iraniandiaries [at] gmail.com
“Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror—pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.”
Mr President George W Bush addresses his State of the Union
in the Chamber of the US House of Representatives on February 2, 2005. Above was a part of his speech regarding Iran’s current situation; and now some points on these part:
1- “World’s primary state sponsor of terror”, and what is the terror Mr President is so afraid of? “Pursuing nuclear weapons” comes first. But is having nuclear weapons by itself a reason to be a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism? So USA by having the most number of most high-tech nuclear bombs is the “world’s primary state sponsor of terror”, and then comes the Israel, China, Russia, Pakistan, and some other handful countries in the world that have the reservoirs of atomic bombs. Thus, having just some nuclear bombs, as Mr Bush addresses, can’t be a reason for a country to be a terrorist. Therefore comes the question of “what” country has the bombs or the technology to make them—is it a “friend” of USA or an “enemy”? North Korea is also an enemy of USA, but unfortunately they had their nuclear bombs before USA could do any efforts—diplomatic or military—to prevent them to access the top secret technology.
Finally, “a potential danger to the world” is translated into “a potential danger to the USA.” And is Iranian Government really a danger to USA if they have got nuclear bombs? It doesn’t seem so. No country in the today modern world is crazy enough to invade another country by such a destructive weapon like a nuclear bomb. But like the North Korea case, having the bombs can prevent a country like USA to invade, because this action can put a reasonable government into craze.
As a result, as much as USA is concerned, I see no problem in my country to have nuclear bombs. But there is another, more severe problem if the Mullahs have got the bombs, that I address it below in the point number 2.
2- “…while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve.” The second reason Mr George W Bush addresses about Iran to be world’s primary state sponsor of terror, is as much correct as we feel here inside Iran. The Iranian Government, the Mullahcracy in general, is as irresponsible as it gets. Many crimes are done here in the name of God, or supporting the so-called “Velayat-e Faghih” (a system that needs a mullah ruling all aspects of the country), or supporting the Islam, dignity, and so on.
There are no really free newspaper in the country—all the journalists are afraid of telling the truth because undoubtedly they will then be arrested and sent into the jail (if they are lucky enough not to killed by hardliners). The audiovisual media (radio and television channels) are all under the rule of governing mullahs. All the books to be published, must undergo a strict line-by-line reading by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance to make sure there is nothing against the rules made by mullahs inside them. And as a result, many books has not the chance to be published, or they are heavily censored (Even novels by great authors like Gabriel Garcia Marquez undergo censorship that makes the novel in some pages just nonsense!). The case for movies, videos and music is similar. So is the case for internet and surfing and blogging (you may have heard that Orkut
is now filtered inside Iran!).
The people inside Iran are getting sadder and sadder. Mullahs don’t tolerate “mass happiness”. For example, for the Norouz which is the beginning of the Persian new year (on 21 March), you see no carnivals on the streets, and no music or dancing outdoors. Also there are no discos, night clubs and the sort in any city of Iran. All the happiness is done behind the closed doors of the houses, so-called “underground”. More government pushes people toward Islam (as they interpret it of course, as a religion of sadness), more people hate both them and their version of Islam.
If I want to write about social and political limitations in Iran today, I should write much more, so I think it’s enough for this post. Therefore, as much as these issues are concerned, I never ever want the mullahs to have nuclear power. If they have it, pushing them outside the power would become much more difficult, and they would become much more irresponsible. Of course, Iran is not the only country that seeks nuclear power, and also it’s not the only one who has irresponsible government. But I agree with Mr Bush that Iranian people “deserve” the freedom they seek. But is USA really deserved to liberate us?
3- “We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing, and end its support for terror.” I pray for you Mr Bush to be successful in these efforts!
4- “And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.” Thank you much Mr President, but how? Are you going to invade us like Iraq and Afghanistan, and destroy “strategic targets” by the bombs and missiles that may, by mistake, destroy a residential area? And do you really think such a “revolutionary” action would really liberate us of dictatorship?
As an Iranian, I tell you we don’t need another revolution, nor another war, nor more bombs and missiles. Make all of your efforts, diplomatically, (along with your allies) to push the mullahs out of power, and we—as always—will welcome American people—not the army—inside our country, as our respected guests—not bitter occupiers.
In post-mullahs era, we’d travel to USA without a need to go to US Embassy in Turkey, UAE, etc., only to be rejected cause of being an Iranian. We’d re-obtain the “respect” we had before the Islamic Revolution throughout the world. The value of our national money would enhance, and we’d earn the salaries we deserve. Above all, we’d have the rights every person in a civilized society must have.
OK, after all you would benefit our national reservoirs—petroleum, mines, etc.—along with us, and we’d be as much free as USA international policies let. When we’d have some welfare, are the political games really important?