revoloutionary guards and intelligence officers? Why US is treating these crminals and terrorists as celebrities? I thought Bush fixed the CIA intelligence gathering problems.

Hello! Ahmadinejad has an open criminal file for leading a group assassinating Iranian Kurdish opposition in Europe and he is afraid to travel to Europe because he may be arrested. Shouldn't Ahmadinejad be arrested and given to Interpol "to have a dialogue" with him?

They call this "acrobatics" and not running foriegn policy!

How can there be meaningful dialogue with Iran when its leaders openly advocate destroying Israel and killing all its inhabitants? And what of the Iranian people? Do they support this policy, too? After Israel, who is next in line? All the non-Muslims? We know where this leads. We cannot afford to let Iran get its way. No dialogue is possible until they change. Future conflict is inevitable otherwise.

Though the whole situation seems to me totally unfair, I think Islamic Republic must ask its people (us) if they want to have the nuclear facilities even if it means a war can occur in iran, or not. But they won't do it like they didn't till now.

I don't want my country to have nuclear weapons, in fact I'm afraid of becoming another N. Korea. But this fact also should not be overlooked that, iran never attacked any country, and now clearly Ahmadinejad is saying that they are not a threat for Israel. It means "I did not mean what I said before about map and the rest".

Military action, would be a big mistake, and a horrible act referring to all these facts I said above, and what we all see now in iraq.

But what should be done?

Even if iran despite of saying is not going to make nuc.weapons do that, I doubt it if it's going to be a threat for Israel. Because they already have it and Islamic republic is aware of that. Certainly they will attack back and perhaps in a worse shape. If no body had it and you had fear of "now iran is gong to be the only one having nuclear bomb" then yes, you should be worried and it would be understandable if the military action is discussed.

I am not happy with my country's condition now. My parents even now can't listen to the music they had before by satellite tv which police collected last two months and my mother was so depressed because of that -also scared when police came into our house- that she did not came out of bed for one month. But still, a war would be a disaster. At least they are alive now.

I hope one day no nuclear weapon of any kind and in any country be found, and I desperately hope that day is not after there is "no country" because of a nuclear world war.

I suppose the main problem is the disconnects between the two peoples, the iranians and the north amerircans. Although Iran is not a democratic soceity and U.S. tends to have their share of igonrants that does not do justice to the great democratic soceity in which they live in, these both peoples can influence the course of their governments. Here is weher we come to the real problem; Americans belive iranians are terrorists and jew hating, this is to the contrary of the relaity, there are no islamic indoctrenating madresses in iran, most iranians ara not what you may call as dedicated muslims, most iranians are hipocrates when it comes to their religion, which is as far as I am concerned very good. The religion in Iran is used as a political tool. On the other side of the Atlantic, the iranians miss the point that the issue is not about the world depriving Iran to advance, but they [the world] are fearfull of these dangeros advancements in the hands of the mullahs. Also, iranians love conpiracy theories and as long as they live in the dungeons of conspiracy thoughts, they will continue to miss the simple issues.

"We respect your history. We respect your culture. We admire the
entrepreneurial skills of your people." There, Bush said it. It's
the obligatory "You're too good for me. I like you as a friend" line
that is required of every good breaker upper. It should and does ring
alarm bells for Iranians who are used to hearing that sort of
statement followed up with an insult. From that point of view, it's
difficult to know whether Bush is really calling for dialogue or just
getting ready to break-up the non-dialogue dialogue.

Get into any taxi in Iran, go to any party, to any café or fast food
joint or kebabi, and the chances are that the day's conversations will
concern http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092100829.html
Ahmadinejad's press conference at the Council on Foreign Relations,
the funneling of money to Hezbollah, and the high price of chicken and
fruit. Iranians are news-hungry and concerned about how the words and
actions of the world's leaders will affect them. Endless
misinformation from official sources means that Iranians are expert
conspiracy theorists who look more at actions than at words.
Ahmadinejad says that Iran has statistically far fewer prisoners than
America, and Iranians respond, "Because we execute so many more" or,
as my own husband said, "Because we cannot count."

Bush says
that he respects the Iranian people and that he is committed to
diplomacy, Iranians wonder why he surrounds himself with advisers
who have quite openly declared that diplomacy with Iran will not work.

"Bush has promised to rid Iran of the regime," my husband tells me as
we discuss the possibility of war. "But the regime *is* Iran," I
respond. (Sorry Iranians... I know you like to think otherwise.) The
regime and the Iranian people are in a symbiotic relationship. They
despise each other, yet they depend on each other. The dream of
excising the regime from Iran is just that: a dream. It would be
better to think of ways to make it a more harmonious relationship: for
instance, how can we encourage the regime to have a more open dialogue
with its own people? How can we make the regime secure enough to
tolerate dissent? The U.S. refusal to engage with Iran has made it
possible for the regime to maintain the nation in crisis- mode.

As long as the regime is insecure, it will continue to act as a
hard-line regime. ("But the regime is not insecure," Keivan argues.
Even if he is right, America's lack of diplomatic activity in Iran
means that the regime can behave as though it is under attack, which
is exactly what Ahmadinejad claimed during his press conference.) That
is why I believe that now is the time for discussion and dialogue. I
do not believe that the nuclear negotiations will lead anywhere. I do
not believe that threats will be effective. I do not believe there is
a quick military fix for Iran's "alleged" efforts to gain a nuclear
bomb. I believe that it is time for the United States and the EU to
step back and do a significant re-think on policy in Iran. If every
"solution" thus far proposed strengthens Iran's hard-liners and does
nothing but make them more intransigent, then we need to think of
solutions that will do the opposite. I advocate for an army of
tourists. I want to see the American Embassy opened. This is what the
regime truly fears: engagement.

Just be warned that the closer Iran seems to agreement, the farther
away agreement actually is. As many with first hand experience of
negotiating in Iran will tell you: "Getting to 'yes' is just the
beginning of the negotiations."

Jewish community, please read this from BBC news.

"Despite the offence Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has caused to Jews around the world, his office recently donated money for Tehran's Jewish hospital. "

"In the last five years the government has allowed Iranian Jews to go to Israel freely, meet their families and when they come back they face no problems," says Mr Mohtamed. BBCnews.com

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm

Dear David I am glad you had a good time in your recent trip to Iran, looks like since or a little before your trip your views are shifting more to center conservative rather then previously right conservative. It almost sounds like you want to run for office this days. After 4 years of pounding hard on everything Iranian you now want to have a dialogue with Iranians that is a welcome change.

President Bush in your interview addressing the Iranians said that we accept your sovereignty this is the best Iranians have heard from an American president since WWII. Yet every body in western pres talks about the stupid cue d tat of 1953 but not once they talk about that actually Iran was occupied by US forces in 1943 although Iran was a declared non involved state in that western conflict.

So the animosities goes way back before 1953 and it is hard to believe that US recognizes Iran's sovereignty. And yet again US and Iran signed a non intervention agreement in 1982 (the Algiers Accord) but I guess that is out the door since Miss Rice openly suggest and funds for regime change to peruse US design for the region. Iranians are looking at the fox's tail and asking themselves should we believe you or your tail.

I am also an Iranian American living here for over 3 decades what is neglected is that majority of Iranians in Iran don't read Washington Post or listen to CNN regardless of their problems with the current government in Iran. But they all remember history and history is the part that is being neglected to the Americans.

Iranians have survived foreign aggressions for last 2500 years they have seen conquerors and dictators from west as well as east come and go,and unlike Iraq, Iran is not a patched up state they have experience to know who has a design for them.

In my opinion you should suggest to the western media and their policy writers to stop the pounding on Iran, this pounding will not change any Iranian mind as matter of fact looks it is not changing any American minds this time around.

With my best wishes

while I admire President Bush's frankness and great insight toward the Iranian people yet I strongly warn you that this will be misinterpreted by the Iranian regime as a weak action. Even Mr Bush deep in his heart knows that he can not trust the Iranian regime's intentions and there is no proper diplomatic solution apart from going in bed with this criminal regime.

Real, day-to-day Iranian people don't want nuclear energy, they want basic human rights, food and safe environment for their children. The prostitution, class A drug addiction is killing our children rapidly under the hands of this blood thirsty regime in Iran. When I talk about children, I mean kids around the age of 8, 9 and 10 now.

No decent person in the power will allow his/her nation to be hungry and deprived from basic human needs then go and spend the hard earned cash for Nukes. We don't have to be a guru economist to figure that one out.

The situation with Khatami going to US is exactly a typical example of Good Cop Bad Cop scenario. Believe me, the Mullahs also watch Western Gangster movies and they know how to play the game with you. You are being fooled by your own tactics now.

Khatami moves to west and shows a kind face only to say "come on we shall get rid of Ahmadinejad together" as great civilized nations, we also agree he is insane, we don't want him either. These are all part of the game for the Mullahs to prolong their shameful existence.

They want to survive and they put their hands on any tricks they know. Please don't be so naive. Under the Khatami's ruling time they have also committed atrocities. If UN had the power to go to Iran right now and provide a mean for normal people to speak out freely, then you would see all the crimes these mullahs have done to their own people.

Just ask for a referendum in Iran supervised by the UN with a simple question from Iranian people, DO YOU WANT THIS ISLAMIC REGIME?, Yes or No.

That is all you have to do to see what is the reality in Iran. Mullahs divert the mind of everyone from this simple and basic question. As they know no-one in Iran really wants them. I urge you to bring this forward in your next interview with UN, the Whitehouse and/or the European Union. This is a very legitimate way to test the legitimacy of this regime and bring about all the coalition you need in the world to bring this regime down. BUT DOES THE WEST REALLY WANT THIS REGIME TO GO? You please answer this question.

Please, don't look for an easy exit to this global terror that Mullahs have created. They have projected us with the same kind face (like what Khatami is doing right now) before the Islamic revolution and before they got the power in their hands and then immediately they have suffocated all the voice of justice.

Khomeini, Khamenei, Khatami, Rafsanjani , Ahmadinejad, they are all several heads on the same Serpent's body. Their root is in the same injustice/corruption swamp and they all feed from one tyranny stomach.

I as an Iranian born person thank you, Mr Bush and the rest of the people in America for being decent and trying to solve this problem with peace.

However, we all know you can not sleep with a Serpent and now is the time to finish its shameful existence. As it is in its weakest moment right now.

A P.S. to my post above is that this Iranians you want to have the dialogue with they know a Christo Colonist when they see one.

Dialogue/talk/diplomacy or whatever else we want to call it is not going to stop the Iranian regime from getting the bomb. If they are intended as warm-up to a post-nuclear Iran, the story is different. And if the US is getting ready for a world where the regime has its fingers on the nuclear trigger, it should also start making serious strategic adjustments as correctly pointed out in http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=book&item_id=486. One important adjustment that was not mentioned in that document is that the US should start making a U-turn with respect to its middle-east democracy agenda. Why? Because the regime strategy is rather obvious: "expansion through low intensity violence and use of proxy groups in the region while deterring the threat of American conventional force via the nuclear bomb." American insistence on elections in the region will be the best opportunity for mullahs' proxies to gain power through a well-coordinated campaign of deception, coercion, and violence. Lastly, the regime-US talks will have another profound impact. Rafsanjani who was regime's president for 8 years once said that the pro-American Iranians should know that when the time comes, Americans would through them away like a piece of toilet paper. The talks will not stop mullahs from going nuclear but will surely prove Rafsanjani right.

David Ignatius has invited Iranian bloggers to comment on Iran and USA proxy talks, and the signaling games between two countries. The issue has been addressed by several think tanks and the links are on David's webpage. The reports are most informative about how Iran's issue has been perceived in Washington DC and at Capitol Hill. Reading them for an Iranian is a great experience of the image that political strategists have in their mind.

We are in the post Iraq occupation, post name-calling, post Lebanon 34 days war. Now the violence in Iraq is escalating. The situation in Afghanistan seems fragile and Pakistan is letting Taliban go and is not happy with Kabul. Lebanon war demonstrated the limits of air strikes. Iran enjoys a sort of high peak in regional influence, suffers from economic problems and needs to secure alternative energy resources to sell more oil to address them.

Reading the reports it seems that no one has any clear idea about how political decisions are made in Iran. Far from being a dictatorship, Iran is a great example of a crude democracy. There are several groups and circles that influence the political decision making process in Iran. These groups oppose or support policies and options they find harmful or profitable. They also use foreign policies issues to make their point in a domestic issue. Their dynamics demands close attention.

Second many forget that Iran and USA have mutual interests. Iran needs a calm neighborhood to flourish economically and to open its borders to the regional trade much needed for its economy. USA desires a safe Iraq and a stabilized Afghanistan and secure flow of oil from region. Iran also does not share anything ideologically with either Taliban or Al-Qaedeh. Both proved to be most dangerous for Iran's homeland security in the past.

It is a fact that the decision making circles vary in power and influence in Iran, They do not necessarily share the same interests. But they all have one thing in common. Most of them remember Iran-Iraq war clearly and its lessons. Should Iran be cornered again by the whole world, she must be able to defend herself. Surely readers recall that during 8 years of that war Saddam had the blessings of the White House, the funds of Arab leaders and the largest network of arms suppliers, Iran had to do with domestic products, engineers' ingenuity and black market.

If USA must appreciate those concerns dealing with Iran and address them with sincere guarantees and mutual respect. Yelling like a cop just prevents the other side from stopping and talking and nobody is making an arrest here.

Although many believe in the "let's shoot and then shoot some more and then shoot even some more" it is certain a military strike will fail to stop Iran. Any such folly would encourage more radicalism in Iran and would not achieve the psychological effect that makes such an idea appealing to neo cons. Thus this is the situation: Iran and USA are locked in a situation that neither can eliminate the other player and both need each other.

It is regrettable that administration turned down Iran's 2003 offer, made by then President Khatami, however a grand bargain is not off the table. Iran could use its influence in Iraq and contribute greatly to stability in Afghanistan. Its 75 million strong population and their entrepreneurship abilities could transform this country's economy to the engine of economic growth for Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. And thus they would deny terrorism the fertile ground of poverty and frustration. It is the greatest lesson of domestic wars in Africa that foreign aids do not build a national economy, regional trade does.

In return USA could face the hard days in Iraq with more confidence, could be sure that even if Pakistan closes its eyes on revival of Taliban Iran would keep fighting them and guarantee the security of Afghanistan western provinces. It also can be sure that Iran would become a potential ally to harness China's economy and to challenge Russian influence in Central Asia. Iran would prove instrumental in securing peace in Southern Lebanon and this would force Syria into accepting a compromise.

So yes I believe the proxy talks have a chance and I do think it is time that Secretary Rice to engage in direct talk with Iran. Anything less would imply the absence of sincerity and lack of resolution for a peaceful outcome. USA has already left too much to others. If this is needed to be done then somebody need to do it. Let's not forget how well Nixon aced in his foreign policy with China. Iran could be a similar success if diplomacy is given a serious chance.

The US talk with Mullahs means a direct green light to all the Criminals , Tyrants and Savage Murderers. This will be translated as ; YES if you are lucky enough to get through the net , have substantial amount of $ as well and promise to hide/commit all your crimes diplomatically from now on then you can join the rank of us the Supper Powers!
Ali, you call Iran a great example of a crude democracy? With all due respect but what planet are you from? Crude democracy to you means ; raping the political female prisoners in your jails in the name of the all mighty ALLAH, so that after you have executed them (while some still pregnant) then they don't go to Haven (according to your Islamic Sharia Virgins won't go to hell).
What could be worst than this regime? I believe people who justify the existence of it by any means.
Giving a chance to Mullahs to talk means dignifying all their dirty actions so far.
What sort of world are we living in now, people talk about giving chances to murderers and totally forget the actual victims. Then we are all wonder why we have so much terrorists all around us.

Akbar Ganji wrote a letter (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092001583.html) to the american people in washington post.
Now Hossein Derakhshan again tries to ruin Ganji's reputation. Read how he tries to mislead his english weblog's readers.(link: http://blogcritics.weblogs.us/archives/21)

Muhammad Ali Rajaee was the first non-clergy president of Iran after the Islamic revolution. Many politicians remember his famous act in the general annual congress of United Nations before his lecture to be started.
He put off his blouse and tucked up the trousers to show the audience and media reporters the reminders of tortures that he endured in prisons and jails of Shah's regime.
That was calling for a new way in the 2-way connections of newly Islamic republic and United States.
After Shah's overthrow and the destruction of Iranian 2500 years kingdom monarchy, the relations between Iran, went darker until the complete disconnection between countries has been established and all political deals of two great powers of world on that time was stopped, also US imposed very intense and great boycotts and prohibitions to Iran and damaged us very much. Iran was forced to buy old and unusual Russian Topolov planes; Iran was forced to provide its necessary agricultural products itself and Iran was forced to engage in any industrial technology without the assistance of European and American countries...
After your invitation to Iranian bloggers, I wrote a complete post here at http://cyberfaith.blogspot.com

Iranian Regime: How Tyrannies Survive?

The Islamic Republic regime of Iran is a tyranny. For the purposes of this writing, the detail mechanisms of the IR tyrannical rule in Iran's conditions do not matter so much. They do matter, however, when one is devising specific or tactical policy plans, which is beyond the scope of this piece. Instead I limit myself to the general mechanisms of the tyrannical rule, which should be adequate for planning strategic policies.

A tyranny sustains its rule internally through a cycle of repression and misinformation to keep the society closed. This could go on indefinitely if people would or could still produce efficiently and live happily under tyrannical rule. However, a direct consequence of tyranny is that it cannot possibly employ the society's various internal capacities effectively. Against exponentially mounting economic and social hurdles, a tyranny invariably needs a mechanism through which it can supply the needs of the society from external sources without compromising the powers of its rulers. This is the most important function of a tyranny's foreign policy. It is also its Achilles' heel.

Foreign Policy Objectives: The Case for Democracy

What should the objectives of the foreign policy of a free country, or collectively, of the free world be toward a tyranny? This is a contentious issue. Understandably, any foreign policy does and must pursue the interests of the people for which the policy has been devised. I argue that the foreign policy that best serves the interests of the people of a free country is one that promotes and seeks the establishment of a democracy anywhere in the world. Most importantly, it must seek the replacement of tyrannies with democracies.

There are many moral and practical reasons for my argument. Instead of going through them in detail, I present one reason that is often mistakenly used in opposition: security. By its nature a free country's first task must be the protection of the lives and freedoms of its citizens. This raises the issue of security as an important foreign policy objective. However, lasting and reliable security can only be negotiated and acheived with democratic countries.

A tyranny may tactically accept or even initiate security agreements, but the purpose of such agreements is to supply its needs without compromising its tyrannical rule. So, it may soon calculate that the current security agreements are not enough or necessary for its survival, at which point it would see no need to honour them. A democracy, on the other hand, has no such incentive and even strong disagreements between democracies never create direct security problems for the parties. More importantly, democracies have every incentive to find a solution for their disagreements and continue to cooperate with each other on many levels seamlessly and often quietly even though they might vocally disagree on a few issues. For recent examples of the two cases one may look at the relationship between US and Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, on the one hand, and the US and France or Germany, on the other.

In short, a tyranny, even a friendly one, is always a security threat. A democracy, even one that disagrees with us, is never so.

PART I
Iranian Regime: How Tyrannies Survive?

The Islamic Republic regime of Iran is a tyranny. For the purposes of this writing, the detail mechanisms of the IR tyrannical rule in Iran's conditions do not matter so much. They do matter, however, when one is devising specific or tactical policy plans, which is beyond the scope of this piece. Instead I limit myself to the general mechanisms of the tyrannical rule, which should be adequate for planning strategic policies.

A tyranny sustains its rule internally through a cycle of repression and misinformation to keep the society closed. This could go on indefinitely if people would or could still produce efficiently and live happily under tyrannical rule. However, a direct consequence of tyranny is that it cannot possibly employ the society's various internal capacities effectively. Against exponentially mounting economic and social hurdles, a tyranny invariably needs a mechanism through which it can supply the needs of the society from external sources without compromising the powers of its rulers. This is the most important function of a tyranny's foreign policy. It is also its Achilles' heel.

Foreign Policy Objectives: The Case for Democracy

What should the objectives of the foreign policy of a free country, or collectively, of the free world be toward a tyranny? This is a contentious issue. Understandably, any foreign policy does and must pursue the interests of the people for which the policy has been devised. I argue that the foreign policy that best serves the interests of the people of a free country is one that promotes and seeks the establishment of a democracy anywhere in the world. Most importantly, it must seek the replacement of tyrannies with democracies.

There are many moral and practical reasons for my argument. Instead of going through them in detail, I present one reason that is often mistakenly used in opposition: security. By its nature a free country's first task must be the protection of the lives and freedoms of its citizens. This raises the issue of security as an important foreign policy objective. However, lasting and reliable security can only be negotiated and acheived with democratic countries.

A tyranny may tactically accept or even initiate security agreements, but the purpose of such agreements is to supply its needs without compromising its tyrannical rule. So, it may soon calculate that the current security agreements are not enough or necessary for its survival, at which point it would see no need to honour them. A democracy, on the other hand, has no such incentive and even strong disagreements between democracies never create direct security problems for the parties. More importantly, democracies have every incentive to find a solution for their disagreements and continue to cooperate with each other on many levels seamlessly and often quietly even though they might vocally disagree on a few issues. For recent examples of the two cases one may look at the relationship between US and Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, on the one hand, and the US and France or Germany, on the other.

In short, a tyranny, even a friendly one, is always a security threat. A democracy, even one that disagrees with us, is never so.

PART II

Foreign Policy Program: Dealing with Tyrannies

I hope it is by now clear what should be done in order to achieve the above objectives. Free countries of the world must devise strategic foreign policy plans that deprive the tyranny from the single most important goal of its dealings with the outside world, i.e., its survival through outside help while holding the power inside. Such a program need not be necessarily military, but it needs to be strict about the survival tricks of the tyranny's foreign policy. All such maneuvers must be denied.

Let's focus on the case at hand, namely, Iran's nuclear crisis. Obtaining nuclear weapons is a vital survival task for the regime in Tehran. There is no question of whether Iran is "really" pursuing nuclear weapons, since Iran is a plurality. It is the tyranny in Iran, not Iran as a nation, that is after nuclear weapons. In today's world the tyrannical regime of Iran can be given no guarantee by the outside world short of an indefinite security deal to be dissuaded from seeking nuclear weapons. This is precisely why the religious dictatorship in Iran has so far rejected all offers on the table for its "peaceful" nuclear program that would objectively deny it the possibility of obtaining nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iranian regime may still be toppled by boiling pressure from inside, as the Soviet bloc was, but we have no idea or working theory of how that hypothetical situation may be materialized in the foreseeable future of Iran. The regime in Tehran knows this very well. Thus, an American foreign policy seeking the spread of democracy around the globe must reject the notion of coexisting with a nuclear Islamic Republic before the fact.

Another outcome that the American foreign policy must avoid is making security and economic deals with the Iranian regime solely on the issue of nuclear crisis. This is exactly what the tyrannical regime is seeking for its survival. Instead, the US must actively seek to promote the chances of establishing a democracy in Iran. The US and her allies must deny the regime the chance to use their nuclear program as a playing card to win more feeding tubes for its decaying body. This can be done through a variety of tactical plans, such as banning the government officials' trips, targetted economic sanctions that affect the government's vital veins, and at the same time establishing direct aid to the people of Iran, for instance, through academic, economic, and social transactions with trusted individuals and organizations. The free world may also make economic agreements with the regime in a transparent fashion in return for opening up the political situation inside. This is the best way to give the fruits of a better economical and political situation to the people of Iran, and especially the forces of democratic change. However, the free world and the Iranian freedom activists must implement measures and programs to follow the adherence of the regime to its commitments under such agreements if they are to bear any pleasant fruit.

It seems too many people consider Iran a tyranny, without defining it. Relatively, compared to neighborhood, Iran is NOT a tyranny. Even if so do explain to me why USA could have relations with other tyranns and talk to them, but it cannot talk to Iran???
the point here is not to seek selfrightousness, it is to solve a problem.
Now that Egypt is openly after nuclear technology there is no way that Iran stops. I wonder if Egyptians are motivated byr Iran's plan and they are trying to compete.

My previous post is now on my weblog
bazardispatch.blogspot.com

I won't be surprised if Akbar Ganji turns out to be the Mulla's Trojan horse to deflect the threat of war. He is part of the Islamic revolution gang of Sepah and Intelligence (left wing) who thought the days of the revolution are over in mid 90's and it is best to change sides and align with the upcoming wind when the oil prices were down. Rising oil prices and Khatami's rule gave a new life to the Mullas ..... and I don't know what deal he made to come out of the prison in Iran alive.

By Mulla's I put Khatami into the category:
I.e. "there is honesty among the theives/ [Mullas]". The Persians tell you "the yellow dog" Khatami" is the brother of
Jackal "khamenei".

What David Igniatius and Fareed Zakaria have not realised yet is that Khatami was "the shell that [turtle of] Islamic republic hide itself" after Mikonus verdict in Europe to work on its Atomic technology, refering to one of Rafsanjani comments in his last days of presidency and Khatami is proud of it.

Khatami's meat and bone is indebted to Khamenei/Beheshti, just look at his carrier from Hamburg Mosque, to Keyhan newspaper and ... . Despite his reformist public mask of "taqiyeh", his true face is a true follower of Khamenei the religious hardline leader; in contrast to Rafsanjani who is a rival to Khameni for power. Bush and Europe are being fooled twice by the same trick of this 2-face hypocrat who helped to suppres the student's movement and he only wants to buy another window of opportunity and breathing time for the regime to survive Bush's second term. Bush and his advisors should not hesitate and should keep the monster under the water and finish it.

The moment Iran is attacked, the people of big cities in Iran will come out and support US liberation project in Iran as the people of Kurdistan in Iraq are supporting US. Don't have a single doubt about this. If war starts, I won't be surprised if the Mullas are hanged in crossroads in Tehran by angry people before the arrival of liberating troops to Tehran and the Mullas are fully ware of this.

With less than one month's casualty of the US troops in Iraq, the Iranian regime will collapse and in addition Iraq will become more stable too. Shift the US soldiers from harm's way into Iran where it is the center of gravity of the theatre of war on terror.

It is time for Bush to show leadership and cut the head of the monster of terror in the region before the winter and cold weather arrives.

Realist wrote: (unrealistically)
"We cannot afford to let Iran get its way. No dialogue is possible until they change. Future conflict is inevitable otherwise."

Why not? Even assuming you know what "its way" is, what is it about this that we cannot afford? You mentioned Israel and map wiping. Let us suppose Iran did wipe Israel off their map. It wouldn't be that difficult. A little judicious use of white out and replace the text Israel with Palestine and voila, reprint the new edition without Israel. What are you thinking, that they will send us the bill for the reprint and we can't afford that? But I suppose you might think that the map wiping would be accomplished by nuking Israel, or over running it with Hezbollah. Is that it? Is this what we can't afford? Hardly, we make money on this outcome. Israel, year in and year out, is our single largest foreign aid expense and we would actually save 3-4 billion dollars a year, not exactly chickenfeed.

Why is dialogue not possible until they change? Actually, Iran changes every day, along with everyone else. Change seems to be a uniform property of all matter in this universe, not true? Perhaps what you meant was that they must first make certain specific changes, known only in your head, before we engage in a dialogue with them. Is that it? Finally, "Future conflict is inevitable otherwise." Really? What might "otherwise" in this context mean? It could be the failure to meet your specific conditions for dialogue. It could mean a failure to conclude a successful dialogue. Which is it? How long do we give them to satisfy our demands, whatever they are? What kind of conflict do you then have in mind? I've been in conflict with my wife for 16 years now; but we have eschewed weapons of mass destruction, at least for the present.

Neda,

I'm pleased to hear from the other side of the fence, and a rather more reasonable assessment than we seem able to muster on this side.

You wrote:
"Though the whole situation seems to me totally unfair, I think Islamic Republic must ask its people (us) if they want to have the nuclear facilities even if it means a war can occur in iran, or not. But they won't do it like they didn't till now."

I would point out that our government never asked our permission on this question either. Our government also takes the form of a Republic, democracy being limited to the election of our representatives.

You wrote:
"I don't want my country to have nuclear weapons, in fact I'm afraid of becoming another N. Korea. But this fact also should not be overlooked that, iran never attacked any country, and now clearly Ahmadinejad is saying that they are not a threat for Israel. It means "I did not mean what I said before about map and the rest".

I accept that you don't want your country to have nuclear weapons. But were I an Iranian, I would disagree with your position on strategic grounds. I would point out that you are surrounded on three sides by potentially threatening nuclear neighbors, Israel, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India. You are, in addition, surrounded by other cultures, Sunni Arabs to the west and the south, Sunni Pashtun to the North and east. The Persians have sat at the crossroads of east and west for millennia. Finally, there is the United States that has, of late, appointed itself as invader of last resort. I would argue, as a matter of self-defense, of national security, it is necessary for Iran to have nuclear weapons as a defensive option against any invasion or external nuclear attack.

If that doesn't persuade you, I would remind you of your war with Iraq, of Iraq's actual use of chemical weapons in that war. As you may recall, and your parents surely would, missiles were launched against Tehran. Consider what was exposed following the first gulf war, namely the advanced state of the Iraqi nuclear weapons project; something that surprised and dismayed the West and perhaps even the Iranians. With Saddam remaining in power, how could any Iranian Government fail to press forward with developing nuclear weapons to counter that threat from Iraq. Seriously, if we here in America, thousands of miles distant, felt so threatened by Iraq's nuclear potential that we invaded the place, how threatened must the Iranians have felt merely a hundred, two hundred miles distant? The case for acquiring nuclear weapons capability in Iran is compelling, overwhelming, and impeccable.

While I may not be Iranian, I can mentally project myself into Iranian shoes in the context of real geography and history and ask myself what I would do. I would want nuclear weapons given the way the world is presently configured. So when your President asserts they do not want nuclear weapons, I don't believe him. He is lying, as almost all statesmen do at one time or another.

You wrote:
"Military action, would be a big mistake, and a horrible act referring to all these facts I said above, and what we all see now in iraq."

You are most certainly correct, but there are certainly more reasons WHY it would be a mistake than you have mentioned.
1. We have no just cause of action. President Bush (and many others) have said that "we cannot permit Iran to have nuclear weapons". It suggests we have the authority to "permit" nuclear weapons, to "permit" the technologies necessary to their production (and the production of nuclear power plant fuel). Its not good actually. We have become quite unpredictable in the authorities we might claim, might make up out of whole cloth. This by itself is destabilizing.
2. We currently lack the military capacity to accomplish a mission of eliminating the technologies and capacities necessary to a nuclear program in Iran. We can, at present, barely sustain our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Empty threats put our weakness on display, and invite more challenges.
3. We would walk ourselves away from all allies except perhaps Israel.
4. The world at large would begin to wonder how we are to be controlled, how the remaining SuperDuperPower might be leash trained for the safety of all.

You wrote:
"Even if iran despite of saying is not going to make nuc.weapons do that, I doubt it if it's going to be a threat for Israel. Because they already have it and Islamic republic is aware of that. Certainly they will attack back and perhaps in a worse shape."

There is nothing wrong with your thought processes Neda, You are absolutely correct. Some of us might conjecture that the Iranian Mullahs are crazy enough to use nuclear weapons on Israel, effectively committing suicide, but by no means are all of us that dumb. States do not commit suicide. People do, even cults do, but nation-states do not. When you join the nuclear weapons club, the first thing you discover is that, absent an overwhelming first strike capability, the weapons are useless for offensive purposes against other nuclear states. Mutually Assured Destruction is a very stable arrangement, with a fifty five year history to back it up. So no, Israel is not threatened, we are not threatened, but Iraq is, Saudi Arabia is, and other regional non-nuclear states.

You wrote:
"I hope one day no nuclear weapon of any kind and in any country be found, and I desperately hope that day is not after there is "no country" because of a nuclear world war."

I respect your hope. It is essentially a plea for nuclear disarmament as opposed to nuclear non-proliferation. Fat chance of that, right people? But on the other hand, nuclear non-proliferation is unsustainable without nuclear disarmament so there you have it.

In my opinion we are most unlikely to have a "world nuclear war". The chances of that become remoter with each passing year. On the other hand, the chances of a "local nuclear war" increase as nuclear weapons proliferate. It poses very difficult questions that few seem willing to address. Just suppose that Iran had used a nuclear weapon to defend itself from the chemical attacks launched by Iraq during the war. Is that a legitimate use? What would you think Neda?

Perhaps surprisingly, I don't believe that it is a foregone conclusion that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. There is a distinct possibility that they could see themselves negotiating for alternatives. But I don't believe you can get anywhere on that track unless you take proper account of their legitimate security needs and provide for them. Not so surprisingly, North Korea falls into a similar boat. At some point we must ask ourselves if our compulsion to proselytize for Democracy and Freedom, by force of arms if necessary, does not also magnify the forces of proliferation. Are we not shooting ourselves in the foot?

Neda, I was touched by your parents predicament with respect to music. Freedom of music is a human essential. Religion we can do without, and be better off for it, but depriving a person of music is the essence of cruel and unusual punishment, certainly a crime against humanity. But this is a matter only you, your parents, and your fellow Iranians can deal with. I think you will in the end be successful, if for no other reason than most of the world has developed freedom of music. But it is not all good; there is a cost; we are regularly assaulted by a great deal of very bad music. :o)

Ali,

Very well done. But you have neglected Pakistan. How is that hotbed of of extremism get tamped down?

Most Iranian-Americans will not condone of any military strikes againt their native land. I sincerely encourage the US administartion to refrain from creating a third war in the same area, since this one will open the gates of Hell. I am also a critic of the Iranian regime but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. To all iranians on this blog, Iran must survive first before anything else.

The Mullahs regime is rotten from inside and its stench is becoming more and more obvious to everyone.
This regime is only a shell of a proper government structure. It is rather an empty drum that only makes loud noises now and then. Mullahs know this fact very well and only by distracting people's mind from this basic reality they can survive. Hence they keep diverting the minds to situation in Israel, Lebanon, US, Iraq, Moslems dignity and so forth.
The supper powers also know these facts too. That is why they don't bother to change this regime right now. This regime in reality poses no real danger to the West , At The Moment.
The Mullahs Nuke-B capabilities are years away as IAEA already indicated. The only notable danger at the moment would be if Mullahs independently master/harness the nuclear technology to produce energy internally.
Reason for this? currently more than 50% of the Mullahs Oil Production is wasted inside Iran by its own internal energy use. Now, imagine if Iran utilises its nuclear energy to produce that 50% need without the use of Oil. This effectively will give them the chance to have 50% more capability to sell their Oil. AND 50% more $ earning potentials hence more cutting edges for them. Effectively they can influence/control the international Oil Market/Price. Iran currently is the 4 th (big) producer of Oil in the world, then suddenly it will become a master of Oil Production and call the shots without any resistance from any one.
This is a potential danger. This is where Iran can shift the power balance in the world. Just listen to what Ahmadinejad is saying now ; THE ERA FOR NUKE-B IS OVER.. WE ONLY WANT TO MASTER THE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY AND WE DON'T NEED THE NUKE-B.
He is right, they don't need the Nuke-B. The knowledge an capability of producing independent nuclear energy in Iran is more powerful than any Nuke-B you can imagine. (This is the only point that I am in agreement with Ahmadinejad right now). Mullahs can control the world's economy that way. They can choke their rivals by economical means much more effectively than by any military power. They don't have to even send a single troop anywhere. They just turn the Oil-taps off on their enemies and they will turn the winter into an ICE AGE for their foes.
That is what makes the Supper Powers a bit itchy at the moment. By not allowing Iran to have internal nuclear fuel production capability they virtually contain the Mullahs. This is a very well know policy THE CONTAINMENT.
Now, no matter how much we write, scream and wave our hands in here, it will have no impact on the supper powers decisions. The supper powers all know how cruel this regime is . They all know how this regime is suffocating their people. They all know very well all the atrocities these Mullahs have committed to date. But frankly they don't care. So long as Mullahs are CONTAINED within their own boundaries it is a business as usual for the supper powers.
This is the reality now. No-one really cares about the innocents, justice and decency any more. Power and $ have replaced everything in this world. The fact is that innocent people are being killed by their own governments, terrorists and the supper powers all at the same time.
The morale of the current story is that don't be a weak innocent and no-one will help you but yourself.
Sad but true.

No dialogue with the criminal regime of Iran. Freedom for Iranians NOW

Cyrus Ferdowsi, Iran, libiran.blogspot.com

My goodness, this is going to seem strange indeed, but I just cannot agree with you.

You write:
"I argue that the foreign policy that best serves the interests of the people of a free country is one that promotes and seeks the establishment of a democracy anywhere in the world. Most importantly, it must seek the replacement of tyrannies with democracies."

This reminds me of the language used recently by President Bush with respect to "interrogations". He was fond of asserting that the legislation was necessary so the CIA could continue its "interrogation program" and without it, the program would come to a halt. Actually, this was entirely untrue. The CIA is and has been free to interrogate, i.e. ask questions of, detainees and/or prisoners to its hearts content. It was only when they wanted to couple "torture" with the questions that the legislation became necessary.

What is it that "promotes" and "seeks" actually mean? Might this entail the 4th ID roaring up the highway towards Baghdad? Your argument above justifies our actions in Iraq? Apparently so. WMD, the Al Qaida connection, even defiance of the UN are extraneous issues. It suffices for you that Saddam was a tyrant and we a "free country".

This is actually a very "un-american" idea, that democracy has some sort of privileged position as a governmental system in this world. I would direct you to our Declaration of Independence....................
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
.................................

Governments, to include those you classify tyrannical, derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever ANY Form of Government (and this would include a democracy) becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.... The right to abolish the tyranny of Iraq belonged exclusively to the Iraqis. The right to abolish the tyranny of Iran, if that is how you choose to characterize it, belongs exclusively to Iranians. We should also note that the People retain the exclusive right "to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to THEM shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness". I'm sorry to tell you that there is nothing here which precludes THEM from choosing the form that they did for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This country used to have a set of principles underlying its identity as a nation. We are in some danger of losing them.

Many writers say that there should be no negotiations with Iran because Iran is a tyranny... As a pragmatist, I ask "Why not?" Isolation, I think, plays into the hands of the fundamnetalists. That is what they want.

Aside: (Iran is not actually a tyranny -- at least not yet -- power in Iran is not yet unified. There is not Stalinism or Maois or Kimism here) Iran is an historical excetption: with 2 million or more Iranians living abroad with access to info and to family and friends here, Iran is ahistorical. It is unlike any other oppressive/repressive regime in the history of the world. Closing it up would take more than an internal disinformation campaign and would take more than removing sattelite dishes and internet access. The people of Iran, unlike the people of N. Korea or Maoist China or Burma or Iraq, are no longer confined to the borders of Iran.

I have a question to all these" DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH MULLAS" Iranians - What in the world are you proposing here? Are we going to nuke Iran? Is this what you guys really want? I know we all prefer to have a democratic and secular government in Iran, but beleive me that will not happen on the backs of US soldiers and Bombs. We should lobby both sides, especially the IRI government to thread smartly.

Cayambe,

I see no connection between "promoting and seeking democracy" and "torture". These are two opposite concepts. If you have any argument to that effect, it is be default false.

You seem to be particularly confused about what your Declaration of Independence is saying. When it says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." you cannot possibly conclude that a tyranny is also one acceptable form of government because that is what people (in on eparticular moment of time) might have wanted. What if they changed their minds the day after? What mechanism is there for them to affect that change of mind? In a tyranny, the answer is none except the overthrow of the tyrannical system, perhaps, I tell you, peacefully if possible.

You also say, "I'm sorry to tell you that there is nothing here which precludes THEM from choosing the form that they did for the Islamic Republic of Iran." Do you know that I am one of THEM? I have not chosen this tyranny for myself, and I have no way in the current system of changing it? Am I being repressed or not? Am I being deprived of my inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or not? If you see "nothing here which precludes THEM" from setting up a tyranny to rule over not only THEM but also their children and their childrens' children..., you must quicky check yourself in for a thorough eye exam.

Your positive or negative answers to these questions would set your moral stance apart from or in line with the tyrants of Iran.

view from Iran, and Hamid

My compatriots!

"Many writers say that there should be no negotiations with Iran because Iran is a tyranny... As a pragmatist, I ask "Why not?" Isolation, I think, plays into the hands of the fundamnetalists. That is what they want."

There should be negotiations but only for the purpose of ending the tyranny. Isolation is truly bad for the ordinary people of Iran. But if one is not careful, a program geared to end their isolation can be abused and misued by the fundamentalists to continue their reign of terror. So, we should be careful what we are wishing: we wish to isolate, yes, isolate the fundamentalists, and give power to the people, so any negotiations must be done carefully with that in mind.

Also, Iran is no historical exception. In all tyrannies before, like the one under the Soviet Union, the power was not so completely consolidated or unified in the hands of tyrants. If it had been there would have been no way it could end when it did. There are always dissidents, fighters, activists. There is always a power struggle, and that is why there is always hope that tyrannies would end. The tyrants do their best, and we better do our best as well so we could end their tyranny and bring the fruits of freedom to our land.

Tyranny is simple this: "If a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society." This is called the "town square test." It might also have degrees in a free society, but certainly there is a treshold below which we cannot possibly consider a society free, where there is a qualitative change. Iran's is certainly a tyranny at this time and it has been since about 27 years ago. The time before that is now history.

Cyrus, I agree that the regime is oppressive, repressive and all sorts of other ives... My point about Iran being ahistorical was different: Iran is the first oppressive regime to have such a huge and well-connected diaspora. Everyone in Iran knows someone living abroad. I cannot imagine that there has ever been a situation remotely like this. The people of Iran are not nearly as isolated or as hounded as they are/were in the former Soviet Union or in N. Korea or in many other places. Iranians are connected to people living on the outside in a way that no other oppressed population has ever been. This very fact makes life here very, very different.