“It is appropriate to protest, that's their right after all. But I don't think it's their right to protest violently, to destroy embassies, missions, properties.”

www.thinkexist.com

March 23, 2007

Dear Dr. Amirahmadi,

I have read your article about how to bring peace and dialogue to the peoples of Iran and America... I think because of a lack of understanding and the radical beliefs of many, we are failing in this regard. Now we are involved in war behavior in a bellicose atmosphere. This does not benefit the people of Iran. We need a peace process, not movement down this route which damages the hope and heart of the Iranian people... Thank you as an example of an Iranian intellectual and peace minded thinker. Best wishes of peace to you and to all.

Ahmad

(Referenced Article)

March 25, 2007

Dear Ahmad,

Thank you. I am not surprised! They do have the plan and may indeed implement it.

Hooshang

Monday, April 10, 2006

Dear Gary
The discussion on a possible US war plan for Iran is important. I am pleased that members of the Gulf2000 are offering so many conflicting and or corresponding views. Here is my bottom-line take on the issue.
Whether the US will take military action (of any sort) against Iran or not will depend on whether the Bush Administration (and by extension Israel) will be prepared, or not prepared, to live with a uranium-enriching Islamic Republic (for any purpose, at any level):

-If it is prepared to live with such an Iran, then the chance for any US military action is reduced significantly (not completely removed as nuclear matter is not the only troubling issue between the two governments);

-If it is not prepared to live with such an Iran (the US might be but Israel is not), then the chance for a military attack is significantly higher (rational or irrational), unless Iran makes a U-Turn and gives up its enrichment right altogether.

Will Iran make the U-Turn? It is conceivable but it will not be easy for Tehran and the decision can come about a bit too late. The Islamic regime is fixed on its enrichment right and views the current American-Israeli threats as part of a psychological warfare.
Even if a US military action against Iran were not imminent, it can in due course logically result from the actions of the UN Security Council:
First come censure, then sanctions, then authority to use for, and then the use of force.
The status quo between the US and Iran is untenable as it serves no purpose or interest any more. War or peace is the only two options. If peace is not given a chance through honest diplomacy then war becomes inevitable.
As things stand, the chance for a military action is much higher than a diplomatic solution. This is unfortunate because the crisis has no military solution. Yet, in the absence of direct US-Iran dialogue, what other options remain?
Hooshang

Dear Dr. Mofidi
I truly like your views, and we need to act and soon, but patiently and thoughtfully. There is no value in loosing the battle and we could, as we have, if we rush into the scene unprepared. I am a patient builder, a brick at a time, but firm and sustainable.
Our divisions, a result of our isolation, itself the product of our centuries of authoritarian politics, is the key to our problem of having no ability to think about alternatives.
This is in turn making us take rhetorical positions, involve in useless acts and end up losers at increasingly higher scales. Yes, you are right: we do not trust each other, we have a dictatorial mind, and we do not like building political coalition. I may add, we are not used to THINK DEEP and LISTEN. We talk and act but do not think strategically and do not listen carefully! This problem is rooted in the deceases you have identified plus our religious past and present. We are prohibited from asking WHY and thus are incapable of deep conceptualization. Yes, we are ALL responsible. Yes, we must come together and help kill our ego and HESADAT. We must develop a culture of competition instead. I am pleased that you are ready to help.
I am interested in knowing more about you. You are the first Iranian to write from Morocco. I am glad! Please let me hear from you and stay in touch. If you wish to call me, here is my cell phone: 001-609-509-2999.
Hooshang

March 14, 2006

Dear Jamal
I see that you are angry. I can understand. My hope is that our native nation remains safe. I have no problem with Mr. Millani. He has my respect as well. But we differ as you have noted. He works with American neoconservatives and I do not.
I do not want our native country become another Iraq. Do you? If not, then, tell me HONESTLY how would you change the situation in Iran?
I want you to think before you write. Forget how bad I am for a second. Just focus on a solution. Please do not just say we must overthrow the regime. This has been said a million times for 26 years. Think through a path that leads to democratic result.
By the way, can you mane a SINGLE country in the world that has become democratic in the ABSENCE of diplomatic relations with the US? Think of the last 200 years!
If you cannot, then I ask that you keep reading me. If you do, then I PROMISE to stop my activities. By the way, I have no relations with Dr. Edalat and I do NOT approve anti-war activism. I consider it HOUCHBAZI. My approach is different. You know that well.
Please take a look at my website at www.amirahmadi.com. I dislike lobbying and AIC is NOT one either. We are by law prevented from lobbying as a 501 C3 organization. I have not been in Iran for the last eight years! Do you feel sorry for me that I cannot visit my homeland? I publish in diverse sites. You can see my writing in the left and right, secular and religious sites. I want to be heard and my job is education! Please do not forget that I am a teacher! Please also note that I am not paid by AIC; I am a volunteer. Everyone who has ever been interested in the subject knows. You can also find about it by going to the IRS site and look for AIC.
Please stay in touch and let me benefit from your wisdom.

Regards,
Hooshang

Thu, 16 Feb 2006

Dear Heydar
Thanks for forwarding the emails from Profs. Friedmann and Modarres. I share their views on the issues raised and enjoyed reading them. I must confess, however, that I am a bit more pragmatic than these colleagues are – and I send my best regards to them!

Efficiency is the key to success in any thing we do, no matter who is doing it, for what, why and where, and we must always strive toward it. Equity, on the other hand, is often more dependent (e.g. on efficiency) and has a more focused audience (those who might be unfairly rewarded). Both terms are relative though I believe certain level of absolute efficiency and equity must be maintained for societies to grow and remain socially stable. Is the most efficient process necessarily the most inequitable? Certainly is not! Is the least efficient process necessarily the most inequitable? Certainly is. The fact is, those in control of power or capital, always take what they want to take! In a more efficient situation, some will still remain for the powerless or the poor. In a less efficient situation, the latter class will lose it all! We must always work toward an efficient production but stay vigilante about its distributional consequences.

For planners, I do not believe that the argument of efficiency versus equity is a productive one! What is more important is a better understanding of how successful communities are built (or produced). I have increasingly come to the believe that we planners have neglected community where everything happens (including the so-called globalization). At that level, our primary responsibility is to “discover” what I have called the “community capital,” an ensemble of various tangible and intangible resources, and then come up with the activities that best mobilize and utilize them to create community competitive advantage toward building a successful community. But, the key to building such a community is to understand what constitutes a successful community, a determination that is relative depending on historical, territorial, social, political, economic, cultural, spiritual, etc specificities.

I am attaching an article in PERSIAN (my apologies to John) which outlines this approach. An English version will be finalized soon and sent to John. Let me end by saying that I am very pleased that John took the time to respond. A great educator is always a great human being and John is on!

Regards,
Hooshang Amirahmadi
Rutgers University
www.amirahmadi.com

Mon, 13 Feb 2006

Dear Leila
Salam! I am pleased to find a few minutes to write this short memo to you . To begin with, I want to take the opportunity to thank you for the great help with translation of my articles. My hope is that we will cooperate more regularly.
Maryam forwarded your recent e-mail about the status of women. I share your perspectives even if I am a man, as you rightly note! While in recent decades and years, women have achieved significant rights, they continue to be oppressed, particularly in the Middle East, where oil and Islam have helped maintain dictatorships.
There are tons of books, dissertations, articles and other form of publications on the “what and why” of the women issue. What I believe is more needed is more action, more policy, and more resources that can be put to use for the improvement of the situation for women. It must also be realized that women, not men, must take such actions, etc. Men can only help on the margin, if at all.
Women rights should not be viewed as only subjective; rather, the most important dimension is the objective conditions that make men to oppress women. I believe among all such objective conditions, economic independence is most critical. Unfortunately, and as you rightly point out, the household work does not allow women to develop that independence. This must end. It is critical that such works be shared by men and women so that women can take outside job and become independent.
I also believe that women should become increasingly more active in the political field. Power is both a source of problem and a source of solution. Women must increasingly grab more political power. As long as men control the government, women will be oppressed. It is absolutely critical that women speak for themselves when it comes to their rights. For that to happen, they must have political power.
Finally, women must rebel against the social/moral norms that men have set for them. Those so called values, which only women have to observe, must be trashed. Nothing should be more or less sinful for women than for men. Equality should actually start here! Equal rights mean equal application of societal norms and values across the gender divide.
The women’s oppression is a cultural matter set in our minds. We need to change that mindset and that will take cultural change which can only come with education and time. You are also right in saying that you need to start from the family. That is where everything goes wrong to begin with. There are three agents of oppression we need to deal with: family, the state, and the society at large. Hope all will go well for your noble struggle.

Yours,
Hooshang

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Dear Gary
No one but the foreign policy leaders of the Islamic Republic are to be blamed for the Iranian nuclear predicament. To blame EU3 for its failure to accept Iran's last minute offer to halt "industrial" uranium enrichment (Iran DID not offer to halt all types of uranium enrichment) is to beg the real question. Not because the offer was made too late and hastily, or was inadequate, but because it was offered from a position of weakness that encouraged the EU3 to reject it. After the six powers arrived at a consensus in London on 16 January, Iran lost every opportunity to negotiate from a position of strength.
Two and half years ago when the European foreign ministers went to Tehran to start the nuclear negotiations with Iran, they carried with them a clear message from Washington to Iranian negotiators: given the state of US-Iran relations, the US will not accept, and so will not the EU3, for Iran to have any nuclear enrichment activity. Also, as Dr. Hassan Rouhani, Iran's chief negotiator before Dr. Ali Larijani, has acknowledged in a letter to former President Khatami, Iran well knew that the main nemesis of Iran's nuclear dossier is the US with whom it needed to negotiate. Dr. Larijani offered the US that deal last week, again too late and from a position of weakness!
These two facts must have been enough for Iran to chart a different negotiation (or non-negotiation) strategy than the disastrous course it pursued. Unfortunately, because the Islamic Republic does not want to face the global and regional realities, and to directly negotiate with the US, it has followed a foreign policy that has been seriously damaging to its security and Iran's national and strategic interests, including its right to civilian nuclear technology. The Islamic Republic followed similarly disastrous policies regarding the American hostage drama in Tehran and Saddam Hussein's war against Iran.
To say that Iran is responsible for its predicament is not to say that the EU3 or the US has followed a principled policy vis-à-vis Iran or the nuclear matter. Their double standard and machinations have been key factors in deepening the confidence gulf that now exists between them and Iran -- which has also misbehaved in a number of serious areas. Unfortunately, the Islamic Republic often forgets that nations have neither friends nor enemies but interests. It is time that Iranians take responsibility for their own failures to protect their interests and stop blaming others, now 27 countries, soon to be joined by many more at the UN Security Council.

Sincerely,
Hooshang Amirahmadi
Rutgers and AIC