Pan-Iranism?

[imported_skhara]

Please read what I wrote. I said "neighbor." Russia is clearly in Armenia's neighborhood.

You missread.

She said "neighbor". I asked about bordering.

[Tongue]

Why is Armenoid banned, because he spoke the truth? The Shah was a total despot, a criminal with a lot of innocent blood on his hands, on the bank role of the CIA and the Mossad, that is why he was over thrown by a popular uprising. Why is the current Islamic administration in Tehran so bad, they were the ones who helped Armenians in Artsakh. I bet if the puppet government of the Shah was in power in Iran today, the Republic of Armenia would not have a very friendly government to the south. Tounge, I also suggest you educate yourself about this topic. Go ahead, prove your utter ignorance and ban me.

Armenoid was banned because he didn't take the effort to explain himself, instead he insulted me in one quick sentence. Are you his lawyer?

Shah, a criminal with innoent blood on his hands? Have you been living in the cave for the past couple of years? Do you know anything about Iran's current govenment and how it misuses its power to keep people's mouths shut?

The documentary of the freedom movement in iran called FORBIDDEN IRAN

Freedom in Iran? And you're calling Shah a criminal?







The reason Iran supports Armenia over Karabagh is because of the Azeri population of Iran. Iran doesn't want to risk losing predominantly Azeri lands to Azerbaijan. But how exactly did Iran help Armenians in Karabagh? But that's not what I had in mind. I was talkin about people living in Iran since I still have family members there. They were better off with Shah than today's mullahs.

PS Shah has been good to Armenians too.

[imported_Alucardian]

You missread.

She said "neighbor". I asked about bordering.

I did read what you wrote but bordering countries wasn't what we were talking about.

[Tongue]

Like Armenoid said, when you decide to educate yourself about geopolitics we'll talk. In the meanwhile, I suggest you allow Hovik to discuss politics here.

When you decide to change your manners, come back.

[Gavur]

Armenian Member Of Iranian Parliament Gives Interview To Armenpress

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 9, ARMENPRESS: Gevorg Vardanian, one of the two Armenian members of the Iranian parliament and the deputy chairman of the Iran-Armenia parliamentary friendship group, paid a short visit to Armenia. Before leaving for home he gave an interview to Armenpress news agency.
Q: Mr. Vardanian, which was the aim of your visit?
A: The main aim of my visit was to convey the invitation of the Iranian parliament Speaker Gholamali Haddad-Adel to his Armenian counterpart Arthur Baghdasarian to visit Tehran and participate in the conference dedicated to the defense of the Palestinian people and protection of holy places. We have sent invitations to different countries but the Iranian parliament speaker highlighted Iran-Armenia relations so much that we have arrived here to hand the invitation personally and convey also his warm greetings. Besides, we have met with the head of the Armenia-Iran parliamentary friendship group Galust Sahakian and discussed issues of mutual interests.
Q: How do you evaluate the present level of cooperation between Armenian and Iranian parliaments? How do you imagine further development of the cooperation?
A: Unfortunately, I cannot assess highly the degree of mutual relations between the two parliaments. Thus, our task and the task of the two chairmen of the Armenia-Iran friendship groups is to increase the level of parliamentary cooperation and bring it to the level of economic and political cooperation. We have spoken with Galust Sahakian about the possibility of inviting our Armenian partners to Iran and organizing relevant meetings there. We have already received an invitation to participate in the second session of the Armenian Parliamentary Assembly. I think, we can expand parliamentary relations. We are also working on the organization of the visit of the Iranian parliament speaker to Armenia. I met him before arriving here and he said that the friendly relations should be expanded more and the level of mutual visits should be increased.
Q: When approximately the visit of the head of the Iranian parliament to Armenia is going to take place?
A: We are trying to organize the visit just on the first occasion. I hope that we can organize it even by the end of the winter if our parliamentary agenda allows us because during this period we are discussing the state budget.
Q: How the two Armenian parliamentarians of the Iranian parliament succeed in raising and solving the problems of the Armenian community?
A: The problems of our community consist of two parts: the first part comprises community issues, these are just Armenian issues like the ones connected with Armenian schools. The second part comprises the general issues of the country, such as issues on the employment, economic development etc. We are working with our fellows in the parliament for finding solutions to the mentioned issues. Luckily, the parliament supports us in both cases. Initially we faced some difficulties but gradually they are being eliminated. You know about the question on "price of the blood" which exists in Islamic laws, it has already been equalized by the law: the 'price of blood' of Islamic people and non-Islamic people is equal and it is supported by the law. Now we are following the issues connected with the heritage, adding them in the law and luckily the parliament supports us. But as far as these laws are of religious nature we have to take into consideration the viewpoints of Christian and Muslim spiritual leaders. Such issues are not just solved in the political field but luckily we do not have any problems. It is already second year since the state budget provides a special assistance to minorities. Every year the assistance is being increased.
Q: Can we say that the policy towards the ethnic and religious minorities is turning for the better?
A: Yes, it is so as there is a point in the Iranian Constitution (article 13) about the defense of ethnic and religious minorities. The new government as a previous one continues that same policy.
Q: Parliaments of different countries, especially during the recent years, adopt resolutions condemning the Armenian genocide. Aren't you undertaking steps for presenting such initiative at the Iranian parliament? Do you consider it possible that Iran will ever recognize the Armenian genocide?
A: We have already started working on that initiative. The Iranian Armenian parliamentarians have always raised the issue in their speeches in the parliament just for informing. But last year on April 20 I raised the issue and urged the parliament to help the Armenian people in the process of international recognition of the genocide. This is a bit delicate issue taking into consideration Iran's strategic position in the region and its neighbors. I personally do not think that we can pass a somehow similar resolution as the other countries have passed. Every country makes those resolutions in compliance with their interests. But I hope that we can pass a resolution which will be in compliance with our realities.
Q: We know that Iran displays respective attitude towards the Armenian community, but is there any concern that the discrepancy between the Christian and Muslim peoples raised because of the publication in a Danish newspaper will somehow affect the Armenian community?
A: Luckily, no. There was no such a problem and I hope will never be. Of course, during the outbreak some problems may arise but we have already warned relevant bodies. They are cautious so that no boundaries be trespassed and the Iranian Armenians and the Christian community remain intact from troubles.

[chaini]

Doroud,

here more about armenians: http://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/...enian_main.htm

i'll answer later of the posts.... yes i'm iranian, from religion side, i'm muslim and cultural zarathustrian.

Our way ist the way of tolerance, we accept any religion.

And the main of pan-iranists are against shah supporters, we hate him, but we have also people they are the opposition, the solution is not discrimination, the solution is to speak! and education.

a little note, for 80 years none european believe on one europe together, and now we see they have 25 states in one union..... why not the same by us? we must learn from this concept. together we are strong, not allone! and the pan-turks and pan-arabs will kill us, when we doe nothing.
if mullahs gone, then we have the way. this century is the century of iranic people and area! now we are in the time, that we must learn.

see u later

and join our forum, for specailly questions (this was no advertisment)

[kerkuk_kurdista]

Pan-Iranism only when other related groups create their empires. Such as turan.

[Gavur]

What Really Happed to the Shah of Iran

3/10/06

By _Ernst Schroeder_ (mailto:[email protected])

My name is Ernst Schroeder, and since I have some Iranian friends from
school and review your online magazine occasionally, I thought I'd
pass onthe following three page quote from a book I read a few months
ago entitled, "_A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the
New World Order_
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...309X/netnative) ", which
was written by William Engdahl, a German historianm . This is a book
about how oil and politics have been intertwined for the past 100
years.

I submit the below passage for direct publishing on your website, as I
think the quote will prove to be significant for anyone of Persian
descent.



"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's
George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a
special WhiteHouse Iran task force under the National Security
Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support
for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic
opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one
of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man
their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.

Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of
Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert,
Dr. Bernard Lewis,then on assignment at Princeton University in the
United States. Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979
Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood
movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the
entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines.

Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as
the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani
Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc
of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet
Union.

The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was
run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American,
Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt'
Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the
background.

During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government
and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction
agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British
'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output,
while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their
dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran
appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the
first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany,
France, Japan and elsewhere. In its lead editorial that September,
Iran's Kayhan International stated:

In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum]
consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which
preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran =80¦ Looking to
the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle
all operations by itself.

London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the
Shah's regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3
million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels
per day. This imposed dramatic revenue pressures on Iran, which
provided the context inwhich religious discontent against the Shah
could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and
U.S. intelligence. In addition, strikes among oil workers at this
critical juncture crippled Iranian oil production.

As Iran's domestic economic troubles grew, American 'security'
advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of
ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize
popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter
administration cynically began protesting abusesof 'human rights'
under the Shah.

British Petroleum reportedly began to organize capital flight out of
Iran, through its strong influence in Iran's financial and banking
community. The British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language
broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC 'correspondents' sent
into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the Shah.
The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran
during this time. The British government-owned broadcasting
organization refused to give the Shah's government an equal chance to
reply. Repeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no
result. Anglo-American intelligence was committed to toppling the
Shah.

The Shah fled in January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been
flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive
theocratic state to replace the Shah's government.

Reflecting on his downfall months later, shortly before his death, the
Shah noted from exile,

I did not know it then - perhaps I did not want to know - but it is
clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is
what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted =80¦
What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call
former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an
adviser on Iran? =80¦ Ball was among those Americans who wanted to
abandon me and ultimately my country._[1]_
(http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html#_ftn1) [1]

With the fall of the Shah and the coming to power of the fanatical
Khomeini adherents in Iran, chaos was unleashed. By May 1979, the new
Khomeini regime had singled out the country's nuclear power
development plans and announced cancellation of the entire program for
French and German nuclear reactor construction.

Iran's oil exports to the world were suddenly cut off, some 3 million
barrels per day. Curiously, Saudi Arabian production in the critical
daysof January 1979 was also cut by some 2 million barrels per day.
To add to the pressures on world oil supply, British Petroleum
declared force majeure and cancelled major contracts for oil supply.
Prices on the Rotterdam spot market, heavily influenced by BP and
Royal Cutch Shell as the largest oil traders, soared in early 1979 as
a result. The second oil shock of the 1970s was fully under way.

Indications are that the actual planners of the Iranian Khomeini coup
in London and within the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal
establishment decided to keep President Carter largely ignorant of the
policy and its ultimate objectives. The ensuing energy crisis in the
United States was a major factor in bringing about Carter's defeat a
year later.

There was never a real shortage in the world supply of petroleum.
Existing Saudi and Kuwaiti production capacities could at any time
have met the 5-6 million barrels per day temporary shortfall, as a
U.S. congressional investigation by the General Accounting Office
months later confirmed.

Unusually low reserve stocks of oil held by the Seven Sisters oil
multinationals contributed to creating a devastating world oil price
shock, with prices for crude oil soaring from a level of some $14 per
barrel in 1978 towards the astronomical heights of $40 per barrel for
some grades of crude on the spot market. Long gasoline lines across
America contributed to a general sense of panic, and Carter energy
secretary and former CIA director, James R.

Schlesinger, did not help calm matters when he told Congress and the
mediain February 1979 that the Iranian oil shortfall was
'prospectively more serious' than the 1973 Arab oil embargo._[2]_
(http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html#_ftn2) [2]

The Carter administration's Trilateral Commission foreign policy
further ensured that any European effort from Germany and France to
develop more cooperative trade, economic and diplomatic relations with
their Soviet neighbor, under the umbrella of détente and various
Soviet-west European energy agreements, was also thrown into disarray.

Carter's security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and secretary of
state, Cyrus Vance, implemented their 'Arc of Crisis' policy,
spreading the instability of the Iranian revolution throughout the
perimeter around the Soviet Union.

Throughout the Islamic perimeter from Pakistan to Iran,
U.S. initiatives created instability or worse."

-- William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and
the New World Order, © 1992, 2004. Pluto Press Ltd. Pages 171-174.



_[1]_ (http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html#_ftnref1) [1] In
1978, the Iranian Ettelaat published an article accusing Khomeini of
being a British agent. The clerics organized violent demonstrations
in response, which led to the flight of the Shah months later. See
U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies, Iran. The Coming of the
Revolution. December 1987. The role of BBC Persian broadcasts in the
ousting of the Shah is detailed in Hossein Shahidi. 'BBC Persian
Service 60 years on.' The Iranian. September 24, 2001.

The BBC was so much identified with Khomeini that it won the name
'Ayatollah BBC.'


_[2]_ (http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html#_ftnref2) [2]
Comptroller General of the United States. 'Iranian Oil Cutoff:
Reduced Petroleum Supplies and Inadequate U.S. Government Response.'
Report to Congress by General Accounting Office. 1979.

[imported_RUDO]

Warning over 'theocratic nationalism' in Iran

Warning over 'theocratic nationalism' in Iran

Ayhan Simsek - The New Anatolian / Ankara



A group of Turkish retired top generals and ambassadors diagnosed late last week the development of "theocratic nationalism" in Iran and asked for a genuine assessment of possible negative implications of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's new policies and nuclear program on the highly sensitive balance in Turkish-Iranian relations.

The Foundation for Middle East and Balkan Studies' (OBIV) Foreign Policy and Defense Studies Group, including former Foreign Ministers Vahit Halefoglu and Ilter Turkmen, former ambassadors Guner Oztek and Candemir Onhon, as well as retired top generals Ahmet Corekci and Salim Dervisoglu, prepared a report on the recent developments in Iran and their implications for Turkey.

The report entitled "Our distant neighbor, Iran" pointed to the differences between Turkey and Iran, such as political regimes, religious sects, different methods in foreign policy, but also stressed that due to their similar size, power and strategic positions, both countries refrained from getting into conflicts and enjoyed rather peaceful but frosty relations.

Commenting on recent developments, the report underlined that Turkey now has to develop a genuine assessment of President Ahmadinejad's new policies and nuclear program, and their possible negative impact on the sensitive balance between Iran and Turkey.

The report did not elaborate what Turkey's position might be in a time of a military conflict between the U.S. and Iran, but recalled Ankara's decision in the late '90s to build a natural gas pipeline from Iran, despite objections by its strategic partner the U.S. "This shows that neighborhood and mutual benefits may become more significant for Turkey than being in harmony with its main strategic partner U.S.," the report stressed.

One of the most striking parts of the report was the prediction of a new political transformation in Iran. The retired generals and ambassadors said that Iran will soon face a new power struggle and change, but this will not be towards democracy but towards further radicalization.

"What we refer to by radicalization is not a religious fundamentalism. We have a new growing tendency in Iran which can be described as nationalism with religious elements," the report underlined, also describing Ahmadinejad as the representative of this growing nationalism.

According to the report, Ahmadinejad, by insisting on the nation's nuclear program, is seeking to develop potential for possible nuclear arms and also fueling nationalist feelings among Iranians. The report further stressed that foreign pressure on Iran's nuclear program is doing nothing but fueling these nationalist sentiments.

The report concluded by asking, "How are we going to define an extreme nationalist, aggressive Iran with nuclear weapons and missile technology? Are we going to talk about a new phenomenon, a theocratic nationalism?"

[Gondorian]

Armenoid is just an anti-semite, ignore him he doesn't care about anything apart from blaming the jews, who are to him the source of all evil, if he is christian he is a disgrace to the church. I wonder why he thinks most Persians in Iran itself prefer to listen to Israel Radio and do so illegally?

I personally likes the look of your website, and I wish Iranians who want freedom instead of Islamofascism the best possible fortune, I didn't read through most of it yet but it seems good.

Add on-To the other banned person the links you where provided with where facts not Propaganda.

The Shah was not a puppet, he infact got into serious trouble with President Carter for refusing to give oil at the price he wanted, what he did was what was in Iran's best interests, and he granted a hell of a lot more freedom to Iranians then the Islamofascist Government that replaces him.

The first thing the Islamists did was lower a girls marriagable age from 18 to 9 years old.

A basic misconception is that the Shah was overthrown.

That just didn't happen, he resigned, he never got overthrown, the reason he resigned was in order to avert civil war which he would have been forced to face had he chose to stay in power. With hindsight it probably would have been better for Iran had he stayed, I think most Iranian Girls would agree that he should have stayed.