Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 19, 2013

Doug Saunders Is Wrong On Iran

Doug Saunders writes for the Globe & Mail. His book Arrival City takes a somewhat contrarian view of the migration into city and is pretty good. I found it therefore pretty disgusting to read his recent totally conventional and uniformed missive on Iran: The Iranian threat isn’t nuclear – it’s political

The openeing graphs:

During the eight years of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presidency, Iran has become an increasingly dangerous place. That danger, however, is not posed by nuclear weapons – which remain an uncertain and, at worst, long-term threat – but more urgently from Iran’s own self-imposed collapse.

Far worse than Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comic-book sabre-rattling at Israel and the West, worse than his increasingly ineffective support of extremists and demagogues, has been his effect on his own country. A decade ago, Iran was a hopeful place, moving away from the excesses of its theocratic revolution and into the outer edges of normalcy and co-operative relations with the world. The Ahmadinejad era reversed that, plunging the country into self-isolation, poverty, mismanagement and paranoia.

Where to begin?

Was it Ahmedinejad that made Iran internationally more isolated than a decade ago? Iran had cooperated with the United States to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan and to install the Karzai government. The U.S. not-so-grateful response was to name Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil and soon to introduce sanctions and more sanctions. That happened on January 29 2002. Ahmedinejad came to office only in August 2005.

Is it really then, as Saunders says, Ahmedinejad who reversed co-operative relations with the world? Did Ahmedinejad impose sanctions on Iran?

The nonsense continues:

Every Iranian feels the pain of the Ahmadinejad years. Inflation is out of control, with basic staple foods and vegetables unaffordable to many working families. The rial, Iran’s currency, has plummeted in value. Unemployment is the norm, with little economic activity beyond the dysfunctional state – and army-controlled enterprises.
Every sentence in the above paragraph is factually wrong. During the Ahmedinejad years the purchase power parity GPD of Iran has increased through every year. The subsidized gas and oil prices in Iran were best for those who used the most energy, the rich. When Ahmedinejad cut those subsidize and replaced them with direct payments the poor Iranians gained a lot despite an increase in inflation. That is why they would likely vote for anyone he will support:
“A pro-Ahmadinejad candidate will have a good number of votes,” said Abolfazl Zahei, a proreform activist. “There are 2,000 villages in South Khorasan province, and most people in those villages have benefited from Ahmadinejad’s government. People care about making their ends meet and welfare, not politics.
While inflation in Iran is high, staple prices are price controlled and have not increased that much. They are surly not unaffordable for working families. Yes, the rial has plummeted. As it should. Japan under prime minister Abe just willfully devalued the Yen and revived Japan's lagging export industry. A plunging Rial will have exactly the same result for Iran. Imports of luxury goods will be more expensive but many people will now find work in growing export businesses. While unemployment in Iran is likely higher that the official 8%. compared to say Spain it is rather benign. Private economic activity in Iran is not low and the economy is not army-controlled. Those companies in semi public hands are owned by various insurance like pension funds that have their own interests divergent from the army or the revolutionary guards.

One wonders how Doug Saunders could come up with so much nonsense. But he also seems to believe that former president Rafsanjani can win in the upcoming presidential election in Iran. Rafsanjani is a neoliberal ultra-rich cleric who was trounced by Ahmedinejad in the 2005 presidential election. He may get, like the "reformers" in 2005, the votes from the upper middle-class people in north Tehran. But as the 2005 election proved any election in Iran is decided by the votes of rural and poor masses. They will vote for the candidate that has the support of the rather social-democratic president Ahmedinejad.

Posted by b on May 19, 2013 at 11:42 AM | Permalink


Make sure this info on IAEA and Iran doesn't get out else we'll need to mend media narrative:

Posted by: Clint | May 19, 2013 12:43:46 PM | 1

I should think Saunders has been talking to wealthy Iranian exiles in the States. They think like that. It is not for nothing that Los Angeles is known as "little Tehran".

Posted by: alexno | May 19, 2013 12:59:03 PM | 2

If the Saunders piece didn't do it already, get ready to see your Sunday brunch again with Tom "Would someone please throw this f*cking war criminal in a dark prison already?" Friedman and his analysis of what's REALLY going on in Syria!!

Yup, it's just all about the water!!

Here are some good quotes to kick-start your reverse-peristalsis:

"So Syria as a whole is slowly bleeding to death of self-inflicted gunshot wounds."

"you can’t imagine any peace deal happening or holding — not without international peacekeepers on the ground to enforce it. Eventually, we will all have to have that conversation, because this is no ordinary war."

Gee, then I guess it must be that there's just too many people in Syria, right?

Hmmm, what was that about 1.2 MILLION refugees from Iraq entering Syria due to the Iraq war? I guess that war - which Tom, you f*cking war criminal supported in the pages of the NYT - wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the plight of the poor Syrians, huh?

Here's a link to a .pdf on the forced migration of Iraqis into Syria.

Hey, speaking of water, tom, what's that I've read about water, Israel, the Palestinians, the Litani River, etc?

For anyone including Tom who'd like to read about the water-based apartheid that continues to devastate - sorry, ethnically cleanse - the Palestinians here's a link to the .pdf report.

Tom Friedman and his ilk need to suffer the same fate as the other more active war criminals of our time.

The blood of millions is already on his hands and he wants the blood of millions more.

Posted by: Disgusting | May 19, 2013 1:06:53 PM | 3

Needless to say, once the candidate whom the US backs doesn't win the election, they'll simply claim (along with their host of phony NGO's & Human Rights groups) that the election was "rigged" or "stolen." They're ALWAYS guaranteed to say this whenever a country elects someone they don't like.

For example, in Russia, after Putin trounced his nearest competitor by 40 points last year, it took the US nearly two weeks to call and congratulate him. Lost in all of the ludicrous coverage was the fact that Putin was so far ahead, that it would've made no sense for him to needlessly "cheat" - something a single MSM network failed to point out. I find it hilarious that the organization (GOLOS) who was making most of the more outrageous claims, is now bitching about Russia's NGO law. They're refusing to register and will now probably have to close down. GOOD. None of these foreign financed groups are any good for these countries, unless you think subversion, bankrolling 5th columnists and assorted street protests are good for "Democracy." Not surprisingly, The US would never tolerate any of this on its own soil.

Posted by: RC | May 19, 2013 1:10:59 PM | 4

Every Iranian feels the pain of the Ahmadinejad years. Inflation is out of control, with basic staple foods and vegetables unaffordable to many working families. The rial, Iran’s currency, has plummeted in value. Unemployment is the norm, with little economic activity beyond the dysfunctional state – and army-controlled enterprises.

This is just the Western press trying to toot their own horn about how effective the sanctions have been... while at the same time blaming Ahmedinejad for the effects of the sanctions. Typical Western outlook - got to have it both ways!

It's the exact same lies used against the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela. They try to claim the Venezuelan economy is "ruined" with "high inflation" even though the fact is that inflation, though high, is far lower than it was during the neo-liberal paqueta years.

It also reveals a viewpoint that the strength of an "economy" (which, as far as I can tell mean "profits for foreign corporations") is the end all measure of a countries success - forget minor things like expansion of democracy, expansion of education, and the general development of the public sphere.

Iran under Ahmedinejad is actually a very interesting place. He has tackled Iran's enormous drug problem in a compassionate and effective way. The advances made in science and industry under his tutelage are quite impressive. The way he has managed to defend his country against American and Israeli threats - be they cyber, terror, or color-revolution - is also commendable. You have to love the hay made over the fact that he hugged Hugo Chávez's mother at Chávez memorial ceremony - never have I seen the western press so insistent on one keeping traditional Muslim manners.

Anyway, just another pile on the mountain of bullshit coming out of the Western press.

Posted by: guest77 | May 19, 2013 1:53:55 PM | 5

You guys seem to be the experts, and all, (really, I mean it) but are these really the questions we want to ask re: Iran?

Posted by: tsisageya | May 19, 2013 3:04:47 PM | 6

True, my judgement hasn't fully fallen on the muslims, yet. That is because I'm sick of all the bullshit from all the white folk surrounding them. WTF?

However, they suck loose testicles too. Let me judge right now.

Posted by: tsisageya | May 19, 2013 3:08:09 PM | 7

Muhammad vs Jesus

Go for it.

Posted by: tsisageya | May 19, 2013 3:10:26 PM | 8

...and zionists? Where is your Messiah now? Do you have a messiah anymore? Where is he? Who is he? Where is he?

Posted by: tsisageya | May 19, 2013 3:21:41 PM | 9

Karl Rove,

I continue to judiciously study the empire. Why do you wet your trousers?

Posted by: tsisageya | May 19, 2013 3:31:38 PM | 10

Is reality in question anywhere?

Posted by: tsisageya | May 19, 2013 3:46:42 PM | 11

@ tsisageya Can you slow the questions down a bit? I'm stuck on loose testicles....

Posted by: dh | May 19, 2013 4:07:25 PM | 12

Sorry. I'm finished. It just seemed like a good time to speak.

Posted by: tsisageya | May 19, 2013 4:18:21 PM | 13

Loose testicles just came over me. Pretty funny then?

What about Blaming the Pariarchy? Cuz I'm a big believer in it.

Posted by: tsisageya | May 19, 2013 4:23:34 PM | 14

Blame the Patriarchy? Hell no. We have people like Putin, Ahmedinajad and Assad to blame for everything.

Posted by: dh | May 19, 2013 4:29:09 PM | 15


A couple of glaring omissions in Friedman's article include the contributions of the US and its Israel Lobby to Syria's economic problems since 2000, and the impact of those on rural Syria. Syria's drought has occurred under the impact of courting the West through economic liberalization, absorbing over a million refugees from the Iraq War, and adjusting to ever tightening economic sanctions. But Friedman, who advocated for the Iraq War and has been a cheerleader for tightening the economic noose on Iran and Syria doesn't notice the fallout of those policies on Syrian civilans.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | May 19, 2013 6:34:18 PM | 16

Rusty #16,

It's not that he doesn't notice, it's just that he doesn't CARE.

Posted by: RC | May 19, 2013 6:43:41 PM | 17

The Canadian settler elite is worse than the American setter elite when it comes to support for the Israeli settler elite. And their neocon, Stephan Harper government is worse than Dick Cheney's when it comes to oil/sludge and the destruction of the environment. I wouldn't get too upset about what you read in the Globe & Mail.

Posted by: john francis lee | May 19, 2013 7:05:02 PM | 18

Why is it this website seems to always gush over anti-semites or holocaust deniers? What's up with that?

Posted by: David | May 19, 2013 7:27:07 PM | 19

David, bubele, it's Holocaust, capital Aitch, the precious.

Posted by: ruralito | May 19, 2013 7:35:12 PM | 20

@19 It's such a big world with so much suffering. Past and present.

You're looking at a big world through a narrow lens. If you can't fit the suffering of your ancestors into the sufferings of everyone else, you're just part of perpetuating more suffering. What's more, you're diluting the sympathy for your own by causing more across the globe.

Posted by: guest77 | May 19, 2013 7:52:35 PM | 21

What the hell are you talking about tsigaeya? Cut back on the coke a cola...I'm checking to see how loose my testicles are right now and how wet my trousers are while trying to debate whose prophet is better. So again what the hell are ya talkin bout bra?

Posted by: Fernando | May 20, 2013 1:44:53 AM | 22

Al-Jazeera remove article after pressure from Israel-lobby!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2013 1:47:37 AM | 23

Oh looky looky David the douchebag is back!! Hey Jackass, I bet you were riding around in your bright blue bicycle with a silver basket and white handlebars with multicolored frills on the side blowing your little whistle on Nakba day!!!! We're you jumping up and down in front of the porch of the house your shoa survivor parents stole from some innocent Arab Palestinian family who then starved and wandered homeless as you and your buddies all kept telling the world, LIEING to the world that you HAD to this because "this was a land without a people for a people without a land".
Your self proclaimed righteousness has condemned you before Elohim boy. Sins are sins and they will be paid for.

Posted by: Fernando | May 20, 2013 1:53:16 AM | 24

We're you jumping up and down in front of the porch of the house your shoa survivor parents stole from some innocent Arab Palestinian family who then starved and wandered homeless as you and your buddies all kept telling the world, LIEING to the world that you HAD to this because "this was a land without a people for a people without a land".

LOL, Fiddler on the Roof, Ben Hur!

Posted by: hans | May 20, 2013 3:38:41 AM | 25

It's like this; Why do they keep crying, why do they want this land (we stole) if there are so many other countries in the same area that could accept them? It's like a guest overpowering the host, kicking them out of the house they've lived in for ages and telling them; "HEY LOOK @$$hole, don't worry theirs plenty of other houses on this block, some other idiot is bound to take you in".
Then when the neighbors go and complain because you've just kicked out this dude out if his house with believe it or not subtle support from city hall, they get smacked across the face & told to accept this now HOMELESS NEIGHBOR in THEIR HOMES. Well guess WHAT?
The homeless neighbor tells his sons to put up a tent in what is now your front yard DAVID!!! He won't give up and bit by bit, step by step, mile by mile, minute to minute, he's changing hearts baby. People are waking up to the lie and sooner or later YOUR GONNA HAVE TO GIVE UP THAT MUTHEFFEN HOUSE.
You better start investing in tents Davie boy. Because if a former support of that country like me is now a non supporter, just think about the millions that are waking up booby :)

Posted by: Fernando | May 20, 2013 3:54:57 AM | 26

@ 26...
Gotta love that (as a description for certain people).

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | May 20, 2013 5:09:06 AM | 27

The candidate that USA backs in Iran is Hashemi Rafsanjani former president of IRan and a 79 years old man ...
Reformers ( pro-westerns ) come to power by bashing him in 1376 ( Jalali - 16 years ago - 1996-1997 ) and called him "red Excellency " and called him religious zealot ....
but now they support him because he is old man , he has no power and he gave up his revolution and Anti west ideology and even his health is not good so he has to give the control to other persons ... but his sons are pro westerns who have some building in USA , Canada , England ....

Posted by: a person | May 20, 2013 5:44:33 AM | 28

28) So maybe Hashemi Rafsanjani is the only candidate whose business interest might favor the West?
I hear there is a crowd of candidates, very difficult to bet who will come out on top.

Posted by: somebody | May 20, 2013 6:27:21 AM | 29

well , the only thing Hashemi and his family want is their own interests ... so which sides provide it to them they will act as their favor ... ( well , Hashemi daughter is in jail and his son is free thanks to assurance - 5-8 millions dollars assurance )

about candidates ....

Imo these candidates will be the final candidates :

* Rezaei ( former IRGC commander who was IRGC General in Iraq-Iran war and retired after war - he owned most popular news agency in Iran ... he has phd - Osoul gara but he call himself independence candidate )

* Jalili (head of Iran nuclear talk - Osoul gara )

* Bagheri Lankarani ( former health minister - Osoul gara )

* Qalibaf ( mayor of Tehran and former head of Iran police - Osoul gara )

* Mashaei ( Ahmadi neja right hand ... well he is one of western favorite candidate as well !!! )

* Vellayati ( former FM - Osoul gara )

* Haddad Adel ( former Parliament chief - Osoul gara)

* Hashemi Rafsanjani

* Shariat Madari ( former commerce minister in reformers government ... Reformers )

* Aref ( former vis president in reformers government )

* Rohani ( former Iran nuclear talk - reformers )


Reformers candidates has low hope , in best case they have 13 million vote but in other hand fundamentalists ( osoul gara ) have more vote (20 -25 millions vote ) and their candidate are well known ... that why reformers stayed behind of Hashemi ( who is/was Osoul gara as well )

IMO ousoul garas will reduce their candidates ....


the last things I should say that Ousoul geras have some serious problem with Hashemi and his family ...

about Reformers ... well they only want power that why they begin to support Hashemi who they used to call " Red Excellency " and " Dictator " and " Religious zealot " in first place .... they want use Hashemi to gain power and back stab him ...


about Ahmadi Nejad candidate ... Imo he is Ahmadi nejad bullshits * 1000 nothing more nothging less ( Ahmadi nejad want to a medvedov-putin situation but Iran isn't Russia )

Posted by: a person | May 20, 2013 10:17:22 AM | 30

I enjoy reading Kooshy's comments at Road To Tehran because he actually lives there. A sample:

It’s been a few days since I have arrived in Tehran; it’s has passed a full year, since I was here last. So far what I have observed is in fully conformation with what Leverett had experienced when they made their last trip here last November. The number of small and large construction projects in same stretch of street (Andarzgoo Blvd.) seems to have increased since my last count last year; this time I counted over 50 big and small apartment and commercial buildings under construction.

In last couple of days I have gone to most of the northern Tehran’s luxury malls, none of the merchants or shoppers I spoke to complained of bad business or lack of merchandise to buy. I haven’t heard anyone mention the sanctions or even bring it up as a reason for business hardship. Tehran is the haven for replica French luxury goods. Restaurants and fast food shops are full, Today I had to Waite 45 minutes for a table at the “Dize” restaurant near Iranshahr street, a full meal of Dezi (traditional Iranian beef soup) including usual sides, Sangak bread, Dough, Tea and tip coasted 27000 Toman, with today’s exchange rate of 3450 per dollar that equals to $7.82.

Tajrish bazar (North Tehran Bazar) is impossible to walk through due to number of shoppers in this narrow passage, these days it is not easy to find a taxi, in the famous dry goods store Tvazoeh one would need to Waite over 30 minutes before getting the sales person’s attention. I didn’t see many differences or change in shoppers habits since I was here last year. The only difference that I have seen so far is that there are more construction projects, definitely merchandise and goods are more expensive than last year but there is no lack of buyers at these higher prices.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 20, 2013 10:19:59 AM | 31

Even little guys can register to vote in Iran.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 20, 2013 10:57:48 AM | 32

It ought to be possible for someone to sit down and write, in advance, the "news" stories we are going to read in the MSM (aka the Bourgeois Press) in the coming weeks. Saunders's story is a good way to kick off. What comes next are the indications that the regime is crumbling, the manifestations of widespread support (in the up scale malls) for pro-western candidates. Warnings of the fanatical nationalist candidates...sudden upsurges of the Green movement. Predictions of a massive opposition victory. Warnings of vote rigging plans. And then.

The result. Howls of American/Israeli protest. Disturbances and assassinations bankrolled in Washington and carried out by the lowest bidder (Britain's SAS "We taught Mossad.Plus we're cheaper".

And finally back to where we were: Iran striving to maintain its independence. The US trying to re-claim it for the Empire. And the EU saying "If we, the French, Germans and Italians, have to do as we're told by the White House and Wall St, what makes Persians so different?"

Posted by: bevin | May 20, 2013 1:52:34 PM | 33

A good piece by the economist Djavad Salehi-Isfahani on the economic situation of voter groups in Iran:

Who Are Iran's Voters?

As usual, there is a mix of social and economic issues on voters’ minds, but differences between candidates in their approaches to solving Iran’s mounting economic problems matter most. Populists, led by president Ahmadinejad’s close associate Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie, promise more redistribution. Pragmatists and reformers, led by former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, argue for the revival of economic growth. Finally, an assortment of conservatives, led by politicians close to the Supreme Leader, such as former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati, Tehran Mayor Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, will take a middle course promising both growth and redistribution.

But who are the voters to whom these philosophies would appeal?

Posted by: b | May 20, 2013 2:36:15 PM | 34

Fernando, my man, are you down with the Palestinians mowed down by Saint Assad in Syria? Or is that just false flag stuff you be smoking when you tool around the hold. LOL. I do feel sorry though for the dear departed Chavez. Maduro doesn't measure up... like fine Mexican cuisine versus taco bell.

Posted by: David | May 20, 2013 6:04:27 PM | 35

Rafsanjohny is out. Jalili has best chance to be next President.

Posted by: Loyal | May 21, 2013 1:04:54 PM | 36

There is a breaking news regarding the Iranian elections:

"According to the report published by the semi-official Mehr News Agency on Tuesday, the Council has approved MP Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, Secretary of Supreme National Security Council Saeed Jalili, Secretary of the Expediency Council Mohsen Rezaei and President of the Center for Strategic Research of the Expediency Council Hassan Rohani.

The list also included former First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Aref, Tehran Mayor Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, former telecommunication minister, Mohammad Gharazi, and former foreign minister, Ali-Akbar Velayati. "

Mohsen Rezaei has been quoted to once have said regarding the presidential elections prior to 1997:

"In earlier elections, we had a different policy. We would agree on one main candidate who was accepted by all groups,
and also let a few others run who had no chance of winning. We knew who would win the election, and so would the
people ... But in the recent election we adopted a different policy ... We hadn’t practised the new circumstances ..."

It seems that Islamic Republic is trying to go back to the old says with no competitive elections where people had pretty much ZERO to say about how the country should be governed.

This is a very dangerous turn of events. This may very well discourage the majority from participating in elections, and will play right into the hands of the Western powers.

On the other hand *IF* (and that is a big "IF") Ahmadinejad does not submit to the GC's decision quietly and *IF* (and that is even a BIGGER "IF") he manages to mobilize masses to protest against the GC's decision and force either GC to back off or get Mr. Khamenei to -reluctantly- intervene and get Mr. Mashaei and Mr. Rafsanjani approved, then this will be -IMO- a very positive outcome as it will be the FIRST TIME that people will demonstrate their disapproval of a hand picked committee to rule over them and will be the first time that the fascistic tendency in the IR will be forced to back off in direct confrontation with the actual masses of Iranians.

But thats all fantasy at the moment. The situation as it stands right now is a very gloomy picture where people are being pushed to absolute passivity. Which is the best scenario for the foreign powers.

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | May 21, 2013 1:11:30 PM | 37

@ Pirouz_2 #37

Your ALL negative spin was 100% based on a fake (mistranslated?) quote, used by the zionists. You should know better than that.

Elections in Iran are quite heated, and represented by all sides. Ironically, it also seem more fair (and people have more say) than lets say in US with only two main candidates, both of whom represent the samepower-groups interests.

Posted by: Harry | May 21, 2013 1:21:51 PM | 38

both Mashaei and Hashemi barred from election ....

IMO both of them well useless ... Hashemi want to let his childern rule country and send Iran back to 20 years ago ....

and Mashaei is mentally ill , he think someone from sky order and guide him ....

Posted by: a person | May 21, 2013 1:31:49 PM | 39


I got to read the piece which wrote that quote from Mr. Cyrus Safdari's weblog (Iran affairs).
So what are you saying? It has been based on a "fake"? or on a "mistranslated" quote? which one? Make up your mind!
Fact of the matter is that you know absolutely nothing about the quote I just made. Otherwise you could give me the actual words and prove that it was a mistranslation. You just want to oppose what I have said based on a dogma in your head and since you have no information on the issue you just throw anything which come to your mind (fake, mistranslation, zionist etc.) and hope that one would stick! But it really doesn't matter the quotation that I wrote actually tells the truth. From the fall of Bani-Sadr until the election of Mr. Khatami there was no competitive elections in Iran. The people knew who would be the president before the elections.
So that quotation is actually telling the truth (100%).

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | May 21, 2013 1:47:50 PM | 40

@ Pirouz_2 #40

The only link I find by googling with this quote is zionists site how Iran's elections are fraud. If you maintain the same position, its your problem. If you claim its on Cyrus Safdari website - provide the link, so we could all see what was actually said, the context, and so on, I didnt find it. I have seen too many "Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map and he is anti-semite Holocaust denier!" and similar crap, therefore proper citation is required if you want to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Harry | May 21, 2013 3:49:01 PM | 41

First of all I shouldn't be doing your homework for you. But here is your link.
If you look at that article, you will see that Cyrus is quoting turnouts for presidential and Majlis elections by giving reference to one Nigel Parsons. You can find the man's name at the bottom of the article next to "*SOURCE:".
If you go to Nigel Parson's article you will find the Rezaei quotation there.
Unfortunately very often (in fact most often) you cannot find the actual quotation of Iranian politicians, because they are in Persian. And by looking at the translation you can't possibly know the exact verbatim of the original persian text to google it up. This is especially the case when the quotation is a very old one, say from around 1997 (as the case actually is this time). More over the situation becomes much worse if the quotation is from some interview clip (google does not find texts in voice clips)or from a "hard copy interview" on paper (such as a book or a newspaper) as the case may or may not be.
Unfortunately that is the limitation of "googling". And there is a hell of a lot more into research than just "googling"!
I have little doubt that Mr. Rezaei has said that, but it really does not matter, that is the truth of the matter regarding the Iranian elections. See how many people even remember who ran against Mr. Rajaei, Mr. Khamenei or in his first two terms against Mr. Rafsanjani. Now compare that to names like Nategh noori (against Khatami), Rafsanjani (against Ahmadinejad) and Mousavi (against Ahmadinejad).

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | May 21, 2013 8:52:09 PM | 42

@ Pirouz_2 #42

So many things wrong here:

1) I found the original zionist paper already, the ONLY one with that quote. Not familiar with zionists and their "quotes"? Cue "Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map!" and myriad of other "quoted" rubbish.

2) There is no this quote on Cyrus website itself, unlike you implied. Cyrus quoting some numbers from that paper doesnt automatically mean it endorses everything else in it, so why even mention Cyrus, are you trying to make citation look more legitimate? Like I can quote something from CNN, yet unless I specifically endorse what they say everywhere else, doesnt mean I do.

3) What you believe someone said is of no consequence, you can trust zionists sources as much as you want, I know better. Unless its triple checked and confirmed, I dont believe them at the face value.

Posted by: Harry | May 22, 2013 4:01:47 AM | 43

One more thing, the very article by Cyrus is debunking the idea about Iranian elections fraud you are preaching. I find it ironic.

Posted by: Harry | May 22, 2013 4:07:57 AM | 44

Harry, you don't seem like a particularly bright fellow. So I will have to spell it out I guess.

1)"Fraud" does not have to happen in the ballot boxes as the green people tried to imply. The real "fraud" is when a committee of 12 guys (6 of them hand picked by supreme leader, and the other six elected by parliament from ONLY a list of people provided by the head of the judiciary who himself is directly appointed by the supreme leader) decides which candidates the Iranian people are "allowed" or which ones they are not "allowed" to vote. In fact this is one of the arguments against the idiotic claims of ballot box rigging in 2009: Why would IR resort to ballot box rigging to eliminate an unwanted candidate, they can simply disqualify the unwanted candidate during the vetted process, why resort to rigging the ballots which is very cumbersome and almost impossible to go unnoticed?
Of course this real "fraud" of not allowing people to vote for an unwanted candidate, does not happen only in Iran. It happens all over in the west too (albeit not with the Guardian Council but through other mechanisms). However, the fact that none of the Western countries is democratic does not make Iran (with exactly the same system) democratic.
Just so you could understand, with Rahim Mashaei and Rafsanjani gone, pretty much the vote of large majority of Iranians are out of the picture.
In fact if Mr. Khamenei has any intelligence at all, he should intervene and bring back the two eliminated major candidates in the race.
This is all happening because the principlist camp knows very well that it stands no chance of winning, if Rahim Mashaei participates in the elections. Now if you have somehow sworn some allegiance to the principlist camp in Iran so that you will see them in power no matter what the Iranian nation wants, then I can't tell you much.

2) I never tried to "imply" anything. I just made the quotation. You were the one who started to use the words such as "zionist". To address your paranoia, I tried to re-assure you, by explaining how it was that I stumbled on the quotation to begin with. I was reading Mr. Safdari's webleog and I came by that source and read it through and saw that quotation.

3) Quotations are not there to be endorsed or rejected. A quotation is very different from an "opinion" or a "conclusion". It is some what similar to "numbers". The only difference is that they can easily be denied by the person being quoted as being rubbish. Example? Ahmadinejad quot which has been talked so much about. Now do you see anyone disputing that quote by Rezaei? Do you know why not? It is very likely that that is because:

a) It says a very basic truth which is very common knowledge among the people who are even slightly familiar with Iranian politics (if you catch my drift?). In fact Mr. Khamenei himself decided that the elections in 1997 should be "different" from the previous elections in the sense that it must be much more "inclusive" and "participatory". That it should be more "competitive" to encourage people to participate in the elections more enthusiastically. In fact he [khamenei] openly said so.
b) It is a true quotation and there is no point in denying it. In fact Mr. Rezaei has many such "interesting" quotations, why should this one be so unlikely?

4) I have had enough of this conversation. Think any way you want. I am not here to convince or educate you.

Posted by: pirouz_2 | May 22, 2013 10:22:10 AM | 45

Poor pirouz_2, cant think for himself and instead relies on zionists unsubstantiated propaganda :) Try to think before you post, and what kind of nonsense you preach.

Posted by: Harry | May 22, 2013 12:29:08 PM | 46

Alleged terrorist attack in london! Army recruit be-headed in a main street after being run over. Alleged they ran him over, cut his head off and asked passers by to film it. Breaking news!

Posted by: BillyBoy | May 22, 2013 12:57:23 PM | 47

The comments to this entry are closed.