I guess when you compare Iran and the Taliban, the Taliban were 100 times worse than Iran.

As for myself, I hate the Taliban and other Sunni extremist movements a lot more than any Shi’ite movement in existence.

True, no one has actually claimed responsibility but given the time, I bet my left foot that it was Iranian inspired Hezbollah affiliates. Just because they didn’t have a military wing didn’t mean they had a shortage of young wannabe martyrs.

It’s all speculation at this point. IMO Hezbollah would’ve claimed responsibility since they have a habit of doing so.

Iran’s position on Afghanistan during Taliban was good enough: their support of Northern Alliance and Ahmad Shah Masood, denouncing Taliban. also keeping from attack on AFG after Taliban killed several iranian diplomats was a good move, I think. at least, time proved that it was a good move, even if it were not in the first place out of a very true understanding of the situation.

True, no one has actually claimed responsibility but given the time, I bet my left foot that it was Iranian inspired Hezbollah affiliates. Just because they didn’t have a military wing didn’t mean they had a shortage of young wannabe martyrs.

Hezbollah was behind the Beirut bombing of the US embassy and barracks…FYI.

Actually, that has been hotly disputed.

Hezbollah’s military arm wasn’t created until 1985, 2 years after the bombings.

Mohammad and Omid, what did you guys think of Iran’s support for Hezb-e-Wahdat and the rest of the Northern Alliance against the Taliban? I’ll be honest, I wished Iran would have invaded Afghanistan and got rid of the Taliban as they had a chance back in ‘98.

true. I was just referring to the background of Lebanese Hizbollah; this movement might be assumed as a popular movement (at least in some areas of lebanon) against Israeli invasion and occupation, but the one who tried to create it (in its early stages) and continued to support it was Iran.

in the case of bloody fightings between Amal (the political movement of Lebanese Shiite) and Hizbollah, many analysts believed that it was just a struggle between Syria and Iran, Amal was in the side of Syria and Hizbollah was Iran’s representative.

for these reasons and many other things, Lebanese Hizbollah bears almost the same meaning and identity as Iran’s Hizbollah, though Lebanese sample is much closer to an intelligent systematic group.

Right from Wikipedia…

Hezbollah (Arabic: حزب الله ḥizbu-llāh, literally “party of God”) is a Shi’a Islamic political and paramilitary organization based in Lebanon. It follows an Islamist Shi’a ideology developed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

Hezbollah first emerged during the Lebanese Civil War as a militia of Shia followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, trained, organized and funded by a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Hezbollah’s three main goals are to: Eradicate what it views as Western colonialism in Lebanon, punish the Phalangists, and establish an Islamic government in Lebanon.

Hezbollah is often referred to as a radical Islamic group. It has been accused of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed over 300 American and French peacekeeping troops, a charge that it denies. Six countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, officially list Hezbollah or its external security arm as a terrorist organization. Most in the Arab and Muslim worlds regard Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance movement.

Hizbollah (which means: Party of God) is a general islamic term used by many fundamentalist groups to represent themselves as the chosen people of God. actually the history of (creation of) Hizbollah in Iran backs to immediately after islamic revolution. Lebanese Hizbollah might be assumed as a by product of islamic revolution.
but pay attention that though Hizbollah’s members, system and services are widely well known (in Iran’s case I mean) and they cover a wide range of political (and sometimes aggressive) activities, they can be hardly named as a real political

Right, but the Lebanese Hezbollah was created in reaction to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon 2-3 years later.

though the process of election in both countries might be somehow similar, the outcomes (with regards to the national interests of each side) are very different.

we hear usually that in a well-established democracy like yours, national interests are generally preserved whether this one is chosen or the other; in other words, people will enjoy an acceptable level of rights, regardless of the chosen president or party. mathematically, you will have 80% (for example), and fight for +10% or -10%.

but in Iran, we usually need to choose lesser of 2 evils when it comes to our national interests: both parties will destroy the country, but one will do it with its maximum power while the other might do less harm. a kind of socio-political structure (like urs) has not been developed in my country to keep all the system ongoing and the progress underway.

even the very basic issues of socio-political structure are not resolved in this country. there are many people who advocate a kind of liberal society, while there are some powerful people and groups which advocate a much more fundamentalist regime!

the other problem is that most of these figures are just some opportunists. I dont trust many of reformist figures, for they have a very dark hihstory of dictatorship when they were on power immediately after islamic revolution, and also ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom of specch’ is just a slogan for them to press the regime and gather some scores for their own. many of them are seeking for their own share, nothing else.

and within this messy bazzar, we (Iranians) are waiting for a hero to come and save us from misery, while the only possible hero is the wisdom of crowd. we lack it, unfortunately!

Thanks for the info…interesting stuff. So apparently Iranians are Americans are a lot alike…they both have options but are often limited by the information and/or intelligence required to make good decisions. In my country I’ve been frustrated for years at how people keep voting for either Democrats or Republicans when as I see it, the two parties are no different…both in the pockets of corporations. So I created a website earlier this year that allows people to see ALL the candidates, not just those “blessed” by our media…

http://www.ExpertVoter.org

So in the end, people in the world are much more alike than different. Informed people conclude that war isn’t generally necessary.

I very much look forward to your writeup! MEY is a very impressive group of writers.

gary

Intellectuals of the Iranian society are trying to push the idea of a democracy further and further, but the ordianary people are confused: they cant understand what is the ultimate solution to all the problems they have in their life. that is why they vote for a reformist canidate (Khatami, who tried to make a more democratic situation in Iran) this year, and vote for Ahmadinejad (a full-option hardliner, upon whom people trusted to make a better economic situation) few years later.
when ordinary people go with the flow of intellectuals, they make a high pressure on regime, and regime approves/allowes more democratic candidates/movements. when the people are misguided by someone like Ahmadinejad, the regime gets more hardliner for it already has all the support it needs. (keep in mind that this regime would do any necessary compromise to keep itself on power. I’ll write something about this issue and post it in mideastyouth, as soon as possible. this is a fact, though sometimes westerners may have every reason to fail to understand it).

that is a kind of Quasi-Democracy, isnt it?

Click here to see the Iranian democracy at work in all its functional glory.

I don’t know the answer to your question.

————————————————-

Hi Omid,

I agree….I’m very idealistic. I’ll take that as a complement! We need more idealism in this world, less ‘business as usual’. What exactly is a quasi-democracy? I’m certainly not an expert on Iran, but I seem to recall that the government approves all candidates, rejecting those it doesn’t like. I would summarize that as simply undemocratic, basically a trick of dictators to hold onto power. Correct me if I’m wrong.

gary

Did it make a practical difference to the 70 year old man flogged and jailed in Kermanshah?

No, Gary, I don’t think that’s a valid distinction.

But with dictatorships, the government by definition does not represent the people. So whether or not the people feel the same way in this particular case, I think in general it’s a valid distinction.

gary

Danial, didn’t you read what the graffiti said? If anything at least they publicly spit rhetoric.

There is no doubt that the Iranian clerical establishment stokes anti-Baha’i sentiment and condones negative behavior toward Baha’is. In Iran sadly, it is the clerical establishment that is the government.

to Danial:
Hizbollah (which means: Party of God) is a general islamic term used by many fundamentalist groups to represent themselves as the chosen people of God. actually the history of (creation of) Hizbollah in Iran backs to immediately after islamic revolution. Lebanese Hizbollah might be assumed as a by product of islamic revolution.
but pay attention that though Hizbollah’s members, system and services are widely well known (in Iran’s case I mean) and they cover a wide range of political (and sometimes aggressive) activities, they can be hardly named as a real political party (even compared to other political parties in Iran, none of which do exactly bear the same meaning as political parties in west).