THE EYERANIANS

Q Mr. President, let me thank you first on behalf of the Voice of America, on behalf of the Persian News Network for giving us your time. We really appreciate that, sir.

President Bush

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.  Q As you know, Mr. President, this is the eve of Nowruz, the Iranian New Year. What is your message to the Iranian people as they face tough economic circumstances and infringement on their freedoms?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, Nowruz a tan Mubarak. Secondly, that the people of the United States respects the people of Iran; that we respect the traditions of Iran, the great history of Iran. We have differences with the government, but we honor the people, and we want the people to live in a free society. We believe freedom is a right for all people and that the freer the world is, the more peaceful the world is. And so my message is, please don’t be discouraged by the slogans that say America doesn’t like you, because we do, and we respect you.

Q What do you say to the regime, sir — what would you say to the regime?

THE PRESIDENT: I’d say to the regime that they made decisions that have made it very difficult for the people of Iran. In other words, the Iranian leaders, in their desire to enrich uranium — in spite of the fact that the international community has asked them not to — has isolated a great country; and that there’s a way forward. I mean, the Iranian leaders know there’s a way forward, and that is verifiably suspend your enrichment and you can have new relationship with people in the U.N. Security Council, for example. It’s just sad that the leadership is in many ways very stubborn, because the Iraqi — the Iranian people are not realizing their true rights. And they’re confusing people in Iraq, as well, about their desires. It’s a tough period in history for the Iranian people, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

Q On the nuclear issue, sir, is there a solution to the problem that would both satisfy the United States’ concern and at the same time allow Iran to proceed with non-military nuclear energy research?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, part of the problem is that it’s very hard for people to trust the Iranian government because they haven’t told the full truth, and that’s why the people of Iran have got to understand there are great suspicions right now, not only in the United States, but around the world. But there is a better way forward. And I thought, for example, the Russians proposed an interesting way, that says — and I have said publicly, and the Iranian people need to know that I believe Iran has the right to have civilian nuclear power. I believe in civilian nuclear power. Iran is a sovereign country and they should have it. The problem is we just don’t trust the government because they haven’t been forthcoming about their enrichment of fuels to go into the reactor, and therefore Russia has offered to provide fuel on a contractual basis and provide fuel on a consistent basis. It would help solve the problem, and that is the Iranians wouldn’t need to enrich, it would have fuel for their reactor and the people would have cheaper electricity. And I support that idea.

President Bush (left) being interviewed by Setareh Derakhsheh of VOA Persian Service

Q Sir, would you allow enrichment inside Iran if there are guarantees and international supervision?  THE PRESIDENT: I would have to be convinced that any secret programs would be disclosed. In other words, I — once a nation hasn’t told the truth, it requires a lot of work to convince people that they’ll be telling the truth in the future. And my problem is, is that the Iranian government has not been forthcoming, has not fully disclosed their programs like the IAEA asked them to. So there’s a lot of distrust right now. And the better way forward is for there to be a contractual, solid obligation to provide fuel for a nuclear reactor and then the Iranians can have their civilian nuclear power.

Q At a time when Iranians are going through very difficult economic circumstances — there’s high employment — high unemployment, there are high prices, there are unfilled promises — the United Nations Security Council just passed a new set of sanctions against the regime. Is the United States concerned, sir, that the regime might exploit these circumstances to whip up anti-American sentiment, and also to use those and misuse them?

THE PRESIDENT: Sure. No, I appreciate that. Of course we are. We’re always concerned about the individual. I’m concerned about the mom trying to raise her child in a hopeful environment. I’m concerned about a child wanting to gain the knowledge so that he or she can realize her God-given talents. And of course we’re worried about the human condition. And any time a government is failing to meet the needs of people — or a lot of times, not “any time,” but a lot of times governments have failed to meet the needs of their people, particularly in relatively non-transparent, non-free societies they always look for somebody to blame. And I’m not surprised that the leaders would blame the United States for the problems they, themselves, have created. So, yes, this enters my mind. On the other hand, the people of Iran must understand that the conditions exist in large part because of either management by the government or isolation because of the government’s decisions on foreign policy matters — such as announcing they want to destroy countries with a nuclear weapon. It is irresponsible remarks like that which cause great credibility loss with the Iranian government, the actions of which are affecting the country.

Q Mr. President, if I may, I want to ask you about Iraq also. Today is the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war and you had a speech on the war on terror. Are you satisfied with the political situation in Iraq, in view of the improving security situation? And also, has Iran played a role in this?

THE PRESIDENT: I am pleased, but not satisfied. I am pleased because there’s a modern constitution in Iraq. I am pleased because people have voted in Iraq. I am pleased because they’re heading toward provincial elections in Iraq. I’m pleased to see democracy moving. I’m not satisfied because there’s more work to be done. One of the problems we do have in Iraq is the — there’s been some negative Iranian influence, such as the exportation from Iran of certain weapons that have been used by extremists to murder and to kill people. And it’s been particularly unhelpful. Now, look, I understand Iraq and Iran are going to have relations; after all, they’ve got a long border. But from my perspective, Iran has not been helpful in terms of helping this young democracy survive. I would think it would be in Iran’s interests to have a peaceful neighbor. They had been at war at one time with Iraq. I would believe that a peaceful Iraq would be in the long-term interests of the Iranian people. And yet it’s hard to have a peaceful Iraq if there are elements inside the country that are trying to use violence and murder to continue to stir up sectarian doubts and raise concerns which will cause more violence.

Q There have been recent contacts between the United States and Iran over Iraq. Some dissidents inside Iran think that these might expand to other areas, and they feel that this will undercut their position and that would strengthen the regime’s hand. What are your thoughts on that, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: My thought is, is that the reformers inside Iran are brave people, they’ve got no better friend than George W. Bush, and I ask for God’s blessings on them on their very important work. And secondly, that I would do nothing to undermine their efforts. And thirdly, that the talks between Iran — between the U.S. and Iran about Iraq are solely about Iraq, and that the message to the Iranians is: Stop importing your weapons, your sophisticated IEDs, or there will be consequences inside of Iraq. And when we find people transporting weapons that are aimed to harm innocent people or to arm militias that are aiming to harm innocent people, then they will be brought to justice; that there’s a better way to deal inside of Iraq than the Iranians are now dealing. And so this message is nothing more than limited to Iraq.

Q Mr. President, thank you very much. And thanks for allowing me to do the interview, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you; yes, ma’am.

A traditional Haft Sin table celebrating Nowruz, the Persian New Year, is seen set Wednesday, March 19, 2008, in the State Dining Room of the White House. Nowruz is, in Persian and some other cultures, including Kurdish culture, a family-oriented holiday celebrating the New Year and the coming of spring. The Haft Sin table has seven items symbolizing new life, joy, love, beauty and health, sunrise, patience and garlic to ward off evil. White House photo by Chris Greenberg

Eid eh Shoma Mobarak. It is my distinct honor to bring you greetings on the occasion of Nowruz, Persian New Year.  As Speaker of the House, and the Representative from California’s 8^th Congressional District in San Francisco, I am proud to have a diverse constituency, including a vibrant Iranian-American community that represents the beauty and strength of our country.

Nowruz, meaning new day, is a celebration of the first day of spring. This day is celebrated by millions worldwide and symbolizes renewal, life and new beginnings.  The 110^th Congress is also about new beginnings and a steadfast commitment to a new direction.  Just as Iranian-Americans set Haft Seen tables which symbolize health, happiness and prosperity this Congress has worked hard to pass legislation that espouses these very same values.  We have passed legislation to reduce global warming and create energy security, increased the minimum wage and have passed an Innovation Agenda promoting 21^st century jobs for a global economy. Over the course of our second session of congress we will continue to write a budget that highlights funding our priorities for a new direction and continue to question the administration’s stance on torture and the war in Iraq.

There is a unique bond that grows out of the fundamental values we share. Our nation’s growing Iranian-American population has not only contributed to our cultural diversity but has also strengthened our economy. Iranian-Americans continue to contribute to all aspects of our society from business to government to nonprofit and cultural organizations. That bond forms the foundation of our efforts for peace, democracy and human freedom.

Please accept my best wishes for good health and happiness together, surrounded by your friends and family, for many years to come. To contact me and learn about all of my positions on current issues, please visit my website, http://www.speaker.gov

best regards,

NANCY PELOSI
Speaker of the House

The Middle East Progress at the Center for American Progress has compiled a report on the recent parliamentary election in Iran. We have posted a copy below.

For information on how Iran’s electoral system is structured and earlier events in the election, click here.

Candidates
Conservative political leaders sought to limit opposition prior to parliamentary elections, disqualifying 2,200 reform candidates from contention, although 850 were subsequently reinstated. Disqualifications are often based on “lack of political coherence to Islam,” or other subjective political measures. This method of candidate censorship has been a trend under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s reign in the past two decades, reflecting an effort to ensure his consolidation of power. As the elections approached, four factions have coalesced:
1) The United Fundamentalist Front (conservative) – supporters of President Ahmadenijad
2) The Inclusive Fundamentalist Coalition (conservative) – critical of the current government’s foreign and economic policies, and allied with former national security advisor Ali Larjani
3) Mosharekat (reformist) – supporters of former President Mohammad Khatami
4) The National Trust bloc (reformist) – led by former parliamentary speaker Mehdi Karroubi

Economic Issues
Despite President Ahmadinejad’s current prominence and popular support for his aggressive foreign policy, he is drawing criticism for the country’s poor economic performance. Even with increasing oil profits, problems like high inflation nearing 20%, unemployment and an absence of international investment have plagued the country, discrediting the President’s populist promises of the 2005 election. With reformist opposition marginalized, this election is seen as a referendum on Ahmedinejad’s performance, and a preview of next year’s presidential election.

Turnout
Hardliners characterized the election’s reportedly high turnout as a showing of defiance against the west, while others attributed the numbers to strong reformist support. According to the Interior Ministry around 60 percent of the population voted, although participation was lower in the capital, where most of the final votes have yet to be announced. Many of those that refrained from the voting cited complaints about high prices, unemployment and the poor state of the economy. Others observed that they saw little difference between the critics and supporters of President Ahmadinejad, some of the most outspoken of whom were on a list of his parliamentary supporters.

Election Results
Amidst claims by U.S. and EU that the elections were “cooked,” Iranian officials announced that conservatives had won a majority of the parliamentary seats up for grabs. According to Iranian state TV, with most of the votes counted, conservatives won 163 seats, reformists 40 and independents 47. Despite the disqualifications of many of their candidates, the reformists were enthusiastic about the prospects of increasing their seats in the parliament. Some of contests were going to run-off voting, and the official results have not been released yet. Although the conservatives as a whole took the elections, internal divisions remain with regards to the president’s foreign and economic policies. Mr. Larjani, winner of a seat in Qom, is considered a staunch critic, and likely will compete for parliamentary speaker. The new parliament, including these conservative and reformist critics, is expected to challenge President Ahmadinejad on these policies.

By: M. A. Sepanlu, January 2002

British scholar Noel Malcom in his book “A short history of Bosnia” printed in Britain offers valuable research about the racial relationship between Iranians and some ethnicities of the former Yugoslavia. He writes: “The name Croat, or Hravat in Serbian, is not a Serbian word. It is similar to the Iranian name Choroatos, found on tombstones of Greek dwelling regions of south Russia.” He goes on to add that the original form of the word is “Khoravat” as mentioned in Avesta, meaning “friendly”.

Historical studies indicate that the Croats started migrating from the Iranian homeland to Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia about 3,000 years ago. However, a much larger migration took place about 1,700 years ago. Probably the reason behind this migration was the suppression of the followers of Manichean faith during the Sassanid era. The said scholar LSO says that the word Serb has also Iranian origin, which can be recognized in the word “Charv” meaning cattle.

According top ancient documents, these two ethnic groups were tribes of Iranian origin that had accepted Slavic subjects among themselves.

Noel Malcom says that new theories confirm historical knowledge. Some Croatian nationalist theoreticians have opted to adopt the theory linking their origins to Iran, thereby preserving their cultural and psychological independence, in order not to merge into the neighboring cultures. Such a theory gained particular popularity during World War II, for Iranians were considered to have a higher ranking compared to the Slava in terms of racial hierarchy. However, in Malcom’s words, the plain historical fact is that both the Croats and the Serbs migrated at the same time, and both have some characteristics of Iranian peoples.

One point is clear: the early immigrants called themselves Khoravat or Croat in order to distinguish with other tribes of that region. These Iranian-origin immigrants also did something more to stress the difference: they tied a handkerchief around their necks, something which later gained global popularity under the name of Cravat.

In 1656 CE, Louis XIV formed a regiment of Croat volunteers inside his army. The members of this regiment, in accordance to their ancient tradition, wore a neckerchief of plain of floral silk, its ends dangling from the tie. It could also be used as bandage if the soldier was wounded. After this time the Croatian scarf was accepted in France, above all in court, where military ornaments were much admired. The fashionable expression, �a la croate�, soon evolved into a new French word, which still exists today: la cravate. Some 170 years later, the necktie became a universal fashion. It would be worthwhile to add that the Croatian national flag is derived from the chessboard, thus some nationalist historians consider Croatians the descendants of Bozorgmehr, the chess master and minister of the Sassanid era.

Talking of the global influence of Persian, it would also be interesting to not that the word Pajamas has Persian origins, meaning “leg ware”. My mind drifts back to the Mauritanian desert. In an isolated oasis, an old man opens an ancient book, reading with not so familiar accent, one of the great poems of Sa’adi” “Human beings are organs of one body.”

 نامه ای خواندنی و بسیار کوتاه از یک کودک ده ساله

click here to read the letter