From: javad@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Agha Javad)
Subject: Re: To Agha Javad ( Re: recent brainlessness on sci )
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:04:48 GMT
Organization: LabaniyyAtee-e-Sar-e-Koocheh

In article <BxqK7p.EIp@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ebrahim@ee.umanitoba.ca (Mohamad Ebrahimi) writes:
>                                                      
>In article: <1992Nov14.020002.27006@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com> javad@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com
> (Agha Javad)  writes:                      
>                                                                         
>>In article <BxoFp0.Jwn@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ebrahim@ee.umanitoba.ca (Mohamad Ebrahi
>>>                                                                               
>>>In article: <1992Nov13.184956.18043@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>javad@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com
>>>                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I go on, I would like to thank Mr. Ebrahi for maintaining a decent 
discussion so all interested readers can think and form opinions rather
than hit the 'n' button in disgust and shake their head in disbelief. Thank
you.

This is a long article, although most of the material is from
previous postings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>                                                                               
>                                                                     
>                                                             
>>> 1- You attributed the story of " Enhelal-e Artesh" ( Dissolving the army)     
>>> after the revolution to IRI! while everybody remembers that it was one of     
>>> the main objectives of those spy groups, which later became an integral       
>>> part of Iraqi army against Iranian people, and if it was not because of       
>>> the strong standing of Late Imam Khomeini to support the army, nobody knows   
>>> what would have happened when Iraqi army started its aggression against Iran. 
>>                                                                                
>>Excuse me, but whoever was in the revolution vividly remembers that one of the  
>>main criticisms of the shah's regime was that he was "nokar-e-Amrika" and kept  
>>buying "AhanpAreh F16s" and throwing away our oil money. Of course, we all      
>>know that there were people working for foreigners trying to weaken the         
>>country, etc., and I never said there wasn't. But the IRI certainly did not     
>>do much to keep the military intact.  In the days of Bazargan, there were       
>>numerous speeches about how we don't need an army, at least the one created     
>>by the shah, and replacing the army with Pasdaran and Baseej and Artesh-e-      
>>Beest-millionee.  Nonetheless, you cannot deny that the revolution leaders      
>>were criticizing the shah for buying all those weapons, and now would love      
>>to do the same if they had the chance.  Also, can you be more specific as to    
>>which "spy groups" it was the work of to call for enhelal-e-artesh?             
>>Tell me something, do you really think that if there was no war with Iraq,      
>>the regular armed forces would have been left alone, or even allowed to         
>>exist?  I doubt it.                                                             
>
>
> -You are mixing two different matters, in order to avoid accepting reality.
> The criticism toward Shah for trying to be the "Gendarm of Region" and
> involvement in stories like Zofar is something, and trying to dissolve the
> army, which you attributed to IRI, is something else. I didn't talk about
> the first one, rather I chalenged you about your allegations.

Reality, did you say?  The shah was criticized for trying to become gendarm
of the region, whereas the IRI is now an a massive rearmament program.  This
in spite of the absence of the U.S.S.R., the annihilation of Iraq, 
and the removal of so amny threats that existed in the Shah's time, as well
as an economic situation which you yourself agree is very weak.  Why
are they buying bombers and submarines?  I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just 
saying that how come it is bad when shah does it, but it is good when IRI
does it?

>
> -Yes Bazargan and Co. talked about being needless to even F14's and exchanging
> them with tractors, but I don't consider them as true representative of Revolution
> and IRI, do you?



He was the prime minister of IRI approved by Khomeini himself, and in those 
days, if you remember, the military service was even reduced to 1 year.  I just 
remember that the overall mood was towards severely downsizing the armed forces,
if not ending it altogether, as well as it being ok to have summary trials
and executions of generals and officers, and I don't remember many voices
calling for the salvaging or maintaining of the armed forces.  These voices
became many once the war started.

>
> -As for the replacing army with pasdaran and basij, you have forgotten that
> Late Imam Khomeini anounced the 29 of Farvardin 1358 as the day of army, and
> ordered people to go to streets and celebrate that day with their brothers in
> army, but he ordered for basij to be established more than 8 months later
> in responce to western hostilities. IRI never intended to replace army with any
> other force, and I chalenge you to show evidence contrary to this mater.
>

This was in celebration or recognition of the army surrendering to the people.
As this was happenning, pilots and homafars were being arrested and imprisoned
in the hundreds, and billions of dollars of equipment was rusting away being
unmaintained, some becoming beyond repair.  During the first few days of the 
war, several hundred pilots and flight officers were released from prison
and were let loose, and they were able to carry out a massive airstrike of 
140 fighters against Iraq, seriously hampering the Iraqis effort.  Many of
these pilots' families were held as ransom for their return, and in fact, 
throughout the war, some did escape because of their opposition to the 
regime.  But the majority fought braveley under unfair conditions without 
enough spare parts and ammunition, against an enemy wiht much more resources.
I seriously doubt that had the war not started, these pilots would be spared
in the IRI prisons.  I might add that US Air Force instructors gave very
high marks to the Iranian student pilots during their training, and millions
of dollars were well spent in creating what many thought of as some of the
best pilots in the world.

As far as baseej, yes, this was formed when hostages were taken, and IRI
feared military action from the US, the regular army being in a state of
disarray.  The sepAh and komiteh, however, were formed immediately after
the revolution to safeguard protect the revolution, i.e. a revolutionary
police.  The sepAh's duties grew as the war started, and their role expanded
to defence against the revolution's external enemies as well.  I would like
to add that whenever the IRI bought new weapons, it would give preference to
the sepAh, and only for equipment that the sepAh could not operate would 
they give these weapons to the army.  The sepAh would get first cut at
light arms, and later they started to expand into artillery pieces, and even
form the "sepAh air force" and the "sepAh navy", entering direct competition
with the regular armed forces.  This enough is evidence that the IRI wanted
to slowly phase out the regular armed forces, why else would the sepAh have
to have an air force and a navy?  Why did we need two armies to handle our
artillery and rockets?  I remember Mohsen Rezaee the IRGC commander treating
Sayyad Shirazi the regular army commander almost like a subordinate even
on TV.

> -It was my impression that you have enough information from the first years after
> revolution, so you can find out which spy groups. Besides, there wasn't too much
> groups who later became integral part of Iraqi army.

If you are referring to MKO, I never liked them either.  But I hope you will
remember that they played a key role in the success of the revolution,
and they were in fact part of the IRI in those early days.  It was later
that they split, and in fact, many MKO memebers took part in the war effort
in the early days.  And I don't think Bazargan and those guys were MKO,
unless you would like to call them foreign spies too.

>
> -Yes. Army would have been left alone regardless of the war, and in fact, if it
> wasn't the necessity of war, pasdaran and basij would have never grown that
> much and the whole defence budget, or its majority would have been spent for army.
>
>

Please see above.

>>> 2- You claim that after revolution the IRI started to execute the officers    
>>> of the army " by thousands"(!!!) even those junior officers who didn't        
>>> have any power. It is a well-known trick. The bigger the lie, the more        
>>> likely it is to be believed by those not familiar. But how about Iranian      
>>> nation? Do they believe that " thousands of army officers" were executed?     
>>> Do they forget the role of some parts of Shah's army in killings from         
>>> 19 Dey of 1356 in Qom until the very day of 22 bahman? Do they forget the     
>>> role of those Generals in maintaining 25 years dictatorship of Shah after     
>>> 28 Mordad?                                                                    
>>                                                                                
>>Could you explain to us in truthful terms, what was the process of determining  
>>whether or not an officer on trial was guilty of treason?  Are you saying that  
>>all officers in the Iranian armed forces were guilty of maintaining a           
>>dictatorship, and installing the shah in 1953?  A lot of air force pilots       
>>who were just flying cargo planes were executed.  What was their crime?  They   
>>flew relief supplies to disaster stricken areas during earthquakes and so       
>>on.  Now yes, there were the Khosrodads and the Rahimis and the Nassiris        
>>who beared direct responsibility for shah's atrocities, but are you saying      
>>all of the executed officers were that way? In 1982, 8 junior air force officers
>>were executed just because they were suspected of helping BaniSadr escape.      
>>They wern't planning a coup, or threatening anyone, they just allowed their     
>>recently overthrown commander in chief to fly out on a 707.  This is the extent 
>>of the IRI's mercy.  They could have fired them, imprisoned them, or anything,  
>>but no, they executed them.  Are you saying that these people would have let the
>>innocent members of the armed forces get a fair trial and go free so they can   
>>serve where they were needed?                                                   
>                                      
> -No I can't tell you what was the process of determining whether or not an officer was
>  guilty, because I didn't attend a single trial. But can you show any evidence that
>  they were executed inocent?

In these trials, if you remember, the officers did not have right to an 
attorney.  Also, many times trials were held for several officers at 
once.  As far as evidence that they were executed innocent, the IRI has
set up an environemnt where even questioning such things is reason enough
to get executed.

With regard to 28 mordad, many of the executed officers were still kids, and 
some were not even born at the time of 28 mordad.


>
> -No I'm not saying that all officers in army were guilty. Were all officers
>  executed or jailed after revolution?
>
> -Do you have any evidence about those cargo pilots who were executed?
>
> -About the story of Banisadr, you are assuming all the netters to be too
>  simpleminded. First: Banisadr was a criminal who in the post of the commander in 
>  chief let Iraqis come and occupy our country. He didn't let Iranian army and
>  pasdarn and volunteers to get united and use their abilities for nine months. His
>  objective was very clear. He had the whole country hostage in a bid to gain more
>  power and authority than what was allocated for the president in constitution. That
>  was why after his impitchment, Iran's armed forces managed to expel Iraqis from 
>  more tahn 90% of the occupied lands in just 11 months. You call him just " their
>  recently overthrown commander in chief" and I


Banisadr was behind the release of those pilots I told you about.  Also, 
him and Fallahi had managed to gather enough military might up to the time
of his removal to start the first major counterattack- the break of the 
siege of Abadan, which was completely planned and carried out by Fallahi,
who along with Colonel Fakouri and Colonel Namjoo and one Pasdar commander
(I think Kolahdooz?) were killed in a C130 crash caused by a saboteur's bomb,
whose story we still don't know completely.  The IRI is the only one to have
access to all the facts behind it, why haven't they announced who was behind
it?  While Banisadr was in power, the fighting forces had simply not gained
the power it required to carry out the liberations.  Also, maybe he was against
human wave attacks which were a key element in subsequent battles, but I can
only speculate on this, and I don't seek to defend Banisadr either, but I do
know he was overthrown in a terror campaign where the hezbollah would attack
rallies of his supporters with clubs, his newspaper "Enghelab-e-Eslami" was
closed down, and of course, his allies retaliated with a wave of terror just
creating an endless cycle.

And you cannot say he "let the enemy occupy Iran", and throw all the 
blame on the regime's current opponents such as him.  If you remember,
he was elected president in what we were told was a landslide victory,
and had the blessings of Khomeini himself, and was appointed commander
of chief by Khomeini himself.

>  call him a traitor who must be tried in martial court
>  for letting enemy occupy Iran. Second: banisadr was not alone on that flight. With
>  him, there was a criminal named Rajavi whose hands were bloody with the blood of
>  tens of authorities, as well as inocent civilians, up to that day. Those officers 
>  ( I assume that you can prove there has been such 8 pilots) let that criminal flee
>  the country to organize next explosions and terrors in the streets( the complete
>  information about more than 2500 civilian victims of those blind terrors have been
>  given to the representative of UN) and later go to Iraq and become an integral part
>  of Iraqi army to stab their fellow Iranian soldiers in the fronts of war. You can
>  easily ignore this crime and call them 8 inocent officers(if any) but I call them
>  a bounch of traitors who were equally responsible for all those blind terrors and
>  stabs in the back of Iran's armed forces. As for the Ieranian nation, they have made
>  their own judgment about MKO 11 years ago.

I never called those 8 officers innocent.  I just highlighted an example of
how the ruthless the regime is in dealing with someone who even takes part
in the slightest action which reveals that person's opposition (even nonviolent)
to the regime.  Those officers could not possibly know that such terror would
follow, and they were executed way before the MKO's bomb campaign against the
regime leaders took off.  And as far as I am concerned, the IRI regime has
no place calling the MKO terrorist, because a) the MKO helped tremendously
in establishing IRI by the same tactics, and b) the IRI does everything the 
MKO does and worse.

>
>
>>> 3- You introduced Late Imam Khomeini as a political refuge to the west!!!     
>>> Was it really the case? Was he a refuge, or an exile who were under pressure  
>>> by Iraqi government to choose between silence-indifference and leaving Iraq?  
>>> Did he have any other place to go for his short stay when Kuwait didn't let   
>>> him in?                                                                       
>>>                                                                               
>>                                                                                
>>Ok, he was an exile, what's the difference?                                     
>>France still gave him a place to stay, and I never said it was bad.  If I       
>>were his supporter, I would be thankful to France.                              
>
>  The difference is that it shows you are ready to change every reality, just to make
>  your point.

The bottom line is that he was a politically active man who could not go back
to Iran because he was political, and the west accepted him and gave him
asfe haven, and he remained politically active and even the BBC broadcasted
his communiques every night of the revolution.  This is the reality, I didn't
change it one bit, and I don't see your point.

> 
>
>      [ stuff deleted ]                                                                              
>>> 5- You cry very laudly for peace between Iran and Iraq after 1982, and at     
>>> the same time accuse Iranian authorities of being traitor because they shacked
>>> hands with Tariq Aziz. Are people really so dumb to think that it is possible 
>>> for two countries to make peace, without any meeting even between their       
>>> foreign ministers? Or are you complaining about Iran's efforts to convince    
>>> Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait before its country and its people were completely
>>> destroyed by allied forces? Do you think you can simply change the facts      
>>> about Iran's stand in Persian Gulf war and its huge efforts to save the Iraqi 
>>> nation, by some hollow accusations?                                           
>>                                                                                
>>I criticize IRI gov't for their hypocrisy in firing up all the young men        
>>to go and fight to the end, and vowing to never abandon the fight to liberate   
>>Ghods and Karbala, a fight which they KNEW they couldn't win in the end, and    
>>finally making peace.  If peace is acceptable, why didn't they make it earlier  
>>when they should have? And if it is unacceptable under any circumstances, as    
>>they had preached to our nation, then why did they make it and not fight to the 
>>very end?  This is a double standard.  When IRI accepted UN resolution 598,     
>>Rafsanjani told the people in Friday prayers to not ask why peace has been      
>>accepted, and that the explanation will come in due time.  That was over 4      
>>years ago, and we are still waiting.  If anyone has heard anything form the IRI 
>>leaders as to why peace was accepted (not theories, but official explanations), 
>>I would be very interested.                                                     
>
>   -The peace was not acceptable bofore 1986, and resolution 598, because there was
>   no honorable way to do that. During all years before 1986, UN and others were
>   insisting Iran to accept peace without any mention of determining the aggressor
>   and his punishment. It was after Iran's insistence that UN was forced to enter
>   this justified requirements in Res. 598. Even this Res. was not complete
>   because it was asking for immediate ceasfire, and Iran was asking for the determining
>   the aggressor to be the first. And if it was not for the intervention of whole western
>   powers dirrectly in war against Iran, Iran could have managed to fulfill this
>   justified requirement too. Of course in this point Iran was defeted by the west,
>   but for Shi'a, it was not the first time which such a failure was impposed on
>   them. Three years after the ceasfire, the outgoing Secratary General of UN, in
>   his report to security counsil concerning the introduction of Iraq as responsible
>   of the war, said: if the determination of the aggressor was done beofre, it could
>   have been effective to prevent the next aggression in region.

Well, the peace they accepted was certainly not very honorable.  After vowing
"jang jang ta piroozi" for 8 years to our people, and sending our young men
and women to fight and die, they finally took this "poison cup" in defeat.
In 1982, Iraq and its supporters agreed to pay Iran fully for the damages,
and if IRI had shown its peaceful nature and intentions throughout its record,
it could have pushed and argued for recognition of the aggressor.  Of all
the countries in the world, who were IRI's allies and sympathizers?  They
were Syria, Lybia, sometimes Algeria (who was neutral if we were lucky),
sometimes CHina, Vietnam, and North Korea, and ofcourse the U.S.S.R.  
Even Lybia was withdrawing support towards the end.  And the only reason Syria
was on IRI's side is that Hafez Assad hated Saddam, and they got free oil.
By the same token, who were Iraq's friends?  Well, thanks to the gung ho
"let's go get everybody and make them an Islamic Republic" attitude that
the IRI had publicly adopted, even a madman like Saddam could find so many
friends, and I don't just mean the west, but even remote places like Argentina,
Brazil, etc, the communist world, the third world, and so on. Are you saying
that ALL those countries were wrong and conspiring against IRI?  I tend to think
more that IRI CHOSE to alienate itself by taking an aggressive stance to the 
outside world, by reacting to opposition with violence, and in doing all
this, win very little sympathy from the outside world. They never admitted
to this mistake explicitly, now they are admitting this in practice by 
taking a more peaceful apporach, but only after 10 years of confrontation
and war and 1 million dead and total devastation.  

You cannot say that this is all "the fault of foreigners". We live in a real 
world, and it is up to our governement to adopt wise policies which are in the 
interest of our people. I'm not trying to defend the Shah's army or Banisadr
or anybody, I'm just saying that by reacting with violence and uncontrolled
rage to your enemies will just make things worse, especially if they
are stronger than you are.  Let's say that the annihilation of the Iranian
armed forces was inevitable and there was no way around it.  Fine, even if
this is the case, I say that when a revolution succeeds, the leaders can do
one of two things: try to start healing the wounds, and take a conciliatory
stance, or keep looking to the past, carry on fighting, and keep creating
new wounds.  If our revolutionary leaders truly had our country's interests
at heart, they would have chosen the first path.  But rather, as we all
know so well,they chose the second path.  Well, today, 13 years later,
they are still in power, still say they are right, and our country is
deeply wounded and crippled by this war.  Yes, it was imposed on us, but
the least they could have done is try to be more reasonable in an overall sense,
and they would have had much more sympathy from the rest of the world.
I know, you will say, well look at Bosnia, look at Palestine, etc.
But this is exactly the point- we don't live in an ideal world, and outsiders
are not coming to us and giving us "morgh-o-polo", they are out to get us
and pursue their interests.  Accordingly, our governement should put our 
people's interests first, not their own ideology and agenda.

What exactly was the IRI's strategic goal in continuing the war? To overthrow
Saddam?  To put him on trial?  I would like to see him punished just like
any human being, but the IRI's goal was more than just that.  The IRI's goal
was  lead the way to Baghdad or at least Basra, and install Ayatollah Hakim
in Iraq, which is not something Iranian boys should die for.  From 1980-82,
the goal was first and foremost the defence of our motherland, and that was
urgent, and everyone who could, went.  But after that, the war was quite 
different, and it became much more of a political thing, where it was between
the two gov'ts, not the two countries.  Don't tell me IRI would have just let
Iraq go and become whatever kind of gov't it wanted. The IRI should have made 
peace (I don't like it either, but it was the best way) in 1982 when Iraq
was defeated and it knew it couldn't succeed by going on.  If we had a truly
just government which didn't threaten others and wasn't so inherently 
violent, the world might have let us, or at least recognized our legitamicy
a lot easier, but this was not the case, and I'm just saying that this policy
cost our nation a lot, more than we can ever recover.

>
>   -Yes you havn't heard an official reason. But there is no official peace between
>   Iran and Iraq yet. No peace traety is signed. About 5000 Iranian POW's are still
>   in Iraq, whose complete identifications are given to Red Cross and Iraqis. Even
>   the resolution 598, which was the basis of peace is not fulfilled yet, in terms
>   of remarking the border line, and absolute retreatment to borders beofre the
>   war. Do you expect Iran to officially anounce the reason for peace in such a
>   situatuion? As for the unofficial reason for peace, I'm surprised that you haven't
>   heard about: the carpet  of chemical weapons poured on Iranian soldiers from
>   Halabche in North to faw in South while whole world was keeping a blind eye, about
>   the US warships who attacked Iranian navy and oil platforms and trade ships in 
>   Persian Gulf, about the most advanced warship in the world who was in Iranian waters
>   provocing for confrontation and then shooting down an assending widebody civilian
>   airliner, about Iran's paralyzed economy due to the downfall of oil price from
>   $30 per barrel to around $6 by saudis and Kuwaitis to force Iran to forget about
>   its just and honorable request for the ounishment of aggressor.

I know the unofficial reasons- IRI couldn't carry on militarily.  But this
was no different than in 1982, anybody could see that our country could
not possibly capture Baghdad, the Arabs wouldn't let it happen, the rest
of the world wouldn't let it happen, and if you were in their shoes, you
wouldn't let it happen either. The west had made it clear that they want neither
side to win, and for each allegation of the west helping Iraq, I can give
you another allegation that the west and the east helped IRI as well. The
unexpected victories we saw in 1985 were not because of emdAdhAy-e-gheibi,
but rather because of freshly received Hawk and Tow missiles courtesy of
Oliver North and co.  Can't you see?  They would always help the weaker side!
The Soviets and the Chinese openly sold weapons to both sides!  Who did
this war benefit?  These two gov'ts played right into the hands of the big 
powers, and their people who had no say in any of it paid the price.  This
is ALL I am saying.

>
>
>>Yes, by all means, the IRI had a sensible policy in the Persian Gulf War, by    
>>working for peace and to prevent war.  When it had the same oppurtunity in 1982,
>>it took the opposite stance, and guess who paid the price.                      
>
>
>  Very good to start to be fair.
>

I would like to point out something.  How come when Iran was invaded, IRI said
we will fight to the end and punish the bastard, etc., whereas when Kuwait
was invaded, it called for a peaceful resolution and for Saddam to withdraw
quietly after the fact?  The principle is the same, isn't this a double 
standard?  What made them so peace-loving and so reasonable all of a sudden?
Maybe they had learned a lesson, or maybe they were afraid of more powerful
countries than themselves playing an expanded role in the region.

>                                           
>>> 6- You blame IRI for hostile attitudes of other governments toward Islamic    
>>> Revolution. Do you think the oppressed people of the world give a damn about  
>>> those attitudes? Just look at the real world. Which country is being favored  
>>> by western powers, without kissing their feet? Look at the Bosnia, for example
>>> they have tied the hands of a nation( for being Muslim) and have left the     
>>> Serbian army to slaughter them. But they are smart enough. They actively      
>>> help Serbs to fulfill the ethnic cleansing by removing people from Bosnia,    
>>> instead of letting them take arms and defend their existence, their honor.    
>>> Do you think after the ouster of Shah any western power can be kind with      
>>> Islamic revolution, no matter how nice or though IRI is,?                     
>>                                                                                
>>Tell me, do you truly think that the way to salvation of the oppressed peoples  
>>of the world is to become like IRI?  How has IRI helped the poor?  A karmand    
>>or kargar was much better off before the revolution.  The rich got richer, the  
>>poor got poorer, there was a population explosion and there aren't enough       
>>jobs and schools for the new generation. And there is less freedom in all       
>>aspects of life, except when it comes to following the government's line.       
>>How many countries have followed IRI's example?  And why do you focus so much   
>>on western powers?  Other governments had hostile attitudes towards Iran partly 
>>because of anti Iran propaganda, but also partly because of IRI's action itself.
>>IRI took hostages and supported violent groups around the world, and had openly 
>>taken an aggressive stance in the region by announcing its intention to export  
>>the revolution.  Did the west make them do that?  The hostages situation could  
>>have been resolved by just expelling the Americans if they were all truly spies,
>>and Iran would have been much more liked throughout the world (notice I didn't  
>>say west!)   
>
> -I assume you know about all the external problems of Revolution, like war and
>  economic embargo, and the reduction of country's income form $25 Bilion in 1356
>  ( with 35 Milion people) to $6 bilion in 1364( with 45 Milion people) and the downfall
>  of US Dollar against DM and Yen, etc. So how you expect karmands to receive
>  more salary compared to before revolution, I don't know!

Who started the population explosion?  Did people just decide to have children
because they had extra money and wealth to support new kids?  And why did
the income drop so much?  Why wasn't 1/10 the attention paid to the ideology
and revolution and war paid to the economy?  Why now after 13 years are they
just starting to focus on developing the country economically, educationally,
etc.?  Because that is NOT what these people stood for, they stood for their
own power and ideology, not their people's interest.

>
> -No country followed IRI, but how many nations followed Iranina nation's model
>  to get rid of a dictator like Shah? The majority is not always the right one.
>
> -The hostage story happened more than nine months after revolution. But why the US
>  was so concerned and active to prevent the downfall of Shah and the victory of
>  revolution beofre that? You assume the hostage crisis as the start point of all
>  hostilities toward Iran, but i assume it the result of 26 years of US intervention
>  in Iran's affairs from 1332 to 1358, the last of which was accepting a criminal like
>  Shah in US, and mobilizing their agents in Iran for coute and for disintegration
>  of the country. When a weak nation, who unlike US can not force security counsil
>  to issue resolutions and go to Saudi Arabia and destroy a nation like Iraq and let
>  the new version of Hitler remain in power, is attacked from every side, it undobtedly
>  resorts to whatever possible to =attack the enemy. You call it a shame in diplomtic
>  world, I call it the last possible way for a weak nation toward survival.

I never defended the US policy towards Iran, and I as well as every Iranian
will always feel bitter for what they did in 1332 (1953).  Yes, the hostage
taking was NOT the bginning of US hostilities towards Iran, but it WAS the
beginning of a lot of other countries' hostility towards Iran.  It is like
the discussion between me and Ali Baba on the newsgroup.  I answered him
with bad language, and regardless of who started it, I look bad anyway because
I am bringing myself low.  What did our country gain in the hostage crisis?
Nothing.  Our image was tarnished around the world, we isolated ourselves,
we only got a part of our frozen assets back from the US which wouldn't have
frozen anyway had the hostage crisis never happened.  I'm not saying the IRI
is source of all hostility between US and Iran, I'm just saying if you are
going to fight, fight smart in the interest of your country, not your ego.
Believe me, if we humiliated the US in that episode, we humiliated ourselves
a lot more, and still pay for it in terms of doing business and having 
relations with the outside world.



>        
>>Instead of asking which country is being favored by western powers, I ask       
>>which country is developing itself, educating its people, developing its        
>>economy, improving living conditions, industry, agriculture, promoting          
>>peace with its neighbors without kissing up the west?  There are many           
>>examples: Costa Rica, India, Brazil, Venezuela, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea,     
>>etc. etc. Yes, many of these countries have fiendly relations with the          
>>west as well as with other countries, and that is because they realize that     
>>they live in a world where not everyone is the same as they are and they in     
>>fact need each other, a fact that IRI is just beginning to realize after 13     
>>years. Regarding your question about western powers being nice with IRI         
>>no matter what, all of the west now except for the US has extensive business    
>>with Iran, and recently even US business in Iran is starting to see real        
>>possibilities.  Now, is Iran "kissing up to the west"?  Or have they just       
>>begun to realize the necessity of interacting with others in a peaceful way?     
>
>
> - You are again mixing two different matters with each other. IRI never denied
>  the need to cooperate with other countries based on mutual respect. The question
>  is not about economic colaborations, rather it's about the mutual respect, something
>  that USA is not willing to achive with Iran ever.
>
> - As for the Iran-USA economic relations, your sources are wrong. The US even
>   does not allow its bankrupt companies to sell passenger airplanes to Iran, and
>   recently fined IranAir $100,000 for carrying a civilian airplane's engine five
>   years ago to Iran!!!  

Yes, but Iran won many cases against the US as well, and that is a separate 
issue.  Last year alone, there was over $50 million trade in just high tech
equipment to Iran.  Iran has bought Sun workstations, among other things,
and Boeing is lobbying hard for permission to sell $1 billion worth of planes
to Iran.  Not to mention sale of BAe 146 commuter jets to Iran from UK, which
come with American engines, and of course Fokker F28 jets which have American
electronics and other components.

And Notice I didn't say U.S., I said "western powers", the EEC has tremendous
dealings with IRI as we speak, with Mercedes Benz planning a factory in Iran,
as well as Peugeot 405's being manufactured there,etc,etc. This has all picked
up only in recent years, as IRI is realizing that it lives in a world where
everyone doesn't think as they do.  It took them over a decade to realize this,
and even now it is out of desperation, and they are doing it reluctantly.

>
>  [ stuff deleted ]
>                                                
>>                                                                                
>>                                                                                
>
>Mohammad

Thank you once again,

Agha Javad