Mohammad of Vancouver responds to Obama's Nowruz greetings to the Iranian people and leaders, on the occasion of the Zoroastrian new year:
Obama is setting himself up for a difficult task, and his new year message is not going to make his challenge easier. Iranians understand that his address to the nation presents Obama as someone responsible for them. Why is it that the president of the USA addresses Us as if he has a responsibility towards us? Obama doesn't address every other culture for its new years. What is the reason for this acknowledgment?
Iranians now are now sure, even if they were not before, that Iran is a regional power and that's why Obama acts this way. This kind of behavior ties Obama's hands in dealing with Iran in a harsher way later. Iranians don't like those who extend a hand of friendship but are willing to quickly turn around and bomb you.
I like to compare Obama's message to the message sent by Shimon Peres in Israel. Unfortunately both spoke on behalf of the "world" and demanded that Iran drop its ambitions and join the chain gang of powerless nations who cannot oppose US/Israel exceptionalism. Meanwhile Obama's talk of "destruction is not good" only brings up the actions of Israel in the Iranian people's minds and indirectly positions America against Israel's decision to destroy Gaza and Lebanon.
This new year's message suggests even a lesser chance of the USA or Israel attacking Iran. And Iran is happy about where things are right now. The new front against Israel and its clinically insane parents (the west) is not going to be in Lebanon, Gaza or even Iran. If America doesn't really change its attitude towards Iran, the sounds of the Islamic revolution will be echoing through the streets of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. That's when we're going to see Israel and USA really humiliated. Which do you think the USA would choose? An atomic Iran or two more revolutionary Islamist governments in Saudi Srabia and Egypt? And which do you think Israel prefers: nuclear Iran or revolution in neighboring countries? I think despite lies, rhetoric, posturing, and the usual arrogance associated with the west and Israel, we both know the answer to the question.
Happy new year again...
And, you are a voice of reason?
I'm not aware of any reports that insurrection and revolution in the Gulf States or in Arabia are any more imminent or feasible than usual (why do we continually call it "Saudi Arabia"? The Sauds are just puppets)
I don't know who "Mohammad in Vancouver" get his opinion from regarding what Iranians in Iran think, but if you listen to Persian radio stations here in L.A. (which get a lot of listeners and callers from Iran), the reception of Obama's speech appears to have been very positive. A similar response can be heard from amongst the moderate and liberal Iranian bloggers writing from Iran. They purport to speak for most reform-minded Iranians (many of whom are disappointed that Mousavi has been appointed to present their case-in-chief), and they do not agree with the government's "official" response to Obama's message — the one Mohammad claims speaks for all Iranians.
Of course, one faces this problem with regards to Iranian opinion: you never know who is genuinely speaking their mind and who is exercising self-censorship. Even with the Iranian programs produced abroad but meant for the native audience, the letters, emails, and call-ins can be suspect. I'm not saying that anyone knows what the genuine "Iranian voice" is vis-a-vis Obama's message, just that "Mohammad in Vancouver" doesn't know, either.
My Muslim Iranian friends who travel back-and-forth frequently, for example, comment that the people in general have no where near the obsession with Israel that the regime does or purports to impose on the masses. All they care about is finding jobs, affordable housing, health care, etc.. I suppose that if you travel to the outskirts of Tehran, Esfahan, Mashad, Shiraz, and so forth, you'll find a different opinion amongst the more religious and conservative members of the population. But if we're talking about the "young, sophisticated bourgeoisie of Tehran," they couldn't care less about Israel, good or bad.
And it really should be spelled Nourooz , not Nowruz . There is no equivalent of a "w" sound in Persian, unlike in Arabic, and this spelling makes it sound like "now-ruz" (as in, rhymes with "buzz"). Whatever.
why do we continually call it "Saudi Arabia"? The Sauds are just puppets
Couldn't agree more.
@ Shriazi Sophist,
They will certainly have that obsession once America or Israel bomb them and kill their children. We all know there's no such thing as smart bombs and when America and Israel drop them they could care less who dies down there.
I now atheist Iranians and if you mention Israel their faces turn sour. I know a Muslim Iranian, but he likes to drink and says Allah can't get that mad over a glass of wine now and then, and happens to be a doctor and as we got to talking while waiting on my medical test results, he said he hates the religious people and the ayatollahs.
We discussed shia vs. sunni hostility and then we discussed Israel. His face turned sour. He said they will not stop until they wipe off all Palestinians. His motivation did not arise because as a Muslim he had an attachment to Jerusalem, because he didn't, but because as a humanitarian it didn't sit well with his conscious.
@ Saleema,
You are correct — any attempts at bombing Iran, either by the U.S. or Israel, would be disastrous and would most certainly drive 90%, if not more, of all public opinion there against Israel. I don't want to see a nuclear-armed Iran (I don't trust the akhonds ), but I don't want to see its cities get bombed, either. You are also correct in your comment re "smart bombs" (which should really be called "less dumb bombs").
The discussions you say you've had with various types of Iranians is enlightening and very typical of ones I've heard as well. (The one about the Mulsim Iranian who drinks wine made me laugh, I must say.)
Another good point you raised: where secular Iranians do have issues with Israel, it's regarding the humanitarian and not the religion issue. At the same time, ask Iranians about Arabs, and see their faces turn even more sour. If it's one group that Iranians — secular and religious — dislike more than Israelis, it's Arabs (for a host of complex and shallow reasons).
Anyway, now that you've addressed me more — how shall I say — politely, does this mean that you don't doubt my ethnicity anymore, and that perhaps your olfactory senses led you astray earlier? I won't hold my breath for an apology :)
Ok, guys, Shirazi Sophist is an Irani.
You are right. No apology though. I'm a total bitch. I don't apologize.
My parents are pakistani sunni. They don't want Iran to go nuclear too for the same reasons as Arabs don't want to see Iranians go nuclear. But they are so happy that Pakistan is a nuclear state.
hmmmm… I should do a blog post on why sunnis dont want a nuclear iran. Reasons are shollow and prejudicial.
I have no idea whether this pretentious troll is Iranian by birth or not, nor do I regard Saleema as representative of anything, as she seems to claim to be.
By the way, I consider it infantile to use merkin phonetic spelling for non-European names. Until fairly recently, 'ee' and 'oo' were not used for the long 'i' and the long 'u' sounds. The results were a lot more elegant to look at. 'Saleema', for instance, would have been written 'Salima'. The application of this merkin phonetic spelling is completely inconsistent, anyway, and it has been an insult and a disaster in teaching, I imagine. For the second time in ten minutes, I find myself wondering why Susie Kneedler doesn't favour us with some of her professional expertise.
My Muslim Iranian friends who travel back-and-forth frequently, for example, comment that the people in general have no where near the obsession with Israel that the regime does or purports to impose on the masses.
The obsession would seem to be on the part of Israel, not Iran. Israel is obsessed with any of its neighbors who aren't dutifully compliant regimes (and even those who are).
Iran, be it the regime or the people, is mindful of Israel's history of war and aggression, its plans for further expansion, its plans to "remake" the Middle East by attempting to break Arab (or, in this case, Persian) countries into more "manageable" parts.
Add to this Israel's 200-300 undeclared, un-inspected nukes, and Iranians are certainly rational to be concerned. But "obsessed"? That's not an accurate description, of the people or the regime.
@ Saleema: Good enough, I won't look for the apology — you might call yourself an "total bitch," but at least you're honest, and for that alone, you are worthy of respect. Also, I would love to read what you have to say re Sunni views on a nuclear Iran. As a student of Islamic law, I find the Sunni-Shi'a divide to be a vexing one from a juristic perspective.
@Rowan: "Pretentious troll"? Seriously, what's your problem? What's with all the ad hominem attacks? I'm stating my opinion on here, like everyone else. If it's stupid, ignorant, or naive to you, get over your hate and write something constructive for a change. Like I said elsewhere, I'm open to hearing others' views — and to learn from them — even if I disagree. If you're trying to win converts to your side, you'll go a lot further by not insulting everyone who doesn't share your perspective. Try again, and don't act like I insulted your mother. Your puerile retorts negate any knowledge of "merkin phonetic spelling" or other wisdom you claim to have.
@Dan Kelly: I see your point, but how do you explain Iran's lack of such concern during the Pahlavi era? Or even Israel's nuclear cooperation with Iran at the time? In my opinion, the Islamic regime's recent "obsession" with Israel is a religious-based one (I'm not talking about the Iranian man-on-the-street, only the clerical ruling clique).
@ Shirazi Sophist, Dan Kelly: Never mind … I misread what you wrote. I see now that you wrote "dutifully compliant regimes." My bad.
I can totally see his snaky tendrils weaving around, trying to capture his prey and convey it to his ravening maw … ugh
Who cares where this troll is from?
All you need to know is that he/she used standard hasbara bullshit when he/she deflected Israel's human rights abuses by ranting about that of Arab countries. So he/she is like any other Zionist who conflates the Palestinians with any other Arab.
He/She probably thinks Hamas is no different from Al Qaeda.
@Rowan, son of Nowar:
Dude! I see it, too, bro! And I totally dig the whole "garden of Eden" allusion!
Now that we agree on something, can I (a) send you a Facebook friend request, and (b) will you accept it?
I don't want to see a nuclear-armed Iran (I don't trust the akhonds )
I don't want to see a nuclear-armed Israel (I don't trust the Ashkenazi)
To the point, Dan Kelly–thanks.
I have a few Iranian friends too – in their late 20s early 30s.
The constantly talk about how they hate the Islamic regime in Iran (and to my puzzlement they have a high regard for the former Shah) – and how much they hate Israel.
So go figure.
We were once out clubbing and were with a few girls – one of who was Israeli and absolutely smoking hot.
My friend, after having a go at her(very rudely) and saying privately to me that he didn't want anything to do with her – she seemed very interested in him – actually got out of the car and buggered off!
Which I though was a bit OTT.
But there you go.
The Iranians people talk about here are not the majority of Iranians who live inside Iran. that's all I have to add to my note.
merkin phonetic spelling for non-European names
Sounds absolutely peculiar to me, as if from some faraway place in time and space.
The problem starts here: Until fairly recently, 'ee' and 'oo' were not used for the long 'i' and the long 'u' sounds.
Can you give me the standard spelling of a long "u" in English, Rowan? Just in English no need to deal with the spelling of non-European names, before we have established the English "standard".
@Dan Kelly: I see your point, but how do you explain Iran's lack of such concern during the Pahlavi era? Or even Israel's nuclear cooperation with Iran at the time? In my opinion, the Islamic regime's recent "obsession" with Israel is a religious-based one (I'm not talking about the Iranian man-on-the-street, only the clerical ruling clique).
I thought about the Israeli cooperative/treaty circle around the Arab world. I forget the third: Turkey, Iran and what? …..
But I think you are misguided if you look at this through a completely religious lens. It feels this misses the political dimensions of every religion. What are religious wars about, if not an exploitation of religion for political ends? Besides, couldn't it be that our secular "ruman rights" ultimately have religious roots too?
Do you know something about the much propagated–rather vicious, if true–anti-Israeli animation for Iranian kids? Ever heard about that? Or is this only propaganda?
Leander, do you by any chance recall the stories by Sax Rohmer about the fiendish Chinese super-villain, Fu Manchu? Many of them were made into films, of a suitably low-budget nature.
Now, my point is, according to this idiotic merkin phonetic spelling system, we would have to change that to "Foo Manchoo". We don't, of course; this is what makes the whole thing so inconsistent and idiotic and an insult to teachers and students alike.
@ Rowan,
I will let my parents know that they spelled my name wrong on the birth certificate and that Rowan finds the spelling of my non-European name "infantile," because being the ignorant immigrants that they were they never learned that the merkin phonetic spelling system is an insult to teachers, students, Rowan and now myself.
your birth cerificate was written in english. well, I suppose the infantile spelling may not be merkin after all, it may be an older, british idea, then, but I still hate it, and I certainly have the impression that it has become much more dominant in the last decade or so.
even if it does go back to the Brits, there's hope: if 'Bombay' has been reverted to 'Mumbai', and 'Peking' has been reverted to 'Beijing', then maybe all these ee's and oo's will get reverted to i's and u's too, eventually.
Leander, would I be right in thinking that a German etymologist would say that this 'infantilisation' (as i call it) of spelling happened to the English language many hundreds of years ago, when a great many words with Germanic roots which use 'i' and 'u' started appearing in written English forms with 'ee's and 'oo's?