Posted on 05/23/2005 1:30:38 PM PDT by Khashayar
The BBC world service website recently released the results of their 2004 presidential poll. Of the sixteen linguistic ethnical groups surveyed, Persians were overwhelmingly the most supportive of President Bush. In fact, over fifty two percent of Iranians preferred Republican George W. Bush to challenger John Kerry who’d received a minuscule forty two percent of the vote. Thus, surprisingly, unlike in the United States where the presidential race was relegated to a couple of percentage points, in Iran - President Bush won by a landslide.
Numerous other sources of plausible acclaim have confirmed these results. Renowned intellectuals, as well as award-winning journalists have written pieces on this critical issue. For instance, Pulitzer Prize winner Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times who spent an entire week in the country recently wrote, “Finally, I’ve found a pro-American country. Everywhere I’ve gone in Iran, with one exception, people have been exceptionally friendly and fulsome in their praise for the United States, and often for President George W. Bush as well.” Thomas Friedman another Pulitzer Prize winner and ardent critic of the war in Iraq wrote “young Iranians are loving anything their government hates, such as Mr. Bush, and hating anything their government loves. Iran . . . is the ultimate red state.”
The well-documented emphatically pro-Bush leaning in Iran, which is relatively widespread, has perplexed many western technocrats. Part of the answer may be that Iran is changing at such a rapid rate that the media has had a difficult time reporting and/or understanding the situation inside the country. Also, Friedman may be right that “young Iranians are loving anything their government hates, such as Mr. Bush and hating anything their government loves”, but there are even deeper social as well as geopolitical reasons such as the availability of satellite dishes and the internet.
Millions of Iranian homes receive illegal satellite television beamed in by Iranian-American expatriates in California. With a mix of pop music, political discussion and international news these stations have had a profound impact on the cultural, and political situation inside of Iran. The Iranian dictatorship has repeatedly tried to crackdown on these dishes as well as the Internet, but they’ve been largely unsuccessful. Presently, it is estimated that between five to seven million homes receive satellite television and an estimated three million have Internet access. Hence, to the dissatisfaction of the reigning ayatollahs Iranians do not live in a closed off cave.
Due to the availability of satellite television, millions of Iranians were able to hear President Bush’s State of the Union speech. The Persians were once again encouraged by the President’s vision when he said “To the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America Stands with you.” thereby reiterating his support to the Iranian freedom fighters inside of the Islamic Republic. Several political analysts have confirmed that this was in direct reference to the pro-democracy movement in Iran.“ The President was sending a message to the people of Iran that if they rise up America will stand by their side,” said political analyst Charles Krauthammer.
Of course, President Bush’s declaration of support to the Iranian youth does not mean military intervention for the purpose of regime change. According to a recent poll by the National Iranian American Council a non-profit civic organization in the United States over ninety percent of Iranian-Americans are against any type of military attack on Iran. In fact, although Iranians are openly pro-American any type of military attack by the United States and/or Israel will turn the nationalist population in Iran immediately anti-American.
The political ideology advocated by the Republican Party for a free, democratic Iran is one of a peaceful transition to democracy. For example, Republican Senator Rick Santorum recently introduced the Iran Freedom and Support Act, legislation that commits America to “actively support a national referendum in Iran with oversight by international observers and monitors to certify the integrity and fairness of the referendum.” The act further calls for financial and moral support to pro-democracy groups as a means towards a peaceful transition to regime change. There is no mention of military intervention, nor has there ever been any such mention.
Many questionable organizations have promoted a theory originally initiated by Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani dubbed the ‘Nationalistic Tactic.’ This theory rallies nationalistic feelings around a fictional military invasion of Iran as a final survival tool for the dying regime in Iran. The strategy calls for the suffocation of the free exchange of ideas within the Iranian community and for the luring of naïve apolitical Iranians with nationalistic pride. In the end, the theory calls for barraging the truth to such a degree that anyone speaking otherwise is regarded as an enemy of Iran. Unfortunately these groups are far from doing a service to the people of Iran and should not be regarded as friends of freedom. Luckily, in spite of their propaganda campaign polls from within Iran show that people of Iran have not been fooled.
As evidenced by a Tehran University student who said, “The Iranian people support President Bush because he supports our cause. As long President Bush stands with the Iranian people, the Iranian people will stand with him.”
Well of course they like him, he is a religious zealot just like they are, and I am sure that he bribed them somehow. /sarcasm
I would say that the reason is the media doesn't want to report anything that is pro-Bush. But the minute some anti-Bush protesting goes on anywhere in the world the media is there faster than lightning!
what?
The "/sarcasm" means the end of my sarcasm.
He was making a joke, imagining what Democrats and other enemies of President Bush would say.
He was being sarcastic. That is the way the Liberal Media and the Liberal Bush haters think!
Gee, I wonder what they think of Mr. Carter, the guy who made their present government possible?
I may be completely wrong but weren't the Persian peoples more democratic in the way back days? I mean centuries ago. And nowhere near as "religious" as the rest of the Middle East.
I really need to get a good history book to read again :)
My brother always said computers would be more likely to help freedom than to hurt it. This article provides some MORE good evidence for his prediction.
My father's ex-business partner was Iranian. Good man, and very displeased with the political problems his country has endured.
Do you suppose that by pursuing nukes, Iran's current leaders are purposely trying to draw hostile political (or militaristic) action against themselves as a method of tightening their grip on power? (That tactic has been used so many times, it's like a bad cliche, but it works.)
..and the new kid on the block, Chavez. He's following the 'Despots for Dummies' book to the letter.
The Persians spread out and conquered the Eastern Mediterranean region before the Greeks came into world power under Alexander the Great. Before Alexanders time the Persians actually did attack the Greeks however. Supposedly Alexander was dishing out some revenge for the earlier Persian attacks when he took Persia. The reason Alexander attacked, absorbed and virtually destroyed the Phoenician culture, was that the Phoenician Fleet was loyal to the Persians. I think Persia had conquered Phoencia earlier but had not destroyed Phoenica. So in a sense, the Persians were much more civil then the Greeks were under Alexander the Great. Alexander the Greek introduced the world to mass casualties and genocide on scales that were unheard of before hand. All of this occurred before the establishment of modern religions (one god). Back then people believed in multiple gods. God of Lighting, God of the Rain, etc. etc..
You need to read this article carefully, since your comment on the journalist protest thread last night indicates an unawareness of the true situation in Iran.
I think you will find this interesting and this article is very much in line with everything else that has come out of Iran for quite awhile now.
The trouble between Greece and Persia started when the Ionian Greek city states, which were part of the Persian Empire rebelled. They first petitioned Sparta (unsuccessfully) and then Athens (successfully) to intervene in what the Persians (and the Spartans) saw as an internal matter for the Persian Empire to resolve. The revolt was crushed. But Athens' stupidity focused the attention of the Persians to the west. The invasion followed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.