[NYCFarmboy]

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publ...cle_5721.shtml

"Persians Push for Bush"
Feb 13, 2005, 18:43
Slater Bakhtavar

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 naive 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."

© Iranian.ws

[macintologist]

I have no doubts that there is strong support for Bush among many Iranians/Persians.

But that isn't a biased source, right?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by macintologist:
I have no doubts that there is strong support for Bush among many Iranians/Persians.

But that isn't a biased source, right?

well true, I know the BBC is very biased.

I think it is facinating no matter what the source is and a real cause for hope for the future of Iran & democracy.

[macintologist]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
well true, I know the BBC is very biased.

I think it is facinating no matter what the source is and a real cause for hope for the future of Iran & democracy.

I wasn't disputing the primary data coming from the BBC. But just how the article was written. Slater Bakhtavar is quite the sensationalist

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by macintologist:
I have no doubts that there is strong support for Bush among many Iranians/Persians.

But that isn't a biased source, right?

BBC is a bit on the left side and quite critical regarding Bush and his foreign policy, so yes it has a bias.

But nonetheless you are right the op-ed that uses BBC's website(!!!) poll as foundation to declare that most Iranians are pro-Bush is pretty pro-Bush-biased.

After all it's a website-poll, how representative is that? The other two sources are the reports of two Nobelprize-winners that have visited Iran for a week! A whole week, and they found that iranian youth, obviously from the town-areas are against anything their government is for and viceversa. Eventhough most of Iran is of youth-age, it shouldn't be a mean to measure the political will of Iran's population as everyone knows the youth is always rebellious and is always against authority.

Nonetheless I think that Iran's population wants more democracy and more freedoms and it will get them without any military intervention, it's a natural evolution: As education is more and more widespread and more and more parts of the population consists of rebellious teenagers calls for more participation-possibilities and more freedom are inevitable.

A military intervention would have quite the opposite effect, the youth would rally behind the government as the fire of nationalism is still strong and it would be a bloodbath for everyone in the whole middle-east, including Iran itself, as well as Iraq, Syria, Israel and the US-armies.

Taliesin

[RAILhead]

(could...not..resist)

[thunderous_funker]

Hey, maybe they'll welcome us as liberators unlike their ungrateful neighbors!!

Quick, somebody wake up Wolfowitz and tell him the good news.

[tie]

I think that this survey (based on a web poll?!) is completely meaningless. I think that Iranian-Americans do largely support Bush (based on friends, and their opinions of the LA community -- for what that is worth). Young urban Iranians have a fantasy that the US could do a small-scale invasion -- smaller than Iraq -- which would galvanize support in Iran and lead to the overthrow of the government. I'm sure Bush believes this, too, since according to all evidence from Iraq he only allows best-case scenarios to reach him. But common sense says it is completely ridiculous.

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Nonetheless I think that Iran's population wants more democracy and more freedoms and it will get them without any military intervention, it's a natural evolution: As education is more and more widespread and more and more parts of the population consists of rebellious teenagers calls for more participation-possibilities and more freedom are inevitable.

I don't agree that it is inevitable. With the high oil prices right now, the government is rolling in money. The government can stay in power, and in control of the population, indefinitely with the money. What seems to be inevitable is the United States playing both sides. Halliburton profits from both the US and Iranian governments. And the US as a whole is funding both sides of the war on terror, with our oil purchases.