Q/A Email Exchanges with Mr. Jafarzadeh
Fox News, July 1-10, 2007
From the webmaster: Mr. Alireza Jafarzadeh's commentaries have become quite popular and have led to many exchanges with ordinary Americans concerned about the middle east and the prospects of another war. Below you'll find a number of such exchanges.
"All I can say is POWER to the
PEOPLE of Iran! I hope they never stop pushing this sick
government and fundamental Islamic clerics out of power.
They need a revolution and it will cost them dearly, but
once free it will have been worth the costs." — Theresa "Thank you for a little truth.
Great story." — Chuck "A story of terrific irony. But
are the figures of 30 percent of fueling stations of the
nation being damaged accurate? That is a fantastic setback
for the citizens' convenience, but a great victory in
stating their antagonism to the government's policies. Good
article!" — Michael (Baltimore, MD) "Nice article. I hope the
Iranian people have the will to overthrow Ahmadinejad. It
would save the U.S. a lot of pain if they could do it and
not paint us the bad guy. Looks like he is so arrogant that
he will undo himself. Let's pray it happens before he gets a
nuke. Thanks for your article." — David ALIREZA: Dear Dave,
Theresa, Chuck, Michael, and David: Thanks for your very
kind and encouraging words. Your feedback is very important
to me. "We'll, it's a very good story
about the gas rationing. It also shows the people are
reacting to more than just gas rationing. It was
very well stated the religious leaders have been dictating
political policy in Iran, as well as toward Muslims
worldwide. Should the U.S. support the newer younger
generation? Yes, they revolt against a terrorist regime —
but they too use violence. Should the U.S. support any sort
of rabble simply because they currently are the enemy of our
enemy? Iran may simply self-destruct; violence begets
violence. The West is not perfect, but it is not given to
violence to get its way; self-defense and self-determination
are not necessarily bedfellows. The reason the U.S. is a
free nation is because of the fundamental beliefs in
Christianity. Regardless of what you may hear, current
political leaders say it is not what they say that is
important and never a fact, but what the U.S. Constitution
says and stands for. The U.S. stands for honesty, integrity
and other personal and moral virtues, none of which is found
in the country of Iran, lest of all the Middle East. I do
not support violence of any kind, but I do support my faith
in God and believe in the country God has blessed the world
with, but will not support my countries intervention with
more violence or indirect involvement to dictate to another
country what it should do. My question to you is: Are you an
American citizen? And what for?" — Rudy (South Berwick,
ME) ALIREZA: Dear Rudy:
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my article; I
appreciate your interest. In answer to your question about
my citizenship, I was born in Iran but have resided under
political asylum in the United States for more than two
decades. As I describe in detail in my book,
"The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming
Nuclear Crisis" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), I began
attending college here in the United States before the 1979
Iranian revolution. Since 1981, when the ruling clerics
waged a campaign of terror against the Iranian people, many
of my closest friends, associates, relatives as well as
mentors have been executed by the Iranian regime inside Iran
or assassinated abroad. I have been working to help bring
democracy to my country, and to help establish peace and
security in the region ever since. I would also like to address
your comments about Iranian rulers' lack of “honesty,
integrity and other personal and moral virtues,” unlike the
values that people cherish in the United States and around
the world. The Iranian people, who seek to replace the
fundamentalist regime in Iran with a secular democracy, look
forward to the development of all of these ideals in the new
Iran, starting with real elections in which the people are
free to chose their leaders rather than continuing the
corrupt and sham election process that passes for
“democracy” in the Islamic Republic of Iran today. "You are so right. The youth
should protest more and put their protests on international
Web sites. Why do they let the fat, rich religious leaders
continue to lead them by the nose? Why don't they boycott
the mosques and not show up for the lectures? If they stayed
home on Fridays and held their prayers alone, the Mullahs
would have no captive crowds to indoctrinate. All the wealth
wasted on terror at home and abroad could feed and educate
the poor of Iran." — TMW ALIREZA: Dear Mr./Ms.
TMW: Thank you very much for your comments. You make an
excellent point about the effectiveness of protests in Iran,
which can prove not only to the Iranian government but also
to the world that the Iranian people do not support the
fundamentalist regime. In truth, the Iranian people have
been protesting for years and the regime is well aware that
the greatest threat to its existence is the growing
resentment of the Iranian people. Although these protests
have been largely ignored by the western press in the past,
the demonstrations and riots that erupted last week over the
government's decision to ration gasoline made headlines in
the United States and abroad. The organized resistance,
which is primarily based in Iran but has a presence in Iraq
as well (based in Ashraf City, 60 miles north of Baghdad),
is known as the
Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) . The MEK is the largest
organization in a secular coalition, the 500-member
parliament-in-exile, National Council of Resistance of Iran
(NCRI). The NCRI is firmly rooted in a declared platform
that “advocates free elections, gender equality, abolition
of all discrimination against national and religious
minorities and a secular system with separation of church
and state.” A large number of members of the United States
congress and hundreds of members of the European Parliament
recognize the NCRI and the MEK as a "legitimate resistance"
to the Iranian regime. Andrew Mackinlay, a member of the
Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the British Parliament,
described the resistance as being committed to the
"parliamentary democracy, rule of law, and respect for human
rights." The success of the Iranian resistance will give the
Iranian people the freedom and dignity they so richly
deserve. According to news agencies,
in a gathering of 50,000 supporters
(click here to see a Reuters video clip of the event)
of the Iranian resistance in Paris on June 30, the president
elect of the NCRI, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, described the
importance of the world finally recognizing the discontent
of the Iranian people as seen in the gasoline riots: "These events mark the
beginning of the final phase of the regime's fall, proving
the failure of the appeasers who wished to maintain or
empower the mullahs. The wave of protests within Iran has
confirmed that mullahs are sitting on a powder keg." Protesting the regime is a
deadly business in Iran. More than a hundred thousand
opposition members have been executed in the past 20 years
and dissidents and protesters are imprisoned and tortured
every day. In spite of this danger, the people are becoming
increasingly willing to cry out about the oppressive
policies of President Ahmadinejad and the fundamentalist
clerics who control every Iranian's way of life. Hopefully,
the international media will continue to cover the
ever-increasing protests in Iran, as well as the escalating
crackdowns that the Iranian government is inflicting upon
the people as a result. More women are being arrested for
not conforming to the fundamentalist dress code, more
dissidents are being imprisoned and tortured, more youth are
being hanged in public squares for their “crimes” against
the mullahs' version of Islam, and more newspapers and
websites are being shut down. The regime has waged an
unprecedented repression against the Iranians, yet the
people refuse to be silenced. With 60 percent of the
population under the age of 30 and demanding to be heard,
the “fat, rich religious leaders” you mentioned are
painfully aware that their days are numbered. "Sir, your point is well taken
regarding Iran's shortcomings over the last decades to build
more refineries. We see that very same picture here in
America; we do not ration (yet) but increase the price of
our gas. I am not sure which is worse; people driving
smaller Hondas are helping pay for those who continue to
drive the eight-cylinder SUV, or propose a rationing for
all. Of course we have the auto industry to think of but in
the long run, what would benefit the country more?" — Ed
(Central Point, OR) ALIREZA: Dear Ed:
Thank you very much for your comments about the state of
Iran's oil refineries in comparison to those in the United
States. Iran's lack of refineries is just one part of the
story about Iran's grossly mismanaged economy, which became
apparent to the world last week when the government began
gas rationing. For nearly three decades, the Iranian
government has neglected to bring its oil wealth to its
people, and because Iran is OPEC's number-two crude oil
producer and the world's fourth-biggest exporter, this is
indeed a devastating pattern of neglect. Higher gas prices
may be problematic for many Americans, but Iran's rationing
demands that the Iranian people — who sit on some of the
greatest oil wealth in the world — are limited to 26 gallons
(U.S.) of gasoline per month. Clearly, the regime's
priorities are elsewhere. Iran's rulers are spending
billions of dollars on supporting terrorist groups around
the world, exporting their extremist brand of Islam to the
Islamic world, pursuing an ambitious nuclear weapons program
and missiles to deliver them, as well as strengthening the
Islamic Revolutionary Guards as their main repressive tool
to contain the population. This has also become evident in
the latest reports about Iran's deeply rooted presence in
Iraq, which the U.S. military has confirmed accounts for
many coalition deaths. The prime directive of the Iranian
regime is to spread its brand of Islamic rule throughout the
Middle East, with Iraq as the first step in the process.
Senator Joseph Lieberman discussed this goal in the Wall
Street Journal on July 6, stating that “Iran is acting
aggressively and consistently to undermine moderate regimes
in the Middle East, establish itself as the dominant
regional power and reshape the region in its own ideological
image.” This is the most important facet of the
gasoline-rationing story in Iran, as it exposes the lengths
that the Iranian regime has gone to pursue its expansionist
ideology at the complete expense of its people. Three
decades of executions, abuse and oppression have attempted
to silence Iran's voices of dissent, to no avail-as
evidenced in the riots throughout Iran. In addition, three
decades of rampant corruption in the regime have devastated
the economy and forced desperate measures like gas
rationing. "The regime can now either turn
their attention toward establishing order internally (either
more severe repression or actually trying to meet the
people's needs) or desperately accelerate their gambit to
become a nuclear terrorist power. Which do you think?" —
Dwight ALIREZA: Dear Dwight:
Thank you for your questions about the regime's current
options in dealing with the protests that erupted in the
wake of gas rationing last week. In reality, the Iranian
regime is already utilizing both of the options you noted,
and has been escalating these activities dramatically. The
“severe repression” of the Iranian people now includes the
arrest and torture of more and more dissident voices, the
public execution of more men, women and children for
morality crimes, and the closing of more and more newspapers
and media outlets. At one end of the spectrum, thugs from
government security forces are beating and arresting women
at the Tehran airport for not strictly adhering to the
regime's dress code. At the other end, protesters who speak
out at peaceful demonstrations throughout the country are
tortured and executed in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison. In
between, the regime continues to try to paralyze the most
important organized resistance movement, the MEK, by forcing
governments to list it as a terrorist organization. However,
hundreds of European parliamentarians as well as many
members of U.S. congress recognize the Iranian Resistance as
the most viable option for bringing a secular democracy to
Iran and ending the Iranian threat to the world. In a
bi-partisan article titled "Mek Sense" in the Washington
Times in June, U.S. Congressmen Tom Tancredo and Bob Filner
described the goodwill gesture that was given to Tehran. "In
a bizarre twist of U.S. policy, the MEK has been labeled by
the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization,
originally placed on the blacklist in 1997 as a concession
to 'moderates' in Tehran who were then believed to be
ascendant - one of the regime's key strategic victories over
America and the West during the past three decades of
fruitless negotiations." Your second point, regarding
the regime's option to “desperately accelerate” its race for
a nuclear weapon, is also a well-documented reality. I
outline this race in detail in my book,
"The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming
Nuclear Crisis" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), and The
International Atomic Energy Agency's regular reports are
filled with proof about Iran's longstanding strategy of
cover-ups, lies and deception over its nuclear program. With
a nuclear weapon, Tehran will have the ultimate leverage for
pursuing its expansionist goals in the Middle East. Thanks
to the MEK, which uncovered Iran's secret nuclear program in
2002, the world is now aware of this nuclear race. "Although a sad situation, when
it comes to oppressive regimes, such as the one in power in
Iran at this time, history has proven that, without fail,
these regimes fall from within. Why continue asking for the
United States of America to engage in this internal strife
when we all know the end result will be the same as in Iraq?
After getting rid of Saddam Hussein, the citizens turned
against each other, while claiming religious reasons, and at
the same time, all turned against the USA in order to divert
attention from their real problems. Let each country handle
their own problems; let our young people return to their
homeland." — Joe (Deer Park, TX) ALIREZA: Dear Joe:
Thank you for your comments about the possibility of the
Iranian regime “falling from within.” This is actually the
greatest threat to the fundamentalist regime in Tehran,
which is acutely aware of the power of the increasingly
discontented population. The headlines that covered the
gasoline-rationing riots throughout Iran last week failed to
mention that Iran witnessed more than 4,800 anti-government
demonstrations in the past year. Students, unpaid workers,
women, ethnic and religious minorities — every segment of
the population has dramatic grievances with the regime and
has been expressing them throughout the country. Many American politicians and
experts who are frustrated with the failure of negotiations
with Iran and are opposed to the military option to counter
the Iranian threat believe that the “falling from within” is
the most likely scenario given the presence of the great
potential for change in Iran. However, they believe that the
State Department has unduly intervened in favor of the
Ayatollahs by designating Iran's largest and best organized
opposition as terrorist in 1997. The move was followed by EU
in 2002 as it added the group to its terrorist list to
improve its relations and economic ties with Tehran. The
terrorist designation significantly reduces the ability of
the opposition to operate, as it has to spend most of its
resources to counter the consequences of designation rather
than focusing on its fight against the repressive rulers of
Tehran. One example that has outraged many European
parliamentarians is that although a high EU court ruled last
December that the MEK should be delisted by the European
Union, the EU has not complied with the law because it does
not want to rock the boat with Tehran. As a result, the
organization's assets remain frozen and its mobility
limited, causing stepped up suppression by the Ayatollahs in
what the clerics call their war on terror. Iran is also using the
terrorist designation to put pressure on the Iraqi
government, which has very close ties to Iran, to expel the
group's 3500 members who are all based in one large camp (Ashraf
City) in Iraq. The group has been recognized by the
Coalition Forces in Iraq as "protected persons" under the
4th Geneva Convention. The status would make it a war crime
if the Iraqi government or any other party would seek to
threaten or dislocate the MEK members from the Iraqi
territory against their will. Prominent Iraqi politicians —
Shiite, Sunni and Kurds — released a statement signed by 5.2
million Iraqis who said the continued presence of the MEK in
the Iraqi territory is a guarantee for Iraq's independence
and acts as the counter-balance against Iran's increasingly
violent influence in Iraq. Supporters in the United
States, including U.S. Representative Bob Filner (D-CA),
believe that unshackling the main Iranian opposition group
is the most viable option for helping to bring a secular
democracy to Iran. According to reports, Congressman Filner
told a crowd of 50,000 in Paris that "The first thing the US
must do now is to take the MEK off the terrorist list. We
must recognize who our friends are. We must recognize who
the resistance is. We must recognize who is taking the lead,
on behalf of the whole world, for freedom in Iran." This
will not only benefit the Iranian people but bring security
to the entire region, as Tancredo and Filner described in
their article: “An Iran committed to a belligerent,
revolutionary agenda will continue to threaten its neighbors
and global security. Long-term stability in the Middle East
depends upon a stable, secular, democratic Iran that does
not export terror, violent upheaval and a radical ideology.
Our efforts should be directed at fostering democratic
change within Iran by empowering the very opposition
organizations that share our goals and values.” "Now that we have heard that
Mahmoud has taken the same tack as Venezuela and shut down
the TV stations that he doesn't like. The problem is that he
will just keep getting more and more restrictive until he
kills the opposition. The only way, I believe, that the
Iranian people will have a chance at reform of their
government is through a military strike at the nuclear
plants in Iran. Mahmoud has already placed the blame of the
plight of the Iranian people on the west, so we have nothing
to lose. We do have the opportunity to gain, though, through
the riots that would break out when the government goes
broke. There has to be a spark to get the revolt moving and
then support after it starts. I am afraid that this is
probably where we will fall down. They will remember our
performance when the Shi'a revolted against Saddam after the
Gulf War and not trust us." — W. Howard (Bardstown, KY) ALIREZA: Dear Howard:
Thank you for your feedback on my article. The
military-strike option has received a lot of press, as the
U.S. administration has stated that “all options are on the
table” in regard to Iran. In contrast to your point, we
would actually have a great deal to lose with such an
intervention. As I outline in detail in my book,
"The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming
Nuclear Crisis" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), there
are many devastating drawbacks to a military strike. I do
not endorse the military option for Iran because I believe
that the Iranian threat should have an Iranian solution,
conceived of and implemented by Iranian patriots with the
support of the international community. There is no need for
boots on the ground, or even money in the till. A military
attack on Iran would change Tehran's image from that of an
antagonist — a provoker and violator of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty — to that of a victim of western
aggression. Tehran would consider trying to amass a
coalition of armed extremists to transform the war into a
terrorist Armageddon, although there is no evidence to
suggest that Iran would be able to generate a significant
campaign of terror. The third option, which is relying on
the Iranian people and their leading opposition groups to
bring democratic change to Iran, has not even been explored
by the West. "I personally would like to see
the Israelis faint an air strike against the Iranian nuclear
facilities. With the USAF coming through with a simultaneous
strategic stealth air attack on same, using our B-1 and
F-119 stealth equipment. They might also hit the arms supply
lines into Iraq using B-52's. What do you think?" —
Robert ALIREZA: Robert,
Thanks for writing me. Please see my response to Howard
above. "Would you agree or disagree
that we are seeing the end of the current policial system in
Iran? Perhaps a point in the history of the Iranian and
Persian peoples that finally allows her a time of peace?" —
Quinn ALIREZA: Dear Mr./Ms.
Quinn: I believe that yes, the days are numbered for the
fundamentalist regime in Iran. And I am not alone. As the
world witnessed last week, the Iranian people are fed up
with the oppressive, corrupt government that forced one of
the world's richest oil nations to resort to gas rationing.
According to the International Herald Tribune, on June 30,
about 50,000 Iranian exiles gathered in Paris to show their
support for democracy in Iran as they cheerfully listened to
Maryam Rajavi, who denounced the "dishonorable
collaboration" of the European Union with the rulers of the
Islamic Republic of Iran. Rajavi contended that a wave of
unrest over an Iranian fuel rationing plan, announced in
late June, "is the true picture of a discontented society on
the verge of exploding," Herald Tribune reported.
