« Silent TreatmentMission of Burma* »

Persian Sockpuppets?

OK, here we go. Fars: Iranian university presidents ask Bollinger 10 questions, some of which are actually germane to the situation: 

We, the professors and heads of universities and research institutions in Tehran , hereby announce our displeasure and protest at your impolite remarks prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent speech at Columbia University.

We would like to inform you that President Ahmadinejad was elected directly by the Iranian people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in which almost all of the country’s political parties and groups participated. To assess the quality and nature of these elections you may refer to US news reports on the poll dated June 2005.

Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful.

Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may well have been influenced by extreme pressure from the media, but it is regrettable that media policy-makers can determine the stance a university president adopts in his speech.

Your remarks about our country included unsubstantiated accusations that were the product of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of your claims result from misunderstandings that can be clarified through dialogue and further research.

During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a number of your questions and those of students. We are prepared to answer any remaining questions in a scientific, open and direct debate.

You asked the president approximately ten questions. Allow us to ask you ten of our own questions in the hope that your response will help clear the atmosphere of misunderstanding and distrust between our two countries and reveal the truth.

1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech?

2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow the Iran’s national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah’s dictatorship?

3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people?

4- Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran ’s proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a general referendum?

5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration’s efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks?

6- Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does the US refuse to allow Iran ’s current government to act against the MKO’s main base in Iraq?

7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?

8- Why do America’s closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?

9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than Israel?

10- Why is the US displeased with Iran’s agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the nuclear issue under international law?

Finally, we would like to express our readiness to invite you and other scientific delegations to our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and your colleagues to speak directly with Iranians from all walks of life including intellectuals and university scholars. You could then assess the realities of Iranian society without media censorship before making judgments about the Iranian nation and government.

You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their guests.

The letter, curiously, doesn’t appear to be signed, or identify any of the esteemed academics and their institutions as it currently appears at Fars.  Persian profs sockpuppets?  Regrettably, given the nature of the regime, that question would still hold even if names were attached.

In any case, they’ve posed some simple questions, and you don’t need a doctorate to answer any of them. Why, with my low-rent SFSU bachelor’s, I think I’d like to give it a stab. Because this could be a great learning moment for Iranian academia, I promise to be serious about this, as long as I can keep a straight face.

1. It really wasn’t the media, which by and large tends to go easy on A’jad.  It was various interest groups, politicians, individuals, bloggers and some editorialists. They did it because Ahmadinejad is a criminal and leader of an oppressive and dangerous pariah state.  But the media sometimes is compelled to take note of big stinks, whether it wants to on not. To further address your question, in this country, the media is free to say whatever the heck they want without fear of imprisonment or being shut down by the government. You think A’jad’s had a rough go? You should see what people say about Bush around here.

2. I dunno. You may want to ask your Russian pals about that. Hey, why, in 480 BC, did Xerxes invade Greece?

3. See above.  But it may have had something to do with the illegal seizure of the U.S. Embassy and humiliation of its diplomats by Iranian “students,” including your president. And Iran’s consistent support for Islamic terrorism since then. More to the point, why in 2007 is Iran attempting to destabilize Iraq and Lebanon, spreading death and chaos everywhere it goes?

4. It’s the terrorism thing again.  Quick democracy lesson … I know it’s a difficult subject … elections are not an automatic “rinse cycle” for terrorist organizations, especially when they remain enthusiastic about terrorism.

5. Good question!  Let’s see how well your guy plays hide-and-seek! Re subsequent points, that Michael Moore’s a card!  I know you guys aren’t identifying yourselves, but are there any historians in the bunch?

6. Gee, I don’t know anything about that.  But I do know that payback’s a bitch.

7. Yes. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 is a good place to start.  Re the stockpiles, a little here, and little there.  You may want to take that up with your Syrian pals.

8. As long as this is an academic conversation, I’d like to apply the highest schoolyard standards to this debate. What you say is what you are.

9. I dunno. Why does Iran support it with its fingers crossed?  Sorry, bad choice of idiom.

10. I hate to answer another question with a question, but its to the point: Why does Iran lie about … let’s see … everything.  And what on earth did you do to piss off the French?

Welcome Pajamistas, etal!  Come on in.  What happens when a university president challenges the deeply held principles of academia?  Uh Oh. War with Iran, no joking matter. OK, maybe it is. Check this out. Some Saudi chicks just did to the Sharia cops what Bollinger did to A’jad. Only they used pepper spray.  Sad news from the ‘Stan, where man’s best friend gives all. Hey, what are you watching this week … this magnificent failure?

Topics: Iran, academia

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:21 am on Tuesday, September 25, 2007

14 Responses to “Persian Sockpuppets?”

1. SoldiersDad Says:
   September 25th, 2007 at 11:46 am

   #2 Britian and the Soviet Union overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty in 1942 because they needed the Iranian railroad to send supplies to the “Eastern Front” and the Pahlavi’s wouldn’t allow it. In 1953 the CIA spent all of $75K sponsoring some protesters in favor of the Pahlavi’s so the “supply line” to the Soviet Union could be closed. It was called the “Cold War”. Get Over It.

2. RebeccaH Says:
   September 25th, 2007 at 11:50 am

   I have a few questions of my own. For instance, why were there Iranian scientists present when Israel bombed that possible nuclear bomb site in Syria? Why does Ahmadimbulb say there are no homosexuals in Iran? Why does he insist Iran wants to be friends with America when he’s sending Iranian agents across the border into Iraq to kill Americans? Why is he constantly grinning like a banana-eating chimpanzee with a bowel obstruction?

3. The_Real_JeffS Says:
   September 25th, 2007 at 12:10 pm

   Pretty stupid questions, all in all. Too bad Adinnerjacket didn’t ask them at his press conference.

4. SoldiersDad Says:
   September 25th, 2007 at 12:42 pm

   #2 with references -

   http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/gavin.pdf

   On 5 January 1951, the U.S. chargJ d’affaires in Moscow
   warned the Department of State that, with U.S. attention focused elsewhere in the world, the
   next Soviet move might come in the Near East, with Iran a likely target:
   It would appear prudent at this stage to consider (the) danger
   that with our major attention focused on Far East and Europe,
   Soviets may be planning to disturb relatively quiet and neglected
   Near Eastern garden this year…. Soviet moves may take range
   from stepping up internal subversive programs and creating
   mass unrest through local Communist groups to armed revolts

5. Texas Bob Says:
   September 25th, 2007 at 12:55 pm

   They forgot to ask #11.

   #11 To where shall our surviving countrymen flee while waiting for the 12-year half-life decay of the tritium? And can we interest you in several thousand square miles of top-quality Iranian glass?

6. Robert Says:
   September 25th, 2007 at 2:18 pm

   “8- Why do America’s closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?”

   Well, Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan are democratic republics. That ought to count for something.

   More to the point, that is all there is. If we did not ally with autocratic regimes, we would have no allies in the region.

7. MikeH Says:
   September 25th, 2007 at 5:00 pm

   Are they calling the mullahs monarchs? They fit the undemocratic and absolutist models.

8. RebeccaH Says:
   September 25th, 2007 at 5:47 pm

   “8- Why do America’s closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?”

   And why is this America’s fault? It’s not like we set up these oligarchies (a more apt word than monarchy, IMO) in the first place.

9. Michael Lonie Says:
   September 25th, 2007 at 11:47 pm

   Let’s see, Mossadegh tossed out the Shah (son of the man overthrown in 1941) and nationalized the oil industry. He would have had to turn to the USSR for protection in order to keep his swag, for fear of exactly what happened in 1953. In any case all the nationalist rulers who came to power in the Middle East from the Free Officers in Egypt in 1952 onward to Qassem in Iraq, the various thugs of Syria, to Qaddhaffi in Libya, all turned to the USSR. We could not allow that in Iran. The Soviets would have colonized the country, giving them a land route to spread out in the Middle East that was denied them during the Cold War by the alliances of Iran and Turkey with the USA. Would the Iranians have preferred to be colonized by a Communist government subservient to Moscow, for that is what would have eventuated?

   The Pharaohs of Tehran seek nuclear weapons for purposes of genocide and imperial conquest. Neither goal is acceptable to the US. Either Iran will desist or there will someday be war. The Iranians should realize that America has not exerted more than a fraction of its power in the Middle East so far. If the US actually gets angry (up to now we have been reacting to the jihadis and the Pharaohs with mild annoyance) the Iranians are really, really going to dislike the results. Thes guys spend too much time reading the Qur’an. They should be educating themselves about the ending events of WWII.

10. jonjayray Says:
    September 26th, 2007 at 1:56 am

    “germane”, not Germaine”.
    Please fix and delete this comment

    Best

    JR

11. saltydog Says:
    September 26th, 2007 at 2:57 am

    While I certainly agree that we have reacted with restraint in the ME, I’m no longer so sure that this country has the will to react as it ought to. All the military power in the world doesn’t mean a damn if there is no will to use it. It is this fact that America’s enemies understand, though I do think they underestimate us–at least, I hope they are underestimating us.

12. Jules Crittenden Says:
    September 26th, 2007 at 8:59 am

    Thanks jonjayray. Actually, I meant “Jermaine.”

13. DissidentFrogman Says:
    September 27th, 2007 at 5:39 am

    “10. (…). And what on earth did you do to piss off the French?”

    They got too bold, and decided to stop bribing Le Quai D’Orsay?

14. Brian H Says:
    October 1st, 2007 at 5:11 am

    texas;
    just in case you’re ever tempted to refer to half-lives again, that’s the time required for the radiation to drop by one-half, not to vanish. Hence the “half” in half-life, see? So after 24 years it would be down to ¼ of the original, after 36 it would be down to 1/8, etc., etc.

    In any case, it’s not the tritium that’s the problem; it’s all consumed in the explosion. That’s what it’s there for.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.