US Iranians march in California support of our President

Daily Bruin ^ | 2/11/03 | Charles Porter

[Eala]

If they fled the Shah regime, many of them are probably too old to serve in the military. But God bless 'em nonetheless.

Um. They didn't flee the Shah, they fled what followed. And not all of them fled when/before the Shah fell, either. Among my Persian friends and acquaintances is one who fought in the Iran-Iraq war, before he escaped the present tyranny to come to the US. He bears (you can see them) psychological scars, but his children are growing up free and he is happy for that.

(I could read between the lines and say he'd be happiest if his children could return to a free Iran, but that would be putting words in his mouth.)

[CarmelValleyite]

You're correct -- many of the Iranian marchers in Westwood, CA, ARE Jewish. On the other hand, some are just very moderate Muslims, like my former neighbor, a lovely young woman who was educated in the U.S. along with her brother while their parents stayed in Iran and have suffered greatly at the hands of the fanatics there. She had the most horrifying stories of her return visits to Iran in recent years...

[DoctorMichael]

You and your Iranian friends received an American education in one of the finest universities in the world and enjoyed the freedoms of America.

Yes, any problem with that?

I was providing an explanation why an ethnic people would be protesting their own country: These are second and third generation Americans of Iranian extraction whose fathers and grandfathers owed alliance to the Shah who attempted to Westernize his country.........and was thrown out and persecuted because of his allegiance with the US and Western 'ways'. They left Iran because they were the businessmen and the intelligensia of their country who would be in prison for not going along with the the radicals that took over Iran. They don't particularly like the Imams and Mullahs.

How many of your Iranian friends have served in the United States armed services?

I have no bloody idea, my friend.

But, just the same as we have gathered Iraqi nationals to form a "government-in-waiting" for when we liberate Iraq we may need these people to lead their countrymen when Iran's Mullahs are finally overthrown. Alternatively, some may in fact be working for the US military and the CIA already, since we desperately need 'native' speakers over there, and here, to translate al Qaeda and Iranian communications.

[VeniVidiVici]

Kudos to anybody who chooses not to dance with the devil(dems). Kudos also for publicly showing support for their adopted country.

[Vigilanteman]

From what I understand, the Shah was trying to do for Iran what Ataturk did for Turkey-- give the country freedom of religion and remove the Islamist stranglehold on the government.

Someday, Iran may well rename themselves Persia and many will return to the logical religion of that great Empire before Islam was imposed by the sword. Aren't the Baha's an attempt to harmonize Zorastism (which was also the religion of the three kings who visited the Christ child), Islam, Christianity and Judaism?

I also heard the name Persia was changed to Iran during World War II to placate Hitler as it meant the land of the Aryans. True or urban legand?

[freedom44]

Iran literally means 'land of the aryans'. But aryan not in the sense of what Hitler preached, but of the historical indo-european tribe. Of which both Iranians and Germans were a part.

And the Bahai's are a blend of the three, but they're more strict with their faith than even Muslims.

I'd much rather deal with moderate Muslims which are growing extensively in Iranian culture rather than Bahais.

I think when a revolution happens in Iran radical Islam is going to receive quite a blow and khoemini's burial site will get the bomb

[Vigilanteman]

. . . khoemini's burial site will get the bomb

Think I'd rather see it turned into a pay toilet.

[yellowroses]

Kudos, friend. You're a citizen of the United States. I don't care where your family came from, or what god you worship. That's your business.

As a veteran, I'm proud to stand behind our Commander-in-Chief. I'm grateful you do too.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Urban legend. The name was changed in the 1930s by Reza Shah.

The Bahai's are followers of the Bab, another (ultimate, of course) prophet from the 1800s.

[valkyrieanne]

Um. They didn't flee the Shah, they fled what followed.

I *meant* to say the Khomeini regime. Really, I did. (Middle-age brain spasm.)

I had some Iranian grad assistants for teachers in engineering school. Two of them had fathers in the Shah's military. Unlike the Egyptians or Saudis, the Iranians treated women engineering students pretty decently. I don't imagine their fathers survived if they didn't get out.

[valkyrieanne]

From what I understand, the Shah was trying to do for Iran what Ataturk did for Turkey-- give the country freedom of religion and remove the Islamist stranglehold on the government.

The Shah's *father* (a contemporary of Ataturk) did indeed have that goal. But from the little I've read, he was of a different temperament than Ataturk and didn't want to lower the iron fist as Ataturk did.

For instance, Ataturk simply banned the fez (men's hat) and women's head scarf. You wore one in public - boom - in the slammer, and I can't imagine Turkish prisons being better then than now.

By contrast, the Shah's father tried to "lead by example" back in the 1930s-1940s, and so he paraded his wife and daughters out in Western clothes. Apparently the Persians were not impressed and continued to wear the traditional garb. I think it's a matter of psychology - what *could* be changed by force was not changeable by persuasion. Perhaps if Shah Sr. had been more forceful, Iran might have been different. Or maybe not.

[mabelkitty]

Yep. I worked with one. He left after they were demoralized after Iraq.

[valkyrieanne]

The subsequent photo underscores my original point. If someone was 35-40 years old back in 1978 (when he came to the US, as an example), then in his 60s he's not exactly in high demand to join the Special Forces. Even the Iranian grad students I met back in the 70s would be in their early fifties now.

Different people serve in different ways. If someone is working as a Farsi language translator, or working with the CIA etc. he is not going to broadcast it. It would be stupid to make a target of himself, *and* probably against the rules of his job anyway. It's not fair to assume that because someone isn't doing "A," he isn't doing anything.

That these Iranian-Americans are out showing support for the US is fantastic. We need to encourage them, *and* the "samizdat" movement in Iran as much as possible. In this regard I am far more disappointed with our US State Department than with Iranians who have become US citizens.

[Eala]

Yes, the Persians are a very different people from the Arabs. The wife lived in Iran during the Shah's time and is fluent in Farsi, so I've had plenty of opportunity to get to know them here.

One never knows about surviving the regime, though. The wife knew an Iranian doctor over here, but when the revolution occurred he want back and disappeared. She just learned yesterday that he's still alive.

[azadi]

I am writing about the article you posted re: the 2/11 march in fron of the Wilshire Federal Buidling title "US Iranians march in California support of our President".

I was just made aware that the article was posted and I am deeply concerned about a few things.

First I want to say that you should not have changed the title of the article from "Protesters denounce Iran’s Islamic regime" - the orginial name given by UCLA Daily Bruin - that is plagarism.

Second, I don't know if you were actually present at that protest. I was. And that protest was not about supporting the U.S. President. That protest marked the anniversary of the Islamic Regime of Iran - a date when most Iranians outside Iran (and inside if they are allowed) protest the tyranny that the government has imposed on the Iranian people.

Your false title does not accurately represent what those protestors were demanding. As one of the signs in the picture states, they are asking for support in the struggle against the Iranian regime. This does not necessarily mean military support, for which Mr. Bush seems to be constantly advocating for.

I want to make it clear that most Iranians DO NOT support a a U.S. war with Iran. Not only is this devastating in terms of humanitarian crisis, but a second, more pertinent reason is due to the fact that U.S. led wars do not empower any region, as much as a case U.S. wants to make in "liberating" the countries it invades. A majority fo Iranians, over 70%, are opposed to the current regime. I believe that the U.S. has the capacity to support these resisters in a more constructive and empowering way other than use military force.

To sum my response to the article you poste, I think it is both deceitful and a false represenation of what Iranians are aksing for.

[Ramius]

Nobody is talking about a U.S.-led war against Iran. It is not, and likely will not, be necessary. These people want America and Americans to support the internal struggle in Iran against the Mullahs.

They are getting that support. Bush is working for that same regime change from his own angles. The Islamic regime in Tehran will fall.

I believe we are standing on the precipice of history. The middle east is at the beginning of a change that is greater than anything that has happened to that region in hundreds of years. Stay tuned. There will be many good times and bad times in the next few years, but the history of the world is about to take a turn for the better, and those dividends will pay off for many decades to come.